11 Phil Coastal and Fisheries Management

SAMUDRA Studies
PHILIPPINES
Asserting Rights, Defining Responsibilities

Perspectives from Small-scale Fishing Communities on
Coastal and Fisheries Management in the Philippines
Cesar Allan Vera, Randee Cabaces and Leonard Reyes
International Collective in Support of Fishworkers

27 College Road, Chennai 600 006, India
www.icsf.net
Case Study: Philippines
CONTENTS
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................... v
Chapter 1: Country-level Background Information ................................................1

Population Dependent on Fisheries ..............................................................................1
Fish Production ...........................................................................................................3
Main Species ...............................................................................................................3
Status of Resources .....................................................................................................4
Fishery Policies ............................................................................................................5
Government Plans and Programmes ............................................................................8
Key Fisheries Management Measures ...........................................................................8
Overview of Community-based Systems .......................................................................9
Overview of Issues Raised by Fishing Communities/Fishworker Organizations .............12
Chapter 2: Case Study of Candelaria, Zambales ..................................................16

Background Information ............................................................................................16
Concept of Community ..............................................................................................17
Claims on Fisheries ....................................................................................................18
Claims on Coastal Lands............................................................................................19
Community Actions to Support Claims .......................................................................19
Rights .......................................................................................................................21
Responsibilities..........................................................................................................21
Community-rights Regimes ........................................................................................22
Chapter 3: Case Study of Hinatuan, Surigao Del Sur............................................24

Background Information ............................................................................................24
Concept of Community ..............................................................................................26
Claims on Coastal Resources .....................................................................................27
Claims on Coastal Lands............................................................................................28
Actions to Support Claims .........................................................................................28
Fishers’ Rights and Responsibilities ............................................................................30
Effectiveness of the Community-based Approach........................................................32
Chapter 4: Conclusion ..........................................................................................34
Bibliography .........................................................................................................35
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of the Philippines and the Case Study Sites ....................................................1
Figure 2. Production per Sector (Tonnes) ..............................................................................3
List of Tables
Table 1. Population per Sector .............................................................................................2
Table 2. Distribution of Fishing Vessels .................................................................................2
Table 3. Catches of Main Species in the Municipal Marine Fisheries Sector in 2003 ...............3
Table 4. Catches of the Main Species in the Commercial Marine Fisheries Sector in 2003 ......4
ICSF Siem Reap Meeting iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADB Asian Development Bank
AFMA Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act
ARD Aquaculture for Rural Development
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
BFARMC Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council
CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme
CBCRM community-based coastal resource management
CBFM community-based forest management
CBFMA community-based forest management agreement
CBRMP Community-based Resource Management Project
CERD Centre for Empowerment and Resource Development
CMP Community Mortgage Programme
CNFIDP Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan
CPUE catch per unit effort
CRM coastal resource management
DA Department of Agriculture
DAO Department Administrative Order
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DoF Department of Finance
EEZ exclusive economic zone
EO Executive Order
FAO Fishery Administrative Order
FARMB Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Board
FARMC Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council
FLA Foreshore Leasehold Agreement
GT gross tonnage
ha hectare
hp horsepower
ICM Integrated Coastal Management
ICSF International Collective in Support of Fishworkers
IPRA Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
ICSF Siem Reap Meeting v

LGC Local Government Code
LGU local government unit
LMMA Locally Managed Marine Areas
LSR Local Sectoral Representative
LUMOT Ladies in United Movement Onward to Development
MFARMC Municipal Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council
MFO Municipal Fishery Ordinance
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MPA marine protected areas
MPDO Municipal Planning and Development Office
MSY maximum sustainable yield
MTPDP Medium-term Development Plan
NAMAHIN Nagkahiusang Mangingisda ng Hinatuan
NFARMC National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council
NFR NGOs for Fisheries Reform
NGO non-governmental organization
NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System
NRM natural resources management
PAMB Protected Area Management Board
PARASAMAZA Pampangisdaang Reporma Adhika ng mga Samahan ng mga Mangingisda ng

Zambales
PD Presidential Decree
PO people’s organization
RA Republic Act
SAMACA Samahan ng Mangingisda ng Candelaria (a municipal federation of five Pos)
SIKAT Sentro para sa Ikauunlad ng Katutubong Agham at Teknolohiya
TAC total allowable catch
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VAW violence against women
VAWC violence against women and children
VSO Voluntary Service Overseas
WTO World Trade Organization
vi ICSF Siem Reap Meeting

CHAPTER 1:
COUNTRY-LEVEL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Philippine archipelago is composed of more than 7,100 islands. It is surrounded by the South
China Sea in the north and the west; and the Pacific Ocean in the east. With 17,460 km of coastline
and marine waters covering 1,666,000 sq km, Philippines’ fishery resources play an important role in
the lives and livelihoods of Filipinos. The Philippines archipelago lies in a region of the highest marine
biodiversity, with at least 4,951 species of marine plants and animals and 16 endemic species.
Figure 1. Map of the Philippines and the Case Study Sites
Candelaria,
Zambales
Hinatuan,
Surigao del Sur
Philippine waters have been decentralized such that municipal waters (that is, waters from the
coastline to 15 km) are under the jurisdiction of the municipal or city government, while waters
beyond 15 km are under the national agency, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR).
Existing laws do not recognize the jurisdiction of provincial or barangay (the smallest unit of local
government) waters.
Population Dependent on Fisheries

The Fisheries Code classifies the different sectors of the fishing industry as commercial fisheries,
municipal fishers and aquaculture. The Fisheries Code defines municipal fishing as fishing within
municipal waters using fishing vessels of three gross tonnage (GT) or less, or fishing not requiring
the use of fishing vessels. Municipal waters are defined as the area covered from the shore up to 15
km into the sea. The common gear used is passive gear, such as simple handlines, gill-nets and traps.
The principal species that comprise the municipal catch are small pelagics (sardines, mackerels,
ICSF Siem Reap Meeting 1

anchovies, round herring, fusiliers and round scad), large pelagics (milkfish, marlin, swordfish, sailfish
and barracuda) and demersals (shrimps and slipmouths).
Commercial fishing refers to the taking of fishery species by passive or active gear for trade,
business or profit beyond subsistence, or sports fishing. The sector is further classified into three,
namely: small-scale (utilizing passive or active gear on fishing vessels of 3.1-20 GT); medium-scale
(utilizing active gear and vessels of 20.1-150 GT); and large-scale (utilizing active gear and vessels of
more than 150 GT). The commercial fishers are usually based near large population centres where
they land the bulk of their catch. They roam wide areas in search for fish. The major fishing gear
used are the purse-seine, trawl, ringnet and bagnet. The common species caught are roundscad and
Indian sardines.
The aquaculture sector includes fishery operations involving all forms of raising and culturing
fish and other fishery species in fresh, brackish and marine water areas. The primary harvests are
seaweed, milkfish, tilapia, and shrimps/prawns.
Coastal communities comprise about 54 per cent of all municipalities in the country. The latest
census shows that there are 2,015,101 fishing operators. Municipal fishing operators occupy a clear
majority, accounting for 88.4 per cent (see Table 1). These figures do not reflect the total population
dependent on fisheries but only the number of operators.
Table 1. Population per Sector

Fishing Sector Operators
Aquaculture 226,195
Municipal 1,781,057
Commercial 7,849
Total 2,015,101
Source: National Statistics Office, 2002
However, the actual classification of fisherfolk as commercial and municipal may not be accurate
since most commercial fishworkers also work as municipal fisherfolk when there are no fishing
expeditions. For example, some municipal fisherfolk indicated that they employ muro-ami (Danish
seine), clearly a commercial fishing gear. Also, the census indicated some commercial fishers use
vessels weighing less than 3 GT.
Table 2 shows the distribution of fishing vessels between municipal and commercial fishers.
Table 2. Distribution of Fishing Vessels
1980 2002
Municipal 401,827 810,176
Raft 388,188 777,666
3 or less GT 13,639 32,510
Commercial 3,411 10,860
3 or less GT 179 1,204
3-5 GT 1,044 3,001
5-9 GT 559 2,211
9-19 GT 728 1,427
19-49 GT 460 1,492
49-99 GT 239 577
99-499 GT 200 516
499 or more GT 2 177
not reported 255
Source: National Statistics Office, 2002
2 ICSF Siem Reap Meeting

Fish Production
In 2003, the Philippines ranked eight among the top fish-producing countries in the world, with a
production of 3.62 mn tonnes of fish, crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic plants (including seaweed).
In 2005, the marine fisheries production was 4.16 mn tonnes, 27.2 per cent of which came from
municipal fisheries and 27.2 per cent from commercial fisheries. The total is reduced to 2.82 mn
tonnes if seaweeds are excluded. Aquaculture produced 45.6 per cent of the total.
Figure 2. Production per Sector (Tonnes)
2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
MT
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Commercial Municipal Aquaculture
Source: DA-BFAR-FIMC, 2006
Main Species
Big-eyed scad and frigate tuna comprise the bulk of municipal fisheries production. Table 3 and
Table 4 show catches of the major species in municipal and commercial fisheries in 2003. Small
pelagics constituted 54.5 per cent of the catch from municipal fisheries in 2003, tunas, 22.9 per cent,
demersal fishes, 7.4 per cent, and invertebrates, 15.2 per cent.
Table 3. Catches of Main Species in the Municipal Marine Fisheries Sector in 2003
Species Volume (000’ tonnes) As % of total
Big-eyed scad 64,354 7.0
Frigate tuna 64,326 7.0
Roundscad 55,980 6.1
Indian mackerel 45,083 4.9
Anchovies 42,447 4.6
Indian sardines 40,051 4.3
Yellowfin tuna 39,767 4.3
Squid 37,735 4.1
Slipmouth 33,528 3.6
Blue crab 31,433 3.4
Others 467,147 50.7
Total 921,851 100.0
Source: BAS, 2005

Table 4. Catches of the Main Species in the Commercial Marine Fisheries Sector in 2003
Major species Volume (000’ tonnes) As % of total
Roundscad 254,659 22.9
Indian sardines 130,024 11.7
Frigate tuna 114,760 10.3
Skipjack 114,077 10.3
Yellowfin tuna 87,473 7.9
Big-eyed scad 39,621 3.6
Fimbriated sardine 36,358 3.3
Slipmouth 36,313 3.3
Indian mackerel 32,037 2.9
Anchovies 28,654 2.6
Others 235,660 21.2
Total 1,109,636 100.0
Source: BFAR, 2005
The commercial fisheries catch in 2003 comprised small pelagics (59.6 per cent), tunas (36.2 per
cent) and demersal fishes (4.2 per cent).
A comparison of catches cited in Table 3 and Table 4 shows that of the eight top species caught by
both municipal and commercial fisheries, almost two-thirds were harvested by commercial fishers,
compared with one-third caught by municipal fishers.
Status of Resources
In terms of resource degradation, the latest assessment of Philippine coral reefs revealed that
only 5.5 per cent are in excellent condition (Yap and Gomez, 1985). This dismal state of coral reefs is
commonly attributed to siltation, destructive fishing practices and overfishing. Mangrove forest cover
has been reduced from an estimated 400,000-500,000 ha in the early 1900s to only 200,000 ha in
1994 (Calumpong 1994). Forty-five percent of this mangrove loss is attributed to fishpond conversion
(PNMC, 1986). No comprehensive assessment has been done on the status of seagrass beds but they
are also vulnerable to overexploitation, conversion, sedimentation and pollution.
Fishery production began to level off during the early 1980s, indicating that the maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) has been reached. Capture-fisheries production, especially by the municipal
fishing sector, steadily declined between 1991 and 1998. Although empirical studies have been
done to calculate the MSY of the Philippines’ waters, exact figures are difficult to calculate, given the
multispecies nature of tropical marine environments and the lack of reliable fisheries data after 1985,
when fisheries data collection was transferred to a different agency. Analysts are wary of providing
species-wise and geographical analysis, given the lack of accuracy of fisheries monitoring data.
Demersal fisheries resources have been overexploited, as indicated by the declining catch per
unit effort (CPUE), high fisher density in nearshore fishing grounds, and the decreasing sizes of
traditionally caught fish. Silvestre and Pauly estimated that in 1987 demersal species were biologically
and economically overfished, with the MSY ranging from 340,000-400,000 tonnes, reached in the
early 1970s. The country had reached the maximum economic yield from its demersal fish stocks as
early as the late 1960s, except in fishing grounds around Palawan, Southern Sulu Sea and the central
part of the country’s Pacific coast.
Pelagic resources are also believed to have been generally overexploited. Studies on pelagic
fisheries also indicate overfishing and declining CPUE. Exceptions are in lightly fished areas in waters off
Palawan, parts of the country’s Pacific coast and some parts of Mindanao. These findings are supported
by an observed change in species composition, ie., anchovies have partially replaced sardines, scads
and mackerels in the catch, an indication of gradual stock collapse (Green et al., 2003). Empirical

