jose rodriguez - university of canberra · the role of institutional arrangements for the...

The Role of Institutional Arrangements for

the Sustainable Management of

the Lingayen Gulf in the Philippines

JOSE RODRIGUEZ

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the Professional Doctorate in

Public Administration at the University of Canberra

July 2012

iii

Abstract

The Philippines has a vast coastal zone with resources that serve as valuable assets for Filipinos,

particularly those living in coastal communities. However, these resources are under

considerable threat and are confronted with severe degradation which includes overfishing,

illegal fishing, illegal cutting of mangroves and coastal pollution. These problems have been

aggravated by poor institutional arrangements for coastal management, weak coastal law

enforcement and policy formulation, and inappropriate coastal management mechanisms. Much

of the damage to the coastal environment caused by these problems is concentrated in the

northern part of the country where the Lingayen Gulf is situated. The Lingayen Gulf ecosystem

is used as a case study in this research as it illustrates coastal problems and institutional

responses to them.

Data gathering for this research included two principal methods: documentation and

interviewing. Documentation was used for setting out the problem addressed in the thesis,

describing the situation, and developing the literature review concerning the management of the

coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf. Interviewing was at the core of this research. It was used

to compare and verify the information gathered from written documents and, more importantly,

to acquire new data relating to coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf. The research consulted

a wide range of literature related to the theory, practice and history of coastal management and

looked at some specific examples of integrated coastal management (ICM) implementation in

Asia. It also critically examined the roles of the national government, the local government and

the community sector as the lead actors in the coastal management of the Lingayen Gulf. This

involved in-depth semi-structured interviews of 42 respondents from the national and local

government sectors, and the community sector who were involved in the management of the

Gulf’s coastal resources. The main findings of the research were that coastal problems continued

despite a succession of coastal management initiatives and that most stakeholders were

dissatisfied with the outcomes and processes of these initiatives. The latter failed to fully

iv

incorporate all of the components of ICM. Other issues identified included overlapping roles and

conflicts between national government agencies, ambiguous laws and rules, lower than needed

involvement and capacity of local government, and weak involvement of local communities.

From these findings it was recommended to encourage more active participation of the

community sector in coastal management, the creation of a management unit to coordinate all

coastal management activities in the Lingayen Gulf, harmonisation of coastal laws to avoid

confusion and weak law enforcement, and adoption of a comprehensive coastal management

system, such as the ICM approach, that can help mitigate coastal problems in the Gulf as proven

in other countries around the world.

vii

Acknowledgements

A number of exceptional people have been very supportive from the inception through the

completion of this research. I wish to express my earnest gratitude to all of them. Their self-

sacrificing support and words of wisdom have invaluably inspired and motivated me in

successfully achieving this grand milestone of my education endeavour.

The Faculty of Business and Government at the University of Canberra (UC) deserves a sincere

commendation for its superb treatment and for providing essential resources for the research. I

thank all the administration and academic personnel in the faculty for their warm

accommodation and hospitality. Foremost, my heartfelt appreciation to the excellent supervision

of Professor Mark Turner who had been very patient in providing me with the necessary

guidance I needed throughout my research journey.

Many thanks are offered to the Australian Commonwealth Government (Australian Leadership

Award of the Australian Agency for International Development – ALA-AusAID) for funding my

research. I am particularly indebted to all the Australian taxpayers who have, knowingly or

unknowingly, given me the opportunity to complete a doctoral research. Rest assured that this

opportunity will be put in good use.

The creditable assistance, opinions and suggestions of all the people who have been involved in

the data collection is hereby genuinely acknowledged – my interview respondents, point persons,

and heads of institutions. Of course, not to be forgotten is the considerable assistance of Dr. Pia

Domingo of the National Economic and Development Authority (Region 1, Philippines) for

keenly sharing her office reports and documents relevant to my research. Similarly, sincere

thanks to Professor Jenny Stewart and Beverley Clarke for helping me lay out the foundation of

my research. My heartfelt gratitude also goes to Sue Prentice at UC Academic Skills Centre for

the initial proofreading of the preliminary draft of this thesis, and to Lulu Turner at UC Business

viii

and Government Faculty for the final proofreading and copyediting assistance of this thesis

following the guidelines for professional editing under Part 6 of the UC Gold Book: Policy and

Procedures.

A special mention goes to my friends and relatives who have supported me all the way and kept

me in their prayers. These people have consistently put their trust in me that I would be able to

successfully complete my research. For the most part, I express immeasurable gratitude to my

wife, Maricel, and our daughter, Mari Gabrielle, for providing me unconditional love and utmost

inspiration throughout the completion of my thesis. Finally, I offer my sincerest appreciation to

my parents, brothers and sisters who have served as my unyielding sources of motivation and

encouragement.

ix

Table of Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii

Form B: Certificate of Authorship of Thesis..............................................................................v

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... vii

Table of Contents..........................................................................................................................ix

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xv

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xix

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms........................................................................................xxi

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 General Overview ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 About the Research ............................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Research Objectives and Questions ...................................................................................... 5

1.4 Research Methods ................................................................................................................. 6

1.5 Structure of the Thesis........................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: The Coastal Environments ..................................................................................... 11

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Defining Coastal Environments .......................................................................................... 12

2.3 Threats Affecting the Link between Terrestrial and Coastal Zones.................................... 14

2.4 A Call for Coastal Management .......................................................................................... 15

2.5 The Move toward an Integrative Approach for Coastal Management ................................ 17

2.6 The Concept of Integrated Coastal Management ................................................................ 20

2.7 Goals of ICM ....................................................................................................................... 22

2.8 Key Elements of ICM Integration ....................................................................................... 24

2.9 Frameworks and Indicators for Assessing ICM Success .................................................... 26

2.10 From Concept to Practice: Examples of Successful ICM Programs ................................. 32

x

2.10.1 The ICM experience in Xiamen, China ...................................................................... 35

2.10.2 The ICM Experience in the Bunaken National Park (BNP), North Sulawesi,

Indonesia ................................................................................................................................ 43

2.10.3 The ICM experience in Danang, Vietnam .................................................................. 50

2.11 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 59

Chapter 3: The Philippine Coastal Governance System ......................................................... 61

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 61

3.2 The Philippine Coastal Profile ............................................................................................ 61

3.3 The Government System ..................................................................................................... 64

3.3.1 National government level ............................................................................................ 64

3.3.2 Local government level ................................................................................................ 66

3.4 Decentralisation of the Philippine Government .................................................................. 68

3.4.1 The effects of decentralised government on coastal management ............................... 70

3.5 Overview of Coastal Management in the Philippines: Evolution and Development .......... 75

3.5.1 Paradigm shifts for coastal management in the Philippines ......................................... 78

3.5.2 Integrative management approach adapted for the Philippine coasts ........................... 81

3.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 84

Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology ........................................................................ 87

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 87

4.2 Selecting the Lingayen Gulf Case Study............................................................................. 87

4.3 Research Design .................................................................................................................. 89

4.4 The Instrumental Case Study .............................................................................................. 91

4.5 Data Collection and Organisation ....................................................................................... 93

4.5.1 Documentation.............................................................................................................. 94

4.5.2 Interviewing .................................................................................................................. 95

4.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 98

Chapter 5: The Background of the Lingayen Gulf Case Study.............................................. 99

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 99

5.2 The Lingayen Gulf Profile .................................................................................................. 99

5.3 Demography ...................................................................................................................... 101

5.4 Issues and Threats ............................................................................................................. 103

xi

5.5 Coastal Management in Lingayen Gulf: A Chronology ................................................... 105

5.5.1 The development and implementation of LGCAMP ................................................. 106

5.5.2 The development and implementation of LGCAMC ................................................. 107

5.5.3 The development and implementation of ICRMP ...................................................... 111

5.4.4 The development and implementation of the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project .............. 115

5.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 116

Chapter 6: The Lead National Government Agencies’ Involvement in Lingayen Gulf

Coastal Management ................................................................................................................ 119

6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 119

6.2 The Role of the Lead Government Agencies .................................................................... 119

6.3 Other Government Agencies Involved in Coastal Management ....................................... 127

6.4 Interviews with BFAR and DENR Staff ........................................................................... 129

6.4.1 Coastal management problems ................................................................................... 131

6.4.2 Previous management interventions ........................................................................... 137

6.4.3 Decentralisation .......................................................................................................... 139

6.4.4 Interagency cooperation/coordination in Lingayen Gulf Management ...................... 143

6.4.5 Importance of enacting new coastal laws for Lingayen Gulf coastal management ... 146

6.4.6 Community sector representation in Lingayen Gulf management ............................. 149

6.4.7 Information dissemination .......................................................................................... 152

6.4.8 Performance assessment ............................................................................................. 155

6.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 157

Chapter 7: The Local Government’s Involvement in Lingayen Gulf Coastal Management

..................................................................................................................................................... 159

7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 159

7.2 The Philippine Local Government .................................................................................... 159

7.3 Specific roles of local government units in coastal management ..................................... 162

7.4 Interviews with Local Government Staff .......................................................................... 165




7.4.4 Interagency cooperation/coordination in Lingayen Gulf management ...................... 181

xii





7.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 191

Chapter 8: The Community Sector’s Involvement in Lingayen Gulf Coastal Management

..................................................................................................................................................... 193

8.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 193

8.2 The Role of the Community Sector................................................................................... 194

8.3 Legal Mandates on the Involvement of the Community Sector in Coastal Management . 196

8.4 Interviews with Community Sector Representatives ........................................................ 198




8.4.4 Interagency cooperation/coordination in Lingayen Gulf management ...................... 207





8.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 218

Chapter 9: Case Study Analysis .............................................................................................. 219

9.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 219

9.2 The Actors in Lingayen Gulf Coastal Management.......................................................... 219

9.2.1 National government: BFAR and DENR ................................................................... 220

9.2.2 Local government ....................................................................................................... 222

9.2.3 The community sector ................................................................................................ 225

9.3 Governance and Management Processes in Lingayen Gulf .............................................. 227

9.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 242

Chapter 10: Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................... 243

10.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 243

10.2 Summary of Key Research Findings ............................................................................... 243

xiii

10.3 Contribution to Knowledge and Implication of Findings ............................................... 248

10.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 250

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 255

Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................................. 273

Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................................. 275

Appendix 3 .............................................................................................................................. 279

Appendix 4 .............................................................................................................................. 281

Appendix 5 .............................................................................................................................. 285

Appendix 6 .............................................................................................................................. 287

Appendix 7 .............................................................................................................................. 289

xv

List of Tables

Table

Number

Title of Table Page

Number

Table 2.1 Characteristics of Coastal Environments 12

Table 2.2 Chronology of Coastal Management 15

Table 2.3 Essential Actions Associated with Each Step of the ICM Policy Cycle 32

Table 3.1 Revenue Generation Scheme in Local Government 72

Table 3.2 Chronology of Coastal Management in the Philippines 76

Table 3.3 Activities Associated with the 5 Phases of the ICM Process 83

Table 5.1 The Composition of Lingayen Gulf 102

Table 5.2

The 2007 Population Survey in the Municipalities within the Lingayen

Gulf Area

102

Table 5.3 Coastal Management Program Adopted by the ICRMP 112

Table 6.1 Management Tools Available to the National Government through

BFAR and DENR in Relation to Coastal Management in the Lingayen

Gulf

121

Table 6.2 Other National Government Agencies and Their Roles in Coastal

Management

128

Table 6.3 Distribution of Lingayen Gulf Interview Participants 129

Table 6.4 Basic Personal Profiles of BFAR and DENR Interviewees 130

Table 6.5 Lingayen Gulf Coastal Problems Identified by BFAR Interviewees 132

Table 6.6 Lingayen Gulf Coastal Problems Identified by the DENR Interviewees 135

Table 6.7 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on Previous Coastal Management

Attempts in the Lingayen Gulf

137

Table 6.8 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on Previous Coastal Management


138

Table 6.9 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Effect of Decentralisation on

Its Coastal Management Responsibilities

141

Table 6.10 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Effect of Decentralisation on

Its Coastal Management Responsibilities

142

Table 6.11 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on Interagency Cooperation

in the Lingayen Gulf Coastal Management

143

Table 6.12 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on Interagency Cooperation in

Lingayen Gulf Coastal Management

145

Table 6.13 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Importance of Enacting

New Coastal Laws for the Lingayen Gulf

147

Table 6.14 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Importance of Enacting New

Coastal Laws for the Lingayen Gulf

148

xvi

Table 6.15 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on Community Representation in the


151

Table 6.16 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on Community Representation in


152

Table 6.17 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Adequacy of IEC Campaigns

for Coastal Management in the Lingayen Gulf

153

Table 6.18 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Adequacy of IEC

Campaigns for Coastal Management in the Lingayen Gulf

154

Table 6.19 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on their Performance in the Lingayen

Gulf Coastal Management

156

Table 6.20 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on their Performance in Lingayen


157

Table 7.1 Key National Legislation and Local Government Mandates for Coastal

Management

161

Table 7.2 Management Tools Available by the Local Government in Relation to

Coastal Management in the Lingayen Gulf

164

Table 7.3 Basic Personal Profiles of Local Government Interviewees 167

Table 7.4 Lingayen Gulf Coastal Problems Identified by Local Government

Interviewees

170

Table 7.5 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on Previous Coastal

Management Attempts in the Lingayen Gulf

175

Table 7.6 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Effect of

Decentralisation on Their Coastal Management Responsibilities

179

Table 7.7 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on Interagency

Cooperation in the Lingayen Gulf Coastal Management

182

Table 7.8 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Need to Enact

Lingayen Gulf Coastal Laws

185

Table 7.9 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on Community

Representation in the Lingayen Gulf Coastal Management

186

Table 7.10 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Adequacy of IEC

Campaigns on Coastal Management in the Lingayen Gulf

188

Table 7.11 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on their Performance in

the Lingayen Gulf Coastal Management

190

Table 8.1 Management Tools Available to the Community Sector in Relation to


195

Table 8.2 Basic Personal Profiles of Community Sector Interviewees 197

Table 8.3 Lingayen Gulf Coastal Problems Identified by Community Sector

Interviewees

200

Table 8.4 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on Previous Coastal

Management Attempts in the Lingayen Gulf

204

Table 8.5 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Effect of

Decentralisation on Their Coastal Management Responsibilities

206

Table 8.6 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on Interagency

Cooperation in Lingayen Gulf Coastal Management

208

Table 8.7 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Importance of

Enacting New Coastal Laws for the Lingayen Gulf

210

xvii

Table 8.8 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on Their Representation


212

Table 8.9 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Adequacy of IEC


214

Table 8.10 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on their Performance


217

xix

List of Figures

Figure

Number

Title of Figure Page

Number

Figure 2.1 The Relationship between Coastal Zone and Coastal Resource Systems 14

Figure 2.2 Generalised ICM Cycle 29

Figure 2.3 Map of Xiamen 36

Figure 2.4 Map of Bunaken National Park 44

Figure 2.5 Map of Danang 51

Figure 3.1 Map of the Philippines Showing its Major Islands and Administrative

Regions

62

Figure 3.2 The Philippine Government Structure 66

Figure 3.3 Transition of Coastal Resource Management in the Philippines from

Central to Local Government

78

Figure 3.4 ICM Framework Adapted for Coastal Management in the Philippines 81

Figure 5.1 Map Showing Location of Lingayen Gulf 100

Figure 6.1 Institutional Conflicts between BFAR and DENR 125

xxi

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADB - Asian Development Bank

ASEAN - Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BAPPENAS - Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional

BFAR - Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

BNMP - Bunaken National Park

BNPMAB - Bunaken National Park Management Advisory Board

BNPO - Bunaken National Park Office

BTNB - Balai Taman Nasional Bunaken

CRM - Coastal Resource Management

CRMP - Coastal Resource Management Project

CZM - Coastal Zone Management

CVRP - Central Visayas Rural Project

DA - Department of Agriculture

DFAF - Department of Fishery, Agriculture and Forestry

DepEd - Department of Education

DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DILG - Department of Interior and Local Government

DND - Department of National Defence

DOST - Department of Science and Technology

DOTC - Department of Transportation and Communication

DOT - Department of Tourism

DOF - Department of Finance

DST - Department of Science and Technology

EcoGov - Philippine Environmental Governance Project

ESD - Ecologically Sustainable Development

FAO - Fishery Administrative Order

FLA - Fishery Lease Agreement

GEF - Global Environmental Facility

GESAMP - Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental

Protection

GDP - Gross Domestic Product

ICM - Integrated Coastal Management

ICRMP - Integrated Coastal Resource Management Program

IEC - Information, Education and Communication

IRA - Internal Revenue Allotment

ITTXDP - Integrated Task Team of the Xiamen Demonstration Project

IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature

LCE - Local Chief Executive

LGU - Local Government Units

LGCAMC - Lingayen Gulf Coastal Area Management Commission

LGCAMP - Lingayen Gulf Coastal Area Management Project

MAO - Municipal Agricultural Office

xxii

M/CFARMC - Municipal/City Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council

MFO - Marine Fishery Ordinance

MMCC - Marine Management Coordination Committee

MOSTE - Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment

MPA - Marine Protected Area

NEDA - National Economic and Development Authority

NGO - Non-Government Organisation

NRMP - Natural Resource Management Program

NSWA - North Sulawesi Watersports Association

PCC - Project Coordinating Committee

PHKA - Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam

PNP - Philippine National Police

PSDN - Philippine Sustainable Development Network

PEMSEA - Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia

PMO - Project Management Office

RDC - Regional Development Council

SEMP - Strategic Environmental Management Plan

SEZ - Special Economic Zone

UN - United Nations

UNCED - United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNDP - United Nations Development Programme

UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCAP - United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

UNFAO - United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation

USAID - United States Agency for International Development

WB - World Bank

WCED - World Commission on Environment and Development

WRI - World Resources Institute

XDP - Xiamen Demonstration Project

XDPO - Xiamen Demonstration Project Office

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 General Overview

The earth’s ecosystems comprise communities of biological organisms that are dependent on

each other and on their environment. These are natural systems that form and characterise the

complex network of interactions among various organisms. Any changes to the interdependent

relationships of these organisms can result in serious damage to the ecosystems. The coastal

environment is one of the ecosystems most vulnerable to degradation brought about by

unnecessary changes to its natural state. For several decades now, the coastal environment has

been confronted with different problems including intensive fishing pressure, destructing fishing

practices, domestic and industrial pollution, and rapid population growth in coastal areas which

have been seriously affecting its health and productivity (United States Agency for International

Development-Coastal Resource Management Program [USAID-CRMP] 2000; Group of Experts

on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection [GESAMP] 2001). The escalating

degree of coastal problems prompted coastal managers and practitioners around the world to

implement management measures to reverse the deteriorating condition of the coastal

environment and to restore it to health.

Systematic coastal management emerged as the approach to deal with the worsening condition of

the coastal environment. This approach has taken different forms over the years. It started as a

mechanism to manage basic shoreline issues relating to seaports and coastal recreational

activities. This evolved into a comprehensive coastal management approach incorporating

various groups and sectors into the management processes. Formal management in coastal areas

was initiated by the US through the enactment of a national mandate, the Coastal Zone

Management Act of 1972 (Chua 1993; Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998; English 2003). This

engendered the development of a multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary approach to coastal

management widely known as integrated coastal management (ICM). This approach involved all

2

levels of government, non-government organisations (NGOs), community, private sector and

research and academic institutions, as well as the integration of various disciplines including

science, law, management, technology, and economics in the institutional arrangements and

governance systems for effective and sustainable coastal management (Cicin-Sain & Knecht

1998; Olsen 2003; Harvey & Hilton 2006). The ICM approach has been adopted in different

coastal countries around the world for managing their coastal resources. A number of these

countries have documented and reported successful implementation of ICM in their coastal

zones, including the city of Xiamen, China and Danang, Vietnam (Nong & Nguyen 2003;

Danang Coastalink 2004; Chua 2009). The success of the ICM programs in these coastal cities

has drawn substantial interest and they have served as models for other countries when adopting

and implementing ICM in their coastal environments.

In the Philippines, the governance arrangements for coastal resources have evolved from a

centralised to a localised management system brought about by government decentralisation in

1991 when local governments took over the leading role in managing the coastal environment

(United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific [UNESCAP] 2004).

The coastal management approach in the Philippines has gone through different phases: from

centralised fisheries management, to community-based coastal management, and to decentralised

coastal management which later transformed into ICM (White et al. 2007). Since the 1990s, the

ICM approach has been widely adopted in managing the coastal resources, particularly in

addressing a plethora of coastal problems in the country. However, implementing a genuine and

successful ICM program has become a serious challenge among local coastal managers,

practitioners and communities. The Lingayen Gulf is a major resource and population centre in

the Philippines. Good management of the gulf is essential for the coastal ecosystems and the

area’s communities. This research uses the Lingayen Gulf as a case study that illustrates the

coastal problems and management challenges confronting the Philippines and the approaches

taken to address them.

3

1.2 About the Research

This research examines the institutional arrangements and the management mechanisms involved

in managing the Lingayen Gulf in the Philippines. The examination included primarily the

investigation of the roles of the main actors in Lingayen Gulf coastal management: the national

government composed of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), which is

under the Department of Agriculture (DA), and the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (DENR); the local government, and the community sector. The research also

investigates the governance structure and processes for the Lingayen Gulf coastal management,

and the results of different coastal management initiatives.

Exploring the triggers for coastal management initiatives and the chronology of coastal

management events in the Lingayen Gulf was of high importance in this research. This is to

clearly understand how coastal management started and developed into a potentially powerful

tool for protecting and preserving the Gulf’s coastal ecosystem. Evidence from the research

showed that the increasing impacts of coastal problems on the coastal environment and its

dependents, including the coastal resources and the local people of the Lingayen Gulf, prompted

the Philippine government to implement the first coastal management initiative in the area. Thus,

coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf began in the 1980s and initially dealt with coastal

pollution and overfishing issues (DENR et al. 2001b; White et al. 2007). Over time, the coastal

management practice in the Gulf developed into a comprehensive approach by adopting the

model of ICM in which different sectors were incorporated into the governance structure and

management processes. However, this thesis argues that the essential elements of ‘integration’

recommended under the ICM framework were not taken into full consideration in implementing

the various ICM initiatives which led to ineffective management of the Lingayen Gulf’s coastal

environment. For example, the involvement of the community sector in major coastal

management undertakings was overlooked. The community sector is regarded as an important

stakeholder of the coastal resources in ICM, particularly because of their direct access to the

coastal environment and their traditional skill and knowledge in managing the coastal resources

(Rivera & Newkirk 1997; USAID-CRMP 2000; Dela Cruz 2004).

4

In 1993, Presidential Decree 156 declared the Gulf as one of the environmentally critical areas in

the Philippines due to the extremely poor condition of its coastal environment (Talaue-McManus

& Chua 1997; Regional Development Council-Region 1 [RDC-1] 2001). This declaration

brought about the design and implementation of various coastal management programs and

mechanisms which aimed at reversing the rapid degradation of the Gulf’s coastal resources and

achieving sustainable management of the resources. Previous studies conducted in the Lingayen

Gulf mainly focused on coastal pollution and intensive fishing pressure and their impacts on the

fishery resources, coral reefs, and the overall degradation of the coastal resources. These studies

have generated scientific data detailing the poor condition of the Lingayen Gulf and that coastal

problems continue to exist in the Gulf despite various coastal management attempts (Deocadez et

al. 2003). The coastal problems have seriously impacted on the condition of the Gulf being the

major fishing ground in northern Luzon. This fishing ground supplies approximately 70% of fish

demands for the entire Luzon island, and provides an important source of food and livelihood to

the fishing community within the Gulf (Trinidad et al. 2009; RDC-1 2005). Ineffective

management of the Gulf’s coastal resources has been gradually causing severe damage, which, if

left unaddressed, can potentially lead to the complete deterioration of its entire coastal

ecosystem. This can severely affect the well-being and integrity of the coastal environment as

well as the socio-economic condition of the local people in the area. The imminent deterioration

of the rich coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf merits management as a unit so that it can

continue to sustainably provide livelihood opportunities to the members of the coastal

community. Effective management of the Gulf will also result in the protection and conservation

of its rich fishing ground, productive brackish culture systems and natural attractions for tourism.

This research underscores the importance of designing a comprehensive coastal management

framework that will guide all the management activities for the protection and conservation of

the Lingayen Gulf coastal resources. According to White et al. (2005a) and Sorensen (1997),

designing an appropriate framework for coastal management should involve government at all

levels, the community, and other concerned groups to ensure effective design and

implementation. The ICM framework is proposed as an ideal coastal management approach

because it provides step-by-step activities that guide and direct the implementation of an ICM

5

program and ensure that this program meets its desired outcomes (Olsen 2003). It has also been

shown to be successful in promoting effective coastal management elsewhere.

1.3 Research Objectives and Questions

The main objective of this research is to explore the reasons why and how the different coastal

management initiatives and approaches in the Lingayen Gulf failed to bring effective and

sustainable coastal management in the area. Particularly important in exploring this aspect is an

evaluation of the governance and management processes relating to the Gulf’s coastal resources.

This research seeks to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the different coastal management

initiatives undertaken in the Gulf, and, with that knowledge, shows what strategies can be most

effective in enhancing the implementation of present and future coastal management activities.

Importantly, this research aims to place the Lingayen Gulf case study into the wider perspective

of ICM by evaluating relevant ICM experiences in other countries in order to build in-depth

understanding of the Lingayen Gulf coastal management experience. Such evaluation facilitates

the investigation and analysis of factors that have prevented the attainment of successful and

sustainable management of the Gulf. The evaluation of ICM experiences in other countries was

mainly carried out by means of extensive review of relevant literature.

In order to attain the aims, this research is guided by the key question:

What factors have affected the implementation of ICM in the Lingayen Gulf?

A set of sub-questions follows to help specify the issues that the key question seeks to address.

How did the local government units in the Lingayen Gulf implement and develop coastal

management initiatives?

What management indicators were used to assess the failure of previous coastal

management attempts in the Lingayen Gulf?

What coastal management regulations are in place in the area? How do these regulations

affect coastal management activities?

What were the constraints on the full implementation of ICM in the Lingayen Gulf?

6

What similarities and/or differences can be drawn from comparing the Lingayen Gulf

experience with the ideal type ICM model and the international ICM experience?

What lessons did the international ICM experience offer to sustainably and effectively

manage the Lingayen Gulf?

These questions are intended to generate valuable information necessary to bring to light how,

why, and what have essentially caused the failure of the management initiatives previously

undertaken in the Lingayen Gulf. Specifically, the answers to these questions will help to

elucidate how the main actors in Lingayen Gulf carried out their coastal management

responsibilities and how their performance impacted on governance and management processes

in the Gulf. This will provide data and insights that will be of use in designing coastal

management programs that have great potential for success in the Lingayen Gulf, in particular,

and in the Philippines, in general.

1.4 Research Methods

Two methods of data collection were used in this research. The first method involved semi-

structured interviewing as the major fieldwork activity conducted during May-August 2008. The

second method was through documentation which required intensive review of relevant

literature. Semi-structured interviewing was treated as the primary data collection method and

involved 42 respondents from the national government, particularly BFAR and DENR, the local

government units within the Lingayen Gulf, and the community sector in the area. The national

and local government respondents had important roles in managing the coastal resources of the

Lingayen Gulf. Thus, their selection for the interview was necessary to provide broad

understanding on how the Gulf had been managed. Similarly, respondents from the community

sector were selected based on their experiences, opinions, and observations as the stakeholders

most dependent on the Lingayen Gulf coastal resources and their management. The knowledge

and familiarity of the respondents regarding the situation and coastal management practices in

the Gulf, as well as their involvement and interest in coastal management, were highly

significant in establishing the empirical data needed to augment the Lingayen Gulf management

information available in the literature.

7

Documentation served as the secondary data collection method. This method of data collection

included various sources: academic books and journal articles; published and unpublished

government reports; newspapers; and reliable academic and institutional websites. In Australia,

these data were sourced from four major libraries – the Flinders University library in South

Australia, the University of Canberra library, the Australian National University library and the

National Library of Australia in Canberra. In the Philippines, data were gathered from the RDC

Regional Office 1, BFAR Office, DENR Office, and local government units within the Lingayen

Gulf area. Data collected from these institutions provided a range of valuable information

regarding the geography, demography, socio-economic conditions, legal documents delineating

responsibilities in coastal management and, more significantly, the coastal management

experience of the Lingayen Gulf.

1.5 Structure of the Thesis

This section describes how this thesis is organised. The thesis consists of ten chapters. Each

chapter represents an essential component of the research. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to

coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf. The objectives and research questions are articulated,

and data collection method and structure are briefly outlined.

Chapter 2 explains what triggered the need to manage the global coastal environment. This

chapter explores the development of the theory and practice of coastal management around the

world, especially how it evolved into the ICM approach. The latter part of the chapter evaluates

international coastal management practices and experiences by applying the concept of ICM.

These experiences demonstrate that the concept of ICM can be successfully applied in different

coastal nations.

Chapter 3 describes the institutional structure and governance for managing the coastal resources

of the Philippines. It highlights the country’s governmental transition from centralised to

decentralised management arrangements which affected the implementation of coastal

management activities. This chapter also discusses the evolution of coastal management in the

8

country which started from fisheries management, moved on to community-based coastal

management, and was then transformed into ICM.

Chapter 4 provides the background of the Lingayen Gulf coastal management case study. This

chapter presents the socio-economic and environmental condition of the Lingayen Gulf coastal

environment. It delineates the coastal management problems that require urgent attention. This

chapter investigates the effectiveness of the different coastal management approaches that were

adopted in the gulf to address the coastal problems in the area. It also explores how the Lingayen

Gulf coastal management framework was developed and implemented.

Chapter 5 details the methods and processes employed in collecting necessary data for the

development of this research. This chapter clearly explains how primary data were gathered from

fieldwork, and how secondary data were collected and organised. Similarly, this chapter

discusses the importance of using the case study approach as the main methodology employed in

this research.

Chapters 6, 7, and 8 provide the empirical information generated from fieldwork. The fieldwork

mainly involved interviews with different coastal stakeholders in the Lingayen Gulf, including

the national government, local government, and the community sector. These chapters contain

compilations of opinions, observations, knowledge and understanding of the respondents

regarding coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf. These respondents’ views are discussed in

detail following this order: the national government (Chapter 6); the local government (Chapter

7); and the community sector (Chapter 8).

Chapter 9 analyses the case study based on the data gathered from interviews and the ICM

framework derived from the literature. There are two areas of analysis in this chapter. The first

area of analysis examines the roles and responsibilities of the different coastal stakeholders in the

Lingayen Gulf coastal management. The second area of analysis investigates the governance and

management processes involved in managing the Gulf’s coastal resources, assessing the

effectiveness of the implementation of the various coastal management initiatives in attaining

sustainable coastal management for Lingayen Gulf.

9

Finally, Chapter 10 provides the conclusion to the research. The first part of the chapter offers

the summary and implications of this research outlining the institutional arrangements and

management approaches involved in the Lingayen Gulf coastal management, based on the

findings. The second part presents recommendations deriving from the research and aimed at

improving the implementation of the present and future Lingayen Gulf ICM programs.

11

Chapter 2: The Coastal Environments

2.1 Introduction

This chapter examines the background literature for this research into the effectiveness of coastal

management programs in the Lingayen Gulf in the Philippines. It explains how the ever-

increasing problems in the coastal environment around the world have led to the creation of the

concept of coastal management. Coastal management concept and practice have gone through a

series of developments. Different coastal nations in the world have adapted to these

developments in order to provide suitable management arrangements to maintain and protect the

integrity of the coastal ecosystems. Significantly important in this chapter is the concept of ICM

as the most comprehensive management approach highly recommended by coastal management

experts to coastal nations for the management of their coastal resources. Currently, the

management system prevailing in different coastal nations around the world, including the

Philippines, has been patterned after international coastal management practice, particularly the

application of ICM as the most recent and popular form of coastal management. ICM is focused

on bringing together different sectors and initiatives in a unified system of management. Through

this multi-sector approach, ICM promises more efficient and effective management resulting in

improved outcomes in the global coastal environment. This coastal management approach

recognises the importance of collaborative management efforts in ensuring sustainable use of the

coastal zone for a healthy coastal environment and improved living conditions for human

society.

The latter part of this chapter evaluates the experiences of two other countries in managing their

coastal environments by applying the concept of ICM. These experiences reflect successful

attempts in ICM implementation, and demonstrate that the concept of ICM can be moulded to fit

the specific economic, geographical and political conditions of different countries.

12

2.2 Defining Coastal Environments

The earth is replete with natural resources that are exploitable by all living organisms,

particularly the human beings. The coastal environments, which are one of the earth’s natural

resources, comprise coastal ranges, wetlands, plains, lakes, bays and continental shelves (Hotta

& Dutton 1995). They cover approximately 8% of the earth (World Resources Institute [WRI]

1992; Harvey & Mimura 2006), sheltering over 600,000 square kilometres (km2) of coral reefs

(Bryant et al. 1998) as well as approximately 181,000 km2 of mangroves worldwide (Alongi

2002), supplying about 90% of the global fish catch (Harvey & Hilton 2006), and employing all

but one million of the 51 million fishers globally (Tobey 2003).

More specifically, coastal environments are subdivided according to their biological

characteristics (see Table 2.1), which include near-shore terrestrial, intertidal, benthic, and

pelagic marine regions (Burke et al. 2001). Coastal environments provide humans with primary

needs, such as food, shelter, infrastructure, recreation, and defence (Hotta & Dutton 1995). They

also host maritime commerce, oil and gas production, aquaculture, and pharmaceutical and

industrial biotechnology (USAID 2007).

Table 2.1 Characteristics of Coastal Environments

Coastal Environments

Near-shore

terrestrial

Dunes, cliffs, rocky and sandy shores, coastal xeromorphic habitats (can adapt to

dry environment), urban, industrial and agricultural landscapes

Intertidal Estuaries, deltas, lagoons, mangrove forests, mudflats, salt marshes, salt pans,

other coastal wetlands, ports and marinas, aquaculture beds

Benthic Kelp forests, seagrass beds, coral reefs, and soft bottom environments above the

continental shelf, artificial reefs and structures

Pelagic Open waters above the continental shelf, freestanding fish farms: e.g. plankton

blooms, neuston zone (water surface), sea ice herring schools

Adapted from: Burke et al. 2001, p. 11

13

The vast resources that can be found within the coastal environment seem to be running short

due to the significant increase in the number of human inhabitants and their activities in coastal

zones across the globe. The Environment Division of the USAID (2007) revealed that in the

recent times the world’s fishing fleet has been 40% larger than the oceans could sustain.

Potentially, the growth in global population in the coastal areas poses major threats to coastal

resources which could eventually lead to their complete extinction due to overexploitation,

depletion and misuse. Based on a report by the United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP), the global coastal areas are exposed to various dilemmas, such as expansion of major

tourism industries, widespread exploitation of marine resources, rapid urban growth, and a

considerable increase in population pressure (UNEP 2002). The adverse results of these

developments in coastal areas include pollution, loss of marine resources, and loss of livelihood

for fishing communities.

Moreover, as Hardin (1968, p. 1245) explained in his widely cited article, the Tragedy of the

Commons:

…the oceans of the world continue to suffer from the survival of the philosophy of the

commons. Maritime nations still respond automatically to the shibboleth of the

freedom of the seas. Professing to believe in the inexhaustible resources of the oceans,

they (coastal nations) bring species after species of fish…closer to extinction.

Population growth and the impact of unregulated human activities are posing threats to the global

environment, particularly in coastal areas, a situation which necessitates effective governance of

coastal resources (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED] 1987).

However, according to Drysec (2005), the issues of population growth and unregulated human

activities are not actually the main problems for the coastal environment. Instead, he argued that

the global coastal problems were triggered by poor environmental policy formulation, inaccurate

choice of policy, weak policy implementation and law enforcement, inadequate political and

institutional reform, and poor management priorities which have affected all forms of natural

resources.

14

2.3 Threats Affecting the Link between Terrestrial and Coastal Zones

The link between the terrestrial and coastal zones has been established in many studies.

According to Chua (1993, p. 83), the coastal zone represents the ‘interface between the land and

the sea but concern and interest are concentrated on that area in which human activities are

interlinked with both the land and the marine environments’ (see Figure 2.1). The figure

illustrates the relationship between the three factors of land, sea, and human activities (Scura et

al. 1992). GESAMP (2001) points out the link between land and sea, claiming that many coastal

problems, particularly marine pollution, originate from the terrestrial environment which means

that human activities, coastal integrity and land-based phenomena affect each other. Further

claims have been made that most of the coastal issues emanating from land-based activities

include, but are not limited to, urbanisation, industry, agriculture, forestry and aquaculture,

hydrological changes, commerce and transport, tourism, and military activities and social

conflict (Hotta & Dutton 1995; GESAMP 2001).

Even upland activities – agriculture, forestry, river diversion, damming and other alterations, as

well as mining tailings – impact on the coastal zone, often adversely, and represent a link

between land and sea (Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998). Thus, the population growth in places far

from the coast when added to the increasing number of people in coastal areas means that both

the land and the sea are exposed to ever greater threats (GESAMP 2001).

Figure 2.1 The Relationship between Coastal Zone and Coastal Resource

Systems

Source: Scura et al. 1992

15

These realities are manifestations of the blunt statement by the WCED (1987, p. 263) that ‘…the

living resources of the sea are under threat from overexploitation, population and land-based

development’. This threat urgently needs global action for the protection of coastal resources and

for the well-being of the growing population.

2.4 A Call for Coastal Management

The continued depletion of natural coastal resources worldwide which resulted from the different

forms of misuse and exploitation triggered a global call for the management of the coastal

environment. The worsening situation has been known for many years and a variety of initiatives

Table 2.2 Chronology of Coastal Management

Stage Objective Coastal Uses

Under

Management

Geographical Coverage

1960s:

Rise

Use management

addressing a single

environmental

issue socially

perceived as

important

One or a few uses

(e.g., seaports,

recreational uses)

The shoreline

1970s:

Implementation

Use management

and environmental

protection

Few uses (e.g.,

seaports,

manufacturing

plants, recreation

and fishing)

Various alternative extents:

- The shoreline

- A coastal zone delimited

according to arbitrary criteria

- A coastal zone delimited

according to administrative

criteria

1980s:

Maturity

Use management

and environmental

protection

Multiple use

management

Various alternative extents

characterized by the proclivity to

move seaward to extend

management to national

jurisdictional zones

1990s:

International

primacy

Integrated coastal

area management

(ICAM)

Comprehensive use

management,

management of the

coastal ecosystem

A zone extending

- Landward according to

various criteria

- Seaward to the outer limit

of the widest national

jurisdictional zone

Source: Vallega 1996

16

have been introduced. The chronology of coastal management initiatives (see Table 2.2), which

have been used as strategies to address major issues affecting the sustainable use of global

coastal environment, was summarised and explained by Vallega (1996). The coastal

management initiatives started with basic shoreline management which simply addressed issues

relating to seaports and coastal recreational activities, and has subsequently evolved into a

comprehensive and integrative management mechanism involving various groups and sectors in

the management processes.

Traditional coastal management practices had existed in pre-colonial times in developing

countries. These approaches were primarily based on customary beliefs and taboos for the

regulation of access to coastal resources, particularly in the Asia Pacific region (Harvey & Hilton

2006). In the 1960s, some of the earliest formal coastal management undertakings were initiated

by rich coastal countries in order to address inappropriate development and poor planning

mechanisms in their coastal zones (Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998). This involved the application of

the shoreline protection approach, such as the use and installation of hard structures to protect the

coastal resources against beach erosion or storm damage as well as the construction and

management of harbours, and the management of recreational activities in the coastal zones

(Vallega 1996). However, this management approach to protect and maintain the integrity of the

coastal environment was not adequate to combat the growing hazards affecting entire coastal

ecosystems.

In the 1970s, management efforts were intensified and expansion of management activities in the

coastal zone became evident which included incorporation of fisheries management in the

coastal management system. During this period formal management approaches in coastal areas

known as coastal zone management (CZM) came into existence in the US by virtue of a national

mandate, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Chua 1993; Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998;

English 2003). However, there were growing debates on the effectiveness of the CZM approach.

It was observed that CZM was not a comprehensive approach to managing coastal resources

because it focused only on shoreline management, and failed to address overall management of

coastal issues. Following the initiation of the CZM approach in the US, several related coastal

17

management initiatives in different coastal nations, particularly in developing countries, ensued

(Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998).

In the 1980s, the multiple-use management system was adopted. This widened the scope of

coastal management to include management and control, at the national level, of coastal trading,

seaport systems, coastal recreational activities, and fishing activities (Vallega 1996). This

management approach did not last long as it was still seen by coastal management experts and

practitioners as lacking in scope, particularly in terms of persuading different sectors of society

to participate in the management process. Thus, a new management procedure was

conceptualised in the 1990s through the introduction of an integrative approach to coastal

management bringing together different sectors and their representatives in the management

system. The approach took into consideration the interconnectedness of land and sea, and

involved designing appropriate mechanisms to manage these environments. This approach

became known as ICM. The following sections will discuss, in detail, the integration of different

sectors in managing coastal resources under the ICM approach.

2.5 The Move toward an Integrative Approach for Coastal Management

Rapid urbanisation and economic development in many countries around the world have

generated a range of environmental issues including degradation of the coastal ecosystem and

conflicts in the use and allocation of coastal resources. These complex issues have become more

serious in developing countries, including the Philippines, where the unemployment rate, poverty

and population growth have imposed great pressures on the coastal environment. Consequently,

the economic sustainability and environmental quality of many coastal nations are critical

problems. In addition, management practices have intensified resource use conflicts, created

social unrest and destabilised national economies (Chua 1993). Thus, it has become evident that

there is a need to shift from a conventional sectoral management to a broader and multi-sectoral

management approach in order to address the challenges confronting the sustainable

management of coastal zones.

According to GESAMP (1996), the coastal environment is particularly vulnerable to over-

exploitation largely because a diversity of incompatible activities competes for limited space and

18

resources. For example, economic development has posed serious threats to the coastal

environment and unregulated coastal practices have resulted in overfishing and coastal

degradation, These incompatibilities are clear indications that a special need to manage and

harmonise all activities in the coastal zone have become critically indispensable to avoid further

resource use conflicts which can potentially lead to a more serious coastal damage. This special

coastal management need can be dealt with by integrating multiple stakeholders in the

management and decision-making processes and by applying multiple disciplines in the

management framework (van der Weide 1993; GESAMP 1996; Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998).

