The World Bank Group

GEOGRAPHY ECONOMY / SOCIETY

1818 H Street, N. W. Country Offi ce Manila Area: Total ..................................... 300,000 sq. km GDP (2005) .................................................. 5,379 B
Washington D. C. 20433, U.S.A. 23rd Floor, The Taipan Place Land ..................................... 298,170 sq. km GDP growth rate (2005) ..................................5.1%
Tel: 202-473-1000 F. Ortigas Jr. Ave. (formerly Emerald Ave.) Water ....................................... 1,830 sq. km GDP – composition by sector:
Fax:202-477-6391 Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Philippines Boundaries: Agriculture ................................................14%
www.worldbank.org Tel: 63-2-637-5855 to 64 North: Balintang Channel Industry .....................................................33%
Fax: 63-2-637-5870; 917-3050 South: Sulu and Celebes Seas Services ......................................................53%
www.worldbank.org.ph East: Philippine Sea/Pacific Ocean Unemployment rate (2005): ..........................10.3%
West: South China Sea Gross Domestic Investment/GDP: ..............15.7%
December 2005 Coastline: .............................................. 36,289 km Exports of goods and services/GDP:...........46.4%
Maritime claims: Gross domestic savings/GDP: .....................20.1%
Total territorial water area incl. Gross national savings/GDP: .......................18.2%
Exclusive Economic Zone . 2,200,000 sq. km Industrial production growth rate: ...............5.3%
Coastal ................................. 266,000 sq. km Agricultural production growth rate: ...........2.0%
Oceanic ............................. 1,934,000 sq. km Agriculture-products: rice, coconut, corn,
Continental shelf area .......... 184,600 sq. km sugarcane, banana, hog, broiler chicken,
Climate: Tropical: northeast monsoon layer chicken, carabao, beef cattle, dairy
(Nov. to April); southwest monsoon cattle, duck, goat, chicken eggs, duck
The Philippines The Philippines The Philippines (May to October) sardines, milkfish, oyster, mussels, tilapia,
Environment Monitor 2000 Environment Monitor 2002 Environment Monitor 2004 Terrain: Mostly mountains, with narrow to catfish, tuna, shrimps, seaweed
presented snapshots of the on air quality. provided updates on the state
general environmental trends of the Philippine environment extensive coastal lowlands Exports (2005):.....................................PhP2,496.6 B
in the country. The Philippines The Philippines and natural resources. Elevation extremes: Imports (2005): ....................................PhP2,533.9 B
Environment Monitor 2001 Environment Monitor 2003
on solid waste management. on water quality. Lowest point ................. Philippine Sea 0 m Exchange Rate:......................................... 54.04 PhP
Highest point ....................Mt. Apo 2,954 m Population (2005): ............................... 85.2 million
Natural resources: timber, nickel, cobalt, silver, Population growth rate: ..................................2.2%
This document was prepared by a World Bank Team composed of Mdmes./Messrs. Bebet Gozun, Anna van der Heijden, gold, salt, copper, petroleum Urban population (% of total population): .... 62.6
Jitendra Shah (Task Team Leader), Maria Consuelo Sy, Josefo Tuyor, Maya G. Villaluz. The NORDECO team who Land use: Birth rate (2003): .................25.1/1,000 population
assisted in drafting this report include: Arne Jensen, Aage Jørgensen, Flora Santos Leocadio, Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio,
Rina Maria Rosales, Alan White. The Hotspot maps produced were provided by Jessie Floren while the photographs were Arable land..............................................19% Death rate (2003): .................5.1/1,000 population
provided by: Finn Danielsen, Luna Ipat, Arne Jensen, Ingvar Bundgaard Jensen, Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio, and Alan Permanent pastures ................................. 4% Infant mortality rate (2003): ...27/1,000 live birth
White. The document was peer reviewed by Messrs. Marea Hatziolos, Idah Pswarayi-Riddihough, Gilbert Braganza and Permanent crops .....................................12% Access to safe water
Ronald Zweig of The World Bank. Overall management and technical guidance provided by Mdmes./Messrs Joachim von
Forest & wetlands ...................................46% (% of population 2003): ........................80%**
Amsberg, Teresa Serra, Magda Lovei, and Dan Biller are gratefully acknowledged.
Others .....................................................19% Access to sanitation
Ms. Anju Sachdeva coordinated the cover design (by Mr. James Cantrell), layout, and production. The document was
printed at Raintree Trading & Publishing Corp., Metro Manila, Philippines Environment – International agreements: (% of population 2003): .....................86.1%**
party to: Climate Change, Endangered Life expectancy at birth (2003): .............69.8 years
This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.
The fi ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily refl ect the views of the Species, Hazardous Wastes, Marine Literacy (total population 2003):...................92.3%
Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the Dumping, Nuclear Test Ban, Ozone Elementary participation rate (2003): ..........90.1%
accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any Layer Protection, Biodiversity, Wetlands, National capital: Manila
map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory
or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Whaling, POPs Administrative divisions (July 2004): 17 regions,
79 provinces
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission
may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank Independence: June 12, 1898
encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly
For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Sources: National Statistical Coordination Board, National Statistics Offi ce, National Economic and Development Authority, Medium Term Philippine
Development Plan 2001-2004 and Medium Term Development Plan 2004-2010, CIA Worldbook 2000, Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, World Health
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978- Organization 2004, World Development Indicator 2000, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
750-4470, www.copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed
to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422,
e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org.

PEMFinal.indb 61 26/07/2006 07:43:47

 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

Foreword ................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ iii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iv
Scorecard ................................................................................................................................... vi
Hot Spot Maps .......................................................................................................................... ix
Abbreviations and Acronyms................................................................................................. xi

1. PHILIPPINE COASTAL AND MARINE RESOURCES:

AN INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
Thousands of islands
An abundance of species
Importance of coastal ecosystems
Resources of signifi cantvalue
Other ecosystem services
2. RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEMS .............................................................................. 7
Coral reefs: “Rainforests of the sea”
Mangroves: a multiple-function resource
Seagrass beds, a vital resource for underwater life
Beaches, foreshore, and shoreline areas
Fisheries
Overfi shingand declining fi shstocks
Biodiversity
3. COASTAL AND MARINE RESOURCES UNDER PRESSURE .............................. 21
Agriculture and forestry
Urban and industrial development
Tourism development
Oil and gas exploration
Minerals and mining
Population growth and fi shconsumption
Climate change
4. COASTAL AND MARINE RESOURES AND LOCAL LIVELIHOODS ............... 30
Social conditions
Gender and coastal resources management
Lessons learned and opportunities: Improving local livelihoods
5. LEGISLATION, POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND COASTAL
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT........................................................................................ 38
Legislation and institutions
Sector policies and plans
Integrated coastal resource management
6. CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE .............................................................................. 48

References .................................................................................................................................. 54
Relevant Organizations and Websites ................................................................................... 59
Philippines at a Glance
TABLES 2.10 Per capita fisheries-related food available for 16
consumption in the Philippines
1.1 Philippines coastal data 1
3.1 Typical impacts of tourism activities on the 22
1.2 Key coastal habitats 2 coastal zone
1.3 Annual economic net benefi ts from Philippine 3 3.2 Volume of exports and imports of fi sh and 25
coral reefs fi shery products, 1997–2004
2.1 Total fi sh production and value by sector, 13 3.3 Value of exports and imports of fi sh and 25
Philippines, 1997–2004 fi shery products 1997–2004
2.2 Growth rates in fi sh production by sector, 13 3.4 Total catch, 1989–2003 26
Philippines, 1997–2004
3.5 Change in landings, Philippines vs. 27
2.3 Contribution of top species to total volume 14 benchmark, 1970–2003
of capture marine fi sheries production,
5.1 Sumilon Island marine reserve with sanctuary 43
1997–2004
and traditional use area
2.4 Contribution of top species to total aquaculture 14
production, Philippines, 1997–2004
5.2 The CRM process for local governments 47
in the Philippines
2.5 Estimated numbers of marine species 17
that occur in the Philippines TEXT BOXES
2.6 Threatened and legally protected marine 18 1.1 Marine aquarium fi shery and trade 4
species and their habitat requirements 1.2 Marine turtles: Worth more alive than dead 5
3.1 Environmental impacts from tourism on 23 1.3 Renewable energy from the sea 5
coastal habitats 1.4 Environmental waste disposal services 6
3.2 Projected population and fi sh consumption 26 2.1 BFAR study warns of fi sh shortage in Davao 16
levels, 1995–2020 Gulf in 2007
3.3 Endangered area of land along Manila Bay 29 2.2 Live reef food fi sh trade 19
coast in different sea level rise
2.3 Whale sharks: Delicacy or Tourist Attraction? 20
4.1 Microenterprise options for livelihood 37
3.1 Decades of mining destroyed an island 24
improvements in poor coastal communities
paradise
5.1 Major sectoral plans of relevance to coastal 42
3.2 Potential impacts of climate change and 28
and marine resources
sea-level rise on coastal systems
5.2 Number of MPAs by location and legal basis 45
4.1 Employment and food security 30
5.3 Size distribution of MPAs 45 4.2 Confl icts among fi sherfolk 31
5.4 Management rating of MPAs 45 4.3 Indigenous peoples 32
FIGURES 4.4 Involving young people in coastal resource 33
1.1 Important coastal ecosystems and habitats 2 management
2.1 Reefs at risk threat index 7 4.5 Successful community-based coastal tourism 34
experiences
2.2 Different threats to coral reefs 7
4.6 Seaweed farming in Port Barton, Palawan 36
2.3 Mangrove detrital food chain 8 5.1 Legislative framework 38
2.4 Mangroves and their ecological and 8 5.2 The fi ght of San Fernando City, La Union to 39
economic products eliminate illegal fi shing
2.5 Mangrove resource decline in the Philippines 9 5.3 Licensing in the commercial fi shing sector 40
2.6 Exchange of mutual benefi ts between 11 5.4 Licensing in the municipal fi shing sector 41
mangrove, seagrass, and coral reef 5.5 Supporting fi sheries at Sumilon and Apo 44
2.7 Well or Groundwater contamination from 12 Islands
improper location of sewage disposal system 5.6 Key elements for the sustainability of 46
2.8 Map of heavily exploited areas 15 integrated coastal resource management
2.9 Decline in average CPUE for hook and line 16 5.7 The importance of including all stakeholders 46
fi shing in six provinces 6.1 Money from conservation: lessons from Anilao 49

i
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

SOME OF THE world’s richest ecosystems—composed of extensive coral reefs, sea-grass beds, and
dense mangrove forests—can be found in the waters of the Philippine Islands. The country’s coastline,
including 7,100 islands, is one of the longest in the world. Communities on the coastline are heavily
dependent on these waters for fi shand other resources. Yet habitat loss, unsustainable fi shingpractices,
and continuing trade in endangered marine species are increasingly threatening coastal biodiversity
and livelihoods.

This publication, the sixth in the Philippines Environment Monitor (PEM) series, focuses on coastal
and marine management. Previous reports presented and updated trends in the state of the environment
(2000 and 2004), solid waste management (2001), air quality (2002), and water quality (2003).

This edition highlights the degradation and loss of coral reefs, mangroves, and sea grasses. Only 4 to
5 percent of coral reefs are in excellent condition; more than 70 percent of the mangrove forests have
been converted to aquaculture, logged, or reclaimed for other uses; and half of all sea-grass beds have
either been lost or are severely degraded. Beaches and seashores have come under pressure from
rapid population growth and uncontrolled development. One of the consequences of this coastal
degradation is the decline in fi sheries catch-per-unit effort. In addition, the fi sheries industry and
ecosystems are suffering from overexploitation, destructive fi shingpractices, and corruption. While
existing laws and regulations provide a basic framework for coastal management, in practice coastal
management has been ineffi cientand piecemeal. This report fi ndsthat improved public participation
in coastal law enforcement and heightened national awareness of the state of these resources are
crucial in improving management. Implementation of the proposed Integrated Coastal Resources
Management Plan would also go a long way in reversing coastal degradation.

This publication is divided into the following sections: (1) Introduction to the Philippines’ coastal and
marine resources; (2) Status and economic signifi cance;(3) Pressures on ecosystems and resources; (4)
Links to local livelihoods; (5) Legislation, institutions and policies; and (6) Key challenges ahead.

This Monitor is the outcome of a series of stakeholder consultations involving national agencies, civil
society, academia, and independent researchers, and it was prepared, reviewed, and fi nalized with
comments from counterparts. Annex 1 lists all the sources on which the text is based. We hope that
this Monitor will raise awareness of the technical and policy aspects of integrated coastal management
and improve local capacity to implement the far-reaching reforms needed to protect valuable coastal
resources.

Maria Teresa Serra Joachim von Amsberg

Sector Director, Environment and Social Development Country Director, Philippines
East Asia and Pacifi cRegion East Asia and Pacifi cRegion
The World Bank The World Bank

ii
THIS PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005 on Coastal and Marine Resource Management is
a product of collaborative effort of various government agencies, local government units (LGUs),
academe, private sector, donor agencies, civil society organizations at both the national and local levels.
The fi nancial contribution of the Danish Government is appreciated together with the valuable
contributions of people who provided assistance in the preparation of this Monitor.

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Palawan State University USAID Economic Governance

Department of Environment and Project
Natural Resources International Center for Research Gem Castillo
Asst. Secretary Analiza Teh in Agroforestry Annette Menez
Asst. Director Teresita Mundita-Lim Rodel Lasco
Dir. Romeo Acosta USAID
Robert Jara CIVIL SOCIETY AND MEDIA Joy Jochico and team
Marizel Calpito Environment and Broadcast Circle Rene Acosta
Arthur Garcia Elizabeth Roxas
Florendo Barangan Water and Sanitation Program
William Panaypayon Haribon Jemima Sy
Rogelio Trinidad Margarita Lavides
Felix Mendoza Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
Donna Gordove Sagip Pasig Movement Zusammenarbeit
Bebot Corpuz Uarsten Heinrich
Philippine Information Agency Meth Jimenez
Lyndon Plantilla LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Palawan Corporate Services Division
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Movement Preselina Planas
Resources Isagani Serrano
Dir. Malcolm Sarmiento Palawan Council for Sustainable
Sandra Victoria Arcamo Sustainable Coastal Tourism in Asia Development Staff
Mercy Tan Grace Favila Nelson Devanadera

National Anti-Poverty Commission Conservation International Municipal Government of Palawan

Juanita Nartea Romy Trono Governor Joel Reyes
Various Municipalities
National Economic and World Wide Funds
Development Authority Abigail Dumaup Province of La Union
Jan Andrew Zubiri Joel Palma Mayor Mary Jane Ortega
Edgardo Tongson Vice-Mayor Alvin Fernandez
Philippine Coast Guard Lorenzo Tan
Antonio Lalisan San Fernando City ENRO Staff,
DONORS Sevilla Center
CONGRESS Asian Development Bank Celso Jucutan
House of Representatives − Nasimul Islam
Committee on Ecology Loreta Rufo Municipal Government of Mabini
Roselita Paloma Masaki Omura Mayor Rowell Sandoval
Luzviminda Villas
ACADEME AND RESEARCH USAID-FISH
INSTITUTE Cesar Luna League of Municipalities
UP Marine Science Institute Teresa Oledan-Grover Joel Wagan
Dr. Edgardo Gomez Marco Carreon
Aquarium Council
Silliman University Arun Abraham
Dr. Angel Alcala Domingo Ochavillo

iii
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

THE 2005 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR looks at the history and effectiveness of
coastal and marine resources management. Philippine coastal waters contain some of the world’s
most diverse ecosystems considered as the center of marine biodiversity in the world. It is
characterized by extensive coral reefs, sea grass beds, dense mangrove forests, and pristine and
beautiful beaches. The country stretches 2,000 kilometers from north to south and consists of
7,100 islands with a total coastline of 36,289 kilometers, one of the longest in the world. The coastal
and marine resources have signifi cant economic value. Healthy coastal and marine ecosystems
can provide the Philippines a sustainable supply of goods—such as fi sh and related products,
seaweeds, algae and salt—and services, such as shoreline protection, maintaining water quality,
sustaining biodiversity, transportation, and recreation.

The annual economic benefi ts from the Philippines’ coastal ecosystems are estimated at PhP 180
billion ($3.5 billion). The economic costs of environmental degradation of these resources are
signifi cant.It is estimated that 1 square kilometer of healthy coral reef generates an average of PhP 2.5
million ($50,000) from fi shing and tourism. As a whole, Philippine coral reefs contribute at least
PhP 70 billion ($1.4 billion) annually to the economy, about 1.4 percent of GDP.

With such rich resources, it is ironic that coastal communities who depend directly on fi shand other
coastal and marine resources for their livelihood are among the poorest in the Philippines with
4 of 10 coastal residents living under the poverty line. Household income levels are as low as PhP
24,000 ($470) per year, compared to the national average of PhP 144,000 ($2,820). With the average
annual catch of a municipal fi sherreduced to 30 percent of what it was in 1991, partly due to competition
with the commercial fi shing fl eet, overfi shing and destructive fi shing practices, local coastal
communities are increasingly turning to alternative livelihoods in order to survive. This issue of equity
(or benefi tsharing) in coastal resource management needs to be addressed.

The present status of coastal ecosystems in the Philippines is a cause for alarm. Almost all Philippine
coral reefs are at risk due to the impact of human activities, and only 4 to 5 percent remain in excellent
condition. More than 70 percent of the nation’s mangrove forests have been converted to aquaculture,
logged, or reclaimed for other uses. Half of the seagrass beds have either been lost or severely degraded,
and the rate of degradation is increasing. Beaches and foreshore areas are under increasing pressures
from rapid population growth and uncontrolled development, which leads to erosion, sedimentation,
and water quality problems.

The economic costs of environmental degradation of these resources are signifi cant. The economic
loss of over-fishing is estimated at about PhP 6.5 billion ($125 million) per year in lost fi shcatch. Red
tides, which are harmful algal blooms largely caused by increasing pollution loads, produced yearly
losses in exports of around PhP 1.6 billion ($30 million) during the 1990s. The human toll also is
signifi cant: Premature deaths among the working population due to water pollution in Manila
Bay (harmful algal bloom) have an immeasurable human impact and are estimated to cause
productivity loss of PhP 310 million annually ($ 6 million).

Addressing the problems of increasing urbanization and human population pressure on coastal
resources—contributing to land-based pollution, sedimentation, coastal degradation, and

iv
overfi shing—will require improved governance and mainstreaming the poverty reduction agenda
across many sectors that affect the health of coastal ecosystems. Only through an integrated approach
to coastal management can the productive potential of the Philippines’ rich natural marine heritage
be realized and its contribution to the welfare of coastal communities achieved.

Existing national laws and regulations already provide a basic framework for coastal management.
But the existing framework is not suffi cient to achieve coordinated and integrated coastal resource
management that cuts across economic sectors and levels of government to resolve confl icts over
resource use and broaden the distribution of benefi ts to society. The current laws and regulations
need to be simplifi ed.An international comparison to other developing countries with similar coastal
resources found that the Philippines is using and managing its coastal resources less effi ciently.

Although the country has more than 30 years of experience in the implementation of coastal resource
management, including successfully pioneering co-management approaches for the establishment of
marine protected areas and deriving continuous benefi tsfrom better stewardship of coastal resources
(such as the Bohol experience, Gilutongan Island, and Apo Island), these experiences need to be scaled
up. There is a widespread fragmentation of development initiatives throughout the country aggravated
by the lack of a national champion. Applying an integrated approach to managing coastal resources—
that is, gathering information on the goods and services that can be derived from these resources in
relation to the needs of society, and coordinating local community and government involvement in
the use of these resources—is often diffi cult,but the benefi tsare clear. An integrated coastal resources
management (ICRM) framework has been introduced in several LGUs and widely endorsed, but still
lacks offi cial sanction by the national executive and legislative bodies. Once sanctioned, it can
signifi cantlyhelp to accelerate the sustainable development, management, and conservation of coastal
resources.

For the Philippines, to establish sound coastal resource management that ensures the protection and
sustainability of its rich ecosystems as well as local livelihoods while contributing to the national
economy, several key challenges remain:

1. Increasing the protection of coastal resources under threat through:

a. Increasing the number and size of effectively managed MPAs and forming MPA networks in
ecologically connected and critical areas.
b. Co-management regimes to promote and introduce innovative and sustainable fi nancing
schemes that also allow local communities to benefi tmore directly from the resource. A good
example of this is the collection of user fees from resource users, such as in Mabini, Batangas;
Gilutongan Island in Cordova, and Cebu and Apo Island in Negros Oriental.
c. Sustainable management of fi sheriesresources through effi cientregulatory options, such as
an effective fi shing license system that would control access to fi shing areas and spawning
aggregation sites and defi nethe type of gear that can be used.

v
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

d. Establishing limits to individual catch, and setting ecosystem boundaries and parameters of
fi sheries and their supporting habitat systems based on scientifi c assessments and through
management of marine protected areas.
e. Building the capacity of communities to address vulnerability issues, including the prevention
and mitigation of local and global environmental impacts.

2. Improving local livelihoods for communities in coastal areas through:

a. Mainstreaming the poverty reduction agenda—particularly for coastal areas—into the
national development agenda by providing alternative livelihoods that conserve coastal
resources, as well as promoting small and medium enterprise development through market
analysis and offering support during initial years.
b. Reducing population pressure through improved reproductive health practices, providing
more opportunities for women and secure tenure.
c. Improving fi sh stocks and fi sheries yields by reducing erosion and degradation of critical
estuarine habitats and by restoring or rehabilitating other important coastal ecosystems,
especially coral reefs.
d. Maximizing the value and income potential by investing in post-harvest facilities to reduce
losses.

3. The Way Forward: Strengthening and simplifying institutional arrangements through:

a. An integrated coastal management framework that strengthens the capacity of stakeholders
to work across sectors and through layers of government to improve stewardship of resources
and to build capacity for coastal management by supporting champions, as well as the
establishment of ICRM training and technical assistance to core groups at the national,
regional, provincial, municipal, and barangay levels. One national agency can be identifi ed
to serve as a champion for both the management of the habitat and fi sheryas that would be
best for ICM.
b. Improved coastal law enforcement through streamlining and integrating the present
enforcement, fi ghtingcorruption, and promoting stronger participation of local organizations.
Promoting a balance between enforcement and voluntary compliance with environmentally
sound practices by linking healthy ecosystems to sustainable economic growth, such as in the
coastal tourism industry, which is largely dependent on environmental and cultural
resources.
c. Strengthening public awareness, education, innovative multi-stakeholder initiatives, social
marketing, and public information dissemination, such as in the Beach EcoWatch programs.
d. Improving access of local governments and coastal communities to information that will
inform and improve decisions affecting services from coastal and marine ecosystems.