research by Dalzell et al. (1987) concluded that the MSY for small pelagics was 544,000 tonnes at
fishing effort levels of 256,000 hp. This level was reached as early as 1975. Trinidad et al. estimate
an MSY effort of 410,000 hp, a level reached in the early 1980s (Israel and Banzon, 1996).
In some areas, not only has the volume of catch been reduced, but also the quality. For example,
in Central Visayas, there has been an overall shift in catch composition, away from coastal pelagic to
oceanic pelagic species, and away from demersal to pelagic species. In the Visayan Sea, one of the
most productive fishing grounds of the country, a major change in composition of catch took place in
the 1980s, with coastal pelagics replacing the demersals as the most abundant catch, and invertebrate
species shifting from shrimp-dominant to squid-dominant, reflecting a shift in the ecosystem due to
fishing pressure and a shift away from trawling to purse-seine and ring-net. These changes indicate
that the Visayan Sea was exhibiting signs of overexploitation as far back as the 1980s.
Despite several signs of overfishing at various degrees, there is still limited formal recognition
of overfishing by BFAR. There have been calls from civil society organizations to close commercial
fishing in the 18 priority bays and gulfs that have been included in the Asian Development Bank
(ADB)-funded Fisheries Sector Programme/Fisheries Resource Management Programme as a
precautionary measure. These bays and gulfs were identified as areas critical to fisheries that are
in need of rehabilitation due to the declining status of fisheries and coastal resources. However, no
closed season on commercial fishing was declared, despite provisions in the Fisheries Code for such
measures, based on best available data.
Fishery Policies
The 1987 Constitution contains provisions dealing with the State’s absolute control over natural
resources, including fisheries and other coastal resources, while also giving attention to coastal
communities. The Constitution states that all natural resources are owned by the State and that the
“State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint-venture, or
production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.” (Article XII, Section 2)
However, the Constitution allows the small-scale utilization of natural resources. Furthermore,
the Constitution provides that the “State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively
to Filipino citizens.” (Article XII, Section 2)
The current policy environment is a result of the continuing struggle of the local fisherfolk. The
policies during the era of President Ferdinand Marcos can be characterized as wanting of democratic
space. The fisherfolk movement blamed the Fisheries Code of 1975, or Presidential Decree (PD) 704,
for marginalizing the small-scale fisherfolk and aggravating the depletion of fishery resources. This
is because PD 704 considered the fishery industry as a preferred area of investment that needed
maximum utilization of fishery resources. As an example, this frame of thinking encouraged the
widespread conversion of mangrove forests into fishponds.
The People Power Revolution in 1986, which toppled the Marcos administration, widened the
democratic space and allowed different sectors to lobby for reforms. Various fisherfolk movements
from different parts of the country (for example, fisherfolks federations in Laguna de Bay, fisherfolks
included in farmer groups lobbying for land reform) soon focused their attention on reforming PD 704.
The demands ranged from expanding the municipal waters for exclusive use of municipal fisherfolk
from seven to 15 km; the formation of a Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Board to
institutionalize the participation of fisherfolk communities in the formulation of fisheries policies
at different levels; prohibition on converting mangrove forest into fishponds; and access of fisherfolk
communities and organizations to different property-rights instruments such as the Fishpond Lease
Agreement and Foreshore Land Agreement.
More than a decade of lobbying and campaigning ensued before a Fisheries Code was finally passed.
Several provisions were compromised but a step forward from the previous law was achieved.

Fisheries Code (RA 8550) of 1998

The Fisheries Code is an act providing for the development, management and conservation of
the fisheries and aquatic resources of the country. The Code is a consolidation of prior fishery laws
and an update of prior laws related to fisheries. It establishes coastal resource management as the
approach for managing coastal and marine resources. The salient new features of the Code include
the following:
• the expansion of municipal waters from seven to 15 km;
• the decentralization of management of municipal waters to local government units (LGUs);
• the reconstitution of BFAR from a staff agency to a line agency;
• the limitation on size and duration of leases of fishponds;
• the prohibition on converting mangrove forests into fishponds and the reversion of converted
mangrove forests;
• the adoption of MSY as a basis for fisheries management; and
• the creation of fisherfolk-led Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Councils (FARMCs) at
different levels of government.
Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (RA 8435) of 1998

The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) details measures to sustain the
development in the sectors of agriculture and fisheries. The stated objective of the Act is to transform
these sectors from resource-based into technology-based industries and to enhance profits in these
sectors, especially for small-scale farmers and fishermen. AFMA is geared towards modernizing the
fisheries sector for the local industries to be more competitive in international trade. AFMA is seen by
civil society organizations as dissonant to the goals of the Fisheries Code; while the Fisheries Code
prioritizes conservation, AFMA encourages increased production.
Local Government Code (RA 7160) of 1991

The Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 devolves certain responsibilities for fishery resources
and powers for their management to local governments. The Code gives local governments the
mandate to manage municipal waters within a distance from the coast of 15-km seaward, and to enact
and enforce appropriate fishery ordinances. Joint undertakings with non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), people’s organizations and other stakeholders for the promotion of ecological balance are
also encouraged and promoted by the Code.
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (RA 8371) of 1997

Formulating private community-based property rights may currently be best exemplified by the
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. The Act was also a result of the widened democratic
space available after the Marcos era. Massive land grabbing and development aggression in ancestral
domains prompted coalition building of indigenous peoples, whose movements were often spread
out and isolated from one another. The advocacy campaign for the IPRA was ridden with controversy,
such as the proper representation of diverse indigenous communities and the submission of their
traditional claims and culture to the legal system.
The IPRA recognizes the property rights of indigenous cultural communities over their ancestral
domains and ancestral lands. A traditional tribal council (composed of the tribal chief, council
members and spiritual advisers) is recognized by the law to draft policies on natural resource use
and development plans in the ancestral domain. The tribal council can exercise political muscle by
invoking the use of traditional tribal justice systems as a sign of their cultural identity and autonomy
from the national laws.
The issuance of the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) was slow and full of controversy.
Also, the autonomy of the tribal councils continued to be undermined by national government

priorities (for example, opening up ancestral domains to mining explorations). The National
Commission on Indigenous People, the national agency representing indigenous peoples, has been
faulted by some sectors for not providing enough services for the indigenous communities and for
misrepresenting them on the mining issues.
Although IPRA has gone through many controversies regarding its constitutionality and its
adherence to the culture of the indigenous people, it provides opportunities for indigenous people to
establish community-based property rights over ancestral waters, including marine waters. This has
been done by the Calamian Tagbanwa in Northern Palawan. The management plan of the tribal council
over their ancestral domain became more coherent after they were issued a CADT. The traditional
beliefs and practices were enhanced when national laws recognized their mandate over the ancestral
domain. It also strengthened the participation of the indigenous peoples in legal policymaking, thus
reducing conflicts between different stakeholders. The Tagbanwa currently enjoy benefits from
ecotourism, while preserving their culture and conserving their ancestral lands and waters.
National Integrated Protected Areas System (RA 7586) of 1992

The passage of Republic Act 7586 in 1992, known as the National Integrated Protected Area
System (NIPAS), has been hailed as one of the most progressive attempts to embody into law
scientifically advanced principles of establishing protected areas. The NIPAS Act aims to remedy the
weakness of past efforts at establishing protected areas by applying scientific principles in resource
management planning. NIPAS highlights the importance of biodiversity conservation. It also adopts
a co-management approach, as each established protected area is administered by a Protected
Area Management Board (PAMB). The PAMB is led by officials of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), and includes representatives from the local government, NGOs and
people’s organizations (POs), who are considered as active partners and decision-makers in matters
pertaining to planning, protection and administration of the national park.
To some sectors, the NIPAS represent a paradigm shift in how government approaches conservation,
in the sense that it is premised on the belief that environmental programmes should address or
complement the social and economic needs of local communities. Moreover, current discourse
about protected area and watershed management have successfully reverted the view that human
settlements are incompatible with the conservation objectives of the protected area and watersheds.
In other words, people can become effective resource users and managers.
Conflict sometimes arises in areas where PAMBs are inactive or where fisherfolk movements
are being undermined by the PAMB. The DENR-led PAMBs are sometimes not aligned with local
communities and local politics. This has pushed some communities to form FARMCs, even though
the Fisheries Code exempts protected areas under the NIPAS from the formation of FARMCs. Forming
FARMCs allows more space for fisherfolk to participate in policymaking but does not ensure that the
policies will be carried out by the PAMB.
Community-based Forest Management (EO 263) of 1995

Community-based forest management (CBFM) is the national strategy to ensure sustainable
development of the country’s forestland resources (EO 263). The CBFM provides legal instruments
for local peoples’ organizations to manage and benefit from forests, including mangrove forests. As of
March 2005, there were 1,577 community-based forest management agreements (CBFMAs), covering
1,575,300 ha of forest (DENR, March 2005).
In 2005, the DENR Secretary ordered the immediate cancellation of all CBFMAs in eight regions.
Directly affected are 1,051 CBFMAs, covering 662,300 ha of forest, which will become ‘open access’
again, and approximately 115,370 households who manage and protect, develop and benefit from
the forest resources. In a consultative workshop on CBFM, the current DENR Secretary was confronted
by PO representatives on the issue. The DENR Secretary responded by stopping further cancellation
of CBFMs and ordering an evaluation of those that were cancelled.

Integrated Coastal Management (EO 533)

Through an Executive Order (EO 533) signed in 2006, Integrated Coastal Management (ICM)
has been adopted by the government as the national strategy for the sustainable development of
the country’s coastal and marine resources. The EO also specifies the establishment of supporting
mechanisms for its implementation, specifically the development of a National ICM programme. This
ICM programme is supposed to be a consultative process involving the relevant agencies, sectors
and stakeholders. The programme also specifies the provision of direction, support and guidance to
LGUs in the development and implementation of local ICM programmes. While the programme is a
positive development in terms of creating more policy space for community-based coastal resource
management (CBCRM), the EO is silent on the participation of the national Fisheries and Aquatic
Resource Management Councils (FARMCs) and local FARMCs in the planning. The FARMCs’ participation
could have served to counterbalance the usual ‘top-down’ mode of government planning.
Government Plans and Programmes

Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan
The Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan (CNFIDP) is a framework for
improvement of fisheries management in the Philippines. It was developed with the private sector
(including NGOs, POs, and commercial and aquaculture sectors) through a series of consultations.
The final draft version of the CNFIDP, completed in the last quarter of 2006, has been completed
and submitted to BFAR for adoption and implementation. CNFIDP calls for more investment towards
research and development, especially in aquaculture, with the goal of making Philippine fisheries
more competitive in the global market.
Aquaculture Development
The Aquaculture for Rural Development (ARD) Programme is the Philippine government’s platform
for realizing the goals of the Philippine Medium-term Development Plan (MTPDP) for agriculture.
The priority of the MTPDP is job generation through agribusiness. In the fisheries sector, 17,000 ha
of aquaculture and mariculture areas are targeted for agribusiness development. The government
expects to generate some 700,000 new jobs from this sector.
The ARD has been criticized by civil society for its market-led approach, inconsistent with the
goals of sustainable development, and exclusive and preferential rights for municipal fishers. Due
to the high capital investments required for the establishment of fish cages, very seldom do fisherfolk
organizations engage in mariculture as operators. Some sectors complain that only a few fisherfolk
become fish-cage workers but the majority are dislocated from their fishing grounds and are forced
to use fishing nets instead of cheap hooks-and-line. In addition, their livelihoods become more
vulnerable to fish kills due to the degraded condition of the waters.
Key Fisheries Management Measures

A range of fisheries management options currently being used by both government and civil
society groups has been given legal mandate by the current policy environment. These management
options include:
Fishery Habitat Management or Conservation Zones
A popular approach is the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs). MPAs refer collectively
to areas in the marine region, whether coastal or offshore, set aside for management and conservation
measures or to areas where some semblance of protection, whether legislated or not, is exercised. MPAs
are also referred to as ‘fish sanctuaries’ or ‘marine reserves’. These are still used within the context
of local government and community-based projects, but the use of ‘marine protected area’ is now
common at the national level to refer to any such marine or coastal protected area, often within the
context of a broader coastal management regime or programme. In fact, the Fisheries Code provides
for at least 15 per cent of coastal areas of each municipality to be designated as fishery refuges and

sanctuaries. However, this provision is not widely observed. The concept of defining zones to limit
fishery activities and defining areas for fishery conservation and regeneration has been applied in
developing Coastal Development Plans through some municipal fishery ordinances. It has been
noted that a large number of MPAs have been declared in the Philippines but less than 20 per cent
of these are functional. Nonetheless, there have been several documented cases where MPAs have
been successful in conserving and regenerating resources and uplifting the fisheries in the locality.
These successful MPAs are mostly in areas where fisheries are more associated with seagrass beds
and where other fishery management measures are used in combination.
It should be noted that establishment of MPAs is done by the Department of Agriculture (DA).
Problems arise when local governments fail to see the need to pass complementary municipal fishery
ordinances. This is especially true when encroachment into the MPA occurs. The community, the LGU
and the DA then begin pointing to one another as to who should protect the MPA.
Temporal and Spatial Limitations on Fishery Activities
These involve the declaration of a closed season wherein the taking of specified fishery species
by a specified fishing gear in a specified area or areas in Philippine waters is prohibited during a
specific duration. Limited entry and fishery activities may be applied to an overfished area. Closed
seasons have been applied at the local level either to regenerate fish stocks in a severely depleted
fishing ground or to conserve the population of a target species by prohibiting its capture during the
reproductive stages of its life cycle.
Licence Control
Access to fishery resources can be controlled by limiting the number of licences, based on the
total allowable catch (TAC). Apart from the actual number of licences released, licence fees must
reflect the resource rent. However, this measure is seldom used. A measure more often employed is
the moratorium on the issuance of new commercial fishing licences. Licence fees are also still not
based on the resource rent, primarily due to the clamour of the commercial fishing sector.
Catch Ceilings
Limitations or quota may be established for a specified period of time, area or target species.
Again, this measure is seldom employed due to the lack of accurate time series data. An example
of its application is the incorporation of TAC in the Philippine National Tuna Plan for specific tuna
species.
Fishing Gear Limitation or Prohibition
The Fisheries Code provides a wide array of prohibition on fishing gears that destroy fish habitats
(for example, fishing using explosives and poison, muro-ami), harvest juvenile fish (for example, fine-
mesh nets), and overexploit nearshore fisheries (for example, all active fishing gears in municipal
waters).
Biodiversity Protection
Species-specific closed seasons shall take effect over rare, threatened and endangered species.
Also, the capture of breeders and spawners of great commercial value (for example, sabalo) are
deemed unlawful. To further protect indigenous and endemic species, limitations are imposed on
the introduction of foreign aquatic species and the obstruction of defined migratory paths of various
species.
Market-based Restrictions
Market-based restrictions are also provided to deter illegal and destructive practices. They include
limitations or prohibitions on the import/export of fish and fishery species; export of breeders,
spawners, eggs and fry; and dealing with illegally caught fish.
Overview of Community-based Systems

Though the Philippine policy environment provides the needed space for community-based
resource management, this does not necessarily lead to a community-based resource management.

