[Show details]

Human settlements have been shaping South-east Asia’s environment for thousands of years. But major social, economic and political changes in the past two centuries have had a tremendous impact on biodiversity and people. About 50% of coral reefs are threatened (Burke et al., 2002) and 65% of mangro ...

[Hide details]

Human settlements have been shaping South-east Asia’s environment for thousands of years. But major social, economic and political changes in the past two centuries have had a tremendous impact on biodiversity and people. About 50% of coral reefs are threatened (Burke et al., 2002) and 65% of mangroves lost (UNEP 2001). Most of this loss has been taking place since local communities were earlier deprived of their use and control of local resources by colonial administrations and since the 1970s by industrialization and global trade policies. Simultaneously, since the 1980s, some governments started to admit that since they have not succeeded in sustainably managing natural resources, local communities and indigenous peoples need to be involved. Traditional and indigenous knowledge systems have also been gaining recognition in this context.

In the past three decades, although supporting legal instruments are only now evolving, there are increasing community conservation initiatives and community involvement in nongovernmental organization (NGO) or government conservation initiatives. While there is no fully reliable data on the exact number or the total area covered by community conserved areas (CCAs), there are more than 500 community-based coastal resources management (CBCRM) initiatives in the Philippines , as well as a growing number in Indonesia and Cambodia. Not all these local initiatives are operating successfully, but learning networks are being set up to help overcome shortcomings. The wide variety of CCAs are of three categories: (i) based on traditional and customary beliefs and practices; (ii) externally motivated (NGOs, Government agencies, donor agencies); and (iii) a combination of these two.

Many CCAs in the region have been started as a means by which communities claim their rights over their traditional lands and resources, be it common forests, watershed and wetland areas, or fishing grounds. Addressing unequal relations and enhancing equity therefore requires a critical look and a creative approach to power relations and the political economy of resource management, to ensure a favorable policy and legal environment for CCAs.

Traditional knowledge, conventionally ignored in formal conservation circles, is increasingly being shown to provide important lessons and tools in the search for new conservation approaches. Such knowledge and practices still play an important role in biodiversity management or are being revived. Emphasizing traditional knowledge, however, does not mean rejecting modern knowledge or technology. For example, many indigenous communities have been carrying out community resource mapping, using a combination of traditional knowledge and sophisticated GPS and GIS tools, to document their customary use of resources and develop sustainable management plans. Despite this, it does not seem that governments and, in many cases, NGOs are paying enough attention to stopping the erosion of traditional knowledge and customary practices in order to employ them in practical initiatives. Indigenous and local communities also point out that traditional knowledge and customary use can only be practiced if their rights to land and resources are secured.

Many communities have started to address concerns about being marginalized in decision-making. In the Philippines, coastal fishers have formed an extensive network of Community-Based Coastal Resource Management (CBCRM) initiatives throughout the country. They have set up more than 500 marine sanctuaries, and developed the concept of Community Property Rights, which could apply to terrestrial resources as well as coastal and marine resources. The CBCRM Resource Centre in Manila has been serving communities, and has linked up with people and initiatives in Indonesia, Cambodia, Viet Nam and Thailand in a project called CBCRM Learning Regional Network (CBCRM LeaRN).

[Hide details]

[Show details]

In the Pacific Islands, several factors have contributed to fisheries mismanagement, including poor data and inadequate scientific models, environmental variability, ignorance about natural systems, noncompliance with management measures, and the complex inter-relationships between biological, econo ...

[Hide details]

In the Pacific Islands, several factors have contributed to fisheries mismanagement, including poor data and inadequate scientific models, environmental variability, ignorance about natural systems, noncompliance with management measures, and the complex inter-relationships between biological, economic, and socio-cultural systems. In fact, managing small-scale, multi-species, and multi-gear reef fisheries that are spread over thousands of kilometers is too complex and too expensive for small Pacific Island nations. A number of authors have called for a more holistic approach to fisheries management in the region (e.g., Adams et al. 1997; Ruddle 1998; Sadovy 2005). While community-based natural resource management is widely implemented in the Pacific Islands, local knowledge and practices have yet to be fully integrated into the design, implementation, and monitoring of community-based conservation programs. Furthermore, with only few exceptions (e.g. Cinner et al. 2005; McClanahan et al. 2006), there is little evidence to show whether community-based conservation projects, which emphasize customary management, are meeting their stated objectives of biological conservation, social equity, and food security.