Finding ways to implement challenges identifi ed and choosing the development path that protects
coastal and marine resources will contribute to economic growth in the Philippines. Otherwise
stopping and reversing the current trend in resource degradation will not happen. The business-as-
usual will result in irreversible damage, possible collapse of these resources, and further marginalizing
the coastal communities and endangering their health and nutrition.

vi
 GENERAL PRIORITY
INDICATOR STATUS AND COMMENTS
TREND LEVEL
State of coastal and marine resources
Condition of Although reefs are considered to be declining nationwide, active
coral reefs coastal and marine protected areas in the Central Visayas are showing
improvements in coral cover and fish abundances.
Mangrove cover In 1918, mangroves covered 450,000 hectares as opposed to 138,000
hectares today. Presently, mangroves are relatively stable and even
increasing in selected areas of management in Visayas so that the overall
rate of decline has lessened.
Seagrass cover About half of the seagrass beds have been lost or degraded since 1950,
and the rate of degradation is increasing due to land reclamation and
pollution.
Beach forest Almost all beach forest has been converted into settlements and coconut
cover plantations. Larger blocks of intact beach forest exist only in very remote
areas such as the coastline of Isabela Province, Luzon islets in the Sulu Sea,
and the South China Sea including coastal protected areas of St. Paul’s
Subterranean River in Palawan.
Fish stocks The main fish species and marine organisms are showing severe signs of
overfishing. Despite the continued expansion of the country’s commercial
fishing fleet, total fish catch levelled off in the early 1990s
Catch per unit All fisheries are showing decline in total catch and per unit effort (total
effort number of fish caught per unit of time) despite increasing effort. Fish
are being harvested at a level 30 to 50 percent higher than the natural
production capacity.
Protection of Many of the important marine species are threatened or have disappeared
marine species from most of their former breeding ranges.
State of coastal Coastal erosion is increasing in areas adjacent to or near urban
erosion development centers. Sea level rise will exacerbate coastal erosion,
especially in low-lying areas or near development.
Pressure on coastal zone
Population in About 62 percent of the population lives in the coastal zone. The Philippines
coastal zone and has one of the highest population growth rates in the world with an average
its growth annual rate of increase of 2.75 percent during the last century.
Solid waste The generation of solid waste continues to increase from a minimum of
generation 10.67 million ton per year in 2000 to a projected 14.05 million ton per
year in 2010. Waste generation is highest in large cities and densely
populated areas.
Water pollution Most shore ecosystems near urbanized areas are threatened by nutrient
loading. A recent study of 12 bays (major fishing grounds) found that
organic nutrients were affecting water quality including high levels of heavy
metal in some areas.
Demand for Estimates show that if the present rapid population growth and declining
fish and fishery trend in fish production continue, only 10 kilograms of fish will be available
products per Filipino per year by 2010, as opposed to 28.5 kilograms per year in
2003.
Erosion and Logging and unsustainable farming practices in recent decades have
sedimentation led to increasing soil erosion and frequent flooding. Soil erosion causes
sedimentation that reduces light, smothers marine organisms, and prevents
recovery areas that have been silted over.

Low Priority Medium Priority High Priority

vii
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

GENERAL PRIORITY
INDICATOR STATUS AND COMMENTS
TREND LEVEL
Institutional capacity and budget allocation for marine and coastal resources management
Government staff The number of staff is increasing in municipal governments, cities, and in
allocated to CRM selected provinces as a result of the emphasis placed on CRM. At regional
and national levels, staff size is generally decreasing due to the small
national budgets.
Number of LGU About 97 staff members trained in 2001; 446 in 2002; 2,076 in 2003;
staff trained in and 286 in 2004. (These numbers do not necessarily include all local
CRM government units (LGU) staff, and include representatives of POs, fisherfolk,
and other coastal stakeholders.)
National level Over the past seven years, regular budgets of the Department of
allocation Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for CRM have been decreasing.
(percent of total Total budget allocation for foreign-assisted projects doing CRM, however,
expenditure) has increased, particularly for the last three years.
LGU level The number of LGUs allocating annual budget for CRM and the amount of
allocation these allocations has increased during the past decade. Overall, average
budgets increased from a baseline of PhP 107,981 in 1995 to PhP
291,675 in 2002.
Coastal Resource Management
Number of LGUs Of the 822 coastal municipalities and 25 coastal cities, 113 have achieved
achieving CRM the basic benchmarks of CRM (budget, management, plan, law enforcement,
benchmarks or other best practice in place). These LGUs cover 3600 kilometers or about
20 percent of the shoreline.
Percent marine In 2005, about 26 percent of 362 legally established MPAs (out of a total
protected of over 500 MPAs) from 150 municipalities in 36 provinces were managed
areas (MPA) in a sustainable manner, and 44 percent were developing management
under effective systems. The remaining 30 percent lack sufficient data to evaluate and
management generally lack management.
Percent of coral Three percent of coral reef habitat (or about 780 of the 26,000 square
reef habitat kilometers of reef in the country) lies within an MPA.
within MPA
Increase in fish The increasing number of effective, although small, MPAs with no-take zones
attributed to or “sanctuaries” is increasing the biomass of fish and fish yields in their
spillover from immediate vicinity. (About 10 percent of fish catch from the Apo Island area
MPAs was attributed to spillover.)
Population Access to sanitation is rising slowly. Urban access to piped sewerage in
with access to Metro Manila is very low (8 percent) as the investments in sewerage are
sanitation and inadequate. Metro Cebu and Metro Davao have no centralized sewerage
sewerage systems at all.
Poverty among Eighty percent of municipal fishing households are living below the poverty
municipal fishing line. This can be attributed to a lack of alternative sources of income and
households decreasing catch per unit effort for most municipal fishers.
Income of fishing Fishing households have an average annual income equivalent to half or
households over even less of the national average of PhP 144,000 per year (US$ 2820).
time

Low Priority Medium Priority High Priority

viii
ix
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

x
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

AFMA Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act IPRA Indigenous People’s Rights Act
AFMP Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Plan ICLARM International Center for Living Aquatic Resources
ARCDEV Sustainable Philippine Archipelagic Development Management
Framework ICRM Integrated Coastal Resources Management
BAS Bureau of Agricultural Statistics LGU Local Government Unit
BESWMC Barangay Ecological Solid Waste Committee MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of
BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Marine Pollution from Ships
CABCOM Cabinet Committee on Marine and Ocean Affairs MFO Municipal Fisheries Ordinances
CCEF Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation MGB Mines and Geosciences Bureau
CITES Convention on the International Trade of MPA Marine Protected Areas
Endangered Species MPSA Mineral Production Sharing Agreement
CLEC Coastal Law Enforcement Council NAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan Authority
CMMO Coastal and Marine Management Office NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
CRM Coastal Resource Management NFARMC National Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
CRMP Coastal Resource Management Project Management Council
DA Department of Agriculture NGO Non-Governmental Organization
DAO Department Administrative Order NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System
DECS Department of Education, Culture and Sports NWRB National Water Resources Board
DENR Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources OBST Olango Island Bird and Landscape Tour
DFA Department of Foreign Affairs OTEC Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
DILG Department of Interior and Local Governments PAMB Protected Areas Management Boards
DND Department of National Defence PAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
DO Dissolved Oxygen PEA Public Estates Office
DOE Department of Energy PEMSEA Partnership in Environmental Management for the
DOT Department of Tourism Seas of East Asia
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nautical miles) PCMARD Philippine Council for Marine and Aquatic Research
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment and Development
EMB Environmental Management Bureau PCG Philippine Coast Guard
ENRAP Environmental and Natural Resources Accounting PCRA Participatory Coastal Resources Appraisal
Project PHP Philippine Peso
EO Executive Order PN Philippine Navy
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United PNP Philippine National Police
Nations
PRA Public Reclamation Authority (formerly PEA)
FARMC Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management
Council PO People’s Organization
FLA Fishpond Lease Agreement PPA Philippine Ports Authority
FLC Foreshore Lease Contract PTA Philippine Tourism Authority
FMB Forest Management Bureau RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
FPIC Free and Prior Informed Consent SAFDZ Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development
Zones
GDP Gross Domestic Product
UNCLOS United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea
GOLD Governance and Local Democracy Project
IFARMC Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resource USAID United States Agency for International Development
Management Council WRI World Resources Institute
IPAF Integrated Protected Areas Fund WWF World Wildlife Fund

Unless otherwise noted, all dollars are US Dollars

1 USD = 54 Philippines peso (PhP) (December 2005)
All tons are metric tons (MT) (1000 kilograms); A billion is a 1,000 million.

xi
1. PHILIPPINES COASTAL & MARINE RESOURCES: AN INTRODUCTION

THOUSANDS OF ISLANDS. With its thousands of diversity of marine life. Factors that contribute to
islands, the Philippines has one of the longest this exceptional range of biodiversity include:
coastlines in the world—estimated at 36,289 • A warm climate and stable water temperatures
kilometers. The coastline extends 2,000 kilometers (rarely below 18° Celcius);
from north to south, with 25 major cities lying • Abundant sunlight to fuel the photo-synthesis
on the coast. It is estimated that more than 60 process that supports the growth of algae,
percent of the nation’s total population of 87.8 coral, and other organisms;
million (July 2005 estimate) lives in the coastal • Relatively low sediment loads, allowing light
zone. Table 1.1 provides basic data about the to pass deep into the water;
Philippines’ coastal geography and population. • Generally low freshwater inputs that maintain
a salinity level between 30 and 36 parts per
Table 1.1 Philippine Coastal Data. thousand;
Number of islands 7,100 • Currents, clean water, and hard substrates that
Total land area 300,000 km2 provide optimal conditions for corals and
Coastline 36,289 km other aquatic life to thrive (White 2001).
Territorial Sea 679,800 km2
(up to 12 nautical miles)
Territorial waters, incl. EEZ 2.2 million km2
Coastal waters 226,000 km2
Oceanic waters 1.93 million km2
Coastal provinces 64 (out of 79)
Coastal municipalities 822 (out of 1,502)
Total coastal population 64.7 million (2000)
Population density in coastal 227 persons per km2
areas, year 1990
Population density in coastal 286 persons per km2
areas, year 2000
No. of inhabitants per 2,467 persons
kilometer of coastline (2000)
Source: http://www.census.gov.ph. Coral trout is often used as an indicator to monitor the
condition of coral reefs.
The country depends heavily on its rich coastal Photo: Ingvar Bundgaard Jensen.

and marine resources for the many economic,

employment, and biodiversity values and services
they provide.
An abundance of species. Philippine waters contain
some of the world’s richest ecosystems,
characterized by extensive coral reefs, sea-grass
beds, and dense mangrove forests. Blessed with a
sunny tropical climate, waters enriched with
nutrients from the land, and driven by the wind,
the country supports an exceptionally high
Importance of coastal ecosystems. The coastal
zone is the interface where the land meets the
ocean. The Philippines’ diverse coastal zone
consists of a variety of tropical ecosystems,
including sandy beaches, rocky headlands, sand
dunes, coral reefs, mangroves, sea-grass beds,
wetlands, estuaries, and lagoons (Table 1.2). The
various ecosystems are interconnected, making it
virtually impossible to alter one feature of the
coastal zone without affecting another, either
directly or indirectly (Figure 1.1).

1
 Figure 1.1 Important Coastal Ecosystems and Habitats.

Source: Maragos et al. 1983.

Table 1.2 Key Coastal Habitats.

Beaches An area of unstable unconsolidated sediments like sand or gravel deposited along the shoreline. Beaches
are subject to erosion (removal of material) and accretion (deposition of material) produced by waves,
wind, and tidal currents.
Coral Simple marine animals that live symbiotically with algae. In the symbiotic relationship, the algae provide
the coral with nutrients, while the coral provide the algae with a structure to live in. Coral animals secrete
calcium carbonate to produce a hard external skeleton.
Coral reef Wave and current resistant calcareous structures formed in situ from the skeletons of corals and other
organisms. They constitute the largest biogenic structures on the planet and support assemblages of living
corals and many other organisms, including fish, mollusks, marine worms, crustaceans, algae, and
sponges.
Estuaries A semi-enclosed coastal area at the mouth of a river where nutrient-rich fresh water meets with salty ocean
water.
Foreshore The intertidal part of a beach or the part of the shorefront lying between the beach head (or upper limit of
wave wash at high tide) and the mean low water mark. The foreshore is legally defined as 40 meters
inland from the mean high tide.
Lagoons A body of seawater that is almost completely cut off from the ocean by a barrier beach or the body of
seawater that is enclosed by an atoll.
Mangroves Tree wetlands located on the coastlines in warm tropical climates.
Sea-grass Areas of salt-tolerant plants that occur in shallow near-shore waters, estuaries, lagoons, and adjacent to
beds coral reefs. They hold sediment in place, support a rich detrital community, and provide food and habitat
for many important near-shore species.
Source: Castro and Huber 1997.

2

Resources of significant value. Coastal
ecosystems are valuable in terms of the goods
and services they provide (direct use values);
the ecological functions, which indirectly
support economic activity (indirect use values);
and the options for direct or indirect use of
these ecosystems in the future (option use
values). Coastal ecosystems also have non-use
values; for example, individuals derive
satisfaction from the aesthetic value of
ecosystems and the knowledge that they
will continue to exist for future generations
(existence and bequest values).
The coastal areas of the Philippines provide a
continuous supply of goods—fish, oil, gas,
minerals, salt, and construction materials—
and services such as shoreline protection,
sustaining biodiversity, maintaining water quality,
transportation, and recreation.
The direct benefits from mangroves have
been estimated to be more than $600 per hectare
per year in fish production and potential
sustainable wood harvest. The annual direct
benefits in the Philippines from mangroves
are therefore at least $83 million per year (White
and Cruz-Trinidad 1998).
It has been estimated that coral reefs alone
contribute at least $1.064 billion annually to
the economy (see Table 1.3).
Locally, 1 square kilometer of healthy coral
reef with some tourism potential produces net
revenues ranging from $29,000 to $113,000
(White and Trinidad 1998; White et. al. 2000).
These revenue potentials are realistic, since a
large proportion of visitors to the Philippines
spend time on a beach or swim or dive in a coral
reef environment.
Tourism is a major source of income and
employment for the Philippines. Coastal and
3
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
marine attractions are the most important
tourism destinations. Tourism generates revenue
through a number of different sources such as
recreational user fees, lodging, transportation,
food, and souvenirs. Tourism also leads to
higher employment rates and increased incomes
for businesses related to the tourism sector.
Table 1.3 Annual Economic Net Benefits from
Philippine Coral Reefs.
Resource Use (Direct and Indirect) Value ($ Million)
Sustainable fisheries 620
Coastal protection (erosion 326
prevention)
Tourism and recreation 108
Aesthetic/biodiversity value 10
(willingness to pay)
Total net annual benefits 1,064
Net present value 9,063
Sources: Burke et al. 2002; White and Cruz-Trinidad 1998.
A growing tourism industry catering to scuba divers is
providing much needed revenue to local communities.
Photo: Ingvar Bundgaard Jensen.
In 2004, 2.3 million tourists generated $1.9 billion
in tourist receipts (Department of Tourism 2004).
This is a 20 percent increase over the volume of
arrivals recorded in 2003. Visitor receipts in 2004
also gained a double-digit growth at 30.7
percent.
 fisheries (excluding reef fish) were estimated to
yield production values of $741 million in 2003.
The industry employs also more than 1 million
people (5 percent of the national labor force),
with 68 percent employed in the municipal sector
and 28 percent in the commercial and aquaculture
sectors (ADB 2003).

The Philippines also accounts for 43 percent of

Tourists receive a welcome drink upon arrival to a
community-based ecotourism destination.
Photo: Coastal Resource Management Project.
the marine aquarium fish and 36 percent of the
invertebrates traded globally (Global Marine
Aquarium Database 2003). Box 1.1 describes the
marine aquarium fishery and trade in the
Philippines.

Finally, the hunting and collection of eggs

An estimated 6.2 million people were employed
in tourism-related businesses in 1998.
The Philippines is among the largest fish
producers in the world. The commercial,
municipal and aquaculture fisheries account
for 36, 30 and 24 percent of the total annual
fisheries yield, respectively. Its annual total
fisheries yield is estimated to be worth around
$70 to 110 billion PhP, equivalent to about 2 to
4 percent of its gross domestic product over the
years (Barut et al. 1997 and Table 2.1). Municipal
from marine turtles are also important sources
of income for many coastal communities. But
marine turtles may have an even higher monetary
value when kept alive (Box 1.2).
Other ecosystem services. Other values from
marine and coastal resources in the Philippines
include the huge potential source of wave
energy from the ocean (Box 1.3) and the
environmental waste disposal services that marine
waters offer (Box 1.4).

Box 1.1 Marine Aquarium Fishery and Trade.

The collection and trade of marine ornamentals is present in about 100 of the approximately 800 coastal
municipalities in the Philippines, and in 38 (out of 80) of its provinces. With a total value of $7.3 million (2004),
the trade supports the livelihoods of 4,000 to 7,000 households of part time and full time collectors and local
traders of marine ornamentals. There are approximately 70 exporters of marine ornamentals, mostly based in
Manila with some located in Cebu.

While the marine aquarium industry provides livelihoods to a significant number of households, the prevalent use
of destructive collection methods—such as using cyanide and breaking of corals—and overfishing, caused by
high mortality and poor husbandry, contribute to the deterioration of the Philippine coastal ecosystems. The
Marine Aquarium Council addresses these problems by setting standards for best practices in the trade and
assessing compliance to these standards through a third party certification system.

Source: The Marine Aquarium Council, www.aquariumcouncil.org.

4
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

Box 1.2 Marine Turtles: Worth More Alive Than Dead.

The monetary value of marine turtles is remarkable. Trade in

marine turtle products for consumption is estimated to be worth
millions of dollars annually. But marine turtles may be even more
worth when kept alive, according to a new international study.
The study analyzed the consumptive use of marine turtles—
including use for meat, shell, eggs, bone, and leather—at nine
case study sites and found that the gross revenue from this use of
marine turtles reached an average of $582,000 per study site
per year. The direct beneficiaries from consumptive use vary from
a handful to several hundred, including the fishermen and egg
Green sea turtle.
collectors in communities close to marine turtle feeding areas and
nesting beaches. Other beneficiaries are traders and other Photo: Author.

intermediaries.

The study also took a close look at the non-consumptive use of marine turtles and found that the average gross
revenue for nine case studies where non-consumptive use, such as tourism, was a major revenue generator was
almost $1.7 million per year. The average gross revenue for four sites where marine turtles are one of many
attractions was $40,791 per year.

The overall conclusion of the study was that the non-consumptive use of marine turtles generates more revenue,
has greater economic multiplying effects and more potential for economic growth, creates more support for
management, and generates proportionally more jobs and social development and employment opportunities for
women than consumptive use.
Source: Treong and Drews, WWF 2004.

Box 1.3 Renewable Energy from the Sea.

The oceans are considered one of the best potential sources of renewable
energy. Although current technologies for these ocean energy systems
are not yet economically competitive with conventional energy systems,
it is important to note that Philippine waters provide excellent conditions
for ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) systems in sites accessible
to populated regions such as Manila and Davao.

With new developments in wave energy conversion systems, the

Philippines’ moderate wave energy resources (an average of 33 kilowatt
per meter per year at the Pacific side and 35 kilowatt per meter per
year at the South China Sea) will be more than sufficient to provide Renewable energy from the sea.
power to small islands. The strong and continuous currents in the Surigao Photo: Author.
and San Bernardino Straits are also potential sites for sea current
systems.

Energy from the sea is a sustainable resource that will help reduce the dependence upon fossil fuels. It also
produces no liquid or solid pollution and has little visual impact.
Source: Heruella 1993.

5
 Box 1.4 Environmental Waste Disposal Services.

The marine environment has a huge capacity to absorb wastes from human activities. While there is a limit on
how much marine waters can absorb before they become so polluted that habitats, fish stocks, and other resources
suffer, an estimate of the value of this service does indicate its importance.

In 1995, for example, the total value of environmental waste disposal services in the Philippines was an estimated
$428 million, according to the Environmental and Natural Resources Accounting Project (ENRAP).

The project performed these kinds of estimates for both air and water (surface and marine) and based its findings
on the amount polluters are willing to pay for the privilege of discharging wastes into the environment, or
alternatively, on the prospective cost of reducing pollution to a non-damaging level.

The valuation exercise took into account water pollution from industrial processes, domestic effluents (mainly from
households), and surface runoff (agriculture, forestry, and urban sources). Pollutants considered included
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids, total dissolved solids, oil, nitrates, and phosphates.

Sources: Orbeta 1994; Morales et al. 1996.

Clean and pristine coastal waters create opportunities for ecotourism and increased fish catch.
Source: Authors.

6
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

Coral reefs, sea-grass beds, and mangrove
forests are critical resources supporting
ecosystems and livelihoods in coastal areas
of the Philippines. This chapter explores the
role and current status of these resources, as
well as those of beaches, other shoreline areas
and fisheries.
Coral reefs –“rainforests of the sea.” Coral reefs
are widespread and can be found throughout
virtually the entire archipelago, except perhaps
in some areas of north and south-central
Destructive fishing and overfishing are the
most prevalent problems affecting the coral reefs
of the Philippines, while other major threats
include sedimentation and coastal development.
Furthermore, coral reefs are the most sensitive
of all ecosystems to global warming, pollution,
and new diseases. Figure 2.2 illustrates the threats
to coral reefs separately as well as combined.
Figure 2.1 Reefs at Risk Threat Index.
India
India
Beliez
Beliezee

Mindanao and east of northern Luzon. The Jamaica

Jamaica

approximately 26,000 square kilometers of Thailand

Thailand

Dominican
DominicanRep.
Rep.
Philippine reefs (Gomez et al. 1994; Burke et al.
Indones ia
Indonesia
2002) provide many direct and indirect Malays ia
Malaysia
benefits, including food, livelihoods, recreation, VVietnam
ietnam

protection from erosion, and extremely high Philippines

Philippines

levels of biodiversity. 0% 20% 40% 60%

60% 80% 100%
low
low medium
medium high
high very high
very high

Source: World Resources Institute 2002.

Nationwide surveys conducted from the 1970s
to the 1990s found that 4 to 5 percent of the
reefs were in excellent condition, 25 to 27 percent Figure 2.2 Different Threats to Coral Reefs.
good, 39 to 42 percent fair, and 27 to 31 percent
poor (Gomez and Alcala 1979; Licuanan and
Gomez 2000). Recent analyses of some 50 sites
indicate declining trends in the percentage of
coral cover and reef fish abundance in all regions
of the Philippines. One exception is the Visayan
Seas area where the many coastal resource
management programs and marine protected
areas (MPAs) in recent years have helped curtail
illegal fishing and encouraged more sustainable
management efforts.