The term ‘community-based’ connotes several approaches to different stakeholders and coastal
resource managers. At one extreme, community-based refers merely involving fisherfolk in coastal
resource management (CRM), either as beneficiaries or as stakeholders that need to be consulted. This
level of a community-based system can be seen as being initiated by current policies in the Philippines.
These are often termed as ‘co-management’, where partnership arrangement with the community
of local resource users (fishers), government, other stakeholders (boat owners, fish traders, boat
builders, business people, etc.) and external agents (NGOs, academic and research institutions) share
the responsibility and authority for the management of the fishery.
At the other end, CBCRM suggests a major, if not a leadership role, in managing coastal resources
and addressing coastal dwellers’ needs. This form of CBCRM has not been legitimized but is being
achieved in several areas in the Philippines where strong civil society is making its presence felt.
Co-management
Through consultations and negotiations, the partners develop a formal agreement on their
respective roles, responsibilities and rights in management, referred to as ‘negotiated power’. Co-
management is also called participatory, joint, stakeholder, multi-party or collaborative management.
Co-management covers various partnership arrangements and degrees of power sharing and
integration of local (informal, traditional, and customary) and centralized government management
systems. These co-management systems are commonly employed by government programmes (like the
ADB-funded Fisheries Resource Management Programme, and the Coastal Environment Programme)
and large-scale integrated coastal resource management programs (like the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID)-funded Coastal Resources Management Programme).
The establishment of FARMCs by the Fisheries Code is an example of how fisherfolk are able
to participate in fisheries policymaking. The FARMC is a recommendatory body composed of
representatives from government, fisherfolk organizations and NGOs. The majority of its members
are representatives of different fishers’ organizations. Fishery Administrative Order (FAO) 196 was
subsequently passed to provide guidelines on the creation and implementation of FARMCs. FAO 196
also defined the composition, tenure and functions of FARMCs at each level. The introduction of
FARMCs was exceptional in the sense that it forces LGUs to clearly distinguish between agriculture and
fisheries. The FARMC highlighted the fact that the Municipal Agriculture Offices are predominantly
agriculture-focused and fisheries-incompetent. This has also emphasized the need for participatory
decisionmaking, given that the real experts in fisheries are the fisherfolk themselves. While it has
opened up governance to community participation, there are still issues that need to be addressed
on the FARMC structure, the selection process, and clarification of the roles and internal mechanisms,
which would help to make it a more effective avenue for pursuing the objectives of the fisheries sector
it is supposed to represent. One of the major amendments recommended by NGOs and POs for the
review of the Fisheries Code is the section on FARMCs.
Another example is the PAMB, the policy-making body for protected areas. The PAMB is led by the
DENR official in the locality and includes representatives from the LGU, fisherfolk organizations and
NGOs. Unlike the FARMC, the PAMB has the power to make policies under the NIPAS Act. However, there
are several cases wherein the PAMB is not functional, due to a wide variety of reasons, and fisherfolk
organizations lobby for the creation of a FARMC to be able to voice their needs.
EO 533 provided for a mechanism for DENR to lead integrated coastal resource management
systems that would pool together various concerned government agencies and recognize the
contribution of civil society.
Community-based Coastal Resource Management (CBCRM)
Often distinguished from co-management is community-based coastal resource management,
a process whereby local people and communities organize themselves and play a central role in
identifying their resources and their development priorities, and in implementing CRM activities.
CBCRM is often advocated and implemented by civil society using the available democratic space in

the policy environment. CBCRM in the Philippines originated from two traditions of social movements,
the conservationists and those concerned with human rights. The guiding ideas of CBCRM include
participation, empowerment and equity (Ferrer et al., 2004). As such, CBNRM is often counter
posed to the government-centred or top-down approach wherein government officials and agencies
take on the lead role in formulating policies, choosing appropriate management technologies and
implementing natural resources management (NRM) programmes.
The community-based approach rests on the premise that people who actually use a given
resource, and who gain first-hand knowledge of such resource from their daily interaction
with the natural environment, are in the best position to protect and manage it. CBCRM
thus asserts the principle of local community control and initiative, while recognizing the
importance of institutional and policy contexts in influencing its performance in harnessing
local resources and using them productively, equitably and sustainably to meet community
needs. CBCRM commonly employs the following methods: (1) community organizing;
(2) participatory research; (3) capability building through education; (4) coastal resources
management; and (5) networking, advocacy and governance (Ferrer et al., 2001). CBCRM has gained
wide popularity in the Philippines as a development strategy amongst NGOs. Even the MTDP of the
Arroyo government espouses a community-based approach in addressing coastal environmental
problems. However, the actual application of a community-based approach is still limited and remains
an exception instead of the rule. The unique nature of CBCRM and the manner in which it has been
embraced by communities, NGOs and even government and international development agencies has
strongly legitimized it as a distinct and countervailing development philosophy and strategy (Vera
et al., 2004).
Though there is no consensus on the definition of ‘community’, it is becoming evident that
‘community’ is broadening from, initially, the marginalized and disempowered sectors of coastal
dwellers to a wider base that includes stakeholders, government, market forces and other actors.
Evidently, there is growing concern over striking a balance between excluding others from accessing
resources and making benefits inclusive to a wide range of stakeholders. This definition of ‘community’
is manifested by continuing experimentation by CBCRM practitioners on different strategies. It also
puts emphasis on the role of social capital – including linkaging and consolidating social relationships
– on CBCRM’s impact and sustainability.
With the term CBCRM being widely used to refer to CRM efforts with the participation of local
coastal dwellers, it would be practical to at least identify key elements and processes of CBCRM:
• Works primarily and initially with the marginalized and disempowered sectors of the community,
which evolves to include the wider community, other stakeholders and actors, in managing
coastal resources;
• Recognizes that the primary management unit is the evolving community, and undertakes CRM
in the context of community transformation by ensuring social and economic equity, holistic and
integrated management, and sustainable livelihoods and development;
• Transforms power relationships by building capacities of marginalized sectors of the community
and by facilitating other stakeholders and actors to be more sensitive and responsive to the needs
and desires of disempowered sectors towards articulated goals of citizen empowerment, where
citizens share decision-making responsibilities over plans, programmes, policy and management;
negotiate any attempt at change by outsiders; and access and engage in conflict-management
mechanisms;
• Builds on existing local community institutions and bodies of knowledge to facilitate collective
action for management of the resources;
• Responds to the dynamic and changing needs of the evolving communities and coastal resources
by adopting adaptive and learning structures, processes and rules; and

• Operates initially in manageable geographic scales with the intention of influencing/shaping

resource management and community development of a larger common pool of resources.
Despite the expanding scope of a CBCRM community, practitioners are conscious of inequitable
power relationships within the community. Transforming power relationships within and outside
the community remains a primary goal of CBCRM and the distinguishing mark that separates it from
co-management.
In the sociocultural and political realm, one of the major gains of CBCRM identified is ‘people’s
participation and empowerment’ in CRM (Ferrer et al, 2001). There is a noted increase in the formation
and strengthening of POs, various expressions of community empowerment, and skills and knowledge
in both men and women. The emergence of women leaders must be doubly stressed as a major gain
of CBCRM over the years, too (Vera et. al. 2004).
On the governance aspect, there is a noted increase in institutionalization of resource management
measures, networking and partnership building among organizations (from the community level to
NGOs, LGUs and external agencies), participation in local legislation, and the better enforcement of
fishery laws (Vera et. al., 2004).
In terms of the ecological and biophysical aspects, gains could be gleaned in terms of protection
of natural habitats, enhanced regulation of resource use, and increased biodiversity (Vera et. al.,
2004).
On the economic aspect, although livelihood diversification and increased fish catches were noted,
gains in terms of increased income are still few. This is discouraging, given that a primary motivation
for participation in CBCRM is supposedly socioeconomic gain.
Overview of Issues Raised by Fishing Communities/Fishworker Organizations

Delineation of Municipal Waters
Department Order 17 issued by DENR provided guidelines for the delineation of municipal waters
as provided for in the Fisheries Code.
The major conflict area between municipal fisherfolk and commercial fishers is in the use of the
resource-rich continental shelf. The municipal waters were expanded to 15 km, primarily to cover
the continental shelf. The Fisheries Code provides that municipal fishers have exclusive use of the
municipal waters, unless the municipal council issues an ordinance allowing commercial fishers to
use the 10-15 km zone. The policy prior to the Fisheries Code reserved the 7-km municipal waters
for the exclusive use of municipal fishers. With the persistent lobbying of municipal fishers and
environmentalists, the Fisheries Code extended the municipal waters to 15 km. As a compromise
with the commercial fishers, small-scale and medium-scale commercial fishing can be allowed by
the mayors in the 10.1-15 km portion of the municipal waters, provided that certain specific criteria
are met1.
Controversy arose when DENR issued Department Administrative Order 2000-17 (DAO 17)
providing the guidelines in delineating and delimiting municipal waters. DAO 17 subscribes to the
archipelagic principle. This implies that the measurement of the 15 km will be based on the offshore
islands of a municipality/city instead of the island proper of the municipality only. This provides not
only a more logical means of measuring municipal waters, it also covers a wider area for the use of
municipal fishers.
1
The criteria are as follows: a) no commercial fishing in municipal waters with depth less than seven fathoms
as certified by the appropriate agency; b) fishing activities utilizing methods and gear that are determined to be
consistent with national polices set by the Department; c) prior consultation, through public hearing, with the
M/CFARMC has been conducted; and d) the applicant vessel as well as the ship owner, employer, captain and
crew have been certified by the appropriate agency as not having violated this Code, environmental laws and
related laws.

Although the Philippines is geologically and constitutionally an archipelago, the commercial

fishing industry and BFAR are questioning the interpretation of DENR. DAO 17 has been revoked by the
DENR Secretary under pressure from representatives in Congress who have or had vested interest in
commercial fishing or canning. A new administrative order has been issued which tackled the issue
of delineating municipal waters without offshore islands but it is still silent on the issue of offshore
islands.
To some sectors, this would have grave implications for 301 towns and cities with offshore islands,
which include the rich fishing grounds of Zamboanga provinces, Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, Palawan, Coron
and Masbate.
Community-based Forestry Management (CBFM)

Executive order 263 provides opportunities for fisherfolk communities to have limited security
of tenure over mangrove forests through CBFM. The CBFM has been criticized for not really being
community-based in the sense that communities are implementers and not decision-makers in the
programme since a number of rules on the usage and management of the resources are already
stipulated. More so, some CBFM programmes deal with unorganized communities, leading to internal
squabbles and consequent failures.
Participation in Policymaking and Enforcement

Local Sectoral Representatives (LSR)
The campaign to create LSR will help enhance the participation of the municipal fisherfolk, and
other basic sectors, in policymaking. The LSR bill will add three seats to the Sangguniang Bayan. The
LSRs will have to come from the marginalized basic sectors in the municipality/city. The LSR bill is
based on the Constitution and has been filed in the previous Congress. Hopefully, more headway will
be achieved during the current administration.
Again, the strength of having representatives in policymaking or recommendatory bodies lies not
on the strength of the law mandating such representation but primarily on the political strength of
the fisherfolk organizations that are being represented.
FARMC
While the creation of FARMCs as mandated by the Fisheries Code has opened up governance to
community participation, there are still issues that need to be addressed about the FARMC structure,
the selection process, and clarification of the roles and internal mechanisms, which would help to
make it a more effective venue for pursuing the objectives of the fisheries sector it is supposed to
represent. The Fisheries Code failed to devolve the powers to communities by keeping the FARMCs
as mere policy-recommendatory body. With most municipal FARMCs organized by the LGU and BFAR,
FARMCs have become vulnerable to partisan local politics. The strength of the municipal FARMC lies in
the political strength of the fisherfolk organizations and not in the policy itself. Weak or unorganized
municipal fisherfolk will fall prey to the whims of local politicians.
Enforcement
The Fisheries Code provides for the participation of fisherfolk in fishery law enforcement through
deputized fish wardens or Bantay Dagat, within municipal waters. A measure of local government’s
sincerity towards community-based approaches to CRM is its willingness to allocate sufficient
resources for law enforcement. A particular challenge for many POs is that while they are willing
to risk life and limb in Bantay Dagat operations, resources are needed to sustain such efforts. While
the Fisheries and the Local Government Code prescribes modes of co-operation between LGUs and
civil society, resource allocation is still an area where NGO and PO advocacy is critical. At most, the
Fisheries Code recognizes the vigilance of the municipal fisherfolk in enforcing fishery laws in the
municipal waters. Apart from the LGU being allowed to seek the assistance of the DA in training, the
Fisheries Code does not provide for any other financial, physical or technical assistance to the Bantay
Dagat. The allocation of resources is also needed to address practical concerns of the Bantay Dagat
such as insurance coverage and social security.