Customary management practices need not be an absolute substitute for more scientific methods of designing MPAs. A better approach is to combine Western and indigenous forms of knowledge and governance and to ensure that management policies that include indigenous practices are sanctioned by, and designed to benefit, local communities. The socioeconomic and cultural factors leading to success or failure of customary management should also be evaluated (Aswani 2005; Cinner and McClanahan 2006). Conservation of natural resources will be difficult to achieve unless the socioeconomic and cultural precepts that are important to people are considered.

Finding alternative means of designing MPAs is particularly important given the lack of reliable data on life history patterns of fish in tropical multi-species fisheries. Such knowledge is crucial for designing MPAs using the rigorous scientific principles advocated by many marine biologists. Given the current rate of marine resource degradation and biodiversity loss, however, it is essential that researchers and conservation practitioners systematically apply customary management practices as precautionary and adaptive management in community-based conservation programs.

[Hide details]

[Show details]

One of the main reasons why marine parks fail to be successful and achieve their management objectives is partly caused by inadequate consultation and participation of the local communities during planning and decision making. In all cases, MPAs are a common mechanism to accomplish conservation obje ...

[Hide details]

One of the main reasons why marine parks fail to be successful and achieve their management objectives is partly caused by inadequate consultation and participation of the local communities during planning and decision making. In all cases, MPAs are a common mechanism to accomplish conservation objectives while still allowing economic development.

The Ko Chang Marine National Park (MNP) consists of 47 islands that encompass 650km2 area of land and sea. Although approximately 25% of the households in Ko Chang depended on fishing as their main source of income, and 95% of small scale fishers were reported working in the marine park - the general zonings in MNP are based mainly on the analysis of recreational patterns.

Interview responses from the head village suggested that 25-30% of the total number of households in the park were involved in fisheries as their main source of year-round employment- this could mean that a no-fishing zone in Ko Chang would render a significant amount of local communities jobless. Although presently there are restrictions on small scale fisheries within the park – none of the interviewed respondents were aware of such regulations and hence, small-scale fishers were the main consumptive users of the MNP during daylight hours.

Management of the Ko Chang MNP must balance the ultimate goals of the park between the areas that are fully protected and the areas open to sustainable small-scale fishing and tourism activities. This could result in conflicts between fishers and the other reef resource users. However, the resident fishers in Ko Chang have developed and maintained a good relationship with the park officials that contributed to a high level of public participation in the management of the MNP. The fishers’ acceptance of and the compliance with the park’s regulations will increase their involvement in the process and their increased understanding of the fisheries and conservation benefits of such areas.

[Hide details]

[Show details]

The Tubbataha Reefs are found at the very center of the Sulu Sea. They lie along the Cagayan Ridge, which traverses the Sulu Sea from the northeast, from the Sultana Shoal in Cagayancillo, to the southwest, to the San Miguel Islands of Tawi-Tawi. The nearest land mass of considerable size is mainlan ...

[Hide details]

The Tubbataha Reefs are found at the very center of the Sulu Sea. They lie along the Cagayan Ridge, which traverses the Sulu Sea from the northeast, from the Sultana Shoal in Cagayancillo, to the southwest, to the San Miguel Islands of Tawi-Tawi. The nearest land mass of considerable size is mainland Palawan, with the capital of Puerto Princesa City lying 150 kilometers northwest of Tubbataha. The nearest islands are 130 kilometers in the other direction, northeast—Cagayancillo, the municipality where Tubbataha belongs.

At the start of the 1980’s, fishers from Cagayancillo (called Cagayanons) started to perceive the pressure of overfishing in their immediate surroundings. Using traditional wooden sailboats called pangko, they sailed to Tubbataha to fish and gather shells, turtles, seabirds and their eggs. Trips to Tubbataha took anywhere from one week to a month, depending on the winds. There were times when three to five pangko would sail in fleets. The fishers would anchor their boats in the lagoons for safety and roam the reefs and islets freely, taking as much as their boats could carry, because they never knew when the conditions would be good enough to make another trip. In the minds of most Cagayanons, Tubbataha was a place of plenty.