The general trend is negative for the coral reefs

in the Philippines. A recent international analysis
of coral reef status found that the Philippines
had the most degraded reefs of all sampled
countries. This study estimated that 98 percent of
coral reefs in the Philippines were at risk from
human activities, with 70 percent at high or very
high risk (Figure 2.1).
Source: World Resources Institute 2002.
Historically rich coral reef and sea-grass
coastal habitat areas—such as the Danajon
Double Barrier Reef in northern Bohol Island;
portions of western Palawan Island; the
Lingayen Gulf in northern Luzon; and parts of

7
Marinduque, Mindoro and selected areas of
other major islands—have mostly been degraded
by sedimentation. Destructive fishing is also a
culprit, but in areas where it is being slowed and
stopped, it is sedimentation that continues to
take its toll on water quality and coral reefs
and their associated fisheries. Once the reefs
are covered in sediment, recovery—if it takes
place at all—is very slow.
commercially important fish species (mullet,
tilapia, eel and especially milkfish), shrimps,
prawns, mollusks, crabs, and sea cucumbers.
Fry that gather in mangrove areas are very
important for aquaculture. Important aspects of
mangroves are depicted in Figures 2.3 and 2.4.
Figure 2.3 Mangrove Detrital Food Chain.

Mangroves—A multiple-function resource.

Mangroves protect coasts from storms,
erosion, and floods, and help purify water.
They are important feeding sites for many

Source: Authors.

Figure 2.4 Mangroves and their Ecological and

Economic Products.

Healthy corals are vital for both fish stocks and tourism.
Photo: Ingvar Bundgaard Jensen. Source: Modified from Berjak et al. 1977.

8
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

Figure 2.5 Mangrove Resource Decline

in the Philippines.

Areas on the coast in Negros that used to be covered by

mangroves now feature fishponds.
Sources: Brown & Fischer 1918; DENR 1988, 1998; White and de
Leon 2004. Photo: Alan White.

Mangrove coverage in the Philippines has

declined from around 450,000 hectares in 1918
to only about 120,000 hectares in 1995
(Figure 2.5). A recent interpretation of 2002
satellite images by the National Mapping and
Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) and
the Forest Management Board (FMB) indicated
a total area of 248,813 hectares. This estimate,
however, has not been validated on the ground.

The rate of exploitation in the mid-1980s was

highest in the Visayas. Satellite image analyses
indicate that Mindanao has the most mangrove
areas in the country (29 percent of the country’s
total) while Luzon and Mindoro have the least.
Old-growth mangrove forests are mainly found
in Mindanao (4,582 hectares) and Palawan (5,317
hectares) (Zamora 1990).
Mangrove cover nationwide is now relatively
stable, with some increases seen in areas
of intense coastal resource management,
particularly around Bohol and Siquijor Islands
in the Visayas.
Replanting of mangroves contributes to the stability of
mangrove cover in the country.
Source: Authors.
settlement. Conversion to fishponds represents
about 289,000 hectares of the losses noted
above. These fishponds mainly cultivate milkfish
and shrimps (Primavera 1993). The use of
mangrove forest wood on the part of local
populations (if beyond sustainable levels) also
contributes to the decline in this type of forest.

Mangrove forests have been converted to The conversion of mangroves into fishponds
aquaculture, salt production, and human normally results in an overall loss of coastal

9

The people of Pangangan Island off Calape, Bohol, have
found in mangroves a natural way to protect their island’s
only road link to the mainland from typhoon damage.
The four kilometer long causeway is protected by
mangroves planted in recent decades by local
schoolchildren.
Source: Over Seas, The Online Magazine for Sustainable Seas,
December 1998, Vol. 1, No. 12.
productivity and fisheries yield. Fishponds
pollute mangrove swamps with organic and
inorganic fertilizers, chemical toxins, and
antibiotics. The use of seawater for fishponds
also causes the salinization of the ground
water and adjacent lands, including agricultural
lands—such as in Central Visayas. In many
cases, a few large fishpond entrepreneurs
gain at the expense of marginal capture
fisherpeople (Primavera 1991 and 1993).
Until recently, fishpond leases cost only
about $2 per hectare per year, in contrast to
conservative resource rent estimates of $538
per hectare per year for fish and $42 to $156
per hectare per year for wood harvests from
mangroves (Evangelista 1992; Primavera 2005).
As a result of the very low fees for fishpond
leases many families own or lease large
fishpond areas. Many of these ponds, however,
are either underutilized or abandoned.
In general, productivity is low in Philippine
10
Mangrove reforestation in coastal villages in Tinambac,
Camarines Sur, has improved the local fish catch. The
new mangrove forest brought back red snapper fish
species that had previously disappeared due to lack of
habitat.
Source: BFAR Region 5 website.
fish farms when compared to, for example,
Thai shrimp farms, which have an average
size of 2 hectares or less (Primavera 2005).
By reducing farm sizes, fish farmers could
increase pond yields and old pond areas could
instead be used for replanting mangroves.
During the past decade or so, the loss of
mangroves to fishponds has declined, in part as
a result of an improved implementation of
national policies for mangrove conservation.
Sea-grass beds, a vital resource for underwater
life. Sea-grass beds provide the intermediate
buffer necessary for coral reefs to protect
coasts and mangroves from strong waves and
surges and for mangroves to protect reefs from
erosion and sedimentation (Fortes 1989 and
1995). The exchange of mutual benefits among
mangrove, sea grass and coral reef ecosystems
is illustrated in Figure 2.6.
Sea-grass beds also support and harbor many
juvenile fishes (including rabbitfish), adult
rabbitfish, and commercially important shrimps,
prawns, crabs, sea urchins, and sea cucumbers.
Sea-grass habitats also serve as the feeding

ground for marine turtles and the highly
endangered dugong. Some 16 species of sea
grasses have been identified (Fortes and
Santos 2004).
From surveys in 96 sites, 978 square kilometers
of sea-grass beds have been identified in the
country, mostly in northwestern, western, and
southern areas, with outlying islands having
sizeable beds. About half of the sea-grass beds
have either been lost or severely degraded over
the past 50 years, and the rate of degradation
is increasing. Sea-grass losses and degradation
result from coastal development (industries,
ports), waste disposal, sedimentation, destructive
fishing (raking, trawling, and the construction
of fish corrals), eutrophication (water pollution
caused by excessive plant nutrients), boat traffic,
and aquaculture (Fortes 1995).
Figure 2.6 Exchange of Mutual Benefits between Mangrove, Sea grass, and Coral Reef Ecosystems.
Source: Authors.
11
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
Beaches, foreshore, and shoreline areas. Beaches
are the most widely recognized habitat in the
coastal zone. Recreation and tourism draw
millions of people to beaches for rest and
relaxation. They are used extensively for fishing
activities, boat landings, and construction
materials. Many other species also compete
with humans for use of beaches. Sea turtles lay
their eggs in the sand above the high tide lines.
Terns, plovers, and other seabirds lay their eggs
in the upper beach or dunes. Beaches also
provide habitat for burrowing species, such
as clams, crabs, and many other small
crustaceans. Such organisms are part of the
complex intertidal community that attracts
fish and shore birds.
In addition, beaches are extremely important
as buffers between the land and sea. They
 With the majority of municipalities and 25 of
the largest cities located in the coastal zone,
the country’s foreshore and shoreline areas
are mainly being used for settlements and
housing. The proliferation of coastal dwellers—
with no proprietary or tenure rights over the
land they occupy and often no basic facilities
for sanitation, solid waste management,
sewerage, or water supply—is a contributing
factor in the degradation and deterioration of
Aeta children collect shellfish on a beach in Northern the coastal environment and beaches
Luzon. throughout the country. Figure 2.7 shows a
Photo: Finn Danielsen. typical problem.

provide protection against waves and erosion

Coastal development of industries, ports, and
and remove silt and sediments from the water
resorts on the foreshore and reclamation and
as it passes over the ground surface. This
shoreline protection works (such as jetties) are
is particularly important in areas where
also prevalent. Industries are situated by the
impervious surfaces, such as asphalt
sea for ease of transport of raw and finished
pavement, cement sidewalks, compacted soils,
materials. Land filling or reclamation involves
and buildings, drain to the seashore. Water
the dredging and placement of materials to
passing through the beach sand is diffused so
turn aquatic habitat into land for housing,
that the point of discharge is spread over a
tourism or manufacturing facilities, ports,
larger area rather than one small point (DENR
and/or harbors. These activities clear aquatic
et al. 2001.)
vegetation (such as mangroves), smother coastal
ecosystems, increase cloudiness of the water,
Coastal erosion from natural causes in the
and alter the water system as a whole.
Philippines is an issue in areas with high-energy
(wave or storm prone) coasts. Wave-prone
coasts occur in northern Luzon, the eastern
Figure 2.7 Well or Groundwater Contamination
shores of Lingayen Gulf, and along the eastern Resulting from Improper Location of
seaboard. The internal seas are not erosion-prone, Sewage Disposal Systems.
except in areas where development has
infringed on the coastal strip or beach and thus
exacerbates loss of beach or coastal vegetation.
Such areas are increasingly common adjacent
to or near urban development centers, where
erosion is prompting the construction of
illegal protective seawalls. Sea-level rise will
The improper location of the sewage disposal system
exacerbate coastal erosion to some degree causes contamination of the well or seepage into the
along all shorelines, but will be worse in groundwater and ultimately the ocean.
low-lying areas or those that are being degraded Source: Rees 1990.
by shoreline structures and development.

12
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

Table 2.1 Total Fish Production (MT) and Value (billions of PhP) by Sector, Philippines, 1997-2005.
YEAR Commercial Municipal Aquaculture TOTAL
Volume (MT) Value Volume (MT) Value Volume (MT) Value Volume (MT) Value
(PhP B) (PhP B) (PhP B) (PhP B)
1997 884,651 25.9 764,727 25.5 879,014 22.4 2,528,392 73.6
1998 940,533 29.7 744,675 26.2 910,961 22.1 2,596,169 78.5
1999 948,754 32.2 779,820 28.8 943,289 24.1 2,671,863 85.2
2000 946,485 33.9 793,824 30.0 988,869 27.0 2,729,178 90.8
2001 976,539 36.1 833,188 31.3 1,096,790 31.2 2,906,517 98.6
2002 1,042,193 39.1 857,294 34.8 1,191,018 29.5 3,090,505 104.0
2003 1,109,636 42.0 1,055,143 40.6 1,454,503 37.2 3,619,282 119.8
2004 1,128,382 48.3 1,080,764 45.7 1,717,026 44.8 3,926,172 138.8
2005 1,135,222 47.7 1,132,120 49.9 1,895,793 49.1 4,163,135 146.7
Ave. 1,012,488 37.2 893,506 34.7 1,230,807 31.9 3,136,801 104.0
Sources: BAS: Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines, 1997-2001; 2001-2003; 2004; 2005.
Note: For the purpose of this document, municipal fisheries refer only to marine municipal fisheries, and aquaculture data refers to brackish water and
marine production and its value. Freshwater production was excluded from the analysis. Total production and value refer to fisheries production and value
in the marine sector. Some data may be missing, particularly in the municipal and aquaculture sectors, due to the data gathering constraints of BAS.

Fisheries. During the past 14 years, fishing has Growth in the marine aquaculture sector has
on average contributed 4 percent to total GDP been the fastest, at an average of 8.4 percent
and accounted for 20 percent of gross value over the past seven years (Table 2.2). The year
added in the agriculture, fishery, and forestry 2001 saw a double-digit growth rate in marine
sectors. The contribution to total GDP, however, aquaculture, and subsequent years were not
has been gradually decreasing from 5 percent far behind with almost 9 percent growth rates.
in the early nineties, down to 4 percent in the Seaweed aquaculture contributed to the bulk
mid-90s and less than 3 percent since 1997. of production, accounting for 67 percent and
68 percent of total aquaculture production in
The Philippines fisheries sector includes three 1997 and 2003 respectively (BAS 1997-2001;
main subsectors: commercial, municipal, and 2001-2003).
aquaculture. The municipal sector can further
Table 2.2 Growth Rates in Fish Production by
be divided into marine and inland fisheries. Sector, Philippines, 1997-2004 (Percentage).
The Philippines Fisheries Code of 1998 defines
Year Com- Muni- Aqua- Total
municipal fishing as fishing without vessels mercial cipal culture
or with vessels of 3 Gross Tons (GT) or less. 1998 6.3 -2.6 3.6 2.7
Fishing with vessels of more than 3 GT is 1999 0.9 4.7 3.5 2.9
considered commercial fishing. Legally, 2000 -0.2 1.8 4.8 2.1
commercial fishing is restricted to areas
2001 3.2 5.0 10.9 6.5
outside of municipal waters or waters beyond
2002 6.7 2.9 8.6 6.3
15 kilometer from the shoreline. Table 2.1
2003 6.5 7.5 8.6 7.6
illustrates total fish production and value
2004 1.7 1.8 18.7 7.4
by sector.
AVERAGE 3.6 3.0 8.4 5.1

Source: BAS 1997-2001; 2001-2003; 2004.

13
Commercial and marine municipal fisheries Philippines is fortunate in having vast fishery
had fluctuating growth rates over the period. resources at its disposal. All of its main fish
Average growth rates were 3.6 percent and 3 species and marine organisms, however, are
percent respectively between 1997 and 2004. showing severe signs of overfishing. In addition,
This indicates the need to diversify fisheries destructive fishing methods using dynamite
production into aquaculture and veer away and cyanide and other gears resulting in
from capture fisheries, if growth rates are to habitat degradation, are also a major cause of
remain positive and the fisheries sector is to the decline in fisheries productivity and CPUE.
contribute positively to GDP. This option,
however, would require a thorough assessment Table 2.3 Contribution of Top Species to Total
of environmental impacts from increased Volume of Capture Marine Fisheries Production,
aquaculture production. 1997-2004 (Percentage).
Species 1997 2001 2003 2004
The species that consistently contributed the Round Scad 14 16 15 20
most to the total volume of capture marine Indian Sardines 12 11 8 13
fisheries production are listed in Table 2.3. Skipjack 7 6 7 10
Growth in aquaculture has been dominated Frigate Tuna 7 6 9 13
by the species (see Table 2.4). FIMB. Sardines 6 5 3 3
Anchovies 5 5 4
Overfishing and declining fish stocks. While Yellowfin Tuna 4 5 6 8
demand for fish and fishery products has been Slipmouth 4 4 3 3
growing in recent decades, the catch per unit Big-eyed Scad 3 4 5 3
effort or CPUE (the total number of fish caught Others 38 38 39 24
per unit of time, an indicator of fish abundance)
Sources: BAS: Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines. 1997-2001;
has been declining, following worldwide trends 2001-2003; 2004.
in fisheries. As an archipelagic state with over
2.2 million square kilometers of seas, the Table 2.4 Contribution of Top Species to
Total Aquaculture Production, 1997-2004
(Percentage).
Species 1997 2001 2003 2004
Tiger Prawn* 4 3 2
Tilapia* 9 9 9 9
Milkfish* 16 18 17 16
Seaweed 67 64 68 70
Others 4 5 3 5
* introduced species
Sources: BAS: Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines. 1997-2001;
2001-2003; 2004.

Despite the continued expansion of the

country’s commercial fishing fleet, total fish
Municipal fisherman in Northern Luzon. catch leveled off in the early 1990s. Since then,
Photo: Finn Danielsen. marine fisheries production has been around
1.6 to 1.8 million tons annually.

14

Studies have shown that as early as the late
1960s, the country had reached the maximum
economic yield of its demersal fish stocks
(fish living on or near the bottom), except in the
offshore hard bottoms around Palawan, the
Southern Sulu Sea, and the central part of
the Pacific coast (Silvestre and Pauly 1989).
Current biomass of demersals is only 10 to 30
percent of the levels in the late 1940s
(Luna 2004).
With respect to small pelagic (open sea)
fisheries, overfishing and declining CPUE has
also been observed, except in lightly fished
areas off Palawan, parts of the Pacific coast,
and some parts of Mindanao (Silvestre and
Pauly 1989). Biomass has declined to about 17
percent of levels in the early 1950s, and
economic rent dissipation is estimated to
reach about $290 million annually. Figure 2.8
shows the major fishing areas in the country
that are considered to be seriously overfished.
Lingayen Gulf is a major fishing ground
located in Northern Luzon. Studies reveal it
“reached its maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
more than 20 years ago, and that the fishery
A small, commercial-size fishing boat.
Photo: Alan White.
15
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2004
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
now has 400 percent too much effort for the
available fish stocks. Catch rates in the gulf are
five times smaller than they were 15 years ago,
compelling fishers to invest more time and money
in dwindling catches.” (Hilomen et al. 2002.)
In the period between 1998 and 2001, 30
percent more fish were harvested than could
be replenished through the sea’s natural
productivity. Such excess fishing has resulted
in economic losses, conservatively estimated at
about PhP 6.25 billion (about $125 million) per
year in lost fish catch (ICLARM 2001).
Finally, analyses of annual catch per unit
effort (CPUE) in six coastal provinces in the
Philippines for the common hook-and-line type
of fishing showed that in some cases fish catch
per unit effort was less than five percent of the
Figure 2.8 Map of Heavily Exploited Areas.
Source: Green et al. 2003.
original levels of only a few decades ago (Figure
2.9; Green et. al. 2003).

According to some estimates, if the declining

trend in fish production continues, by 2010
only around 10 kilograms of fish per year will
be available for each Filipino (Figure 2.10;
Bernascek 1996).

Nationwide, fisherfolk are concerned about
their low CPUE. The municipal sector in
particular feels increasing competition from
Fisherfolk displaying their fish trap, the common method
of capturing fusiliers, outside the sanctuary on Sumilon
Island reef.
Photo: Alan White.

Figure 2.9 Decline in Average CPUE for Figure 2.10 Per Capita Fisheries-Related Food
Hook and Line Fishing in Six Provinces. Available for Consumption in the Philippines.

Source: Green et al. 2003. Source: Bernascek 1996.

Box 2.1 BFAR Study Warns of Fish Shortage in Davao Gulf in 2007.

DAVAO CITY, 26 September 2005 – The Davao Gulf could suffer a fish shortage by 2007 if unregulated fishing
continued in the region’s 520-kilometer fishing ground, an official of the Department of Agriculture-Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic resources (BFAR) warned.
Jose Villanueva, project leader of the National Stock Assessment Project (NSAP) of BFAR in Region 11, said the
latest results of the NSAP study showed that the exploitation rate (ER) of growth overfishing (harvesting of fish
before reaching the first maturity stage) within the Davao Gulf area is nearing critical level.
“The ratio is way above the standard level of 0.5,” he said. Once the ER reached the ratio of 0.9, Villanueva
said it is already considered critical. He said by this time, the Davao Gulf will run out of fish products. Fish species
that will be most hurt by the projected depletion are moonfish or bilong-bilong, scads and round scads or
borot.
“In two years, if we fail to stop the harvesting of small fishes, we would end up without fish,” Villanueva said.

Source: Philippines Daily Inquirer, September 26, 2005.

16
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2004
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

the commercial sector, which often fishes Danajon Double Barrier Reef and connecting
illegally within the 15 kilometer municipal islands off northern Bohol Island; and islands in
water limit. Nevertheless, despite the very the Bohol (Mindanao Sea), such as Apo, Selinog,
low catch rates, the numbers of municipal Camiguin, and Sumilon. Marine mammals are
fisherpeople are still increasing due to the lack scattered but well known in the Tanon Strait,
of economic opportunities elsewhere. off southern Bohol and the Cebu Islands, in the
Sulu Sea, and off northern Palawan.
Furthermore, a significant percentage of what
they capture is used for their own consumption,
Table 2.5 Estimated Numbers of Marine Species
thus providing a major source of survival. In that Occur in the Philippines.
some areas, fish catches during the lean season
Taxonomic group Species in Species
are almost solely used for feeding families Philippines world-wide
rather than for commercial purposes. Marine fishes (all) 2818 ?
Marine reef associated fishes 1727 ?
The situation concerning overfishing in Davao Marine ‘cartilaginous’ fishes 164 ?
Gulf is described in Box 2.1.
Seagrasses 16 67
Stony corals 488 700
Biodiversity. The Philippines has recently been
Marine mollusks 2000+
identified as a biodiversity “hotspot”—that is,
Other marine invertebrates 10,000+
an area where the Earth’s biological wealth is
Marine mammals (cetaceans) 25 80
most distinctive and rich and where its loss will
Other marine mammals 1 ?
be most severely felt if conservation efforts are
(Dugong)
not successful. The coastal and marine waters of
Marine reptiles (sea turtles) 5 8
the Philippines contain some of the world’s
Marine reptiles (sea snakes) 17 ?
richest ecosystems, characterized by extensive
Seabirds 20 ?
coral reefs, sea-grass beds, and dense mangrove
Sources: FISHBASE 2005; Fortes and Santos 2004; Werner and
forests. For example, the number of species (488) Allen 2000; Alava and Cantos 2004; Magdaraog 1998; Compagno
of hard stony corals (scleractinians) found in et al. 2005.

Philippine coral reefs far exceeds the 70 species

found in the Caribbean (Werner and Allen 2000).
Its 16 species of sea grasses are second only to
western Australia, which has 17 species. The total
diversity of all taxa of marine life is not known,
but estimates of species numbers are high, as
shown in Table 2.5.
Sites that have a particularly rich assemblage
of coral reef-associated marine life include
Tubbataha Reefs in the Sulu Sea; Apo Reef
Mindoro; the Calamianes Islands in northern
Palawan; Tawi-Tawi and Balabac Islands, Sulu
Sea; parts of the Central Visayas, such as the
Unfortunately, many of the important marine
species in the Philippine marine environment
are threatened. Some of the main threatened
species are listed in Table 2.6. The main threats to
marine species are habitat loss and degradation,
pollution, and local and commercial fishing
activities.
Although an estimated population of at least
1 million resident and migratory water and
shore birds is still found in the Philippine coastal
ecosystems, severe habitat loss, disturbance, and
hunting are causing declines in most

17
 Table 2.6 Threatened and Legally Protected
Marine Species and their Habitat Requirements.
Marine animals Habitat requirements
Reptiles
Sea turtles (all species) Coral reefs, seagrass beds,
beaches, and near-shore
waters
Sea snakes Fringing coral reefs, mid- water
(all species) reefs
Mammals
Sea cow (dugong) Seagrass beds, bays with reefs
Dolphins (all species) Open water areas and mid-
water reefs Brown booby birds nesting on the North Islet of
Whales and porpoises Open water areas Tubbataha Reefs, where they are protected from
(all species) human disturbance.
Fish Photo: Alan White.