Judicial Processes
Related to enforcement issues is the advocacy for the creation of special courts to process coastal
law enforcement-related cases. It is a source of great frustration for NGOs and POs, who after making
tremendous efforts towards apprehension, see violators being set free because of lack of political
will and, in some cases, the courts’ ignorance of marine laws. The creation of special courts can also
address the dynamics of patronage politics.
Fisheries Liberalization
Fisheries liberalization threatens livelihoods of fisherfolks in several ways. First, the opening of
international markets will further rationalize the modernization and production-centered programme
of the government. Further marginalization can be expected from the promotion of aquaculture
products.
Second, liberalization may provide access for foreign vessels or foreign companies/individuals to
local fishing grounds, as experienced in the Philippines-Taiwan Agreement in the 1980s. For example,
current Philippines-China bilateral agreements are focusing on cornering investments in different
areas. Foreign vessels will provide stiff competition for local commercial and municipal fisherfolk
in harvesting depleted fishery resources; suppress local market prices if their catch is sold locally;
and depress local food-fish supply if their catch is sold to foreign countries. Moreover, regulation of
foreign vessels to ensure operations comply with Philippine CRM policies will be difficult. Currently,
restriction of use of the country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) continues to be a challenge, given
the great disproportion between the country’s coastline and the government’s resources for enforcing
provisions in the country’s territorial waters. As such, violators (as in the perennial case of Chinese
fishing vessels in Philippine waters) caught by the Bantay Dagat and local enforcement units are often
set free for ‘diplomatic’ reasons.
Third, dumped imported fish may flood the wet market, causing fish prices to stabilize at a low
level all year round. This decreases the income of the small fishers, increases their vulnerabilities
during the stormy season and increases spoilage of unsold fish products. Even commercial fishers
are forced to increase their production, thus, continuing the encroachment into municipal waters in
an effort to save their business. Current trade policies under the Fisheries Code restrict the import of
fish to canneries, processing plants and institutional buyers (namely, restaurants, airlines, hotels). An
escape clause was provided wherein the DA Secretary can issue a Certificate for the Necessity to Import,
which will allow the import of fish for distribution in the wet market. This provision is considered
to be inconsistent with Philippine international commitments to trade liberalization. Despite this
protectionist policy, research studies show that frozen fish is rampantly being smuggled into the
country and distributed in both coastal and non-coastal wet markets. The challenge, therefore, is to
protect the livelihoods of millions of fisherfolk from the influx of cheap imported fish.
The stalemate in the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations in the Doha Round gave
a temporary reprieve for fishers’ groups engaged in trade advocacy. But while the WTO is, for the
moment, dormant, new arenas are emerging such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN), which highlight the same issues in the WTO such as liberalization of tariffs and removal
of non-trade barriers. It has consistently been argued that greater access to domestic markets
will inevitably lead to depressed prices of locally caught fish, and lower incomes for municipal
fisherfolk. Lower income from fishing may force municipal fisherfolk to increase fishing activities to
compensate for the low value of fish. Opening markets adds an extra pressure to the resources through
inducing catches beyond the renewable capacity of resources, and thus impedes the sustainable
development of fisheries. Increased trade liberalization in the fisheries and forest sectors is likely to
reduce conservation of these resources. Trade liberalization, in the absence of fisheries management,
might lead to adverse impact on resources.
Fisherfolk Settlement
The Philippine Fisheries Code has made explicit the establishment of fisherfolk settlement
areas, to be done in co-ordination with concerned agencies of the government, where certain areas

of the public domain, especially near the fishing grounds, shall be reserved for the settlement of the
municipal fisherfolk.
However, this provision is weak due to several reasons. First, the law fails to provide the appropriate
government agency to lead the implementation of the provision. Instead of the Department of
Agriculture (referred to as “the Department” in the Fisheries Code), the more appropriate agencies
are the DENR, which has jurisdiction over public lands; the Department of Agrarian Reform, which
verifies the inclusion or exclusion of the possible settlement areas in the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Programme (CARP); and the LGUs, which are vested with the authority to zone lands within
their jurisdiction. Second, the section does not provide for the participation of fisherfolk in the
establishment of settlement areas. Third, the Fisheries Code fails to allocate the necessary financial
resources to implement the provision. Lastly, the provision fails to establish security of tenure for the
fisherfolk because it deprives them of the bundle of rights associated with ownership of the land.
The NGOs for Fisheries Reform, an NGO network, is actively pushing for the issuance of a Joint
Administrative Order to concretize this provision, specifically in implementing socialized housing “as
a primary strategy in providing shelter for the underprivileged and homeless municipal fisherfolk”.
Magna Carta for Women
Women fishers belong to one of the most marginalized sectors in the country and within the
fisheries sector in general. Their contribution to fisheries has largely been ignored as fishing is
considered a male occupation. Fishery statistics do not even disaggregate the different subsectors and
phases in the fish-production process. Moreover, their roles in the production process are not given
economic value as they are relegated as extensions of their roles as mothers and housewives. As a
result, women have less access to productive resources and political leverage in decisionmaking. Local
NGO networks are currently pushing for the passage of a more responsive Magna Carta for Women to
address these issues. These NGOs are putting forth concrete recommendations to enhance the current
bill including ‘ensured representation’ of women fisherfolk in resource management bodies, specifically
the National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (NFARMC), local FARMCs, and
other co-management bodies or mechanisms, and ‘mandatory consultation’ of women fisherfolk in
the development of the CNFIDP and other programmes, policies and services promoting the welfare
and interests of fisherfolk. The recommendations also specify that equal status should be given to
both men and women in the issuance of stewardship or lease agreements and other fishery rights for
the management of coastal and aquatic resources. The Magna Carta for Women is in the final stages
of review in the House of Representatives. A similar bill is to be filed in the Philippine Senate.

CHAPTER 2:
CASE STUDY OF
CANDELARIA, ZAMBALES
The following case studies were chosen to illustrate how the existing policy environment that
encourages co-management can be extended to CBCRM. It is undeniable that there has been greater
awareness and concern over fisheries and coastal resource management due to the growing fisherfolk
movement, passage of the Fisheries Code, and implementation of well-funded ICM programmes.
These cases are exemplary cases and are not the norm in Philippine coastal communities. Meaningful
engagement of fisherfolk in fisheries and coastal resource management involves not only their
participation in CRM projects and FARMCs but also the transformation of their environmental and
political consciousness.
The first case study shows how fisherfolk in Candelaria, Zambales, are managing their municipal
waters by excluding non-resident fishers. The second case study reveals how women, who are generally
a marginalized sector in rural communities, led the CRM reform in their municipality.
Background Information
The town of Candelaria is located in the province of Zambales in Central Luzon, Philippines. It
faces the South China Sea on the west and the Zambales Mountain range on the east. The towns of
St. Cruz and Masinloc border the north and south sides of the municipality, respectively. It has 16
barangays, eight of which are coastal communities, namely, Uacon, Sinabacan, Malimanga, Dampay,
San Roque, Libertador, and Lauis and Binabalian. It has total land area of 38,760 ha.
Candelaria is a third-class municipality in terms of income. Candelaria has a total population of
23,399. An estimated 500 fisherfolk directly harvest fish from the municipal waters. Of this, a total of
215 fishers and 164 motorized boats are already registered with the Municipal Fisheries and Aquatic
Resource Management Council (MFARMC).
Based on the Municipal Comprehensive Land Use Plan, there is an approximate area of 163 ha of
brackishwater with total annual fish production of 769 tonnes, while the freshwater area is around
460 ha, with a total annual fish production of 3 tonnes. Fishing in municipal waters is limited to
fishing using boats that weigh equal or less than 3 tonnes.
A variety of gear is employed, mainly due to the wide array of species found in the waters.
Dominant gears are hook-and-line, bottom-set gillnet, fish traps and spears. The species caught are
fusilier, squid, roundscad, groupers, tuna, anchovies, parrot fish, and milkfish fry.
Fisheries Policy Background

Candelaria is so far the only town in the province of Zambales with a comprehensive Municipal
Fishery Ordinance (MFO) passed in 2003. Samahan ng Mangingisda ng Candelaria (SAMACA), a
municipal federation composed of five POs, led the drafting and lobbying for the MFO. The MFO is
enforced by the local enforcement units and the Bantay Dagat, a volunteer group of deputized fish
wardens.
Communities: Structural and Institutional Aspects
The power structure in Candelaria is informally determined by clans that have long resided in the
area. Elected officials come mostly from, or have affinity to, clans that have original roots in Candelaria.
Ka Raffy, Chair of the Sinabacan Fisherfolk Association and the Chair of the provincial federation,
PARASAMAZA, can be considered a migrant in Candelaria. However, his influence in Candelaria is
stabilized primarily by his marriage to Ka Thelma, a member of a prominent clan, in Candelaria.
LGUs and institutions are in place in Candelaria. A prominent local government institution is the
Lupon ng Tagapapamayapa or Committee on Peace and Order. It is the primary body that handles

conflict resolution, especially in cases wherein there is no law/policy or where the law is not known
to the community.
For fisheries, MFARMC is active in coastal communities. It is a quasi-government body created
through the Fisheries Code, and is composed mostly of local fisherfolk representatives and government
officials. Unlike other towns in the country where the MFARMC is initiated, dependent and led by the
Mayor, the MFARMC in Candelaria is supported and led by organized fisherfolk who actively lobby for
policy reforms in fisheries. The function of the MFARMC primarily is to provide policy recommendations
and implementation support to the LGU with regards to CRM.
Civil society is also active in Candelaria. The Catholic church, as in most towns in the Philippines, is
an influential institution in Candelaria. Apart from religious ceremonies, social and cultural activities
are initiated and hosted by the Church.
For NGOs, the Sentro para sa Ikauunlad ng Katutubong Agham at Teknolohiya (SIKAT) provides
support to fishers by implementing a community-based coastal resource management programme.
Several fisherfolk organizations were either strengthened or formed because of its efforts. These
organizations include the five POs forming the municipal fisherfolk federation, SAMACA. The
programme of SIKAT includes the development and management of fishery resources and the
elimination of Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC).
SIKAT also organized the provincial fisherfolk federation, PARASAMAZA. PARASAMAZA supports
its member organizations such as SAMACA, through advocacy work at the provincial and national
level, enterprise development, organization and capacity development and fishery management. In
addition, PARASAMAZA mainstreams gender concerns by providing gender-sensitivity training, and
advocating for fisherfolk women agenda at the provincial level (for example, the use of Gender and
Development Budget) and at the national level (for example, pushing for the Magna Carta for Rural
Women, and networking through PARASAMAZA-women with fisherwomen confederations).
Similarly, the Bantay Dagat or the group of deputized local fish wardens is composed of 17
committed individuals who patrol the seas relentlessly. Together with the local police, they effectively
enforce fishery policies in the municipality.
For people’s organizations, the Mother Rita Multi-purpose Co-operative provides a variety of
services for its members and the community, including microfinance. Other POs are mostly sectoral
and geographical in nature. There are several fisherfolk organizations that are active in their respective
barangays. These organizations provide support to their members through CRM, capacity development
and enterprise development. Other POs active in Candelaria include the farmers co-operative and
an association of mango producers.
Women’s Role and Status in Communities
Although more women are educated, they are often associated with domestic/reproductive
roles that are undervalued in the community. However, transformation of roles is slowly happening
with women becoming active in people’s organizations and exposed to gender-sensitivity training.
Several women have been placed in key leadership roles (like Chair of MFARMC), thus, opening up
perspectives of women to perform effectively outside the confines of the home. There is also a slow
change in the sharing of productive and reproductive roles between men and women.
In terms of migrating outside the community, more employment opportunities are opening up for
women. Women work as domestic helpers or salespersons or seek employment in offices and factory
work. Single women are more mobile, while married women are limited to work in neighbouring
towns due to their domestic roles in the house. On the other hand, men’s work is limited to contractual
construction work and factory work, to some extent.
Concept of Community
There are three concepts of community that are common among the fisherfolk. The most prevalent
is the perception that a community is a group of people who reside in the same location. The size of
the community is associated with political boundaries, the size of the resource management unit,
and/or the geographical features of the land. In Candelaria, the main units of the community are

the barangay and the municipality. In the neighbouring town of Masinloc, where the offshore island
barangay San Salvador is located, the main divisions of the community are the purok, barangay, and
the municipality. Political leaders are determined based on these divisions.
Another concept of community is based on users of a specific resource or stakeholders. These
stakeholders are usually divided into interest groups. These interest groups include fishers, beach
resort owners, local government, private sector, etc. Each interest group can further be subdivided
into income levels (municipal fisher, commercial fisher) or technology/fishing gear-based groupings.
This concept of community does not necessarily imply that the members are residents of the same
locality.
A third concept of community involves groups that are ‘friendly’ to the advocates of CRM. This
community includes groups and individuals that support CRM efforts (NGOs, legislators and the
private sector) or fisherfolk and stakeholders who comply with CRM policies. Groups and individuals
who are not included are the illegal fishers and their supporters.
Claims on Fisheries
The small-scale fishers have claims on the fishery resources primarily because of their long
tradition of fishing. For a few, there is knowledge of the provision in the Philippine Constitution
wherein small-scale and subsistence fishers are allowed to harvest fishery resources even though all
natural resources are “owned by the State.”
It should be noted that the claims of the fisherfolk over fishing grounds and fishery resources is not
only based on their livelihood, that is, a desire to access and benefit from fishery resources. It is highly
interconnected with the fisherfolk’s sense of responsibility to take care of the natural resources.
The fisherfolk believe that they are the stewards of God’s creation. As fisherfolk, it is their
responsibility to take care of the coastal environment for the present and future generations. Such
a perception provides motivation for the MFARMC, Bantay Dagat and fisherfolk organizations to be
active in the analysis, formulation and enforcement, and review of fishery policy. These institutions
serve as a means for fisherfolk to express their responsibility to God, the future generation and the
environment. Thus, there is a claim not only to use the fishery resources but also to manage the
resources.
Relative to its neighbouring towns, the fisherfolk of Candelaria believe that their municipal waters
are small and fragile. If management is not taken seriously, they would be forced to be migrant fishers
in other fishing grounds. This would not only mean bigger expenses in terms of fuel, but also mean
that they would be dependent on how fishing communities manage these distant fishing grounds.
Such a situation adds to their vulnerability as small fishers.
The organized fisherfolk groups believe that other fishers use their municipal waters because
these fishers fail to properly manage their own fishing grounds. Since these migrant fishers do not
reside in this municipality, it would be difficult to convince the migrant fishers to participate in the
proper management of the municipal waters of Candelaria.
This claim to manage the resources implies the ability to exclude commercial fishers with fishing
vessels and gear that inequitably compete with municipal fishers with small boats and passive or
relatively inefficient fishing gear.
These claims are reinforced by provisions of the Fisheries Code that give resident fishers of a
municipality, priority over the use of these resources. Though this provision does not necessarily
exclude non-resident fishers, the fisherfolk organizations and the MFARMC have lobbied to push the
limits of the law by reserving the fishing ground for exclusive use of the resident municipal fisherfolk.
The ensuing MFO rules that only fishers who are residents and are duly enlisted in the fisherfolk
registry maintained by the MFARMC are allowed to harvest fishery resources in the municipal waters of
Candelaria. This exclusion of non-residents confirmed that the concept of community of the fisherfolk
was primarily locality-based, instead of sectoral.
Local fisherfolk admit that they used to go to other fishing grounds outside their municipal waters,
primarily to catch fish species not found in the area. However, with the increased protection and

enforcement of policies, they now limit fishing in neighbouring fishing grounds. This, in a way, is
also in preparation for their eventual exclusion in other municipal waters.
Claims on Coastal Lands