Soon after, by the mid-1980s, the traditional pangko used by the Cagayanons was replaced by boats with motorized engines, making trips to Tubbataha faster and more frequent. Eventually, fishers from Cagayancillo were replaced by those coming from the neighboring Visayan provinces of Cebu and Iloilo. In turn, Visayan fishers were pushed to Tubbataha and other offshore reefs in the Sulu Sea by the deteriorating conditions of the coastal and marine environment in their own provinces. The arrival of fishers from the Visayas marked a turning point in the history of Tubbataha, because they introduced dynamite and cyanide fishing. Thus, they inflicted more damage in a few years than traditional Sulu fishers did over a thousand years. The Visayans resorted to the use of dynamite and cyanide to make their long-distance trips pay off, ensuring big hauls in a short period of time.

The increase in threats to Tubbataha culminated in its declaration as the Philippines’ first national marine protected area in 1988, creating the need to set up a proper management system. This feat was far from easy, given the logistical difficulties posed by an offshore reef. What happened was akin to management by trial and error. A management body was created to take care of Tubbataha; when the designated body failed to deliver, the responsibility was passed on to another group. This went on for a decade. In retrospect, the success in managing Tubbataha can be attributed to a management structure that enabled local stakeholders to take the lead in decision making. Management changed hands, from national bodies based in far-away Manila to the provincial government, with participation from the national and municipal governments as well as private organizations. In 1995, a multi-sectoral Presidential Task Force was established to fill the management void. The Task Force was created to serve as the policy and program coordinating mechanism for the park. However, the fact that most of the members were still based in Manila once again became the bane of this management body. On top of that, the other members were either too busy, or the park was not among their priorities. The original members of the Task Force never held a single meeting.

However, the Task Force did form an Executive Committee composed mostly of locally based institutions. Its purpose was to pursue conservation objectives on-site. The greatest problem was still the enforcement of park rules from the seat of management, which was Puerto Princesa. Because the Task Force was unable to fulfill its function, the late Governor Salvador Socrates initiated the establishment of the Tubbataha Protected Area Management Board (TPAMB), The TPAMB acts as the policy-making body responsible for the general administration and management of the park. Under the TPAMB is the Executive Committee (Execom), which reviews, evaluates and recommends actions on proposals, activities and plans.

The TPAMB has 17 members. Unlike previous management bodies, all member organizations have local offices based in Puerto Princesa and Cagayancillo, enabling the members to attend quarterly meetings. Decisions are made by consensus. If the TPAMB determines that additional technical information is required, the matter is delegated to the Execom for further investigation and deliberation. The Execom is composed of six TPAMB members, chosen because of their direct involvement in the implementation of specific management programs. In this way, those who are engaged in the day-to-day operations of the park are able to relay news and give feedback directly to park management, allowing for adaptive management.

In June 2001, through a project implemented by WWF-Philippines and co-funded by the Global Environment Facility –United Nations Development Programme (GEF-UNDP) and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the Tubbataha Management Office (TMO) was established. The TMO functions as the implementing arm of the TPAMB, overseeing the day-to-day operations of park management. The TMO is headed by a Park Manager. The rest of the staff was recruited from nearby areas, its three marine park rangers coming from Cagayancillo. The creation of the TMO provided a unit solely dedicated to implementing the park management plan and maintaining a presence in the park. It operates according to the park management plan, which translates into yearly work plans and budgets endorsed by the Execom and approved by the TPAMB. The TMO, in directly supervising park operations, has improved the administrative and financial management of the park. Its most important achievement was clarifying and enforcing park rules and regulations, including the conservation fee collection and permit system.

The most significant achievement of the Tubbataha Reefs as an MPA was not that it has become totally off-limits to fishing. Rather, it was the delivery of such dramatic results— 100% increase in fish biomass and 90% increase in income for the nearest fishing villages—over a relatively short period of time, and the recorded confirmation of such results, that make this a unique case.