Whale sharks Open water and mid-water

(1 species) reefs
Manta rays Open water and coral reefs populations. In one extreme case, the Philippine
(all species) Pelican, Pelecanus philippinesis, is now extinct
Milkfish (1 species) Estuaries, coral reefs, and open in the Philippines.
water areas
Crabs The presence of large congregations of oceanic
Coconut crabs Beach areas seabirds is a good indicator of the environmental
(Birgus latro) status and health of remote atolls and small
Molluscs island ecosystems. Seabirds generally require
Giant clams Coral reefs, seagrass beds and intact and undisturbed habitats for successful
(7 species) sandy areas breeding and roosting, in combination with an
Giant triton shell Coral reefs abundance of their main food sources such as
(Charonia tritonis)
squid and smaller fish species.
Helmet shell Coral reefs
(Cassis spp.)
Habitat loss and degradation affects many
Kapis shell Coral reefs, sandy areas
(Placuna placenta) marine species. There is a parallel trend to that
of seabirds for both sea turtles and the dugong.
Corals
About 30 years ago, dugongs were believed to
Stony and precious Estuaries, reefs and mudflats
corals (all species) be fairly common throughout the Philippine
Birds Archipelago, where they are called duyong or
Seabirds Coral reefs baboy-dagat (sea pig). But today, the dugong
population is considered to be both sparse and
Water birds (5 species Remote, oceanic islets without
inc. 1 extirpated) human disturbance and scattered. The decline has been caused by the
predators; rocks and cliffs widespread loss and degradation of sea-grass
Shorebirds (5 species) Coastal ecosystems: beds, the dugong’s feeding sites. The incidental
mangroves, ponds, lagoons catches of dugongs in fishing gear (gill nets,
Sources: DENR et al. 2001; IUCN Red Data List 2004; Jensen 2004.

18

trawl, and fish corrals) and the use of dynamite
fishing methods are other major causes of dugong
deaths (UNEP 2004).
The loss of biodiversity may also be linked to
high population growth and density, according
to a new study by DENR. The study found that
loss of biodiversity was higher in areas of the
Philippines with rapid population growth and
in-migration (DENR-PAWB et al. 2004).
Many reefs and smaller marine islets are
now inhabited and the ecosystems have been
modified to the extent that they can no longer
sustain their original biodiversity, which
included beach forest, marine and terrestrial
mammals, birds, and reptiles.
The rapidly growing Southeast Asian regional
market for marine products also affects Philippine
marine biodiversity. This market is based on
both legal and illegal trade. The strong demand
leads to unsustainable rates of harvesting,
which are threatening species that were once
Dugongs were fairly common in the Philippines about 30
years ago. Today the dugong is threatened and the
remaining population is sparse and scattered.
Photo: FISH-Project.
19
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2004
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
plentiful and bringing many already endangered
species ever closer to the brink of extinction (See
Boxes 2.2 and 2.3). For a discussion of aquarium
fisheries and trade (see Box 1.1, p. 4).
Box 2.2 Live Reef Food Fish Trade.
The trade in live reef fish for food is an important
industry with an estimated annual retail value of
US$ 1 billion in the Asia-Pacific region, at least
US$ 30 million in the Philippines, and US$ 18
million in Palawan.
While historically most of the live reef fish trade
was for ornamental fish and marine organisms,
since the early 1990s the trade has increasingly
been focused on live fish for food. The high price
for live food fish was the most significant factor in
the emergence of the industry. All live reef food fish
exported from the Philippines go to Hong Kong
and Taiwan.
The type of fishing involved with this trade creates
several adverse effects including loss of biodiversity,
decreased food production and food security, and
decreased livelihood opportunities in coastal
communities. Among the destructive practices used
to harvest live reef organisms is the use of cyanide,
which fishers often squirt on a reef to stun the fish
and make them easier to capture. The practice,
however, not only stuns the fish, but also severely
degrades the reef.
Law enforcement is difficult, and corruption at
various levels, as well as social conflicts between
those involved in the trade and others, such as
local resource users and managers and
conservationists, beset the trade.
A large percentage of economic benefits accrues
to relatively few and the degradation of coral reefs
and overfishing for the trade threaten the livelihood
of already marginalized fishing communities.
Sources: FISH Project and Palawan Council for Sustainable
Development. June 2005.
 Box 2.3 Whale Sharks: Delicacy or Tourist Attraction?

Though ferocious-looking, whale sharks are gentle creatures that feed primarily on microscopic marine organisms
called plankton. They are, however, are also considered a delicacy and often served in banquets.

While the hunt for whale sharks used to be limited to

traditional hunting villages where the meat was used
for local consumption, it is now done primarily in
response to an increasing export demand.

The market for whale sharks is in Taiwan, Hong Kong,

Singapore, and Japan. Each shark, cut and frozen,
fetches as much as PhP 800,000 ($16,000).
Reportedly local fishers may receive prices as high as
PhP 80,000 ($1,600) for a whale shark. Companies
sometimes even offer boats and other means of
support to the fishers.
Whale sharks, although protected, are threatened in the
But while fishing efforts increased and new whale Philippines
shark fisheries were opened up in at least 5 provinces, Photo: Alan White.

catches went down. From about 56 to 100 sharks per

site per year in four of the primary fishing sites years prior to 1997, catches decreased to about 13 sharks per
site in at least 11 sites in 1997, illustrating the impact on the species as well as the unsustainability of the industry
in the long run.

That things can be very different is evident in Donsol, Sorsogon. This town quickly became not only a major
tourism destination for whale shark watching, but the discovery of a large aggregation of the animals–with one
of the highest densities of whale sharks in the world—and the subsequent slaughter of six of them by fishers of
neighboring towns created a public outcry and propelled the issuance of the Fisheries Administrative Order
(FAO) No. 193, which bans the killing and trading of whale sharks including manta rays throughout the
Philippines. The LGU of Donsol also enacted a local ordinance declaring its municipal waters a sanctuary for the
whale sharks.

With the help of WWF, which together with the LGU and the Donsol Municipal Tourism Council (DMTC),
implemented the Butanding Ecotourism Development Project to secure the financial viability, environmental
sustainability and social acceptability of ecotourism, Donsol quickly became an important eco-tourism destination
in the Bicol region. In 2003, the ecotourism program ranked first in the most visited attraction in the Bicol region
and won the Kalakbay Award, given by the Philippines-Department of Tourism. The following year, Time Magazine
named Donsol as the Best Wild Animal Encounter in Asia.

Sources: Adapted from Over Seas – The Online Magazine for Sustainable Seas, and http://crmsd.wwf.org.ph/donsol/wshark.php.

20
3. COASTAL AND MARINE RESOURCES UNDER PRESSURE
The main pressures affecting Philippine
coastal and marine areas are agriculture and
forestry activities, urban and industrial
development, tourism development, oil and gas
exploration, minerals and mining, population
growth and fish consumption, and climate
change. This chapter explores each of these
issues, including their social, political, and
economic context.
Agriculture and forestry. The early onset of
industrial logging in the Philippines—
combined with a lack of proper forest
management—has resulted in the loss of
nearly 80 percent of the Philippines’ original
forest cover. In 1990, 10.6 million hectares
were classified as forest; by 2005, the total
had declined to 7.2 million hectares, or
a loss of 3.4 million hectares (FAO 2005). Over
the past 15 years, the average annual forest
loss was equivalent to almost 227,000 hectares
per year. Forest loss combined with poor land
management and unsustainable farming
practices lead to soil erosion and increased
flooding, resulting in higher costs of
infrastructure maintenance, as well as higher
risks to lives, property, and productivity.
Soil erosion reduces light, smothers marine
organisms, and prevents the recruitment and
recovery of areas that have been silted over.
Agricultural runoff is a growing source of
pollution in bays and near-shore waters. The
surface runoff consists of residues from livestock
and poultry, fertilizer and pesticides, and
decaying plant matter.
Urban and industrial development. Almost all
near-shore ecosystems within or near urbanized
areas in the Philippines are threatened by
organic pollution—that is, nutrients from
industrial, commercial, and domestic wastewater
carrying organic wastes and fertilizer residue.
Nutrients enhance the growth of algae (including
those that cause red tides) and bacteria, which in
21
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
turn reduces light and oxygen, resulting in fish
kills. Red tide has become a yearly occurrence in
some coastal areas of the country.
A river plume is often a sign of upland deforestation. The
river plume consists of silt and clay. It decreases the
water quality by increasing turbidity (cloudiness
of water).
Photo: Alan White.
Sewerage infrastructure is inadequate or
nonexistent. Centralized sewerage collection
and treatment facilities cover only parts of
Metro Manila, while Metro Cebu and Metro
Davao have no centralized sewerage systems
at all. Many areas have septic tanks that often
do not have seepage or leaching devices and are
not maintained, thus making them often
inefficient and ineffective in reducing nutrient
pollution. The expansion of domestic water
supply systems in major coastal cities is also
increasing the volume of wastewater.
Each year, nearly 2.2 million tons of organic
pollution are produced by domestic (48 percent),
agricultural (37 percent), and industrial (15
percent) sectors (World Bank 2003). The
industrial sector accounts for most, if not all,
of the toxic and hazardous waste discharged
into water bodies, a finding confirmed by
studies carried out by the Environmental and
Natural Resources Accounting Project (ENRAP).
 Figure 3.1 Typical Impacts of Tourism Activities on the Coastal Zone.

Source: Authors.

The main substances are mercury (Hg), chromium

(Cr), sulfides, phenols, phosphorus pentoxide,
and fluoride.

Tourism development. Coastal tourism has

contributed to the pollution of coastal areas.
Pollution from this sector is usually lumped
under the household sector, as the generated
waste is domestic.

Waste from tourism activities also primarily

This beach, at the Tambuli Beach Resort on Mactan
Island, Cebu, depicts proper setbacks for the resort and
an uncluttered beach environment.
Photo: Alan White.
affects the business itself. A concrete example
of this is Boracay where, for a time, the
number of tourists dwindled as a result of high
coliform counts from its beaches. Most coastal
resorts are still poorly planned in terms of
environmental protection. The larger resorts
have only recently begun to implement stringent
environmental practices on their properties
(Hütcche et al. 2002). In many cases, the building

22

Table 3.1 Environmental Impacts from Tourism on Coastal Habitats.
Coastal Habitats Environmental Impacts
Coral reefs • Physical damage to coral reefs and removal
of reef organisms beyond sustainable limits
• Increase in freshwater runoff and sediments
• Introduction of waterborne pollutants
Estuaries/ lagoons • Encroachment
• Changes in sedimentation patterns
• Changes to the salinity regime
• Introduction of waterborne pollutants
• Destruction of submerged and fringing
vegetation
• Loss of fishery habitat
Mangroves • Changes in freshwater runoff, salinity regime
and tidal flow patterns
• Excessive siltation
• Introduction of pollutants
• Conversion of mangrove habitat
• Overharvesting of resources
Seagrass beds • Physical alteration
• Excessive sedimentation or siltation
• Introduction of excessive nutrients or pesticides • Increasing runoff
Salt marshes • Degradation of bird habitat or seed fish
(tidal flats) collection sites
• Obstruction of stormwater runoff
Barrier beaches, • Erosion
sand dunes and • Dune migration
spits
Sources: Authors.
setback and waste management regulations are
not being followed and deterioration in beach
quality quickly ensues.
Figure 3.1 shows some of the most common impacts
from tourism activities on the coastal zone.
The potential environmental impacts from
tourism on coastal habitats are listed in
Table 3.1.
23
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
Tourist activities that may cause impacts
• Walking or collecting souvenirs on reefs
• Overfishing to supply restaurants
• Land clearing for construction
• Freshwater influx from wastewater pipes from
poorly treated sewage and improper disposal
methods
• Land-filling for buildings
• Placement of structures on beach or in coastal
waters
• Freshwater runoff
• Recreational uses causing runoff,
sedimentation
• Harbor maintenance
• Site considerations
• Land-use modifications, causing increased
runoff, sedimentation, and pollution increases
from sewage, wastewater disposal
• Inlet modifications
• Wastewater and sewage from construction
activities
• Use as a tourist development site
• Same as for coral reefs and estuaries/
lagoons
• Boat anchoring
• Recreational activities
• Sewage and, wastewater discharge
• Discharging wastes
• Making physical alterations for tourist uses
• Altering tidal flats for development purposes
• Sand mining
• Use for construction purposes
• Disregarding setback regulations and
improper placement of coastal structures
• Removal of natural vegetation
Oil and gas exploration. Available data show
that there are 83 oil wells in the offshore areas
of the South China Sea within the Philippine
territory—56 wells in Northern Palawan, 20
in South Palawan, and 7 in the Reed Bank.
Commercial deposits of oil and gas have been
found in northwest Palawan. West Linapacan
is estimated to contain more than 100 million
barrels of recoverable crude oil. The Camago-
Malampaya offshore gas discovery is among
the major natural gas deposits of the country,
estimated to contain 2.5 to 3.2 trillion cubic feet
of recoverable gas (Balce and Pablico 1997).
This discovery of offshore commercial natural
gas resources provided the impetus for the
development of the Philippine gas industry.
Other offshore gas deposits have been
discovered in the Reed Bank and South Palawan.
Dangerous Grounds and Spratly Islands, which
are claimed in part by other nations as well as
the Philippines, share a common geology as the
Reed Band and North Palawan, suggesting that
potentially large petroleum reserves may also
be found in these areas.
Another major site for oil and gas exploration
activities in the last three decades is the Western
Sulu basin. This is a “frontier” (underexplored)
region with comparatively low drilling density
(11 wells within Philippine territorial waters; 10
wells offshore Sabah since 1970).
The main environmental impacts of oil and
gas include operational wastes, such as drilling
fluids and drilling muds; drainage; leaks from
offshore pipelines; and oil spills. Noise and other
kinds of disturbance from offshore oil and gas
operations may also affect marine mammals.
Box 3.1 Decades of Mining Destroyed
an Island Paradise.
Marcopper began mining copper on Marinduque
Island in the Philippines four decades ago. It
dumped millions of tons of toxic mining waste into
Marinduque’s coastal waters and polluted its rivers.
As a result, local inhabitants have lost their health,
livelihoods and some even their lives. After a major
accident in 1996, the Philippine Government
closed down the mine.
Recent field investigations and a scientific survey
funded by Oxfam Australia’s Mining Ombudsman
revealed that—almost a decade after the mine has
been closed—a main river is still polluted from the
continuous runoff from the mine and old tailings
left behind. The high acid and metal levels in the
river are a hazard to humans and aquatic life.
Local health is strongly affected by skin diseases,
which local people blame on toxic mine waste.
Fishermen have lost limbs, which they believe is
the result of arsenic contamination. Stomach
complaints, dementia, and cancer are also
common. Local inhabitants have received little or
no rehabilitation of their environment, nor any
payment of compensation.

Minerals and mining. Sand and gravel mining

is a common activity in coastal areas. In many
cases, it leads to increased coastal erosion.
Land-based mining can cause significant
environmental impacts, many of which are
harmful to human health. Mine tailings disposal
has often been indiscriminate. Some tailings
have found their way into coastal waters. Improper Michael (only legs shown) and Jay. Michael has skin
impoundment of wastes and tailings may lead problems, which local people blame on the mine
waste pumped into Calancan Bay.
to disastrous accidents, such as the case of
Photo: David Sproule/Oxfam Australia.
massive toxic spills from Marcopper in
Source: Adapted from full case study, which is available at:
Marinduque. It was estimated that the amount http://www.oxfam.org.au.
of lost income due to the accident, and from
coastal fishing alone, was PhP 9.2 million in
1996 (Box 3.1) (Bennagen 1998).

24
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

While the exploitation of land-based metallic

Figure 3.2 Volume of Exports and Imports of
and nonmetallic mineral deposits is a major Fish and Fishery Products, 1997–2004 (MT).
contributor to the country’s economy, the
potential of mining marine mineral resources in
Philippine offshore areas has received little
attention. As technological advances in ocean
mining develop, ocean floor minerals will
probably be explored as possible alternative sites
for future mineral exploitation. Polymetallic
sulfides and manganese deposits are among
the potential mineral resources from the ocean
floor. Based on knowledge of tectonic
environments favorable to the formation,
accumulation, and preservation of polymetallic Sources: BAS: Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines. 1997-2001;
sulfides, the marginal basins around the 2001-2004.

Philippines are promising exploration grounds

(Yumul 1993). Sulfide deposits contain copper, Figure 3.3 Value of Exports and Imports of Fish
lead, zinc, silver, gold, and possibly other and Fishery Products, 1997–2004 (1´000 PhP).
alloys. The Scarborough Seamount Chain
Plateau offshore of northeastern Luzon, and the
Cagayan de Sulu Ridge in the Sulu Basin, are
likely sites for these sulfide deposits. For
manganese nodules, only the West Philippine
Basin appears to be a good target site.

The potential environmental impacts of

marine mining include pollution from waste
and mine tailings, increased water turbidity
(cloudiness in water), and debris and sediments
that may have an effect on local marine life.
Removal of sand from the sea floor can cause
severe erosion and loss of marine habitat; such
alterations may also cause a change in wave
regime that could affect coastal erosion. Noise
and other kinds of disturbances from operations
may also affect marine mammals.
Population growth and fish consumption. Fishery
exports were about 173,887 MT in 1997 and
196,087 MT in 2004, valued at PhP 16 billion ($327
million) and PhP 27 billion ($543 million)
respectively. Over a period of seven years, volume
grew by an average of 3 percent, while the value
of fish exports grew on average 9 percent. Over
Sources: BAS: Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines. 1997-2001;
2001-2004.
the same period, the volume of imports decreased
by an average of 5 percent (Figures 3.2 and 3.3).
During the past two decades, the annual
population increase in the Philippines has been
about 2.2 percent per year. Fish consumption
in the Philippines is about 28.5 kilograms
per capita per year (Barut et al. 2004). The
increased demand for fish by a rapidly growing
population, and increasing exports due to
increasing fish prices, have substantially
increased the pressure on marine fishery

25
resources over the past two decades. Table 3.2 the inherent differences in resource and
illustrates a projection, which assumes that technology characteristics.
average fish consumption continues to be 28.5
kilograms per capita per year. Table 3.2 Projected Population and Fish
Consumption Levels, 1995–2020.
Without any change in fish consumption and YEAR Population level Fish consumption
no active human population management (millions) (million metric tons)
program, domestic demand for fish will reach 1995 68,4 1,9
3.2 billion kilograms (3.2 million MT) by 2020, 2000 76,5 2,2
given the projected population growth rate of 2005 85,2 2,4
the country. 2010 93,9 2,7
2015 102,8 2,9
If increased demand is met solely by marine 2020 111,6 3,2
capture fisheries, such increased pressure on
Source: Authors.
the fisheries sector could lead to an eventual
collapse of fisheries and the fishing industry. As illustrated in Figure 3.4, the average increase
in total catch between 1989 and 2003 was 2.9
As mentioned in Chapter 2, declining CPUE percent per year, with the fasted increases in
is an indication of overexploitation. When we Vietnam (5.8 percent) and Indonesia (4.6 percent)
compare the Philippines and five other and the slowest in the Philippines (1.6 percent)
countries in the region (Figure 3.4 on previous and Thailand (1 percent).
page), the result seems to confirm this trend,
even though comparing fisheries indicators The relatively small increase in Philippine
among countries is problematic because of landings indicates that the fisheries resource is
Figure 3.4 Total Catch, 1989–2003 (MT).

4,500,000
4.500
4.000
4,000,000
3.500
3,500,000
Catch (x106 tons)

3.000
3,000,000
2.500
2,500,000
2.000
2,000,000
1.500
1,500,000
1,000
1,000,000
0.500
0
500,000
0
1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003
1994

India
India Indones ia
Indonesia Malays ia
Malaysia
Philippines
Philippines Thailand
Thailand V ietnam
Vietnam
Source: FAO Fishstats.

26

more heavily exploited than elsewhere. An
analysis of mullet, grouper, and bream landings
(the part of the fish catch that is brought ashore)
is particularly worrying. Figure 3.5 illustrates
the change in landings of these fish, which
represent important target species over the last
three decades.
Because marine capture fisheries are over-
exploited, the growing demand for fish
will eventually have to be met by an increase
in aquaculture production. Costs to the
environment, however, will have to be taken
into account. Environmentally friendly aquaculture
is possible with adequate planning, investment,
and consideration of potential impacts and
mitigation on vulnerable coastal mangrove and
reef ecosystems.
Climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that
(a) atmospheric greenhouse gases have increased;
(b) the average surface temperature of the earth
has increased since 1861 by about 0.6 degrees
Celsius; (c) global average sea level have risen
between 0.1 and 0.2 meters; and (d) rainfall has
increased by 0.2 to 0.3 percent per decade over
the tropical land areas.
Potential impacts of climate change on coastal
areas are summarized in Box 3.2.
The density of fish traps in parts of Manila Bay is a lot
higher than the fish remaining.
Photo: Alan White.
27
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
Figure 3.5 Change in Landings, Philippines vs.
Benchmark, 1970-2003.
600
P hilippines
Change in landing quantity (%)
500 B enchma rk
400
300
200
100
0
Mullet G rouper B rea m
Note: Figure shows average landings between 1970–1975 and
1998–2003; Benchmark is composite, Mullet (Indonesia, Malaysia,
Thailand), Grouper (Indonesia, Malaysia), Bream (Indonesia,
Malaysia, Thailand).
Source: FAO Fishstats.
The potential influence of climate change and
sea-level rise on Philippine coastal areas and
resources is only now beginning to be studied.
Nevertheless, based on measurements over the
last 100 years and various projected global
scenarios, fairly good inferences can be made
about the possible impact of such changes on
Philippine coasts over the next 50 to 100 years.
Temperatures seem to be rising slightly all over
the Philippines and in the surrounding coastal
waters. The 1990s were the warmest decade in the
last century, and 1998 was the warmest year on
record in the Philippines. That year coincided
with the most extensive coral bleaching episode
ever observed on Philippine coral reefs; about 15
to 20 percent of the country’s living corals were
killed. Average air temperature in the Philippines
has risen by about 0.5 degrees Celsius since 1980.
This warming has been accompanied by a 6
percent average decline in annual rainfall over the
last century. This drying occurs primarily during
the December to February season (WWF 1999).
Sea level is monitored at Manila and Legaspi.
Time series show a small rise in relative sea level
 at the monitoring sites monitoring, but nonetheless
Box 3.2 Potential Impacts of Climate Change
and Sea-Level Rise on Coastal Systems. a small residual rise in sea level along the
Philippine coast remains that may be due to global
Climate change and a rise in sea-level can have a change and ocean warming.1
number of biophysical and related socio-economic
impacts on the Philippines.

