Management Measures of Local Government: Implications To The Fish Sanctuary Program For Resource Restoration of Philippine Coastal Areas Introduction by Ester L. Raagas, Ph.D. Although not a dominant player in the Philippine economy, the fisheries sector contributes significantly to the country s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at 2.3% (2001). In fact, the country ranks 12 th among the top fish-producing countries in 1999 with its total production of 2.8 million metric tons of fish, crustacean, mollusks and aquatic plants (includes seaweeds) or 2.1 percent of the total world catch of 136.8 million metric tons. However, the Philippine fisheries sector is facing major concerns, foremost is the resource depletion in the coastal areas. One major step undertaken by the Philippine government is putting into effect the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550) which stipulates the setting aside of 15 percent of municipal waters for fish sanctuaries or marine reserves. This also tasked the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) in partnership with the Local Government Units (LGU) to undertake activities that would protect and enhance marine resources. One of the interventions undertaken is the establishment of fish sanctuaries in the different coastal areas in the country. The success of this program is highly reliant on the efforts of the local government unit (LGU) where the fish sanctuary is placed. The LGU is responsible to come up with ordinances related to the implementation of the program and at the same time implement effectively these ordinances. The involvement of the local government is not only in the enforcement of the ordinances related to the implementation of the fish sanctuary program but also on its management. This includes financial support to the project, mobilizing fishermen in the area for their active participation and full awareness of the project. The latter has to be addressed in implementing the Fish Sanctuary Program since to the small fishermen from the coastal areas this would mean a decrease in their fishing grounds consequently affecting their major source of income.
Since the ultimate beneficiaries of any local government management programs and projects are the people, regular dialogues between the local government and the community is necessary reflecting governance as the domain of both the local government and the community. According to Carlton (1997) the LGU s capability is affected by the roles and responsibilities of the local government within the larger political economy. The formulation of local orders and ordinances in relation to the fish sanctuary program will give the fisherfolks in the locality the guide on what to do to properly implement the program. These would guarantee success of fish sanctuaries if the laws are strictly implemented. Technical assistance which includes training, seminars and workshop and actual coaching are also very important to the success of the fish sanctuary project. Some trainings like the Fish Sanctuary Establishment and Management, LGU preparation on Municipal Fisheries Ordinance, Participatory Coastal Resource Assessment, Fisheries Law Enforcement and Fish Visual Census and Coral Reef are some of the responsibilities of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources to be conducted to the local government units and fisherfolk organizations. Information Education Communication (IEC) disseminations such as the conduct of public hearings or consultations to the community upon the establishment of the project; trainings and symposia that can increase the LGUs and fisherfolks capability to effectively manage and implement the sanctuary, as well as the production and distribution of IEC materials such as brochures, pamphlets, wall newspapers and handouts are equally important for the establishment and successful implementation of the fish sanctuary program. These will enhance the LGUs and fisherfolk organizations knowledge regarding the fish sanctuary program and its objectives and encourage active participation to the project. Furthermore, these activities would also provide the community the knowledge on the long term benefits of the program such as a healthy and ecologically balanced marine environment, sustaining marine resources and increased income through fishing and other alternative livelihood. It is in the aforementioned context that this paper would focus, more specifically on the management measures undertaken by the local government units
in relation to the implementation of the fish sanctuary program if these resulted to effective or ineffective implementation. Methodology Two fish sanctuaries, established within two local government units in 2000 in Southern Philippines were included in this research. Fish sanctuary, FS(A), from LGU A represents the effective implementation of the program while fish sanctuary, FS(B), from LGU B represents the failed implementation of the program. FS(A) with an area of seven hectares was established as sanctuary by virtue of the Municipal Ordinance No. 402-2002. It is currently managed by the Coastal Village Fisherfolk Association. FS(A) is considered a successful sanctuary due to the coral growth in the area, the gradual increase in the volume of fish catch by the fisherfolks and the reappearance of fish species which disappeared before the fish sanctuary was established. The FS(B) has an area of three hectares and extends approximately 150 meters from the shoreline with maximum depth of 90 feet. This fish sanctuary is regarded as a failure since there is the continuous deterioration of coral condition affecting the diversity and abundance of fish. There is also the widespread fishing of the fisherfolks within the protected area. Results of the underwater assessments conducted were used to make a distinction on the condition of the fish sanctuaries. To get an opinion and observation on the effects of the fish sanctuaries and to see whether the inputs poured has made a significant difference, the technicians of the local government units, and the officers and the selected members of the fisherfolk organizations handling the fish sanctuary program were also interviewed. Some members of the fisherfolk organizations and non-member fisherfolks from adjacent coastal villages were also interviewed. FINDINGS: On Local Government Inputs and Measures to the Fish Sanctuary Program Materials and training-workshops were provided by the national government through the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) upon the establishment of the fish sanctuary as part of the sharing scheme. Both LGUs, A and B took care of the other needed materials and facilities for the maintenance and