A movement towards integration (intersectoral, intergovernmental, spatial and interdisciplinary)

in coastal management has become the desired management approach in many countries. There

has been an increase in the number of approaches to coordination and consensus-building, such

as the installation of national-level coastal management institutions as well as interagency

coordinating committees. The earlier attempts to manage coastal resources which primarily

focused on managing seaport and coastal recreational activities, as noted in Table 2.2, were seen

to be lacking in comprehensiveness and holism and ill-equipped to address many significant

coastal issues. Specifically, these coastal issues included overexploitation of coastal resources,

rising pollution levels endangering public health, aquaculture, fishing and tourism, and

development of other uses of the coastal zone such as extraction of foreshore oil and other

minerals (Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998). The deteriorating coastal zone conditions eventually

triggered the development of a broader management approach which highlighted integrative

mechanisms (Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998).

The shift of the coastal management paradigm to a focus on integration resulted in several

differently named approaches. However, all such approaches shared similar principles and

objectives. The various approaches included integrated marine and coastal area management

(IMCAM) which was developed in conformity with the principles and objectives of the

Convention on Biological Diversity, a convention mainly focusing on the development of

national strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. In addition,

there was integrated coastal area management (ICAM), the term given to coastal management

efforts in the developing countries because they were often limited to managing specific coastal

19

areas rather than the entire coastal zone of these countries (Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998; Harvey &

Hilton 2006). However, the use of the terms IMCAM and ICAM did not gain popularity in the

global perspective, largely because the integrative approach to managing the coastal zone was in

its infancy when these terms were introduced. There were subsequent debates regarding the

scope of the management and the degree of participation by different sectors in managing the

coastal resources.

As the concept of coastal management gained international recognition and acceptance, the new

terms ICM and integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) were used interchangeably (Cicin-

Sain & Knecht 1998; Harvey & Hilton 2006). It has been argued, however, that the term ICM

has been more commonly used globally (Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998; Courtney & White 2000;

Milne & Christie 2005). This term is seen to be the most acceptable to describe integrated

approaches to coastal management (Harvey & Hilton 2006). ICZM and ICM may have similar

objectives, but according to Sorensen (1997) the former is more of a program while the latter is a

concept. Generally, the term ‘integrated’ was adopted when it became evident that effective

coastal management would only be attained through an approach involving multiple sectors and

actors rather than just through a single-sector approach (Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998). The term

ICM will be used in this thesis to denote the prevailing and widely accepted international coastal

management practice.

From the experiences of different coastal nations, the integrated coastal approach was seen to be

better than earlier sectoral or fragmented management approaches to the coastal ecosystem

(Ehler & Basta 1993). This was because the sectoral management approach only concentrated on

a single fragment of the coastal environment, which involved specific resource use and

management and promoted fragmented institutional arrangements. Conflicts between existing

uses of the coastal zone, such as aquaculture and coastal recreation, were clear manifestations

that the traditional sectoral management approach was no longer adequate. Integrated

management of the coastal resources, however, did not completely replace the sectoral

management approach; for instance, water quality management and fisheries management could

still stand on their own, but had to conform to the general coastal management goals (Cicin-Sain

& Knecht 1998).

20

On the other hand, the emerging need in the coastal zone to protect ecological biodiversity,

reduce the vulnerability to the accelerating rise in sea level, and control the ever-increasing

number of social and economic activities concentrated on the coasts, clearly requires an

integrated approach to management (van der Weide 1993; Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998). Similarly,

land-based activities including agriculture, urban sprawl and infrastructure development can also

adversely affect the coastal environment, thereby requiring a holistic management approach. The

progressive accumulation of these effects has the potential to cause the natural systems to

collapse, jeopardising the sustainable use of the coastal resources (van der Weide 1993). Thus,

according to Kimball (1995), dealing effectively with the full spectrum of land-based activities

that can adversely affect the marine environment requires an integrated management strategy.

2.6 The Concept of Integrated Coastal Management

The concept of ICM formally came into being in 1992 when the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED) launched the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero in Brazil

in response to the realisation that the world was living beyond its ecological limits (UNCED

1992; Harvey & Hilton 2006). Over 100 heads of state took part in the Earth Summit, all seeking

to address urgent environmental protection and socio-economic development issues in order to

achieve sustainable development in the 21st century. The Earth Summit paved the way for the

formulation of an Action Plan called Agenda 21, which consisted of 40 chapters and 300 pages

(UNCED 1992; Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998). The Action Plan served as a fundamental

framework for enhancing global environmental sustainability, and specifically offers policies and

programs to achieve a sustainable balance between consumption, population and the ecosystem’s

life-supporting capacity. It also emphasised the view that sustainable use of the natural resources

was the best way to reverse both poverty and environmental destruction and create improved

living conditions for the present and future generations (UNCED 1992).

Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 was devoted to coasts and oceans. It argued for the ‘protection of the

oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal areas and the

protection, rational use and development of their living resources’ (UNCED 1992 p1). Chapter

21

17 also advocated an ICM approach to deal with the world’s worsening coastal problems

(Burbridge 1997; Stojanovic et al. 2004).

Since the Earth Summit in 1992, calls for ICM have become an important feature of policy

dialogues and actions in every coastal nation worldwide and ICM has been consistently on the

agenda of international environmental conferences (Olsen 2000). Such international conferences

have included the Special Session of the General Assembly to Review and Appraise the

Implementation of Agenda 21 held in New York in June 1997 (UNCED 1992), and the World

Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg in South Africa in

September 2002 which reaffirmed Agenda 21 (UNCED 1992; Gallagher et al. 2004). At these

and other meetings, coastal management consultants and practitioners have continued to support

and promote ICM as the key to effective management of the coasts (Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998).

These avenues for ICM dialogues and policy-making have prompted the development of various

definitions and descriptions of ICM, although the definitions have elements in common. A

conventional definition, which will be used in this thesis, refers to ICM as:

...a continuous and dynamic process that unites government and the community,

science and management, sectoral and public interests in preparing and implementing

an integral plan for the protection and development of coastal ecosystems and

resources (Olsen et al. 1997, p. 157).

ICM requires the active and sustained participation of various sectors working towards a balance

between the condition of the human societies and the environment on which they depend. The

ICM concept focuses on comprehensive ecological protection and conservation because it seeks

to manage coastal resources for sustainable use. This means that the use of the coastal resources

should be at a rate which will meet the needs of both present and future generations (GESAMP

1996; Olsen et al. 1997; Sorensen 1997; Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998).

The notion of sustainable use in ICM was adopted from the Brundtland Commission1 which, in

1987, established policies for sustainable development for all the nations of the world (WCED

1987). ICM is one of the pillars of such sustainable development (English 2003). The term

1 The Bruntland Commission is formally known as the WCED headed by Commission Chair Gro Harlem Brundtland (WCED

1987).

22

sustainable development was popularised by the Brundtland Commission report, entitled Our

Common Future, in 1987 (WCED 1987; Cicin-Sain 1993; Vallega 1993; Cicin-Sain & Knecht

1998). It defined sustainable development as ‘a development that meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED

1987, p. 8). Cynical observers, however, have claimed that sustainable development was

conceptualised in order to protect and strengthen economic interests. Thus, according to Beder

(1994), sustainable development was not primarily about concern for environmental integrity

but, rather, concern for the sustainability of the economic system. She further elaborated that the

definition of sustainable development provided by the Brundtland Commission made no specific

mention of the environment, but, instead, revealed a purely economic interest particularly in

terms of ensuring and benefiting from a continuous supply of goods and services to meet human

wants.

Despite criticisms, many are convinced that sustainable development recognises the link between

development and the protection of the environment. This is because the concept of sustainable

development was developed in order to protect and manage ecosystems and natural resources,

including the coastal environment, which are essential in providing for basic human needs and

acceptable living conditions (WCED 1987; van der Weide 1993; Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998).

2.7 Goals of ICM

One of the key outcomes of the Earth Summit in 1992 was the perception of ICM as a potential

solution to problems in the coastal environment. GESAMP (1996, p. 2) elaborated that the

overall ICM goal is ‘to improve the quality of life of human communities who depend on coastal

resources while maintaining the biological diversity and productivity of coastal ecosystems’.

Specifically, Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, pp. 40-41) spelt out ICM’s major goal:

... to achieve sustainable development of coastal and marine areas; to reduce

vulnerability of coastal areas and their inhabitants to natural hazards; and to maintain

essential ecological processes life support systems, and biological diversity in coastal

and marine areas.

23

Clearly, while ICM is focused on people, it highlights the balance between people and coastal

environments (Olsen et al. 1997), assessing the impacts of development, and encouraging

integration of management approaches (Cicin-Sain 1993).

There have been contrary claims that coastal environment regulations can promote economic

exploitation. These are evident in the utilisation of the coastal zone for recreational activities or

coastal tourism, commercial fishing, and maritime transportation for enhanced trading activities.

Evidently, these claims send the message that ICM is creating a space for the global economy.

Thus, based on Nichols’ (1999) argument, and as observed by many, ICM is a mechanism that is

particularly intended to reorganise the coastal sphere and its political system to allow the

transformation of the coastal zone into an avenue for economic investment by national and

international capital.

On a positive note, English (2003, p. 2) asserted that ‘ICM is a vehicle for moving toward the

goal of sustainable development’, which is directed at achieving sustainably acceptable living

conditions and effective governance mechanisms (Olsen 1993; Harvey & Hilton 2006). Harvey

and Hilton (2006) also claimed that sustainable development is a generally accepted principle of

ICM which implies that intensive coastal management should not jeopardise the resource use for

future generations. Olsen (1993), on the other hand, noted that this might not be the case in

practice. He argued that, in developed countries, particularly in the US, through its CZM

program, promoting environmental protection rather than securing socio-economic benefits has

been the central objective of ICM. By contrast, Milne and Christie (2005) observed that, in

developing countries, the typical goal of ICM is to maximise the human benefit from coastal

resources and to provide livelihoods for the members of the coastal community. This is common

in developing countries where dependence on the coastal resources as primary sources of food

and income is high.

Incorporating sustainable development in the notion of ICM is a desirable move, largely because

the concept of sustainable management implies that the use of the marine environment should

not prejudice the wellbeing of its resources. However, human populations have generally

24

neglected this principle resulting in serious problems in the coastal zone (GESAMP 1990). There

has been ample evidence of the adverse effects of uncontrolled human activities in the coastal

environment including loss of biodiversity and destruction of the ecosystems. This is a clear

indication that human activities and the environment are interdependent. The WCED (1987)

noted that this interdependence requires integration of policy responses and management systems

among nations and sectors as well as areas of concern.

2.8 Key Elements of ICM Integration

Integration is the most defining term in ICM, and has been characterised as bringing together the

different sectors involved in the planning and management processes into a single and unified

system (Kay & Alder 1999). More elaborately, Chua (1993, p. 85) has defined the term

integration as:

an essential aspect of the management system which ensures not only internal

consistency between policies and actions, projects and programs but also linkages

between the process of planning and implementation…to focus efforts on attaining

sustainable development goals.

Chua (1993) went on to identify three broad categories of integration. The first of these

categories is system integration which focuses on the links among various coastal resource

systems, including physical changes of the environment, patterns of resource use, and socio-

economic settings. This ensures that management issues resulting from physical, social and

economic linkages are adequately addressed.

The second is functional integration which refers to the linkages among various management

actions. Programs and projects within these actions should be internally consistent with their

goals and objectives. This form of integration, which determines the types and levels of activities

according to the ICM objective, aims to avoid duplication of management actions or strategies

for managing the coastal resources.

25

The third form of integration is policy integration. This type of integration is popular among

concerned coastal management sectors because it ensures the internal consistency of the ICM

program in relation to management actions and government policies; it maintains coordination; it

sees to it that programs and projects complement each other as well as the other government

agencies concerned; and it integrates ICM programs into government economic development

plans. This integration means that coastal polices should be able to respond to the challenges of

change in the coastal zone, and this response should be consistent with the government’s

economic development goals.

There are various dimensions of integration characterising the three broad categories of ICM

integration (Chua 1993; Cicin-Sain 1993; Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998; English 2003). These

dimensions of integration, which are considered key elements of ICM, include intersectoral

integration; intergovernmental integration; community integration; spatial integration; science

management; and international integration. Intersectoral integration refers to the integration

among different sectors including fisheries, industry, coastal tourism, aquaculture, coastal

protection and conservation, as well as land-based sectors such as agriculture and forestry that

can directly or indirectly affect the marine environment. Intergovernmental integration involves

the collaboration of different levels of government such as national, provincial/state, and local,

each addressing different coastal issues. Community integration entails links between the

government and the community to ensure the latter’s participation in coastal management

activities. Spatial integration focuses on the connection between land-based and coastal activities

and issues. Science management integration refers to cooperation between various scientific

disciplines in coastal management. It involves natural sciences, social sciences and engineering

in information sharing, planning and monitoring, and concerns economic, technical and legal

approaches to coastal management. Finally, international integration may pose the greatest

challenge as it focuses on international concerns involving maritime transboundary issues

particularly fishing, shipping, and pollution (Chua 1993; English 2003; Harvey & Hilton 2006).

These dimensions of integration serve as necessary tools and processes to differentiate coastal

management from narrow-based and conventional management practice associated to particular

sectors to an integrated management system which requires collaborative planning and

26

implementation to ensure long-term socio-economic benefits from the wise use of coastal

resources (Kenchington & Crawford 1993). Chua (1993) also noted that integration in coastal

management ensures strong linkages between the process of planning and implementation, an

essential condition for effective ICM practice. However, conflicts of interest can prevent

effective integration. For instance, disputes and disagreements at different levels of government

can pose serious threats to integration. This normally happens when strong political will has not

been established from the start of an ICM initiative. Poor coordination among various sectors is

also a potential threat to integration; for example, coastal protection and conservation will be at

risk if coastal tourism is not properly managed. Integration is an intricate process which can

either make or break the implementation of an ICM program.

2.9 Frameworks and Indicators for Assessing ICM Success

Olsen (1993) affirmed that achieving successful ICM is a complex and challenging endeavour.

Furthermore, measuring success of an ICM program is widely recognised as a difficult task

(Burbridge 1997; Gallagher et al. 2004; Stojanovic et al. 2004; Christie 2005). This leads to the

question of how ICM success can be appropriately measured.

In the absence of an agreed definition of ‘success’ in assessing the effectiveness of ICM

interventions, Burbridge (1997) proposed that a good way to measure the success of ICM would

be to consider the economic, social and environmental development factors. These factors

directly influence the outcomes of the management and utilisation of the coastal environment

and its resources. Development objectives are not attained through just one of these factors in

isolation. Indeed, to ignore one of these groups of factors may lead to the collapse of the whole

management process and render it ineffective. This, again, emphasises the importance of

recognising the interconnectedness of the human communities that are dependent on the coastal

environment, particularly the biodiversity and productivity of the coastal ecosystems. Burbridge

(1997) claimed that economic, social and environmental factors could only be easily identified

and assessed at a local level and at a specific project site. This means that measuring ICM

success at national and international levels is difficult and even impossible in some instances.

This, however, does not discount the possibility of implementing a successful ICM program at

27

the national level. In fact, a national coastal policy that incorporates planning and management of

coastal activities at the local level into the national development plan is an important tool that

can be the basis of successful ICM (Chua 1993).

Ideal performance measures in coastal management practice provide a clear indication of how

effective a program is in addressing its issues and achieving its goal. Different organisations

around the world adopt performance management measures to guide their actions and assess

their performance against their management objectives. In coastal management two frameworks

are widely used to assess success and evaluate progress. The first framework is the Four Orders

of Outcomes, also commonly called the outcome indicators. This framework groups together the

sequences of institutional, behavioural and social/environmental changes in order to track

progress towards more sustainable forms of coastal development. Outcome indicators document

the changes that occur in the social and physical conditions of the coastal environment as a result

of implementing an ICM program (Bowen & Riley 2003). The approach highlights the

importance of change, for instance improved fish productivity or enhanced quality of life, and

emphasises that for every change there is a corresponding change in the behaviour of the

stakeholders and actors within a management community (Olsen 2003). Outcome indicators

entail assessing and measuring what has been happening in the human and natural environment.

The downside, though, of this framework is that it evidently needs a substantial amount of time

for the data recording and complex assessment of the causes and effects of changes that have

occurred (Bowen & Riley 2003; Stojanovic et al. 2004). Furthermore, Stojanovic (2004) noted

that the tasks involving outcome indicators assessment need a sizeable team of scientists,

academics and coastal managers. Unfortunately, most local governments in developing countries

and small less-developed states lack technical staff and coastal management expertise to

undertake these activities. In addition, destructive fishing practices have often occurred where

there have been rapid population growth and widespread poverty. If these problems remain

unsolved, it will be difficult to achieve the targets needed to reverse environmental deterioration.

Poor people tend to exploit their environment and violate laws, including fishery mandates, for

survival (WCED 1987). Thus, this research has not adopted the outcome indicator framework to

assess the success of the ICM program in the Lingayen Gulf.

28

The second framework is the ICM policy cycle which is also known as the process indicator. The

ICM policy cycle is a comprehensive framework which helps trace the negotiation and

implementation of the cycles of planning and decision-making that can produce and assess

management outcomes (Olsen 2003). Most ICM initiatives articulate goals in relation to

improving the coastal environment yet they often lack specific management measures and plans

which indicate how these goals will be met. This should be avoided in the process indicator

approach as it delineates and clarifies the step-by-step activities that guide and direct the

implementation of an ICM program and ensure that the program meets its desired outcome.

Thus, the progress and success of ICM initiatives can be measured.

This thesis is about the management processes occurring in the Lingayen Gulf, particularly

exploring and evaluating the critical role of the institutional arrangements involving various

sectors such as the national agencies, the local government sector, and the community sector in

the Gulf’s resource management. The ICM policy cycle framework will be used to evaluate how

management mechanisms involving these sectors in the Lingayen Gulf have been carried out and

what actions are required for attaining sustainable management practice. Successful coastal

management programs in different coastal nations are presented in Section 2.10 to clearly

demonstrate that following the ICM policy cycle can help attain sustainable management of the

coastal environment.

Unlike outcome indicators, which are mainly concerned with tangible coastal management

initiative results, the ICM policy cycle is a comprehensive management framework which

ensures that coastal problems are adequately assessed and addressed through intensive, and

sometimes repetitive, documentation and identification of coastal issues before, during and after

an ICM program implementation. It also closely monitors the cycles of planning and decision-

making of an ICM program (Olsen 2003). The ICM policy cycle does, however, cover some of

the essential elements of an approach focusing on outcome indicators, particularly the tracking of

changes and progress in the physical environment of a coastal area through frequent resource

assessment and management evaluation. But neither the outcome indicators nor the ICM

approach have the power to change human behaviour, particularly in a coastal community where

poverty incidence is high. In most developing countries like the Philippines, poverty is a

29

common driving force that leads to violation of rules, norms and standards as people struggle to

survive. This research admits that the implementation of the ICM policy cycle has its own

limitations. It may not be able to fully address the problems of poverty, population pressure and

greed, but violations instigated by such problems can be mitigated, particularly in the case of the

Lingayen Gulf, with the presence of strict law enforcement and appropriate management

approach and effective institutions as recommended under the ICM policy cycle.

Figure 2.2 Generalised ICM Cycle

Source: Olsen 2003, p. 356

Figure 2.2 illustrates the ICM policy cycle which Olsen (2003) adapted from GESAMP (1996).

It operates through five steps which involve certain actions in a cyclical approach (GESAMP

1996; Olsen 2003; Harvey & Hilton 2006), and is an iterative process (Cicin-Sain 1993; Olsen

1993; GESAMP 1996; Westmacott 2002). There may be repetitions of the cycle before a

program achieves sustainable and effective results. The sequence of steps or stages within the

cycle may change, or modifications may occur in certain stages and undergo repetitions in these

stages (Olsen 1993; GESAMP 1996). GESAMP (1996) indicated that the completion of each

cycle can be considered a generation of an ICM program. An ICM program is generally seen as a

set of activities within a policy cycle that seeks to bring about sustainable use of the coastal

areas.

30

Christie (2005) claimed that rarely do ICM programs go through the complete cycle, particularly

when there is termination of external funding and technical support. For example, most ICM

projects in developing countries have generally ceased to operate after the withdrawal of donor

funding (Eisma et al. 2005; White et al. 2005b). However, Olsen (2003) argued that several

documented experiences of foreign-assisted ICM initiatives indicated that limited funds or

inadequate technical know-how in coastal management were not the primary factors constraining

ICM progress. Rather, it was the capacity of the institutions involved to sustain the management

of these initiatives. In the case of developing countries, turning over coastal management

responsibilities from foreign donors to the national or local government, after the termination of

a program or project, often resulted in failure due to lack of support for the program by the host

government.

On the other hand, White et al. (2005a) claimed that designing appropriate institutional

arrangements and management mechanisms involving the government at all levels and the

community in the management process should be taken into consideration. This can ensure the

effective implementation of an ICM program, even after foreign donors cease to support such a

program. Similarly, appropriate institutional arrangements can help sustain the continuity of the

ICM cycle.

ICM programs can cycle repeatedly to achieve sustainable forms of management as a repetitive

management cycle can provide enhanced familiarity and understanding of the policy process and

the management needs for effective ICM program implementation. According to Olsen et al.

(1997), an ICM cycle may take from eight to 15 years to complete. This does not mean,

however, that an ICM initiative ceases after it has completed the cycle. This is because an ICM

initiative, which normally starts as a small pilot project, may achieve some improvements within

a single generation, but it may require several generations to achieve similar or better results for

larger and more complex projects. This proves that as the program cycles repeatedly it can

identify problems, track progress and document changes that occur in the social and physical

conditions of the coastal environment, which serve as bases for implementing a more effective

and sustainable coastal management mechanism. This is one of the main concerns of the

outcome indicators, which is also covered under the ICM policy cycle.

31

The generalised five steps of the ICM cycle shown in Figure 2.2 have been formulated in

sequence as follows: (1) issue identification and assessment; (2) program preparation; (3) formal

adoption and funding; (4) implementation; and (5) evaluation (Olsen 2003). Each of these steps

involves a set of actions. Critically important for any management framework is the assessment

of the environmental conditions in which activities will take place. Similarly, in the ICM policy

cycle framework, the first step involves consultation among key stakeholders to undertake the

process of compiling, identifying and profiling all the contextual factors, such as the social,

economic, and institutional conditions that directly affect the management of the coastal

environment. Specifically, assessment and identification of problems, including illegal fishing,

overfishing, coastal pollution, weak law enforcement, as well as lack of coordination and

cooperation among different coastal stakeholders, affecting the coastal resources are particularly

important in Step 1. After the issues have been identified, Step 2 concentrates on setting out

management objectives, strategies and actions to address selected problems and management

sites. A public awareness program is undertaken at this level as part of the initial program

implementation. The Third Step entails the formal adoption of the management plan through

legal mandates and interagency arrangements, and securing the funds in preparation for program

implementation. Full implementation of the program comes next in the Fourth Step and involves

policy actions and procedures aimed to achieve sustainable development. The Final Step is

concerned with the evaluation of program implementation. This step re-examines the strategies

adopted to address management issues. Most importantly, this Step sets out management plan

adjustments to guide the governance process for future ICM policy cycle. The detailed indicators

and priority actions required for each of the five steps of the ICM policy cycle are described

below (see Table 2.3).

The sequence of the cycle can be seen as a ‘codification of good practice’ (Olsen 2003, p. 357)

which means that through a sequential succession of management activities ICM will be

achieved. However, such good practice has often proved elusive as various factors can impede

the successful completion of each step in the cycle. Thus, Sorensen (1997) has identified

common problems that are capable of impairing the successful implementation of the ICM cycle

confronting many coastal nations. These problems include lack of political will and support,

32

inappropriate enforcement of coastal laws, conflicting priorities of the government, and assertion

of private property rights, particularly in coastal nations comprising many islands.

Table 2.3 Essential Actions Associated with Each Step of the ICM Policy Cycle

Step Priority Action

Step 1: Issue identification and

assessment

- Rapidly assess existing conditions

- Consult key stakeholders and identify priority issues

Step 2: Program preparation - Select issues to be addressed and geographic focus

- Conduct sustained public education program

- Define boundaries of management area

- Define management objectives. strategies, and actions

- Carry out early implementation actions

Step 3: Formal adoption and funding - Adopt formal management plan and governance process

- Secure adequate funding for implementation

Step 4: Implementation - Construct/operate infrastructure

- Promote compliance to regulations and agreements

- Implement sustainable development practices

Step 5: Evaluation - Evaluate governance process and outcomes

- Reassess issues and strategies

- Select adjustments to plan and governance process

Source: Olsen 2003

2.10 From Concept to Practice: Examples of Successful ICM Programs

This section examines how the concept of ICM has been put into practice, using successful

examples of ICM program implementation in other countries. The section focuses on the specific

cases of Xiamen in China, Bunaken National Park in Indonesia and Danang in Vietnam, paying

particular attention to the design and implementation of ICM, and to the use of the ICM policy

cycle framework to monitor the implementation progress. These countries regard the ICM policy

cycle framework as an appropriate method of tracking the progress of each of the steps and

associated actions they undertook in managing their coastal resources. As Olsen (2003)

indicated, the ICM policy cycle framework has become a common way of benchmarking and

measuring the success of an ICM initiative in many coastal nations.

33

The concept of ICM is well accepted in both developing and developed countries. It has become

the management framework adopted to manage their coastal environments. For instance, the

United States was a pioneer in the development of coastal management programs through its

national legislation under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Under this Act, the coastal

management approach evolved from basic shoreline management to a comprehensive

management scheme integrating dry land, estuarine and ocean waters in the management

process. To improve the effectiveness of ICM implementation the US government amended the

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in 1990, focusing on interagency and spatial integration

as important facets of ICM (Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998).

Similarly, according to Kay and Lester (1997), coastal management in Australia also began in

the 1970s. It evolved from just the protection and conservation of coastal resources to an

integrated approach to managing the coastal environment involving various sectors and

disciplines in the management process. In the country’s coastal management history, the South

Australian government enacted the earliest state-wide coastal legislation called the Coastal

Protection Act of 1972 which focused on coastal protection and engineering solutions (Harvey &

Caton 2005). Other states followed suit until the early 1990s (Kay & Lester 1997). Haward

(1995) describes the period of the 1990s as a turning point in coastal management in Australia.

During this period, there was a push for an integrated approach for coastal management spurred

by international agreements and cooperation such as the 1992 Earth Summit (Harvey & Caton

2005). As part of Australia’s response to the commitment for sustainable development made

through the 1992 Earth Summit (see section 2.6), an ecologically sustainable development2

(ESD) strategy was developed to serve as a guiding principle of the coastal management

practices in the country. The ESD played a vital role in improving the coastal management

approach in Australia as it required a management strategy that was more integrative and co-

operative in nature. Thus, Harvey et al. (2001) note that one of the key factors that triggered the

coastal management reform in Australia was the ‘application of strategic planning principles

through a demand for a more holistic or integrated approach to resource management (p. 162)’.

2 In Australia, the concept of ESD is defined as ‘using, conserving, and enhancing the communities’ resources so that ecological

processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be discussed’

Commonwealth of Australia (1992), National Strategy for Ecological Sustainable Development, Ecologically Sustainable

Development Steering Committee, Canberra.

.

34

In the Australian context, the holistic and integrated approach primarily involves the coordinated

efforts of the three tiers of government – commonwealth, state, and local governments – as well

as the participation of the community, including the indigenous group, as the key stakeholders in

coastal management (Harvey & Caton 2005).

In the African region, Tanzania adopted the ICM approach in the 1990s for the management of

its coastal environment. In Tanzania, this entailed establishment of an ICM pilot project

involving the collaboration of the national and local government, and the participation of the

community sector in the management process (Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998). The Tanzanian

government, which was confronted with sectoral management of its coastal resources, also took

a bold step by integrating the management of its marine protected areas (MPAs) into the coastal

development programs that addressed the needs of the people. The government has claimed that

MPAs are the key components in maintaining coastal biodiversity and ecological processes.

They should not be managed separately but should be integrated into the overall socio-economic

development in the coastal area. This is because ICM adheres to the principle of sustainable

development of the coastal areas by simultaneously promoting economic growth and the

protection of coastal environmental quality, and by encouraging an interagency and

interdisciplinary approach for effective management of the coastal resources (International

Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] 2004).

While ICM is a widely used approach to managing the coastal environment, this section will take

an in-depth look at two successful ICM programs in East Asia, Xiamen in China, and Danang in

Vietnam. These ICM experiences were chosen because they illustrate how an ICM program can

be implemented in different coastal countries having dissimilar environmental, geographical,

social and political settings. These examples show that the ICM approach can work and be

effective in any coastal area as long as appropriate institutional arrangements and a strategic

management framework are in place. This is because ICM can be adapted to different situations

and circumstances, while the end goal of sustainable coastal development remains constant. The

details of the successful ICM programs implemented in China, Indonesia and Vietnam, and the

application of the ICM policy cycle in these programs, are presented below. These examples are

35

used to help analyse the coastal management situation in the Lingayen Gulf, particularly

regarding how the ICM approach was implemented in the area.

2.10.1 The ICM experience in Xiamen, China

The city of Xiamen is located on the southeastern coast of China (see Figure 2.3). The city, with

a total population of 2.25 million, comprises 31 islands and islets which cover 234 km of

coastline. The scattered islands and islets along Xiamen’s coastal waters serve as natural barriers

protecting the coastal environment from turbulent waves. Xiamen’s coastline is replete with

valuable marine resources, and home to rare species such as the lancet, the white dolphin, and

the egret (Pan & Xue 2001; Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East

Asia [PEMSEA] 2006a; Lin 2008).

Xiamen’s coastal waters host various activities, namely: natural uses including food and

breeding grounds for marine fisheries; recreational uses such as boating, fishing, swimming,

snorkelling and bird-watching; and commercial uses including ports and marinas for shipping

and industrial purposes, and breeding grounds for some commercial fisheries products

(PEMSEA 2006a). The marine economic activities, including port and shipping, tourism,

fisheries, and marine mineral production, marine industry and marine technology, are important

elements of the local economy. The marine economy comprises 20% of the city’s total economy

and was estimated at approximately $US1.8 billion of the city’s gross domestic product (GDP) in

2007 (Hong & Xue 2006; Lin 2008).

36

Figure 2.3 Map of Xiamen

Source: National Geographic Society 2004

2.10.1.1 Coastal activities

In the 1980s, economic liberalisation was introduced in China as part of its national reform

policies. This marked the establishment of the Special Economic Zones (SEZs) which included

Xiamen among four selected cities in China in October 1980 to test the new market-oriented

approach.

The inclusion of Xiamen among the SEZs opened up economic opportunities in the area. In

1984, the relative success of this economic experiment led to a decision by the local government

to expand the coverage of the city’s SEZ from the original 2.5 km2 to 131 km

2. The expansion,

which included the whole islands of Xiamen and Gulangyu, caused significant increases in the

value of local output, and enormous growth in heavy industries between 1980 and 1990. In

addition, shipping operations, which started growing in the 1980s, expanded dramatically in the

late 1990s. Ports in Xiamen supporting shipping and industrial activities, which were linked to

60 ports in 40 countries, saw substantial increases in foreign capital inflow. There was also a

37

remarkable increase in marine mineral production which included sand, gravel, granite and sea

salt. Importantly, the natural scenery and cultural value of Xiamen continued to attract both local

and international tourists, boosting local revenue generation. The construction of coastal

infrastructure, which was seen to be an important factor for tourism and business, served as the

backbone for development because the installation of modern infrastructure in the area, such as

the Gaoji-Jimea and Maulan causeways, attracted more investors and businesses to Xiamen

(PEMSEA 2006a).

Xiamen's economy experienced sustained growth which greatly enhanced the city's domestic and

international reputation, particularly in terms of tourism opportunities and business prospects.

This rapid economic development, however, placed a considerable burden on Xiamen’s coastal

resources, causing serious problems regarding deterioration of the natural coastal ecosystems.

According to a report generated in 1996 by the Integrated Task Team of the Xiamen

Demonstration Project (ITTXDP), these problems specifically included habitat destruction and

alteration, deterioration of water quality, increase in the human population, decline in the number

of government-protected marine species, and degradation of the overall coastal ecosystems. The

ITTXDP, which comprised experts from the fields of scientific research, educational institutions

and relevant government agencies, also reported that the breeding and fishing grounds of

important fish species have disappeared. Moreover, marine pollution from urban domestic

effluents and industrial and mariculture wastes severely degraded the water quality in a large part

of the city (ITTXDP 1996).

Similarly, a report prepared by the Xiamen Demonstration Project Office (XDPO) recorded

several major fish kills from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s (XDPO 1998). The causes of these

fish kills were attributed to accumulated pollution from domestic and industrial wastes, including

oil spills, which severely affected fish harvests and the livelihoods of the local people. During

the late 1980s, the city was generating approximately 200,000 tons of solid waste and 55.5

million tons of sewage every year (XDPO 1998). The streets and sidewalks of Xiamen used to be

covered with litter, and a film of black coal soot which posed a serious threat not only to the

health and well-being of the coastal resources but also to the local people (Brown 2004). Due to

38

the poor water quality in Xiamen, protected species such as the Chinese White Dolphins were

becoming rare, and mangroves were only found in a few areas (ITTXDP 1996).

The city’s economic success contributed to rapid population growth, particularly due to

migration from the rural areas and neighbouring municipalities of Xiamen (Chua 2009). This

also posed serious threats to the city’s coastal resources (PEMSEA 2006a). In 2005, Xiamen’s

population had reached 2.25 million, an increase of 95% since 1995 (Chua 2009).

Institutional arrangements and governance policies in Xiamen were not effective in dealing with

Xiamen’s problems of marine pollution and the resource use conflicts associated with rapid

economic growth. There were management constraints that required urgent resolution. These

constraints included weak municipal government support in terms of knowledge and expertise on

coastal management, lack of coordination among relevant sectors, poor application of scientific

knowledge in support of policy-making, inappropriate legal framework and weak law

enforcement, poor understanding of environmental issues, particularly coastal management

problems, and limited funds to support ICM programs (Chua 2009). The dire state of the coastal

environment in Xiamen caused by the fast growth of economic activities prompted new

management interventions in the area.

2.10.1.2 Chronology of coastal management in Xiamen

The increasing number of issues confronting Xiamen’s coastal environment prompted the local

government to act by formulating action plans and management guidelines to address the

problems. For instance, in the 1990s, long-term strategic coastal management plans were

developed. These plans were formulated after thoroughly assessing the coastal condition of the

area, identification of problems, and consultation with stakeholders to discuss priority areas for

action (Chua 2009). Similarly, in the early 1990s community participation became an active

component of environmental protection. The public awareness on coastal management was

enhanced by the local government publication of We Own the Sea, a compilation of Xiamen’s

articles on the marine environment. Through this publication the local community became more

interested and involved in coastal management, particularly in the preservation of endangered

39

species, conservation of fisheries resources and maintenance of beach areas and sewerage

systems (PEMSEA 2006b).

In 1994, formal management attempts to address coastal issues in Xiamen commenced after it

was selected as one of the demonstration sites of a five-year coastal management project called

the Regional Programme for Marine Pollution Prevention and Management in the East Asian

Seas (MPP-EAS). This project was supported by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and

the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The demonstration sites were selected to

test and verify the effectiveness of ICM as the new approach to coastal management, and to

demonstrate the applicability of this approach for addressing coastal pollution problems. This

initiative was guided by the ICM policy cycle which involves progressive stages of planning and

implementation (Chua 2009).

In 1995, the Xiamen government, in coordination with the MPP-EAS, established an interagency

coordinating body for ICM, the Marine Management Coordination Committee (MMCC). The

MMCC comprised the Executive Deputy Mayor of the City Government of Xiamen as the

director, other Deputy Mayors as deputy directors, and Heads of the city’s departments of

construction, science, environmental protection, and fisheries. This coordinating body looked

after the implementation of projects that focused on marine issues. During this period, local

legislations for resource management, environmental protection, and transportation management

were enacted. The enactment of local legislations was undertaken as part of the Xiamen

Demonstration Project (XDP) in order to strengthen law enforcement for the effective

implementation of the project. A supervisory force for law enforcement activities, called the

Integrated Law Enforcement Group, was established within the MMCC involving supervisors

from relevant departments of the city government such as the harbour, the fishery, the maritime

police, and the environment (Pan & Xue 2001).

The XDP paved the way for institutionalising coastal management in the local government of

Xiamen which initiated the formation of the ITTPXDP in 1996. The ITTPXDP was formed to

conduct coastal environmental profiling of Xiamen, particularly concerning the mapping and

identification of coastal issues (Pan & Xue 2001). The management actions taken in 1995 and

40

1996 were essential preliminary activities for an ICM program, combining Steps 1 and 2 of the

ICM policy cycle, where issues were identified, program preparation was conducted and initial

implementation was carried out. It is interesting to note that, in the case of Xiamen, before

coastal problems were identified, a management body, the ITTPXDP, was formed to identify the

problems. In the ICM policy cycle, identification of problems is one of the priority actions for

Step 1. This, however, did not affect the performance of the Xiamen project activities and the

early implementation management actions. It also shows that rigid sequencing is not essential

and that there can be flexibility in implementing the ICM model.

After the preparation of the coastal environmental profile, the ITTPXDP formulated and adopted

a strategic environmental management plan (SEMP) in the later part of 1996. The SEMP sought

to assess the causes and effects of the identified problems, evaluate existing management

measures, and propose a management approach to deal with the problems (Chua et al. 1997). The

formulation of the SEMP was carried out as part of Step 3 of the ICM policy cycle which

involves formal adoption of a management plan. The year 1996 also marked the recognition by

the Xiamen government of the need for collaboration of science and management to strengthen

communication between decision-makers and scientists, and thus improve the quality and

timeliness of decision-making. The objective of this collaboration was to improve the

fragmented coastal management system in the area by involving different sectors in order to

achieve a more effective ICM. This collaboration between the decision-makers and scientists

gave birth to the establishment of the Xiamen Marine Experts Group composed of marine

scientists, legal experts and economists (Ruan & Yu 1999). The group worked closely together,

combining their knowledge and expertise to fully understand Xiamen’s coastal management

system and to explore effective measures for the achievement of a sustainable coastal

environment. The collaboration of science and management was an important mechanism for an

effective governance process for ICM, which is also a recommended management action for Step

3 of the policy cycle.

In 1997, the group of experts developed the Xiamen Marine Functional Zoning Scheme which

defined the functions of the various coastal zones for appropriate marine management (Ruan &

Yu 1999). Under this zoning scheme, the Xiamen waters were divided into nine zones,

41

including: shipping/port, tourism, aquaculture, industrial, coastal engineering, mining, nature

reserve, special function, and rehabilitation. The development of this zoning scheme aimed to

reduce multi-use conflicts in the coastal zone, maximise the socio-economic benefits of the

coastal resources, conserve coastal biodiversity, and ensure the sustainability of coastal waters.

The formulation and adoption of the zoning scheme in Xiamen were effected by a municipal

administrative order, the Regulation of the Use and Management of Sea Areas, to ensure

appropriate practices in the Xiamen coastal environment. The use of geographic information

system (GIS) software was instrumental in mapping and zoning the coastal areas of Xiamen

(PEMSEA 2006a).

The development of the zoning plan in Xiamen was followed by the adoption of the

Comprehensive Marine Economic Development Plan, in the later part of 1997, which combined

the development planning for different industries in Xiamen such as, ports, transportation,

shipping, fishing, tourism, industry, and ocean technology. This Plan served as a set of

guidelines for marine economic development (Pan & Xue 2001) and moved XDP on to Steps 3

and 4 of the ICM policy cycle in 1997, the third year of the XDP implementation. The formal

adoption of the Comprehensive Marine Economic Development Plan is a Step 3 priority action

which aims to guarantee a well-organised, coordinated and sustainable program management

operation. Similarly, the formulation and adoption of the zoning scheme, which also falls under

Step 3, was an essential mechanism requiring all development activities in the coastal area to be

consistent in the utilisation of their assigned areas. As a result, the zoning scheme instigated

effective management of all recreational, tourism, shipping, fishing, industry, and conservation

activities necessary for sustainable development practices in the Xiamen coastal area. On the

other hand, the promotion of compliance to regulations, such as those specified under the zoning

scheme, as well as the implementation of sustainable development practices are among the

important facets of Step 4 of the ICM policy cycle.

A marine environmental monitoring network was also established involving local marine

institutions, university departments and government monitoring agencies. The members of this

monitoring network were tasked to organise coastal management workshops, exercise

monitoring and evaluation of coastal programs, and report monitoring information to concerned

42

agencies (Pan & Xue 2001). This monitoring network was established during the full

implementation of the XDP, when it started preparing for evaluation and assessment

responsibilities after the conclusion of the project. Evaluation of governance process and

outcome, which is a very important factor in ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of a

coastal management initiative, is the final component of the ICM policy cycle.

The XDP, which formally concluded in 1999, brought about positive changes in coastal

management practice in the area. The improvements could be seen in the enhanced condition of

the coastal resources, as well as in the attainment of more coordinated arrangements for coastal

management. This means that one legacy of the XDP has been a functioning integrated

management system.

According to Chua (2009), the ICM program in Xiamen was a successful initiative because

various significant developments in Xiamen’s coastal management practice took place. These

successful developments included the following:

an interagency coordinating mechanism was instituted

several items of environment and coastal-related legislation were enacted

an interdisciplinary expert group from the fields of science and management was developed

a coastal zoning scheme was established

public information on coastal management was widely promoted

revenues from coastal activities increased, and were used to fund ICM programs

coastal pollution from agriculture, domestic and industrial wastes was reduced

remaining mangrove areas were conserved, protected and expanded

fisheries and aquaculture management were integrated into the ICM program

local GDP grew dramatically to provide ample employment for local residents

Other observers have regarded the XDP as a successful example of ICM design and

implementation, which has served as a model for the design and implementation of other coastal

management programs in the country (Chua 2009). Hong and Xue (2006) judged the initiative to

have made significant achievements in the management of coastal and marine resources. These

43

included bringing together different sectors for collaborative management; strengthening the

ICM framework; developing the skills of coastal managers, implementers and practitioners; and

enhancing coastal awareness among the local populace.