Potential biophysical impacts:

• Increased coastal erosion.
• Inhibition of primary production processes.
• More extensive coastal inundation.
• Higher storm-surge flooding.
• Landward intrusion of seawater in estuaries
and aquifers.
• Changes in surface water quality and
groundwater characteristics.
• Changes in the distribution of pathogenic
microorganisms.
• Higher sea-surface temperature.
Manila lies in a low-lying flood plain and tidal swamp
Potential socio-economic impacts: area that is extremely vulnerable to rises in sea level.
• Increased loss of property and coastal habitats. Photo: Ipat Luna.
• Increased flood risk and potential loss of life.
• Damage to coastal protection works and other A relative rise in sea-level, regardless of its
infrastructure. cause, has a real effect on the coastal area as it
• Increased disease risk. causes inundation of low-lying areas. Several
• Loss of renewable and subsistence resources.
studies have shown the vulnerability of the
• Loss of tourism, recreation, and transportation
Philippine coasts to a relative change in sea level
functions.
• Impacts on agriculture and aquaculture through and erosion forces on beaches. Most studies
decline in soil and water quality. have focused on the Manila Bay area because
Manila lies in a low-lying flood plain and tidal
Source: IPCC Third Assessment Report, 2001.
swamp area that is extremely vulnerable to
rises in sea level. Based on different sea level
before the 1960s, and a more rapid increase of projections, the amount of land that would be
between 20 (Legaspi) and 40 centimeters (Manila) inundated with water along the Manila Bay
up to the present day. Other measures of relative shoreline (See Table 3.3.).
sea level, using localized tide gauges in Cebu and
Jolo, indicate a relative fall in sea level at rates of Manila is clearly vulnerable to a rise in sea-level.
a few millimeters per year, but the tide gauge in This is made worse by the subsidence of portions
Manila Bay again registers a rise in relative sea of the coastline. The most probable scenario by
level of 2 centimeters per year between 1963 and
1980. In the adjacent delta region, an average of 3
centimeters per year was documented on the basis 1 The IPCC Third Assessment Report states: “sea-level rise
of the emergence of groundwater in well pipes is regarded as one of the more certain outcomes of global
and tidal flooding. Most of this relative change in warming and already is taking place. Over the past 100 years,
global sea level has risen by an average of 1-2 millimeters
sea level is due to excessive land reclamation, per year, and scientists anticipate that this rate will accelerate
groundwater withdrawal, and possible subsidence during the next few decades and into the 22nd century.”

28
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

2100 of a 1-meter rise in sea level would affect In summary, climate change and sea-level rise
approximately 2.3 million people living in the could have major impacts on Philippine marine
coastal area in Manila (based on population and coastal resources.
projections for 2025).
To prevent or mitigate these various changes
Table 3.3 Endangered Area of Land along the and impacts, climate change responses and
Manila Bay Coast in Different Projected Sea-Level measures—such as the implementation of
Rise Scenarios for 2100. setback regulations, appropriate land planning
Sea level rise scenario Area to be inundated in coastal areas, and the strengthening of coral
(meter) (hectares)
reef management to enhance the natural
0.3 2090 resilience of coral reef communities—need to
1.0 5555 be part of ICRM schemes and strategies. In
2.0 8905 addition, more studies on mitigation and
Source: Perez et al. 1999. adaptation to climate change in coastal areas
are needed.
The vulnerability of other coastal areas of the
Philippines will depend on the actual rise in sea
level as a result of global changes in temperature,
glacial ice melting, and other factors, including
shoreline topography and elevation. Most major
Philippine cities—such as Dapitan, in Lingayen
Gulf, parts of Davao City, and reclaimed portions
of Cebu City among others—are situated on
relatively low-lying areas.

Projected possible increases in storm frequency

and strength due to global warming will also
affect coastal areas with flooding from extreme
high tides, mud slides, and increased erosion
rates. Although data on changes in storm patterns
is still preliminary, even assuming the status quo
it is clear that higher tides combined with regular
typhoon-strength storms will yearly cause
significant damage along the coasts that are
exposed to such storms. Such damage can only be
mitigated with preventive planning along
shoreline areas and the implementation of building
and development setbacks along beaches and all
low-lying shorelines.

Climate change would also strongly affect coral
reefs through a changing marine biochemistry. As
the ocean warms, its capacity to dissolve carbon
dioxide could decrease by 14 to 30 percent, leading
to a decrease in biological carbonate formation
that is essential for reef building (Hardy 2003).
Aeta mother and her children in Northern Luzon.
The Aetas live at the coast part of the year, where they
fish and collect shellfish. Climate change will likely have
a strong impact on these poor communities, worsening
their already tenuous situation.
Photo: Finn Danielsen.

29
4. COASTAL AND MARINE RESOURCES AND LOCAL LIVELIHOODS
SOCIAL ISSUES. About 1 million coastal
residents and their families—about 5 percent of
the nation’s labor force—earn a living directly
from fisheries (Barut et al. 2004). Of the total
number of individuals who rely on fish for
their livelihood, 69 percent are municipal
fisherfolk, 25 percent are engaged in aquaculture,
and the remaining 6 percent are involved in
commercial fisheries (Box 4.1).
In many coastal communities, the majority of
households depend directly on fish and other
coastal resources for their livelihood. Several of
the important fishing bays often have mor
than 70 fisherfolk per kilometer of coastline. Such
areas include Manila Bay, Carigara Bay, and San
Miguel Bay.
Municipal fisherfolk are among the poorest in
Philippine society, with an annual average
household income of PhP 70,000 ($1,400), which
is about half the national average of PhP 144,000
($2,820). Other studies report even lower levels
of income among fisherfolk. In Palawan, for
example, fisherfolk households have an average
net income of no more than PhP 2,000 ($40)
per month, or PhP 24,000 ($480) per year (Rivera-
Guieb and Jarabejo 2001).
Among fishing families, household sizes are
generally larger than the national average and a
greater proportion of their income is spent
on food. The level of education of fisherfolk
household heads is lower than average. In
terms of access to basic services, fisherfolk
households have lower rates of access.
Within the coastal zone, near-shore fisheries
are the most heavily exploited. An increasing
number of small fisher families compete with
each other, as well as with commercial fishermen
(Box 4.2) for fishery resources that have
experienced serious declines in productivity in
the last 10 to 15 years.
30
Box 4.1 Employment and Food Security.
A multitude of stakeholders depend on fisheries,
including municipal and commercial fisherpeople,
canneries, fish markets, and various industries. In
terms of employment, the sector annually generates
an average of PhP 4,000 ($80) per household
per month, or over PhP 62 billion ($1.24 billion)
worth of employment per year.
As a source of food, fish is indispensable; other
natural animal or vegetable protein sources are
poor substitutes in terms of nutrition and cost. Fish
provides protein, essential fatty acids, and vitamins
A, B-1, B-2, B-12, and D. It is also a source of
minerals such as calcium, phosphorus, magnesium,
and iron, as well as trace elements and
micronutrients like iodine and zinc.
In the Philippines, fish remains a major component
of the diet, accounting for over 50 percent of the
total animal protein consumed in the country. At
present, an average of 28.5 kilograms of fish per
person per year is consumed in the Philippines.
But with the population increasing and marine
capture fisheries remaining steady, the future does
not look good for the food security of the country,
particularly for low-income families.
Sources: Green et al. (2003); Kurien (2002); and ADB (2001).
The average annual catch of a municipal
fisherperson today has probably decreased to less
than 30 percent of 1991 levels. It is thus not
surprising that coastal communities are among
the most impoverished in the country, with the
poor fisherfolk, in most cases, suffering the dire
effects of deteriorating fishery yields.
Poverty among fisherfolk is exacerbated by
high losses and spoilage due to improper
handling of fish catch, possibly affecting as
much as 25 to 30 percent of total catch. There is
an even higher level of discards, possibly 40
percent of all marine landings, due to the lack
of a post-harvest infrastructure in many areas
of the country. Inadequate cold storage and
poor roads contribute to inefficient marketing

Small fish traps in Dumaguete. These traps are often
used in sea-grass beds to catch rabbit fish.
Photo: Alan White.
and a reduction in the value of fish. Estimates
have shown that saving post-harvest losses may
even wipe out the fish supply deficiency of the
country, allowing self-sufficiency to be attained
(Mendoza 2004).
Understanding and taking into account food
security and poverty alleviation for fisherfolk
households is crucial to the success of any coastal
resources and fisheries management program.
Because of the link between resource
management and poverty, coastal management
strategies could benefit from addressing
poverty issues through a dual objective:
(1) enabling the recovery of the local resource
base, and (2) promoting economic development
activities that will either compensate for a reduced
level of extraction of a particular resource or
produce parallel incomes through the rational
utilization of other resources.
Gender and coastal resources management.
Traditionally, women and men fulfill different
roles in the management of marine and coastal
resources. Women, for example, with the
exception of coastal communities in Davao
where they join their husbands on fishing
expeditions (Siason 2004)—tend to have
little direct involvement in fish capture.
31
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
2004
Box 4.2 Conflicts Among Fisherfolk.
Commercial (35 percent) and municipal (29
percent) fish production on average account for an
almost equal share of production in terms of
volume. This is, however, a far cry from the
production figures of the 1950s, when 70 percent
of the country’s fish supplies came from municipal
fisherfolk.
Furthermore, of the seven top species caught
by both sectors, 67 percent are harvested by
commercial fishing companies, while only 33
percent are caught by municipal fisherfolk.
Although these are two distinct sectors, they are
in fact competing directly with each other. With
weak law enforcement, a further expansion of
commercial fisheries could mean the decline of
municipal fisheries.
Despite evidence of overcapacity in the commercial
fishing fleet, the country is still encouraging
investments in the industry, as shown by the
increase in total tonnage of the commercial fishing
fleet over the years. The fleet’s total tonnage
increased from 150,260 tons in 1988 to 270,281
tons in 2000—almost a 70 percent increase.
Within the commercial fishing sector itself, there
are questionable policies in place. The delineation
of municipal waters that extend up to 15 kilometers
from the shoreline has actually worked against a
substantial number of small-scale commercial
fishing concerns, who make up the majority of
commercial fishing boats. Many of these are not
capable of operating beyond 15 km.
Furthermore, the most common commercial fishing
gear (trawl, ring net, and purse-seine) are unsuitable
for water depths found beyond 15 km.
All this, coupled with weak law enforcement, has
resulted in rampant encroachment of commercial
fishing concerns into municipal fishing grounds,
causing municipal fisherfolk to be further
marginalized.
Source: Authors.
 Box 4.3 Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous groups or ethnic minorities account for

more than 20 percent of the population. Many of
these groups live in coastal lowlands where they
practice agriculture, fish and shellfish gathering,
and trade in locally manufactured items.

The indigenous communities have strong

attachments to their land and resources; most see
themselves as the caretakers of their resources. To
varying degrees, these communities have
indigenous natural resources management regimes
in place within their territory.

To protect the rights and customary claims of
indigenous peoples, the concept of “ancestral
waters” has now been included in national
legislation. The term refers to all marine areas
exclusively and actually possessed, occupied, or
utilized by indigenous cultural communities by
themselves or through their ancestors in accordance
with their customs and traditions since time
immemorial, and as may be defined and delineated
by law.
The Tagbanwa People on Coron Island, Palawan
achieved their Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
(CADT) in 1998. Their ancestral domain was the
first to include both terrestrial and marine
components, and covers a total area of 22,284
hectares.
Under the IPRA Law (RA 7942), no ancestral land
or waters can be opened for mining operations
without the prior consent of the indigenous cultural
community concerned. In the event of an agreement
with an indigenous cultural community, the royalty
payment for the utilization of minerals must be
agreed upon by the parties and form part of a trust
fund for the socioeconomic well-being of the
indigenous cultural community.
Source: Authors.
Instead, they assist with maintaining gear,
process and sell the catch after the men return,
and, often together with their children, catch
small fish and fry in shallow waters or collect
edible shellfish for household consumption or
sale at local markets.
Aeta family collecting shellfish during the rainy season
on a coast in Northern Luzon (See box 4.3).
Photo: Finn Danielsen.
Despite their lack of involvement in the direct
catch of fish, studies of coastal communities
show that women are important stakeholders in
coastal resources management. Women are
naturally responsible in the values formation
and transformation of the family, and thus can
be effective in education and advocacy and
influence decisions. In addition, many of the
LGU officials in the MAO, MENRO, and LGU
extension offices are women, who play very
critical roles in CRM implementation. Many
CRM champion Mayors or local legislators are
also women.
Future support for local livelihood
improvement and CRM could benefit from
incorporating gender concerns into the planning
and design of activities; currently, few projects
include a gender dimension. Training for
entrepreneurship would be a priority, as
women already are involved in small-scale
trading activities.
In addition to taking gender into account, it is
also important to involve the local youth, an
example of which is described in Box 4.4. Box 4.5
provides examples of successful community-
based ecotourism.

32
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
2004

Box 4.4 Involving Young People in Coastal Resource Management.

The Port Barton Marine Park, set up in 1997 and 1998 with help of the local community, is now regarded as a
model for marine conservation in Palawan. Each year, tourists from all over the world, drawn by the area’s
natural attractions, visit Port Barton. Apart from the white sand beach on the main cove of the village, there are
coral reefs and unpolluted beaches in the outlying islands, two waterfalls, and a forest that remains heavily
wooded despite years of intensive logging.

Through the marine park initiative, the local community is

increasingly involved in protecting its marine resources,
and the local youth organization also pitches in. “We
organize coastal cleanup activities and help in waste
management,” says Marvin Ballesteros, chairman of Port
Barton’s youth council.

The mayor is banking on the young people of his town.

“We must show and teach them the importance of our
environment, and that they are responsible for its
protection.”
Barangay Captain Romeo Garganta Sr., shown
Barangay Captain Romeo Garganta Sr., (see image), says
with youth leader Marvin Ballesteros (right) and
he wants the Port Barton Marine Park to succeed. “We
Boatmen’s Association chairman Wilfredo Ruiz.
know it will be good for the community,” he says.
Source: Authors.

Port Barton is also the site of an LGU-led Barangay

Environmental Sanitation project, which is supported by the
World Bank. The project seeks to preserve the water quality of the beaches from domestic sewage and other
household wastes.
Source: Over Seas, The Online Magazine for Sustainable Seas, January 2000, Vol.3, No. 1.

Opportunities and lessons learned: Improving • Good quality technical assistance is

local livelihoods. A number of programs in
recent years have sought to improve the
livelihoods of fishing families in coastal
communities. Some of the main lessons from
these livelihood programs are:
fundamental to the identification and
creation of economically viable enterprises
at a micro level. The technical assistance
should be attuned to and familiar with the
capabilities of the recipients.

• The design of livelihood improvement • A credit element is important, as productive

activities needs to be based on a strong
participatory process with a thorough
understanding of the many social and
economic factors at play. Participation of
women and community youth in the
process is vital for long-term sustainability.
• Livelihood improvement activities need
to involve a community organization. Capacity
building and organizational strengthening
are also important elements.
enterprises in agriculture, fisheries, and
aquaculture normally entail relatively high
start-up costs. Poor fisherfolk organizations
often lack the collateral needed to receive
credit, so different options should be assessed,
including savings-and-credit, revolving
funds, and village banks.
• It is important to have a coherent land use
plan and coastal waters zoning. In recent
years, mariculture enterprises have become

33
 one of the most viable and attractive
income-generating activities in coastal
municipalities. Experiences in Lingayen
Gulf, Taal Lake, and Bolinao, however,
point to the fact that mariculture viability
runs the risk of being threatened irreversibly
by unmanaged growth of investments.
Defining the extent of mariculture areas
and putting management control mechanisms
in place to check overcrowding and
environmentally unsustainable operations
should be part of the underlying framework
for mariculture micro-enterprise development.
• Proactive efforts are needed to demonstrate
the link between income-generating options
and conservation. The sustainability of
popular participation in natural resource
management initiatives is largely influenced
by the economic benefits derived from the
Box 4.5 Successful Community-Based Coastal Tourism Experiences.
Olango Island
Olango Island Wildlife Sanctuary, situated 5.5
kilometers east of Mactan Island near Cebu, is a
protected wetland of international importance because
of its high number of migratory bird species. With the
assistance of the Coastal Resource Management
Project (CRMP) of DENR, Olango Island Bird and
Seascape Tour was developed in 1997 as a
community-based tourism project that provides
alternative livelihoods for island residents.
Tubbataha Reef
One of the best destinations for scuba diving in the
country, the famous Tubbataha Reef National Marine
Park, is a World Heritage Site. Attracting international
markets, Tubbataha generated around PhP 3 million
($60,000) in fees and permits in 2005 during its
three-month dive season. Alongside protection efforts,
affected communities are provided with seed funding
for local livelihoods and training on coastal resource
management.
Donsol Whale Shark Encounters
Whale sharks are the largest fish in the world and
grow up to 20m long. Congregating in the coastal
34
efforts to protect and conserve forest and
coastal habitats and resources. Community
stewardship of mangroves and coral reef
areas, river estuaries, and artificial reef
complexes can thus be associated with
livelihood opportunities such as agro-
orestry, fruit processing, mud crab culture,
seaweed farming, milkfish culture in
cages, and ecotourism. The economic viability
of such projects will depend on the healthy
condition of habitats that serve as infrastructure
for these economic activities.
• A need for public sector investments in
support facilities such as seedling propagation
and certification facilities, fish nurseries,
brood stock, and feed development.
In terms of the economic improvement of
coastal communities, it is important to move
beyond the development of traditional small-
waters of Donsol in Sorsogon, whale sharks are
threatened because of the strong demand for their
meat and fins. Ecotourism activities in Donsol have
created an awareness of whale shark conservation
among the local community and contributed to a
national conservation strategy. (See also Box 2.3.)
Bais Dolphin and Whale Watching Tours
The Bais dolphin and whale watching tours organized
by Bais City LGU in the Tañon Strait have successfully
brought revenue to local communities. In 2000, the
operation handled a total of nearly 7,000 tourists,
including 251 foreigners. Gross revenue in 2000 was
PhP 1.8 million ($36,000).
El Nido Resorts
Large-scale resort developments that adhere to
principles of ecotourism can be an effective and
sustainable means of providing continuous benefits to
the community. The El Nido Foundation helps local
communities develop a variety of business and
development opportunities.
Source: Over Seas, The Online Magazine for Sustainable Seas,
January 2000, Vol.3, No. 1.

scale “alternative livelihoods” and attempt to
expand proven livelihood projects into micro-
enterprises that are capable of bringing the
profit margins and employment potential up to
higher economic levels.
One approach is the development of
entrepreneurial businesses with better technical
systems that aim for more stable and bigger
returns. Noteworthy examples of such an
enterprise process are Mountain Fresh jams and
jellies of the Ikalahans; the Olango Seascape
Tour (see Box 4.5); sardine production in San
Vicente, Palawan; the milkfish cage culture
industry in the shallow areas of the open sea;
and seaweed farming.
The key success factors behind such micro-
enterprises were the availability of a lucrative
and firm market and the assistance of experienced
and competent institutions and project
implementers brokering with the private sector.
From these tie-ins, post-harvest and product
distribution networks emanated, stepping
production up to a higher gear and more
competitive market standards.
The objectives of any potential livelihood/
microenterprise program could be along the
following lines:
• To provide opportunities for more stable
incomes and a wider range of benefits
among members of the recipient organization
and other members of the community
who will eventually benefit from the
expansion of the enterprise;
• To intensify popular participation in
natural resource management by showing
that significant economic benefits can be
derived when resources and habitats are
conserved and protected;
• To develop a broad support base for
upland and coastal zoning systems and
the management of protected areas.
35
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
2004
From a microenterprise development
perspective, we need to look at the following
essential ingredients when preparing and
implementing coastal microenterprise projects:
1. Economic viability and potential for business
expansion
• Product marketability and demand
• Project site suitability and access to cash
economy
• Production costs and profit margin
• Potential for expanding production
• Income stability
• Potential for tie-ins with other funding
windows and private business
2. Credit assessment
• Capacity to manage business
• Organization’s collective will and
confidence
• Overall track record
3. Impact and correlation with wise coastal
management practices
• Presence of successful coastal management
initiatives such as Marine Protected Areas
and mangrove reforestation projects
• Firmness of institutional commitment
to Coastal Resources Management
4. Counterpart funding from other institutions
• Microenterprise acceptability to other
funding institutions to be tapped
• “Buy-in” by other institutional services/
donors
5. The People’s Organization as micro-enterprise
development cooperator and recipient
• Organizations of fisherfolk that are
actively and consistently participating
in coastal resources management and
protection could be the focus of
livelihood development assistance
 6. Business Plan
• The management of microenterprise
development could be based on a business
plan developed from proactive and
thorough planning sessions with the
community.

Box 4.6 provides an example of a successful

small-scale enterprise established by a woman,
and Table 4.1 provides some potential
microenterprise options that could help
improve livelihoods in poor coastal communities.
Seaweed farming near Olango Island, Cebu provides a Several of these options are well-suited to
steady income to island residents. women and young people.
Photo: Alan White.

Box 4.6 Seaweed Farming in Port Barton, Palawan.

One seaweed farmer, Florencia Alimodin, has shown a tenacity that promises well for the future of Port Barton.
A single mother with two school-age children, Alimodin set up her farm with help from the Coastal Resource
Management Project in 1998. She toiled under the sun for months, only to see a strong typhoon wipe out all her
efforts. Undeterred, she started over. “The others in my group lost interest, but the thought of giving up never
occurred to me, even when I had to use my own money to start up a new farm,” she says. Today, her seaweed
farm serves as a model for the rest of her community.

Seaweed farming offers an economically promising alternative source of income that is also environmentally sound.

Wilfredo Ruiz, chairman of the boatmen’s association, had their group accredited last year so they could obtain
government financing for seaweed farming. He explains, “The tourist season and therefore our boat operations
last only four months each year (November-February). Seaweed farming will allow us to earn income during the
off-season. We are also told it will not harm the marine environment, which is important to us who depend on
tourism, because it is our marine ecological destinations that the tourists come to Port Barton for.”
Sources: Over Seas, The Online Magazine for Sustainable Seas, January 2000, Vol.3, No. 1; Authors.