management of the fish sanctuary. However, there were instances that BFAR would still give additional assistance in case the local government units cannot provide assistance. For instance, when buoys and ropes, serving as markers of the fish sanctuary, were washed-out by strong water current or destroyed by the illegal fishers and the LGU cannot right away provide the needed materials, BFAR would provide through the request of the LGU, in this case LGU B, even if it was clearly stipulated in the memorandum of agreement signed between the two implementing agencies (LGU and BFAR) that the local government unit provides the needed additional materials. Basically, the inputs allotted into the program vary in every local government unit. If the program is prioritized by the LGUs and they are zealous and devoted to sustain the fish sanctuary, higher inputs are allocated. Fish sanctuary FS(A) had lower initial capital compared to the initial capital of FS(B). The latter, in spite of the higher initial capital was a failure as a fish sanctuary. This can be attributed to the manner and type of interventions adopted by the LGU. The approach adopted by LGU A led to the success of the fish sanctuary, FS(A), in its area. The LGU tapped the Deputized Fishery Wardens (DFW) and bantay dagat members who police and conducted seaborne patrol at night time. One fisherfolk (caretaker) is employed to oversee the fish sanctuary. The LGU also consistently conducted information education campaign through fisherfolk dialogue and consultation and the dissemination and posting of educational printing materials provided by BFAR, which made the fisherfolk understand the importance and the benefits of the fish sanctuary program. This also led to develop among the fishermen a positive attitude towards the sustenance of the fish sanctuary in their barangay. In the long run, they will be the ones to benefit most from the project since fish will abound upon the restoration of marine resources. On the part of FS(B), the failure fish sanctuary, it was observed that the local government turned-over the handling of fish sanctuary program to the fisherfolk organization. No clear agreement and delineation of functions took place in order for both parties to identify each responsibility. In effect, the fisherfolk organization relied and waited for the local government to initiate measures and activities to be done for the success of the project. Each group did not understand their role on how to manage the fish sanctuary, this eventually led to conflict between the 2 groups resulting to the project s failure.
BFAR s additional assistance in the form of training workshops; information, education campaign and provision of technical assistance like underwater assessment and actual coaching to both LGUs were similar. However, variations were observed in terms of the local government unit s contribution. The only similar interventions were seen in terms of monitoring and field visit conducted by the LGU staff and the formulation of local ordinances for the fish sanctuary. These ordinances were strictly implemented only in fish sanctuary FS(A). For LGU A, a number of cases have been filed against violators. In FS(B), the failure sanctuary, the ordinances were not strictly implemented resulting to fishing near and even within the protected area. Conditions of Fish Sanctuary FS(A) and FS(B) 1. On Fish Abundance On fish abundance of FS(A) and FS(B), the underwater assessment considered two classifications of reef fishes; the target species and indicator species while the others are classified under other species. Indicator species are the type of fish that dwell in the reefs which can represent coral condition and health within the sanctuary. Target species on the other hand are fishes that are considered commercially valuable or widely known as food fish. The population and composition of this species are highly dependent on the coral condition of the fish sanctuary, similar with the indicator species. There are also other species separate from target or indicator species which mainly acquire their food from coral reef. In FS(B), there were 14 families of reef fishes identified in 2000. However, only 5 families were recorded in 2004 and this was composed of both 28 and 708 target and indicator species, respectively and 60 other fish species. Fish population in the said fish sanctuary also decreased over time such that in 2000 there were 1,368 fish count/1000m 2 compared to only 796 fish count/1000m 2 in 2004.
Figure 1. Fish Abundance of FS(A) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Target Species Indicator Species 2000 2004 Figure 2. Fish Abundance of FS(B) 1200 1000 800 600 400 2000 2004 200 0 Target Species Indicator Species 2. On Corals Live hard corals, soft corals and other flora and fauna in FS(A) have increased while the dead corals with algae decreased by 9.14 percent. However, from the assessed area covered with corals in FS(A), the improvement is only minimal considering that in 2000, the area covered with corals was 42.23 percent and this increased only to 47.69 percent in 2004. For FS(B), the live corals decreased, a limited increase in soft corals and the other flora and fauna were
almost nonexistent after five years. This is attributed to the continuous fishing in the area since the local ordinances were not implemented. Figure 3. Percentage of Assessed Area in FS(A) Covered By Corals 30 25 20 15 10 2000 2004 5 0 Live Hard Corals Soft Corals Dead Coralsw/ Algae Other Flora & Fauna Figure 4. Percentage of Assessed Area in FS(B) Covered By Corals 25 20 15 10 5 2000 2004 0 Live Hard Corals Soft Corals Dead Coralsw/ Algae Other Flora & Fauna Conditions of Fisherfolks With regards to fisherfolk condition, 87 percent of those from LGU A experienced an increase in the volume of fish catch, while majority (67 percent) of those from FS(B) experienced a decrease in the volume of fish catch.