Since their ancestors have long lived in Candelaria, the fisherfolk laid claim to the small portion
of land where they reside. They were unfamiliar with land laws and did not see the need to have
the land titled to their names. Thus, some families were shocked when they learned that someone
already has a title to their lands.
It is common for fisherfolk not to have titles to their lands. With most fisherfolk residing near the
shore where the land erodes or accretes, there is common belief that these lands are common, if not
public, lands. They lay claim primarily by paying tax declarations for the property. In other towns of
Zambales, beach development for tourism purposes threatens settlement areas. In reclaimed areas,
people are able to title the land and rent it out to fisherfolk.
Community Actions to Support Claims

Fisheries
A wide range of issues related to fisheries were cited by the fisherfolk. These included destructive
fishers (dynamite and cyanide fishers) from the same municipality; encroachment of migrant and
commercial fishers; unregulated mushrooming of fish cages and fishponds; sand quarrying; pollution;
lack of political will to implement laws; lack of understanding of fisherfolk rights, among other
things. However, the underlying problem was the marginalization of small-scale fisherfolk in the
determination and management of their livelihood and their environment.
Community actions to actively involve fishers in CRM included:
• strengthening of the ranks of the fisherfolk (including capacity development of fisherfolk and
awareness building on the need for CBCRM);
• lobbying for a municipal fisheries ordinance which reflected the desires and needs of the fisherfolk
community and facilitated ease of enforcement;
• information and education campaign on the policies;
• fisherfolk participation in law enforcement;
• networking and linking with POs (fisherfolk and other sectors), NGOs and concerned government
agencies and units; and
• continued engagement with LGUs.
The SFA has long existed as a fisherfolk organization in Candelaria. However, new energy was
tapped when other fisherfolk organizations were formed and capacities to represent the fisherfolk
communities and influence the LGUs were developed. People became aware of their rights and were
able to voice their needs in order to sustain their livelihoods. People became more concerned with
their environment and the need for community development.
With a critical mass and a collaborative engagement with the LGU, the fisherfolk lobbied for the
Municipal Fisheries Ordinance. The fisherfolk had to understand the national law well and determine
ways to adapt the law within legal confines. Their process of adapting and refining the national law
for a municipal ordinance was stimulated by the national efforts of NGOs for Fisheries Reform (NFR),
which underwent its own process of reviewing the national law. This national review process was in
lieu of the mandatory review of the Fisheries Code after five years of its passage. The review process
helped the local fisherfolk identify loopholes in the national law. With assistance from SIKAT, they
lobbied for a municipal ordinance that was able to cover loopholes of the Fisheries Code (allowing
commercial fishers inside municipal waters under specific circumstances, migration of non-resident
fishers into municipal waters).
As earlier mentioned, the most salient portion of the MFO was the exclusion of non-resident
fisherfolk from catching fish inside the municipal waters. Through the ordinance, it was easier to

manage the resources. Migrant fishers were easier to spot since they did not subscribe to the colour-
coding of the municipality. They were immediately approached by Bantay Dagat officials to escort
them outside municipal waters.
In addition, fishing gear management is also observed. The MFO contained provisions on fishing
gear that were both prohibited and allowed in the municipal waters. The prohibited list of fishing
gear aimed to stop the use of destructive gear (fishing using explosives and poison, trawls), unsafe
gear (like electrofishing) and highly extractive gear (trammel nets and other active gear). On the
other hand, the list of allowed fishing gear regulated the technological innovations that can harm or
put undue stress on the fishery resources.
A 190-ha MPA has also been established in critical areas of the municipal waters to help regenerate
depleted resources. No activity is allowed in these areas except for research purposes. The fisherfolk
organizations continually conduct monitoring research in the MPA to check the health of the reef.
Through information and education campaigns and the vigilance of the Bantay Dagat, migrant
fishers from neighbouring towns and provinces were effectively excluded from fishing inside the
municipal waters. The Bantay Dagat are vigilant but highly diplomatic with outside fishers. Through
such an approach, illegal and migrant fishers complied with rules with relatively minimal conflict.
Initially, migrant fishers were surprised about the ordinance and protested their exclusion. These
fishers requested for permits to be issued by the municipal government but were denied them.
Fisherfolk estimate that fishing pressure was reduced by 40 per cent through the exclusion of migrant
fishers. Also, illegal fishing activities have been stopped inside the coastal marine waters. The policy
was later rationalized and co-ordinated informally through the provincial fisherfolk federation,
PARASAMAZA.
At a focus group discussion, fisherfolk in neighbouring towns expressed their jealousy over the
support and political will shown by the local government to the efforts of the fisherfolk organization,
MFARMC and Bantay Dagat. Instead of feeling deprived from fishery resources in Candelaria, they
now lobby their own local governments to manage their municipal waters by regulating the number
of fishers who use the fishing grounds. The MFO of Candelaria is now considered as a model fisheries
ordinance in the province. Several towns are currently deliberating on their own municipal fisheries
ordinances using the Candelaria ordinance as a template, helped by lobbying of other fisherfolk
organizations that are members of PARASAMAZA.
After the passage of the MFO in 2003, the fisherfolk were challenged when the Mayor, who
supported the ordinance, lost the local elections in 2004. Often, highly partisan local politics lead
to the reversal of programmes and policies that are associated with political enemies. However, the
influence of the municipal fisherfolk federation in Candelaria was wide and crossed political parties.
This influence became the source of power of the fisherfolk organizations, and the new administration
recognized this. Instead of challenging the highly progressive MFO, the new Mayor supported it and
provided resources to implement it.
The fisherfolk organizations responded by engaging co-operatively with the new administration
through sharing of information and actively participating in the MFARMC and the Bantay Dagat. They
also give due recognition to the support of local government to their fellow fishers.
SIKAT aided local organizations in the monitoring of resources. Through locally trained divers,
the capacity to monitor the resources has been passed to the provincial federation, PARASAMAZA.
The information gathered is shared with LGUs and the provincial office of BFAR. This sharing of
information is part of the engagement of the local fisherfolk organizations with the LGUs and
government agencies.
Now, the fisherfolk organizations are confident that the fishery management policies that they
have lobbied for, would be sustainable since they have passed the challenge of changing political
administrations. .
Fisherfolk now claim that local fish catch is modestly growing without affecting the market price
of the fish. Larger fishes can now be seen being sold in the public market. Fish species not commonly
found in the area are slowly making the waters their new home. Fishers can now catch wild fish in

the rivers. Fisherfolk recall how a guest marine biologist was startled to catch a large talakitok during
the off-season.
Settlement Areas
The heated debate on fisherfolk settlement in Candelaria has divided communities and
organizations over a seven-ha piece of land. If the courts were to rule, the land would be awarded to
the title owner, M F Fernandez, since the land title is the binding legal instrument recognized by the
court. Tax declarations on the property and birth certificates presented by the fisherfolk are weak
evidence for claiming ownership of the land.
The Mayor of the town has tried to mediate in the land row by negotiating a compromise between
the title owner and the fisherfolk residents. A portion of the land has been negotiated to be sold by the
title-holder to allow the residents to buy the land. From the initial offer of three ha, the mayor was
able to negotiate this to five ha. Through the Community Mortgage Programme (CMP), the residents
will be allowed to buy the land and have it titled through an affordable installment plan.
This plan is amenable to some community members but the price tag for the land is still too high
for other residents. Thus, the other half of the community continues to resist the compromise since
they claim that it legitimizes the title that was illegally grabbed from them. They claim that they
would be willing to buy the title but they do not want to recognize the legality of the current title.
Also, they claim that the compromise agreement will mean additional expenses for the fishers since
they would be forced to ‘move’ their houses to the agreed location.
The residents are also lobbying that the LGU serve as guarantor for the CMP. Much as the LGU
wants to settle the issue once and for all, the LGU does not have the financial resources to serve as
guarantor. The LGU says it is still paying off debts incurred by the previous administration.
SAMACA attempted to intervene in the debate by pushing for a Fisherfolk Settlement Area and
recommending zones for specific purposes to be incorporated in the Comprehensive Land and Water
Use Plan of the Municipality. They cite the provision on fisherfolk settlement in the Fisheries Code.
This, however, has not yet gained ground.
Rights
As mentioned earlier, fisherfolk rights, claims and responsibilities are highly interconnected and
converge on the need for sustainable livelihoods for the fisherfolk.
The recognized rights that are perceived significant to the fisherfolk in Candelaria include the
following:
Utilization and Management of Resources
The right to use fishery resources for subsistence is enshrined in the Philippine Constitution.
Management of local fishery resources is considered not only a responsibility but also a right. Though
this right is invested more with the LGUs rather than the fisherfolk communities by the Fisheries
Code, it is evident that the spirit of the law is to devolve powers to the fisherfolk to manage the
coastal resources.
Settlement
As mentioned, fisherfolk settlement is recognized by the Fisheries Code. However, the law fails
to provide details on how this right will be enforced. The law does not recognize that the area of
settlement shall be the same area where fishers are currently settled. Thus, there are still areas for
improvement in the law for the government to honour this right.
Responsibilities
Management of Coastal Resources
There is common agreement that as stewards of the earth, people are supposed to take care of the
natural resources. The fishers recognize that the LGUs, with their limited resources and capacities,
cannot manage the coastal resources on their own. The significance of these resources to their

livelihood compels the fishers to become more active in management. The responsibility to take care
of the natural resources is clearly expressed by becoming active in fisherfolk organizations, Bantay
Dagat, MFARMC and the LGU. For non-members, this responsibility is shown by complying with rules
(Fisheries Code and MFO) and sharing knowledge on illegal activities with the authorities or the
Bantay Dagat.
Maintain and Improve the Land
In terms of settlement areas, residents cite the need to maintain the land by keeping areas clean
and safe. Improvement of the land is mostly expressed by adding vegetation. It is their responsibility
to ensure that outsiders would not settle illegally in the area. Ironically, these responsibilities are
not carried out well enough by the residents in the settlement area in question. Several fisherfolk
claim that the area in question was ill-maintained and squatters often entered the community. They
say that the land was not valued by the residents then. It was only now that somebody was staking
a claim over the land that the community is beginning to value their land and becoming conscious
of their responsibilities.
Support Government to Protect Rights
The fisherfolk also recognized the huge role of government in protecting their rights. Support to
government primarily includes payment of necessary taxes. For some, it extends to volunteering for
community-based initiatives (Bantay Dagat, Barangay Tanod) to enforce laws and maintain peace
and order.
Community-rights Regimes
Although CBCRM is becoming a popular approach, it would not be correct to say that the Philippines
has a community-rights regime. The Fisheries Code provides several opportunities as starting points
for a community-rights regime such as decentralization of the jurisdiction of municipal waters to LGUs,
creation of the MFARMC, prioritization of resident fishers in the use of municipal waters, recognition
of traditionally marginalized sections of the fisherfolk sector (women and youth).
However, there is still much more work for fisherfolk communities to realize a community-based
rights regime. As seen in the case study, LGUs must pass fishery ordinances that would limit the
pressure from migrant fishers, to be able to successfully manage municipal waters.
During the focus group discussion, a debate ensued regarding who should initiate CRM in upland
communities where electrofishing was still being practised. The barangay councillor argued that he
was waiting for the POs to push the council to enforce the MFO in the upland barangays. He claimed
that he needed a mandate from the people to pursue the cause. On the other hand, the Bantay Dagat
members and the fisherfolk organizations argued that they would only follow the lead of the barangay
council in the community since they are not from these communities. They were apprehensive about
leading such a campaign since their unfamiliarity with the community could have led to unnecessary
tension and conflict. In the end, it became apparent that what mattered more was co-ordination
between the fisherfolk organizations and the barangay officials to implement the law.
Strong fisherfolk organizations or representatives must fully engage the LGU in order to transcend
the recommendatory nature of the MFARMCs and avoid becoming a puppet institution of local
politicians. In addition, further harmonization between the functions of the BFAR, the DENR and the
LGUs needs to be done in order to develop more efficient, decentralized and devolved governance
systems for the coastal zone.
According to the fisherfolk, a community-based approach does not mean that the government
should abandon its duties and responsibilities and pass them on to the fisherfolk. Instead, the
community-based approach pushes the local government to recognize that fisherfolk are key partners
of LGUs in serving their constituents. This recognition, including the development of capacities and
knowledge in fisheries management and community development, has built up the confidence of the
common fisherfolk and empowered them to voice their vision and position on different issues.
This empowerment is greatly recognized by fisherwomen who are members of the organizations.
Not only do they get the opportunity to participate in activities outside the household, their

knowledge and skills as leaders are recognized by others. Their role in development is more valued.
Transformations from the community/organization/household level to the individual level are slowly
happening.