[Hide details]

[Show details]

Coral reef conservation strategies such as marine protected areas have met limited success in many developing countries. Some researchers attribute part of these shortcomings to inadequate attention to the social context of conserving marine resources. To gain insights into applying Western conserva ...

[Hide details]

Coral reef conservation strategies such as marine protected areas have met limited success in many developing countries. Some researchers attribute part of these shortcomings to inadequate attention to the social context of conserving marine resources. To gain insights into applying Western conservation theory more successfully in the socioeconomic context of developing countries, this study examines how long-enduring, customary reef closures appear to reflect local socioeconomic conditions in two Papua New Guinean communities. Attributes of the customary management (including size, shape, permanence, and gear restrictions) are examined in relation to prevailing socioeconomic conditions (including resource users’ ability to switch gears, fishing grounds, and occupations).

Customary closures in the two communities appear to reflect local socioeconomic circumstances in three ways. First, in situations where people can readily switch between occupations, full closures are acceptable with periodic harvests to benefit from the closure. In comparison, communities with high dependence on the marine resources are more conducive to employing strategies that restrict certain gear types while still allowing others. Second, where there is multiple clan and family spatial ownership of resources, the communities have one closure per clan/family; one large no-take area would have disproportionate effect on those compared to the rest of the community. In contrast, communities that have joint ownership can establish one large closure as long as there are other areas available to harvest. Third, historical and trade relationships with neighboring communities can influence regulations by creating the need for occasional harvests to provide fish for feasts. This study further demonstrates the importance of understanding the socioeconomic context of factors such as community governance and levels of dependence for the conservation of marine resources.

[Hide details]

[Show details]

Community-based coastal resource management (CBCRM) projects have been implemented in the Philippines since the early 1980’s. The San Salvador Island case illustrates that the CBCRM can serve as a route to sustainable, equitable and efficient coastal resource management and also to comanagement. Co- ...

[Hide details]

Community-based coastal resource management (CBCRM) projects have been implemented in the Philippines since the early 1980’s. The San Salvador Island case illustrates that the CBCRM can serve as a route to sustainable, equitable and efficient coastal resource management and also to comanagement. Co-management refers to the sharing of responsibility and/or authority between government and community of local users to manage a resource. However, purely community-level management can be difficult to implement in the complexity of multiple stakeholders. Hence it is crucial to clearly communicate the goals and objectives of the MPA to all stakeholders, especially the local communities that would traditionally be the direct resource users.

By getting the fishers and local resource users involved in enforcement and in developing rules and policies, it will provide also ownership and accountability of decisions and actions. To aid this, intensive information campaigns has helped the residents to realize the consequences of unsustainable uses and heightened their concern over protecting the resources that ensures their livelihood and survival.

In summary, clarifying the objectives of the MPA to the stakeholders by clearly communicating approaches to a well-defined set of issues can help steer the direction of comanagement. There is no doubt that when resource users and stakeholders have a good grasp of the rationale of managing the resource, with the understanding of the short-term and long-term objectives to sustain the comanagement.

[Hide details]

[Show details]

Coastal resource management (CRM) has a long history in the Philippines. The Central Visayas Regional Project (CVRP) was one of the earliest and largest community- based integrated coastal management (ICM) projects in the Philippines. The objectives of the CVRP placed a strong emphasis on community ...

[Hide details]

Coastal resource management (CRM) has a long history in the Philippines. The Central Visayas Regional Project (CVRP) was one of the earliest and largest community- based integrated coastal management (ICM) projects in the Philippines. The objectives of the CVRP placed a strong emphasis on community organizing. Trainings were conducted to help participating families to organize themselves into fishermen’s associations and federations, many of which are still in existence. Coastal tourism is traditionally considered to benefit developing economies and especially local communities through local revenue stimulation. It is considered an opportunity to promote economic development with minimal negative impact with responsible development. However, the analysis of the research done to evaluate the coastal tourism and ICM sustainably as perceived by the local communities revealed mixed impacts from tourism by the nearby communities. Negative impacts could be related to social stratification within the communities where tourism exists. It is typical that the immediate area around the tourist resorts is most well- to–do and pristine, contrasting with the areas further from the resorts that are poverty stricken and receive few benefits of the tourism industry. This is common where tourism resorts deny community access to its designated beachfront sanctuary areas, where it could have previously been part of the local fishing grounds.