After the completion of the XDP there were indications of ICM program implementation as a

continuing approach to coastal management involving the principle of sustainable management

(Hong & Xue 2006). This success was demonstrated by a range of outcomes. Coastal problems

were routinely identified and assessed; coastal management objectives and strategies were set

out; the Xiamen SEMP and the Waste Management Plan (WMP) were formulated and adopted;

and regular streams of funds to support ICM programs were put in place by the city government

which included collection of permit fees from ports and shipping operations as well as users’

fees for tourism-related activities. In addition, implementation of conservation, ecosystem

protection and restoration plan for mangroves and rare species, as well as continuous monitoring

and evaluation of the problems, management plans and implementation mechanisms were carried

out (Chua 2009). The completion of the cycle is considered to be the generation of a successful

ICM program (Olsen 2003).The XDP has successfully completed the policy cycle and is

continuing its ICM management approach for a sustainable coastal environment under the

supervision of the local government of Xiamen. This is because after the conclusion of the

project a new management system for Xiamen was put in place where the Xiamen municipal

government took the lead in continuing the implementation of coastal management according to

the principles and practices of ICM. The transformation of the MMCC, which was a temporary

management body during the XDP into a permanent agency called the Marine Management

Coordination Office (MMCO), was the most important step taken by the Xiamen municipal

government to sustain the management of the coastal resources in the city according to the ICM

discipline (Pan & Xue 2001).

2.10.2 The ICM Experience in the Bunaken National Park (BNP), North Sulawesi,

Indonesia

BNP is a marine national park located in North Sulawesi, Indonesia (see Figure 2.4). BNP

encompasses five islands (Bunaken, Manado Tua, Mantehage, Nain and Siladen), and two

44

separate mainland sections. These sections are the southern mainland covering the Arakan-

Wowontulap coast adjacent to the coastline south of Manado City which is protected primarily

for its mangrove forests, sea grass beds and dugong population, and the northern mainland which

shelters different species of fringing coral reefs and mangroves (Toengkagie 2002; Erdmann et

al. 2004).

Figure 2.4 Map of Bunaken National Park

Source: Greenwald 2005

BNP has a total area of 89,000 hectares of land and marine areas which provide habitat to over

1000 species of coral reef fish from 175 families and approximately 400 species of hard coral

from 63 genera and 15 families (Toengkagie 2002; Turak and DeVantier 2003; Erdmann et al.

2004). Similarly, it hosts over 3000 hectares of mangrove forests, and over 25 legally protected

45

and endangered marine animals including whales, dolphins, dugongs, turtles, giant clams and

coelacanths (Straton 2006). The conservation value of the BNP is considered to be of local and

international significance for marine biodiversity and tourism opportunities.

There are approximately 30,000 residents spread throughout 22 villages within the park’s

territorial boundary (Erdmann et al. 2003; Straton 2006,). The majority of these residents

originate from the Sangir-Talaud islands. They were living in the area long before it was

declared as a national marine park. The main occupation among the people within the area are

fishing and farming. A small number of people are employed in tourism as dive instructions, tour

guides, boat operators and cottage/resort staff.

2.10.2.1 Coastal economic activities in BNP

Fisheries and seaweed aquaculture production have been among the main economic

opportunities in the area. These industries which have provided benefits to the local people as

well as to the local and national economy and were worth US$3.8 million/year in 2004.

Subsistence-based mangrove harvesting activities have also offered benefits to the local people

by providing them fuel for daily cooking and materials for their shelter and other makeshift

buildings (Erdmann et al. 2004; Straton 2006).

Similarly, tourism opportunities have served as another source of livelihood for the people and

the economy. There were about 20 tourism operations within the BNP as of 2009. These

operations primarily offered scuba diving, snorkelling, swimming and other water sports

activities and serviced approximately 25,000 guests - 15,000 local and 10,000 international –

annually. These economic activities created annual tourism revenue amounting to US$4.4

million for the BNP in 2004 (Erdmann et al. 2004; Straton 2006; Wowiling 2009).

The benefits of the tourism operation in the BNP have made significant contributions to the

living conditions of the local people, by increasing incomes. However, these tourism operations

have posed serious challenges to the coastal environment of the area. According to Erdmann et

al. (2004), the expansion of tourism operations in the BNP has gradually caused damage to the

reef and its fisheries. The frequent anchoring of dive boats has scoured the reef tops particularly

in shallow water tracts. This has been aggravated by unregulated fishing activities and

46

destructive fishing practices in the area. Additionally, coral mining and solid waste disposal

were persistent problems for the BNP (Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening

Indefinite Quantity Contract [EPIQ] 2002; Erdmann et al. 2004; Wowiling 2009). Wowiling

(2009) further noted that unclear zonation systems, overlapping functions between management

agencies, inadequate conservation funding and absence of multi-sectoral participation

significantly contributed to the worsening condition of the coastal ecosystem of the area. These

coastal challenges prompted the local government to take important and urgent actions in order

to preserve and protect the marine biodiversity of the BNP.

2.10.2.2 Coastal Management in BNP

The alarming challenges leading to the gradual degradation of BNP’s coastal environment have

stimulated management initiatives from the local government. In the 1960s, Bunaken’s coastal

zone was mainly made up of small-scale fishers (Sievanen 2008) but, in the 1980s, the area was

officially declared as a Tourism Object of Manado by the provincial governor of North Sulawesi.

The local government of North Sulawesi was primarily responsible for the management of the

area. Similarly, it was during this period when tourism operations started and eventually

flourished. But it is these tourism operations that have gradually damaged the coastal zone (EPIQ

2002; Erdmann et al. 2004; Sievanen 2008).

Due to its high local and global conservation value, Bunaken was declared as a national park in

1991 by Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry. It was the country’s first national marine park (SK

Menteri Kehutanan No. 730/Kpts-II/91). Its designation as a national park marked a significant

paradigm shift in terms of management and decision-making in the coastal environment of

Bunaken. The national government took the primary responsibility in managing the park as legal

mandates recognised that nature reserves and conservation areas in Indonesia, including national

parks, were under the central government’s management jurisdiction (Toengkagie 2002;

Erdmann et al. 2004).

Upon the establishment of the BNP, the national government formed a central management unit

called Bunaken National Park Office (BNPO) to carry out the overall supervision of coastal

management activities in the area (Toengkagie 2002; Erdmann et al. 2004). However, BNPO

47

was unable to cope with the park’s environmental degradation problems and management

conflicts (Toengkagie 2002). Evidently, there was an urgent need to form a coordination body to

initiate harmonised and integrated management of the BNP.

In 1993, the National Resources Management Project (NRMP) of the United States Agency for

International Development (USAID) came into being to assist in providing management and

conservation measures necessary in dealing with the issues confronting the BNP (Erdmann et al.

2004; Sievanen 2008). With the recommendation of the national government, the NRMP worked

with the Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS), Indonesia’s national

planning development agency, and the Ministry of Forestry to develop a management plan for

the BNP which specifically aimed to address coastal resources degradation, conflicting and

overlapping management functions, and fragmented management of the park. As an initial step, a

team of local and international consultants and marine experts from the NRMP assisted the

Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam (PHKA) or General Directorate of Forest Protection

and Nature Conservation to diagnose the problems within the park area (EPIQ 2002; Erdmann et

al. 2004). This diagnosis identified three broad categories of issues that needed to be urgently

addressed: 1) legitimate subsistence and development needs of the local community; 2)

participatory management system; and 3) conservation of marine biodiversity (EPIQ 2002). The

identification of issues relating to the BNP was necessary because under Step 1 of the ICM

policy cycle, assessment of coastal problems is an essential element in the formulation of

management strategies for effective coastal management.

As a next5 step, the NRMP prepared the foundation for the formulation of the strategic

management plan for the park, which is a required action in Step 2 of the ICM policy cycle. In

1996, the Twenty-Five Year National Park Management Plan for Bunaken National Park was

officially completed and implemented (Erdmann et al. 2004). Completion and implementation of

a management plan designed to oversee the coastal environment is an essential feature of ICM,

and falls within Step 4 of the ICM policy cycle. However, the implementation of the BNP

management plan, which was accepted at the local level, did not receive full support from the

national government which judged it as being inconsistent with national regulations and

standards. Based on EPIQ’s (2002) observation, the failure to fully implement the BNP

48

management plan was due to the fact that at that time Indonesia was a highly centralised polity

and little political authority had been devolved to local governments.

In 1997, an independent technical management unit called Balai Taman Nasional Bunaken

(BTNB) was established by the national government to manage the park. The BTNB consisted of

40 rangers and administrative personnel. Unfortunately, as the Asian financial crisis hit the

country in the same year, the BTNB was only provided with enough funding to pay staff salaries

and utility bills. The situation was worsened by poor coordination between the city government

of Manado, the provincial government of North Sulawesi and the national government (EPIQ

2002; Erdmann et al. 2004; Straton 2003). Erdmann et al. (2004) claimed that, frequently, the

local government, having unclear management authority within the park, came up with policies

that were at odds with the national government’s management programs. However, the local

government always had to conform to central government dictates.

In 1998, the North Sulawesi Watersports Association (NSWA) was formed. The NSWA, which

consisted of 15 private dive operators, national and local governments, villagers and local

NGOS, was mainly concerned with creating and increasing tourism benefits to local villagers

and the development of a decentralised user fee system that could be used to sustainably manage

the BNP (Toengkagie 2002; Straton 2003). Thus, the NSWA initiated donations of US$500 per

business establishment and a voluntary preservation fee of US$5 per diver which was used to

assist in funding coastal patrol activities. Patrolling the BNP was an urgent action that needed to

be taken by the park’s management due to the proliferation of illegal fishers in the area causing

serious damage and degradation to the coastal resources. In addition, the NRMP also offered

financial support to NSWA for monitoring activities being essential in conserving and protecting

the integrity of the park’s coastal ecosystem (Erdmann et al. 2004).

Another major issue that disrupted the implementation of the BNP management plan was the

conflicting coastal zonation schemes for BNP developed by NRMP and the national government.

This conflict resulted in serious confusion as to the range of permitted activities in each zone and

how the boundaries for each zone have been drawn (EPIQ 2002). In 2000, to resolve the

zonation conflict and confusion, the NRMP proposed a new approach for managing the park,

49

particularly focusing on a participatory revision of the zonation system which involved a wider

range of actors. The revised zones, which included a core zone (a no-take zone where no fishing

was allowed), a tourism zone and a village use zone, was approved and adopted in the later part

of 2000 coinciding with the time when Indonesia’s democratic decentralisation law was just

coming into effect (Erdmann et al. 2004). This law devolved considerable authority and budget

to local governments for the management and delivery of services for their residents. It should be

noted that the adoption of a management plan is a vital component of Step 3 of the ICM policy

cycle.

Also in 2000, a multisectoral management board, the Bunaken National Park Management

Advisory Board (BNPMAB) was established. The BNPMAB focused on implementing a strict

entrance fee system, expanding and strengthening law enforcement by initiating an improved

patrolling mechanism, institutional development, recruitment and training of highly-qualified

staff, implementing a trash collection program, and institutionalising a concerned citizen’s forum

by involving local people in coastal management activities. All of these initiatives reflected the

introduction of radical democratic decentralisation in Indonesia. In addition, provision of

alternative livelihood programs, education campaigns on marine conservation, ecotourism

development, and environment-friendly development programs were also among the priorities of

the BNPMAB (Toengkagie 2002; Erdmann et al. 2004). These priority programs, which are all

important in implementing a successful ICM program, have helped addressed many of the major

problems surrounding the BNP. For example, as a result of implementing a strict entrance fee

system, revenues have been raised which were utilised to mobilise coastal conservation and

management. Also, more villagers have actively participated in various coastal management

activities, and they have been educated and made aware of the importance of properly and

sustainably managing the BNP, particularly through meetings, public consultations, information

billboards, and a provincial tourism magazine called What’s Happening (Erdmann et al. 2004).

Furthermore, the effective trash collection system has turned the BNP into a clean and green

tourism destination, while the increased and strengthened law enforcement in the park has

mitigated destructive fishing practices, illegal cutting of mangroves, and unregulated collection

of turtles and aquarium marine animals (EPIQ 2002; Toengkagie 2002; Erdmann et al. 2004).

50

Also on a positive note, following the localisation of most national government functions and

authority through decentralisation, coastal management efforts in the BNP have been intensified

and become more collaborative and participatory as local governments had had a much greater

decision-making powers and resources. Coordination between national and local government has

improved and has encouraged more stakeholders to actively participate in the management and

conservation of the BNP. Frequent reef monitoring activities have been conducted, and regular

evaluation of the roles, functions, and performance of all stakeholders involved in the protection

and preservation of the BNP’s coastal environment have also been carried out as integral

components of park management (EPIQ 2002; Erdmann et al. 2004; Eghenter 2007). The ICM

policy cycle, specifically under Step 5, recommends the application of monitoring and evaluation

to ensure that adequate management strategies are in place.

It can be considered that the effective adoption of a comprehensive approach for managing the

BNP has involved the application of the principles of ICM. Many of the important actions and

strategies taken in managing and conserving the park’s coastal resources have corresponded with

the steps in the ICM policy cycle. The BNP’s coastal management mechanism can be more

effective and successful if it maintains such a collaborative and participatory management

system which the ICM approach strongly recommends.

2.10.3 The ICM experience in Danang, Vietnam

Danang is a coastal city located in Central Vietnam, between Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City (see

Figure 2.5). It has a coastline of 90 km hosting 266 species of marine animals. Many of these

species have high economic value including shrimp, cuttlefish and seaweed. The Danang

coastline also boasts beautiful beaches and large coral reefs that are advantageous to the marine

economy and tourism development because they attract investors and local and foreign tourists.

The city had a population of 806,744 as of 2009. The majority of the population depended on the

coastal resources as a source of livelihood (Danang City 2005; Danang People's Committee

[DPC] 2009).

51

Figure 2.5 Map of Danang

Source:World Conference on Drowning Convention 2011

Danang is the largest city in central Vietnam, classified as an industrial zone and one of the

country’s major ports. It is one of the most important economic growth centres in Vietnam. Over

the past years, it has sustained a stable economic growth resulting in progress in socio-economic

welfare, advanced infrastructure and better urban planning in the country. Danang recorded a

GDP growth rate of 10.33% for the 1996-2000 period, 12.47% for 2001-2006, and 11.04% for

2008. The economy has been restructured which led the industrial and construction sectors to

make up 47.59%, the service sector 49.4%, and the agro-forestry and fishery sector 3.01% in

2008 (DPC 2009).

52

The Danang fishery contributes significantly to the total fisheries production of Vietnam and

plays an important role in supplying raw materials for seafood processing and animal feed

processing. In 2000, the fishery exploitation yield was about 27,500 tons which increased to

about 37,500 tons in 2005. Based on the latest survey, the fishery yield in 2007 was

approximately 40,500 tons. The fishery products in Danang include grouper, scad, mackerel,

tuna, cuttlefish, squid and shrimp (DPC 2009).

Tourism areas in Danang cover 30 km of the city’s coastline. With its strategic location, mild

tropical weather and stable economy, Danang has become a famous tourist destination. It has

spectacular landscapes, mountains ranges, caves and pagodas. Danang is also known for its fine

sandy coasts, and healthy coral reefs. The famous Son Tra Peninsula in the northern part of the

city, a natural conservation area and eco-tourism site, is ideal for mountain-climbing and for

diverse marine sports activities such as diving, snorkelling, swimming, and fishing. The annual

average growth rate of local and international visitors to Danang from 2001-2005 was 10.87%.

The overall growth rate in 2008 was 24%, with international visitors recording a growth rate of

19.05%. Additionally, tourism turnover had an average growth rate of 7.98% per year from

2001 to 2005, and 36% in 2008. Most of the visitors come to the city for coastal recreation (DPC

and PEMSEA 2004; DPC 2009).

2.10.3.1 Coastal economic activities in Danang

The main economic activities of Danang such as fishing, marine transport, tourism, and other

related industries have brought benefits to the local government, the economy and the local

people. These economic activities have generated jobs for coastal residents, and revenue for the

local government. However, the recent economic development in the city has posed serious

problems in the coastal zone. These problems include coastal pollution, coastal inundation,

habitat degradation, coastal erosion, overexploitation of fishery resources, poor public awareness

of coastal issues and management, inadequate coastal planning, and a sectoral or fragmented

management approach (DPC and PEMSEA 2004; Nasuchon 2009). The local residents blamed

the city government for the emergence of these coastal resource problems. There were claims

that the local government was confronted with problems, including: a lack of sound technical

and scientific information about coastal management; inadequate and poor implementation of

53

coastal regulations; and poor coastal information campaigns resulting in low community

awareness of coastal management (Nong & Nguyen 2003). Furthermore, unfair budget allocation

by the city government for development programs was also seen as one of the local government

problems whereby infrastructure development was prioritised over coastal management

programs (Nong & Nguyen 2003). These claims showed that the local government of Danang

was not fully equipped with appropriate mechanisms to manage its coastal resources effectively.

Thus, external assistance such as from foreign donors accompanied by full government support

was necessary to address the problems.

2.10.3.2 Coastal management in Danang

Coastal management initiatives in Danang came into existence as the problems were increasingly

becoming a serious threat to the coastal environment. Upon recommendation by the national

government, Danang was selected as an ICM demonstration site of an external organisation

called PEMSEA3 in Vietnam. PEMSEA is actively promoting the attainment of sustainable

development by protecting life-support systems and enabling the sustainable use and

management of the coastal resources (PEMSEA 2010). The national government

recommendation to PEMSEA on Danang was primarily made on the basis that the city’s coastal

problems were worsening and causing serious concern among the local people and the local

government. The national government criteria for Danang’s selection and endorsement to

PEMSEA as an ICM demonstration site included the willingness and support of the local

government for coastal management programs; and the capability and readiness of local

institutions and agencies to be involved in the management process (Nong & Nguyen 2003).

ICM was a new approach to managing the coasts of Vietnam, particularly the Danang coastal

resources. This is because Vietnam’s coastal management experience was relatively recent,

starting only in the 1990s to address specific coastal use conflicts. The implementation of an

ICM program with the assistance of PEMSEA was a timely occurrence as Danang was

experiencing rapid growth particularly in coastal tourism (Danang Coastalink 2004). The

Vietnamese government was not technically or financially prepared to tackle the problems

3 PEMSEA is a regional partnership program implemented by the UNDP and executed by the United Nations Office for Project

Services in the Philippines. It actively promotes the attainment of sustainable development of coastal resources through

intergovernmental, interagency, and multi-sectoral partnerships (PEMSEA 2010).

54

brought about by this rapid development in the coastal area. Thus, support from foreign donors

for coastal management programs was essential, particularly in Danang.

The Danang project, implemented from 2000 to 2004, was the first ICM program in Vietnam. It

served as a coastal management model in the country dealing primarily with issues affecting

socio-economic development and environmental protection in the coastal zone (Sekhar 2005).

Clearly, the aim of this project followed the main objective of the 1996-2000 Integrated Coastal

Management Plan of Vietnam which sought to address environmental issues as well as the

dominant social and economic concerns of Vietnam in relation to the National Marine and

Coastal Zone Development Strategy of Vietnam. Under this Strategy, Vietnam legislated and

adopted a number of legal and policy instruments in order to improve the integration and

coordination of national coastal management systems.

The Danang project was officially launched after the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement

between the People’s Committee of Danang City and PEMSEA in June 2000. Vietnam’s

Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MOSTE), now called the Department of

Science and Technology (DST), was appointed as the lead agency to organise and oversee all the

management activities of the project. In July 2000, a Project Coordinating Committee (PCC) was

established by the city government and was tasked to ensure the coordination of roles and

functions of various sectors and agencies involved in project management, and to provide

guidance in relation to work plans and budget management. The PCC was a 25-member inter-

agency and multi-sectoral coordinating body in Danang consisting of heads of various

governments sectors, organisations, local government units and civil society. The PCC was

superintended by the PC Chairman (Danang Coastalink 2004). To complete the institutional

framework for the Danang ICM project, a Project Management Office (PMO) was formed in

August 2000. The PMO, composed of selected DTE staff, was established to implement all

project activities (Nong & Nguyen 2003). These actions were vital to the initial preparation for

the program implementation.

Immediately after the institutional arrangements were set up and a comprehensive study on the

existing management system and legal framework was conducted by PCC, the Danang ICM

55

project formally commenced. The first stage of activity was the preparation of the coastal

environmental profile headed by the local government. This was essential for identifying coastal

problems and mapping priority issues in Danang’s coastal environment. This was followed by a

series of workshops, consultations and meetings involving various sectors including the national

and local government, PEMSEA representatives, research institutions and non-government

organisations (NGOs). The community sector was also involved in coastal profiling and

consultation activities because their experiences and observations regarding the coastal problems

occurring in Danang were deemed to be valuable in establishing and consolidating the city’s

coastal environmental profile (Nong & Nguyen 2003). These activities provided the data needed

to design the appropriate management mechanism in Danang, and are the prerequisites under

Step 1 of the ICM policy cycle.

The second year of the project marked important milestones for the program’s implementation.

In April 2001, public awareness campaigns were conducted which aimed to transform the

mindset of the local people regarding the environment and its resources, and increase their

awareness of the importance and value of the coastal resources and their linkage to the

sustainable development of Danang. The public awareness activities were catalysed through the

collaborative efforts of policy makers, scientists, civil society and the local communities. These

activities were conducted through print and broadcast media. They were followed by coastal

management training in September 2001 coordinated by the PMO, and involved concerned local

government staff in Danang. The training was provided by PEMSEA in cooperation with the

DST and the Department of Fishery, Agriculture and Forestry (DFAF). This coastal management

training helped in building positive perceptions and participation by the involved parties in the

effective management of the coastal resources of Danang; increased their productivity in an

attempt to achieve the project’s long-term goal; and developed their motivation as well as the

leadership, decision-making and problem-solving skills necessary in carrying out implementation

actions (Nong & Nguyen 2003; Danang Coastalink 2004). These activities fit within Step 2 of

the ICM policy cycle where priority actions include conduct of sustained public awareness drives

to increase the awareness of the local community residents about the significance of a

sustainably managed coastal environment for their welfare and the development of their city; and

training in preparation for initial program implementation.

56

The major event that occurred in the early stage of the project was the approval and adoption of

the Coastal Strategy of Danang City in December 2001 by the People’s Committee. This served

as the main guideline for the Danang ICM project implementation. The Strategy was an

integrative, systematic and practical approach which ensured that appropriate policy and

management mechanisms were in place. It integrated the capacity of various relevant

sectors/organisations, related coastal programs and activities, and international and national

coastal management experiences in order to achieve sustainable development of the Danang

coastal environment. The Strategy had emerged from a process of consultations with various

sectors and organisations, including environmental managers and scientists, policy-makers, civil

society, coastal community and local government representatives and entities who were

interested in the protection and preservation of natural resources, particularly the coastal

resources of Danang (DPC 2001; Danang Coastalink 2004). This Strategy for coastal

management in Danang demonstrated the commitment and determination of the city government

and its People’s Committee to promote sustainable use of their coastal area and guided the full

implementation of the project. This meant that stakeholders were directed to rationally exploit

their coastal resources and use the coastal environment based on the principles of sustainable

development as the Strategy’s main objective. This promotion of the sustainable use of coastal

resources, accompanied by compliance with the action programs set forth in the Strategy covered

the priority actions within Steps 3 and 4 of the ICM policy cycle. These are concerned with the

formal adoption and full implementation of the coastal management program.

The final step under the ICM policy cycle focuses on the monitoring and evaluation of the

program implementation. Monitoring and evaluation activities of the Danang ICM project were

in full operation in the final year (2004) of the project. However, initial monitoring activities had

been undertaken during the early part of the implementation. For instance, an evaluation

workshop on the effectiveness of the information dissemination campaigns on coastal

management was held in January 2002 (Nong & Nguyen 2003; Danang Coastalink 2004).

Further, according to Nong and Nguyen (2003), monitoring and evaluation activities were

gradually introduced in Danang during project implementation to guarantee the quality of each

management activity, and the overall result of the management initiatives. The authors,

57

nevertheless, affirmed that the consolidation of the monitoring and evaluation reports was an

important step in the final phase of the project to determine which management areas needed

improvements or adjustment for the next ICM cycle.

While the ICM project in Danang was specifically developed to address economic and

environmental issues in the area, the ICM framework was used to systematically carry out and

consolidate management actions and strategies to address the coastal problems affecting the

city’s coastal resources, particularly coastal environmental degradation, poor coordination

among concerned agencies and sectors, as well as conflicts of interest among coastal users

(Danang Coastalink 2004; Nasuchon 2009). Establishing integration and coordination of

different sectors and agencies in the management process was vital in managing the coastal

environment of Danang. The collaboration among environmental managers and scientists, the

community sector, and the national and local levels of government played a very important role

in the effective implementation of the Danang ICM project. This program development and

implementation approach adopted for the project, with full support from various sectors and

agencies including the local and national government, was a much-needed and appropriate

approach for addressing various coastal resource issues in the area.

The ICM policy cycle, which largely influenced the project development approach of Danang,

was designed to achieve the desired outcome in preserving and protecting the coastal resources

for sustainable coastal management practice. As Olsen (2003) argued, the desired coastal

management outcome can be achieved when the management process is categorically followed

and actions are carefully executed step by step. The ICM policy cycle guided the management

process in Danang, and was used as an indicator to measure the success of the city’s ICM

project. Based on PEMSEA’s project evaluation report, the Danang ICM project effectively

completed the ICM policy cycle (PEMSEA 2009).

Indications of the success of the Danang ICM project, according to Nasuchon (2009), were more

generally seen in the enhancement and improvement of integration, coordination, commitment,

and awareness of all the sectors and agencies involved in the management of the Danang coastal

area. These were important developments for achieving increased fishery production, improved

58

health conditions of the coastal ecosystems, better livelihood opportunities among coastal

communities dependent on the coastal resources, and enhanced local government revenues from

coastal tourism opportunities. Nasuchon (2009) further explained that the Danang ICM project

enhanced the coordination between the national government through the DST, and the city

government, through its People’s Committee, which worked together closely during the

implementation of the project. The DST coordinated and provided capability training to local

staff concerned to improve their technical and operational skills. The project promoted

interdisciplinary integration as it brought together various sectors, particularly coastal managers,

coastal scientists, and member of civic society who were interested in natural resource

conservation. These sectors shared their expertise for the appropriate management of Danang’s

coastal resources. The project also improved the commitment of the community sector by

actively involving the community in the coastal management and decision-making processes as a

major stakeholder in the coastal environment. The involvement of the community sector in the

Danang ICM project transformed community attitudes toward the proper treatment of the coastal

environment and its resources. This involved recognising the value of the coasts and the threats

associated with coastal resource exploitation and degradation. Since the implementation of the

project, the community sector has been actively involved in different coastal management

activities, including coastal clean-up, information dissemination and participatory coastal

resource assessment (Nong & Nguyen 2003; Danang Coastalink 2004).

The city government of Danang revealed that the success of the ICM project did not only lie in

the enhanced coordination and collaboration of the different sectors and agencies involved in the

implementation. In 2007, the city government compiled its most recent statistical yearbook4

covering the city’s key social and economic indicators, including agriculture, forestry and fishery

resources information. The data confirmed the success of the Danang ICM project in terms of the

enhancement of the condition of the coastal resources resulting in improved livelihood

opportunities for the coastal communities. The city’s fishery statistical data showed that there

was a steady increase of fishery production during and after the implementation of the Danang

4 The Danang Statistical Yearbook 2007 is the most recent source of statistical information about various products and services in

the city, and is published every three years. It consists of recent statistical data on the city’s socio-economic indicators,

population and labour force, general indicators, national accounts and credit finance, investments and establishments, industry

and communication, trade and prices, transportation and telecommunication, education, culture and health, agriculture, forestry

and fisheries (DPC 2009).

59

ICM project. Specifically, the fisheries statistical data indicated that both the saltwater fishery

resources sector and the freshwater fishery resources sector, including aquaculture, have enjoyed

sustained growth in production. In addition, the city government also reported that the Danang

ICM project improved the management strategies and action planning programs that were

necessary to resolve management issues in the area (DPC 2009).

The People’s Committee and PEMSEA attributed the success of the Danang ICM project to a

number of factors. First, the strong political support and commitment was given by the national

and local government to the project. Second, the establishment of an inter-agency and multi-

sector coordinating mechanism promoted and strengthened the coordination/cooperation between

and among different sectors, including all levels of the government and with other stakeholders.

Third, the active leadership roles of the People’s Committee, and the Project Coordinating

Committee and the Project Management Office in jointly steering the project efficiently through

the ICM process significantly helped he implementation of the project, And fourth, the active

involvement and participation of the community sector in the management and decision-making

process, and in various coastal management activities was instrumental in the success of the

project (Danang Coastalink 2004). The successful implementation of the Danang ICM project at

the local level has been widely recognised and cited as a good example for other coastal

provinces and cities in Vietnam to follow. The Danang city government, with full support from

the national government and the continued commitment and assistance of PEMSEA, is currently

carrying out the second phase (2007-2017) of the ICM project, focusing on strengthening

institutional frameworks and implementing detailed action plans identified under the Danang

Coastal Strategy and in conformity with the ICM policy cycle framework (Phuong 2007). The

Danang coastal management experience has encouraged and influenced other coastal areas in

Vietnam to replicate its ICM success.

2.11 Conclusion

This chapter consisted of two main sections. The first section provided the general overview of

coastal management around the world. It commenced by describing the essential components of

the global coastal environments, and the problems that have been threatening its health and well-

60

being. Particularly important in this section was the discussion on the development of the

concept of ICM as an integrative approach to coastal management. The concept of ICM evolved

from shoreline management in the 1970s in the US. Currently, ICM has become the widely-

accepted approach in managing the coastal resources in different countries.

The second section focused on the coastal management practices in Xiamen in China, BNP in

Indonesia and Danang in Vietnam. This section described the coastal resources issues and

management challenges in Xiamen, BNP and Danang which prompted the adoption of the ICM

scheme. This ICM adoption has successful addressed the coastal management issues in Xiamen,

BNP and Danang and brought about effective governance arrangements. These ICM examples

have demonstrated that ICM can be successfully implemented in different countries and under

different political regimes. In both China and Vietnam there were one-party authoritarian

regimes but in Indonesia the greatest success for ICM came with democratisation and

decentralisation.

61

Chapter 3: The Philippine Coastal

Governance System

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses coastal management practice in the Philippines, presented in four sections.

The first section describes the coastal resources in the country and the issues confronting them.

The second section presents an overview of the governance arrangements for coastal

management, which is essential in understanding how coastal areas are managed. This leads to

the discussion of the transfer of management responsibilities, including coastal resources

management, to the local government through decentralisation in the third section. The final part

of this chapter deals with the evolution of coastal management in the Philippines which provides

a preliminary view of the coastal management system in the Lingayen Gulf.

3.2 The Philippine Coastal Profile

The Philippines is the third largest archipelago in the world. The country, which consists of

seventeen administrative regions, encompasses 7,107 islands divided into three geographical

areas otherwise known as the three major island groups: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao (see

Figure 3.1). As an island nation, coastal resources are one of the prime sources of commodities

and livelihood for the local people (Green et al. 2003; World Bank 2005).

62

Figure 3.1 Map of the Philippines Showing Its Major Islands and Administrative

Regions

Source: Balisacan et al. 2006, p. 32

The coastline in the Philippines stretches to approximately 36,289 km, which is one of the

longest in the world (USAID-CRMP 2004; Philippine Environmental Governance Project

[EcoGov] 2005; World Bank 2005; DENR 2007). It is richly endowed with sandy beaches,

shallow waters, deep seas, and coral reefs (Anonuevo & Zaragoza 1986), which are replete with

marine biodiversity, mangroves and seagrass beds (USAID-CRMP 2004). According to the

recent series of the Philippine Environment Monitor published by the World Bank (2005), these

63

are some of the richest coastal ecosystems of the world. However, the organisation indicates that

the Philippines has been regarded as a ‘biodiversity hotspot’ where the most fertile and

productive coastal biological wealth of the earth can be located but which has a meagre chance

for conservation when lost or damaged, particularly when management efforts are ineffective.

Statistically, the country’s rich coastal habitats host over 5,000 species of plants and animals,

1,400 species of fish, 1,400 species of crustaceans, over 900 species of seaweeds, and other

unidentified coastal genera (USAID-CRMP 2004).

The country’s coastal zone is typically composed of tropical coasts, with five major resource

units occurring along its shallow coastlines: coral reefs, mangrove ecosystems, beach systems,

estuaries and lagoons, and seagrass beds (USAID-CRMP 2004). It is common knowledge in the

country that these major resource units support the entire coastal environment, including the

coastal communities (World Bank 2005). Coastal communities in this context refer to the local

people living within the coastal zone.

A large proportion of the Filipino population5 (60%) live within the coastal zone, and are highly

dependent on its resources (EcoGov 2005; World Bank 2005). The coastal resources are of great

importance to every Filipino, particularly to those who live in the coastal areas for food and

income. Similarly, these valuable resources offer revenues to both local and national government

from recreation and tourism activities. For instance, coral reefs contribute more or less US$1

billion annually to the Philippine economy, much of which is derived from tourism activities

such as scuba diving and snorkelling (White & Cruz-Trinidad 1998). Additionally, fish, which

many Filipino people depend on for personal consumption and income generation, comprises

one of the major coastal resources in the country. It is the second most important component of

the Filipino diet next to rice. Local reef fisheries supply over 50% of protein to the Philippine

population while approximately US$600 million is gained from exporting local fishery products

(White & Cruz-Trinidad 1998).

5 According to the National Statistics Office (NSO), the Philippines has an estimated population of 88.7 million. National

Statistics Office (2007a), 'Philippine census of population', Retrieved 9 June 2007, from http://www.census.gov.ph/.

.

64

The high dependence of the local people on coastal and marine resources plus a rapidly growing

population, which significantly increased from approximately 28,000 in 1960 to 60,000 in 1990

and has continued to grow significantly (Bureau of Census 1996), has put tremendous pressure

on the coastal environment. Thus, protection and conservation of these resources have become

critical. Governance arrangements for coastal management in the Philippines have undergone

significant changes over the last 30 years and continue to evolve. The following section explains

the pattern of governance in the Philippines and the changes that have occurred to provide a

context for understanding how the coasts are managed.

3.3 The Government System

The Philippine governance system consists of two main levels, the national level and the local

level. The national government exercises supervision over the local government, including

maintenance of environmental well-being (Department of Interior and Local Government

[DILG] 2005). The present set-up of the Philippine government system is a consequence of

reorganisation which took place in 1991. This reorganisation will be explained progressively in

this thesis.

3.3.1 National government level

The national level is divided into three administrative branches: the legislative branch as the law-

making body; the judicial branch as the law-interpreting body; and the executive branch as the

law-enforcing body (Reinoso 2004; UNESCAP 2004). The purpose of the separation of powers

is based on the theory of checks and balances6, a system of mutual control among government

branches (Padovano et al. 2003).

6 The term ‘checks and balances’ is defined as ‘the principle of government under which separate branches are empowered to

prevent actions by other branches and are induced to share power’ United States Agency for International Development-Coastal

Resource Management Project (1999), Primer on coastal resource management: 122, USAID-CRMP, Cebu City, Philippines.

65

The national level operates through 20 government departments. These departments include

BFAR and DENR which are mandated to supervise coastal management initiatives in the

country. BFAR is primarily responsible for improving, conserving and developing the country’s

fishery and aquatic resources (BFAR 2003). Similarly, DENR is mandated to conserve, manage,

develop, and promote the proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources,

including the coastal resources (DENR 2006). Both agencies maintain an institutional presence

in coastal management undertakings in the country, particularly in providing technical assistance

to the local government (Milne & Christie 2005).

Administratively, the nation is grouped into 17 political regions. With the exception of the

Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)7, the regions serve as the units for

development planning and coordination and do not have separate governments, elected bodies

and political powers (Balisacan et al. 2006). Each region has a development council/board called

RDC8 under the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) regional offices

(Talaue-McManus & Chua 1997). On the basis of Chapter 10, Section 14 of the 1987 Philippine

Constitution, RDCs are created ‘to accelerate the economic and social growth and development

of the units in the region’ (NEDA-RDC Region VI 2010). Units are herein referred to as local

government units (LGUs). Figure 3.2 illustrates the Philippine government structure, which

shows that the national government exercises general supervision over the local government.

Further details are provided in the following sub-section.

7 ARMM was created under Republic Act 6734 known as the Organic Act of Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao as a result

of a series of peace talk negotiations between the government and the Muslim population. These negotiations gave the Muslim

population exclusive authority to govern their resources. The region covers four provinces (Balisacan et al. 2006).

8 The RDC was established by virtue of Letter of Implementation No. 22 issued on 31 December 1972 pursuant to the

implementation of the Integrated Reorganization Plan of 1972. Article X, Section 14 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution also

serves as the legal basis for the creation of the RDC in each of the 14 administrative regions in the country, except for: (a)

Cordillera Administrative Region; (b) Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao; and (c) National Capital Region, which are

classified as special or self-governing regions (NEDA-RDC Region VI 2010).

.

66

Figure 3.2 The Philippine Government Structure

Adapted from: Reinoso 2004; Balisacan et al. 2006

3.3.2 Local government level

The local government comprises the provinces, cities (component or highly-urbanised),

municipalities and barangays9, each called an LGU, as shown in Figure 3.2. A highly-urbanised

city, also called a chartered or independent city, can stand on its own including all its component

barangays. It has the same responsibility as the province. A component city is of the same level

as the municipality and is below the level of the province. Ideally, a cluster of barangays forms a

municipality or city; a group of municipalities or municipalities and component cities forms a

province (Reinoso 2004; World Bank & Asian Development Bank 2005). The general roles and

functions, particularly the coastal management responsibilities of each unit of local government

in the Philippines, are detailed in the following paragraphs.

9 Barangay or barrio is a local term for village in the Philippines.

National Government

Administrative

Regions

Highly Urbanised

Cities

Provinces

Component Cities/

Municipalities

Barangays Barangays

67

3.3.2.1 Provinces and highly urbanised cities

The provinces, which are under the supervision of the national government, directly supervise

the lower local government units such as component cities, municipalities and barangays.

Provinces are responsible for providing basic services such as health, infrastructure, education,

environment including marine and fisheries resources (DILG 2005). In addition, the provinces

oversee budgeting and legislation processes of their subordinate units, including the component

cities and the municipalities. Furthermore, provinces take part in legislating and enforcing

fishery laws, coordinating coastal management activities, and providing on-site services and

facilities for coastal management in the form of technical assistance (DENR et al. 2001c).

The highly-urbanised cities10

are also under the direct supervision of the national government.

They have similar roles and functions to the provinces. However, highly-urbanised cities have

more limited supervisory obligations as they only oversee barangay affairs under their

jurisdictions. Highly urbanised cities are independent of the province, and do not participate in

any provincial elective exercises.

3.3.2.2 Component cities and municipalities

The component cities and municipalities are subordinate to the provinces. Both of these local

government units exercise functions related to social welfare, infrastructure, public health care,

and information. They also deal with environmental management such as conservation of natural

resources, where coastal environment is a major part, agricultural development, and

improvement of waste disposal systems (DILG 2005). Furthermore, component cities and

municipalities are tasked to provide protection, conservation and maintenance of coastal

resources by actively participating in coastal management activities. These activities include

assessing coastal habitats and reforesting/rehabilitating mangrove areas, legislating and enforcing

appropriate fishery laws, regulating coastal resource use and exploitation, and working in

coordination with the provinces and highly-urbanised cities in relation to coastal management

(DENR et al. 2001c).

10‘Local Government Code of the Philippines 1991, Section 452: Highly Urbanized Cities. - (a) Cities with a minimum

population of two hundred thousand (200,000) inhabitants, as certified by the National Statistics Office, and with the latest

annual income of at least Fifty Million Pesos (PhP50,000,000.00 or AUD1,197,892.00 for an exchange rate of AUD1: PhP41.74

as of March 2010) based on 1991 constant prices, as certified by the city treasurer, shall be classified as highly urbanized cities.

Cities that do not meet the requirements under Section 452 are considered component cities’ (DILG 2005).

68

3.3.2.3 Barangays

The barangay, which is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, has an important role in

planning and implementing government policies (DENR et al. 2001c; Siry 2007). However, in

practice its management and decision-making capacity is limited due to minimal allocation of

funds and minor governing power (Siry 2007). The barangay is under the direct supervision of

highly urbanised cities, component cities or municipalities, particularly in implementing socio-

economic and environmental development projects (DILG 2005). In terms of coastal

management, the barangay is expected to coordinate closely with the other units of local

government regarding coastal resource conservation, legislation and law enforcement (DENR et

al. 2001c).

In general, each LGU is autonomous (Reinoso 2004), a situation brought about by

decentralisation. This state restructuring system radically changed the distribution of the

functions and finances of the government, including the management of the coastal environment.

In order to understand how the current government system has come into being, particularly how

decentralisation has changed and affected the resource management arrangements, the following

discussion is presented.

3.4 Decentralisation of the Philippine Government

Based on a general definition, decentralisation is the ‘transfer of planning, decision-making, or

administrative authority from the central government to its field organizations, local

administrative units, semi-autonomous and parastatal11

organizations, local government, and

non-government organizations’ (Rondinelli & Cheema 1983, p. 18). In the Philippines, the

demand for the devolution of management authority from the national to the local government

over the past 50 years culminated in the early 1990s with the adoption of the present system of

decentralisation (UNESCAP 2004). According to Balisacan et al. (2006), the strong demand for

11 A parastatal organisation is wholly or partly owned and controlled by the government or state. Johns, S. (1980), The parastatal

sector, Administration in Zambia, W. Tordoff, Manchester University Press Manchester.

69

decentralisation in the country was triggered by economic, institutional and political crises that

particularly affected overall resource management in the country.

The first formal attempt to decentralise the Philippine government was through the Local

Autonomy Act of 195912

. The Act provided greater fiscal, planning and regulatory authority to

provinces, cities and municipalities. Most importantly, it broadened the taxing authority of the

local government. Such local autonomy empowered the local government to exercise

management responsibilities to promote the development of general welfare, including road and

building services, health and educational centres and environmental resource facilities. Also in

1959, the Barrio Charter Act was enacted, which gave barrios taxing powers to help finance

management activities including fisheries management (Brillantes & Moscare 2002). Despite

these mandates, however, government control and responsibilities remained in the national

government. For instance, local government budgets and expenditures were still subject to

review by the national government (Villanueva 1978).