36

Table 4.1 Micro-enterprise Options for Livelihood Improvements in Poor Coastal Communities.
Livelihood Option Advantages
Community-based • Local control spreads the
ecotourism wealth from tourism
• Communities become active
participants instead of
tourism objects
Non-marine based • Can be long lasting
crafts/ souvenirs • Lucrative and rewarding to
(wooden shells, T- pride of workmanship
shirts, mats, • Can raise awareness of
carving, artwork, marine conservation/
food, etc.) advocacy for conservation,
protection, sustainable
development
Fish cage culture • Income may be expected
within 6 months
• Capital investment may be
low
• Technology may be simple
and ecologically sound
• Potential for live market
Seaweed culture • Short growth cycle
• Seed for next cycle can be
gathered from harvest
• Enhances local fish resources
Mud crab fattening • High market price
• Short cycle
Fermented fish • Increases shelf life
processing • Makes use of local materials
• Value-added product
• Good for home consumption
Drying/salting of • Reduces perishability
fish • Good fish processing
alternative during peak
season of fish catch
• Also good for home
consumption
Source: Authors.
Disadvantages
• Tourists bring garbage
• Tourists may not be culturally
sensitive or may have a
negative cultural impact
• Needs strong link-up with
travel and transport groups,
DOT, LGU
• Needs training, skills, and
dedication
• Needs market
• Can overexploit certain
resources (e.g., wood)
• Grazing by fish may be high
• Market may demand high
quality
• Some buyers only take large
lots
• Fluctuating price of some
species
• Boat anchoring
• Recreational activities
• Increasing runoff
• Sewage and, wastewater
discharge
• Collecting stock may deplete • Brackish water site
supply
• Difficult to find stable sources • Stable supply of crablets
of crablets
• Availability of feed
• Seasonal
• May promote an
unsustainable fishery
37
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
2004
Requirements
• Site: natural attraction (reef,
forest, wildlife); good
transportation and
accommodation facilities;
clean, modern sanitary
facilities; clean drinking
water
• Skills for making a craft
• Good ideas
• Capital to buy materials
• Training
• Tourist or local market
available
• Quality Control
• Appropriate conditions
(protected cove) in site
selection
• Brackish water for some
species
• Tenure/access rights to area
• Availability of feeds
• Knowledge and skills in
managing project
• Good water flow
• Brackish to full seawater
• No history of disease in site
• Muddy bottom or cages
• Quality control
• Processing plant or kitchen
• Storage facility
• Skilled labor
• Hygienic environment
• Knowledge/skills in drying/
salting
• Constant supply of fish
5. LEGISLATION, POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS AND
LEGISLATION AND INSTITUTIONS. The basic
framework for coastal management can be
found in already existing national laws and
regulations. The 1987 Constitution provides
for the right to a balanced and healthy ecology
and specifically mandates the Philippine
government to conserve the nation’s marine
wealth. Statutes and regulations concerning
coastal management have existed for decades.
They clearly demonstrate, however, the lack of
a single law or administrative decree directly
related to integrated coastal management.
Under current legislation, sectors and activities
affecting the coastal environment are regulated
through fragmented legislative mandates.
Box 5.1 describes this current framework for
coastal management. In total, more than 20
government units exercise separate management
powers and mandates over coastal uses and
sectors. Other government bodies also serve as
advisory and recommendatory councils.
The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) protects the environmental
integrity of Philippine territorial waters, which
comprise 220 million hectares and include the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The DENR
has the specific mandate to manage mangroves
and associated terrestrial and aquatic flora and
fauna within the marine zone.
The 1991 Local Government Code provided
local government units (LGUs) with broad
governmental powers to manage fisheries
and aquatic resources within municipal
waters. Municipal waters were defined as the
15-kilometer area of marine water stretching
out from the general coastline. The term also
includes streams, lakes, inland bodies of
water and tidal waters within the municipality,
public forest, timber lands, forest reserves, and
fishery reserves. Municipalities and cities serve
as the primary unit of governance for coastal
management in the Philippines. Through the
devolution of powers, LGUs possess broad
38
COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Box 5.1 Legislative Framework.
The 1991 Local Government Code (RA 7160)
provides local government units (LGUs) with broad
governmental powers to manage fisheries and
aquatic resources within municipal waters.
The 1998 Fisheries Code (RA 8550) is the primary
legislation for fisheries management.
The 2004 Clean Water Act (RA 9275) aims to
protect the country’s water bodies from pollution.
The 2001 Wildlife Conservation Act (RA 9147)
governs the conservation and protection of wildlife
species and critical habitats.
The 1997 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (RA
7942) recognizes the concept of ancestral waters.
Other legislation: Public Land Act, Coast Guard
Law, Marine Pollution Decree, Philippine Mining
Act, Philippine Environment Code, and Forestry
Reform Code.
International Treaties: Convention on Biological
Diversity, Agenda 21, RAMSAR, UNCLOS, CITES,
FAO Code of Conduct for Fisheries, Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety, and The Bonn Convention.
Source: Authors.
governmental powers, especially in the
delivery of basic services—including the duty to
protect and manage the coastal and marine
environments, to impose local fishery revenues
and taxes, to delineate their municipal waters,
and to allocate the use of resources within
municipal waters (Box 5.2). The national
government is mandated to consult with the
local government units in their responsibility
to manage and maintain ecological balance
within their territorial jurisdiction.
The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
(BFAR), an attached agency of the Department
of Agriculture (DA), under the Fisheries Code
exercises general jurisdiction over all waters
outside of the municipal waters, all commercial
 2004
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

lack of collaboration between institutions with a

Box 5.2 The fight of San Fernando City
La Union to eliminate illegal fishing.
The City of San Fernando promulgated a Fishing
Ordinance in support of the Fisheries Code (R.A.
8550) by creating several Barangay Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources Management Councils
(FARMC).
They conduct seminars on relevant rules and
regulations, organize a Bantay Dagat (Sea Watch)
and deputize fish wardens to assist the Philippine
National Police Maritime on the enforcement of
laws on illegal fishing. Coastal governments
adopted a color-number coding scheme for the
fishing equipment of their residents which facilitated
identification of non-resident fishermen in coastal
barangay waters. Non-resident fishermen are to
have a fishing permit, license, and a fishing gear
permit before they could fish in specific barangay
waters.
The barangay units provide support by patrolling,
apprehending, filing and prosecuting violators.
Barangays Lingsat, Carlatan, Dalumpinas Oeste,
and Pagdaraoan have made enormous strides in
enforcing the Fisheries Code and the City Fishing
Ordinance and apprehend violators in cooperation
with the Philippine Coast Guard and Philippine
Marines.
Source: Authors.
mandate for management of marine and coastal
resources. Furthermore, planning units and
management boundaries tend to follow
territorial jurisdictions instead of ecological and
natural limits.
Lack of viable fisheries management mechanisms.
At present, no clear fisheries management
processes are implemented in coordination with
national government agencies, local government
units, the municipal and commercial fisheries
sector, and other key stakeholders. There is also a
need for reorientation among all stakeholders from
the traditional “open access” approach toward
more regulated access, considering the dwindling
resources that may collapse very soon without
appropriate intervention from the government.
Issues concerning licensing are described in Boxes
5.3 and 5.4.
Lack of institutional and local capacities for coastal
management. Capacity of national agencies and
LGUs to manage coastal environments and
resources is limited. They require technical
guidance, budgets, personnel, training,
monitoring, and other technical support in
order to attain coastal management objectives.

fishing boats greater than 3 gross tons and

shoreland aquaculture areas covered by fishpond
lease agreements (FLAs).

Several key issues regarding institutional

arrangements and responsibilities for the
implementation of coastal and fisheries
legislation are described below.

Weak institutional integration. There is a need

for an integrated approach that considers both
land-based activities—such as deforestation, Local government officials determining their municipal
industrialization, and urbanization—as well as boundary to formalize their municipal water jurisdictional
area.
direct impacts of coastal resource uses, such as
Photo: Alan White.
fishing, aquaculture, and ecotourism. There is a

39

Box 5.3 Licensing in the
Commercial Fishing Sector.
High biodiversity presents a challenge in managing
the fisheries sector: the more species, the more
complicated the management and research
requirements. With the exception of tuna, for which
a Management Council has been formed and a
Tuna Management Plan has been drafted, the
current licensing scheme in the Philippines does not
distinguish among species and therefore does not
target optimal levels of harvest in both economic
and biophysical aspects. On the short term,
however, a non species-based license scheme may
be a more practical way of dealing with Philippine
fisheries considering the current state of enforcement
agencies in the country. The current licensing
system presents the following issues:
• Under-registration: Interviews with government
officials suggest that only about 25 to 30 percent
of operating fishing vessels are registered.
• Maximum of vessels: No limitations exist on the
total number of commercial vessels that can
register.
• Maximum of licenses: Currently no limit exists
on the total number of licenses as long as all
requirements are met.
• Classification: The current classification scheme
of commercial vs. municipal fishing vessels does
not seem to reflect actual capacity, creating
gaps in equity among fishers. There is a large
variation among fishing vessels in the one
tonnage category.
knowledge and information of communities
using all channels and methods could improve
local participation in the management of
marine and coastal resources. Increased
awareness would encourage local communities,
barangay groups, and local managers to
become effective coastal managers.
Ineffective enforcement of marine and coastal
laws. Philippine fisheries are now being fished
to their limit. Municipal fisheries production
is in steady decline due largely to illegal fishing
practices such as the use of fine mesh nets, dynamite
and cyanide fishing, and other destructive
methods, as well as waste pollution, illegal
conversion of mangrove forests, and improper
shoreline settlement. There are sufficient laws that
provide a policy and regulatory framework for
use, access, and allocation of resources, but law
enforcement has been ineffective.
Some of the major obstacles to effective law
enforcement include conflicting and ambiguous
policies caused by differing interpretations
of the law; confusion of jurisdictional roles
among authorized agencies and deputized local
enforcers; selective enforcement stemming
from political interference and discretionary
prosecution; minimal punishment of offenders;

• License fees: A common concern expressed by

various players is the low level of license fees for
commercial fishing charged by BFAR. Studies
showed that all sampled vessels were operating
profitably (with respect to both financial and
economic criteria) and had a direct proportion
to tonnage.
Sources: Luna, C. 2004, Mendoza 2004, REECS-Tetra Tech,
Inc. 2004.

Lack of institutional awareness and informed

stakeholders in coastal management. Education is A market operation to confiscate protected species at a
Cebu City market.
necessary to broaden support for coastal
Photo: Alan White.
management initiatives. Increasing the

40

lack of capacity for enforcement; and lack of
public awareness (Christie et al. 2005).
Unclear regulatory policies are often
counterproductive to full law enforcement.
Conflicting provisions are readily apparent in
Philippine fisheries laws. For example, Section
90 of the Fisheries Code bans the use of active
gear (gear that is moved through water, such
as trawl nets) within the 0-15 kilometer-zone of
municipal waters. Section 16 of the same Code,
however, provides that municipalities may,
through local ordinances, allow commercial
fishing using only passive gear (stationary gear,
such as gill nets and fish traps) within a 10.1-to-
15-kilometer area of the municipal waters (subject
to specific conditions).
Sector policies and plans. There are a number of
policies and plans for specific uses of marine and
coastal areas from both LGUs and national
government agencies, including DENR, BFAR,
DOT, and DOE. At the local government level,
there are possibly seven or more categories of
sectoral plans. The result has been uncoordinated
sector-level management, even within one
local government unit.
One such plan at the local government level is
the Local Development Plan, which contains
provisions on population, basic services,
education, health, labor, the economy, social
services, and housing. This is distinct from
Small fishing vessel in Luzon.
the Municipal/City or Integrated Fishery
Photo: Finn Danielsen.
Development Plan. Also at the local government
41
2004
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
Box 5.4 Licensing in the
Municipal Fishing Sector.
With respect to the municipal fisheries sector,
current national policies and legislation appear
sufficient to institute a fisheries licensing system at
the municipal level. Few coastal municipalities and
cities, however, have established a fisheries
licensing system. This is mainly due to a lack of
appreciation of coastal resources management,
lack of understanding of the urgency to regulate
fisheries, and the fear of antagonizing political
constituents in the coastal area.
Many local chief executives primarily consider
fisheries licensing as a revenue generating
instrument. Although this is a legitimate objective,
fisheries licensing should be linked to the overall
idea of fisheries management. A licensing system
should be able to generate information about
fishing effort and resource capacity, and regulate
access along with generating revenue.
Furthermore, many municipal fisheries are already
so depleted that any proposed fisheries licensing
system will start on the wrong track and will put the
long-term sustainability of fisheries resources at risk
if it is primarily established on the basis of revenue
generation. The existing municipal license fees do
not seem to be based on sound estimates. A number
of fisherfolk interviewed commented that some fees
are set too high.
Given the present open access status of most
municipal fisheries—where resource rents have
practically been totally dissipated—and the
variability of income, fisherfolk said they could
hardly pay the required fees. Some fisherfolk even
refuse to register and obtain a license because of
the perceived prohibitive fees.
The FISH Project has elaborated proposals and
models for licensing schemes in both commercial
and municipal sectors. Implementation of these
proposals could help solve many of these
problems.
Source: Authors.
level are Land Use Plans, which control the use
of all forms of property, as well as all business
activities and establishments within a given
local government territory. Comprehensive land
use plans (CLUPs) or zoning ordinances are
prepared by LGUs as part of their land use
planning and classification powers under the
Local Government Code.

Table 5.1 Major Sectoral Plans of Relevance to

Coastal and Marine Resources.
Sector Related Plans Agency
Local Local Development Plan LGU Bangus are often raised in floating fish cages in protected
Government Land Use Plan bays.
LGU
Photo: Alan White.
Coastal Resource LGU
Management Plan
Marine Sanctuary LGU Coastal Resource Management Plans are
Management Plan (Locally developed by some LGUs with the aim of
managed areas) incorporating CRM strategies into local
Agriculture Integrated Development Plans LGU development activities. Such efforts will remain
and for SAFDZs marginal if they are not integrated into the
Fisheries Comprehensive Agriculture DA development framework—local development
and Fisheries Modernization plans and land use plans—of all coastal LGUs.
Plan
These and other major plans of relevance to
Regional Fisheries DA-BFAR coastal and marine resources are listed in
Management Plan Regional
Offices
Table 5.1.
Tourism National Tourism Master Plan DOT Coastal resource management. The Philippines
Local Tourism Plan LGU has a relatively long history of marine protected
Energy Integrated Energy Plan DOE areas and other management instruments. The
Forestry Master Plan for Forestry DENR-FMB first MPA was created more than 30 years ago.
Development Today there are many experiences and lessons
Mining Mineral National Action Plan DENR- learned about the management of marine and
MGB coastal resources.
Water Clean Water Act DENR-EMB
resources NWRB The years have shown that the use of an
Climate Comprehensive Air Pollution DENR-EMB integrated management approach is often
Change Management and Control fraught with challenges. The diversity of issues
Program in coastal areas requires multi-sectoral
Air Quality Management Plan LGU collaboration, government commitment, and
Integrated Air Quality DENR endless resources, requirements that are often
Improvement Framework-Air lacking in the Philippines. Even in areas where
Quality Control Action Plan
external funding or projects are available,
Source: Authors. coastal resource management initiatives have
failed.

42

Nonetheless, some successful experiences,
including those at Bohol and the Gilutongan
Island and Apo Island Marine Sanctuaries,
have continued even after donor support came
to an end:
Bohol. The Bohol experience demonstrates how
local governments, led by the provincial
government, have been able to unite against
illegal fishing and how leadership can truly
make CRM happen.
Gilutongan Island Marine Sanctuary. This
sanctuary in the Municipality of Cordova, Cebu
shows how a local government unit emphasized
marine sanctuary management and allocated
a budget for the regular operations and
management of the sanctuary, reaping
considerable benefits from tourism. The results
were positive: Not only did the biophysical
conditions of the sanctuary improve, but
substantial revenues were generated by
collecting a user’s fee. The annual fees currently
amount to almost PhP 2 million ($40,000) with
70 percent going to the municipality and 30
percent to the barangay.
Apo Island Marine Sanctuary. This sanctuary in
Negros Oriental underscores the vital role of the
community in promoting sustainable resource
Gilutongan Island—Toti, the sanctuary manager signs
the management plan.
Photo: Alan White.
43
2004
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
use. Established in the early 1980s with the
guidance of Silliman University, the strong
participation of the community stakeholders
is evident in all aspects of management. Because
of its biological diversity, it was proclaimed as
a Protected Seascape and Landscape under
the National Integrated Protected Areas
System (NIPAS) law. A Protected Area
Management Board (PAMB), comprised mostly
of local representatives, currently oversees the
implementation of policies for the sanctuary,
including a user’s fee program.
The importance of well-managed MPAs
cannot be overemphasized in the conservation
and sustainable management of marine
biodiversity in the Philippines. The first MPA
in the country established as a fish sanctuary
was in 1974 on Sumilon Island, Cebu under
the guidance of the Silliman University Marine
Laboratory. Figure 5.1 provides a map of the
Sumilon Island marine reserve.
The Sumilon Island fish sanctuary is often
mentioned as the reason why coral reef fish
sanctuaries contribute to improved reef
fisheries management. The experiment in reef
management, which stopped all fishing on
Figure 5.1 Sumilon Island Marine Reserve
with Sanctuary and Traditional Use Area.
Source: Authors.
one part of the Sumilon Island reef for about
10 years, allowed researchers to collect
substantial data on the effects of this kind of
management of the coral reef and its related
fisheries. The benefits provided compelling
evidence for fish biomass spillover from the
sanctuary zone where no fishing is allowed
(the “no-take” areas). Such evidence has
been important in convincing scientists, reef
managers, and fisherfolk that fish sanctuaries
improve reef fisheries while benefiting
fisherfolk in the area (Box 5.5).
Since 1974, many similar municipal marine fish
sanctuaries or MPAs have been established,
following the lead of Sumilon and the associated
Apo Island (Pajaro et al. 1999, White et al. 2002).
Other well-managed and documented MPAs
in terms of their benefits for fisheries and
tourism include Balicasag and Pamilacan
Islands, Bohol; Mabini, Batangas; and San
Salvador Island, Zambales (Christie et al. 1999,
Green et al. 2002, Kuperan et al. 1999, White et al.
1994, White 1988a,b, White 1989, White 1996).
These examples of MPAs have followed a
general model in which an area of a fringing
coral reef adjacent to an island or mainland is
set aside as a “no-take” or “sanctuary” zone.
The area outside of this no-take zone is called
a traditional fishing zone or, in international
terms, a buffer zone. Activities that do not
damage the coral reef in any way, such as
traditional fishing methods, are usually allowed
within the buffer zone. Within the no-take
sanctuary zone, entry is normally permitted
for swimming and diving although some

Box 5.5 Supporting Fisheries at Sumilon and Apo Islands.

Research carried out over the past 28 years at Sumilon Island, and the past 22 years at Apo Island in the Central
Visayas, has provided some of the most compelling evidence available worldwide for the usefulness of no-take
marine reserves as fisheries management tools:

Effects on fish biomass: Biomass of target fish (five fish families accounting for 92.3 percent of the fisheries
yield at Sumilon; four fish families accounting for 75.6 percent of the fisheries yield at Apo) increased threefold
inside the no-take reserves over nine years of no-take protection at Sumilon and by 4.6 times over 18 years of
no-take protection at Apo. Biomass of these fish did not increase outside each reserve.

Spillover of fish: Both large predatory fish and surgeonfish and jacks (accounting for 40-75 percent of the yield
at Apo) increased substantially (by factors of 17 and 3 respectively) inside the Apo reserve over 18 years of
protection. Outside the reserve, the biomass of these fish over time increased significantly at locations closer to
the reserve boundary (200-250m) compared to those further away (250-500m).

Effects on fisheries yields: At Sumilon, positive correlations were found between the number of years of reserve
protection and both targeted fish biomass in the reserve and catch outside the reserve, although the latter
relationship was not statistically significant. At Apo there was a strong positive relationship between number of
years of reserve protection and targeted fish biomass in the reserve, but not between number of years of reserve
protection and catch outside the reserve.

These results, plus spillover evidence, suggest that marine reserves may help maintain, or even enhance, local
fishery yields in the long term.
Sources: Alcala 1981 and 1988, Alcala and Russ 1990, 2000 and 2002, Alcala et al. 2005, Maypa et al. 2002, Russ and Alcala 1996 and
2003, Russ et al. 2003 and 2004, White et al. 2002.

44
 2004
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

managers prohibit any form of entry (White A pilot of the system was, among others, tested
1988a, b, White 1989, White and Vogt 2000). in former Coastal Resource Management Project
learning sites.
Recent studies have not only indicated the
beneficial effects of fish sanctuaries on fishery Table 5.2 Number of MPAs in the Philippines by
yields and coral reef protection, but also that Location and Legal Basis.
people participating in such management Area Local NIPAS Total %
efforts gain in a variety of ways, including ordinance Act
through food security, cash income from Luzon 33 9 42 11.6
tourism, and pride in their protection role Visayas 257 8 265 73.2
(White et al. 1994, Katon et al. 1999, Vogt 1997). Mindanao 45 10 55 15.2
Total 335 27 362 100
A salient characteristic of all successful MPA Source: Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation.
projects in the country is the strong involvement
of communities and the local government in Table 5.3 Size Distribution of MPAs.
planning and enforcement (White and Vogt
General Size range No. of Area (hectares)
2000, DENR et al. 2001). This involvement size (ha) MPAs
builds the confidence of people to manage their Small <15 201 1,541
own resources and encourages long-lasting
Medium 15-30 81 1,715
outcomes. The success of the Philippine
Large >30 40 2,079
MPAs thus hinges on two crucial players: the
Very large >100 40 1,537,267
(local and national) government and strong
Total 335 362 1,542, 602
stakeholder community involvement.
Source: Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation.

In spite of all the efforts to establish MPAs, only

few are sustainable without outside support. In Table 5.4 Management Rating of MPAs.
addition, the benefits from successful and
Mindanao
Visayas

well-managed MPAs are often lost due to %

Luzon

Total
overfishing, pollution and other human Rating level
pressures in surrounding areas, outside of the
0-pre-rating 0 7 0 7 1.9
controlled MPA or sanctuary. The total number,
1-initiated 8 35 7 50 13.8
relative size, and management status of some
2-established 10 82 12 104 28.7
MPAs in the country (those included in the
CCEF Database), is summarized in Tables 5.2, 3-enforced 3 57 13 73 20.2
5.3, and 5.4. 4-sustained 0 13 3 16 4.4
5-institutionalized 0 4 1 5 1.4
The management rating system of MPAs, No data 21 67 19 107 29.6
developed by the Coastal Conservation and Total 42 265 55 362 100
Education Foundation (CCEF) and its partners, is Note: Management ratings as evaluated by the MPA rating system of
CCEF and Partners (2004).
applied through the participation of local
stakeholders together with outside observers. The Source: Authors.

rating system following strict criteria and

guidelines on what constitutes achieving a
particular level of management (White et al. 2004).

45
 Box 5.6 Key Elements for the Sustainability of
Integrated Coastal Resource Management.
A recent review of integrated coastal resource
management experiences in the Philippines
identified the following key elements for the long-
term sustainability of this approach:
 Stakeholder participation in ICRM decision
making processes
 Improved economic returns
generation
 Equitable sharing of economic benefits
 Supporting legal and policy framework
 Intergovernmental coordination mechanisms
 Capacity for law enforcement
 Institutional continuity beyond
change
 Conflict resolution mechanisms
 Education and awareness-level raising
 Long-term monitoring information systems
 Stable financial support
Source: Adapted from Christie, et. al. 2005; Milne, et al. 2003.
A recent review of integrated coastal resource
management experiences in the Philippines
identified several key elements for the long-term
sustainability of this approach (Box 5.6).
The importance of broad stakeholder
participation in integrated coastal resources
management is illustrated in Box 5.7.
Fisheries management is not a separate
strategy but an essential component of any
coastal resource management (CRM) program.
It does, however, offer the opportunity to
broaden the scope of CRM interventions,
which have historically focused on the village
and income
Participatory Coastal Resource Assessment in a mangrove
forest helps engage the community in assessing and
appreciating their coastal resources.
Source: Authors.
and, more recently, on municipal and
leadership provincial levels, and implement these from a
wider “fisheries ecosystem perspective.”
Fishing grounds are contiguous areas with
mobile fish and fishers. To ensure sustainable
fish stocks, management must be applied
equally across and beyond political boundaries.
Clustering of LGUs and interprovincial and
interregional management clusters can set the
Box 5.7 The Importance of Including
All Stakeholders.
Despite catching some 60 percent of total fish (by
volume) in the country, the commercial fishing
sector has seldom been included in coastal and
fisheries management.
In the Camotes Sea, the commercial fishing industry
was invited to take part in a regional fisheries
management planning process. As a spin-off from
that process, commercial fishing operators have
now initiated their own research into the life cycles
of main commercial species, looking for key
seasons in which they will initiate an industry-led
and -enforced closed season.
Source: Green et al. 2003.
46
 2004
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

foundation for the integration of management

Figure 5.2 The CRM Planning Process for
between the municipal and commercial sectors, Local Governments in the Philippines.
who ultimately fish the same resource in the
same fishing grounds.