Correspondingly, 87 percent of the respondents from the successful fish sanctuary, FS(A), also claimed that new species of fish had been caught, while fifty three percent of the respondents from the failed sanctuary, FS(B, ) observed the same type of fish catch similar to the time the fish sanctuary was not established yet. On the fishing effort, 93 percent of those from the successful fish sanctuary claimed that fishing effort has decreased, while 60 percent of the fisherfolk from the failed fish sanctuary indicated that they have to increase their fishing effort. Even if the level of improvement of FS(A) from LGU A is classified only at the fair to good level after five years of its establishment, the fishermen were able to benefit economically from the fish catch of spill over from the sanctuary. Their fishing time significantly decreased while the volume of fish catch increases. Conclusions and Implications Local government units (LGUs) are tasked to exercise powers for their effective governance and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. This includes programs and projects that are responsive to the needs and priorities of the community, such as the fish sanctuary program. There are national polices which assigned more roles to local government units (LGUs) on planning and fiscal powers which enhance the opportunity for them to respond to local needs and priorities. These policies and laws lead them to examine existing responsibilities and capacities to respond to the conditions to become a critical component in the development process. Carlton (1997) emphasized that parallel to the importance of local government units is the importance of the role of the community. Both play an important role in addressing their concerns. It is in this process that individual and organizational leadership articulate community interests. The success of programs such as the fish sanctuary is dependent on both the efforts of the local government and fisherfolk organizations. As reflected in the LGUs practices, a strong collaboration between the local government unit and the firsherfolk organization would pave the way to sustainability of fisheries resources and rehabilitate the degraded and overexploited Philippine marine ecosystem. The Philippine fish sanctuary program can only be a true vehicle for resource restoration of Philippine coastal areas if the coastal local government units and the fisherfolk
organizations would consider all management measures in the implementation including the attitude of the fisherfolks and the LGU officials. A. Public Documents Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources - Fisheries Resource Management Project. Technical Monograph Series no. 9. 2004 Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources - Fisheries Resource Fisheries Resource Management Project. Trainors Guide to the Flip Charts on Fisheries Resource Management. B. Online Data Base of Xavier University-Ateneo de Cagayan And Electronic Journal Agardy, Tundi. Information Needs for Marine Protected Areas: Scientific and Societal. Bulletin of Marine Science v.66 no.3 p. 875-88. Retrieved March 18, 2006, WILSON OMNIFILE, from: http://library.xu.edu.ph/index.htm. 2000. Brodziak, Jon; Link, Jason. Ecosystem-based Fishery Management: What it is and How can we do it?. Bulletin of Marine Science v.70 no.2 p. 589-611, Retrieved March 18, 2006, WILSON OMNIFILE, from: http://library.xu.edu.ph/index.htm. 2002. Carlton, Brock. A Model For Municipal Insitutional Capacity Analysis http://www.greenroofs ca/nua/aif/aifo2.html Davidson, Mary Gray. Protecting Coral Reefs: the Principal National and International Legal Instruments. Harvard Environmental Law Review v. 26 no. 2 p 499-546, Retrieved March 18, 2006, WILSON OMNIFILE, from: http://library.xu.edu.ph/index.htm. 2002. Nowlis, Joshua Sladek; Robert, Callum. Fisheries Benefits and Optimal Design of Marine Reserve. Fishery Bulletin v.97 no.3sin (July 1999) p.604-16, Retrieved March 18, 2006, WILSON OMNIFILE, from: http://library.xu.edu.ph/index.htm. 1999.
Reighl, Bernard. Degradation of Reefs Structure, Coral and Fish Communities in the Red Sea by Ship Groundings and Dynamite Fisheries. Bulletin Marine Science v.69 no.2 p595-611. Retrieved March 18, 2006, WILSON OMNIFILE, from: http://library.xu.edu.ph/index.htm. 2001. Ester L. Raagas, Ph.D. Professor, Public Administration Programs Graduate School Xavier University Ateneo de Cagayan Corrales Avenue, Cagayan de Oro City Mindanao, Philippines Email: e.raagas@xu.edu.ph Website: http://www.xu.edu.ph/