In 1967, Republic Act 5185 or the Decentralization Act of 1967 was enacted. The Act increased

local autonomy by allocating greater financial resources to the local government and broadening

and strengthening its role in decision-making. Such expansion in local autonomy allowed the

local government to respond to the needs of the local people and their environment, including the

coastal domain (Brillantes & Moscare 2002). But, evidently, this did not result in the actual

delegation of authority to the local government. Villanueva (1978) claimed that this

decentralisation attempt was politically motivated and self-serving as the authors of the bill had

intentions to seek political seats at the national level.

However, the imposition of martial law13

in 1972 marked the beginning of a highly centralised

dictatorial regime under President Ferdinand Marcos14

which caused a serious setback for local

12 The Local Government Act of 1959 is also known as the Republic Act 2264 entitled ‘An Act Amending the Laws Governing

Local Governments by Increasing their Autonomy and Reorganizing Provincial Governments’ (Brillantes & Moscare 2002).

13 Proclamation No. 1081 is an executive order declared on 21 September 1972 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law.

This was issued by President Ferdinand Marcos based on a constitutional provision (Article VII, Section 10, Paragraph 2 of the

1935 Constitution, as amended), which allowed him being the president and the commander-in-chief to directly rule the country

after an alleged series of lawlessness that threatened to overthrow his government, and imperilled the welfare of the people

(Javier 2006).

70

autonomy. The central government, through the Office of the President, exercised direct

supervision and control over the local governments. During martial law years no elections were

held, resulting in a protracted interruption of local government autonomy (Celestino et al. 1998;

Brillantes & Moscare 2002; Javier 2006). Upon the overthrow of the Marcos administration in

1986 and the installation of Corazon Aquino as the new president, a new plan for local autonomy

was introduced as clearly decreed in the new Philippine constitution, the 1987 Constitution.

Specifically, Article 10, Section 3 of the Constitution states:

The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more

responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of

decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum,

allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and

resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal,

term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters

relating to the organization and operation of local units (Philippine Constitutional

Commission 1986).

In accordance with this provision of the Philippine Constitution, the Local Government Code15

,

otherwise known as Republic Act 7160, also called the Local Autonomy Act, was enacted in

1991. It was considered a comprehensive document addressing local government structures,

functions and powers, taxation and intergovernmental relations, human resources, and

environmental management (UNESCAP 2004). It was also seen as a radical break with a past

marked by high levels of formal decentralisation. The following section explores the effect of

decentralisation on the Philippine coastal management practice.

3.4.1 The effects of decentralised government on coastal management

The enactment of the Local Government Code was welcomed by most sectors of society, and

was strongly supported by the majority of government officials, the private sector, civil society

14 Ferdinand Marcos ruled the country from 1965-69, 1969-1972 as elected president, and then from 1972-1986 under

authoritarian control. His administration was marred by massive government corruption, despotism, nepotism, political

repression, and human rights violations. He was ousted in 1986 (Brillantes & Moscare 2002; Celestino et al. 1998).

15 The Local Government Code 1991 was implemented in January 1992. Under the Code, the President exercises overall

supervision of the legality and appropriateness of LGU actions and performance delivery which serve as the basis for the national

government’s suspension of local administration.

71

and academics (UNESCAP 2004). It transformed the nature of the power relationships between

the national government and the local government through a devolutionary process. Specifically,

the Local Government Code hands over to the LGUs the responsibility for primary health care,

hospital care, social welfare services, local buildings and structures, public parks, municipal

services and enterprises such as public markets and abattoirs, local roads and bridges, health

facilities, housing, communal irrigation, water supply, drainage, sewerage, flood control and

inter‐municipal telecommunications. Other devolved responsibilities included land use planning,

agricultural extension and research, community‐based forestry, pollution control, solid waste

disposal system, and environmental management (Llanto 2009). This transfer of government

authority also included devolving management responsibilities for coastal resources to local

government (Brillantes & Moscare 2002).

The decentralisation system in the Philippines has enabled LGUs to carry out specified resource

management including the assessment, planning, regulation, and monitoring of marine and

coastal resources within a distance of 15 kilometres16

offshore (White et al. 2005a; Vera et al.

2007). The system has significantly promoted self-governance for LGUs. However, the

devolution of responsibilities was not accompanied by sufficient devolution of funds, particularly

for coastal management programs (Milne & Christie 2005). Under the Local Government Code,

financing local government activities, including coastal management, can be generated from

various sources (see Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 illustrates the revenue generation scheme of all the units of the local government

according to the Local Government Code. Under such a scheme, the taxation and fiscal matters

in the local government include real property taxation, shares of local governments in the

proceeds of national taxes, credit financing and local budgets, including property and supply

management. As shown in Table 3.1, the revenue raising powers of the provinces are derived

from real property tax, tax on transfer of real property ownership, tax on business of printing and

16 As a result of decentralisation, the Philippine waters have also been decentralised being called municipal waters which

measures 15 kilometres from the highest inland water mark during high tide seaward. Municipal waters are under the jurisdiction

of the municipal or city government, while water beyond such limit is within the authority of BFAR. Existing laws do not

recognize provincial or barangay water boundaries (Vera, et al. 2007).

72

publication, franchise tax, sand and gravel tax, professional tax, amusement tax on admission,

and annual fixed tax per delivery truck or van of manufacturers or producers of or dealers in

Table 3.1 Revenue Generation Scheme in Local Government

Provinces 25% of real property tax.

Tax on transfer of real property ownership (10-15% of the property

assessment).

Tax on business of printing and publication (no less than 1% but no

more than 10%).

Franchise tax (percentage based on total gross income).

Sand and gravel tax (computed based on cubic meters of sand and

gravel collected based on the tax level authorised in the tax ordinance. For

sand, gravel and other quarry resources, 30% of provincial collections are

transferred to the municipalities and 40% to the barangays).

5-15% of professional tax.

3% of Amusement tax on admission.

Annual fixed tax per delivery truck or van of manufacturers or

producers of or dealers in certain products. Tax rates vary on the regulations

of the local government concerned.

Municipalities Tax on business: based on the volume of business of the applicant.

Fees and charges: will be fixed by the local council or the city which

has the power to levy a rate.

Fishery rental or fees and charges: stipulated in the Local Tax Code

for municipalities and coastal areas.

Fees for sealing and licensing of weights and measures: dependent on

the tax code of local governments concerned.

Community tax: computed based on the income of individual citizens.

Cities The city may levy and collect taxes, fees and other impositions that

the province or municipality may levy and collect. There is not much

variation with the taxing powers of the provinces and municipalities, but the

tax rates in cities are much higher than those of the provinces and

municipalities.

Barangays Taxes and fees: like the power to tax in the province, cities and

municipalities, the taxing power of barangays is also defined in the Local

Government Code. However, the barangay government collects simple taxes

like fees in the issuance of personal identification, the barangay share is 15%

of the total Real Property collection in cities and municipalities that can also

tax livestock such as cockfighting.

Service charges: barangays may impose and collect fees on services

rendered by an agency as part of the regulatory power of the barangay

government.

Contributions: barangay likewise are empowered to receive

contributions from the private sector, financial institutions and the like.

Adapted from:(UNESCAP 2004, pp. 8-9; World Bank & Asian Development Bank 2005)

73

certain products. In the case of municipalities, revenues are generated from tax on business, fees

and charges, fishery rental or fees and charges, fees for sealing and licensing of weights and

measures, and community tax. The city governments may levy and collect, among others, any of

the taxes, fees and other impositions that the province or municipality may levy and collect.

Finally, the barangays raise their revenues from these sources: tax shares from provinces,

municipalities and cities, and fees; service charges; and contributions.

Overall, the local government is allocated 40% of the total national tax collections by the

national government, called the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA)17

, according to a formula

fixed by law (UNESCAP 2004; World Bank & Asian Development Bank 2005). The share of

each LGU is computed based on population (50%), land area (25%) and equity or base grant

(25%) (Asian Development Bank 2002). The prevailing IRA allocation is 20% higher than the

IRA allocated to local government prior to decentralisation due to the acquisition of new

functions. This means that the local government has more money to support services such as

managing the health of the fisheries, and their associated fauna and flora including their habitats

(White et al. 2007).

Specifically in the case of coastal management, according to Milne and Christie (2005) and

Reinoso (2004), 20% of the IRA allocated to LGUs is utilised as a development fund. The

development fund is for investment in various public services. As of 2001, these services

included coastal management which has a yearly budget of PhP1,420,00018

(Milne & Christie

2005). As an example, Milne and Christie’s (2005) research shows that the 4th class19

coastal

17 According to Section 290, Chapter 2, Book II of the Local Government Code 1991, ‘local government units shall, in addition

to the internal revenue allotment, have a share of forty percent (40%) of the gross collection derived by the national government

from the preceding fiscal year from mining taxes, royalties, forestry and fishery charges, and such other taxes, fees, or charges,

including related surcharges, interests, or fines, and from its share in any co-production, joint venture or production sharing

agreement in the utilization and development of the national wealth within their territorial jurisdiction’.

18 PhP1,420,000 is equivalent to AUD3,4022.85, based on PhP41.74 = AUD1, the exchange rate for March 2010).

19 Local government units in the Philippines are classified as 1st class to 5th class based on their income. Application for LGU

classification upgrading is done every five years (UNESCAP 2004).

74

municipality of Mabini20

allocated a budget of PhP500,000 (AUD11,979.90) to fund coastal

management activities from its development fund. Ironically, to form a bantay dagat21

program

alone, a coastal municipality normally already required PhP520,000 (AUD12,459.05) to cover

honoraria, equipment, and other patrolling expenses. Bantay dagat, which is a local term for

coastal watch, is a participatory initiative designed to strengthen coastal law enforcement (PSDN

2000). Clearly, what Milne and Christie’s (2005) research identified was a serious mismatch

between localising responsibilities for the management of coastal resources and the amount of

funds allocated for this purpose. It is not clear, however, if the situation of Mabini applies to all

coastal LGUs in the Philippines.

Courtney and White (2000), on the other hand, emphasised that external donors had been

assisting in the management of the Philippine coastal resources. Additionally, Milne and Christie

(2005) pointed out that donor assistance provided significant support in sustaining coastal

management initiatives in the Philippines. Coastal management initiatives that had been financed

by donor assistance included coral reef protection and management, conservation of protected

areas, and mangroves management (Salamanca 2003). Donor assistance in the country comes in

the form of loans from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, as well as bilateral

financial and technical assistance from a range of countries, including, the United States of

America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, The Netherlands, Australia, Spain, Japan,

and Germany. Some of these funds and technical assistance have been directed to coastal

management (Salamanca 2003). As the amount of funding for coastal management programs are

limited in the Philippines, the absence of donor assistance can be ‘a major derailing factor’ for

coastal management (Milne & Christie 2005, p. 428). The authors further claimed that coastal

management projects in the Philippines normally become unsustainable after the withdrawal or

termination of donor assistance. This is primarily due to the limited budget allocated for coastal

20 Mabini is a coastal municipality of Batangas, Philippines which was used by Milne and Christie as a case study in their

research entitled ‘Financing Integrated Coastal Management: Experiences in Mabini and Tingloy, Batangas’. The research study

was published in the Ocean and Coastal Management Journal in 2005.

21 Bantay dagat has existed in the Philippines since the 1970s in the spirit of volunteerism. As the government could not provide

manpower to patrol the sea, the community fishermen decided to volunteer their services. The purpose was to stop illegal fishing

practices and the exploitation of marine resources and to reduce pressure in coastal waters. As a result of effective voluntary

service, today, bantay dagat exists in almost every coastal municipality whose members are being paid by the LGU and are

provided with facilities (Philippine Sustainable Development Network Foundation [PSDN] 2000).

75

management programs by both local and national governments (Milne & Christie 2005; Christie

et al. 2005). Other factors for the unsustainable coastal management projects include the

inappropriate management mechanisms and ineffective institutional arrangements, and the lack

of coastal management expertise on the part of the members of the local government staff

(DENR et al. 2001a; Lowry et al. 2005). In addition, Christie et al. (2005) revealed that lack of

common understanding about the need for an integrative management approach, and inadequate

monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are some of the barriers preventing the attainment of

effective management of the coastal environment.

In general, decentralisation in the Philippines has established a strong local autonomy, including

the management of coastal resources. The Local Government Code has allocated to LGUs

extensive authority and new mandates relevant to coastal management. However, conditions are

far from ideal with respect to attaining the expected level of service delivery in managing coastal

resources, particularly in addressing the continuing coastal management problems in the country

(DENR et al. 2001a; Lowry et al. 2005). There are persistent problems of budget insufficiency

(Courtney & White 2000; Balgos 2005; Lowry et al. 2005; Milne & Christie 2005; Siry 2007;

White et al. 2007), limited local government capacity in planning, implementation and technical

knowledge, and a shortage of trained personnel (DENR et al. 2001a; Lowry et al. 2005). Due to

the abrupt transfer of management authority from national to local government brought about by

decentralisation, LGU staff were not prepared to take on their new responsibilities. There were

insufficient orientation, preparation and training provided to the LGU staff which resulted in

their unsatisfactory performance in their coastal management functions (DENR et al. 2001). On a

positive note, Lowry et al. (2005) admitted that several coastal management training programs

were being initiated by the national government and foreign-funded environmental NGOs which

could potentially develop and strengthen the management capacity of the LGU staff.

3.5 Overview of Coastal Management in the Philippines: Evolution and

Development

In the Philippines, coastal resource management (CRM) is the term commonly used to refer to

coastal management. Locally, CRM is defined as ‘the process of planning, implementing, and

76

monitoring sustainable resources through sound decision-making and collective action’ (USAID-

CRMP 1999, p. 33). For the purpose of consistency, the term coastal management will be used in

this research. Formally introduced in the late 1970s (see Table 3.2), coastal management has

emerged as an attempt to deal with various coastal resource issues (Lowry et al. 2005; White et

al. 2006). These issues have caused damage to coastal habitats and a decline in fishery

production and productivity (White & Cruz-Trinidad 1998; Courtney & White 2000). Milne and

Table 3.2 Chronology of Coastal Management in the Philippines

Pre-Spanish Period In the absence of an organised state, villages took control of

coastal resources.

1500s –

1898

The Spanish colonisers introduced and maintained control over

natural resources.

1900s –

1920s

Revolutionary period after a long era of foreign colonisation.

The Philippine Assembly under the US authority administered

the management of resources, including natural resources.

1932 Philippine Fisheries Act delegated coastal management

responsibility to central government. The law allowed

individuals to use coastal waters for fish corrals* and fish

ponds, as well as introduced municipal coastal boundaries for

subsistence fishers.

1930s –

1960s

Coastal resources were considered to be unlimited, and adequate

for the needs of local people for food and livelihood which thus

did not require any form of management. Control over the

natural resources was under the national government.

1960s –

1970s

Fisheries and aquaculture development and expansion

commenced. Formal coastal management was introduced.

1979 –

1982

First small-scale fishery study was conducted showing signs of

overfishing in the country’s waters.

1983 –

1987

Expanded Fish Production Program was initiated by the central

government.

1984-1992 First major coastal management project called the Central

Visayas Regional Project was funded by the World Bank. The

project involved a community-based approach.

1991 The Philippine Local Government Code was enacted, which

devolved central government responsibilities to the local

government units (decentralisation).

1990s –

Present

ICM has become a widely practised and accepted approach in

the country.

Sources:(Dolan 1991; White et al. 2006) * Fish corral or ‘Baklad’ - a stationary weir or trap devised to intercept and capture fish consisting of rows of bamboo stakes,

plastic nets and other materials fenced with split bamboo mattings or wire mattings with one or more enclosures, usually with

easy entrance but difficult exit, and with or without leaders to direct the fish to the catching chambers, purse or bags (DA-BFAR

1998, Chapter 1, section 4, no. 24).

77

Christie (2005) also asserted that coastal management attempts to address issues such as

overexploitation of fishery resources, destructive fishing activities, illegal mangroves cutting,

coastal pollution and conflict over access to coastal resources. Importantly, formal coastal

management spanning three decades has equipped the country with one of the richest coastal

management experiences globally (White et al. 2006).

A series of significant events and some general observations regarding the history of coastal

management practice in the Philippines are illustrated in Table 3.2, covering the period between

1500 and the present when ICM has become the country’s major form of coastal management

(White et al. 2005b; White et al. 2006). According to White (2006), the first comprehensive legal

mandate enacted to manage the Philippine coasts was the Philippine Fisheries Act of 1932. The

mandate tasked the national government to take the principal role in managing the coastal

resources by allowing the Filipino people to develop and engage in aquaculture activities,

including the installation of fish ponds and fish corrals, oyster culture and fry gathering. The

mandate also pioneered the delineation of coastal water boundaries for the benefit of small-scale

or subsistence fishers. Ironically, during this period (1930s) an open access regime for the coastal

environment was widely practised. This was the time when the Philippine coastal resources were

believed to be unlimited and were adequate to supply the needs of the people for food and

livelihood. Thus, any form of coastal management was deemed unnecessary (White et al. 2006).

In the 1970s, signs of coastal problems, particularly overfishing, became evident and prompted

the national government to introduce coastal management measures. The coastal problems have

worsened as the population increased and the needs of the people have grown dramatically. In

order to address these issues various coastal management approaches have been conceptualised

and undertaken as illustrated in Figure 3.3, and have led to the development and adoption of an

integrative management practice through a system called ICM. In the Philippines, ICM is

perceived as a mechanism through which the sustainable use of coastal resources can be

achieved to benefit the growing number of coastal residents in the region by dealing with coastal

environmental issues (Chua 1998; Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998; Kay & Alder 1999; Pollnac &

Pomeroy 2005).

78

There have been over 100 coastal management projects implemented since the early 1980s in the

Philippines. These projects were implemented mainly to address the degraded coastal

environment conditions affecting the general well-being of both the marine resources and the

people dependent on them (Olsen et al. 2005; Pollnac & Pomeroy 2005; White et al. 2006).

3.5.1 Paradigm shifts for coastal management in the Philippines

The management of coastal resources in the Philippines evolved from formal central government

control, during the period from 1900s to the 1980s, to community-based coastal management in

the 1980s, which eventually evolved into the local government taking the lead in overseeing

coastal resources from the 1990s to the present. During centralised management all decision-

making and management strategies were undertaken by the national government, including

administration of coastal resources. Following this, the community-based coastal management

approach was developed to intensify the participation of the local people and encourage them to

be in the forefront of managing, conserving and safeguarding the coastal environment. However,

since decentralisation in 1991, local government has dominated the management of coastal

resources, with LGUs, particularly the cities and municipalities, assuming primary coastal

management responsibilities (Lowry et al. 2005; White et al. 2006). The cities and municipalities

work closely with the national agencies, provinces, barangays, the community, and other

Figure 3.3 Transition of Coastal Resource Management in the Philippines from

Central to Local Government

Source:(DENR et al. 2001b)

79

concerned parties in carrying out coastal management activities. The shift in the pattern of

management progression (see Figure 3.3) is further explained in the following discussion.

The historical pattern specifically demonstrates how coastal management in the Philippines

started as a fisheries-focused approach but went through a period of transitions to culminate in a

coastal management approach that is ‘integrated, multi-sector, and ecosystem-based’(White et al.

2006, p. 389).

Figure 3.3 shows that the management of the coastal environment has gone through various

approaches starting from a nationally initiated management implementation and decision-

making. This management form is a top-down approach in which powers are concentrated in the

hands of the national government for the performance of key functions in coastal management.

Under this approach, little or no information is provided to the public on the decision or the

management performances of the central government, and no comments or suggestions are

requested from the public in relation to managing the resources (Harvey et al. 2001). The

centralised management was not successful in dealing with coastal problems in the Philippines.

This led to a search for alternative ways of managing the resources (Rivera & Newkirk 1997).

The centralised management period was followed by a community-based approach which

promoted the important role of the community sector in the overall management of coastal

resources. Table 3.2 reveals that in the early 1980s the first community-based management

project was carried out through the Central Visayas Regional Project (CVRP). This project

successfully fostered new institutional arrangements for participatory coastal management

starting at the barangay level (Thiele et al. 2005; White et al. 2006).

According to Pomeroy (1995), community-based management of the coastal resources aims to

expand the role of the community sector in order to augment scientific data and information in

relation to coastal management. This is because the indigenous skills and knowledge of the

community sector contribute to an understanding of the various coastal issues and the

development of appropriate management strategies (Pomeroy 1995). This bottom-up approach is

people-centred and reversed the previous centralised management in favour of local and

80

community-based leadership. This approach in the Philippines emphasised the performance of

resource management activities at the community level (Harvey et al. 2001). These activities,

based on the report of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO 2003),

should be truly initiated and controlled by the local community in order to be successful.

However, in the Philippines, successful community-based coastal management efforts were

generally established and initiated by non-government organisations, private sector organisations

and local governments (Alcala 1998). Research conducted by Pollnac et al. (2001) showed that

among the main indicators of success of over 400 community-based management projects in the

Philippines were inputs from the local government, continuing advice from the implementing

organisation, and high-level of participation from the community sector. The latter observation

means that weak community participation will jeopardise the chances of success of coastal

management efforts. Alcala (1998) also postulated that a highly successful community-based

project is characterised by viable organisations capable of assisting the local community in its

coastal management endeavours, coordination with the host government and international

sectors, and capability and enhancement programs provided by implementing organisations.

Thus, the success of a community-based management largely depends on the technical and

financial support from external agencies as well as the willingness and the level of participation

of the community sector in the overall management and decision-making processes.

The downside of the community-based coastal management noted by Rivera (2001) is its

inherent limitation in addressing large-scale and complex ecological and socio-economic

relationships. Large-scale coastal resource management is not within the scope of community-

based management as projects are usually implemented at the barangay level. Also, community-

based management is largely dependent on good political relations. Withdrawal of support from

community-based projects by political leaders can easily disrupt such efforts and initiatives in

coastal management. These management issues are often experienced in coastal management

initiatives, including community-based projects in the Philippines, and seriously affect their

sustainability (Christie 2005).

The evolution of the Philippine coastal management practice continued through the period of

decentralisation in the 1990s when local government took the lead role in coastal management.

81

Localised management of the coastal resources eventually led to more extensive integration and

collaboration among the different sectors, including the local government, national government

agencies such as BFAR and DENR, and the community as the principal actors responsible for

overseeing the general well-being of the country’s coastal ecosystem (White et al. 2006).

3.5.2 Integrative management approach adapted for the Philippine coasts

As a result of the collaboration among various sectors to manage the coastal resources in a more

integrated way, ICM emerged. According to Milne et al. (2003), the ICM process in the

Philippines goes through five iterative phases (see Figure 3.4). The five-phased ICM cycle

adopted for the coastal management in the country, which was patterned after the internationally

recognised ICM theoretical model, was redesigned in the Philippines through collaboration

between BFAR, DENR, DILG and the League of Municipalities of the Philippines, with the

underlying imperative that ICM is a ‘basic service of local government’ including provinces,

cities/municipalities, and barangays (White et al. 2006, p. 292).

Figure 3.4 ICM Framework Adapted for Coastal Management in the Philippines

Source:(DENR et al. 2001a)

82

Each phase encompasses various activities for effective implementation of ICM (Milne et al.

2003). Specifically, Table 3.3 provides the details of the management activities associated with

each of the phases of ICM process. According to White et al. (2005a), normally, before the first

phase (issue identification and baseline assessment) commences the so-called Participatory

Coastal Resource Assessment (PCRA) is conducted under the supervision of the local

government with technical assistance from representatives of the national government agencies

responsible for coastal management such as BFAR and DENR. PCRA is a coastal undertaking

that helps identify issues surrounding the coastal environment. It involves various data gathering

techniques including document reviews, household surveys, interviews and resource mapping

(Walters et al. 1998). Conducting PCRA directly involves the coastal people in baseline

evaluation of coastal resources.

After the coastal assessment phase, preparation of a coastal management plan follows. This

second phase incorporates the development of goals and objectives as well as strategies for

managing the coastal resources. Implementation of the management plan is undertaken in the

third phase. This implementation phase highlights the importance of legislative and

administrative support, including budget allocation and revenue generation in coastal

management. This phase is succeeded by monitoring and evaluation of the programs

implemented. The role of this fourth phase is to determine whether or not programs are properly

implemented and executed and whether goals have been achieved. The Philippine ICM policy

cycle concludes with information and awareness drives (White et al. 2005b). Also called

information, education and communication (IEC)22

campaigns, the goal of the final phase in the

context of coastal management is to create a critical mass of environmentally knowledgeable

people who abide by environmental laws and participate in environmental activities and

advocacy (DENR et al. 2001e). Philippine IEC campaigns are undertaken in various forms,

including distribution of leaflets and brochures, incorporation in primary school curricula, and

22 In the Philippines, IEC is a process through which knowledge is imparted to the coastal communities in order to increase their

awareness and understanding of the coastal environment (DENR et al. 2001e).

83

use of the mass media to inform the local people about the present status and progress of

initiatives for the management of coastal resources.

Table 3.3 Activities Associated with the Five Phases of the ICM Process

Phase Activities

Issue identification and baseline

assessment

Program preparation

Secondary information gathering

Field assessment /participatory coastal resource assessment

Database and profile development

Prioritization of issues and analysis of causes

ICM plan preparation and

adoption

Establishment of management bodies

Definition of goals and objectives

Development of ICM strategies and action plan

Action plan and project

implementation

ICM plan implementation

Legislation and regulation

Coastal law enforcement

Revenue generation

Annual program preparation and budgeting

Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation

Refinement of management plan

Information management,

education and outreach

Information management

Education, information and communication

Source:(DENR et al. 2001a)

As an iterative process, periodically, the cycle undergoes revision and refinement upon the

availability of new data and information to ensure the sustainability of coastal management

programs. However, implementation of this ICM process is the Philippines is confronted with a

serious problem of inconsistencies and misunderstandings within and between the national

government agencies and LGUs caused by conflicting jurisdictional mandates (DENR et al.

2001c). In addition, Lowry et al. (2005) argued that the coastal management framework

formulated by DENR could be derailed by various factors such as insufficient technical and

financial resources, weak law enforcement, and lack of political will at different levels of

government in the Philippines (Lowry et al. 2005). For instance, in the Philippines, after the

withdrawal or termination of foreign-funded coastal projects, management responsibilities are

commonly turned over to the local government; however, as the local government has only

limited funds for coastal management, and inadequate coastal expertise and technical capacity,

the sustainability of these projects is generally put at risk. On the other hand, Eisma et al. (2005)

strongly believed that clear formulation and effective enforcement of laws can buttress the

84

sustained implementation of ICM programs in the Philippines. This is what the third phase of the

Philippine ICM process recommends (see Table 3.3).

According to Yu and Bermas (2004) in their PEMSEA report, there are three potential political

barriers to the full completion of the ICM cycle: (1) lack of political will, (2) strong inter-agency

conflicts, and (3) change in governments. The lack of political commitment may occur at both

the national government and the local government. For example, the national government may

not provide appropriate policy and legislative support for coastal management projects, while the

local government may not support the projects financially. Conflicts between and among sectors

and agencies tasked to manage the coastal resources may also pose serious threats to the

successful completion of a coastal management project. Weak interagency cooperation may

result in fragmented management efforts which are disadvantageous for the promotion of the

sustainable development of the coastal environment. Interagency conflicts may also discourage

the involvement of various agencies in the management and decision-making processes. The

third potential barrier is the constant change in the political leadership in the Philippines, both at

the national and the local government level. Changes in government administration23

may have a

serious effect on the continuation of a coastal management project. For example, although the

current political leadership may support ICM initiatives, the succeeding government may have

other management priorities and investment in coastal management initiatives may be reduced.

3.6 Conclusion

This chapter provided information on the coastal profile in the Philippines, the evolution of

coastal management and institutional arrangements for coastal management in the country. The

Philippines comprises a vast coastal environment. The coastal resources provide significant

benefit to the local population in terms of livelihood and income. These resources, however,

have been confronted with serious problems including overfishing, destructive fishing and

23 In the Philippines, the President, Vice President and 12 out of 24 Senators have six-year terms of office; the other 12 Senators

down to the Barangay Captain have three-year terms of office (LawPhil Project - Arellano Law Foundation (2011), 'Republic Act

7056', Retrieved 3 January 2011, from http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7056_1991.html).

.

85

coastal pollution. Weak law enforcement and conflicts among the different sectors have been

posing threat to effective coastal management in the country.

This chapter also discussed the devolution of responsibilities from the national government to the

local government through government decentralisation in 1991which affected the management

arrangements for coastal management. It specifically explained that a number of management

approaches was adopted and employed to address the problems and to bring sustainable

development in the coastal environment. At present, the Philippine government has moved

toward adopting an integrative form of management for the coastal environment.

87

Chapter 4: Research Design and

Methodology

4.1 Introduction

This chapter sets out the methodology used for this research as well as the data collection process

which was adopted in carrying out the research. This chapter traces the steps involved in

developing the study and explains why the Lingayen Gulf was chosen as the principal case study.

The process of data gathering is also explained, which includes two principal methods:

documentation and interviewing. This research used documentation as a necessary element for

setting out the theme describing the situation, and developing the literature review concerning

the management of the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf. Interviewing was at the core of

this research. It was used to verify the information gathered from written documents and, more

importantly, to acquire raw data relating to coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf.

4.2 Selecting the Lingayen Gulf Case Study

The case study is a powerful tool for providing detailed information about a particular

phenomenon. In choosing the Lingayen Gulf as the major case for examining the implementation

of ICM, the researcher aimed to establish comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the

management mechanism needed to sustainably manage a particular case of ICM. Specifically,

this case was selected in order to address several questions: firstly, whether the coastal

management practices adopted in the Lingayen Gulf align with the international coastal

management good practice approaches, such as ICM; secondly, whether the local government

arrangements for coastal management in the gulf area conformed to other successful

88

international ICM experiences; and thirdly, whether the coastal management mechanism used

was an appropriate approach for sustainably managing the Lingayen Gulf. To explore these

issues, this research examined the roles of the different actors in managing the Lingayen Gulf,

and the governance and management processes involved.

The Lingayen Gulf is geographically distinct because it is one of the most important fishery

areas, particularly for aquaculture, in the Philippines. The Gulf is home to the country’s national

fish, bangus, which is abundantly harvested in the area. The Hundred Islands, the country’s first

national park and popular tourist destination, are located in the Gulf. Many researchers have

studied the Gulf’s coastal ecosystems. They have also diagnosed the problems they have

encountered, particularly poor water quality and coastal pollution and their impacts on the

fishery resource, the coral reef, and the overall degradation of the coastal resources. The analysis

of these problems has led to the development of various coastal management initiatives to

preserve the Gulf’s natural ecological systems. This research has attempted to add to this body of

knowledge by focusing on the little explored institutional arrangements that operate and have

operated in the Gulf for the management of coastal resources. The Lingayen Gulf, bordered by

20 cities and municipalities, is an important case study because of its socio-economic and

environmental significance. The researcher’s personal experience as a coastal management

practitioner living in the vicinity of the Lingayen Gulf helped him in understanding and assessing

the socio-economic and environmental conditions in the area, and its management governance

and structure.

This case study was interesting because it enabled inquiry into the failure of the various

management interventions that have been employed to deal with the Lingayen Gulf problems,

including poor coastal law enforcement, inadequate policy formulation, lack of political will, and

lack of coastal management training among local government staff. These problems led to

overfishing and illegal fishing practices. Examination of all the coastal management initiatives

undertaken was deemed necessary to fully understand the circumstances surrounding the Gulf.

This approach was designed to shed light on problems in management strategies in the past and

how the Lingayen Gulf could be sustainably managed in the future.

89

4.3 Research Design

This research adopted a qualitative research method which Creswell (1994, pp. 1-2) defined as:

...an inquiry process of understanding a social or human problem, based on building a

complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of information,

and conducted in a natural setting.

Typically, the qualitative research method is used to explore the nature of phenomena by

describing and understanding them from the perspective of an individual or group of individuals.

This means that qualitative research presents the meaning of the natural settings of things based

on the interpretation and understanding of the local population involved. There are different

research designs in qualitative research. One of the commonly used designs is the case study,

which was employed in this research to explore phenomena relating to the management of the

Lingayen Gulf. The Lingayen Gulf is the main case study in this research. The case study

approach is commonly used when a researcher intends to answer a question with in-depth

analysis of a specific problem. Definitions of a case study by various scholars are quite similar.

One of the most cited definitions states that a case study is ‘an empirical study that investigates a

contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between

phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’ (Yin 2003, p. 13).

The case study method is valuable in this research because it provides the detailed analysis of a

phenomenon which can be called a ‘thick description’ (Guba & Lincoln 1989). Such detailed

investigation means that this method has the ability to provide a clear textual description of how

people experience a given situation. In addition, the case study method is capable of exploring a

wide range of phenomena which are important to theoretical and analytical discussions. A major

concern in a case study, however, is the possibility that the case may lack rigour and reliability as

a research strategy, particularly because, frequently a case study fails to address the issue of

generality (Christensen 1994). This means that the experience of one individual or situation

might not apply to another. Similar criticism claims that when the study involves a small

90

number of cases it can offer no grounds or only limited grounds for establishing the reliability or

generality of the findings (Soy 1997). Yin (1994, p. 10), however, argued:

... case studies, like experiments, are generalisable to theoretical propositions and not

to populations or universes. In this sense, the case study, like the experiment, does not

represent a sample, and in doing a case study, your goal will be to expand and

generalise theories (analytic generalisation) and not to enumerate frequencies

(statistical generalisation).

This is so because we study a case and understand it well, not on the basis of how it is different

from others but on the basis of what it is and what it does. Thus, the purpose of the case study is

not primarily to understand other cases (Stake 1995). Nor it is the large number of data or

samples that counts in a case study, but rather, the significance of the findings to relevant

theories.

In this research, the main focus was to examine the theory or concept of ICM as applied to

managing the Lingayen Gulf. The reason for examining the application of ICM was to confirm

whether or not ICM is an effective coastal management approach for the Lingayen Gulf. This

research was not concerned with the number of samples of ICM program implementation, but

rather, with how the model of ICM is applied in various situations, particularly in the Lingayen

Gulf.

Case studies need to address questions of bias and to justify whether the research was conducted

in a systematic manner. Thus, Yin (2003, p. 10) warned that if case studies have ‘not followed

systematic procedures, or have allowed equivocal evidence or biased views to influence the

direction of the finding and conclusions’, then these studies would likely lose their ability to

yield reliable conclusions. Thus, a case study protocol is necessary. Yin (1994) postulated a case

study protocol which include designing the case study primarily by developing a set of actions;

conducting the case study; analysing the case study findings; and developing case study

conclusions, recommendations and implications. It is this case study protocol that has been

adopted in writing up this thesis. As Yin (1994) explained, it is important to develop an effective

research methodology to allow the researcher to systematically collect the necessary data and

91

information through interviews, surveys, observations, and a relevant literature search, all of

which are essential in analysing the case and in developing a conclusion .

4.4 The Instrumental Case Study

There are three broad types of case study: the intrinsic case study; the instrumental case study;

and the collective case study (Stake 1995). The instrumental case study is used in this research.

According to Stake (1995, p. 3), the instrumental case study is used to understand more than

what is obvious. He pointed out that this type of case study establishes:

a research question, a puzzlement, a need for general understanding, and feel that we

may get insight into the question by studying a particular case…This use of the case

study is to understand something else.

The case involved in this research specifically concentrated on studying coastal management in

the Lingayen Gulf in the Philippines. The case study was not merely employed to understand the

Lingayen Gulf, but was also designed to evaluate the management processes in managing the

Gulf’s resources, particularly the implementation of the ICM approach. The Lingayen Gulf was a

particular case in which ICM was used. There are two components involved in assessing the

Lingayen Gulf case study in this research.

First, the case was instrumental in evaluating the coastal management approach adopted in the

Lingayen Gulf, and how this approach was implemented. The case was also important in

determining whether the approach used in managing the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf

conformed to the principles of ICM as the most recent and widely-accepted coastal management

approach in many coastal nations, including the Philippines. The ICM policy cycle was used in

this research as a management performance indicator against which the ICM implementation

process in the Lingayen Gulf could be evaluated. The reason for using the ICM cycle was that it

is considered a comprehensive process indicator which helps to trace how ICM negotiates and

implements the cycles of planning, implementation, and decision making that produce and assess

management outcomes (Olsen 2003). The ICM cycle revolves around five steps, namely, issue

92

identification and assessment; program preparation; formal adoption and funding;

implementation; and evaluation. These five steps are key indicators for assessing the success of a

coastal management initiative, based on the ICM processes.

There have been various management interventions that have taken place in the Lingayen Gulf

such as the Lingayen Gulf Coastal Area Management Project (LGCAMP), the Lingayen Gulf

Coastal Areas Management Commission (LGCAMC), the Sagip (Save) Lingayen Gulf Project,

and the Ilocos Coastal Resource Management Program (ICRMP). These management

interventions were not able to reverse coastal problems including poor implementation and

enforcement of coastal policies leading to overfishing, destructive fishing, coastal pollution and

overexploitation of the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf. Detailed explanation of the

failure of these coastal management interventions to sustainably manage the Lingayen Gulf is

missing in the literature. Thus, this research sheds light and on these aspects of the Lingayen

Gulf experience, especially as examined through the framework of ICM.

Second, in order to aid assessment and understanding of the failure of the various management

interventions in the Gulf, the research also investigated the empirical ICM experiences in other

countries. In addition to a general survey, two countries with rich coastal management

experience in East Asia were chosen for more detailed attention. These were specifically the city

of Xiamen in China, the BNP in Indonesia, and the city of Danang in Vietnam. The ICM process

involved in successfully implementing the ICM programs in these two countries was evaluated

through extensive review of relevant literature in order to discover the ways in which their

coastal management processes and practices conformed to the ICM policy cycle model.

As the main purpose of assessing the international ICM experience was to generate broad

understanding of how ICM could be effectively implemented in different countries, such an

assessment was expected to assist in analysing the factors that accounted for the failure of the

various management interventions in ICM in the Lingayen Gulf. Although there are evident

differences in terms of institutional, political, physical and socio-economic settings in the

countries of these comparative cases, understanding these dissimilarities within the framework of

ICM is important for the implementation of a coastal management program. Necessarily, the

93

evolution of ICM programs differs due to each nation’s unique combination of geography,

development issues, and political system (Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998). However, as Olsen et al.

(1997) have argued, the process of generating an ICM program is common around the world as

the problems faced by coastal and marine managers exhibit similar patterns. This means that

ICM can be implemented in any coastal country.

According to Stake (2005), it is important for a case study to present one or more reference cases

in order to help the researchers build a theoretical discussion of the case in focus, as well as to

help readers relate the main case to other relevant cases. Thus, the use of the international ICM

experiences in this research is a particularly valuable comparative exercise that assists in

pursuing data gathering and in-depth analysis of the coastal processes involved in the Lingayen

Gulf management. It also provides a wider understanding of the issues affecting the Gulf,

particularly, in identifying and exploring the factors that can influence successful implementation

of ICM initiatives. This is in conformity to the central idea of a case study design wherein an

‘illustration of how a phenomenon occurs in the circumstances of several exemplars can provide

valued and trustworthy knowledge’ (Stake 2005, pp. 458-459).

Overall, the case study methodology employed in this research identified, elucidated and

analysed the factors that affected the Lingayen Gulf coastal management system to provide a

thorough understanding of how the gulf was managed, and to indicate the management

mechanisms that would be appropriate for the Gulf’s sustainable management. The Lingayen

Gulf case study was expected to facilitate generalisations concerning the applicability and

appropriateness of ICM in the Lingayen Gulf environment and in other coastal areas in the

Philippines. Further, as this case study was instrumental in identifying the factors that have

prevented effective management in the Gulf, the study also leads to recommendations on

appropriate management strategies and actions that should be adopted for the sustainable

management of the coastal environment of the Lingayen Gulf.

4.5 Data Collection and Organisation

Data collection for case study research can rely on a number of sources. Yin (1994) listed six

sources of evidence for case studies: documents, interviews, archival records, direct observation,

participant observation, and physical artefacts. Not all of these sources need to be used in every

94

case study, and no one of them has an inherent advantage over the others (Yin 1994). In this

research, documents and interviews were chosen as the main sources of evidence to unveil the

important factors affecting the management of the Lingayen Gulf. The selection of these sources

of evidence was based on Patton’s (2002) qualitative research model which recommended the

use of two of the most common forms of data collection, namely, documentation and

interviewing. Documentation was used to provide the background information of the research,

which was confirmed, denied or elaborated by the points of view of the population interviewed.

This data collection approach was essential in achieving the objectives of the research which was

to gain in-depth understanding and comprehensive analysis of the management system operating

in the Lingayen Gulf and to explore how this system performed in bringing sustainable forms of

management to the area.

As the design of this research adopted different sources of data and information, this helped to

limit bias because the research findings from these different sources were compared and cross-

checked to establish that they complemented each other. As Yin (1984) affirmed, the use of more

than one source of data is important in case studies. This is because the application and

combination of several research approaches, particularly the use of multiple sources of data in

the study of the same phenomenon increases the credibility and validity of the research results.

This process, called triangulation, allows a researcher to use various data sources and build on

multiple perspectives to achieve in-depth interpretation and analysis of the case. Triangulation is

defined as ‘the use of two or more methods of data collection in the study of some aspects of

human behaviour’ (Burns 2004, p. 272). It is a powerful technique that facilitates the validation

of information, obtained from different sources, seeking to study and understand the richness and

complexity of a specific phenomenon based on social perspectives. The process of triangulation

was adopted in this research to validate data gathered from documents and interviews in relation

to the pioneering coastal management practice in the Lingayen Gulf.

4.5.1 Documentation

Documentation in this research primarily involved data collection through an intensive literature

search on coastal management practice in the Philippines, including the institutional

95

arrangements for managing the coastal resources. International ICM experiences in selected

countries in the Asian region, particularly China, Indonesia and Vietnam, were also researched

through available documents. The selected countries where ICM programs have been

successfully implemented have rich coastal management experiences. Relevant information

written on the ICM experiences in these countries was found in different sources such as books,

journals, government reports, and reliable websites. No fieldwork was needed to gather

information regarding the ICM practices in these countries.