CHAPTER 3:
CASE STUDY OF
HINATUAN, SURIGAO DEL SUR
Background Information
Mahaba Island is located off the coast of the municipality of Hinatuan in northeastern Mindanao,
around 20 minutes by motorized boat from the mainland. It is one of the 15 coastal municipalities
of the province of Surigao del Sur facing the Pacific seaboard. Hinatuan is bounded in the north by
the municipality of Barobo, in the south by Bislig City, in the east by the Pacific Ocean, and in the
west by the municipality of Tagbina. The municipality is composed of 24 barangays with a total land
area of 423.57 sq km.
Around 54.47 per cent of the area is devoted to agricultural use, 36.79 per cent has been allotted to
forest reserves, and the remaining 8.74 per cent consists of built-up areas, open grasslands, fishponds
and open waters.
The total population of Hinatuan in 2000 was 36,170 (18,504 males and 17,666 females), which
is 7.21 per cent of the provincial population (501,808) in the same year. This was distributed in
around 6,445 households. In 2000, Barangay San Juan, where Mahaba Island is situated, had a
total population of 1,321 individuals, spread in 252 households (NSO, 2000). Mahaba Island has a
population of 329 individuals.
Fish Production
Annual production from marine fisheries for the whole of Hinatuan is 580 tonnes. From inland
fisheries, the total annual production is about 315 tonnes. Cultured species include prawns, bangus
or milkfish, tilapia, and mud crabs. Seaweed production comes to around 200 tonnes per year.
Fishing is the main source of livelihood in Mahaba Island. Some of the main fish species caught
around the island are danggit or rabbitfish (Siganid sp.), kabasi (Anodontostoma chacunda), sea bass
(Centropomidae sp.), katambak (Lutjanids), lapu-lapu (Serranids), moong (Pomacentridae), gono
(Atherinidae), and mangagat (Latidae). Shellfish and mud crabs are also found and harvested around
the island, as well as lima-lima, sikad-sikad, and bungkawil.
The fishing gear commonly used by fishers in Mahaba Island include single nets, hook-and-line
(bingwit), spears (pana), and a variety of fish traps. All fishers in Mahaba are marginal fishers using
small boats or baroto. Only a few own motorized boats as these cost around five times more than
the ordinary unmotorized vessels.
Status of Resources
Continuing threats to Hinatuan’s coastal and marine resources include mangrove clearing for
building fishpond, illegal fishing and overfishing, and poaching inside declared marine sanctuaries.
Illegal practices like dynamite fishing and the use of triple-mesh nets (overlaying nets of different
sizes) have been identified as the main reasons for the rapid decline in fish catch in the mid-1990s.
Commercial fishers using big boats and more efficient gear have also intruded into municipal waters
and have accelerated overfishing. Pollution has been a major concern, with quarrying activities inland
and dumping of domestic wastes in coastal areas.
Community-based resource management and enforcement activities initiated by small fishers and
the Centre for Empowerment and Resource Development (CERD), starting in 1998, have substantially
reduced the incidence of illegal fishing and intrusion of commercial fishers into Hinatuan Bay.
Rehabilitation efforts by POs, CERD and LGUs have also helped restore degraded mangrove ecosystems
along Hinatuan’s coast and around offshore islands like Mahaba.
Marine resources in Hinatuan Bay include endangered species whose protection has served to
further highlight local resource management and conservation efforts. Several varieties of marine
turtles including the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys

olivacea), green turtles (Chelonia mydas), loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), and leatherbacks
(Dermochelys coriacea) have been observed in the bay. Experts have identified Mahaba Island as
one of the nesting sites for these marine turtles in Hinatuan (Byrne and Hines, 2005). Another
endangered species inhabiting Hinatuan waters is the sea cow (dugong dugong). Habitat loss and
degradation, fishing activities, and local consumption pose threats to the remaining population of these
endangered creatures. The approved Hinatuan Municipal Fisheries Ordinance of 2004 has declared
the conservation of these species as a policy of the municipal government (Article II, Section 1).
Legislation and Management Measures
The Provincial Council of Surigao del Sur approved and adopted the Hinatuan MFO in June 2004.
Among other things, the MFO provided for, and put in place, the following policies and management
systems:
• A participatory coastal governance regime that mandates the municipal government to manage,
protect and regulate the use of coastal and marine fishery resources, consult with the MFARMC,
and delegate its powers to the Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils
(BFARMCs), NGOs, and fisherfolk organizations in enforcing fishery and environmental laws;
• Exclusive use of Hinatuan’s coastal and fishery resources for Hinatuan residents, with preferential
rights to marginal and subsistence fisherfolk;
• Prohibition of commercial fishing within municipal waters;
• Prohibition of fishing activities within declared marine sanctuaries and overfished areas;
• Regulation of all fisheries activities in municipal waters, including aquaculture activities, through
the imposition of fees, issuance of licences, leases and permits, and registration of fishers, fishing
boats, and fishing gear;
• Zonation of coastal waters, delineating areas reserved for navigational lanes, construction of
various fishing structures and apparatus, economic zones, and MPAs or marine sanctuaries. Eight
established marine sanctuaries, with a total area of 476.3 ha, have been included and classified
under the said zonation scheme;and
• Prohibition of specific fishing gear, including fine-mesh nets, triple nets, baling (beach-seine),
and sud-sud (push-net) within municipal waters. Fishing with explosives, poisonous and noxious
substances or chemicals, and electricity has been declared illegal.
Structural and Institutional Aspects
Around 80.67 per cent of the total households in Hinatuan have an annual income of Php 20,000
(around US$418) and below. Apart from subsistence fishing, which is their main source of livelihood,
residents of Mahaba Island engage in copra production, marketing of other marine products like mud
crabs and shellfish, and retailing. Except for a relatively well-off prospector from the mainland who
had a house constructed in the island, economic differences among the 83 households in Mahaba
are not pronounced.
CERD organizers, however, note access to fishing gear as a cause for some inequity, as only a few
households in Mahaba can at present afford expensive fish nets and motor boats that usually give
bigger catches and more income.2 Some PO members who are able to engage in other livelihood
activities like marketing of fish products in the mainland and retailing (including operation of small
community stores) earn extra income and report being able to save some amount, which is usually
invested in purchasing additional fishing implements or set aside for unexpected expenses.
Mahaba Island is considered one sitio of Barangay San Juan. An appointed sitio leader links the
island community to the quasi-governmental barangay structure based in the mainland. A more recent
and recognized community institution is the PO, Ladies in United Movement Onward to Development
2
Single nets (pukot) cost around Php 2.80 or US$0.062 per m. Fishers in Mahaba commonly use around 100
m (Php 280 or US$6.22). From informal interview with Juvenal Nilda, 2 March 2007.

(LUMOT) that started out in 1998 as a 23-member group, composed entirely of women. Since then, the
organization has been active in resource management and livelihood improvement efforts in Mahaba
Island. It has provided various services to the community, benefiting also non-members. The PO has
also begun addressing the settlement issue faced by the residents. PO leaders and members link the
Mahaba community with governance bodies and structures in the mainland, including the municipal
government, fisheries regulatory agencies, national agencies, development and planning bodies, and
the PO federation. With male relatives of members as well as other male residents subsequently joining
the organization, the PO changed its name to Ladies in Unity with Men Onwards to Development to
reflect its new mixed composition.
Women, however, have remained active and still occupy key leadership roles within the
organization. Through the years, with their experience in LUMOT, men in the island have come to
recognize the significant role played by women in CRM and community development work. Women
residents continue to take part in regular patrolling and enforcement operations as deputized fish
wardens. They also continue to take the lead in resource management activities like mangrove
rehabilitation, sanctuary maintenance and monitoring, and coastal clean-ups. CERD has also initiated
and organized seminars on gender sensitivity and violence against women (VAW) to help mainstream
women and gender concerns in LUMOT’s work. Men have been active participants in such activities
as well.
Concept of Community
LUMOT members’ definition of the community is based on two factors: participation in CRM efforts
and compliance with local fisheries regulations.
Contributions to CRM
Concern in protecting the coastal environment and actual contribution to resource management
activities are deemed important considerations for inclusion in the community since these are seen
to be among the main reasons for organizing and undertaking CBCRM, in the first place. These
criteria have little to do with membership in the PO. Members actively encourage non-members
to be involved in the organization’s activities. PO members also cited conducting information
dissemination campaigns and community assemblies, in co-ordination with barangay officials, among
the unorganized residents to ensure inclusiveness in local actions. Non-members have joined resource
rehabilitation, enforcement and other management activities done by the PO in the past.
Such concern for coastal environmental protection and sustainable management also serves as
the basis for the expanded concept of the community that includes other stakeholders who support
local efforts. These stakeholders would include national government agencies, LGUs (barangay,
municipal), the Church, academic institutions, and NGOs. However, they are seen to perform only a
supporting role in actual resource management. For CERD, small-scale fishers are still the primary
stakeholders as it is their main source of livelihoods that is at stake in any CRM intervention. Existing
local power relations would also require that small fishers be organized first before they link up
with other stakeholders for CRM, to ensure that they are able to effectively assert their interests and
negotiate with local power holders.
The PO members showed little inclination to define the community as a social group, or in terms
of collective action occurring within a well-defined geographical unit or territory. Residents of
neighbouring barangays within Hinatuan, as long as they participated or subscribed to local resource
management efforts, thus could be considered part of the community, even though they do not actually
live in Mahaba Island. They are thus free to fish in the waters around Mahaba Island, except inside the
delineated sanctuary and subject to existing municipal fisheries regulations. The male respondents,
however, noted how exclusive use could be possible among Hinatuan’s coastal barangays if sustainable
resource management measures are adopted within each of these LGUs.

Compliance with Existing Rules

Compliance with local fishing regulations, particularly with regard to the use of non-destructive
fishing methods and the observance of the no-fishing rule in the established sanctuary, provides a clear
basis for delineating who are included and who do not belong to the PO’s idea of community. Violators
are excluded from the community. Such exclusion, however, is considered temporary especially in
the case of small fishers who have resorted to illegal fishing activities. A willingness to change and
turn away from environmentally destructive practices on the part of these offenders, and contingent
on them serving any penalty or sanction stemming from the violation, could eventually lead to their
‘re-inclusion’ into the community. Some PO members, in fact, were illegal fishers themselves before
they became aware of their environmentally detrimental practices and joined the organization.
Claims on Coastal Resources

LUMOT members’ concept of their claims to marine and coastal resources is based primarily on
their contributions to manage the resource, and stem from their perceived rights over the benefits
resulting from protection and management activities. Such claims to resources, however, do not entail
ownership but are instead based more on the idea of stewardship: rights to access and use coastal
resources proceed from collective actions to manage and improve on such resources.
Establishing Stewardship
PO members see CERD’s resource management interventions beginning in 1998, and subsequent
events leading to the establishment of the local organization and community sanctuary, as instrumental
in the development of awareness of such rights over coastal resources. Before such initiatives, PO
members noted how many of them were not that conscious of their collective potential in protecting
their coastal environment and of their claims over community resources.
Volunteers from Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), mostly marine biologists, came to Hinatuan
and helped in delineating and setting up community sanctuaries, which included the 19-ha Mahaba
Island sanctuary. The volunteers explained to the community the need for setting up the protected
area, and helped the local people identify suitable sites (based on the presence of critical coastal
ecosystems like coral reefs, seagrass, mangroves, etc.). The boundaries of the sanctuary were outlined
and proposed to the community at a public hearing. The suggested regulations, including the banning
of trammel nets, baling or fine-mesh nets, dynamite, and tubli (cyanide), were also presented during
the public hearing. The experts’ findings and recommended resource management measures resonated
well with past experiences of declining fish catch among the Mahaba Island fishers, and were thus
easily validated and approved.
Strengthening Claims on Resources
As with other community marine protected areas in Hinatuan, fishing activities are prohibited
inside the Mahaba Island marine sanctuary. Community members and small-scale fishers from
neighbouring barangays are still allowed, though, to fish outside its boundaries as long as they
comply with local fishing regulations regarding prohibited fishing gear and practices. The 2004 MFO
reserved the municipality’s coastal and fishery resources for the exclusive use of Hinatuan residents.
The ordinance also granted preferential fishing rights to marginal and subsistence fishers and their
families within municipal waters. Other activities like research and surveys for purely scientific and
educational purposes were allowed, subject to existing regulations (Article III, Section 5).
Claims and preferential rights over fisheries resources around Mahaba Island and within Hinatuan’s
municipal waters have strengthened through the years since LUMOT and CERD started implementing
resource management measures. The approval of the MFO and the municipal government’s support
to the PO and their enforcement groups further bolstered the residents’ perception of such claims. PO
members narrated, for instance, how fishers from neighbouring municipalities like Aras-asan, as well
as trawl operators from other provinces like Bohol, used to fish near the present site of the Mahaba
sanctuary. LUMOT’s persistent enforcement operations, supported by LGU officials, have minimized
such incursions into municipal waters around the island.