Another analysis revealed that the village meeting attendance is lower when tourist businesses are involved in ICM activities, perhaps bearing the perception that the money-making resort owners have more weight in these community meetings. This situation could most likely create a disgruntled surrounding community- one that is unlikely to be supportive of additional ICM activities. ICM practitioners should seek more balanced and equitable co-management of resources and the dynamics of this relationship warrant further investigation. Furthermore, ICM activities like marine sanctuaries should hold all stakeholders accountable to the same standards and not allow unfair exclusions or benefits only to the tourism industry.

[Hide details]

[Show details]

The Philippines is well known for its rich marine biodiversity but its large and rapidly growing coastal population has caused 98% of its coral reefs to be under medium or high threat. Mabini and Tingloy, located in the province of Batangas, are neighboring municipalities that emerges as a recreatio ...

[Hide details]

The Philippines is well known for its rich marine biodiversity but its large and rapidly growing coastal population has caused 98% of its coral reefs to be under medium or high threat. Mabini and Tingloy, located in the province of Batangas, are neighboring municipalities that emerges as a recreational dive destination in the 1970’s. Both have traditionally been central to the local economy but today, multiple stakeholders have showed interests in the reefs and several conflicts are marked by clear power imbalances. This paper strives to address the twin challenges of biodiversity conservation and economic development. The conflict between conservation and fishing was the most pronounced conflict perceived by residents of Mabini- Tingloy. It is crucial to recognize that although tourism and conservation conflicts are not mutually inclusive, one conflict should not be discussed outside the context of the other.

Imbalanced power relationships and unfair political alliances are not uncommon between MPA stakeholders. Another major conflict arises between the local people and the tourism industry is the lack of substantial direct economic benefits provided by the tourism industry on terms of livelihood. However, a research in the Philippines shows that job satisfaction among the fishers is generally high and hence they would prefer their current livelihood even if they have an opportunity in the tourism for them.

Economic benefits of conservation tend to be limited on a local scale; increases slightly on a regional scale and become substantial over the global scale. It is no wonder why many of the local fishers feel marginalized by conservation and that sanctuaries have negatively impacted their livelihood. Thus, protected areas should ideally pay for themselves through donor fundings or by generation of revenues to avoid conflict. Local communities’ economic losses should be compensated either by cash, goods or services. Providing substitution for specific resources to which its access has been denied and providing alternative source of income is critical. Sanctuary management and user rights need urgent clarification, where sanctuary ordinances should be respected and equally enforced. If local communities agree with the decision to allow diving in the sanctuary, the ordinances should be amended clearly to state explicitly which activities are allowed and the ordinances should be enforced consistently. Communication and education programs are needed to clarify the objectives of conservation and the impacts that they will have on the livelihood of fishers and other residents.

[Hide details]

[Show details]

Marine protected areas (MPAs) have been widely adopted as the leading tool for coral-reef conservation, but resource users seldom accept them (Christie 2004, McClanahan et al. 2005b) and many have failed to produce tangible conservation benefits (McClanahan 1999). Few studies have objectively and si ...

[Hide details]

Marine protected areas (MPAs) have been widely adopted as the leading tool for coral-reef conservation, but resource users seldom accept them (Christie 2004, McClanahan et al. 2005b) and many have failed to produce tangible conservation benefits (McClanahan 1999). Few studies have objectively and simultaneously examined the types of MPAs that are most effective in conserving reef resources and the socioeconomic factors responsible for effective conservation (Pomeroy et al. 1997, Pollnac et al. 2001, Cinner 2005). We simultaneously explored measures of reef and socioeconomic conservation success at four national parks, four co-managed reserves, and three traditionally managed areas in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Underwater visual censuses of key ecological indicators (McClanahan 1994, McClanahan and Shafir 1990) revealed that the average size and biomass of fishes were higher in all areas under traditional management and at one co-managed reserve when compared to nearby unmanaged areas. Socioeconomic assessments (Cinner 2005, Cinner et al. 2005a, Cinner and McClanahan 2006) revealed that these MPA effects were positively related to compliance with regulations, visibility of the reserve, and length of time the management had been in place. Conservation effects were negatively related to market integration, wealth, and village population size. In cases where the resources for enforcement are lacking, management regimes that are designed to meet community goals can achieve greater compliance and subsequent conservation success than regimes designed primarily for biodiversity conservation.