Literature on the theories and concepts of coastal management, particularly ICM approach, was

also among the documents gathered for this research. The ICM approach, which involves the

collaboration of various sectors and disciplines for effective management of the coastal

resources, played a vital role in determining which data needed to be gathered and how the data

would be analysed for the Lingayen Gulf management experience. Particularly important in the

development of the ICM approach was an understanding of the evolution of coastal management.

Relevant literature showed that formal coastal management started in the US through its CZM

program in the 1970s, and gradually developed into a comprehensive and integrative

management approach for the coastal environment.

Documenting the coastal management initiatives that were undertaken in the Lingayen Gulf was

of major importance for this research. Data for each of these initiatives were collected to gain an

understanding of the factors that caused failure in the implementation of the initiatives.

Documentation relating to the sectors involved in the management system, particularly in

relation to the functions and the contributions that these sectors have provided in managing the

Lingayen Gulf, was also consulted in order to provide a thorough and comprehensive

presentation of information regarding the Gulf’s management.

4.5.2 Interviewing

As Patton (2002) asserted, interviewing can unearth and develop information. It allows

respondents to convey to interviewers a situation based on their own perspectives expressed in

their own words. This research considered interviewing a powerful, essential and appropriate

96

tool for exploring coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf. Of particular significance was

exploring the topic through people’s opinions and views based on their personal observations

and experiences. These opinions and views were relevant in uncovering the nature of the

management issues and their causes because they may not be found in the literature or may

require other data sources for triangulation and validation.

Conducting interviews is an important aspect of research. In this research the main goal in

conducting interviews was to explore deeply the target interviewees’ points-of-view and

opinions regarding the problems besetting the Lingayen Gulf and their causes. In addition, the

interviewees’ knowledge and observations of the management approach undertaken in the gulf

were also essential in providing the details of the coastal management experience in the area. All

the information collected from the interviews helped facilitate the interpretation and analysis of

the subject investigated. However, the data gathered from interviews cannot always be

considered reliable because not all interviewees are familiar with the topic, and the interview

results are based only on what the interviewees say or prefer to say (Denscombe 2007). While

such an argument may sometimes be valid, to avoid biased or incomplete interview results,

interviewees for this research were selected from various sectors, including the national

government, the local government and the community. Different types of participants allow

triangulation and enable elucidation of different interpretations of events, particularly regarding

the interviewees’ experiences and observations on the management of the Lingayen Gulf.

The interviewees were selected based on their knowledge and familiarity with the situation and

with the coastal management practices in the gulf, as well as their involvement and interest in

coastal management. Government participants included representatives from both the national

and the local levels. Representatives of local communities as the direct stakeholders in the

coastal resources and their management were also among the interviewees. There were 42 people

interviewed from these three groups. Each participant was interviewed for a period of one hour at

the interviewee’s preferred time and venue. The arrangements were made for the convenience of

the participants, and to provide them with a relaxed environment to build trust with the

interviewer to enable them to answer the questions comfortably, truthfully and boldly.

97

There are different forms of conducting interviews. However, a semi-structured form of

interview was used in this research to gather data from the interviewees in relation to the

conditions and management of the Lingayen Gulf. Semi-structured interviewing was chosen, in

particular, to encourage a continuous flow of discussion between the researcher and the

interviewees.

According to Yates (2004) a semi-structured interview involves a pre-set agenda that guides the

flow of the interview. It gives the interviewer the authority to direct the interview while

providing the interviewees with sufficient flexibility in responding to the questions. Yates

(2004), Guion (2006) and Denscombe (2007) all noted that a semi-structured interview takes into

account flexibility, careful exploration in terms of seeking understanding and interpretation of

the data and information collected, as well as open-ended questioning and probing. Open-ended

questions are questions which require answers more than a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (Legard et al. 2004).

Such questions encourage interviewees to express their thoughts and opinions based on their

beliefs and understanding, and do not impose a specific direction. Open-ended questions are

often used to generate ideas and to clarify information, allowing researchers to probe more

deeply into a subject matter.

Conducting a semi-structured interview can be perceived as an informal conversation that seeks

to achieve a profound understanding and analysis of a phenomenon based on people’s actual

experiences and observations. This is a process in which the interviewer seeks the views,

interpretations and understanding of the interviewees on a particular topic, but does not lead

them to any preconceived observations or conclusions, or encourage the approval of the

interviewer’s opinion. In the words of Webb and Webb (1932), this method of interview can be

described as a ‘conversation with a purpose’ (p.130) as it produces fundamental knowledge of

unexplored phenomena or new events and situations that have not been investigated by previous

researchers. These features are the key reasons why semi-structured interview was chosen as the

principal research method for the Lingayen Gulf case study. The interviewees in this research

were asked to interact freely and spontaneously, and answer the questions casually using their

own choice of language, words and expression. They were encouraged to share their opinions,

98

experiences and observations openly regarding the circumstances surrounding the Lingayen Gulf

environment and the management system involved in overseeing its coastal resources.

4.6 Conclusion

This chapter has explained why the Lingayen Gulf was chosen as the principal case study in this

research. The socio-economic and environmental significance of the area and the need for more

effective coastal management arrangements were briefly discussed as the primary concern of the

case study. More importantly, this chapter has also provided the details of the research design,

the data sources, and the data collection methods involved in the research. The major data

collection methods employed in this research were documentation, particularly through intensive

review of literature on coastal management, and interviewing which involved participants from

the national government, the local government and the community sector.

99

Chapter 5: The Background of the Lingayen

Gulf Case Study

5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the main case study chosen for this research, the Lingayen Gulf. It starts

by illustrating the geographic location of the Gulf in the Philippines. This is followed by the

description of the coastal resources of the Gulf as well as the issues that threaten the health and

well-being of these resources, and the presentation of the demography of the area.

In addition, an important component of this chapter is the evaluation of the implementation of

the different coastal management initiatives that have been undertaken in the Lingayen Gulf.

These initiatives have adopted and employed various coastal management approaches in

managing the Gulf. Overall, this chapter explains that formal coastal management in the Gulf has

been in existence for over 30 years.

5.2 The Lingayen Gulf Profile

The Philippines consists of three major island groups, including Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

Luzon, where the Lingayen Gulf is located, is the most economically and politically important

island in the country. The Gulf’s coastal resources have long served as valuable sources of food

and livelihood among the local community (McManus & Chua 1990; Dela Cruz 2004).

The Lingayen Gulf is a semi-circular embayment (see Figure 5.1) enclosing a total land area of

2,085 km2, with 160 km of shoreline. The mouth of the Gulf is bounded on the west by Cape

Bolinao in the municipality of Bolinao in Pangasinan, and on the east by Poro Point in San

100

Fernando City in La Union (McManus & Chua 1990; Provincial Planning and Development

Office - Pangasinan [PPDO-Pangasinan] 2002; Travaglia et al. 2004). It is located on the Ilocos

coast which can be found in the northwestern part of the country.

Figure 5.1 Map Showing Location of Lingayen Gulf

Source:(Provincial Planning and Development Office of Pangasinan 2002)

The Lingayen Gulf is endowed with long stretches of sandy beaches, natural scenic areas such as

the Hundred Islands24

, and a rich culture and history (Cruz-Trinidad 1996). It contains rich

fishing grounds, productive brackish culture systems and natural attractions for tourism. The

Gulf is one of the country’s most economically important fishing grounds and supplies

approximately 70% of the fish demands of Luzon island, the largest and most populous of the

three major island groups of the country (McManus & Chua 1990; Paw & Chua 1991; NEDA

24 The Hundred Islands was the first National Park in the Philippines. It is located in Alaminos City, a western part of the

Lingayen Gulf (White 2006).

101

1992; Talaue-McManus et al. 2001; RDC-1 2005). It serves as a major source of capture

fisheries25

and provides livelihood and food to a small-scale fishing community with a daily

average catch of 1.5 kg per fisherman (Cruz-Trinidad et al. 2009). The Gulf’s major outputs

come from aquaculture which accounts for 74% of the Gulf's total fishery production (Dela Cruz

2004).

The Lingayen Gulf’s western section is dominated by fringing coral reefs, and the southern

section is replete with soft bottom areas as this is where the majority of the river systems enter

the Gulf. The eastern section mainly has sandy beaches, and the northern section constitutes

patchy coral reefs that are classified as shoal and fringing (Deocadez et al. 2003). These rich

resources of the Gulf need intensive protection and conservation to prevent them from

deterioration.

5.3 Demography

The Philippine population has continued to grow at a rapid rate over several decades. In 1990,

the country’s population was 60,703,206 which rose to 76,504,077 in 2000. In the latest

population census in 2007, the number of people in the Philippines was recorded at 88,574,614

(NSO 2007b). The population in Pangasinan and La Union, where the Lingayen Gulf is situated,

are among the fastest growing provinces in the country.

The Lingayen Gulf covers 18 coastal cities and municipalities from the neighbouring provinces

of La Union and Pangasinan (see Table 5. 1). One city and six municipalities lie in the province

of La Union, and two cities and nine municipalities are in the Province of Pangasinan.

The cities and municipalities in the Lingayen Gulf area have a total population of 1,155,372, and

an annual growth rate of 1.75% based on the 2007 Census of Population. Table 5.2 shows the

1995 to 2007 population and annual population growth rate of each of the cities and

municipalities in the Gulf area which spans two different provinces – La Union and Pangasinan.

25 Locally, capture fisheries refer to wild fisheries that naturally exist in the ocean, coasts, lakes and rivers which are not subject

to controlled conditions.

102

Table 5.1 The Composition of Lingayen Gulf

La Union Pangasinan

City City

San Fernando Alaminos

Dagupan

Municipality Municipality

Agoo

Aringay

Bauang

Caba

Rosario

Sto. Tomas

Anda

Bani

Binmaley

Bolinao

Labrador

Lingayen

Mangaldan

San Fabian

Sual

Source:(McManus & Chua 1990)

Table 5.2 The 2007 Population Survey in the Municipalities within the Lingayen Gulf Area

Municipality Population (1995) Population (2007) Annual Growth Rate

(1995-2007)

La Union

Agoo 47,721 57,952 1.64

Aringay 36,743 43,438 1.41

Bauang 56,189 69,837 1.84

Caba 18,234 20,927 1.16

Rosario 38,376 49,025 2.08

San Fernando City 91,943 114,813 1.88

Sto. Tomas 28,192 33,604 1.48

Pangasinan

Alaminos City 65,130 79,788 1.72

Anda 28,739 34,398 1.52

Bani 37,463 45,652 1.67

Binmaley 62.375 76,214 1.69

Bolinao 53,127 69,568 2.29

Dagupan City 126,214 149,554 1.43

Labrador 16,706 20,508 1.73

Lingayen 80,758 95,773 1.44

Mangaldan 73,351 90,391 1.77

San Fabian 59,904 74,005 1.79

Sual 33,881 29,925 3.04

Total Population &

Average Growth Rate

892,733 1,155,372 1.75

Source: NSO 2007a

103

The provinces of La Union and Pangasinan are part of the four provinces composing Region 126

.

In this region, Pangasinan has the largest population. The Lingayen Gulf covers more coastal

areas in Pangasinan than in La Union. Additionally, of the municipalities in the Lingayen Gulf,

Dagupan City in Pangasinan, recorded the highest number of people with 149,554 based on the

2007 population census. The census also shows that two of the fastest growing Lingayen Gulf

coastal municipalities are found in Pangasinan - Sual (3.04% ) and Bolinao (2.29%). Aringay in

La Union, on the other hand, is the slowest growing coastal municipality in the Lingayen Gulf

area. Records of population density in La Union and Pangasinan showed a steady rise from 1995

to 2000. The population density in La Union in 1995 was 389.30 per km2 which increased to 441

per km2

in 2000. In Pangasinan, the population density was recorded at 406.10 per km2 in 1995

and 453 per km2

in 2000 (NSO 2007a).

5.4 Issues and Threats

The Lingayen Gulf coastal area shows strong links between land and sea. The Gulf is

characterised by productive coastal ecosystems which are greatly influenced by terrestrial and

marine events (NEDA 1992). Fishing is the primary occupation of the people in the Lingayen

Gulf area with monthly income under the poverty line. In the early 2000s, there were about seven

fishermen per metre or about 23 fishermen per km2 of the Lingayen Gulf coastline (Fisheries

Resource Management Project [FRMP] 2001; Deocadez et al. 2003). As indicated by Deocadez

et al. (2003), since 1976, there has been a steady increase in the number of municipal fishermen

which has caused increasing pressure on fish stocks in the Gulf.

While the Lingayen Gulf is a major fishing ground in northwestern Luzon, rich in capture

fisheries, aquaculture and coastal tourism, it is not free from the problems faced by other coastal

communities in the Philippines. Major management issues include depletion of fisheries, conflict

over resource use, poverty among coastal communities, degradation of the coral reefs, illegal

fishing practices and weak institutional arrangements (Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998; RDC-1 2005).

26 The Philippines has 16 administrative regions. Region 1, also called the Ilocos Region, covers the provinces of Ilocos Norte,

Ilocos Sur, La Union, and Pangasinan.

104

In addition, overfishing and coastal pollution also seriously affect both tourism and livelihood

opportunities in the area (Cruz-Trinidad et al. 2002; Travaglia et al. 2004).

In the Philippines, the limits of sustainable fishing have already been reached or even exceeded.

In particular, the Lingayen Gulf has already reached its maximum sustainable yield many years

go, and that the fishery production in the area is now scarce. At the beginning of the 2000s, catch

rates in the Gulf had become five times less than they were 15 years earlier (Hilomen and

Licuanan 2002; Green et al. 2003; World Bank 2005). Similarly, it has been recently reported

that pelagic fishing species such as sardines (tamban), ox-eyed scad (matambaka) and scad

(galunggong) in the Gulf have been rapidly dwindling due to overfishing. According to BFAR,

out of the 13 fishing grounds surveyed through its national stock assessment program, 10 areas,

including the Lingayen Gulf, were heavily exploited. The overexploited fish species were usually

caught at an average size of 13 centimetres (cm) although the recommended size of a mature

sardines, ox-eyed scan and scad should measure about 20 cm (Alave 2011).

On a similar note, due to economic growth within the borders of the Lingayen Gulf, water

quality has deteriorated through pollution which was already a serious coastal problem in the

1980s. Maaliw (1990) revealed that coliform bacteria from domestic and industrial wastes, toxic

chemical from fishing operations, and contamination from marine vessels have largely

contributed to the deterioration of the water quality of the Gulf. Guarin (1991) also noted high

microbial levels in the area which has been severely affecting coastal production and

productivity, and causing various problems, including eutrophication, deaths of marine life,

sedimentation and damage of coastal habitat. Recently, the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources classified all six major rivers in the gulf as unfit for contact recreation (e.g.

bathing). The DENR found that the poor water quality of Lingayen Gulf has been caused by

agricultural run-off, domestic and industrial sewage, and livestock wastes (San Diego-McGlone

and Ranches 2003; San Diego-McGlone et al. 2004). Specifically, this coastal pollution has been

brought about by increased nutrient and pesticide concentrations usually caused by the

intensification of agri-aquaculture activities. The increase in human population in the Gulf has

also caused a consequent increase in domestic sewage. Other issues identified were siltation and

contamination brought about by harmful metals from industries and mining-related activities,

105

particularly seashore mining,, as well as animal wastes which find their way into the water

channels of the Gulf (Sekiguchi & Arksonkoae 2008).

These destructive human activities and ineffective management measures have degraded the

Gulf’s resource base and broken down its delivery systems. In addition, they have seriously

affected the fishery habitats and the livelihood of the community people. The serious degradation

of the coastal environment of the Lingayen Gulf should serve as a wake-up call to the Philippine

government to manage it as a unit to protect it from further damage so it can continue to provide

invaluable livelihood opportunities to the members of the coastal community. Unless the

problems are addressed, the area’s resources will be so badly damaged that they will be unable to

support the communities around it, particularly the local people who are highly dependent on the

coastal resources.

Since the 1970s, the Lingayen Gulf has become a point of interest for researchers evaluating the

status of Philippine reefs and attempting to manage them. The major evaluation took place

through the implementation of LGCAMP, a breakthrough project for coastal management in the

Philippines. Based on the information generated from the LGCAMP, which revealed serious

deterioration of the Lingayen Gulf coastal resources, the Gulf was declared an environmentally

critical area under Presidential Decree 156 in 1993. This declaration stimulated the move for

extensive coastal resource management of the Lingayen Gulf. The move to extensively manage

the Gulf led to the creation of the LGCAMC, through Executive Order 171. The LGCAMC

served as the overall coordinating body for the management of the Gulf from 1994 to 2001

(Deocadez et al. 2003). The following section discusses in detail the chronology of coastal

management in Lingayen Gulf.

5.5 Coastal Management in Lingayen Gulf: A Chronology

In the 1980s, intensive coastal management activities were undertaken in the Philippines. During

this period the Lingayen Gulf was one of the coastal areas in the country where a major

management initiative was conducted through foreign assistance. The Gulf has continued to be

106

managed up to the present as problems surrounding its coastal resources still persist. The

following illustrates the evolution of coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf:

5.5.1 The development and implementation of LGCAMP

The LGCAMP was implemented between 1986 and 1992, supported by the Association of

Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and USAID (DENR et al. 2001b; White et al. 2006). The

LGCAMP was the first major coastal management initiative in the country (Chua 1998; Christie

& White 2000; White et al. 2005a). A comprehensive coastal planning database was the main

target output of the program focusing on fisheries data analysis. Specifically, the project aimed at

reducing fishing efforts and improving water quality in the area (McManus & Chua 1990; Chua

1998). This was because starting in the 1970s the Gulf was believed to have been experiencing

serious problems of overfishing and destruction of fish habitats due to the excessive fishing by

the rapidly increasing number of fishers in the area, and the coastal pollution emanating from the

increasing number of households and industries. These coastal issues have caused a significant

decline in fish catch and prompted the majority of the fishers to resort to the use of destructive

fishing methods such as blast and poison fishing (Pauly et al. 1988; Paw & Chua 1991).

The LGCAMP was confronted with problems, particularly regarding its implementation of

fishing reduction efforts, mainly the non-compliance and non-cooperation of the coastal people

and the private sector with the reduction recommendations. Fishing reduction measures

recommended under the program included banning of illegal and destructive fishing practices,

and commercial fishing in shallow waters in order to ease fishing pressure in the Gulf. These

reduction measures did not stop the marginal fishers and commercial fishing operators from

resorting to illegal fishing activities as these were the means of easily catching fish, their primary

source of food and livelihood. These problems have caused the program to focus on education,

generation of political will and development of CRM plans at the municipal level (NEDA 1992;

White et al. 2005b). The shift of the program’s management direction was necessary to educate

the fishing community about the essence of conserving and protecting their coastal environment,

to involve the government in the management process, and to promote a strategic management

107

framework designed to guide the coastal management activities of all the LGUs within the

Lingayen Gulf.

During the implementation of the program, a Lingayen Gulf Management Plan was formulated

in 1989 to address issues on commercial and trawl fisheries, coral fisheries and resources, water

quality, aquaculture opportunities and constraints, as well as the socio-economic aspect of the

area. This management plan was a collaborative effort of various task groups, including

government agencies, local academic institutions, and non-government organisations. In 1990,

the management plan was adopted by RDC - Region 1 (Talaue-McManus & Chua 1997). RDC

serves as an extension arm of the country’s central economic development body, NEDA. The

RDCs are created to coordinate the development efforts of government agencies in the different

regions in the Philippines. Each RDC comprises provincial governors, city mayors of chartered

cities, regional directors of key line agencies and project managers of regional development

bodies. NEDA regional offices serve as the Secretariat of the council (Mercado 2002; Ilocos

Region Information Sharing Network [IRISN] 2007). In the same year, the management plan

was incorporated into the Regional Physical Framework Plan for Region 1 for 1990-2020.

However, the management plan was not implemented due to the lack of enabling law to

institutionalise it into the governance structure. The failure to implement the management plan

was also due to the limited financial and technical capabilities of the provinces within the region,

particularly in the Lingayen Gulf area, which have caused the coastal issues to remain

unaddressed until the conclusion of the program in 1992 (Talaue-McManus & Chua 1997).

5.5.2 The development and implementation of LGCAMC

Based on the critical scientific information generated by the LGCAMP on the poor condition of

the Lingayen Gulf, the Gulf was declared an environmentally critical area under Presidential

Decree 156 in 1993. The decree prompted the creation of a special management body called

LGCAMC through Executive Order 171 in April 1994. As an executive order, the Commission

(i.e., the LGCAMC) was directly under the Office of the President27

of the Philippines. The

27 Executive Order 171 emanated from the Office of the Former President Fidel V. Ramos, who was the country’s President from

1992-1998.

108

Commission was created mainly to implement the Lingayen Gulf Plan which would guide the

coastal management activities in the gulf. Specifically, Executive Order 171 delegated three

principal responsibilities to the Commission: first, the formulation of a Ten-Year Plan for

Lingayen Gulf; second, the promulgation and prescription of management policies, rules and

regulations; and third assistance to the local government units within the Gulf. The third

responsibility involved formulation of short-term and long-term strategies for environmental

protection, promotion of tourism development, business investments, and social and institutional

building, and integration of local and national plans in relation to the sustainable management of

the Lingayen Gulf (Talaue-McManus & Chua 1997; RDC-1 2001).

The Commission involved a number of sectors to implement its flagship programs. Its

management structure consisted of 29 commissioners, composed of heads of eight different

national government offices, namely, DENR, DA, DILG, Department of Trade and Industry

(DTI), Department of Tourism (DOT), Department of National Defence (DND), NEDA,

Presidential Management Staff (PMS), and RDC. Other members included two provincial

governors (Pangasinan and La Union), and 18 mayors representing the LGUs within the Gulf.

The chairman of the Regional Development Council in Region 1 was also a member of

Commission’s Executive Committee (Talaue-McManus & Chua 1997).

The Commission, which implemented its management programs in two phases, built upon the

lessons learned and the output generated by the LGCAM program. In July 1994, the full

operation of the Commission’s management work formally started. The first phase of the

program implementation was to set up a Technical Secretariat that served as the regional

workforce of the Commission and to re-formulate the Gulf Plan into a Ten-Year Master Plan

(1995-2004). The first year of the commission’s operation, however, encountered problems

particularly in convening all the commissioners for coastal management meetings and

conferences. A more serious problem was experienced by the Commission during the first year

of program implementation when transition of local government administration transpired due to

the conduct of local elections in 1995, followed by a revamp in national government departments

(LGCAMC 1995; Talaue-McManus & Chua 1997). The Commission ran the risk of non-

continuity in its management programs with the change of political and administrative leadership

109

in the LGUs, and in the national government departments as local elections in the Philippines

take place every three years, and department heads who have been designated by executive

appointment can be removed by governmental reorganisation and by presidential election.

The second phase was the implementation of the program components. These components were

the result of the reformulation of the Gulf Plan into a Ten-Year Master Plan as follows:

Rehabilitation, enhancement and management of critical habitats (includes rehabilitation of

critical watersheds)

Environmental assessment and monitoring (includes fisheries resource monitoring)

Resource use planning (includes coastal zonation)

Alternative livelihood and employment opportunities (including aquaculture)

Institutional development (included Organizing Communities toward ICM)

IEC campaign

Environmental protection and law enforcement

Tourism and recreational facilities

Policy review and formulation

Infrastructure management

Due to constraints in financial resources and technical expertise, the Commission failed to

successfully implement the majority of the program components contained in the Master Plan.

For instance, lack of community organisation and inappropriate protection strategies caused the

ineffective maintenance of mangrove reforestation and installation of artificial reefs. In the case

of mangrove reforestation, the supply of mangrove seedlings which were needed to sustain the

management activities was inadequate; and the local community was not informed of the

importance of the artificial reefs which have the potential to enhance the marine resources and in

turn benefit the Lingayen Gulf marine environment. In addition, the livelihood development

program component was an unsuccessful attempt by the Commission as fishing communities

were not provided with appropriate technical capabilities and entrepreneurial skills to operate the

alternative livelihood opportunities offered to them.

110

On the other hand, the Commission was successful in implementing environmental protection

and law enforcement, IEC campaigns, and policy review and formulation programs. Successful

implementation of law enforcement included the banning of commercial fishing, coastal policing

with gulf-wide jurisdiction, and the formulation of guidelines for coastal development. The

Commission’s law enforcement efforts, particularly in addressing the illegal fishing and

aquaculture activities and their causes in the area were used as bases for court litigation.

Similarly, the Commission effectively initiated the review, revision, and formulation of coastal

policies, directly benefiting the Lingayen Gulf coastal resources by endorsing them through

executive orders and congressional acts in the Philippine government legislative bodies. And

very importantly, the mobilisation of the region’s mass media, both radio and print, significantly

increased the awareness of the local residents about the poor condition of the Gulf’s coastal

resources and the need to manage them sustainably (Talaue-McManus & Chua 1997).

Based on its various program components, the LGCAMC was claimed as the first ICM initiative

in the Philippines because it incorporated resource management, environmental education, policy

advocacy, institutional development, and livelihood development in the implementation of its

management programs (Talaue-McManus & Chua 1997; Chua 1998; Christie & White 2000;

White et al. 2005a). However, to be considered an ICM initiative, the Commission was lacking

in several aspects of the integrative approach to managing a coastal area such as the Lingayen

Gulf. For example, the Commission failed to integrate other important components of an ICM

program in its management mechanism, particularly the active involvement of the local

community and other potential actors such as NGOs and private organisations in the

management framework. It also failed to integrate different disciplines in the management

process. According to Kenchington and Crawford (1993), to achieve genuine integration in

coastal management building effective partnership among individuals, NGOs and all levels of

government is important. In addition, Olsen et al. (1997) asserted that the concept of ICM was

founded on the collaboration of all levels of government and the community, integration of

science and management, and unification of common interests of all stakeholders for the

protection and development of the coastal environment. Clearly, the integration of different

sectors and disciplines in the management of the Lingayen Gulf has not been established,

111

nevertheless, the management efforts made by the Commission served as a good start towards

more integrative and collaborative management of the coastal resources in the country.

The Commission was abolished in 2000 upon change of government leadership, leaving the

entire Gulf unmanaged and giving rise to the need for further management (RDC-1 2001; Otadoy

2004). Constructively, the Commission initiated an institutional arrangement to coordinate

planning and implementation that served as a coastal management model for the country (White

et al. 2005b). The phase-out of the Commission evidently suggested that its coastal management

attempt which was aborted by the transitory political leadership in the Philippines failed to

achieve its goal of bringing about the sustainable management of the Lingayen Gulf. But the

experience left valuable lessons to be learned for sustainable ICM in the future.

5.5.3 The development and implementation of ICRMP

The discontinuation of the LGCAMC prompted the RDC Region 1 to create a special coastal

management program called the Ilocos Coastal Resource Management Program (ICRMP) which

was fully implemented in 2001. The ICRMP was developed to continue the activities left

unfinished by the LGCAMC, and to coordinate coastal management activities within the region.

The program covered not only the Lingayen Gulf area but extended its management jurisdiction

to Region 1 in its entirety. This consisted of 49 coastal municipalities and six coastal cities from

the four provinces in the region, namely; Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union and Pangasinan. The

core members of the ICRMP management team included various national government agencies,

provincial governments, and city and municipal governments (RDC-1 2001).

The ICRMP is an on-going program in the region which focuses on addressing critical coastal

issues, particularly resource degradation, affecting the coastal environment. The main objective

of the ICRMP is to develop the integrated management of coastal resources in Region 1. The

program objective specifically aims to establish effective institutional arrangements, identify the

coastal issues surrounding the Ilocos coast, formulate strategies to address such issues, and

develop a unified coastal management plan for the region (RDC-1 2001).

112

At the onset of the program implementation in 2001, the RDC Region 1 set up the management

structure for the ICRMP. This primarily involved defining and delegating the management

functions and responsibilities of each of the LGUs in the implementation of the program which

were entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between and among the provincial

governors of each of the provinces, local government agencies and NGOs concerned with coastal

management, and state universities and colleges in the region. This was followed by collection of

data from the coastal municipalities and cities in the region to identify the problems confronting

the resources of the Ilocos coast. The results of the data collection revealed a number of coastal

issues including: difficulty in delegating coastal management responsibilities at the municipal

level; absence of a technical working group to supervise barangay and municipal coastal

management activities; lack of coastal expertise of provincial and municipal heads concerned;

lack of budget allocation at all levels of local government units; ineffective law enforcement,

lack of policy implementation; weak institutional arrangements, overlapping functions of

concerned agencies; boundary dispute on municipal waters, poor coordination/weak linkages;

lack of stakeholders support, lack of political will, among others (RDC-1 2005). The installation

of the management structure and the identification of coastal issues in the region set the ICRMP

ready to implement its programs. Among its early coastal management activities were promoting

coastal resource management among local residents, and capability-building for LGU staff and

other coastal resources managers. To guide the step by step implementation of the program, the

ICRMP adopted a management framework consisting of four phases of action (see Table 5.3).

Table 5.3 Coastal Management Program Adopted by the ICRMP

Phases and Steps Activities

Phase 1: Issue identification and baseline assessment

a. Program preparation

Allocate budget

Determine boundaries and scope

Make workplans/budgets

Assign personnel

Secure overall consensus

b. Secondary information

gathering Compile existing maps, reports, data

Interview information sources

Compile existing laws, plans

Review other sources of information

c. Field assessment/ Participatory

Coastal Resource Assessment Train practitioners

Conduct PCRA mapping and data collection

113

(PCRA) and other research

Contract special research studies on fish stock

assessment, habitat condition, water quality, enterprise,

and others

d. Database and profile

development

Maps completed

Set up data storage and retrieval system

Compile coastal environmental profile

Use profile as planning base

Refine boundaries and further research needs

e. Prioritization of issues and

analysis of causes

Conduct community and municipal based planning

sessions

Develop issue tree

Prioritise issues for management

Phase 2: CRM plan preparation and adoption

a. Establish management bodies

Barangay and municipal FARMCs established and active

Multi-sectoral Technical Working Group (TWG)

established

b. Define goals and objectives

Conduct CRM planning workshop

Identify and evaluate management options

Management strategies and actions identifies

c. Develop CRM strategies and

action plan

Proposed water use zones delineated and mapped

Multi-year management plan drafted

Community consultations on draft management plan

drafted

Proposed CRM plan presented in multi-sectoral forum

Multi-year CRM plan finalized

d. Revenue generation

Taxes, fines, and fees collected from enterprise

development, coastal law enforcement, and municipal use

e. Annual program preparation

and budgeting

Review implementation progress of CRM plan.

Annual Investment Plan prepared and budget allocated

for CRM

Staffing requirements identified

Operation and maintenance needs identified

Special projects identified

Training, technical assistance, and outreach needs

identified

Phase 3: Action plan and project implementation

a. CRM plan implementation

Establish and staff municipal CRM Office

Action plans developed for CRM plan implementation

Secure support as required

Increase implementation effort

Marine sanctuaries established and functional

Environment-friendly enterprises established

Mangrove areas rehabilitated and managed under

Community-Based Forest Management Agreement

114

(CBFMA)

Registry of municipal fishers established

b. Legislation and Regulation

Ordinances enacted for CRM plan and implementation

Permits and licenses issued for municipal water uses

consistent with CRM plan

c. Law enforcement

Coastal law enforcement units trained and operational

Ordinances enforced

Phase 4: Information management, education, and outreach

a. Information Management

Establish and update Municipal Coastal Database.

Produce and update municipal water use and coastal

habitat maps

Annual CRM status reports and maps produced

Information management system functions and

institutionalized

b. Information, Education, and

Communication

Information disseminated for education and planning

Technical assistance and outreach program established

Conduct education campaigns for municipal CRM

programs

Hold public hearings for proposed CRM plans and

ordinances

Source:(RDC-1 2001)

This coastal management framework was used as a basis by the four provinces in the Region 1 in

formulating their respective provincial coastal management plans. It can be seen from the

framework that it closely resembles the ICM policy cycle. The majority of the management steps

and actions within the policy cycle can be found in the ICRMP framework, except Step 5 which

focuses on program evaluation. This step ensures that activities and strategies are directed toward

generating a successful ICM. According to GESAMP (1996) and Olsen (1997), evaluating the

implementation of a coastal management program is extremely critical in ICM. Evaluation

brings to light the strengths and the weaknesses of the program, and provides a learning

experience for the succeeding implementation of coastal management programs (GESAMP

1996).

As the ICRMP is a region-wide project, to specifically evaluate its result in the Lingayen Gulf

area is a challenging task. Moreover, the availability of only a small amount of ICRMP-related

literature has restricted the presentation of detailed discussion the implementation of the program

in this research. This limited information was generally documented and compiled per province.

115

The provinces of La Union and Pangasinan cover 27 coastal LGUs, of which 18 make up the

Lingayen Gulf. On a positive note, based on the initial implementation, the program has shown

potential success in managing the coastal resources, not only in the Lingayen Gulf, but also in

the whole of the coastal areas in the Ilocos region. Initial reports have shown that the ICRMP has

carried out mangrove rehabilitation, coastal resource assessment, and coastal management

information dissemination in selected coastal areas in the region (RDC-1 2010).

5.4.4 The development and implementation of the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project

In conjunction with the implementation of the ICRMP, the Sagip Lingayen Gulf project came

into being in 2002. The project was funded by the Netherlands government implemented by the

Marine Environment Resource Foundation (MERF), under the University of the Philippines-

Marine Science Institute (UP-MSI) (Philippine Information Agency [PIA] 2007). The project

involved scientists and legal groups in assisting four (4) local government units in the Lingayen

Gulf to address the adverse impacts of the lack of coastal laws and policies under the existing

coastal management structure in the area. It also dealt with the problems besetting these

Lingayen Gulf LGUs, including the degradation of marine habitats, destructive fishing activities,

squatting and pollution (Lagura 2005; PIA 2007; Tibalao 2007). The limited scope of the project,

however, meant that it contributed little to the improvement of the overall condition of the

Lingayen Gulf. In fact, as mentioned during the interview for this thesis by a senior officer of the

Lingayen Gulf LGU:

The management approach of the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project could have been a

good or better coastal management mechanism in the area had it been driven toward

dealing with the problems on coastal management set-up, including for the most part

legal and institutional structure, and not toward addressing the impacts of the problem.

Fix the causes of the problem first, before fixing the effects of the problem. This did

not happen, and the gulf, in general, remained over-fished after the implementation of

the project. This should not have been called Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project, in the first

place, because it only covered selected LGUs the Gulf (research interview, 16 June

2008, 1-2pm).

116

According to the report by the RDC-1 (2005), the ICRMP worked closely with the Sagip Project

in integrating and harmonising the implementation of CRM-related activities in the western

municipalities (Anda, Bani and Bolinao), and the city (Alaminos) of Pangasinan, which later

included San Fernando city in La Union. The management strategies and actions taken by the

Sagip Lingayen Gulf project were in line with the ICRMP in order to avoid conflicts in carrying

out their tasks. The review of the implementation of the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project was

represented in the ICRMP implementation.

When the project was phased out in 2007, the management responsibilities were lodged with the

municipal/city and provincial governments as well as the community leaders concerned to carry

on with the aim of rehabilitating the Lingayen Gulf and saving it for future generations (PIA

2007; UP-MERF 2007). It is common in the country that management responsibilities are

delegated to LGUs when projects have ended. However, because of the lack of trained personnel,

inadequate budget, and underdeveloped capacity and technical knowledge, the opportunity to

sustain coastal management becomes remote. This is so because, based on the Philippine coastal

management experience, when donor-assisted projects cease to operate, external financial and

technical support also stops (Eisma et al. 2005).

5.6 Conclusion

The discussion of this chapter started with a description of the coastal background of the main

case study of this research, the Lingayen Gulf. It presented the coverage and the demography of

the area, and discussed the coastal problems surrounding it. Coastal resources degradation

brought about by illegal fishing activities, coastal pollution and increasing number of population

were among the problems besetting the Gulf. Moreover, weak institutional arrangements and

poor management mechanisms have aggravated these problems.

These various coastal management initiatives implemented in the Gulf were discussed in the

latter part of the chapter. It discussed the management approaches employed by these initiatives

in managing the Lingayen Gulf. More importantly, it highlighted the strengths and weaknesses

117

of these initiatives that can serve as bases for future coastal management program

implementation in the area.

119

Chapter 6: The Lead National Government

Agencies’ Involvement in Lingayen Gulf

Coastal Management

6.1 Introduction

This chapter examines the role of the two national agencies, BFAR and DENR, in managing the

coastal resources of the Philippines, particularly in the Lingayen Gulf. These agencies are

mandated to carry out full coastal management responsibilities. Issues arising from their

management jurisdictions, including management conflicts and inconsistencies will also be

discussed.

This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section explains the major roles and

involvement of BFAR and DENR in coastal management. In addition, the first section briefly

discusses the supporting roles of other national government agencies involved in managing the

coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf. Perceptions and opinions of the coastal management

experience in the Lingayen Gulf gathered through interviews are presented in the second section.

6.2 The Role of the Lead Government Agencies

In the Philippines, coastal management responsibilities are primarily delegated to two

government agencies, namely; BFAR and DENR. Both BFAR and DENR provide policy

directions on the implementation of coastal management programs in the country. They are also

principally responsible for providing technical assistance, training and extension services relating

120

to the management of coastal resources, and support to local government units, such as in

establishing marine sanctuaries.

By mandate, BFAR is ‘responsible for the development, improvement, management and

conservation of the country's fisheries and aquatic resources’ (BFAR 2003). As one of the

important national agencies for coastal management, BFAR executes policy reforms and

directions for the sustainable use of fishery resources. Additionally, it assists LGUs in enforcing

Fishery Administrative Orders (FAOs), formulating and implementing municipal ordinances and

regulating fisheries resources and activities within municipal jurisdiction. Through extensive

technical assistance, the agency also supports the LGUs in the implementation of their coastal

management programs. These programs include formulation of CRM plans, community

organising activities (i.e. Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council, fish wardens,

bantay dagat volunteers and fishermen’s associations), conduct of training and establishment of

marine sanctuaries (Balgos & Pagdilao 2002). The complete list of the general coastal

management functions of the BFAR can be found in Appendix 1.

The DENR, being the other principal national government agency for coastal management in the

Philippines, serves as ‘the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management,

development, and proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources’ (DENR 2008).

Specifically, the DENR is mainly concerned with ensuring the availability, sustainability,

increased productivity, appropriate distribution, and equitable access of the country’s natural

resources. Conservation of terrestrial and marine areas that represent the natural and cultural

heritage of the country also forms part of the agency’s role. Additionally, the DENR takes full

responsibility for matters relating to the administration and enforcement of regulations and

guidelines regarding issuance of licences, permits, concessions and lease agreements to coastal

users including fishers and investors. It also oversees other coastal matters, such as granting of

privileges in regard to the development, exploration, and use of coastal resources – marine,

freshwater and brackishwater – and the overall aquatic resources of the country (Balgos &

Pagdilao 2002). DENR’s complete coastal management functions appear in Appendix 2.

121

Specifically, there are instruments of management involved in managing the Lingayen Gulf

applied by BFAR and DENR. These management tools, which are listed in Table 6.1, can be

used by the national government in dealing with the coastal problems of the Gulf.

Table 6.1 Management Tools Available to the National Government through BFAR and

DENR in Relation to Coastal Management in the Lingayen Gulf

Agency/Sector Management Tool Description

National

Government

a. BFAR

Fishing Licence BFAR is principally responsible for issuing

licences for the operation of commercial fishing

vessels.

Leasing Permit Issuance of permits for mangrove areas to be

developed into fishponds.

Monitoring and

Evaluation

Monitoring, evaluation and review of fishing

agreements between Filipino citizens and

foreigners in conducting fishing activities in

international waters, wherein such activities

should not violate the Philippine commitment

under international treaties and conventions on

fishing in the high seas.

Capability

Enhancement

Training

Appointed/Selected coastal management experts

and specialists are provided with intensive

training and necessary facilities and equipment

for efficient monitoring, control and surveillance

of fishing activities within Philippine territorial

waters.

Training and extension services in relation to

coastal management

Research and

Development

Formulation and implementation of a

Comprehensive Fishery Research and

Development Program focusing on sea farming,

sea ranching, tropical/ornamental fish and

seaweed culture aimed at increasing productivity

of coastal resources, improving efficiency of

resource use, and ensuring long-term

sustainability of fishery and aquatic resources.

Fishery Laws Under Republic Act 8550 (The Fisheries Code of

the Philippines 1998), BFAR is mandated to

manage mangrove areas, formulate coastal

policies, and supervise LGUs’ coastal

management activities.

122

Enact Fisheries Administrative Orders to support

marine sanctuaries and to ensure their

implementation.

Enforcement of laws governing the conservation

and management of fishery resources, except in

municipal waters, and settlement of conflicts

regarding the use and allocation of coastal

resources.

Formulation of rules and regulations for the

conservation and management of straddling fish

stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.

Technical

Assistance

Development support for fishery production,

processing and marketing.

Advisory services and technical support on the

improvement of quality of fish from the time it is

caught.

Advise and coordination with LGUs on the

maintenance of proper sanitation and hygienic

practices in fish markets and fish landing areas

Development of LGUs’ technical capability in

the management, regulation, conservation and

protection of fishery resources.

Assistance to LGUs in establishing and managing

marine sanctuaries.

Logistical and institutional support to LGUs in

the development and formulation of CRM plans.

IEC Campaigns BFAR regularly issues advisories on coastal

management, including the Lingayen Gulf, in

print and broadcast media. Its official website

www.bfar.gov.ph also contains information about

the status of the Lingayen Gulf and its

management needs.

a. DENR Licences and

Permits

Issuance of permits for mangrove forest lease

agreements.

Promulgation and implementation of rules,

regulations, and guidelines regarding issuance of

licenses, permits, and concessions in the use of

http://www.bfar.gov.ph/

123

freshwater, brackishwater, and marine resources.

Approval and issuance of agreements, licences,

permits, concessions, leases, and other privilege

concerning the development, exploration and

utilisation of coastal resources; cancellation of

such privileges and arrangements upon violation

of any coastal laws.

Legislation Executive Order 292 mandates DENR to control

and supervise the exploration and development of

the country’s natural resources, including

fisheries and off-shore resources.