A good way to achieve local support to CRM

is through the implementation of Participatory
Coastal Resource Assessments (PCRA) at the
community level. Not only are PCRAs a research
tool for informed decision making, but they also
serve as a high-impact educational vehicle for
both resource users and decision makers. Efforts
to generate LGU and community support for
CRM are generally more successful when
backed up by information about local conditions.
Through the presentation of locally derived
research results and other relevant information,
LGUs and community resource users are able
to better appreciate the issues and problems
and accept the need for unified rather than
fragmented solutions.
Experience has also demonstrated that
ownership of a CRM initiative must be shared
and spread as widely as possible. Ownership
must be spread both across the community and
among as many sectors as possible. To foster
such ownership, the process must be transparent,
giving all partners a complete say in what
happens in the project (Figure 5.2).
CRM is a collaborative undertaking. Clearly,
no matter how dedicated and determined, no
LGU acting alone can be effective in addressing
the multidimensional and multisectoral issues
that characterize CRM. An LGU initiating CRM
would benefit from seeking support both from
the inside and the outside by sectors whose
activities affect the coastal environment. It is
also important to recognize that collaboration
begins with and is strengthened by a policy of
inclusion. To encourage collaboration, it is
important not to preclude anybody from
participating in CRM, whether in advocacy or
Source: CRMP.
actual management activities. Such an approach
will ensure that issues are addressed across a wide
range of sectors and foster a broad mechanism of
support while promoting sustainability.
While monitoring and evaluation of progress in
CRM helps to keep everyone on track, it is not a
practice that many LGUs are likely to practice on
a regular basis.
Compliance, however, might be improved
with incentives. As a non-monetary incentive,
certification has proved to provide the
“prestige” factor, which can encourage LGUs
to regularly benchmark, monitor, and evaluate
their progress in CRM. A three-step certification
system has been developed by DENR and
the CRMP.
By 2005, 113 coastal municipalities had achieved
the basic certification benchmarks of coastal
resource management: Allocation of budget,
CRM plan, functional Fisheries and Aquatic
Resource Management Council (FARMC), one
or more MPAs, coastal law enforcement, or
other CRM best practice in place.

47
6. CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE
The analysis of trends and responses
in this report suggests that the Philippines has
a number of challenges ahead when it comes to
managing its rich marine and coastal resources.
This section will briefly outline some of the
main challenges.
1. Increased protection of resources under
threat.
A number of experiences clearly demonstrate
the value and impact of mangrove rehabilitation
and fish sanctuaries and other MPAs on
biodiversity, fish stocks, and other aquatic
resources. The main priority is to use the
existing experience with successful MPAs and
to not only replicate them, but, more
importantly, to expand their scope, in
particular by increasing the sizes of effectively
managed MPAs and by forming MPA networks
in ecologically connected and critical areas. This
expanding scope is only possible through
inter-LGU collaboration and co-management
between LGUs at both the municipal and
provincial levels and the local community
MPA managers. Despite several successes, it is
estimated that protecting 10 percent of the
coral reef areas will take another 100 years
Group participating in a participatory coastal resource
assessment training.
Photo: Alan White.
48
Visitors at the Gilutongan Island Marine Sanctuary look
out over the sanctuary from the guardhouse.
Photo: Alan White.
unless the current size and rate of establishing
MPAs is improved (Alino et al. 2002).
Another priority is to expand transborder
initiatives on MPAs. An example is the Sulu
and Sulawesi Seas Project by WWF, where
the Philippines works with Indonesia and
Malaysia on the establishment of an integrated
network of priority marine protected areas, as
well as sea turtle and fisheries conservation
activities.
It is also important to promote and strengthen
the sustainability of financing schemes for
protection. Intact and healthy marine and
coastal natural areas with high biodiversity
value will eventually attract tourists and generate
local revenue. This creates a base for sustainable
financing—for example through the user fees,
public and private sector partnerships, and
models for revenue sharing between stakeholders
and government. Examples are the Bais
dolphin and whale watching tours organized
by Bais City LGU in the Tañon Strait, and the
user fee system implemented in Mabini and
Tingloy, Batangas (Box 6.1).
 PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

Box 6.1 Money from Conservation:

Lessons from Anilao.
Maricaban Strait in Batangas Province, more
popularly known as “Anilao,” features a high
diversity of corals and invertebrates. Human
activities, however, were threatening Anilao’s rich
biodiversity, and in 1998 the local government
units of Mabini and Tingloy in collaboration with
WWF-Philippines launched a marine law
enforcement campaign, which reduced illegal
fishing and restored coral cover and fish
populations. This conservation effort is financed by
user fees.
The system, first implemented by Mabini in
September 2003, has, yielded PhP 2.89 million
($56,667) in users’ fees by 2006, which are being
used for marine law enforcement through Bantay
Dagat and other conservation efforts. The user fee
system supports the continued protection of
biodiversity of Anilao and benefits local fisherfolks
and divers through increased fish catches and
enhanced diving experiences.
A multi-stakeholder management board decides on
the programmatic use of funds and provides
oversight to ensure transparency and accountability.
In September 2005, Tingloy and Mabini agreed to
a unified collection system and sharing scheme,
and since its initiation, Tingloy’s share of collected
fees have amounted to about PhP 700,000
($13,725).
Div e F ee Monthly C ollections
350000
300000
250000
2003
200000
Pesos
2. Improved local livelihoods and
sustainable resource utilization.
Improving local livelihoods for communities
in coastal areas is closely linked to building a
base for a more sustainable management of
coastal and marine resources. Ecotourism
activities have proven in some cases to provide
benefits to local communities. For tourism
development, it is important to see local
communities as partners and work with
community organizations to develop services
and facilities. A stimulation of small-scale
enterprises in communities could be accompanied
by qualified technical assistance and financing
opportunities.
A key priority is to target the persistent poverty
problems around many of the MPAs. A big
challenge is to ensure that the poorest and
vulnerable groups, such as women and youth,
are targeted beneficiaries of income-generating
activities. Another priority is to ensure that
profits from ecotourism are shared fairly with
local communities.
Rapid population growth in coastal areas
also needs to be addressed. There is a need at
the local levels for an integrated approach that
links environment and natural resources
management with access to reproductive health
and family planning services. An example of
this approach is the “People and Environment
Co-Existence Development (PESCO-Dev) Project”
in two provinces in Region VI. PESCO-Dev

2004
150000
100000
2005
combines the development of reproductive
50000
health and coastal resources management
0
capacities within coastal communities.
pt ust
A ly
ril

ne

em r
ay
br y

ch

e r
M ry

O be r

r
ec e
ov e

be
Fe uar

Ju
Ap

D mb
N tob
ua

M
Ju
ar

Se ug
em
n

c
Ja

Month Improving local livelihoods also entails going

From September 2005 on forward, the Mabini-Tingloy
unified fee collection system charges PhP 100 and
PhP 1,800 for daily and annual passes respectively.
Source: World Wildlife Funds, 2005.
ahead with a process to secure community and
household tenure rights to land and local
resources. Secure tenure is important because
local communities are far more likely to act in

49
ways that conserve natural resources if they
have real control over resources, influence in
decisions on how resources are used, and if they
end up with a fair share of the benefits. An
important part of the tenure process will
be to continue the demarcation and titling of
the ancestral waters belonging to indigenous
peoples. The case of the Tagbanwa People, who
obtained a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
(CADT) to the Coron Island in Palawan,
demonstrates that the recognition of indigenous
peoples’ property rights and customary law may
lead to community-based conservation areas.
3. Formulation and adoption of a national
coastal and marine policy framework and
strengthening institutional integration.
With the numerous laws and government
programs being implemented, management of
the coastal and marine areas remains fragmented
and uncoordinated. While there has been some
improvement in conceptual and government
attitudes—notably in the area of local governance
and marine environment protection—at the
national level integrated coastal management
across the different sectors continues to be
largely problematic.
Considerable sectoral fragmentation exists in
the governing regimes of the various coastal and
marine-related sectors, resulting in jurisdictional
competition among agencies. Multi-sectoral
bodies, such as the Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Management Councils for coastal fisheries and
the Protected Areas Management Boards for
protected seascapes, have been set-up as
required by law in recognition of the existence
of overlaps and need to coordinate all interested
parties, agencies and groups. Ad-hoc inter-agency
agreements are often used to resolve program
implementation issues, but the underlying
legal and jurisdictional framework remains
unchanged.
50
A key priority is the formulation and adoption
of an integrated coastal and marine management
policy that sets clear priorities, principles, and
guidelines that can steer policy towards
resolution and encourage government agencies
and offices to see themselves as being part of
larger effort towards proper management of
the coastal and marine areas. The policy
formulation should build on lessons learned
in the implementation of coastal and marine
programs and projects, including proposed
policy frameworks such as the Sustainable
Philippine Archipelagic Development Framework
(ArcDev) and the national coastal resource
management policy resulting from projects
funded by UNDP and USAID, respectively.
4. Development of institutional and local
capacities for coastal management.
It is important to address the issue of capacity
development both in national agencies and in
LGUs. While an important effort is already
made by the CMMO office in DENR, which
provides training and assistance to local LGU
staff, a wider capacity building approach is
needed that targets all levels of government,
including law enforcement units. One way
could be to implement the proposed training
and capacity development activities in the
ArcDev, including the formation of ICRM
training and technical assistance core groups
at national, regional, and provincial levels.
Another priority is to develop and implement
a targeted, policy-relevant research agenda
for enhanced management and stewardship of
coastal resources.
5. Improved coastal law enforcement.
There is a systemic lack of capacity and
resources by the government to enforce
fisheries laws in the Philippines. The present
enforcement framework needs to be revised
and streamline to overcome conflicting and

Coastal enforcement officers inspecting a fishing boat in
Cebu City.
Photo: FISH Project.
ambiguous policies and clear up the present
confusion of jurisdictional roles among
authorized agencies and deputized local
enforcers. The selective enforcement resulting
from political interference and discretionary
prosecution also needs to be addressed, as well
as minimal or non-punishment of offenders.
Another priority is to continue working at the
local level with local enforcement organizations.
It is important to encourage LGUs to continue
the process of forming and strengthening local
organizations to enforce coastal laws, such as
the Bantay Dagat (literally, “sea watch”).
Authorities should consider providing more
technical assistance and enforcement capacity
to overcome logistical constraints and illegal
activity, which are undermining local
management initiatives. If the collaboration
with local organizations and community
members on enforcement is to succeed in the
long term, it is important to guarantee
adequate prosecution of coastal and fishery
law violators.
51
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
6. Sustainable management of fisheries
resources.
The increased demand for fish by a rapidly
growing population, and increasing exports
due to increasing fish prices, have substantially
increased the pressure on Philippine marine
fishery resources over the past two decades.
Philippine fisheries are now being fished to
their limit. While the demand is going up,
catch per unit effort and fish stocks are going
down, a clear sign of severe overfishing.
Within the next 15 years, the demand could
be so large that it eventually may lead to a
collapse of fisheries and the fishery industry.
To change this situation, a high priority is to
revise existing and develop new and more
efficient fishing license systems (commercial
and municipal) in order to control access to
fishing areas and put limits on catch. Concrete
proposals and models for improved licensing
systems already exist (i.e. the FISH Project in
Cebu City).
Another priority is to develop an environmentally
friendly aquaculture, using more native species
and with adequate mitigation of impacts on
vulnerable coastal mangrove and reef ecosystems.
Mangroves in Mindanao.
Photo: Finn Danielsen.
One example is the environmentally and
economically sustainable method of raising
mud crabs in pens among the mangroves,
which is found in Tantanang Bay in western
Mindanao.
Rehabilitation of degraded habitats to improve
fish stocks and fisheries yields is also a priority.
Old fish pond areas could be used for replanting
mangroves, and coral reefs could be better
managed so that human-caused impacts are
minimized. This way, coral reefs will also be
able to recover from bleaching episodes. A
good example of this practice is the recovery
of living coral cover at Tubbataha Reefs after
the 1998 coral bleaching incident in which the
reef lost about 24 percent of its living coral
cover. Since then, the reef has almost
completely recovered to its original state because
of protection from other human impacts.
7. Strengthening of public awareness and
education.
A recent survey in the Philippine Daily Inquirer2
revealed that Filipinos in general have a low
level of awareness of the Philippines’ biodiversity
richness, in spite of a number of environmental
campaigns in recent decades. It is important to
seek new ways to increase public awareness
about coastal and marine resources and their
uses in order to broaden support for coastal
management initiatives. An innovative approach
is the new Beach EcoWatch Programme of
DENR, which is a multi-stakeholder initiative
that seeks to link the management of local
coastal resources with public awareness and
income opportunities.
An important part of awareness-raising is
giving people access to information about coastal
2 The Philippine Daily Inquirer, Regions, 7-9-2005, p. A16
52
and marine ecosystems and decisions affecting
their services. It is therefore a priority to ensure
that information is better distributed to both
LGUs and coastal communities because
increased awareness and access to information
will improve participation in coastal resources
management, and encourage local communities,
barangay groups, and local managers to
become effective coastal managers.
8. Addressing climate change.
Climate change and sea-level rise in the
coming decades will likely have several
major impacts on Philippine marine and coastal
resources. It is important to emphasize the
egree of difficulty in identifying climate-change-
induced coastal patterns from other factors,
stresses, and problems affecting these areas.
It is vitally important to study baseline dynamics
to be able to identify, study, and understand
climate change. Additional studies on mitigation
and adaptation to climate change in coastal areas
also are a priority.
Potential climate change impacts and changes
will need to be mitigated and prevented to the
extent possible through ICRM. For example,
prevention of flooding and inundation of low-
lying areas will require planning for and
implementation of coastal setback regulations
for all kinds of development. Projected rates of
erosion and inundation will be needed to help
plan for appropriate land use in coastal areas.
Another priority is to strengthen coral reef
management to enhance the natural resilience of
coral reef communities by reducing human
pressures. This entails avoiding overfishing of
herbivores, which keep the algae population in
check and help maintain clear surfaces for coral
recruits following a bleaching event; eliminating
physical damage to reefs (blast fishing and
cyanide fishing); and identifying and protecting
source reefs for coral and fish recruitment.

9. Fighting corruption.
Good governance and development are linked,
particularly in the area of natural resources
where corruption and weak management are
particularly corrosive of equitable and sustainable
growth. The corrupt and illegal practices related
to forests, fisheries, and wildlife cost the global
economy more than $30 billion per year3 and
people who have spoken out against it have lost
their lives. For good governance, all agencies,
organizations and individuals in the Philippines
and abroad must step up efforts to fight corruption,
illegal practices, and weak law enforcement
related to natural resource management.
The Way Forward. To address the multiple
demands of the Philippines’ vast but threatened
array of coastal and marine resources, an integrated
coastal resources management (ICRM) framework
is needed. Such a framework should strengthen
the capacity of stakeholders to work across
sectors and through layers of government to
improve stewardship of these resources. This
will require (a) new institutional arrangements
that rationalize competing uses across sectors;
(b) the formulation and adoption of an
integrated coastal and marine management
policy that sets clear priorities, principles, and
guidelines to steer policy towards resolution
and encourage government agencies and offices
to see themselves as being part of larger effort
towards proper management of the coastal and
marine areas. The point of departure for the
formulation could be the existing ARC/DEV
framework and the draft Executive Order:
Adopting Integrated Coastal Management as
The National Strategy to Ensure the Sustainable
3 Losses from illegal logging and failure to collect
appropriate taxes from legal forest operations: $15-20
billion per year (World Bank estimate 2005); Illegal,
unregulated, and unreported fishing: $9 billion per year
(High Seas Task Force 2006); Illegal trade in wildlife
products: $6-10 billion per year (16th Meeting of the
Interpol Working Group on Wildlife Crime, October 2003).
53
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
Development of the Country’s Coastal and
Marine Habitats and Resources and Providing
Mechanisms for its Implementation; (c) a
strengthened role of science in resource
management decisions; (d) ICRM information,
training and technical assistance that are
accessible to core groups at the national,
regional, provincial, municipal, and barangay
levels; (e) a clear definition of roles at the
various government levels that identify
coastal resource policy, coordination, and
management roles and responsibilities; and
(f) improved coastal law enforcement through
streamlining and upgrading of the technical
capacity of enforcement units and stronger
participation of local organizations.
One option for designing such a framework is
to identify the ICRM champions and start with
the DENR proposed National ICRM Strategy for
the Philippines. This framework can be
strengthened through consultations with the
different national agencies and LGUs. Specifically,
the lessons from 100 LGUs in the Visayas, where
the strategy is currently being piloted, and the
recently passed Wildlife Act should be used to
improve the current draft.
The needs and aspirations of local communities
whose livelihoods depend on a healthy coastal
and marine environment should be taken into
account. In addition, to aid the effective scaling
up of ICRM practices, guidance can be provided
on the actions required at the LGU and central
government levels to reinforce the cross linkages
necessary for effective coordination among
levels of government and allow for policy
harmonization across sectors. That guidance can
be used to ensure the sustainable management
of the coastal and marine resources of the
Philippines, both in support of the national
economy and to improve the welfare of those
communities most dependent on secure coastal
and marine resources.
REFERENCES
ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2001. Policy on fi sheries,
the context. Fisheries in the Asian and Pacifi cregion.
ADB, Philippines. In Green, S. J. et. al. 2003. Philippine
Fisheries in Crisis: A Framework for Management.
Coastal Resource Management Project of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Cebu City, Philippines.
ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2003. Integrated Coastal
Resource Management Project, Philippines: Final
Report, Volume 1. Asian Development Bank, Global
Environment Facility, Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Tetra Tech EM Inc. and
Pacifi cRim Innovation and Management Exponents,
Inc, Manila. 207 p.
Alava, M.N.R. and J.A. Cantos. 2004. Marine protected
species in the Philippines, p. 109-117. In DA-BFAR.
In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine
fi sheries. Coastal Resource Management Project,
Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.
Alcala, A.C. 1981. Fish yields of coral reefs of Sumilon
Island, central Philippines. National Research Council
Philippines Research Bulletin. 36: 1-7.
Alcala, A.C. 1988. Effects of marine reserves on coral fi sh
abundances and yields of Philippine coral reefs.
Ambio 17: 194-199.
Alcala, A.C., and G.R. Russ. 1990. A direct test of the
effects of protective management on abundance and
yield of tropical marine resources. Journal du Conseil
Internationale Exploration Mer 47: 40-47.
Alcala, A.C. and G.R. Russ. 2000. Role of socioeconomic
factors in coral reef protection and management.
Proceedings 9th International Coral Reef Symposium.
Bali, Indonesia 1: 29-32.
Alcala, A.C. and G.R. Russ. 2001. Local partnership for
coastal and marine resource management: The case
of Selinog Island. Tropical Coasts 8: 4-9.
Alcala, A.C., G.R. Russ, A.P. Maypa and H.P. Calumpong,
(2005). A long-term, spatially replicated, experimental
test of the effect of marine reserves on local fi sh
yields. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 62: 98-108.
Alino, P.M., C. Nanola, W. Campos, V. Hilomen,
A. Uychiaoco and S. Mamauag. 2004. Philippine
Coral Reef Fisheries: Diversity in Adversity,
p. 65-69. In DA-BFAR. In turbulent seas: The status
54
of Philippine marine fi sheries. Coastal Resource
Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.
Barut, N.C., M.D. Santos and L.R. Garces. 2004. Overview
of Philippine marine fi sheries,p. 22-31. In DA-BFAR.
In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine
fi sheries. Coastal Resource Management Project,
Cebu, Philippines. 378 p.
BAS (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics), Department of
Agriculture. Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines.
1997 – 2001 and 2001 – 2003, 2004.
Bennagen, E. and staff. 1995. ENRAP Sectoral and
Regional Studies on Pollution: Integrative Report.
ENRAP III Technical Paper. REECS-DENR-USAID,
Manila, Philippines.
Berdin, R.D., Remotique, C.T., Zamora, P.B., and Sta.
Maria, M.Y.Y. 2004. Coastal erosion vulnerability
mapping along the southern coast of La Union,
Philippines. National institute of Geological Sciences,
University of the Philippines, Diliman.
Berjak, P., Campbell, G.K., Huckett, B., and Pammenter,
N. 1977. In the mangroves of southern Africa. Wildlife
Society of Southern Africa (Natal Branch), Durban:
1-72.
Bernacsek, G. 1996. The role of fi sheriesin food security
in the Philippines: A perspective study for the
fi sheries 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 Philippine fi sheries profi le. Department of
Agriculture, Manila.
Bringas, J., G. Bautista, D. Tabaranza, et. al. 2004. Coral
Reef Damage Assessment: M/Y Island Explorer
Grounding Site Restoration, Apo Reef Nature Park.
Powerpoint Presentation prepared by Haribon
Foundation, Inc.
Brown, W.H. and A.F. Fisscher: 1918. Philippine mangrove
swamps. Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. Bur. Fish. Bull. No. 7.
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) 2003.
2003 Philippine fi sheries profi le. Department of
Agriculture, Manila.