All effective sites were able to exclude ‘‘outsiders’’ at a relatively low cost because the managed areas were located near the village. The effective traditional sites also had strong customary marine tenure institutions, which prohibited non-owners from accessing reef resources (Cinner 2005, Cinner et al. 2005a,b). Interestingly, observed compliance was highest in the three self-governing traditionally managed areas, which did not have regular enforcement. This suggests that the effectiveness of these sites in conserving reef resources resulted from intrinsic motivations to act collectively and comply with regulations (Colding and Folke 2001, Sutinen and Kuperan 1999).

Social influences promoting collective action and the perceived justness and legitimacy of regulations (Berkes et al. 2000) may be particularly high in traditional sites because they reflected local understandings of human-environment interactions, were an integral part of local cultures and traditions, and provided the villages with tangible benefits. For example, communities periodically fished these areas and perceived direct benefits of the management system; thus, these systems met more individual and community goals than permanent closures. In addition, most village members were regularly reminded of the closures through participation in the traditions and feasts (Aswani 1999). In all traditionally managed sites, village leaders had some control over the timing and scale of harvesting within the protected area. Leaders also had the ability to develop rules that were congruent to local ecological and social conditions and also to adapt management to observed changes in ecosystem dynamics, socioeconomic influences, and evasion of governance rules (Aswani 2002, Berkes 1989, Cinner et al. 2005b). For example, in Muluk, Indonesia, clan leaders instituted a temporary closure when they observed a decrease in fish abundance (Cinner et al. 2005b). The size of the closure, length of time, and sanctions for violations could vary to meet the changing needs of the village and ecosystem.

The ability of periodic closures to enhance fish stocks and subsequent fishery yields likelydepends upon the intensity of fishing effort during open periods, in addition to the life history characteristics of the targeted species. In the case of one of these sites, Ahus, periodic harvesting was carried out on only one day every 6–12 months and removed only around 5% of the available biomass on each occasion (Cinner et al. 2005a). However, if similar management methods were to be employed elsewhere, especially in areas of intense fishing pressure, the extent and type of harvesting to occur in managed areas would have to be carefully monitored and regulated, because differences in fishing effort, gear type, and frequency of harvest can all impact the outcomes and management benefits of rotational closures.

[Hide details]

[Show details]

Although integrated coastal management (ICM) has a long history in Philippines, most of the efforts have not been sustainable. This has become a pressing issue that the government of Philippines has to address. One of the main factors influencing the sustainability of ICM is the economic aspect in t ...

[Hide details]

Although integrated coastal management (ICM) has a long history in Philippines, most of the efforts have not been sustainable. This has become a pressing issue that the government of Philippines has to address. One of the main factors influencing the sustainability of ICM is the economic aspect in the sense of the level of economic benefits received and how equitably the economic benefits are distributed in the community.

It is crucial to understand that if the local residents or the stakeholders think that the ICM project does not address the local concerns or have any positive impact on their interests or well- being, it will be unlikely to expect solid support or involvement in the project activities. Thus, all affected parties should be identified and proper communication for understanding the perceptions of the present economical impacts of the project should be sent across. Through this, a sense of ‘ownership’ would be imparted to the stakeholders and local community members besides yielding a greater probability that the aspects of this project will fit the needs of the community members.

For instance, marine reserves in Bais Bay established under a project called CVRP have increased the fish catch, and subsequently raised income while being sustainable. Project activities should raise income and provide new occupations of the participants to be sustainable. As such, resource management activities that results in improved resource conditions and raises income are important to maintain interests of the participants and also the non- participants resulting from this project.

[Hide details]