Enact Fisheries Administrative Orders to support

marine sanctuaries. DERN ensures that these

legal instruments are implemented.

The DENR is mandated to impose appropriate

payments, fees, charges, rentals and collect

revenues for the exploration, development,

utilisation and gathering of natural resources,

including fishery resources.

Management Plan Development and assessment of a Regional

Physical Framework Plan, including the coastal

environment of the Lingayen Gulf.

Training Provision of training to LGUs regarding

appropriate coastal management practices.

Technical

Assistance

Provision of technical assistance regarding the

development and formulation of CRM plans for

every coastal municipality.

Assistance in establishing and managing marine

sanctuaries in coastal areas.

IEC campaigns Coastal management information and advisories

are found through www.denr.gov.ph (the

department’s official website).

Incorporation of coastal management subject in

public elementary schools in the northwestern

part of Pangasinan.

Sources: PPDO-Pangasinan 2002; BFAR 2003; Lowry et al. 2005; White et al. 2005; DENR

2006

http://www.denr.gov.ph/

124

The diverse management tools presented in Table 6.1 include legislation and enforcement of

fishing regulations, issuance of fishing permits and licences, IEC, monitoring and evaluation,

training, management plans, and technical assistance provided to the coastal management of the

Lingayen Gulf. This research did not attempt to locate and count the exact numbers of fishing

regulations enacted, management plans formulated, fishing permits and licences issued, training

conducted, monitoring and evaluation, IEC and technical assistance provided in managing the

Lingayen Gulf. However, all have been used or apply to the Gulf although the degree of their

implementation can vary widely and is sometimes weak. But relevant literature has shown that

through enforcement of fishing regulations small-scale illegal fishers were regularly prosecuted

(White et al. 2005), provincial coastal management plans were developed with the assistance of

BFAR and DENR (PPDO-Pangasinan 2002), information was disseminated through government

(BFAR and DENR) websites and training and technical assistance was provided in selected sites

(Lowry et al. 2005). According to BFAR and DENR, they are mandated to carry out their coastal

management responsibilities based on these management tools. It is not clear as to the level of

effectiveness of these tools in managing the Gulf but it is clear that major coastal problems still

exist in the area. This would seem to indicate their limited effectiveness although one cannot

blame all the problems of the Gulf on the implementation of central government management

tools.

Both BFAR and DENR are nevertheless actively involved in managing the coastal environment

and are well-represented in decision and law-making processes. However, similarities regarding

their coastal management responsibilities have become evident. These similar coastal

management responsibilities between BFAR and DENR have caused serious legal and

administrative conflicts in the performance of their coastal management functions and roles. One

major example of jurisdictional conflict between the two agencies is their shared responsibility

for coastal resource conservation, covering both fisheries and mangrove forests, which has been

causing confusion among LGU personnel and community users. From reviewing relevant

literature, Figure 6.1 has been constructed to illustrate the details of the similar yet confusing

coastal management responsibilities of BFAR and DENR which contribute significantly to the

prevalent institutional conflicts.

125

Figure 6.1 Institutional Conflicts between BFAR and DENR

Sources: (DENR et al. 2001c; BFAR 2003; DENR 2006)

BFAR DENR

Regulation of conversion of mangrove

areas to aquaculture

Enforcement of all laws, formulation and enforcement of all rules and regulations governing the conservation and management of fishery resources

Formulation, implementation, and supervision of government policies, plans and programs pertaining to the management, conservation, development, use and replenishment of the country’s natural resources

Formulation of policy to disallow fishpond development within mangroves declared as reservations. Regional Physical Framework Plan (RPFP)

Assessment

Formulation of policy to expand the fishing area thereby reducing the area for mangroves.

Under Title IV, DA-BFAR is mandated to promote the well-being of fishermen and uphold attainment of food security by properly developing and utilising fishery resources.

General supervision over the management of fishery areas.

Jurisdiction over the entire natural resources and environment sector.

Under Title XIV of EO 292, DENR is mandated to control and supervise the exploration and development of the country’s natural resources, including fisheries and off-shore resources. The provision further mandates the agency to promulgate rules, regulations, and guidelines regarding issuance of licenses, permits, and concessions in the use of freshwater, brackishwater, and marine resources.

Identification of abandoned fishponds to be restored to natural mangrove habitat

Regulation of cutting of mangroves

Restoration of abandoned sites to natural mangrove habitat

Issuance of leasing permits for mangrove areas to be developed into fishponds

Issuance of permits for forest lease agreements (mangrove is part of the forest area)

126

While these agencies have authority over coastal use and exploration, management activities,

decision-making and policy formulation, conflicts have become evident in carrying out their

responsibilities. Such problems are caused by vague institutional mandates under the Fisheries

Code of the Philippine 1998 and the Local Government Code of the Philippines 1991. Under

these mandates, both agencies are directed to share particular coastal management

responsibilities.

Figure 6.1 further shows that responsibilities are shared between BFAR and DENR regarding

identification of abandoned fishpond sites. This has caused confusion among coastal

management enforcers and coastal users. While BFAR is, by mandate, responsible for

identifying abandoned fishponds to be restored to natural mangrove habitat, DENR has the

primary obligation of dealing with the restoration of abandoned sites to natural mangrove habitat.

This means that if BFAR cannot identify these sites, then DENR cannot restore them as part of a

healthy coastal management system (Lowry et al. 2005). On a number of occasions, the

dependence of DENR on BFAR to identify sites for mangrove reforestation has slowed down

coastal management activities leading to environmental improvement. Identification and

restoration of these sites would be better performed by a single agency or simultaneously by two

agencies together for speedy and effective coastal management practice. Another serious area of

conflict between BFAR and DENR relates to the preservation of mangrove forests and the

promotion and regulation of aquaculture. Management of mangrove forests comes under the

jurisdiction of DENR, whereas the issuance of fishpond lease agreements (FLA) falls within the

responsibility of BFAR. But while DENR promotes the conservation and reforestation of

mangroves for enhanced fishery production, BFAR promotes conversion of mangrove areas to

aquaculture. This has led to the conversion of large mangrove areas to fishponds (Lowry et al.

2005).

Furthermore, Figure 6. reveals inconsistencies in the functions related to the issuance of permits

for coastal management activities. On the one hand, BFAR is responsible for the issuance of

leasing permits for mangrove forest areas to be developed into fishponds, while on the other

hand, DENR issues permits for overall forest areas, including mangroves (Balgos & Pagdilao

2002). The gaps and conflicts between BFAR and DENR will be further discussed in the

127

interview section of this chapter. In addition, the interviews conducted for the local government

and the community sector in the succeeding chapters will also present information about the

coastal management conflict between BFAR and DENR.

6.3 Other Government Agencies Involved in Coastal Management

Apart from BFAR and DENR, there are other government agencies directly or indirectly

involved in coastal management in the Philippines (see Table 6.2). Although their involvement is

generally limited to providing minor technical and financial support, this still causes

fragmentation, management conflicts and confusion in the overall coastal management. These

government agencies include: Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC);

Department of Science and Technology (DOST); Department of Tourism (DOT); Department of

Finance (DOF); National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA); Department of

Interior and Local Government (DILG); and Department of National Defence (DND).

The Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) exclusively works with

MARINA, PPA and PCG for the development of the maritime industry, regulation of public and

private ports, and enforcement of regulations to ensure compliance with maritime safety

requirements. Provision of monitoring assistance, formulation of management plans and

strategies as well as generation of external funds for research and development programs are

provided by PCAMRD, a management committee under DOST. DOT is involved in the

protection, maintenance and preservation of natural resources, including coastal resources, in the

Philippines. It incorporates coastal tourism development plans with the National Tourism Master

Plan. Assistance in obtaining financial investments, grants and loans for the development of

small-scale coastal programs is one of the responsibilities of DOF. On the other hand, NEDA

helps out in recommending to the national government seaports and shore protection measures,

and incorporates municipal CRM plans within the regional development plans. DILG helps in

ensuring effective delivery of basic services to the public. Specifically, it assists in monitoring

and safeguarding the coastal environment through the Philippine National Police-Maritime

Group. DND is involved in ensuring safety against internal and external threats which includes

protection of the marine environment. It also supports efforts regarding the prevention,

128

Table 6.2 Other National Government Agencies and Their Roles in Coastal Management

Government Agency Coastal Management Responsibility

Department of

Transportation and

Communication

(DOTC)

Sets policy directions in the development of the maritime industry and

supervises the development and management of public ports through the

Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA). DOTC also regulates the

development of private ports through the Philippine Ports Authority

(PPA), and is involved in the registration and inspection of commercial

fishing boats through the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG). Both MARINA

and PPA rely on the PCG to enforce regulations and ensure compliance

with maritime safety requirements.

Department of

Science and

Technology (DOST)

The Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and

Development (PCAMRD) which is under the DOST monitors aquatic

and marine research and development projects and formulates strategies,

policies, plans, programs, and projects for aquatic and marine science

technology. Additionally, it generates external funds and provides

research and development directions for fisheries and aquatic resources.

Department of

Tourism (DOT)

Implements the National Tourism Master Plan in which coastal tourism

is one of the important components.

Department of

Finance (DOF)

Funds small-scale community-based resource management projects

including coastal projects.

National Economic

and Development

Authority (NEDA)

Incorporates regional coastal resource management (CRM) plans within

regional development plans.

Department of

Interior and Local

Government (DILG)

Supervises local government programs including coastal management

through its Philippine National Police - Maritime Group which is an

active partner in monitoring and safeguarding the coastal zone against

coastal violations.

Department of

National Defence

(DND)

Promotes safety at sea and maritime security, and protects marine

resources and the marine environment as an armed force through the

Philippine Navy. It also assists in the implementation of laws in the high

seas and waters under Philippine jurisdiction, including those pertaining

to the prevention, mitigation, and control of marine pollution.

Source:(Balgos & Pagdilao 2002)

mitigation and control of marine pollution (Balgos and Pagdilao 2002; DOF 2010; DOT 2009;

NEDA 2010).

Evidently, there are various government agencies responsible for coastal management in the

Philippines. But the degree of their management involvement varies in time, place and

significance. The government agencies presented in Table 6.2 have played roles in managing the

coastal resources, and their contribution, potential and actual, is seen as important in preserving,

129

conserving and maintaining the integrity of the country’s coastal environment. But among the

central government agencies involved in Lingayen Gulf’s coastal management, BFAR and

DENR, have been the major players. For this reason, it is their activities that,will be mainly

discussed in this research.

6.4 Interviews with BFAR and DENR Staff

Aside from relevant literature, vital information and data for this research were generated

through in-depth interviews involving 42 participants (see Table 6.3). The interviewees came

from three groups of the coastal management community in the Lingayen Gulf area. These

groups included the national government (8), particularly BFAR and DENR; the LGU staff

involved in managing the Lingayen Gulf resources (20); and the local community whose

participation in Lingayen Gulf coastal management was deemed essential (14).

Table 6.3 Distribution of Lingayen Gulf Interview Participants

Interview Participants Number Percentage

Lead Agencies (4 BFAR staff and 4 DENR staff) 8 19.05

Local government 20 47.62

Community 14 33.33

Total 42 100

These three groups of interviewees were asked two sets of similar questions. The first set of

questions concerned their personal details which are presented in Table 6.4 The second set of

questions revolved around their experiences, observations, and perceptions of how the Lingayen

Gulf has been managed over time. In this set of questions, tabular presentation of responses

across the three groups of interviewees was used to illustrate their responses clearly, supported

by textual description/explanation.

The first group which involved staff of the national agencies primarily responsible for coastal

management, BFAR and DENR, in the Philippines, particularly in the Lingayen Gulf, will be the

focus of this chapter. The succeeding chapters will explore the management accounts and

130

insights of the two other groups of interviewees. For purpose of clarity, responses from the

BFAR and DENR interviewees will be presented individually.

Interviewees from BFAR and DENR were chosen based on their participation and involvement

in managing the resources of the Lingayen Gulf. Two of the interviewees had doctoral degrees,

five held master degrees, and one was a bachelor degree holder. Most of the interviewees had

been working in their respective agencies for over 20 years, and all had been working in their

respective agencies for more than 10 years. In addition, seven of the interviewees had taken up

courses related to environmental management, whereas four had fisheries/coastal management-

related educational backgrounds. One interviewee had completed bachelor and master degrees in

public administration. The organisations in which these interviewees worked are not specifically

identified to protect the confidentiality of the interview (see Table 6.4).

Table 6.4 Basic Personal Profiles of BFAR and DENR Interviewees

Interviewees

(8)

Position Organisation Number

of Years

in Service

Education

1 Head National Agency 22 PhD in

Environmental

Management

2 Head National Agency 21 PhD in Marine

Biology

3 Assistant

Head

National Agency 23 Master in Marine

Biology

4 Coordinator National Agency 18 Master in Public

Administration

5 Deputy Head National Agency 15 Master in

Agriculture

6 Division

Head

National Agency 21 Master in

Environmental

Science

7 Senior

Supervisor

National Agency 20 Master in Fisheries

Technology

8 Senior Staff National Agency 14 Bachelor of Science

in Marine Biology

The interviews involving BFAR and DENR staff who were directly engaged in managing the

Lingayen Gulf covered their general observations, perceptions and opinions regarding the

131

management of the coastal resources of the Gulf. The responses generated from these interviews

provided essential information for understanding the involvement of the national agencies in the

Lingayen Gulf management. The responses also helped bring to light whether jurisdictional

conflicts between these two agencies, as indicated in related literature, still existed or had already

been resolved.

Each of the eight interviewees revealed a unique pattern of responses. During the interview

some participants were complacent; a few were too concerned that the confidentiality of their

responses might affect them professionally. Others were open in sharing their opinions about

how the national government, of which they were a part, dealt with coastal management for the

Lingayen Gulf, and on how they participated in the management process.

The staff members of the BFAR and the DENR were interviewed separately, on different dates

and locations. All interviewees were asked similar questions. Transcripts of the interviews were

divided into two groups, one for BFAR and one for DENR, to facilitate interpretation and

analysis. The following section presents the interviews in detail.

6.4.1 Coastal management problems

The first line of inquiry involved the perceptions of the interviewees regarding the coastal

management problems in the Lingayen Gulf.

What are the major management issues relating to the Lingayen Gulf?

BFAR Responses

The questions drew out different responses; however, elements that were common to all the

interviewees’ responses were notable during the interview (see Table 6.5). Three of the

interviewees (75%) identified a similar list of problems and culprits. A typical response

generated was:

132

despite management efforts illegal fishing activities, particularly dynamite fishing,

overfishing practice, coastal pollution from household, industries and fish cages, as

well as weak enforcement of fishery laws in the gulf are still rampant.

Table 6.5 Lingayen Gulf Coastal Problems Identified by BFAR Interviewees

Interviewees Coastal Problems in the Lingayen Gulf Identified by the Interviewees

Illegal Fishing Overfishing Coastal

pollution

Weak law

enforcement

1 x x x x

2 x x x x

3 x x x x

4 x

As pointed out by a senior member of the BFAR staff, the incidence of illegal fishing activities,

particularly blast fishing, had been a serious concern in the Lingayen Gulf, such being the most

common practice among the fishermen of the Lingayen Gulf. The problem was basically caused

by unregulated trading of illegal fishing paraphernalia and the chemicals used to generate

explosive devices, which happened due to the ineffective enforcement of fishery laws and

ordinances in the Gulf area, he added.

Another high-ranking BFAR staff member revealed that illegal fishing became a ‘lifestyle’ (i.e.,

common practice) in the Lingayen Gulf, not only for the poverty-stricken members of the

community but also among big-time fishermen. He said that these fishermen, particularly

operators of commercial fishing vessels28

, were also one of the most serious threats to marine life

and marginal29

fishermen.

The interviewee further explained that the commercial fishing vessels which were prevalent in

the Lingayen Gulf were normally used for deep-sea fishing on the Philippine coasts. BFAR

issues licences to commercial fishing vessel operators, including the gear to be utilised in fishing.

28 In the Philippines, commercial fishing vessels have three classifications: (1) small-scale commercial fishing which refers to

fishing with passive or active gear utilising fishing vessels of 3.1 gross tonnage (GT) up to 20 GT; (2) medium-scale commercial

fishing which utilises active gears and vessels of 20.1 GT up to 150 GT; and (3) large-scale commercial fishing which utilises

active gears and vessels of more than 150 GT (DA 1999).

29 Marginal fishermen are also referred to as small-scale fishermen in the Philippines.

133

However, due to a minimal licencing fee, speedy licence application procedure and weak fishery

law enforcement in relation to commercial fishing violations, commercial fishing vessels had

proliferated significantly in the Lingayen Gulf area. As observed by another senior agency staff

member who was also part of the interview, ‘the sea has loads of commercial fishing boats that

are competing with marginal fishers for a small number of fish in the Gulf.’

He further noted that marginal fishermen were severely affected by the existence of numerous

commercial fishing vessels. These fishing vessels contributed significantly to the reduction in the

fishery production in the Gulf, forcing marginal fishermen to fish illegally in order to be able to

partake of limited fish stocks. Moreover, the interviewee revealed that encroachment by

commercial fishing vessels was also widespread in the Lingayen Gulf. Encroachment happened

when the commercial fishing vessel which was licenced in a certain municipality went to other

municipal waters to fish. According to the interviewee, this had been a common scenario in the

Philippines, particularly in the Lingayen Gulf, where coastal patrol staff, funding, and facilities

such as patrol boats, flashlights and global positioning system (GPS) were limited.

In terms of the issue of overfishing, mentioned by three BFAR interviewees, a high dependence

on fishing as the primary source of income was seen to be one of the major factors in the gradual

exhaustion of the Gulf’s coastal resources. It was made clear by the interviewees that low family

income, low educational attainment, lack of employment, a high population growth rate, and a

lack of awareness of CRM were the most prevalent problems associated with overfishing in the

Lingayen Gulf.

Coastal pollution, as all interviewees observed over the past few years, was another problem that

caused the Gulf to be drained of its resources. But, according to one interviewee (25%), coastal

pollution was the only major problem in the area. The interviewee, who has a background in

hazardous/toxic waste management, elaborated that pollution from different sources had caused a

multitude of problems such as eutrophication, loss of marine life, sedimentation, and destruction

of the coastal habitat. These problems associated with coastal pollution, the interviewee

continued, not only endangered the health and welfare of the coastal environment in the

Lingayen Gulf, but also threatened the social well-being and livelihood of the people who

134

depended largely on the coastal resources. Additionally, the interviewee further explained that

fishkill, as a result of pollution aggravated by overstocking of fish in fish cages and overfeeding

which commonly generated high levels of nutrients from fertilisers, was another serious problem

confronting the Gulf. Similarly, the interviewee identified improper disposal of waste and related

harmful chemicals from fishponds and fish cages to nearby coastal areas in the Gulf, and the

poor waste disposal practices of industrial and domestic establishments, as serious coastal issues

that contributed significantly to the degradation of the Gulf’s environment. To him, illegal

fishing and overfishing activities were minor issues that the government could easily address

through provision of alternative livelihoods for the fishing community, or strict enforcement of

coastal laws.

On a different note, all interviewees hinted that part of the reason why rampant fishery violation

was still occurring in the Gulf, despite intensive information drives against illegal fishing and its

effects to the coast, was the widespread poverty in the coastal area. Moreover, lack of discipline

among local fishers could be another trigger of the problem, they alleged. The interviewees,

however, admitted that strict enforcement of coastal laws in the Lingayen Gulf area can prevent

the incidence of illegal fishing activities. One senior interviewee claimed that illegal fishing had

already become a ‘lifestyle’ among the local fishers, poor or not. Another interviewee provided

this viewpoint, which was substantiated by other interviewees:

There are still a lot of people who are fishing illegally not mainly because of poverty.

For them, fishing illegally is easy money so they don’t bother looking for alternative

source of income.

Dynamite fishing was the most common form of illegal fishing activity in the Gulf, the

interviewees generally affirmed, because it was inexpensive and easy to produce. One of them

explained that dynamite, or otherwise known in the local community as a homemade bomb, is

set off under water to kill fish for an easy harvest. As a result, the dead fish simply floated to the

surface and were collected for sale or personal consumption. It was common knowledge among

illegal fishers that the explosives used had the potential risk of severely damaging the coastal

ecosystem, rendering the coastal environment unhealthy for future generations. But, because of

135

the easy and lucrative gains from dynamite fishing, it had become an uncontrollable fishing

practice within the Lingayen Gulf area.

DENR Responses

The pattern of responses from BFAR revealed similar views to those expressed by all DENR

staff interviewed (see Table 6.6). These DENR interviewees identified dynamite fishing,

overfishing practice and coastal pollution from households, industries and fish cages, as well as

weak enforcement of fishery laws, as the main culprits of the rapid deterioration of the coastal

resources of the Lingayen Gulf.

Table 6.6 Lingayen Gulf Coastal Problems Identified by the DENR Interviewees

Interviewees Coastal Problems in Lingayen Gulf Identified by the Interviewees

Dynamite

fishing

Overfishing Coastal

pollution

Weak Law

enforcement

Influx of

transient

fishermen

1 x x x x x

2 x x x x

3 x x x x

4 x x x x

Three of these interviewees (75%) identified four common coastal problems besetting the

Lingayen Gulf. One interviewee (25%), however, identified five coastal problems. This

interviewee claimed that, aside from the four major coastal problems commonly identified, the

influx of transient fishermen into the outskirts of the Lingayen Gulf area had also caused severe

pressure on the health of the Gulf. Based on the interviewee’s standpoint, these fishermen, along

with their families, came from neighbouring provinces. They built makeshift shelters and lived

near the coast for easy access to fishing and other income-generating activities that could be

derived from the sea, such as shell gathering, food vending for beachgoers, begging for alms,

among others, the interviewee imparted. Furthermore, according to the interviewee, laws on

illegal squatters in coastal areas in the Philippines were not strictly enforced, particularly in

coastal areas where proper tourism facilities and activities were non-existent.

136

Generally, DENR interviewees, like BFAR interviewees, stressed that their active participation

in the previous management initiatives had helped to address the coastal problems that had

confronted the Lingayen Gulf. All DENR interviewees listed the management undertakings they

had carried out in an attempt to deal with the various issues surrounding the Gulf. They claimed

that they collaborated with the LGUs in the Lingayen Gulf in instituting coastal resource

management programs, particularly in the municipal agriculture and fisheries offices. The

interviewees pointed out that part of the collaboration was the provision of technical and

financial assistance to each LGU. The technical assistance was provided through the conduct of

training, workshops, and information, education and communication drives. The financial

assistance was intended to fund coastal management programs in different coastal areas

surrounding the Gulf. These programs, they said, included coastal assessment, community

organising, and coastal clean-up campaigns, among others.

On a different note, half of the responses highlighted a provision in the Republic Act 7160,

emphasising that Lingayen Gulf LGUs shall have the responsibility and jurisdiction of their

respective coastal areas. Clearly, the point that the interviewees wanted to raise was that their

role was merely to assist and supervise the LGUs in managing their coastal resources, and not to

directly carry out the coastal management activities for them. This sentiment was also raised by

three BFAR interviewees.

The other half of DENR interviewees, however, argued that based on the power and functions

bestowed upon BFAR and DENR by the Philippine government, they had the responsibility to

protect, preserve and conserve the coastal resources. Both agencies claimed that they performed

their duties in accordance with their official mandate. However, according to these interviewees,

what prevented them from seeing positive results from their management efforts was the lack of

cooperation of the other sectors involved in the management of the Lingayen Gulf, particularly

the community sector. This sector, the interviewees claimed, perennially violated fishery laws by

engaging in illegal fishing activities. Details of issues related to the lack of sectoral cooperation

in the management of the Lingayen Gulf will be discussed later in this chapter.

137

6.4.2 Previous management interventions

In the Lingayen Gulf, various management efforts had taken place. These efforts included the

LGCAMP, the LGCAMC, the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project, and the ICRMP. These management

interventions were initiated by both the local and national government. Some received technical

and financial assistance from foreign donors such as the USAID, ASEAN, and the Government

of the Netherlands. As most, if not all, of these efforts had failed to bring positive management

results in terms in the improvement of coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf, interviewees from

BFAR and DENR were asked for their own observations and experiences regarding previous

coastal management programs in the Lingayen Gulf. Specifically, all the interviewees in both

agencies were asked the following question:

Do you think that the previous management attempts in the Lingayen Gulf were successful?

Please explain your answer.

BFAR Responses

When asked about the previous management interventions in the Lingayen Gulf, BFAR

interviewees provided varied responses (see Table 6.7). Three interviewees (75%) responded

positively to the question. They claimed that they played a vital role in the previous management

interventions in the Lingayen Gulf by helping mitigate the impacts of coastal degradation in the

area. The interviewees admitted that although the Lingayen Gulf still faced coastal problems the

despite various management initiatives, what was important to them was that they had done their

job and will continue to do so to fully address the problem.

Table 6.7 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on Previous Coastal Management Attempts in

the Lingayen Gulf

Level of Perception Number of Participants Percentage (%)

Successful 3 75

Not successful 1 25

Total 4 100

138

On the other hand, one junior staff (25%), who worked in the municipal fisheries section in the

Lingayen Gulf before joining BFAR, revealed that the inability of the municipal government to

prioritise coastal management programs had caused failure in attempts to address coastal

problems in the Gulf. She further claimed:

The Municipal Mayors are always targeting and supporting infrastructure projects. I

have worked with three Mayors in my 12 years of employment in the municipal

government, and around 90 percent of the projects and programs that we catered to

were on infrastructure, such as road widening, reconstruction or improvement of

municipal building, and paving of small streets, among others… Environmental

projects were given the least priority. This is one serious reason why coastal problems

in the Gulf remain unsolved until now.

DENR Responses

Both BFAR and DENR interviewees shared the same sentiments (see Table 6.8). Three DENR

interviewees (75%) agreed that previous coastal management initiatives in the Gulf were

successful. These interviewees asserted that they performed their duties according to the dictates

of the law, and believed that they contributed positively to the success of the previous

management initiatives in the Gulf. The interviewees claimed that some coastal problems still

existed despite the fact that they had performed their functions, these problems were beyond

their control. In their view, there were other actors in managing the Gulf whose contributions

were also worth evaluating to determine whether they, too, had done a good job. They further

claimed that they had been actively involved in all the coastal management activities, including

mangrove reforestation, community organising, and coastal clean-up activities, in all

municipalities in the Lingayen Gulf, and these had generally been successful.

Table 6.8 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on Previous Coastal Management Attempts in

the Lingayen Gulf


Successful 3 75

Not successful 1 25

Total 4 100

139

One of the three interviewees maintained that the incidence of coastal malpractices, such as

destructive fishing and illegal commercial fishing operations, had been minimised particularly in

the western region30

of the Gulf where coral reefs were mostly found. This information,

however, was not confirmed by a senior interviewee (25%) who claimed that the previous

coastal management initiatives had not done much to address the Gulf’s many coastal problems.

According to this interviewee, written reports and documents on the present status of Lingayen

Gulf showed that coastal problems such as blast and poison fishing, overfishing, pollution, and

weak law enforcement remained unabated despite several management attempts to address them.

6.4.3 Decentralisation

The Philippine governance system experienced a substantial bureaucratic transformation in 1991.

It was during the decentralisation period that a considerable number of the responsibilities of the

national government, including BFAR and DENR, were devolved to the local government. The

devolution of authority has given the local government independence in the performance of their

duties, particularly in carrying out coastal management activities.

During the early period of decentralisation in the country, acceptance of the new bureaucratic

arrangements by different sectors of the society varied. But for BFAR and DENR, the new

arrangements made their jobs easier as major responsibilities for the management of the vast area

of coastal resources in the country including the Lingayen Gulf, were devolved to the local

government. In other words, all coastal management activities were implemented at the local

government level although BFAR and DENR still maintained an institutional presence as per

legal mandate. The next line of inquiry in the interviews concerned the effect of government

decentralisation on the performance of the interviewees’ duties and responsibilities. To be

precise, the interviewees were asked the following question:

Do you think that the Lingayen Gulf management was affected when the national responsibilities

for coastal management were devolved to the local government through the decentralisation of

the Philippine government in 1991?

30 The western region of the Lingayen Gulf comprises the LGUs of Alaminos, Anda, Bani and Bolinao. Fishing pressure is

intensive in this region as around 60% of all the fishermen in Lingayen Gulf dwell in the area (Cruz-Trinidad et al. 2009).

140

BFAR Responses

All BFAR interviewees (100%) believed that the government decentralisation in the country had

not affected their role in the management of the coastal resources, particularly the Lingayen Gulf

(see Table 6.9). The interviewees stated that they still continued to assist and collaborate with

LGUs to manage their resources, as they are legally bound to do so. One interviewee mentioned,

by referring to a written document compiled by DENR, that together with DENR they still

performed the following tasks despite devolution of coastal management responsibilities to the

local government level:

Continue to provide policy direction on CRM implementation in the country,

particularly to the LGUs, as enumerated in the medium term fisheries plan

Provide technical assistance to LGUs in the development of CRM plans for their

respective municipal waters

Assist in the organisation of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils

(FARMCs)

Provide services to LGUs, FARMCs, and fishermen associations in the conduct of

resource studies and research on which local fisheries management measures can be

based

Provide training and extension services on various aspects of CRM

Assist LGUs in the establishment of fish sanctuaries through site evaluation studies and,

depending on the LGU’s desire, enact Fisheries Administrative Orders (FAO) to

support the sanctuaries

Provide logistical and institutional assistance to the organisation and operation of

fishery law enforcement task forces at the local level, including the establishment of

cyanide detection laboratories

Coordinate with LGUs and ensure that existing FAOs are being implemented

Continue to regulate fishing activities beyond municipal waters

(Note: Transcription from interview conducted on 14 June 2008)

141

Table 6.9 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Effect of Decentralisation on Its Coastal

Management Responsibilities


Effective - -

Not effective 4 100

Other comments - -

Total 4 100

Two interviewees, in support of the opinion expressed above by another interviewee, observed

that there had been no difference in their participation in coastal management before or during

the decentralisation period. One interviewee noted:

…before decentralisation we were actively involved in coastal management activities

in all municipalities covered within the Lingayen Gulf and other neighbouring coastal

municipalities. When decentralisation was implemented in 1992, we were still very

much part of the management and decision-making processes in the Lingayen Gulf.

Similarly, a senior BFAR officer noted that while they still maintained active participation in the

Lingayen Gulf management, their involvement was confined to supervision. He clarified his

point as follows:

Prior to the era of decentralisation, BFAR was directly managing the coastal areas in

the provinces of Pangasinan and La Union, where the Lingayen Gulf sits strategically.

The DENR, on the other hand, was managing the mangrove areas. But now, since

LGUs are directly managing their coastal resources we are only acting as their

advisers. This means that we give the LGUs suggestions and recommendations on

how their resources will be properly managed.

DENR Responses

Similarly, since the devolution, many functions relating to coastal management have been

retained by DENR, such as the implementation of environmental impact assessment and the

management of the protected areas under the National Integrated Protected Area System

(NIPAS), as well as ecosystem research. The DENR interviews had various views on the effect

of decentralisation in coastal management (see Table 6.10). One interviewee (25%) commented

as follows.

142

The devolution of authority from the national government, of which DENR is a part,

to the local government has given us an easier job now, particularly in terms of

managing the coastal resources. One instance is the management of the Lingayen

Gulf. The Gulf is now being managed by the LGUs concerned. This should have been

done many years before decentralisation because, come to think of it, the LGUs are

located in the heart of each municipality within the Lingayen Gulf. They know what is

happening in their respective areas, their local culture, their political environment, and

the sentiments of the people. The move for decentralisation has not only liberated us

from huge workloads, but it has also made collaboration between them and their

people a lot easier in addressing local issues. Regarding the question of whether our

job was affected by decentralisation, I think yes but in a positive way.

Table 6.10 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Effect of Decentralisation on Its Coastal

Management Responsibilities


Effective 1 25

Not effective 2 50

Other comments 1 25

Total 4 100

On the other hand, uncertainties emerged in the responses of two interviewees (50%) who were

initially reluctant to answer the question. Both interviewees claimed that they were not able to

distinguish the difference between centralised and decentralised government as regards their

coastal management functions. According to these interviewees, their roles in Lingayen Gulf

coastal management had remained an important support system before and during the

decentralisation era.

Finally, one interviewee (25%), who did not directly address the question, expressed an opinion

bluntly claiming that the question on the effect of decentralisation on service delivery was more

suitable for the local government because a number of responsibilities from the national

government, particularly from BFAR and DENR, had been turned over to them. She stated:

I think it is the LGUs who are more affected because they were tasked with bigger

management responsibilities in their coastal areas. They are the proper authority to

respond to the question on the effect of decentralisation on their performance as well

as its effect on the management of the Lingayen Gulf.

143

6.4.4 Interagency cooperation/coordination in Lingayen Gulf Management

The interviewees from BFAR and DENR were also asked about their capacity and their working

relationship in co-managing the Lingayen Gulf. The responses generated from both agencies on

the following question reflected conflicting views.

What can you say about inter-agency cooperation/coordination in relation to the Lingayen Gulf

management?

The term coordination in this question refers to the work relationships of the various agencies

directly involved in managing the Lingayen Gulf, such as national government agencies,

particularly BFAR and DENR, LGUs and the community sector. These agencies have the

primary management responsibilities for the Gulf’s resources. In this particular question, BFAR

interviewees were asked to comment on how DENR and LGUs work with them in managing the

Lingayen Gulf, and provided dissimilar opinions (see Table 6.11); similarly, DENR interview

participants were asked about their work relationships with BFAR and LGUs, and also gave

varied responses, (see Table 6.12). Responses of BFAR and DENR interviewees are listed

below.

BFAR Responses

The first BFAR interviewee (25%) who was asked to respond to the question gave a positive

answer, stating that BFAR and DENR were working well together in managing the coastal

resources not only in the Lingayen Gulf, but nationwide. The interviewee cited instances in

which BFAR, DENR, LGUs and the community sector sat together in meetings to discuss

management undertakings for the Lingayen Gulf, and collaborate on coastal management

projects to manage the Gulf’s resources.

Table 6.11 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on Interagency Cooperation in the Lingayen



Good 1 25

Not good 3 75

Total 4 100

144

The three other interviewees (75%), however, provided negative feedback when asked about

their relationship with DENR. The interviewees pointed to ‘overlapping functions’ that had

become the cause of major conflict between BFAR and DENR in carrying out their respective

responsibilities. The interviewees claimed that the issue of such conflicts could have been

addressed easily if DENR had consulted with them prior to commencing a coastal management

activity. They pointed out that there had been some instances when they had consulted with the

DENR to work on a coastal management activity, but had been surprised to discover that the

DENR had already done the job. The same interviewees also claimed that DENR did not

normally involve them in coastal management programs or projects, although the work was

supposed to be a shared responsibility. In the exact words of one senior interviewee, which were

supported by another interviewee:

The DENR will do the project alone if there is a huge amount of funding involved.

This has happened many times in the past particularly on mangrove rehabilitation

projects. We would only learn about the project when it was already finished through

some concerned members of the community.

Proper coordination which, according to a high-ranking interviewee, should mean direct dialogue

and collaboration between and among the sectors involved in the management process, was what

BFAR wanted with the other agencies involved in managing the Lingayen Gulf. Being a

government bureau with an undivided responsibility, focused solely on coastal management,

BFAR, the interviewee indicated, should be consulted whenever a coastal management activity

would be carried out as per legal mandate. As a section head of the agency revealed:

We could not avoid having conflicting responsibilities with DENR and other agencies

if there were no common agreement among us regarding managing our resources. It is

very difficult to deal with the DENR personnel when it comes to coordination, they

are a bigger agency covering the whole Philippine environment. We are just a dot

compared to them. They want us to consult with them all the time before we start any

coastal management initiative in the Gulf, but they hardly approach us for any activity

that they do in relation to Lingayen Gulf management. Most of the time we find out

the activities that they have done from the community, or sometimes from them after

the work has been done. I think this is one reason why interagency cooperation

regarding coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf is hard to achieve.

Surprisingly, none of the BFAR interviewees mentioned management conflicts with the LGUs as

one of the main actors involved in managing the coastal resources of the Gulf. According to the

145

interviewees, LGUs were easy to work with. They were committed, particularly the chief

executives, in pooling their resources, combining capacities and complementing comparative

advantages, as well as sharing lessons and experiences for the development of their coastal areas.

However, despite an easy work relationship with the LGUs, two interviewees accused the LGUs

of being the weakest link in terms of the capability and capacity to carry out their functions.

Most of the LGUs, the interviewees observed, had poor management skills and little interest in

coastal resource management. They further claimed that the negative responses indicated that

LGUs were not able to work independently to manage their municipal waters; they relied too

heavily on the national agencies to initiate management activities. One instance specified by the

interviewees was the inadequate action of the LGUs in combating illegal fishing; they even

accused some of their officials of condoning illegal practices. According to the interviewees,

these officials included some chief executives and police officers who were believed to be

benefiting from illegal fishing activities. Thus, they claimed, without the intervention of the

national agencies involved in Lingayen Gulf management, the problem of illegal fishing would

be very difficult to control.

DENR Responses

It was clear from the interview, particularly regarding this question, that the DENR interviewees

were quite complacent about their responsibility and their participation in the Lingayen Gulf

management. Two interviewees (50%) stated that DENR’s collaboration with the other agencies

to protect coastal resources of the Gulf was very essential in the overall management of the

Philippine environment. These interviewees also commended the role of the community sector in

being an active member of the Lingayen Gulf management team.

Table 6.12 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on Interagency Cooperation in Lingayen Gulf

Coastal Management


Good 2 50

Not good 2 50

Total 4 100

146

The two other interviewees (50%), however, felt that the community sector’s participation was

‘below average’ as some members of the community seemed to be indifferent about the welfare

of the coastal resources. As evidence, one of these interviewees, a senior staff member,

elaborated that DENR had received and documented reports of illegal fishing in the Lingayen

Gulf, mostly involving local fisherfolk. To the interviewee this meant that the problems in the

Lingayen Gulf had remained unaddressed. The interviewees suggested more training and

information campaigns were needed for coastal management in all coastal municipalities within

the Gulf area in order to fully attain integration in managing the Gulf’s coastal environment.

These interviewees further asserted that there were times when different agencies concerned with

the management of the Gulf were confused about their management responsibilities. According

to them, the confusion was primarily due to the flawed legal mandates, particularly the Local

Government Code 1991 and Republic Act 8550, otherwise called the Fisheries Code of the

Philippines 1998. The interviewees claimed that these legal mandates contained provisions that

allowed the BFAR and DENR to have common responsibilities for coastal management in the

Philippines such as mangroves management, policy formulation, and supervision of the LGUs,

causing serious setbacks in the effective management of the country’s coastal environment, in

general, and the Lingayen Gulf, in particular.

The DENR interviewees indicated that the management conflicts among different agencies were

mainly caused by inappropriate legislation. To them good coordination, which required constant

communication and consultation, and mutual agreement among all sectors and agencies involved

in managing the resources of the area, was an important exercise in order to further improve the

conditions in the Lingayen Gulf.

6.4.5 Importance of enacting new coastal laws for Lingayen Gulf coastal management

The management of the Lingayen Gulf is governed by legal instruments. These laws are

implemented nationally, particularly by the BFAR and DENR, as well as locally in the municipal

level. Despite the existence of coastal management related laws, the interviewees from BFAR

and DENR were asked to respond to the following question:

147

Is there a need to enact coastal laws that specifically address Lingayen Gulf management? What

laws? By whom?

BFAR Responses

When asked whether there was a need to legislate new fishery or coastal-related laws in

Lingayen Gulf, all BFAR interviewees expressed a fairly negative attitude (see Table 6.13). One

comment common to all the interviewees (100%) in response to the question was: ‘We have

enough coastal laws. They just need to be properly implemented’.

Table 6.13 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Importance of Enacting New Coastal

Laws for the Lingayen Gulf

Response Number of Participants Percentage (%)

Yes - -

No 4 100

Total 4 100

By stating that there were sufficient legal instruments governing the resources of the Lingayen

Gulf, the interviewees were referring to the enactment of coastal management related laws such

as municipal fishery ordinances (MFOs) in every LGU within the Gulf area; Republic Act 7160,

which was the basis of the decentralisation of the Philippine government, including the

devolution of coastal management responsibilities from the national to the local government; and

Republic Act 8550 as the overall legal framework for the management of the fishery resources in

the country.

According to the interviewees, however, the MFOs were not properly implemented, which meant

that the MFOs were unable to control the problems confronting the resources of the Gulf. These

problems included the proliferation of illegal fishing activities, pollution, squatting along

seashores, and the growing conflict among various agencies, such as BFAR, DENR and LGUs,

tasked to manage the Gulf, the interviewee explained.

148

With regards to the implementation of Republic Act 7160, the interviewees expressed varying

views. Three of the interviewees claimed that the Act mandated the LGUs to be responsible for

its implementation while the national government was only supposed to assist them with their

management programs. On the other hand, one interviewee observed:

...while the Republic Act 7160 is designed to delegate national government functions

to the local government, the national government has the responsibility to work hand

in hand with the LGUs to implement it. In the first place, when these responsibilities

were delegated to the LGUs it was a common knowledge that they were not prepared

for a huge responsibility. So if the Republic Act 7160 is not properly implemented at

some point the national government should be held liable as well.

DENR Responses

The responses of the BFAR interviewees were supported by all the DENR interviewees (100%)

on the question of the importance of enacting new coastal laws (see Table 6.14). The DENR

interviewees emphasised that there was no need for the Lingayen Gulf to enact additional laws to

govern its resources. According to these interviewees, strict implementation of the existing legal

mandates was what the area urgently required. In addition, a senior interviewee of the agency,

who worked in one of the Lingayen Gulf LGUs before joining DENR, noted:

...Aside from numerous laws enacted for coastal management in the country including

the Lingayen Gulf, revision of certain legal instruments is a matter of concern. I am

referring here to MFOs which need urgent revision. Most of the provisions embodied

in the MFOs are no longer appropriate to the present time. The coastal environment in

the Gulf in its entirety, including issues, conditions, management practices, as well as

the management needs of many of the Lingayen Gulf municipalities, has now

changed. The outdated MFOs no longer serve any purpose and the risk of these legal

mandates not being implemented is high.