Burke, L., E. Selig and M. Spalding. 2002. Reefs at Risk
in Southeast Asia. World Resources Institute,
Washington, D.C., 72 p.
Castro, P. and M.E. Huber. 1997. Marine biology, 2nd ed.
W.M.C. Brown Publishers. 450 p.
Christie, P., White, A.T., and Deguit, E. 2002. Starting
point or solution? Community-based marine
protected areas in the Philippines. Journal of
Environmental Management 66: 441-454.
Christie, P., K. Lowry, A.T. White, E.G. Oracion,
L. Sievanen, R.S. Pomeroy, R.B. Pollnac, J.M. Patlis,
R.V. Eisma. 2005. Key fi ndings from a multi-
disciplinary examination of integrated coastal
management process sustainability. Ocean and
Coastal Management Journal, vol. 48, Issues 3-6.
Compagno, L.J.V., Last, P.R., Stevens, J.D. and
Alava, M.N.R. 2005. Checklist of Philippine
Chondrichthyes. CSIRO Marine Laboratories
Report No. 243, Australia.
DENR, DA-BFAR and DILG (Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and
Department of the Interior and Local Government).
2001. Philippine Coastal Management Guidebook
Series. Coastal Resource Management Project of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Cebu City, Philippines, Volumes 1-8.
DENR-DOT. 2002. National Ecotourism Strategy. Manila,
Philippines.
DENR-CMMO (Department of Environment and Natural
Resources—Coastal and Marine Management Offi ce).
2003. Monitoring and evaluating municipal/city
plans and programs for coastal resource management.
Coastal Resource Management Project of Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City,
Philippines. 93 p.
Department of Tourism. 2004. Travel and Tourism
Statistics. Manila, Philippines.
Evangelista, D. 1992. Management of mangrove areas in
Calauag Bay, Quezon Province, Naga, the ICLARM
Quarterly 15(2): 48-49.
FAO, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005,
Philippines. http://www.fao.org/forestry.
55
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
FISH Project-Palawan Council for Sustainable
Development. June 2005. Evaluation of Policy Options
for the Live Reef Food Fish Trade: Focus on
Calamianes Islands and Palawan Province, with
Implications for National Policy. Draft.
Fortes, M.D. 1989. Seagrasses: A resource unknown in
the ASEAN region. ICLARM Education Series 5,
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources
Management, Manila, Philippines. 46 p.
Fortes, M.D. 1995. Seagrasses of East Asia:
Environmental and management perspectives.
Regional Coordination Unit, East Asian Seas
Action Plan Technical Report Series No. 6. United
Nations Environment Programme. 79 p.
Fortes, M.D. and K.F. Santos. 2004. Seagrass ecosystem
of the Philippines: Status, problems and
management directions, p. 90-95. In DA-BFAR. In
turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine
fi sheries. Coastal Resource Management Project,
Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.
Gomez, E.D. and A.C. Alcala. 1979. Status of Philippine
coral reefs. In Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Marine Biogeography and Evolution
in the Southern Hemisphere, 17-20 July 1978.
Auckland, New Zealand. DSIR Information Series
137(2): 645-661.
Gomez, E.D., Aliño, P.M., Yap, H.T. and Licuanan, W.Y.
1994. A review of the status of Philippine reefs.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 29: 62-68.
Green, S.J., White, A.T., Flores, J.O., Carreon, M.F. III
and Sia, A.E. 2003. Philippine fi sheries in crisis:
A framework for management. Coastal Resource
Management Project of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City,
Philippines. 77 pp.
Green, S.J., R.D. Alexander, A.M. Gulayan, C.C.Migrino
III, J. Jarantilla-Paler and C.A. Courtney. 2002. Bohol
Island: Its Coastal Environmental Profi le. Bohol
Environment Management Offi ce and Coastal
Resource Management Project, Cebu City,
Philippines, 174 p.
Hardy, J.T. 2003. Climate Change: Causes, Effects and
Solutions, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Heruela, C.S. 1993. New and Renewable Energy
Sources from the Seas: Potential for Application in
 the Philippines, pp. 70-90. In (Santos, T.M. and I.M.V.
Fernandez, editors). Problems, Prospects and Policies:
Non-Living Marine Resources of
the Philippines, Scientifi c Concerns: A Roundtable
Discussion. Institute of International Legal Studies,
University of the Philippines Law Center, Diliman,
Quezon City. U.P. Printing Press. In Padilla, J.E. et.
al. 1999. Proposed Terms of Reference for the
Preparation of Master Plans for the Sustainable
Management of Coastal and Marine Resources and
Environment. ENRAP IV Technical Working Paper.
REECS-DENR-USAID, Manila, Philippines.
High Seas Task Force. 2006. Closing the net: Stopping
illegal fi shing on the high seas. Governments
of Australia, Canada, Chile, Namibia, New Zealand,
and the United Kingdom, WWF, IUCN and the Earth
Institute at Columbia University. Available at:
http://www.high-seas.org.
Hilomen, V.V., W. Licuanan, et. Al. 2002. Status of the
fi sheries resources in Lingayen Gulf: Easing the
pressure and enhancing the resources. In Green, S.
J. et. al. 2003. Philippine Fisheries in Crisis: A
Framework for Management. Coastal Resource
Management Project of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City,
Philippines.
Huttche, C.M., A.T. White and M.M.M. Flores. 2002.
Sustainable Coastal Tourism Handbook for the
Philippines. Coastal Resource Management Project
of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources and the Department of Tourism, Cebu
City, Philippines, 144 p.
ICLARM. 2001. Sustainable management of coastal
fi shstocks in Asia. Project Final Report. ADB-RETA
5766. In Green, S. J. et. al. 2003. Philippine Fisheries
in Crisis: A Framework for Management. Coastal
Resource Management Project of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City,
Philippines.
IPCC 2001. Third Assessment Report on Climate Change:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
IUCN 2004. Red Data List on Threatened Species.
Jensen, A.E. 2004. Population and Habitat Assessment of
avian Environment Indicators in the Central Sulu Sea,
the Philippines. November 2004. WWF Philippines.
56
Katon, B.M., Pomeroy, R.S., Salamanca, A. and Garces,
L. 1999. Fisheries management of San Salvador Island:
A shared responsibility. Society and Natural
Resources 12: 777-795.
Kuperan, K., Abdullah, N.M.R., Pomeroy, R.S., Genio,
E.L. and Salamanca, A.M. 1999. Measuring transaction
costs of fi sheries co-management in San Salvador
Island, Philippines. Naga, the ICLARM Quarterly
22: 45-48.
Kurien, J. 2002. Does international trade in fi shery
products contribute to food security? Some analyses;
some thoughts. FAO. In Green, S. J. et. al. 2003.
Philippine Fisheries in Crisis: A Framework for
Management. Coastal Resource Management Project
of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Cebu City, Philippines.
Licuanan W.Y. and E.G. Gomez. 2000. Philippine
Coral Reefs, Reef Fishes, and Associated Fisheries:
Status and Recommendations to Improve Their
Management. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network
(GCRMN) Report.
Luna, C. 2004. Capture Fisheries Key Issues and
Opportunities. FISH Project. Presentation at the First
Consultative Meeting for Preparation of the
Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Plan,
Subic International Hotel, Sept. 21-23.
Magdaraog, G.L. 1998. Environment and Natural
Resources Atlas of the Philippines. Environmental
Center of the Philippines Foundation, Manila.
394 p.
Mamauag, S. 2004. The live reef food fi sh trade in
the Philippines, p. 53-59. In DA-BFAR. In turbulent
seas: The status of Philippine marine fi sheries.
Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City,
Philippines. 378 p.
Maragos, J.E., A. Soegiarto, E.D. Gomez and M.A. Dow.
1983. Development planning for tropical coastal
ecosystems. In R.A. Carpenter (ed) Natural systems
for development, what planners need to know.
East West Center and MacMillan Publishing Co.,
New York, USA.
Maypa, A.P., G.R. Russ, A.C., Alcala, and H.P. Calumpong.
2002. Long-term trends in yield and catch rates of the
coral reef fi sheryat Apo Island, central Philippines.
Marine Freshwater Research 53: 207-213.

McGlone, M.L.S.D. 2004. Status of water quality in
Philippine coastal and marine waters, p. 96-108. In
DA-BFAR. In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine
marine fi sheries. Coastal Resource Management
Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.
Mendoza, L.S. 2004. Fisheries Post-harvest: key issues
and opportunities. Presentation at the First
Consultative Meeting for Preparation of the
Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry
Development Plan, Subic International Hotel, Sept.
21-23, 2004.
Milne, N., P. Christie, R. Oram, R.L. Eisma and A.T.
White. 2003. Integrated coastal management process
sustainability reference book. University of
Washington School of Marine Affairs, Silliman
University, and the Coastal Resource Management
Project of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines. 50pp.
Morales, A., E. Bennagen, et. al. 1996. Value of Direct
Environmental Waste Disposal Services: 1995 Update.
ENRAP IV Technical Paper. REECS-DENR-USAID,
Manila, Philippines.
NSO (National Statistics Offi ce) 2000. Census Data
for 2000. National Statistics Offi ce, Manila,
Philippines.
Orbeta, E. 1994. Estimation of Direct Environmental
Waste Disposal Services. ENRAP II Technical
Working Paper. REECS-DENR-USAID, Manila,
Philippines.
Pajaro, M., F. Olano, B. San Juan, and C.M. Nozawa. 1999.
Inventory of marine protected areas in the Philippines.
Pages 1-13, in A.J. Uychiaoco, S. Schoppe, P. Alino,
and R. Hermes, (Eds.). Proceedings of the Workshop
on Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines. Coral
Reef Information Network of the Philippines.
Perez, R.T., Amadore, Leoncio, A.A., Feir, R.B. 1999.
Climate change impacts and responses in the
Philippines coastal sector. Climate Research vol. 12:
97-107.
Primavera, J.H. 1991. Intensive prawn farming in the
Philippines: Ecological, social and economic
implications. Ambio 20(1): 28-33.
Primavera, J.H. 1993. A critical review of shrimp pond
culture in the Philippines. Reviews in Fisheries
Science 1(2): 151-201.
57
PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005
Primavera, J.H. 2005. Mangroves, Fishponds, and the
Quest for Sustainability. Science, Vol 310, Issue 5745,
57-59 , 7 October 2005.
Rees, C. 1990. A guide to development in urban and
coastal areas. Asian Wetland Bureau, Malaysia. 78 p.
Rosales, R. 2003. Developing Pro-Poor Markets for
Environmental Services in the Philippines. IIED,
London.
Russ, G.R. and Alcala, A.C. 1996. Do marine reserves
export adult fi shbiomass? Evidence from Apo Island,
Central Philippines. Marine Ecology Progress Series
132: 1-9.
Russ, G.R. and A.C. Alcala. 1999. Management histories
of Sumilon and Apo marine reserves, Philippines,
and their infl uence on national marine resource
policy. Coral Reefs 18: 307-319.
Russ, G.R. and A.C. Alcala 2003. Marine reserves:
Rates and patterns of recovery and decline of
predatory fi sh,1983-2000. Ecological Applications 13:
1553-1565.
Russ, G.R., A.C., Alcala, and A. P. Maypa. 2003. Spillover
from marine reserves: The case of Naso vlamingii at
Apo Island, Philippines. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 264: 15-20.
Russ, G.R., A.C., Alcala, A. P. Maypa, H.P. Calumpong
and A.T. White. 2004. Marine reserve benefi ts local
fi sheries.Ecological Applications 14: 597-606.
Santos, R. 2003. Poverty profi lein Philippine fi sheries.In
DA-BFAR. 2005. In turbulent seas: The status of
Philippine marine fi sheries. CRMP, Cebu City,
Philippines.
Siason, I.M. 2004. Women in fi sheriesin the Philippines.
In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine
fi sheries. Coastal Resource Management Project,
Cebu City, Philippines.
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
fi shing effort. UP-Visayas, Iloilo, Philippines. In
Green, S. J. et. al. 2003. Philippine Fisheries in Crisis:
A Framework for Management. Coastal Resource
Management Project of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City,
Philippines.
Siringan, F.P., Maeda, Y., Rodolfo, K.S. and Omura A.
2000. Short-term and long-term changes of sea level
in the Philippine Islands. National Institute of
Geological Sciences, University of the Philippines,
Diliman.
Troeng, S. and Drews, C. 2004. Money Talks: Economic
Aspects of Marine Turtle Use and Conservation.
WWF - International, Gland, Switzerland.
UNDP-DENR-MERF. Feb 2004. ArcDev: A Framework
for Sustainable Philippine Archipelagic Development.
UNEP 2004. Dugong: Status Report and Action Plans for
Countries and Territories.
Vogt, H. 1997. The economic benefi ts of tourism in the
marine reserve of Apo Island, Philippines. Proceedings
of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium,
Panama 2,: 2101-2104.
Werner, T.B. and G.R. Allen (eds). 2000. A Rapid Marine
Biodiversity Assessment of the Calamianes Islands.
Palawan Province, Philippines. RAP Bulletin of
Biological Assessment 17. Washington, D.C.:
Conservation International.
White, A.T. 1988a. Marine parks and reserves:
Management for coastal environments in Southeast
Asia. ICLARM Education Series No. 2, 36 pp.
White, A.T. 1988b. The effect of community-managed
marine reserves in the Philippines on their associated
coral reef fi sh populations. Asian Fisheries Science
1: 27-42.
White, A.T. 1989. Two community-based marine reserves:
Lessons for coastal management, pp. 85-96. In:
Coastal management in Southeast Asia: Policies,
management strategies and case studies. eds T.-E.
Chua and D. Pauly. ICLARM Conference Proceedings
19, 254 pp.
White, A.T. 1996. Philippines: Community management
of coral reef resources. In: Coastal zone management
handbook. ed. J. Clark. CRC Lewis Publishers.
p. 561-567.
White, A.T. 2001. Philippine coral reefs: A natural history
guide. Second ed. Bookmark Inc. and Sulu Fund for
Marine Conservation Inc., Manila, Philippines.
58
White, A.T., and Cruz-Trinidad, A. 1998. The values
of Philippine coastal resources: Why protection
and management are critical. Coastal Resource
Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.
96 p.
White, A.T. and De Leon, R.O. 2004. Mangrove resource
decline in the Philippines: Government and
community look for new solutions. p. 84-89 In: DA-
BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status
of Philippine marine fi sheries. Coastal Resource
Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines, 378 p.
White, A.T., Hale, L.Z., Renard, Y. and Cortesi, L. editors.
1994. Collaborative and community-based
management of coral reefs. Hartford, Connecticut:
Kumarian Press. 130 p.
White, A.T., Meneses, A.T. and Ovenden, M.F. 2004.
Management rating system for marine protected
areas: An important tool to improve management.
p. 226-231. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture—
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In
turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine
fi sheries. Coastal Resource Management Project,
Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.
White, A.T., Salamanca, A. and Courtney, C.A. 2002.
Experience with Marine Protected Area Planning
and Management in the Philippines. Coastal
Management 30:1-26.
White, A.T. and Vogt, H.P. 2000. Philippine coral reefs
under threat: Lessons learned after 25 years of
community-based reef conservation. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 40: 537-550.
World Bank. Philippines Environment Monitor 2003,
Water Quality. World Bank and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Manila, 51 p.
World Bank. 2004. Philippines Environment Monitor
2004, Assessing Progress. World Bank and the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Manila, 56 p.
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 1999. Climate Change
Scenarios for the Philippines. WWF.
Zamora, P.M. 1990. Philippine mangroves: Their
depletion, conversion and decreasing productivity.
Wallaceana 58: 1-5.
RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS AND WEBSITES PHILIPPINES ENVIRONMENT MONITOR 2005

A: NETWORKS SUPPORTING MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN THE PHILIPPINES

NAME DESCRIPTION CONTACT INFORMATION
MPA Net MPA Net is a nationwide network of MPA managers, Coastal Conservation and Education
MPA advocates, and practitioners composed of 27 national (CCE) Foundation
Management and regional government agencies, academic Rm 302, PDI Condominium
Monitoring institutions, and NGOs. This network encourages Archbishop Reyes Avenue Banilad,
Network exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences Cebu City.
and information for the advancement of MPA Tel: (032) 2336947.
implementation. The network promotes the use of E-mail: ccef@mozcom.com or
the MPA Database System with centralized data on ccef_mpa@mozcom.com.
MPAs to facilitate easy access to information in a
user-friendly and standardized format to document
and monitor change for adaptive management, policy
decisions, and science.
PhilReefs PhilReefs was conceptualized to consolidate various Philippine Council for Aquatic and
Coral Reef reef survey information and facilitate exchange and Marine Research and Development
Management communication among the different reef workers. With (PCAMRD)
Network of the the advent of information technology and the Internet, Los Baños, Laguna.
Philippines this exchange of information can be operationalized by Tel: (049) 5365578
posting relevant data and information in an online web E-mail: ersterz@laguna.net;
source such as PhilReefs. mrd@laguna.net.
NARRDS The NARRDS is a nationwide network of R&D Northern Luzon:
National institutions from the academic and government Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State
Aquatic agencies composed of over 40 members, including University
Resources national and zonal centers, cooperating stations, and Bacnotan, La Union.
Research and collaborating specialized agencies that implement Tel: (072)-242-5641 loc 209
Development aquatic and marine resources R&D. Fax/Telefax: (072)-888-5354/
System (072)-242-5642
The five zonal centers are:
Southern Luzon:
• Northern Luzon Aquatic Resources R&D Zonal
University of the Philippines
Center
Los Baños, Laguna.
• Southern Luzon Aquatic Resources R&D Zonal
Tel: (063-049) 536-7527;536-0188
Center
Fax: (063-049) 536-2517; 536-0188
• Visayas Aquatic Resources R&D Zonal Center
E-mail: zonalcenter2@yahoo.com.
• Northern Mindanao Aquatic Resources R&D Zonal
Center Visayas Center:
• Southern Mindanao Aquatic Resources R&D Zonal University of the Philippines in the
Center Visayas, Miag-ao, Iloilo.
Tel: (033) 338 1534/ 315 9378
Contact information is provided on the right and Fax: (033) 338 1534
available at http://www.pcamrd.dost.gov.ph. E-mail: upv_oc@yahoo.com.
Northern Mindanao:
Mindanao State University
Naawan, Misamis Oriental.
Tel: 08822) 720552
Tel/Fax: (08822) 720551
Email: m_tumanda@yahoo.com.
Southern Mindanao:
Davao del Norte State College Brgy.
New Visayas, Panabo City
Tel: (084) 628-4301
Contact: Ronnie Estrellada
E-mail: restrellada@yahoo.com.

59
 NAME DESCRIPTION CONTACT INFORMATION
PAMANA KA National Alliance of Small-scale Fishermen Pamana Ka Sa Pilipinas
sa Pilipinas Stewarding Sanctuaries and Seas in the Philippines. Cebu City. Tel +63 32 262 2713
“Pambansang Nationwide alliance of community-based marine Email: Pmnk_pilipinas@yahoo.
Alyansa ng protected area managers composed of fisherfolk and com.
Maliliit na local government units. PAMANA KA is currently
Mangingisda at composed of 122 member sanctuary sites.
Komunidad na
Nangangalaga
sa Sanktwaryo
at Karagatan sa
Pilipinas”
FishNet FishNet was formed as a network of non-government Philippine Council for Aquatic and
Philippine and people’s organizations in 1998 with the aim Marine Research and Development
Fisherfolk to undertake studies and make institutional stands (PCAMRD)
Network for on the issues and concerns of the fisheries sector. Los Baños, Laguna.
CBCRM It participates in discussions, launches media Tel: (049) 5365578
campaigns and engages government in action E-mail: ersterz@laguna.net;
dialogue at various levels. mrd@laguna.net.
CRM Net CRM Net was formed in 1999 to monitor the impact Resource Center
Coastal and accountability of major CRM/ICM programs University of the Philippines
Resource and develop and pursue an advocacy agenda College of Social Work and
Management for strengthening CBCRM practice. It consists of Community Development
Network individuals from government, NGOs, people’s (CSWCD)
organizations and the private sector involved in theory Diliman, Quezon City 1001.
and practice of CRM/ICM. It aims at facilitating the Tel: (02) 929-2477.
exchange of experiences, information, and knowledge E-mail: cbcrm_rc1@pacific.net.ph.
on CRM/ICM among members of the Net and other
similar networks; fostering and nurturing linkages
between advocates, practitioners and stakeholders; and
promoting and advocating standards of good practice
in CRM/ICM.
LMMA The LMMA Network promotes adaptive management Website: www.LMMAnetwork.org.
Network for local areas through community and local E-mail: toni@lmmanetwork.org.
Local Marine government involvement.
Management
Areas Network

B: PHILIPPINE WEBSITES RELATED TO MARINE AND COASTAL RESOURCES

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR): www.bfar.gov.ph.
Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc (CCEF): www.coast.ph.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR): www.denr.gov.ph.
Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project of Tetra Tech and USAID: www.oneocean.org.
Local Marine Managed Areas Network (LMMAN): www.LMMAnetwork.org.
Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA): www.pemsea.org.
Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development (PCAMRD): www.pcamrd.dost.gov.ph.

60
 GEOGRAPHY
Area: Total ..................................... 300,000 sq. km
Land ..................................... 298,170 sq. km
Water ....................................... 1,830 sq. km
Boundaries:
North: Balintang Channel
South: Sulu and Celebes Seas
East: Philippine Sea/Pacific Ocean
West: South China Sea
Coastline: .............................................. 36,289 km
Maritime claims:
Total territorial water area incl.
Exclusive Economic Zone . 2,200,000 sq. km
Coastal ................................. 266,000 sq. km
Oceanic ............................. 1,934,000 sq. km
Continental shelf area .......... 184,600 sq. km
Climate: Tropical: northeast monsoon
(Nov. to April); southwest monsoon
(May to October)
Terrain: Mostly mountains, with narrow to
extensive coastal lowlands
Elevation extremes:
Lowest point ................. Philippine Sea 0 m
Highest point ....................Mt. Apo 2,954 m
Natural resources: timber, nickel, cobalt, silver,
gold, salt, copper, petroleum
Land use:
Arable land..............................................19%
Permanent pastures ................................. 4%
Permanent crops .....................................12%
Forest & wetlands ...................................46%
Others .....................................................19%
Environment – International agreements:
party to: Climate Change, Endangered
Species, Hazardous Wastes, Marine
Dumping, Nuclear Test Ban, Ozone
Layer Protection, Biodiversity, Wetlands,
Whaling, POPs
Sources: National Statistical Coordination Board, National Statistics Offi ce, National Economic and Development Authority, Medium Term Philippine
Development Plan 2001-2004 and Medium Term Development Plan 2004-2010, CIA Worldbook 2000, Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, World Health
Organization 2004, World Development Indicator 2000, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
ECONOMY / SOCIETY
GDP (2005) .................................................. 5,379 B
GDP growth rate (2005) ..................................5.1%
GDP – composition by sector:
Agriculture ................................................14%
Industry .....................................................33%
Services ......................................................53%
Unemployment rate (2005): ..........................10.3%
Gross Domestic Investment/GDP: ..............15.7%
Exports of goods and services/GDP:...........46.4%
Gross domestic savings/GDP: .....................20.1%
Gross national savings/GDP: .......................18.2%
Industrial production growth rate: ...............5.3%
Agricultural production growth rate: ...........2.0%
Agriculture-products: rice, coconut, corn,
sugarcane, banana, hog, broiler chicken,
layer chicken, carabao, beef cattle, dairy
cattle, duck, goat, chicken eggs, duck
sardines, milkfish, oyster, mussels, tilapia,
catfish, tuna, shrimps, seaweed
Exports (2005):.....................................PhP2,496.6 B
Imports (2005): ....................................PhP2,533.9 B
Exchange Rate:......................................... 54.04 PhP
Population (2005): ............................... 85.2 million
Population growth rate: ..................................2.2%
Urban population (% of total population): .... 62.6
Birth rate (2003): .................25.1/1,000 population
Death rate (2003): .................5.1/1,000 population
Infant mortality rate (2003): ...27/1,000 live birth
Access to safe water
(% of population 2003): ........................80%**
Access to sanitation
(% of population 2003): .....................86.1%**
Life expectancy at birth (2003): .............69.8 years
Literacy (total population 2003):...................92.3%
Elementary participation rate (2003): ..........90.1%
National capital: Manila
Administrative divisions (July 2004): 17 regions,
79 provinces
Independence: June 12, 1898