Claims on Coastal Lands

Mahaba Island is being claimed by a wealthy investor from the mainland who had made known
her plans to make the island a major tourist spot in Hinatuan. The claimant has recently applied for
a Foreshore Leasehold Agreement (FLA) with the DENR to strengthen claims on the coastal lands
currently settled by PO members and other small-scale fishers in the island. The DENR, however, has
disapproved the claimant’s application for failure to meet certain technical requirements regarding
the size of Mahaba Island’s foreshore area. CERD organizers and LUMOT members are monitoring
the settlement issue, and have been co-ordinating with government agencies like the Municipal
Planning and Development Office (MPDO) and the provincial DENR office. The Hinatuan-wide PO
federation, Nagkahiusang Mangingisda ng Hinatuan (NAMAHIN), of which LUMOT is a member, has
also taken up the issue and has supported dialogues with concerned agencies and officials to assert
the fishers’ settlement rights.
PO members interviewed for the study have been living in Mahaba Island for periods ranging
from 23 to 36 years. Their points of origin included the neighbouring municipalities of Marihatag and
Mangagoy, and the province of Bohol. Some of the earliest inhabitants of Mahaba were believed to
have settled in the island as early as the 1940s. Migration into the island continues up to the present
day. The most recent migrants arrived in 2003 from Barangay Pukto in the interior of Hinatuan.
Outward migration is also still happening. LUMOT recently lost some of its members when they
decided to migrate to neighbouring coastal barangays. New settlers are mostly relatives or friends
of old residents, as settling in the island usually involves contacting existing residents and inquiring
about available lands. Residents do not have any legal titles to their lands.
The PO members’ concept of their claims on coastal lands in Mahaba Island are based on the
following: (1) actions undertaken by the community to protect the coastal and marine resources
around the island; (2) the PO’s position that the island belongs to the State; and, (3) the flimsy and
spurious basis of the private claimant’s case (questionable land titles and tax declarations). While there
has not been much progress in addressing the tenure issue over coastal lands, the sense of settlement
security in Mahaba Island has improved among PO members as well as other residents of the island
over the years. Some factors that contributed to this development have been the establishment of the
organization, the actions it initiated to challenge the private claimant’s positions, and the support it
has gained from other stakeholders like CERD and the LGUs.
Both CERD and municipal government officials have indicated that there is recognition in Hinatuan
of fishers’ rights to coastal lands. Apart from exempting areas reserved for the settlement of municipal
fisherfolk from the prohibition on the construction of structures on foreshore lands (Article V, Section
24), the issue of fishers’ rights to coastal lands, however, has not been expressly addressed in the
approved MFO. Municipal government officials claimed having identified coastal areas for fisherfolk
settlements in the proposed land-use plans. Identification of such zones were supposedly done in
consonance with various infrastructure projects (for example, construction of sea walls) and natural
mitigation measures (including mangrove rehabilitation and conservation) to protect the inhabitants
from destructive waves during typhoons or other calamities. Most of these initiatives, however, have
been implemented in the mainland and have yet to include offshore islands like Mahaba.
Actions to Support Claims

Residents of Mahaba Island, led by LUMOT with support from CERD and the LGUs (municipal
and barangay), have been conducting resource management activities and enforcing local fisheries
regulations since the PO’s formation and the sanctuary’s establishment in 1998. The PO has also
recently initiated joint actions with other groups to address the fisherfolk settlement issue.
Resource Management Activities
LUMOT members have undertaken and attended various capability-building seminars and training
since 1998 to deepen their understanding of the coastal environment and CRM. CERD has been assisting
LUMOT and other Hinatuan POs under the NAMAHIN federation in organizing such learning activities

that have also served as opportunities for identifying and tackling pressing issues affecting fisherfolks
in Hinatuan. LUMOT members have raised funds and mobilized the island’s residents to undertake
community actions and projects, including the purchase and installation of marker buoys to delineate
the Mahaba sanctuary, construction of a multipurpose hall for community assemblies in the island,
establishment and maintenance of guardhouses in the sanctuary, conduct of training orientation
for new PO members, and patrolling operations by volunteer fish wardens. The organization has
mobilized residents and other concerned groups in reforestation activities that rehabilitated almost
30 ha of mangrove areas in the interior and around Mahaba Island. The PO has also enjoined both
members and non-members to participate in its monthly coastal clean-ups.
The PO, with support from CERD and the municipal government, has also initiated community
livelihood activities to supplement the incomes of members from fishing, and help sustain resource
management efforts. These included mud crab raising, and the offshore rabbitfish and lobster
hatchery projects. The organization has started a wholesale-retail scheme with some women
members by lending a small amount for capital with no interest. LUMOT gets 80 per cent of its income
from the business, while the seller gets 20 per cent as incentive. The PO also runs a daily film show
business, collecting Php 6 (US$0.1)per head, at the multipurpose hall. Future plans of the PO include
repairing the sanctuary’s markers, constructing a separate ‘beta house’ (for the film show business),
establishment of additional guardhouses around the sanctuary and the mangrove reforestation site,
and purchasing additional pumpboats for patrolling operations and members’ fishing activities.
As part of its gender mainstreaming efforts, LUMOT has also recently embarked on the delineation
of exclusive women’s zones or sanctuaries in Mahaba Island to provide a space where women can
pursue their own livelihood activities. A portion of the island’s mangrove area where women are known
to collect shellfish, both for household use and for marketing, has been identified as a possible site
for the initial establishment of such zones. This initiative is being undertaken in co-ordination with
Budiong, a national network of women in fisheries of which NAMAHIN is a member. LUMOT has also
participated in regular monitoring of the island’s sanctuary and mangrove areas. This Hinatuan-wide
effort was initiated by CERD with support from the Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMA) network.
Yearly fish-stock surveys are conducted by CERD’s technical staff, with the help of trained volunteer
monitors from the island community. Mangrove monitoring is done every six months.
Enforcement of Fisheries Regulations
Municipal government officials in Hinatuan recognize the large role played by POs in the
enforcement and implementation of local fisheries regulations. As a result, both the local regulatory
agencies and the police have had an easy time in performing their jobs. Mahaba Island is one of the
few CBCRM sites in the Philippines that have women as active fish wardens. This owes much to the fact
that LUMOT started out in 1998 as a women’s group engaged in CRM. Since then, the organization has
been diligently patrolling the borders of the Mahaba sanctuary and enforcing local fishery regulations.
Despite the entry of men into the organization in 1999 and 2000, women have retained their active
roles in its enforcement activities. Non-members have also participated in these activities, joining
organized teams of volunteer fish wardens who have been deputized by the municipal government
and given the powers to apprehend illegal fishers in Hinatuan Bay.
The approved MFO of Hinatuan mandates the municipal government to provide support to all
fisherfolk organizations, particularly in the conduct of enforcement activities. Such support would
include incentives to fish wardens equivalent to 25 per cent of the imposed penalties, as well as fuel,
lubricants and food, in the conduct of sea-borne patrols (General Provisions, Section 35). According
to LUMOT members, the municipal government continues to provide support to local enforcement
efforts in the form of motor fuel (30 l per month at the start, down to 10 l per month at present),
supplies (including rice, canned goods, etc.), markers and buoys, and construction materials for the
guardhouses.
PO members have attested to the effectiveness of its enforcement activities around Mahaba Island
by citing the decline in illegal fishing activities and incidences of intrusion by commercial fishers and

non-Hinatuan residents into the surrounding waters. Local fish wardens are proud of the fact that
the Mahaba sanctuary is among the few MPAs in Hinatuan Bay that have not been violated by illegal
fishers. The community’s fish wardens have also successfully apprehended some illegal fishers near
the sanctuary and had these violators imprisoned. The Mahaba experience in terms of enforcement
of fishery regulations is reflective of other community sanctuaries in Hinatuan Bay. In 2001, three
years after the establishment of the marine reserves, a total of 300 illegal fishers were apprehended
in the bay. The latest report on apprehensions, covering the period July 2006 to February 2007, cited
70 persons apprehended for violations of local fishing regulations (mostly use of illegal fishing gear).
Seven of these arrests were done by PO fish wardens.
Addressing the Settlement Issue
LUMOT and NAMAHIN, in co-ordination with CERD, have already conducted dialogues and
negotiations with the local DENR office regarding the coastal lands issue. While most LUMOT members
and the island’s residents are not inclined to leave Mahaba in the immediate future, some PO and
federation leaders do recognize the present vulnerabilities of the community to sea-borne disasters,
including the observable rise in sea level. They have thus opened the possibility for resettlement in
the long term. There is, however, no clear position yet on this issue. Meanwhile, the PO and federation
leaders have been talking to municipal government agencies, including the Office of the Mayor and
the MPDO, regarding adequate provisions for fisherfolk settlement and resettlement areas in the
LGUs land-use and zoning plans. NAMAHIN leaders have also been co-ordinating with the NGOs for
Fisheries Reform (NFR), in crafting effective policy responses on the issue of fisherfolk settlement
in Hinatuan.
According to LUMOT members, the private claimant to Mahaba Island used to demand 1 kg of first-
class fish caught by each household (around Php 35 or US$0.8 then) as rent. PO members and other
residents, however, have stopped paying such monthly rent since initiating resource management
measures in 1998. The claimant has issued several threats in the past to have the residents removed
from the island. The latest deadline given by the claimant for the people to leave their homes and
vacate the island was September 2005. On one occasion, the claimant was successful in relocating
several residents to other parts of the island. Despite such threats to their claims on lands in Mahaba,
the fishers’ sense of security has substantially improved through the years with the establishment
of the PO and its efforts to address the community’s development needs. Apart from its resource
management activities, the PO has provided various services to the community, including installation
of water pumps, operation of a community generator to provide electricity to residents, and allocation
of pumpboats for transporting children to and from the mainland where they go to school. Some PO
members have actually invested more in recent years to household improvements and more permanent
structures on their lands.
Fishers’ Rights and Responsibilities

Discussions with LUMOT members and other residents of Mahaba Island highlighted the need to
situate fishers’ rights and responsibilities within efforts to sustainably manage degraded and overused
coastal resources. Most of the fishers’ rights identified by the respondents to the case study hinged
on the right to manage the community’s resources and protect the coastal environment. This is also
seen as the fishers’ primary role, and thus included also in the list of responsibilities. All of the other
responsibilities, in fact, involved actions that served to detail this basic role.
Fishers’ Rights
Manage the community’s coastal resources.
In the PO members’ conception, this right subsumes rights to access and control of resources.
Access and control of coastal resources are not in themselves enough to ensure sustainable livelihoods.
Fishers should get adequate support in terms of developing their capacities to sustainably manage
coastal and marine resources. The right to manage coastal resources is also not only geared towards
protecting and sustaining the fishers’ main source of livelihoods. There was a clear awareness that

current management efforts would also be benefiting succeeding generations in the form of a healthy
and improved coastal environment
Fishers’ settlements
This would include security of tenure in lands where they are currently residing or where they
could resettle. Safety considerations have been recently brought to the fore by threats of tsunamis,
earthquakes, and other sea-borne disasters. CERD is thus considering lands that are not necessarily
nearshore, but are not too far from the coast either. Priority is also given to lands for housing over
other occupationally related purposes (such as drying nets/fish, parking boats, etc.)
Basic social services.
These include supply of potable water, waste management facilities, health services, electricity, and
education. This right is particularly relevant to the Mahaba Island community as most of such basic
services are at present lacking in the area. LUMOT leaders and members have already approached LGU
officials, including those in the barangay, several times in the past to ask for assistance in addressing
problems with these basic services. But no action seems to be forthcoming from the LGUs, which cite the
land tenure problem as a major hindrance in providing such services to the Mahaba community.
CERD staff view equitable distribution of fisheries resource as a more encompassing right that
includes the rights to manage the resource, have preferential rights over municipal waters, and
exclude illegal and commercial fishers. They also add the right to have access to adequate capital,
technology and resources for improving livelihoods. This is primarily geared towards providing
supplemental sources of income in light of the long recovery periods of coastal and fishery resources
after management measures have been put in place.
Fishers’ Responsibilities
Protect and sustainably manage coastal resources.
PO members are particularly conscious of efforts to rehabilitate and manage fisheries and mangrove
resources. They are aware, however, that this role extends to other components of the coastal and
marine environment, including protection of endangered species that have been put in the watch
list of the municipal government and environmental regulatory agencies. This duty also includes
rehabilitating degraded ecosystems.
Help enforce fisheries and other environmental laws.
This responsibility has been formalized in the approved MFO, which explicitly mandated the
municipal government to delegate its powers of regulating use of fisheries resources within municipal
waters and enforcing all pertinent laws to the MFARMC, the BFARMCs, registered NGOs and fisherfolk
organizations (Article III, Section 4).
Monitor the state of coastal resources.
Recent initiatives to monitor existing fish stocks in and around the Mahaba sanctuary, and the
state of mangrove resources, have instilled awareness of the importance of such activities among
LUMOT members and other island residents.
Threats to Rights and Responsibilities

Support from government, particularly the LGUs, is still deemed an important factor in the success
of community efforts to manage and protect coastal resources. A decrease in such support with
possible changes in administration is thus deemed a significant threat to local resource management
efforts. While much has been done in terms of formal recognition of fishers’ rights and responsibilities
in the approved MFO, the priorities and actual assistance of LGUs will still depend greatly on the
perspectives of elected officials. At present, PO members are conscious of the lack of consistency
among local officials in terms of their support to local resource management. Some members of the
municipal council which passed the MFO, for instance, have even supported local moves to have the
sanctuaries dismantled and the use of trammel nets legalized. CERD and the PO federation had to

conduct a municipality-wide information and education drive to counter the detrimental impacts
of such actions.
According to PO members, while the community can continue to fulfill its responsibilities vis-
à-vis the coastal environment, it could do more towards this end if it receives more support from
government. Such support is crucial in the areas of enforcing fisheries regulations, contributing
resources and expertise in sustaining community members’ efforts towards more responsible resource
management, and regular monitoring of the coastal environment. Other threats to fishers’ rights
and responsibilities include all factors that tend to weaken the local organization, like decline in
membership due to outward migration. LUMOT is now trying to recruit new members to counter the
effects of such loss. Through the PO federation, LUMOT members and fish wardens are also helping
in strengthening fishers’ organizing in Hinatuan and encouraging neighbouring communities to
manage their coastal resources.
Effectiveness of the Community-based Approach

For LUMOT members, the effectiveness of the community-based approach to CRM lies in its strength
in bringing about a sense of empowerment among PO members and other residents in Mahaba Island.
A distinguishing mark of the community-based approach, compared to co-management and other CRM
approaches, is the emphasis that it places on organizing and capacity-building in the community as
the primary stakeholder in resource management. CERD’s organizing approach among small fishers
in Mahaba and in other barangays in Hinatuan emphasized building the PO first as the lead structure
in management and protection efforts in light of the perceived existing imbalance in power relations
among the different stakeholders. Organizing also stressed the importance of pursuing economic
development goals alongside resource management objectives to ensure sustainability of local CRM
efforts.
Apart from awareness-raising activities to deepen the understanding of PO members on community
and resource management issues, LUMOT and CERD have conducted training and workshops on
leadership development, organizational mechanics, resource assessment and management, gender
and reproductive health, paralegal work and fishery laws enforcement, and household organizing
and management. The PO has also participated in various community-based studies or research
towards improving existing resource management practices and identifying appropriate livelihood
projects. With benefits from resource management efforts and from PO-initiated services accruing to
members and non-members alike, the PO has been able to mobilize other residents of the islands in
its activities. The community-based resource management system has halted resource degradation
and brought about some increase in fishery resources around the island.3
Another significant result of the PO’s resource management efforts is the recognition and support
it has gained from the local government. The municipal government’s Community-based Resource
Management Project (CBRMP) funded by the World Bank supported six CRM sites in five barangays in
Hinatuan. Implemented in close partnership with CERD, the project provided assistance to eight POs in
their resource management activities, including the establishment of community marine sanctuaries,
provision of buoys and markers, mangrove reforestation, construction of guardhouses for fish wardens,
capitalization of livelihood projects (lobster, mud crab, and siganid raising), provision of diving gear
and communication equipments, and deputization of fish wardens. The project ran for three years
(2001-2004) and is now in its sustainability phase. The Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) between
the municipal government and the Department of Finance (DoF) has built-in guarantees for continued
LGU support to the project towards long-term sustainability of local CRM efforts.
3
There is some indication that existing stocks have recovered to the pre-1998 levels, before fishers in the area
started noticing sharp declines in fish catch. From 1-2 kilos (Php 100 or US$2.4) before the establishment of the
sanctuary, the catch has now increased to 5-10 kilos (around Php 400 or US$9.6) per day. From interview with
Romynaldo Gomez, Mahaba fisher, 2 March 2007.