Table 6.14 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Importance of Enacting New Coastal

Laws for the Lingayen Gulf


Yes - -

No 4 100

Total 4 100

149

Similarly, another DENR interviewee claimed that one of the primary reasons why MFOs are not

properly implemented is that

Most LGUs are not technically prepared to implement coastal management laws. First,

they don’t have sufficient background on coastal management, but related series of

training are provided to them by us (DENR) and BFAR to address this issue; second,

the LGUs have limited funds, affecting the implementation of any development

programs including coastal management; third, the elected municipal officials only

have three-year terms to serve which is apparently not enough to sustain coastal

management programs. Worse, when the next elected officials have management

priorities other than coastal management, then the initial efforts of previous officials to

address the issues surrounding the Lingayen Gulf are compromised.

6.4.6 Community sector representation in Lingayen Gulf management

Community participation in coastal management is essential in providing local or indigenous

knowledge to supplement scientific information. It also helps in monitoring the coastal resources,

dealing with coastal issues, and improving overall resource management (Pomeroy 1995). In the

Philippines, there are different forms of community organisations including fishermen and

farmers’ associations, people’s organisations, women’s organisations, community cooperatives,

Bantay Dagat and City/Municipality/Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management

Councils. The term ‘representation’ in this section specifically refers to the community

organisations mentioned in the preceding statement.

The two primary national agencies – BFAR and DENR – responsible for coastal management in

the Philippines were also asked about the involvement of the community sector in coastal

resource management relating to the management of the Lingayen Gulf. The question asked was

How is the community sector represented in the overall management and decision making

processes? How does it perform?

Different patterns of responses were recorded from the interviewees representing BFAR and

DENR. While both agencies considered that community participation was important in

sustaining coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf, the responses yielded varying perceptions

150

from the interviewees on the degree of participation of the community sector in coastal

management. Dissimilar observations of the interviewees on the support given by the LGUs to

the community sector were also noted in the interview. The following subsections highlight the

responses of BFAR and DENR interviewees.

BFAR Responses

The interviewees generally (100%) claimed that the community sector as direct stakeholder of

the coastal resources was always represented in any coastal management activities in the

Lingayen Gulf (see Table 6.15). According to the interviewees, by law, the community sector

should form part of the management team for coastal management. To demonstrate the point,

one interviewee read out two relevant provisions from Republic Act 8550 regarding the role of

the community sector in coastal management as follows:

‘Sec. 73. The Municipal/City Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management

Councils (M/CFARMCs)

The M/CFARMCs shall be created in each of the municipalities and cities abutting

municipal waters. However, the LGU may create the Barangay (village) Fisheries and

Aquatic Resources Management Councils (BFARMCs) and the Lake-wide Fisheries

and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (LFARMCs whenever necessary. Such

BFARMCs and LFARMCs shall serve in an advisory capacity to the LGUs.

Sec. 74. Functions of the M/CFARMCs. - The M/CFARMCs shall exercise the

following functions:

Assist in the preparation of the Municipal Fishery Development Plan and submit

such plant to the Municipal Development Council;

Recommend the enactment of municipal fishery ordinances to the sangguniang

bayan/sangguniang panlungsod (municipal council/city council) through its

Committee on Fisheries;

Assist in the enforcement of fishery laws, rules and regulations municipal waters;

Advise the sangguniang bayan/panlungsod on fishery matters thru its Committee

on Fisheries, if such as been organized; and

Perform such other functions which may be assigned by the sangguniang

bayan/panlungsod.’

(Note: Transcription from interview conducted on 16 June 2008)

The interviewee added that of the 17 members who constituted an M/CFARMC there were 11

community fisherfolk representatives, who, by law, should comprise seven municipal fishers,

one fishworker and three commercial fishers.

151

Table 6.15 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on Community Representation in the Lingayen



Represented 4 100

Not represented - -

Total 4 100

Two senior interviewees revealed that the community lacked commitment in terms of

participating in coastal management activities, although they were constantly invited and

encouraged to be involved in coastal management undertakings. These interviewees explained

that the members of the fishing community sector were always busy with their livelihood,

particularly fishing, which took a lot of their time. The two other interviewees, however, asserted

that lack of information dissemination from LGUs had made the community sector unaware of

the coastal management initiatives happening in their area. In many cases, this was the reason

why the community sector did not participate in Lingayen Gulf management, as observed by the

two interviewees. Thus, it can be noted that, based on the interviewees’ comments, the

community sector was engaged in a weak form of participation with government in the Lingayen

Gulf coastal management. This is because despite the management and decision-making

authority bestowed upon the members of the community sector through formal legal mandates

the reality was somewhat different. Either community members failed to fulfil their

responsibilities for various reasons, particularly their necessary focus on their economic well-

being, or government bodies did not allow them to exercise their formally prescribed decision-

making authorities.

DENR Responses

All DENR interviewees (100%) also considered the important role of the community in

managing the resources of the Lingayen Gulf (see Table 6.16). The following comment was

typical of the responses from the interviewees:

Involving the community people in fisheries development and management gives

them decision-making roles. Their involvement makes them feel an integral part of the

management process, and this will enhance and strengthen their participation in any

coastal management initiatives. This means that when they are involved in the

152

management and decision-making processes the chances of reducing the degree of

illegal activities in the area are high’.

However, a high-ranking official, who also believed that community participation was an

important aspect of ICM, pointed out that most members of the community sector were illiterate

and were unaware of their rights in coastal management which limited their participation. The

interviewee further noted that another factor that had been impeding the community sector from

participating in coastal management activities was poverty. She remarked:

Because of poverty the local fishers would rather spend time looking for food to eat,

or looking for income-generating activities to support the daily needs of their families

than participate in mangrove rehabilitation projects, coastal clean-up or coastal

resources assessment among others. These activities, which require voluntary service

from the local fishers, will not provide them with the money and food that they need

for the day. Apparently, most of the local fishers will eat the food or spend the money

that they take home on a daily basis.

Table 6.16 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on Community Representation in Lingayen



Represented 4 100

Not represented - -

Total 4 100

Meanwhile, another interviewee commented that the government should allot development funds

for alternative livelihood projects, such as swine raising, candle making, food catering services

and handicrafts in the coastal areas including, the Lingayen Gulf. This interviewee believed that

by providing alternative projects, the dependence of the community fishers on coastal resources

will be reduced, and would be good for the welfare of the resources of the Gulf as well as for the

well-being of the present and future generations, particularly those who rely on fishing for food

and livelihood.

6.4.7 Information dissemination

Informing the members of the community sector about the status of the coastal environment

where they live and the benefits of managing the resources of the coastal zone is essential in

153

achieving sustainable coastal management. It is one means by which the community sector can

be empowered with the understanding, knowledge and skills to identify management issues and

properly address them. Such empowerment has the potential to assist members of community

sector to participate more effectively in the management of the Gulf. It can also enable them to

take collective action to deal with the problems besetting their coastal environment.

The interviewees from BFAR and DENR were asked about their roles in disseminating

information on the present state of the Lingayen Gulf, including the resource issues confronting

the Gulf, the legal instruments relating to the management of the Gulf, and the programs that had

been undertaken, are being undertaken, and will be undertaken in the Gulf. The exact wording of

the question is as follows:

Did your office provide adequate education and information campaigns regarding the poor

condition of the Gulf and the need to sustainably manage it? Were the local people informed

about the impact of coastal degradation (e.g., destructive fishing, overfishing, among others) on

their well-being, and on the welfare of the Lingayen Gulf environment?

BFAR Responses

All BFAR interviewees (100%) clearly stated that, by law, they were mandated to assist the

LGUs in working with the local community to disseminate information about the benefits of

nurturing the coastal environments, and the ill-effects of continued destructive fishing practices

in the Lingayen Gulf (see Table 6.17). However, they explained that information dissemination

for coastal management was a responsibility of the LGUs concerned because they worked

directly with the fishing community. The interviewees added that their involvement in IEC

campaigns was limited to the provision of financial or technical support when necessary.

Table 6.17 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Adequacy of IEC Campaigns for



Adequate 4 100

Inadequate - -

Total 4 100

154

Two of these interviewees noted that they had been involved in information dissemination in the

Lingayen Gulf area through media campaigns (print and broadcast), as technical assistance

requested by the LGUs. According to the interviewees, the use of radio broadcast and local

newspapers in information dissemination about the condition of the Lingayen Gulf, including the

management issues, development, and future management programs, started during the time of

the LGCAMC. The interviewees further noted that after the Commission was phased out in

2001, the local government continued IEC campaigns through the mass media with the help of

the national government.

DENR Responses

DENR interviewees (100%), on the other hand, claimed that they had been coordinating with the

community sector on matters relating to community organising, coastal management training,

and coastal clean-up activities, but not on information dissemination (see Table 6.18). One

interviewee who had been working in the Lingayen Gulf coastal programs since the inception of

LGCAMC stated:

DENR does not provide IEC to the community sector in the Lingayen Gulf area. Since

decentralisation, we do not deal with the local people directly any more. There could

have been some IEC campaigns initiated by LGUs, but we have not been part of them.

However, regarding the question of whether we have provided information about the

Lingayen Gulf, I must say yes; the pieces of information, though, are generic. We

have lots of information on the Lingayen Gulf on our website

(http://www.denr.gov.ph), including the existing coastal problems in the Gulf and our

contribution in addressing these problems, among others. These are the only forms of

information dissemination that we undertake in DENR. The LGUs can use the

Lingayen Gulf-related information in our website for their IEC drives. However, there

is only a very slim possibility for some members of the community sector to read our

online Lingayen Gulf information due to computer illiteracy.

Table 6.18 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Adequacy of IEC Campaigns for



Adequate 4 100

Inadequate - -

Total 4 100

http://www.denr.gov.ph/

155

In support of the above statement, another interviewee from DENR claimed that he learned of an

IEC initiative of the local government in the northwestern part of the Province of Pangasinan,

covering four municipalities. This particular IEC campaign involved incorporating coastal

management in the elementary school curriculum. The interviewee explained that coastal

management was being incorporated in the science subject which was allotted 30 minutes per

class, with the approval of school principals. He added that the northwestern part of the Province

of Pangasinan was a pilot project area. The intention to incorporate coastal management in the

education curricula of all primary schools within the Lingayen Gulf area would be implemented,

when the pilot project became successful, he continued. The interviewee concluded: ‘The project

is purely an LGU-initiative, we did not have anything to do with it but we highly commend the

LGUs for coming up with this bright idea’.

6.4.8 Performance assessment

The last area of inquiry involved assessing the organisational performance of the interviewees in

managing the resources of the Lingayen Gulf. Specifically, the interviewees were asked the

following question, related to their duties and responsibilities in the management of the Gulf:

Do you think you have fulfilled your role in managing the Lingayen Gulf?

The assessment was based on how the interviewees viewed their performance in terms of their

involvement in managing the resources of the Lingayen Gulf. A common thread of responses

was generated from the interviewees in both agencies (see Tables 6.19 and 6.20).

BFAR Responses

Three interviewees (75%) claimed that they carried out their duties satisfactorily and contributed

positively to the protection and conservation of the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf. They

also asserted that they worked with other sectors such as the LGUs, the community sector, and

some NGOs in the management of the Gulf. In support of the foregoing claim, a high-ranking

BFAR interviewee, despite being unable to present any form of documentation and evidence

made the following broad claim:

156

BFAR has made tremendous efforts in preserving the remaining healthy coastal areas

in the Lingayen Gulf, and in rehabilitating the damaged areas. Through direct

collaboration with the LGUs we have helped reduce illegal fishing activities, although

these still happen in some areas because of severe poverty in the region. We have

assisted the LGUs in developing marine sanctuaries which are important breeding

grounds for various fish species. Our agency has also been instrumental in mangrove

rehabilitation projects.

Table 6.19 BFAR Interviewees’ Perceptions on their Performance in the Lingayen Gulf

Coastal Management


Satisfied 3 75

Not Satisfied 1 25

Total 4 100

One interviewee (25%), however, admitted that he felt a sense of guilt about being paid by the

government to carry out coastal management responsibilities in the Lingayen Gulf but not seeing

anything positive from his involvement. The interviewee was referring to the failure of previous

attempts to address such issues as destructive fishing, coastal pollution, and poor legal and

institutional arrangements, especially since BFAR was a part of the management and decision-

making processes. He claimed that the main problem in Lingayen Gulf was the lack of

coordination particularly among government agencies that were mandated with the direct

responsibility for managing the Gulf’s coastal resources. Another problem, he claimed, was the

inadequate capacity of these agencies in implementing and enforcing coastal policies and laws.

He added that lack of coordination was a major problem in what was supposed to be an

integrative coastal management system: when one sector failed to deliver the whole integrative

management structure would collapse.

DENR Responses

Similar to the views expressed by one of the interviewees from BFAR, one senior DENR

interviewee (25%), also revealed a sense of guilt for maintaining his official function in the

agency for almost three decades, and for serving as a Lingayen Gulf coordinator for 15 years

with very little to show for his team’s strenuous efforts in the management of Gulf’s resources.

According to the interviewee, unless the different sectors and agencies involved were able to

reach a mutual understanding on the management of the Gulf, problems would continue. He

157

suggested that legal mandates on coastal management, not only in the Lingayen Gulf but all over

the country, should be re-evaluated as some laws overlapped and others were outdated. The

interviewee also felt frustrated with some members of the community sector for not participating

in the government programs for coastal management, and for persisting with illegal fishing

activities.

Table 6.20 DENR Interviewees’ Perceptions on their Performance in Lingayen Gulf

Coastal Management


Satisfied 3 75

Not Satisfied 1 25

Total 4 100

On a positive note, three interviewees (75%) answered the question confidently, all saying that

they had performed their official tasks to the best of their ability. They commented that the

problems besetting the Gulf were being carefully controlled. They further pointed out that

management strategies were beginning to fall into place.

6.5 Conclusion

This chapter mainly discussed BFAR and DENR being among the major pillars of coastal

management in the Philippines. In the Lingayen Gulf, these agencies have been working closely

with the local government and the community sector in effectively managing the resources of the

Gulf. This chapter also presented the interviews conducted for both agencies (four interviewees

in each agency) in which the respondents generally revealed that they had been granted legal

mandates to carry out essential coastal management responsibilities, including responsibilities

for overall supervision as well as collaboration with the local government. The respondents

affirmed that they had performed such responsibilities; nevertheless, they admitted that coastal

problems remained unaddressed in the Lingayen Gulf. Interestingly, this chapter revealed that

there was a similar pattern of responses among the interviewees in both BFAR and DENR. Thus,

the responses of both agencies will be joined together in anaylising the findings in Chapter 9 of

this thesis.

159

Chapter 7: The Local Government’s

Involvement in Lingayen Gulf Coastal

Management

7.1 Introduction

This chapter explores the involvement of the local government in the coastal management

practices in the Philippines, particularly in the Lingayen Gulf area. The Lingayen Gulf covers 18

LGUs, comprising 16 municipalities and two cities. These LGUs are mandated under the Local

Government Code of 1991 to assume the major responsibility for the management of their

resources including the coastal environment.

This chapter consists of two sections. The first section presents background material, focusing

largely on the role of the local government in the Lingayen Gulf management. This section also

discusses the evolution of coastal resource management in the Philippines, covering how the

LGUs became directly involved in managing their coastal areas and how they have been coping

with their coastal management responsibilities. The second section presents the findings from

interviews involving selected LGU staff who have knowledge and background on coastal

resource management. Specifically, the second section explores the experiences, observations

and viewpoints of the LGU interviewees in relation to their functions and duties in safeguarding

the welfare of Lingayen Gulf resources.

7.2 The Philippine Local Government

The local government is one of the two tiers of the Philippine government, the other tier being

the national level. The political subdivisions of the country’s local government include

160

provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. Under the present government set-up in which

most management roles are transferred from central to local government, the management of

coastal resources is delegated to the provinces, cities and municipalities. The barangays perform

coastal management functions with guidance and supervision from the municipalities and/or

cities.

One of the major developments of coastal management practice in the Philippines was the

decentralisation of government authorities in 1991 upon the enactment of the Local Government

Code of the Philippines (Courtney & White 2000). After 20 years since the enactment of the

Local Government Code, decentralisation has remained a widely debated topic in the country,

particularly in terms of its contribution to socio-economic and political development, and

governance systems and processes (Llanto 2009). According to the Governance and Local

Democracy Project (2001), which provided extensive technical assistance on issues related to

decentralisation, local governance and national policy, decentralisation in the Philippines has

brought the government closer to the people. This applies particularly to the community level

where decentralisation has provided the local government with management and decision-

making authority. Similarly, it has been argued that decentralisation has strengthened

participation by all sectors of the community in coastal management, and has promoted increased

transparency and accountability for local government in the delivery of basic services (DENR et

al. 2001d).

The evolution of local government autonomy in the Philippines is essentially based on a legal

provision enshrined under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, mandating the Congress of the

Philippines to enact a Local Government Code that will empower the local government to

manage their own resources, including the coastal areas. The Local Government Code was

implemented in 1992. It was instrumental in transforming the governance structure of the

country from a centralised structure to a decentralised one. Since the implementation of the

Local Government Code, the LGUs have been tasked with the delivery of basic services and

facilities, jurisdiction over their resources, and regulatory and legislative functions (DENR et al.

2001a). This involved tasking the local government with the principal role in managing the

coastal environment.

161

Generally, the coastal management role for local government covers responsibilities in relation

to planning, protection and preservation, enactment of legal mandates, regulation, revenue

generation, law enforcement, inter-governmental coordination including relations with

community organisations and NGOs as well as the provision of extension and technical services

(DENR et al. 2001d). These local government responsibilities for coastal management are

mandated by key items of national legislation and local government legal instrumentalities (see

Table 7.1).

Table 7.1 Key National Legislation and Local Government Mandates for Coastal

Management

Key Legislation LGU Mandate for CRM Illustrative Examples

RA 7160 - Local

Government Code

Planning Developing medium-term CRM

plans

Protection Protecting coastal habitats by

establishing marine sanctuaries

Preserving ecosystems in the

province

RA 8550 - Fisheries Code Legislation Enacting local ordinances in

accordance with the national laws

and policies

RA 7586 – National

Integrated Protected Areas

System (NIPAS)

Regulation Regulating the use of municipal

waters through zoning, granting

fishery privileges, imposing

rentals, fees and charges, and

registering and licensing

municipal fishers

Enforcement Enforcing national laws and local

ordinances that protect the

environment

RA 8435 – Agriculture and

Fisheries Modernization

Act (AFMA)

Intergovernmental relations Establishing co-management

regimes for CRM plan

implementation

Relations with POs and

NGOs

Extension and technical

services

Promoting participation in CRM

through training and the active

involvement of MFARMCs, POs,

and NGOs

Source:(DENR et al. 2001d)

162

The coastal management responsibilities listed in Table 7.1 are part of the basic services that the

local government is tasked to deliver, along with the provision of agricultural extension

including fisheries management, infrastructure support, and health care, among others (DILG

2005). Under decentralisation, the local government also has the primarily responsibility to

manage the municipal waters within its jurisdiction. This responsibility, as noted by Courtney et

al. (2002), includes granting of fishing privileges to both community and commercial fisherfolk.

Specifically, as Table 7.1 shows a wide range of functions including protection of coastal

resources, enactment and enforcement of coastal laws, and development of management plans

are delegated to the local government. This makes LGUs the principal players in implementing

policy for coastal resource management. However, the enactment of national legislation such as

the Local Government Code 191 and the Fisheries Code 1998, particularly concerning the

management of coastal resources, did not address the need of the local government for financial

capacity building (Courtney et al. 2002).

7.3 Specific roles of local government units in coastal management

Since the introduction of government decentralisation in the Philippines, provinces, cities and

municipalities have started taking charge of their own resources under the supervision of the

national government. In the case of coastal resources, the cities and municipalities are in the

forefront of the decision-making and management processes (Courtney et al. 2002). This is

manifested in the sole responsibilities granted to the cities and municipalities to manage their

municipal waters up to 15 kilometres from the shoreline (DILG 2005). Such responsibilities

require the cities and municipalities to look after the protection and conservation of the coastal

resources. The provinces have been granted a clear role in providing extension and technical

assistance and support to the municipalities and cities (DENR et al. 2001c). The specific roles

and function of the municipalities and/or cities, and the provinces in managing the coastal

environment are presented in Appendix 3.

The local government units in the Philippines are at the forefront of managing their resources,

including the coastal resources. However, despite the enactment of the Local Government Code,

national agencies still retain substantial authority over local government resources. For instance,

163

DENR still performs many environmental management duties that are directly or indirectly

related to coastal resources (DENR et al. 2001c). These duties include forest management, mines

and geosciences management, the management and implementation of environmental impact

assessment (EIA) system for businesses and projects, protected areas management, land

management and ecosystems research management.

The local governments had various management instruments for carrying out their functions in

the management of the Lingayen Gulf. These management instruments included legislation of

fishery laws, licencing agreements, formulation of management plan, and development and

provision of training programs, monitoring and evaluation, and information drives. Table 7.2

lists the coastal management tools for Lingayen Gulf utilised by the local government.

Enactment and implementation of fishery laws in the Lingayen Gulf is one of the management

tools used by the local government to address the coastal issues. One of the most significant legal

mandates enacted for the Gulf was FAO 194 which concerns the regulation of the excessive

number of fishing vessels operating in the area. This fishery law orders that no licence will be

issued for new fishing vessels. It further orders that violation of this law will result in

cancellation of fishing licence or a fine of up to P5,000 (AUD120), or both (DA 1998).

Similarly, monitoring and evaluation of coastal programs in the Gulf has been a big part of law

enforcement at the local government level. Monitoring and evaluation activities were conducted

on a regular basis to reduce the incidence of illegal fishing in the area. There were apprehensions

made, but no prosecutions were documented (White et al. 2005). In addition, coastal

management plans have been developed in the provinces of La Union and Pangasinan where the

Lingayen Gulf is located. These plans comprised objectives, strategies and activities needed in

managing the coastal resources of the Gulf (PPDO-Pangasinan 2002). The question, however, is

whether these management tools have been mobilised adequately to address the problems

confronting the Lingayen Gulf environment.

164

Table 7.2 Management Tools Available to Local Governments for Coastal Management in

the Lingayen Gulf


Local Government Legislation Republic Act 7160 (The Local Government

Code of the Philippines 1991) mandates the

LGUs to take primary responsibility in

managing their resources, including coastal

resources.

Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) 194

specifically applies to the Lingayen Gulf. Due

to the excessive number of fishing vessels

within the Gulf, FAO 194 requires that only the

existing trawl and Danish seine vessels will be

maintained, and fishing boats from other

regions are prohibited from operating inside the

Gulf.

Establishment of Municipal/City Fisheries and

Aquatic Resources Management Councils

(M/CFARMCs) in each coastal LGU to assist in

the development of municipal fisheries

development plan, enactment of fishery laws,

and regulation of municipal waters.

Enactment of Municipal Fishery Ordinance for

all coastal LGUs, pursuant to RA 8550,

stipulating the appropriate and acceptable

fishing practices in coastal areas.

Licence FAO 194 further orders that no licence will be

issued for new fishing vessels.

Training Provision of coastal management training for

local community organisations.

Management Plan Formulation, Adoption and Implementation of a

Five-Year Coastal Resource Management Plan.

Monitoring and

Evaluation

Monitoring of field activities and selected

biophysical and socio-economic indicators.

Monitoring and evaluation of all coastal

management activities and outcome,

particularly at the provincial level.

IEC Campaign Conduct of IEC campaigns, directly addressed

to the local community, in relation to

sustainable use of coastal resources.

Sources: DA 1998; DENR et al. 2001d; PPDO-Pangasinan 2002; White et al. 2005

165

To fully understand the extent of the participation of local government in Lingayen coastal

management, the results of the interviews involving LGU staff are presented in the following

section.

7.4 Interviews with Local Government Staff

A total of 20 LGU employees, the local government formed the largest number of interviewees

for this research. At least one person from each Lingayen Gulf city/municipality was recruited

for the interview, including representatives from the provincial government. The selection of

these interviewees was based on their extensive professional experience and personal

understanding and knowledge of all the issues affecting the management of the Lingayen Gulf

and the status of its resources. Interviewees were selected from different LGUs in order to obtain

a representative sample of views and evaluations of the environmental status of the Lingayen

Gulf, including the management measures carried out to sustain, protect and conserve the Gulf’s

resources.

Recruiting interviewees from each of the cities and municipalities with the Gulf was a

challenging task. As these interviewees were all public servants, they were rather cautious and

reserved when they were asked to comment on the participation of their respective offices/units

in managing the Gulf’s resources. In the Philippines, particularly in the local government setting,

public servants normally have reservations and limitations when it comes to sharing information

outside their offices. They wish to avoid potential risks, both personal and professional, from

disclosing information about their work, and to protect the confidentiality of any activity in

which the LGU is engaged. For this reason, approximately half the originally selected

interviewees politely withdrew from participating in the interviews. Replacing these interviewees

took longer than expected. With a pledge that the information gathered from them would be

treated as private and confidential, another set of interviewees were eventually recruited.

166

Of the 20 interviewees, 12 declined audio-taped interviews so their interviews were recorded in

writing. The rest of the interviewees expressed their full trust that the data would be treated with

utmost confidentiality, and had no apparent inhibitions when responding to questions. Fifteen of

the participants agreed to be interviewed in their respective offices; six of these interviews were

done in closed-door interviews. Five interviewees were interviewed at their residences, on their

own preferred dates. According to them, this was to avoid possible ‘leakage’ of any information

they might provide.

As in the case of the other groups of interviewees, the national agencies interviewees and

community sector interviewees, several appointments for local government interviews had to be

rescheduled due to unforeseen circumstances including, bad weather, emergency meetings,

missed appointments, and sickness of either the interviewer or the interviewees. Overall, all

interviews were accomplished to the satisfaction of both the interviewer and the interviewees.

Two sets of questions were prepared for each of the local government interviewees. The first set

of questions concerned the interviewees’ personal information. This was immediately followed

by the main part of the interview which required the interviewees to respond to eight questions.

The interviews with the local government personnel were of the highest significance as this

sector plays the major role in the Philippine coastal management system. The purpose of the

interviews was to gather observations and opinions from the participants, based on their personal

and professional knowledge and experiences. The information gathered during the interview was

regarded as essential for understanding the status of the Gulf’s resources and the impact of the

management interventions that have taken place in the area.

All the local government interviewees had university degrees. They came from the local

government offices for the environment, agriculture, planning and development, and fisheries.

Six interviewees had masters degrees in aquaculture, fisheries, or public administration. Eight

interviewees had finished a degree related to fisheries/aquaculture management; four had

completed an agriculture course; one held a degree in public administration; and another an

167

engineering degree. Table 7.3 summarises the basic data of the interviewees representing the

local government sector.

Table 7.3 Basic Personal Profiles of Local Government Interviewees

Interviewees

(20)


of Years

in

Service

Education

1 Provincial

Agriculturist

Provincial Agriculture

Office

11 Master of Science

in Aquaculture and

Fisheries

2 Section Head Provincial Agriculture

Office

12 Master in Fisheries

3 Municipal

Agriculturist

Municipal Agriculture

Office

14 Master in Fisheries

4 Municipal

Agriculturist


Office

20 Master in

Aquaculture

5 Municipal

Agriculturist


Office

18 Bachelor of

Science in

Fisheries

6 Municipal

Agriculturist


Office

12 Bachelor of

Science in

Agricultural

Education

7 Municipal

Agriculturist


Office

13 Bachelor of

Science in

Fisheries

8 Municipal

Agriculturist


Office

13 Bachelor of

Science in

Fisheries

9 Municipal

Agriculturist


Office

15 Bachelor of

Science in

Fisheries

10 Assistant

Municipal

Agriculturist


Office

13 Bachelor of

Science in

Agriculture

11 Agricultural

Technologist


Office

22 Bachelor of

Science in

Fisheries

12 Agricultural

Technologist


Office

12 Bachelor of

Science in

Fisheries

168

13 Agricultural

Technologist


Office

21 Bachelor of

Science in

Agriculture

14 Municipal

Environmentalist

Municipal

Environment and

Natural Resources

Office

15 Master in Public

Administration

15 Assistant

Municipal

Environmentalist

Municipal

Environment and

Natural Resources

Office

6 Bachelor of

Science in

Fisheries

16 Assistant

Municipal

Environmentalist

Municipal

Environment and

Natural Resources

Office

8 Bachelor of

Science in

Agricultural

Education

17 PNP Officer Philippine National

Police – Municipal

Office

7 Master in Public

Administration

18 Section Head Fisheries/Coastal

Resource Management

Section

7 Bachelor of

Science in

Fisheries

19 Municipal

Planner

Municipal Planning

and Development

Office

2 Bachelor of

Science in Civil

Engineering

20 Municipal

Planner

Municipal Planning

and Development

Office

3 Bachelor of

Science on Public

Administration

Thirteen interviewees had been working with local government for over a decade; five

interviewees had been local public servants for six to eight years; and two interviewees had

recently joined the local government but had previously worked with a Lingayen Gulf project

(LGCAMC) for five years. Based on their designations, the interviewees comprise: two section

heads of the provincial government’s Agriculture Office; 14 heads and acting heads of the

municipal government’s Agriculture, Environment and Police Offices; two deputy or assistant

heads of the municipal government’s Agriculture Office; and two rank-and-file staff of the

municipal government’ Agriculture Office. Based on the qualifications of these interviewees,

there was no doubt that they were highly qualified as sources of information regarding the

coastal resources situation, the management mechanisms, and the resource management issues

relating to the Lingayen Gulf.

169


As with the other groups of interviewees, the national government agency and the community

sector groups, the first line of inquiry for the local government interviewees focused on the

coastal management problems in the Lingayen Gulf. The interviewees were asked to respond to

the following questions, based on their personal observations and perceptions on the current

status of the Gulf’s resources.


In answering this question, the interviewees (100%) provided similar patterns of responses (see

Table 7.4). The table shows that each of the 20 interviewees identified different major coastal

issues surrounding the Gulf. In other words, no interviewee mentioned just a single coastal

problem. Specifically, 17 interviewees (85%) identified two major problems, and three

interviewees (15%) identified three major coastal problems surrounding the Lingayen Gulf.

The common problems facing the management of resources in the Lingayen Gulf were identified

as:

illegal fishing (blast and cyanide)

overfishing

coastal pollution (domestic and industrial)

encroachment of commercial fishing vessels

depletion of coastal resources

weak law enforcement

170

Table 7.4 Lingayen Gulf Coastal Problems Identified by Local Government Interviewees

Interviewees Coastal Problems in the Lingayen Gulf Identified by the Interviewees

Illegal

Fishing

Overfishing Coastal

Pollution

Encroach of

Commercial

Fishing

Operators

Depletion

of Coastal

Resources

Weak Law

Enforcement

1 x x x

2 x x

3 x x

4 x x

5 x x

6 x x

7 x x

8 x x

9 x x

10 x x

11 x x x

12 x x

13 x x

14 x x

15 x x

16 x x

17 x x

18 x x

19 x x

20 x x x

Illegal fishing was identified as the major coastal management issue in the Lingayen Gulf by

most interviewees. This issue was identified by 12 interviewees who claimed that two leading

forms of illegal fishing activities, namely blast fishing (using home-made bombs) and poison

fishing (using the poisonous substance cyanide) were the most serious problems affecting the

health of the Lingayen Gulf environment. According to the interviewees, illegal fishing also

posed a serious risk to the general health and well-being of the people who lived in the area,

particularly those who were dependent on the coastal resources for food and livelihood. One of

the interviewees noted:

171

...The problem of illegal fishing remains unsolved until this day because people keep

on doing it. Some are saying ‘poverty’ is the reason why they are fishing illegally. But

some of the previously apprehended illegal fishers were not poor. There must be some

other reasons to this...

Overfishing was also clearly identified by nine interviewees as one of the main issues in the

Gulf. These interviewees claimed that people were putting too much pressure on the coastal

environment of the Lingayen Gulf. As one interviewee observed:

There are various groups in the area who are heavily exploiting our coastal resources.

They are the commercial fishers including both the licensed and the unlicensed

operators, artisan fishers who consider fishing a stable source of livelihood, and the

so-called illegal fishers particularly the blast, cyanide and the trawl fishers. Most of

these various groups of fishers use any possible means to catch fish – the competition

is so tough among them. And this is causing serious stress on our marine life.

One interviewee offered an additional dimension on the issue of overfishing in the Gulf. He

indicated:

Overfishing is caused by the expansion of population in the Gulf area. People are

coming near the coasts because the agricultural areas are shrinking. They have been

converted to residential areas. This means that the opportunity to establish livelihood

in agricultural areas is becoming too difficult.

...Workers in fish cages/pen live near the coast and they bring in their families. These

people are reliant on any income-generating mechanism that the coast can offer them.

Go around the Lingayen Gulf municipalities and you will find a lot of these people

and their shanties built along the shoreline.

Another major coastal issue that was mentioned by eight interviewees was coastal pollution.

They maintained that this issue was causing significant concern among the Lingayen Gulf

residents as it endangered the health and well-being of both the Gulf’s coastal ecosystem and the

people. These interviewees pinpointed households and industries as the main sources of coastal

pollution, particularly in Dagupan City where residences, restaurants, hospitals, small-scale

industries, schools and other premises were competing for space. Dagupan City has the highest

LGU population within the Lingayen Gulf with approximately 150,000 people according to the

interviewees. Other sources of coastal pollution identified were agricultural runoffs and siltation

from sediments washed down from upland areas. One of these eight interviewees also revealed

that marine vehicles were also contributing to serious coastal pollution not only in the Lingayen

172

Gulf but also nationwide. He claimed that these vessels normally discharged their used oils in

coastal waters, which could be harmful to marine life. A senior environment officer, a specialist

in water quality monitoring, made an interesting comment regarding the issue of coastal

pollution in the Lingayen Gulf as follows:

Coastal pollution is the number one problem in the Gulf emanating from upland areas

and nearby households. This is aside from the excessive chemical sediments coming

from fish ponds/pens that are overstocked with fish and over-supplied with fish feeds.

But we have Municipal Fishery Ordinances controlling these sources of pollution.

As part of the survey and monitoring team for coastal waters, we are actively

monitoring the Gulf’s water quality organised by the University of the Philippines-

Marine Science Institute (UPMSI), BFAR, DENR, LGUs, and People’s Organisations.

Our findings are documented and submitted to all municipalities within the Lingayen

Gulf as well as to the national government for appropriate management strategies.

An additional problem identified by six interviewees concerned the proliferation and

encroachment of commercial fishing vessels. Commercial fishing operation had dramatically

reduced the number of fish species available to artisanal fishers in the area, according to these

interviewees. They further noted that commercial fishing operators had better chances of

obtaining more fish and better access to the deeper part of the coast, where fish abound. As a

result, many of the common fishers were compelled to resort to illegal fishing activities in order

to put food on the table for their impoverished families, they added.

The encroachment of commercial fishing vessels in coastal municipalities in the Gulf was

rampant, two interviewees revealed. These interviewees who were both senior staff of local

fisheries and aquatic resources offices in different LGUs stated:

Illegal encroachment of commercial fishers within two to three kilometres of

municipal waters on the Gulf is getting out of control. We used to apprehend violators

at daytime, but they changed their style and fishing schedule – they now fish out at

night time where no coastal watchers are around. Marginal fishers are badly affected

by illegal commercial fishers. Aside from unfair competition regarding fish catch

between marginal and commercial fishers, fishing gears of marginal fishers are

damaged when commercial fishing vessels run over them.

Commercial fishing operation in the Lingayen Gulf is unregulated. Operators

encroach on other areas. The owners of commercial fishing vessels are close to the

173

high-ranking officials in the region. But according to reports, nowadays, the number

of commercial fishing vessels has dwindled. Why? Because they don’t catch as much

fish as they did before. They have exhausted the fishery resource of Lingayen Gulf. So

they have no choice but to forfeit some of their operations.

Similarly, a long-time coastal management specialist in the provincial government, who claimed

that most illegal commercial fishers came from Sual and Dagupan in Pangasinan Province and

some Lingayen Gulf municipalities in La Union Province, believed:

Unlimited issuance of fishing licenses for commercial fishers is triggering the

problem. BFAR keeps on issuing licenses. The sea has loads of commercial fishing

boats that are competing for the small number of fish available in the sea. And the

tragic consequence is ... marginal fishers cannot catch fish any more.

We have bantay dagat volunteers but since the local government has limited facilities

and monitoring equipment it is difficult to apprehend illegal fishers, particularly

commercial fishers who are normally deep-sea fishers. We have limited patrol boats,

and no global positioning system. Our Philippine National Police patrol boat can only

run after the violators using small boats.

Depletion of coastal resources was specifically identified as a crucial problem in the Lingayen

Gulf. Five interviewees considered that overall depletion of the Gulf’s resources was forcing the

people to engage in illegal activities which potentially threatened the integrity of the coastal

environment. The interviewees pointed out that the most common contributory factors in

resource depletion in the Gulf were dynamite fishing and pollution. Although different

municipalities in the Lingayen Gulf had different coastal issues, they added, all these issues had

a common consequence, namely coastal resource degradation. Three of these interviewees

maintained that illegal fishing activities, unregulated commercial fishing operations, and coastal

pollution were the most common problems shared by the different municipalities in the Gulf.

These problems, they said, were the main culprits in the loss of the coastal and marine wealth

that the Lingayen Gulf once possessed.

On a different note, three interviewees expressed disappointment over the way in which relevant

departments in the local government were enforcing the fishery laws. They claimed that

enforcement of the fishery laws was ‘weak’. These interviewees were convinced that if the laws

had been strictly enforced, illegal fishing activities would have been prevented. They further

stressed that the fishery laws in the Gulf were poorly implemented or, worse, not enforced at all.

174

This was evidenced by the absence of litigation to prosecute coastal violators; lack of personnel

to perform coastal patrols to prevent illegal fishing; lack of facilities for coastal patrol purposes;

and the local government being more focused on mangrove reforestation and coral assessment

rather than the prevention of illegal activities. One interviewee bluntly stated:

There were several instances when violators were apprehended. But the Mayor would

call the arresting officers to tell them to release that person (the violator). No further

explanation. If we did not abide by the order we would be in hot water. Worse, the

violators would counter-charge and claim that they were harassed by the arresting

officers.

Finally, two interviewees claimed that illegal fishing such as dynamite fishing and the use of fine

meshed nets had now been minimised. But the lack of education on coastal management among

the community was still an issue, they admitted. This failure to educate, they said, explained why

there were still a lot of coastal violations. Both interviewees, who were from the western

municipalities of the Gulf, further commented that dynamite fishing used to be a major problem.

They believed that the problem was gradually being addressed because of the existence of patrol

boats for coastal surveillance and night coastal patrols.


Since government decentralisation in 1991, the local government units have been propelled to

the forefront of resource management. From that time to the present there have been various

coastal management initiatives undertaken in the Lingayen Gulf where the local government has

played a vital role. These initiatives have been managed by external experts, but the involvement

of the local government staff has always been evident and necessary. Clearly, these management

initiatives have recognised the focal position of local government as one of the main pillars of

ICM, and the national government has claimed to be applying the principles of ICM in managing

and sustaining the country’s coastal resources.

Having witnessed and participated in previous Lingayen Gulf management programs and

projects, which involved management and regulation of fishing practices, enactment and

enforcement of coastal laws, protection and preservation, inter-agency coordination, revenue

175

generation, planning and implementation of coastal programs, monitoring and evaluation, and

overall coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf (DENR et al. 2001d), the 20 interviewees

representing the local government were asked the following question:



This question generated interesting variation in the responses from the interviewees (see Table

7.5). For instance, 11 interviewees (55%) strongly believed that the management attempts

previously carried out in the Gulf contributed little to improving the distressed coastal resources

in the area. These interviewees mentioned different reasons to support their claims that the past

management of the Gulf had been ineffective and unproductive. Two of these interviewees

remarked: ‘Previous management attempts did not work because illegal activities are still

rampant’.

Table 7.5 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on Previous Coastal Management



Successful 3 15

Uncertain 6 30

Not Successful 11 55

Total 20 100

A long-time member of the coastal management staff of a local agriculture office expressed a

different view on the issue of unsuccessful management attempts, pointing out:

There are local government units which are not performing well in terms of managing

their coastal resources. It is the people’s organisations who are doing the job for them.

The LGUs are just supervising these organisations. In our LGU, we allocate

PhP500,00031

per year through ordinance as financial assistance to the people’s

organisations. We have harmonious relationships with the community sector.

31 PhP500,000.00 or AUD11,987.53at an exchange rate of AUD1:PhP41.74 as of March 2010.

176

In the same way, another interviewee who was one of these 11 interviewees who had negative

perceptions on previous management efforts in the Gulf claimed:

The approach used by Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project to manage the Gulf was

inappropriate. The project started with an information drive and technical assistance

before engaging the local people in coastal management by conducting community

organisations. They should have organised the community first before anything else.

They did a reversed strategy which went wrong as expected.

In addition, a provincial agriculturist who had also served as a consultant for coastal

management projects in different parts of the Philippines declared:

I don’t think there is much that has been done in the past, and I don’t think there will

be changes in the future. If the attitude of the people will not change, no improvement

will take place in our coastal environment.

On the other hand, six interviewees (30%) affirmed that the previous management attempts in

the Lingayen Gulf had slightly improved the condition of the Lingayen Gulf resources; but they

were uncertain whether these previous management attempts were successful. This was because,

the interviewees admitted, the overall coastal problems in the Gulf were still rampant. These

problems included illegal fishing, encroachment of commercial fishing vessels, and coastal

pollution. The interviewees claimed that the previous management attempts contributed

positively by encouraging the LGUs to enhance and intensify their efforts in coastal

management, and by instilling in the minds of the people the benefit of properly utilising the

coastal environment and sustainably managing its resources. A typical response recorded during

the interview was: ‘I think, the Gulf’s condition has slightly improved although coastal problems

still persist’.

There was, in general, partial satisfaction regarding the manner in which the Gulf’s problems

were addressed by previous management interventions. For instance, a senior agriculturist

commented:

There has been change/improvement. In a way, yes, the previous initiatives did help.

There are mangrove rehabilitation efforts now, and there is increase in fish catch. But

there has been no study saying that the situation has improved.

177

...There are still cases of blast fishing but we are still able to preserve some parts of the

coastal area in Lingayen Gulf such as marine protected areas.