POs, including LUMOT, also played a large role in drafting and preparing the MFO. The actual draft
ordinance was practically written by the POs in consultation with technical people from CERD. The
draft law was then presented to the Municipal Council, which approved it without much revision.
The POs were subsequently active in organizing education campaigns and public hearings to gain the
public’s support on the proposed ordinance. Most of the PO-initiated community sanctuaries were
included and formally adopted in the approved ordinance (Article III, Section 7). Apart from outlining
the LGU’s resource management responsibilities, the MFO also provided for a system of regulating use
of coastal areas and other coastal development projects, zoning schemes to facilitate management
of municipal waters, and penalties for violations of fishing regulations.

CHAPTER 4:
CONCLUSION
Given the popularity of a community-based approach in natural resource management amongst
non-governmental and grassroot organizations, several policy advances have been made towards
establishing a community-based management regime. Decentralization policies fall short of
devolution of powers to communities but it has created spaces for communities to engage with
government in managing resources.
The two case studies presented are not representative of the general situation in the Philippines.
However, they show how fisherfolk communities struggle to capitalize on the legal spaces provided
for them to manage their coastal resources and develop their community. Both studies emphasize that
rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Claiming community rights is strengthened by actions
that exemplify community responsibility.
From the case studies, it can be seen that there are different concepts of “communities” among
coastal dwellers. These range from characteristics (i.e., geographical residence, fishing gear, users
etc) to actions or behaviours (i.e., participation in coastal resources management (CRM), compliance
to rules of members). Such differences in concepts of community are evident in the level of emphasis
or priorities in enforcement of the rules by community members. For example, both communities
have policies that exclude non-residents from municipal fishing grounds. In Cadelaria where a
geographically-bound concept of community is prevalent, strict enforcement is observed. In Hinatuan,
lenient enforcement on the policy accommodates fisherfolks to either participate in CRM efforts or
comply with other more critical policies. Such differences in perspectives are reflective of the different
contexts and interests of different development actors in each community.
Despite different concepts of communities, common strategies using the community-based
approach are evident in both cases. These include increasing social capital of communities through
organizing of grassroots organizations and federations, and making linkages with national-based
federations, coalitions or organizations. Capacity development of grassroots organization is critical
for communities to claim their rights and to practice their responsibility to manage their coastal
resources.
Community-based approach in coastal resource management recognizes that rights and
responsibilities of fisherfolk communities go beyond fisheries, or access and control of coastal
resources. These rights and responsibilities extend to settlements, basic social services (e.g health,
education), and peace and order. This approach pushes coastal resource management as an alternative
to the Tragedy of the Commons but as a strategy towards community empowerment and community
development.
Instrumental in the extension of areas of concern beyond the realms of fisheries is the participation
of women in coastal resource management. From managing marine protected areas to going to
court over settlement areas, women’s participation has added value and depth to coastal resource
management.
Both cases also show that a community-based approach does not relegate the role of local
governments as a mere mandate provider. A community-based approach complements the role
of the government to protect these rights. The community-based approach also recognizes that a
healthy critical engagement with local government is key to sustaining coastal resource management
efforts.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alcala, A.C., Marine Reserves as Tools for Fishery Management and Biodiversity Conservation: Natural Experiments
in The Central Philippines, 1974-2000. (also available at www.unep.com)
BFAR. Philippine Fisheries Profile, 2005.
Byrne, Rowan and Hines, Ellen. “The Marine Turtles of Hinatuan Bay, Surigao del Sur, Mindanao, Philippines”
in Marine Turtle Newsletter, pp. 107:8, 2005.
Cariño, Joji. “Indigenous Peoples, Human Rights and Poverty”. Indigenous Perspectives, Vol.7, No. 1. Tebtebba
Foundation, 2005.
Calumpong, H.P. “Status of Mangrove Resources in the Philippines”, in Proceedings of the Third ASEAN-Australia
Symposium on Living Coastal Resources (Vol.1), edited by Wilkinson, C.R., S. Sudara and L. M. Chou, 214-228.
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, 16-20 May 1994.
CBCRM Resource Centre. Regional Workshops on Governance in CBCRM: Experiences and Lessons in Participation.
Philippines, 2006.
Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Fisheries Information Management Centre.
PhilFIS: Document DB Subsystem. Ver.1.0.1. Philippines, 2005.
Department Order 17. Delineation and Delimitation of Municipal Waters. Philippines: DENR, 2000.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Philippines: Philippine Coastal Management
Guidebook Series, 2001.
Executive Order 263. Community-based Forest Management. Office of the President. Philippines, 1995.
Executive Order 533. Integrated Coastal Management. Office of the President. Philippines, 2006.
FAO. 2005a. Fishery Country Profile, 2005.(Also available at www.fao.org)
FAO. 2005b. Guidelines for Designing Data Collection and Sharing Systems for Co-managed Fisheries: Practical Guide.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 439. Rome, 2005. (Also available at www.fao.org)
Ferrer, E., Juinio-Meñez, M.A., Mercado, E., and Dalisay, S. State of the Field: Community-based Natural Resources
Management in the Philippines (Community-based Coastal Resources Management Component). Philippines,
2001.
Fisheries Administrative Order 196. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council. Philippines: BFAR,
2000.
Green et al. Philippines Fisheries in Crisis: A Framework for Management. DENR, Philippines, 2003
Llanto, G.M. and M.M. Ballesteros. Land Issues in Poverty Reduction Strategies and The Development Agenda:
Philippines. 2003.
Municipal Fisheries Ordinance. Municipality of Candelaria, Zambales. Philippines, 2003.
Municipal Fisheries Ordinance. Municipality of Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur. Philippines, 2004.
National Statistics Office (NSO). Census of Population. Philippines, 2000.
National Statistics Office (NSO). Census of Fisheries. Philippines, 2002.
Philippine National Mangrove Committee (PNMC). Philippine Report. Mangroves of Asia and the Pacific: Status
and Management. Technical Report of the UNDP/UNESCO Research and Training Pilot Programme on Mangrove
Ecosystems in Asia and the Pacific (RAS/79/002), 175-210, 1986.
Philippine Constitution. Philippines, 1987.

Presidential Decree 704. Fisheries Code of 1975. Philippines, 1975.
Republic Act 7160. Local Government Code. Philippines, 1991.
Republic Act 7586. National Integrated Protected Area System. Philippines, 1992.
Republic Act 8371. Indigenous People Rights Act. Philippines, 1997.
Republic Act 8435. Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act. Philippines, 1997.
Republic Act 8550. Fisheries Code of 1998. Philippines, 1998.
Severino, R C. The Philippines’ Foreign Relations: Threats and Opportunities. Centre for Development Management,
Asian Institute of Management, 2003.
Silvestre G T, Pauly D. “Estimate of Yield and Economic Rent from Philippine Demersal Stocks (1946-1984)”. Paper
presented at the IOC/WESTPAC Symposium on Marine Science in the Western Pacific: the Indo-Pacific Convergence,
Townsville, Australia, 1-6 December 1986.
STREAM. Country Strategy Paper, 2004 (Also available at www.streaminitiative.org)
Villareal, Lolita V. Guidelines on the Collection of Demographic and Socioeconomic Information on Fishing Communities
for Use in Coastal and Aquatic Resources Management. 2004. (Also available at www.fao.org)
Vera, C.A., Balderrama, B., and Cleofe, J. Accounting for a Decade of CBCRM: Trends, Outcomes and Impacts.
Community-Based Coastal Resource Management Festival, 33-45. Philippines, 2003.
Yap, H. T. and E. D. Gomez. Coral Reef Degradation and Pollution in the East Asian Seas Region. Environment and
Resources in the Pacific, edited by A. L. Dahl and J. Carew-Reid, 185-207. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies
No. 69, 1985.

SAMUDRA Studies
PHILIPPINES
Asserting Rights, Defining Responsibilities

Researched and Written by

Cesar Allan Vera, Randee Cabaces and Loenard Reyes
December 2007
Edited by
KG Kumar
Layout by
P Sivasakthivel
Printed at
Nagaraj & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai
Published by
International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF)
27 College Road, Chennai 600006 India
Tel: +91 44 2827 5303 Fax: +91 44 2825 4457
Email: [email protected]
www.icsf.net
Copyright © ICSF 2007
ISBN 978 81 904590 4 4
While ICSF reserves all rights for this publication, any portion of it may be freely copied and
distributed, provided appropriate credit is given. Any commercial use of this material is
prohibited without prior permission. ICSF would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication
that uses this publication as a source.
The opinions and positions expressed in this publication are those of the
authors concerned and do not necessarily represent the official views of ICSF.
SAMUDRA Studies
PHILIPPINES
Asserting Rights, Defining Responsibilities:
In preparation for the Workshop and Symposium on “Asserting Rights, Defining
Responsibilities: Perspectives from Small-scale Fishing Communities on Coastal
and Fisheries Management in Asia”, held in Siem Reap Cambodia, from 3 to 8 May
2007, case studies were undertaken in six countries in Asia—Bangladesh, Cambodia,
India, Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand. Among other things, the studies aimed to
document and explore the understanding that fishing communities have about their
rights to fisheries and coastal resources, as well as the obligations and responsibilities
associated with these rights, and to document and discuss their initiatives to assert
these rights and fulfill their responsibilities. The studies formed the basis for
discussions at the Workshop and Symposium. This case study from the Philippines will
be found useful by NGOs, regional and national organizations of artisanal fishworkers,
and anyone interested in fisheries and fishing communities in the Philippines.
ICSF is an international NGO working on issues that concern fishworkers the world
over. It is in status with the Economic and Social Council of the UN and is on ILO’s
Special List of Non-Governmental International Organizations. It also has Liaison
Status with FAO. As a global network of community organizers, teachers, technicians,
researchers and scientists, ICSF’s activities encompass monitoring and research,
exchange and training, campaigns and action, as well as communications.
ISBN 978 81 904590 4 4

11 Phil Coastal and Fisheries Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Phil Coastal and Fisheries Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Phil Coastal and Fisheries Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAMUDRA Studies

Asserting Rights, Defining Responsibilities

Cesar Allan Vera, Randee Cabaces and Leonard Reyes

International Collective in Support of Fishworkers

Chapter 1: Country-level Background Information ................................................1

Chapter 2: Case Study of Candelaria, Zambales ..................................................16

Chapter 3: Case Study of Hinatuan, Surigao Del Sur............................................24

Chapter 4: Conclusion ..........................................................................................34

ICSF Siem Reap Meeting iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank

AFMA Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act

ARD Aquaculture for Rural Development

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

BFARMC Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council

CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title

CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme

CBCRM community-based coastal resource management

CBFM community-based forest management

CBFMA community-based forest management agreement

CBRMP Community-based Resource Management Project

CERD Centre for Empowerment and Resource Development

CMP Community Mortgage Programme

CNFIDP Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan

CPUE catch per unit effort

CRM coastal resource management

DAO Department Administrative Order

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DoF Department of Finance

EEZ exclusive economic zone

FAO Fishery Administrative Order

FARMB Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Board

FARMC Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council

FLA Foreshore Leasehold Agreement

ICM Integrated Coastal Management

ICSF International Collective in Support of Fishworkers

IPRA Indigenous Peoples Rights Act

ICSF Siem Reap Meeting v

LGC Local Government Code

LGU local government unit

LMMA Locally Managed Marine Areas

LSR Local Sectoral Representative

LUMOT Ladies in United Movement Onward to Development

MFARMC Municipal Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council

MFO Municipal Fishery Ordinance

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MPA marine protected areas

MPDO Municipal Planning and Development Office

MSY maximum sustainable yield

MTPDP Medium-term Development Plan

NAMAHIN Nagkahiusang Mangingisda ng Hinatuan

NFARMC National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council

NFR NGOs for Fisheries Reform

NGO non-governmental organization

NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System

NRM natural resources management

PAMB Protected Area Management Board

PARASAMAZA Pampangisdaang Reporma Adhika ng mga Samahan ng mga Mangingisda ng