Another senior staff member of a local environment office claimed:

Yes there have been some changes in terms of the condition of the Gulf, but not in all

municipalities in the Gulf. The previous management interventions were not

successful in all areas, but in fairness to them, I would say they helped a lot. I must

say that some projects were executed well, and thanks to them...

This opinion was supported by another interviewee, a head of a local Agriculture Office, who

had been employed with the local government for 20 years. This interviewee was straightforward

in responding to the question whether or not past management attempts had been successful. He

said:

For ‘Kakiputan32

’ channel I don’t see any change, it is still in poor condition, but in

some areas there are significant changes. These include municipalities of Anda and

Bolinao, and in areas where marine protected areas contributed to the increase of fish

catch.

Yes. In terms of rehabilitation of coral reefs and establishment of marine protected

areas, the awareness of the local community and their participation in coastal

management has increased. Illegal fishing has been minimised, blast fishing reduced,

corals regrew in some areas.

Overall, I will give a success rate of 60%.

Similarly, a member of the local government fisheries staff who worked with LGCAMC for five

years affirmed that during her time with LGCAMC appropriate management strategies had been

introduced for the Lingayen Gulf. She claimed that LGCAMC came into the picture when the

Gulf was in a serious condition. She further said that during the operation of the Commission and

until its termination in 2000, the Gulf’s resources began to show signs of recovery, the result of

an enormous coastal management effort. She attributed the success to the pool of experts such as

the PNP, BFAR, DENR and NEDA which were all actively involved in Lingayen Gulf

management. Unfortunately, after LGCAMC’s operations were terminated, no agency was

32 A narrow body of water that separates the municipality of Anda from the municipality of Bolinao.

178

responsible for monitoring the coastal activities so the problems returned despite the presence of

other management interventions, she lamented.

On a positive note, three interviewees (15%) were confident that previous attempts to manage

the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf and to prevent it from further destruction had been

successful. They claimed that this was evidenced by the increase in fish catch among commercial

and marginal fishers, a reduction in the incidence of illegal fishing, enhanced community

participation in coastal management, and strict implementation and enforcement of fishery laws.

One of these interviewees observed that, in his jurisdiction, strict law enforcement changed the

attitude of illegal fishers:

Recently, very few coastal violators are apprehended. Fishers are now scared to

violate or fish illegally because of the strict law enforcement team in our area. I am

not sure, though, if other municipalities have already addressed illegal fishing issues in

their coastal areas.

Also, in our LGU since the termination of the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project in 2007 we

continued what they started, particularly law enforcement.


Decentralisation in the Philippines has given the local government full authority to manage local

resources, including coastal resources. It allowed the local government to act in accordance with

its local priorities and preferences in delivering efficient and effective service to the public.

The importance of the role of local government in the management of the coastal resources

prompted the gathering of opinions and perspectives from the 20 local government interviewees

regarding the impact of decentralisation on the performance of their duties. The question also

sought to discover whether decentralisation was a good option for managing local coastal

resources. The interviewees were asked to respond to the following question:




179

The local government interviewees provided detailed and varied responses to this question (see

Table 7.6). This was because the question had much to do with the evolution of their present

management responsibilities, particularly in the management of the coastal areas.

Six interviewees (30%) affirmed that decentralisation was beneficial for local governance and

service delivery. They maintained that this new government arrangement gave the local

government full decision-making and management authority to oversee local resources. In terms

of the coastal resources, these interviewees claimed that decentralisation had brought the local

government closer to the people, which made collaboration with the community sector in coastal

management much easier. As one interviewee remarked:

Decentralisation brought about positive effect on coastal management. This allows the

LGU staff to work and deal directly with the fishing community. The community can

more easily and more comfortably air their sentiments and concerns to the LGU staff

than those from the national level.

Table 7.6 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Effect of Decentralisation on

Their Coastal Management Responsibilities


Effective 6 30

Not Effective 4 20

Uncertain 6 30

No Comment 4 20

Total 20 100

Another important advantage of decentralisation was noted by one senior interviewee. The

interviewee regarded decentralisation as a catalyst that gave the local government a strategic

administrative framework and a clear direction to follow to improve its service delivery. As he

put it: ‘Before devolution, the management style was ‘come what may’. Now there is specific

function delegated to the local government and its staff’.

Budget allocation for coastal management programs was seen to have improved according to

three of these six interviewees. The enhanced budget allocation for coastal management in the

local government enabled the introduction of several projects that had helped in the restoration of

180

the damaged coastal ecosystems of the Gulf particularly rehabilitation of mangrove forests, they

continued. In affirmation, a local fisheries head declared:

Yes, there is a positive effect because we are now more focused on managing the

coastal resources. Now we have allocated budget for CRM from the local government,

whereas before devolution there was no budget for CRM.

By contrast four interviewees (20%) felt that the devolution of management responsibilities from

the national to the local government had failed to bring sustainable management to the coastal

environment. One of the weaknesses of decentralisation, they said, was the unpreparedness of the

local staff to perform their new responsibilities. Furthermore, they claimed that staff had not

been given sufficient training prior to the implementation of decentralisation. This had created

serious confusion among the local government personnel, particularly in the environment and

agriculture departments regarding the scope of their functions and how these functions should be

conducted. These interviewees also noted finance as a particular problem. One interviewee

summed up the concerns as follows:

The problem with decentralisation is responsibilities were devolved to the local

government, but not the funding. The national government is expecting the LGUs to

look for their own financial resources which is not possible.

Similarly one of these four interviewees was dubious about the capability of the local

government to react rapidly to address the problems facing the coastal environment. She

claimed:

...centralised management was faster in terms of work performance because jobs

directly emanated from the top, the national government. Presently, it all depends on

the local administration. Different administrations or people in power have different

priority programs. Change of administration means change of priority programs, so on

and so forth...

Another interviewee had negative perceptions on the effect of decentralisation in the

management of the coastal resources:

Some are saying it is much better to have a centralised than decentralised government.

In my analysis I don’t think there is any difference. Why? The mindset of the Filipinos

181

did not change, a lot of them are still violating fishery laws both rich (the illegal

commercial fishing operators) and poor (the blast fishers).

The bad thing about decentralisation is when you are working in a low class (4, 5, 6)

municipality you get very small salary. Salary grades are now based on municipal

classes - class 1 gets the highest pay while class 6 gets the lowest pay for the same

position. During the centralised management all local staff would get equal pay

regardless of their municipal classes.

On the other hand, another six interviewees (30%) expressed mixed opinions and uncertainty

about the effect of government decentralisation in managing the resources of the Lingayen Gulf.

These interviewees claimed that decentralisation had both advantages and disadvantages. They

noted that easier access to local government funds for coastal management from the national

government and more active participation by the community sector were among the advantages

of decentralisation. These advantages, the interviewees said, were beneficial for sustainably

managing the Lingayen Gulf resources.

However, they further claimed that the disadvantages of decentralisation included greater

workloads delegated to LGUs, and inadequate capability training for local government staff

members. The interviewees believed that these disadvantages had the potential to affect the

performance of the local government staff, thus threatening the sustainable management and

well-being of the Lingayen Gulf environment and the people who depend on its resources.

The remaining four interviewees (20%) did not respond to this question. Two of these

interviewees said that they had joined the local government during the last 10 years when

government decentralisation was already in place. The other two interviewees claimed that they

were unable to distinguish between centralised and decentralised management of resources.

7.4.4 Interagency cooperation/coordination in Lingayen Gulf management

The local government interviewees had been working with national agencies such as BFAR and

DENR, and the local communities on matters relating to coastal management. There may be

other agencies and/or organisations involved in the management of the Lingayen Gulf, but the

collaboration between and among BFAR, DENR, LGUs and the community sector was the most

182

important in practice and thus also for this research. In the case of the Lingayen Gulf, this inter-

agency collaboration, an important facet of ICM, was considered by coastal managers and

practitioners to be a beneficial exercise in restoring the Gulf’s impaired resources. The efforts to

restore these coastal resources will mean reinstating rich fishery grounds for the local people to

provide them with food and livelihood. To reiterate what the term ‘cooperation’ constitutes in

this research, it specifically refers to the work relationships of the national government, local

government and community sector in the management of the Lingayen Gulf. These actors,

having been mandated to assume coastal management responsibilities and are thus principally

responsible for working together to conserve and protect the Gulf.

Opinions, observations, and perceptions were generated from the interviewees regarding the

working relationships between BFAR and DENR, as well as the local government’s relationships

with the national government and the community sector as they work together in managing the

resources of the Lingayen Gulf. In particular, these interviewees were asked to share their views

on the following question:


management?

This question generated dissimilar patterns of responses from the interviewees (see Table 7.7.)

The interviewees generally provided contradicting views on the question by claiming that: (a) all

the agencies and sectors involved in Lingayen Gulf management were working well together;

and (b) there were conflicts and overlapping of functions between and among the agencies

involved.

Table 7.7 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on Interagency Cooperation in the



Good 7 35

Not Good 12 60

Uncertain 1 5

Total 20 100

183

Specifically, 12 interviewees (60%) expressed concerns about the failure of the responsible

agencies and organisations to carry out their coastal management duties as legally mandated.

These interviewees claimed that the lack of coordination among the different agencies had

aggravated the persistent coastal problems confronting the Gulf. One of these interviewees who

gave a detailed response to the question said:

No, sometimes they have issues/problems. DENR and BFAR are saying different

things. It’s quite confusing who to follow among these two agencies. It’s also

confusing where to report coastal violations.

Also, it depends on the local chief executive or Mayor. If the Mayor is not supportive

of coastal management programs no inter-agency coordination is going to happen.

When it comes to BFAR and DENR, they just coordinate with the local government

units when they need to get coastal management reports. There is no technical

assistance that can be expected from them.

Another interviewee believed that interagency cooperation in the Lingayen Gulf was inadequate.

He specifically commented on the downside of the management experience involving BFAR and

DENR which he saw as badly affecting the performance of other agencies concerned particularly

the LGUs:

BFAR and DENR do have a big conflict. To name one: the Fishery Lease Agreement

or FLA permit is given by BFAR, while the FLA recommendation is granted by

DENR. However, if there is a problem with the FLA, resolution will be done by local

government. There should only be one agency that deals with FLA.

Concerned agencies for coastal management in Lingayen Gulf are not working very

well together. There is apparently lack of coordination and specific functions.

However, seven interviewees (35%) affirmed that the national agencies responsible for coastal

management such as BFAR and DENR, the local government, and the community sector were

involved in good working relationships as regards their responsibilities in managing the

resources of the Lingayen Gulf. For the most part, the interviewees answered the questions by

emphasising that there was a good collaboration between BFAR and DENR, but they also

recognised the positive contribution of the community sector in protecting and sustaining the

Gulf’s resources. For instance, one interviewee declared:

184

The inter-agency cooperation in Lingayen Gulf management is working. All those

involved in the management are coordinating with each other. No overlapping of

functions – BFAR does its job, and DENR does its job as well.

BFAR or DENR does not do any business with the community without going through

the local government for permission. The local government also consults with BFAR

or DENR before working with the community.

Similarly, a senior local environment head shared his insights as follows:

The working relationship of all sectors concerned is ok. There are no conflicts

between them, particularly BFAR and DENR. Functions of each agency concerned are

clear. There is no overlapping of functions between and among different agencies

including LGUs and community organisations. There is counter-parting when it comes

to allocation and distribution of management responsibilities.

On the other hand, one interviewee (5%) did not provide a direct response to the questions. She

merely mentioned that BFAR had friendly and hard-working staff members who were good

coastal management partners of the local government.


The legal basis for managing the coastal areas in the Philippines is embodied in various legal

mandates. These mandates include related provisions in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Local

Government Code 1991, and Fisheries Code 1998. At the local government level, some LGUs,

including those in the Lingayen Gulf area have enacted city and municipal fishery ordinances.

These ordinances serve as guidelines for the sustainable management of the coastal environment.

Taking into consideration the legal mandates enacted to govern the resources of the Gulf, the

interviewees were asked to share their standpoints on the following question:


laws? By whom?

There was a variation in the interviewees’ responses for the question (see Table 7.8). For

example, 15 interviewees (75%) gave similar responses stressing the adequacy of the current

185

legal provisions but highlighting the need to implement them: ‘We have enough laws to manage

the Gulf, it is just a matter of properly implementing them’.

Table 7.8 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Need to Enact Lingayen

Gulf Coastal Laws


Yes 3 15

No 15 75

No Comment 2 10

Total 20 100

These 15 interviewees believed that illegal fishing activities were still rampant in the area

because of the failure in the enforcement and implementation of the coastal laws. Two of these

interviewees, however, commented that the failure to properly implement fishery laws were

related to the fact that not all laws were applicable to all coastal areas. One of these two

interviewees explained: ‘Under the law (RA 8550), all municipalities should enact their fishery

ordinances. Some municipalities have different issues that cannot be applied to other

municipalities’.

The other interviewee supported this view, commenting: ‘...not all laws are applicable to all

municipalities. Each municipality has different culture, geographical setting, and political

environment, among others’.

In contrast, three interviewees (15%) claimed that there was an urgent need to enact new coastal

laws at both the national and local levels to address issues which had been overlooked by

previous Lingayen Gulf management efforts. These interviewees expressed different viewpoints

on the nature of the desired new laws. One of these interviewees stated that although there was

an existing MFO in his municipality, she felt that violation fees or penalties for illegal fishers

were too small and needed to be increased. Another interviewee said there was a need to enact

new fishery laws which amended existing laws that were no longer applicable to the Lingayen

Gulf situation. Issues surrounding the Gulf were evolving, he added. The other interviewee

suggested that creating a trial court that specialised in environmental legal cases should be put

186

into law. This interviewee claimed that local prosecution lawyers were not well-versed in coastal

management laws.

On a different note, two interviewees (10%) did not answer the question.


The local government is mandated to work directly with the community in the Philippines.

Coastal management is one of the many joint tasks in which they are both expected to engage. In

order to determine whether the local government involves or consults with the community sector

in coastal management activities as well as the nature of that engagement in the Lingayen Gulf

the interviewees were asked the question below.


processes? How do they perform?

All interviewees (100%) provided positive responses on the question (see Table 7.9). They

asserted that the community sector was represented in all coastal management undertakings

carried out in the Gulf. According to the interviewees, members of the community sector

participated in coastal management at different levels. Some of these members were actively

involved in monitoring activities, planning and decision-making processes, and in coastal clean-

up events; others took part in the bantay dagat as volunteers; and a few attended meetings related

to coastal management.

Table 7.9 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on Community Representation in

the Lingayen Gulf Coastal Management


Represented 20 100

Not represented - -

Total 20 100

One of the interviewees acknowledged the community sector’s active involvement in assisting

the local government to safeguard the resources of the Gulf. She said that the coastal community

187

sector was an effective partner in coastal management, largely because they were aware of what

was happening around them. Based on her observations during coastal-related workshops,

seminars and meetings she attended with the members of the community sector, she had come to

the following conclusion: ‘The community members are very good in identifying coastal

problems and constraints and in suggesting solutions during coastal management meetings’.

However, two senior interviewees, both representing local fishery offices, claimed that it was

always difficult to obtain full cooperation from the community sector in the management of the

Lingayen Gulf because of the competing priorities of the community members. One of these

interviews remarked:

I have been with this job for almost 30 years now and mind you I have not seen any

member of the community to have really given 100% involvement in coastal

management activities in the Gulf. We have to pursue them, we have to offer them

incentives, we have to beg them. But I fully understand their situation – they are too

busy earning a modest living.

We may be able to encourage some of them to be part of coastal management

activities, but they won’t be there all the time because they have a family to feed. I can

feel that they have the intention to get involved but they don’t have the time, and

worse some don’t have interest in what we are doing.


Disseminating information regarding the coastal programs and agenda planned for the Lingayen

Gulf, including the present status of its resources, is one of the primary responsibilities of the

local government. IEC campaigns generally aim to enrich the knowledge and understanding of

the local people in regard to the condition of the Gulf, how the Gulf’s resources can be

maintained and how they should be managed for sustainability. Thus, this research explored

whether people of the Lingayen Gulf received relevant information about conditions in the Gulf

through the following question:

Did your office provide adequate education and information campaigns regarding the poor

condition and the need to sustainably manage the gulf? Were the local people informed about

188

the impact of coastal degradation (e.g., destructive fishing, overfishing, among others) on the

welfare of the Lingayen Gulf environment, including their well-being?

All interviewees (100%) affirmed that they regarded the ICM campaigns conducted by their

offices on the present condition of the Lingayen Gulf and the need to protect and conserve its

resources as adequate (see Table 7.10). They pointed out that information dissemination was a

continuous process in which every LGU in the Gulf was engaged. As one interviewee stated:

IEC drives are continuous. The flow of information emanates from the BFAR, to the

province, to the municipality, and down to the community.

We also coordinate with schools regarding integrating CRM in grade school

curriculum. We train the teachers, in coordination with school principals.

Table 7.10 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Adequacy of IEC



Adequate 20 100

Inadequate - -

Total 20 100

A head of the Agriculture Office at the provincial level explained that the integration of CRM in

the grade school curriculum was one of the components of the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project

which was piloted in five LGUs in the Gulf. It was in these LGUs that the people’s awareness on

coastal management increased by 95%, she claimed. She went on to elaborate that the program

had been approved by the national Department of Education (DepEd), but was only implemented

in the Lingayen Gulf area upon request and with the recommendation of the Sagip project. CRM

was integrated into the science subjects of Grade 1-6 pupils which were usually taught for 30

minutes daily, with 10 minutes allocated for CRM. Teachers were trained by BFAR and DENR

staff to teach this subject component, the interviewee added. However, she noted that no

additional pay was given to the teachers, and their lesson plans were revised to include the

integration. The interviewee concluded by saying that the CRM integration in grade school

189

curriculum was implemented with the commencement of the Sagip Project in 2002, and was still

continuing.

On a different note, 12 interviewees revealed that despite IEC campaigns coastal problems

particularly blast and illegal commercial fishing operations in the Gulf were still rampant. Three

of these interviewees said that poverty was the main reason why illegal fishing remained

unaddressed. They specified that, as there was very limited fish stock available in the Gulf, local

fishermen who were dependent on fishing as their major source of livelihood were forced to

resort to illegal fishing for survival. A senior municipal environment employee commented:

People keep on violating coastal laws primarily because of poverty. As long as their

standard of living does not improve, illegal fishing issues will be difficult to solve in

the area. The government needs to provide alternative livelihood for them.

Similarly, seven of the 12 interviewees claimed that even without IEC campaigns the local

people were able to distinguish between legal and illegal fishing activities; illegal fishing had

already become a lifestyle for them. In support of such claims, two interviewees accused the

illegal fishers of being stubborn and uncooperative despite intensive IEC drives conducted by the

local government, thus raising questions about the effectiveness of educational campaigns in

situations where people do not cooperate with government programs.


Service delivery is a crucial component of program implementation. The success of a program

lies in how the tasks are performed. The last area of inquiry for the local government

interviewees concerned the performance of their coastal management duties in the Lingayen

Gulf. They were asked the following question:


Table 7.11 shows 10 interviewees (50%) who commented that they were performing their duties

to the best of their ability. However, they admitted that there were still much to be done. They

said that they would only feel fulfilled and consider their Lingayen Gulf management

190

participation successful when the coastal issues had been completely addressed. Six of these

interviewees noted that they were starting to see gradual progress in the condition of the

Lingayen Gulf. They further claimed that more significant progress could be achieved when the

national government would allocate adequate funding for coastal management, and more

importantly, when all sectors involved would have good work relationships. One interviewee

remarked:

Our commitment to CRM is very important to us. Things are getting better now,

although I admit that we still have a long way to go before we can completely restore

the once coastal resource-wealthy Lingayen Gulf.

In similar responses, four of these 10 interviewees asserted that despite slow progress in

rehabilitating the severely damaged resources of the Gulf they would continue providing

technical assistance not only because they were mandated to do so but also because they came

from families of fishermen whose livelihoods depended on the health of the coastal environment.

Table 7.11 Local Government Interviewees’ Perceptions on their Performance in the


Level of Performance Number of Participants Percentage (%)

Satisfied 4 20

Slightly satisfied 10 50

Not satisfied 3 15

No comment 3 15

Total 20 100

On the other hand, four interviewees (20%) made confident claims that they had fulfilled their

coastal management duties well. These four interviewees maintained that they were able to

mobilise the community sector and encourage the community to participate actively in coastal

management activities, conduct training for bantay dagat volunteers, and apprehend a number of

coastal violators, particularly dynamite fishers.

191

On a less positive note, three interviewees (15%) expressed dissatisfaction with the results of

their coastal management initiatives. They claimed that most local chief executives or mayors

were not supportive of coastal management programs. A municipal fisheries officer revealed:

Priority is normally given to infrastructure projects for obvious reasons. There’s big

money involved in these projects. Coastal management activities are just starting to

get attention from the local leaders, but they are not attractive...if you know what I

mean.

A senior coastal management consultant, also one of the three interviewees, voiced out another

negative opinion:

I may have performed my duties as a coastal management officer but I’m certainly

disappointed because there are still encroachers and blast fishers. This only means that

I haven’t done a good job. I will only be totally fulfilled and satisfied if we can

control/stop these violators.

Finally, three interviewees (15%) did not respond to the question. Two of the interviewees said

they were unable to assess their own performances, while one interviewee simply refused to

answer the question.

7.5 Conclusion

This chapter has investigated the involvement of the local government in coastal management

practices in the Lingayen Gulf. Since government decentralisation in the Philippines, significant

management responsibilities have been delegated to the local government, including primary

supervision and guardianship of the coastal environment. In order to assess whether these

responsibilities are being carried out effectively in the Gulf, interviews were conducted with 20

respondents from the LGUs in the area. The interviews prompted a range of different responses

from the interviewees regarding the collaboration of the various coastal management actors in

the Gulf and on the performance of their management responsibilities.

193

Chapter 8: The Community Sector’s

Involvement in Lingayen Gulf Coastal

Management

8.1 Introduction

This chapter evaluates the involvement of the community sector in managing the coastal

resources of the Lingayen Gulf. According to Rivera and Newkirk (1997), the coastal

community sector in the Philippines plays a central role in coastal resource management. The

authors claimed that as this sector has the largest stake in the sustainability of the natural coastal

resources, it is potentially one of the most effective coastal resource managers.

The role of the community is also recognised under the principles of ICM. People make

decisions on how to utilise the coastal resources, and all their resulting actions, good or bad,

affect the condition of the coastal environment. Therefore the participation of the community

sector is regarded as crucial in effective coastal management. As White and Lopez (1991)

pointed out, ICM promotes valuable interaction between humans and their environment.

The chapter presents a brief background to the involvement of the community sector in coastal

management in the Lingayen Gulf. This is followed by the interview section which will illustrate

the perspectives of the interviewees representing the community sector regarding their

representation and participation in the overall coastal management of the Lingayen Gulf.

194

8.2 The Role of the Community Sector

The community sector is made up of people from various economic groups, social classes, and

political affiliations. In the Philippine coastal environment, the community sector includes the

different groups that are involved in subsistence-level fishing or small-scale fishing as well as

commercial fishing (DENR et al. 2001e).

The role of the community sector in coastal management in the country has increased following

the implementation of political decentralisation in 1991 which devolved significant

responsibilities from the national to the local level. The new organisational and decision-making

managements have brought the local government closer to the community sector, particularly in

terms of carrying out coastal management activities. This is because decentralisation has

changed the institutional framework for coastal management implementation in the country from

national-level planning and implementation to more local level management processes which

have enhanced the involvement of the community in coastal management (DENR et al. 2001e).

In the Lingayen Gulf area, where illegal fishing activities, mostly perpetrated by local people, are

well documented, the participation of the community sector is deemed necessary (Dela Cruz

2004). Involving the community in managing coastal areas, including the Lingayen Gulf, is an

effective approach for minimising the incidence of inappropriate use and exploitation of the

Gulf’s resources (Rivera & Newkirk 1997). The participation of the community sector is well

established in the Philippine legal instruments associated with decentralisation. However,

responses generated from the interviewees regarding their involvement in coastal management,

as legally mandated, manifested a range of opinions which will be reviewed later in this chapter.

The following table details the management tools available to the community sector in relation to

its contribution to the management of the Lingayen Gulf.

As with the national government and local governments, detailed information regarding the

management instruments utilised by the community sector in relation to the management of the

Lingayen Gulf was unavailable. It should be noted that there were arguments as to whether the

195

Table 8.1 Management Tools Available to the Community Sector for Coastal Management

in the Lingayen Gulf


Community Legislation RA 7160 promotes active participation of the

community sector in coastal management.

RA 8550 establishes management councils in

the national and local government to increase

the involvement of the community sector in any

coastal management efforts.

IEC Assistance to the development and propagation

of IEC campaigns.

Management Plan The community sector is encouraged to take

part in the conduct of coastal resource

assessment which is necessary in the

formulation of coastal resource management

plans.

Training and

Technical

Assistance

With the national and local government

initiatives, members of the community sector

are provided with training on coastal

management, specifically in relation to coastal

patrols, coastal resources surveys, and law

enforcement. They are also provided with

alternative livelihood training and opportunities,

as well as financial, production and marketing

assistance.

Sources: DENR et al. 2001d; BFAR 2003; DENR 2006

community sector was actually involved in the management of the Lingayen Gulf (Alcala 1998;

Christie 2005). Despite such arguments, the management tools listed in Table 8.1 indicate the

areas in which the community sector could help to address Lingayen Gulf coastal management

issues in collaboration with the national and local government. According to BFAR and DENR,

they have always involved the community sector in major management and decision-making

processes in the Gulf (BFAR 2003; DENR 2006). However, members of the community sector

have disputed this claim in the interviews for this research, saying that their involvement had

been limited to minor activities such as coastal clean ups, attendance at meetings and distribution

of information materials.

196

8.3 Legal Mandates on the Involvement of the Community Sector in Coastal

Management

The involvement of the community sector in the coastal management practice in the Philippines

is mandated by various national legal frameworks in the country, as outlined in Appendix 4.

Specifically, the Philippine Constitution 1987, the Local Government Code 1991, and the

Philippine Fisheries Code of the Philippines 1998 are among the major legal frameworks in the

country that have comprehensive national coverage. These legal instruments provide a strong

basis for community involvement. For instance, the Philippine Constitution specifically protects

the rights of subsistence fishermen, gives them priority in resource utilisation and promises

material support to them. The Local Government Code encourages the active participation of

non-government organisations and people’s organisations in coastal management. Finally, the

Fisheries Code seeks the establishment of a management council that will oversee the welfare of

the coastal environment at the national and local government levels. Thus, these powerful legal

instruments clearly delineate strong rights and a prominent role for coastal communities and

guarantee support and cooperation from different levels of government.

This research examines the extent to which such legal instruments have been activated in the

Lingayen Gulf to ascertain the community’s perceptions of their role in coastal management and

whether it matched the statements found in law. Specifically, in order to establish the extent of

involvement of the community sector in Lingayen Gulf management, this chapter presents the

different views and observations of the 14 interviewees selected from the community sector

within the Lingayen Gulf. These interviewees, who were all fishermen, were part of organised

community residents representing the whole Lingayen Gulf community sector.

Table 8.2 shows that 10 of the interviewees were heads of community organisations such as the

Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council, Bantay Dagat, People’s

Organisation, Fishermen’s and Farmers’ Association, and Community Cooperative; three were

assistant or deputy heads, and one was an organisation member. Half of the interviewees had

been involved in their respective organisations for 10 or more years, while the rest had been

197

Table 8.2 Basic Personal Profiles of Community Sector Interviewees

Interviewees

(14)


of Years

in Service

Education

1 Head People’s Organisation 12 Bachelor of

Science in Marine

Engineering

Graduate

2 Head People’s Organisation 11 High School

Graduate

3 Deputy

Head

People’s Organisation 7 High School

Graduate

4 Head Barangay Fisheries and

Aquatic Resource

Management Council

10 4th

Year High

School


Aquatic Resource

Management Council

8 High School

Graduate


Aquatic Resource

Management Council

6 3rd

Year High

School


Aquatic Resource

Management Council

13 Bachelor of Arts in

Political Science

(3rd

year)

8 Deputy

Head

Barangay Fisheries and

Aquatic Resource

Management Council

15 High School

Graduate

9 Head Fishermen’s and

Farmers’ Association

3 2nd

Year High

School



5 4th

Year School

Graduate



12 High School

Graduate

12 Deputy

Head

Fishermen’s and


11 High Scholl

Graduate

13 Head Community

Cooperative

5 High School

Graduate

14 Member Community

Cooperative

3 2nd

Year High

School

198

carrying out their coastal management duties for three to eight years. Only one of these

interviewees had a university degree. One other reached third year university studies; seven

finished high school; and five reached but did not finish high school.

As with the national and local governments interviewees, the community sector interviewees

were asked questions which mainly focused on their representation and functions in managing

the resources of the Lingayen Gulf. Each of the questions was simplified and explained

thoroughly to the participants in order to obtain a comprehensible response. The findings of the

interview are presented in the following section:

8.4 Interviews with Community Sector Representatives

Information for this section was gathered from 14 members of the community sector in the

Lingayen Gulf. Recruitment of these interviewees was challenging as most of them live in far-

flung villages. Contacting the interviewees posed serious difficulty because some lacked access

to telecommunications or lived in an area where communication signals were very poor. As a

consequence, postponement and cancellation of interview arrangements due to unavoidable

circumstances, such as bad weather, transport breakdown, illness of interviewer or interviewees,

and withdrawal from interview participation was also difficult.

These interviewees were selected based on their personal experiences as members of the fishing

community, and on their active participation in managing the Lingayen Gulf resources. Other

factors in their selection were their interest and generous willingness to share their opinions and

observation in regard to the protection, conservation and rehabilitation of the coastal resources

on which a large majority of the local people all depend for food and livelihood. Interviewees

were interviewed separately on agreed dates and at locations convenient for them. It should be

emphasised that the participation of the interviewees in coastal management activities was

voluntary.

The interviewees were asked two sets of questions. The first set of questions concerned their

personal information. The second set of questions focused on the interviewees’ actual

199

experiences as well as their views and observations on coastal management in the Lingayen

Gulf.

Of the 14 interviewees, 13 interviewees were very straightforward in answering the questions.

One interviewee, who initially refused, but later agreed to be interviewed, expressed concern

about his participation in the interview. He was anxious that his statements might affect his

relationship with the local government, as well as his involvement in the management of the

Lingayen Gulf.

Similar concerns led to three of the interviewees who were originally selected withdrawing from

the interviews. They feared that their statements might endanger their positions as officers of

community organisations. It was evident that these interviewees neither fully trusted nor

understood the purpose of the interviews even though it was stressed that none of them would be

identified in the research, and all the information generated would be treated with the utmost

confidentiality.


The first question dealt with the community sector observation and experiences regarding coastal

management issues confronting the Lingayen Gulf. Specifically, the interviewees were asked for

their opinions on the current condition of the Lingayen Gulf coastal environment.


This question generated a common pattern of responses generated from the interviewees. The

responses show that there was unanimous agreement among the interviewees that illegal fishing

was the most pressing management concern (see Table 8.3). The following was the interviewees’

typical response: ‘Illegal fishing is rampant in Lingayen Gulf’.

The interviewees all identified the decline in marine resources as the most serious outcome of

illegal fishing. When asked to elaborate on their answers, they went on to mention different

200

forms of illegal fishing activities that had been causing the rapid deterioration of the Lingayen

Gulf resources. Seven of the interviewees (50%) pointed out that dynamite fishing was a serious

form of illegal fishing activity perpetrated by the local fishermen of the Lingayen Gulf. Five

responses (35.71%) also blamed trawl fishing as a rampant activity in the Lingayen Gulf-covered

coastal waters of Pangasinan. Two responses (14.29%) also pointed to the illegal operation of

commercial fishing vessels that were encroaching on other municipal waters as the number one

factor for coastal damage in the Gulf.

Table 8.3 Lingayen Gulf Coastal Problems Identified by Community Sector Interviewees

Interviewees The Different Forms of Illegal Fishing Identified by the Interviewees

as Coastal Problems in the Lingayen Gulf

Dynamite

fishing

Trawl

fishing

Encroachment of

commercial fishing

vessels

Corruption involving

protectors of illegal

fishers

1 x

2 x

3 x

4 x

5 x x

6 x

7 x

8 x

9 x x

10 x

11 x

12 x

13 x x

14 x

Although seven interviewees considered dynamite fishing the leading coastal problem in the

Lingayen Gulf, two interviewees claimed that the incidence of this form of illegal fishing activity

had already been reduced. One interviewee asserted:

Before blast fishing was a problem, but since the coastal management collaboration of

the ABBA (Alaminos-Bani-Bolinao-Anda) LGUs, illegal fishing activities have

gradually been addressed. These Lingayen Gulf municipalities have agreed to jointly

protect and conserve the Gulf’s resources in order to prevent it from further

201

destruction. One major component of the management collaboration is regular coastal

patrolling, involving the Philippine National Police.

Four interviewees, however, did not agree that blast fishing in the Lingayen Gulf area was being

addressed despite claims that this destructive form of fishing method was gradually being

controlled in the ABBA region. These interviewees claimed the ABBA region was just a small

part of the Lingayen Gulf, and therefore could not be used to represent the condition of the Gulf

as a whole. One of these interviewees who was the head of a People’s Organisation in La Union

Province clarified:

It may be true that the incidence of blast fishing in ABBA has been minimised,

although I haven’t seen any documented report yet to prove that it is genuine. Besides,

one cannot generalise that the problem of blast fishing in the whole of the Lingayen

Gulf is now being gradually addressed if only a small part of the area is showing a

positive outcome in terms of minimising the incidence of illegal fishing activities.

Sagip Lingayen Gulf, a project funded by the Netherlands government was behind the

ABBA coastal management project so I am not surprised if the management team will

claim that they have minimised illegal fishing in that small part of the Gulf.

...There is another thing that I cannot understand about this project. Why did they have

to use Sagip Lingayen Gulf as a project name when they only served the ABBA

region, rather than the entire Gulf? It’s confusing, isn’t it?

On a different note, three interviewees identified ninongs33

(high ranking officials who are

protecting illegal fishers) as another major culprit in the deterioration of the Lingayen Gulf

resources. The actions of ninongs have aggravated illegal fishing activities in the Gulf.

According to these interviewees, when violators were apprehended they were required to pay

fines, the amounts depending on the seriousness of the violations. The following response is

typical of the reactions of these interviewees: ‘...on the first violation we require monetary fines,

on the second violation we file administrative charges’.

The interviewees claimed that they had apprehended and fined several illegal fishers. The

violations, according to them, included blast fishing and encroachment of commercial fishing

vessels into municipal waters. Based on their experience, commercial fishing vessels operated

33

Ninong is a local term for godfather, but interviewees of this research used the word to mean ‘protectors of the

illegal fishers’.

202

during bad weather when there were no coastal patrols out at sea, thus, avoiding possible

apprehension.

However, these interviewees further noted that because of the actions of the ninongs, who

normally had connections to illegal fishing activities particularly commercial fishing operations,

the apprehended illegal fishers were able to evade the required legal sanctions for their

violations. Ninongs were protecting the illegal fishers by negotiating with high-ranking officials

to settle the violations, including the release of any fishing equipment confiscated by the

arresting officers. The interviewees, who refused to identify the ninongs or the officials involved

in the negotiation of violations, claimed that settlement normally involved paying administrative

fines. (It was apparent from the interview that the acts of the ninongs were clear manifestations

of corruption, but this term was not used by any of the interviewees).

Similarly, one interviewee who was a People’s Organisation leader in one of the municipalities

of La Union claimed:

... illegal fishing, particularly in the form of trawl fishing is operated by wealthy

people from Pangasinan. They do it here in the coastal waters of (name of the

municipality withheld upon request of the interviewee) because it is not strict in our

municipality.

...Our fish catch is too small as a result. If we have a small number of fish no fish to

catch, that means we have nothing to eat and are not able to buy food.

...Our coastal laws are very weak.


The next line of inquiry concerns the previous management interventions that have taken place in

the Lingayen Gulf. The interviewees were each asked the same question, which generated

variations in their individual responses (see Table 8.4). Two responses did not answer the

question directly. These responses, which dealt with the misrepresentation of the community

sector in Lingayen Gulf management, nevertheless provided valuable insights into community

203

involvement in coastal management. Another two interviewees had no opinions on prior

management interventions undertaken in the Lingayen Gulf area. Thus, no response was

generated from them on this question. Specifically, the question asked was as follows:



Out of the 14 interviewees from the community sector eight interviewees (57.14%) pointed out

that the previous attempts to manage the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf had not been

successful. These interviewees bluntly claimed that a range of indications pointed to a lack of

success in the management of the Gulf. These indications included persistent problems with

illegal fishing activities such as blast, poison and trawl fishing; coastal pollution emanating from

households and industries; illegal operation and encroachment of commercial fishing vessels into

the area; weak law enforcement; and poor management coordination between and among the

various agencies tasked to oversee the well-being of the Gulf. One of the interviewees elaborated

on his views on the management initiatives that had been carried out in the Lingayen Gulf:

I have been part of the Fishermen’s and Farmers’ Association in our municipality for

over 10 years now. A number of times I have represented the municipality in the

overall Lingayen Gulf conventions, workshops and management meetings. This

experience has involved me in the various management interventions that have taken

place in the Gulf.

The first management intervention that I was involved in was with LGCAMC on

community organising, IEC campaigns, coastal survey and monitoring. I am a witness

of the hardwork that the LGCAMC team put into their job. Unfortunately, this

hardwork did not pay off because when the commission was terminated no changes or

improvements were felt in the area. Illegal fishing was still rampant. But I have to

admit that LGCAMC started and inspired the succeeding projects and programs

carried out in the Lingayen Gulf.

After LGCAMC, I was involved in the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project. I assisted in

coastal clean-up activities, and coastal patrolling with the local police and some

coastal volunteers. We were able to apprehend illegal fishers, particularly those using

dynamite, and commercial operators who intrude in other coastal areas. We turned

them over to the municipalities where the illegal activities took place, but I don’t

know what happened to these coastal violators. I heard, but I did not actually see, that

they were immediately released with their confiscated fishing gear after they were

brought to the LGUs. Dynamite fishers were made to pay fines. But in the case of

commercial fishers, they were released without any administrative charges as these

204

fishers are well-protected by high-ranking officials – some of them are influential

politicians and wealthy businessmen – who bribe the arresting officers in exchange for

the release of the commercial fishers and their confiscated vessels. The project ended

in 2007 but the serious problem of illegal fishing still happens to this day.

At present, I am part of the ICRMP. This is an on-going coastal project for the whole

of Region 1, and I do hope that it can bring improvement in the Lingayen Gulf.

Table 8.4 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on Previous Coastal Management



Successful 2 14.29

Not successful 8 57.14

No comment 4 28.57

Total 14 100

Another interviewee, who was a former member of the Philippine military, put matters more

bluntly, stating:

The reason why the local government is pushing for more intensified coastal

management programs and projects in the Lingayen Gulf is that the previous

management attempts did not do well in reversing the situation in the Gulf.

On the other hand, two interviewees (14.29%) briefly stated that the previous management

attempts in Lingayen Gulf had been successful, particularly the LGCAMC. One of them asserted

that the LGCAMC had genuinely initiated management efforts in the Gulf. He further claimed

that the LCGAMC’s planning component, which involved identification of coastal issues,

formulation of management strategies, and monitoring and evaluation, had been successful in

establishing management mechanisms for effectively managing the Gulf. According to this

interviewee, this planning component had since been imitated by other coastal areas in the

country. Similarly, the other interviewee noted that LGCAMC inculcated in the minds of the

local people the deteriorating condition of the coastal resources of the Gulf and the need to

restore it. This was a successful IEC drive, he asserted. From this viewpoint, the interviewee,

who was once a public official, believed that the incidence of illegal fishing was not as serious as

it was during the pre-LGCAMC period. To him this was an indication of success.

205

The remaining four interviewees (28.57%) did not respond to the question. Three of these

interviewees had only recently joined their community organisations and claimed that they had

little knowledge about the previous management initiatives undertaken in the Lingayen Gulf.

Similarly, one interviewee, who was interviewed in lieu of the head of his organisation who was

not available on the scheduled interview date, stated:

Honestly I am not aware of the outcome of the previous management initiatives in the

Gulf. I heard about them but I have no idea how these initiatives were carried out and

how they performed or what management approaches were used by those who

administered these initiatives.


Decentralisation should have been an important turning point in the overall management of the

country’s resources, including the Lingayen Gulf coastal resources, because it devolved authority

over coastal management to LGUs and the communities they represented. Thus, the interviewees

were asked about their standpoints on the decentralisation of the national responsibilities,

particularly the devolution of the coastal management responsibilities, from the national to the

local government levels. The question that the interviewees were asked to respond to is as

follows:




The majority of the interviewees (78.57%) were not aware of what decentralisation should mean

for coastal management and what benefits it theoretically entailed. They declined to respond,

apparently because they did not understand the bureaucratic setup of the government and the

allocation of responsibilities between different levels and organisations of government, as

reflected in their responses (see Table 8.5). One such claim is clear from the following typical

response: ‘...so the central office is different from a local government unit? I’m confused. Can I

have the next question, instead’?

206

Table 8.5 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Effect of Decentralisation on

Their Coastal Management Responsibilities


Effective 2 14.29

Not effective 1 07.14

No comment 11 78.57

Total 14 100

Only three responses generated from this question. These responses reflected various

assessments and interpretations about how decentralisation impacted on the role of the local

government units in managing their coastal resources. Two of these responses (14.29%) came

from senior community leaders who claimed that decentralisation had been favourable in

enhancing the role of the community sector in coastal management. One of these interviewees

observed:

Based on my personal experience, the LGUs now in the Lingayen Gulf have become

more active in coastal management programs since decentralisation because they can

now act on their own. Before, they would always wait for the approval of the national

government for any activity/work that they performed.

Another interviewee claimed that decentralisation was a good government strategy that allowed

the local government units to be in direct contact with the community sector. The interviewee

asserted that this was a more practical approach than an approach which involved the national

government working directly with the community. The interviewee’s comment was based on his

personal estimate of the relative distances between the community and national and local

governments but did not offer observations on the results of the different governance

arrangements. Specifically, he remarked:

I think it is important that the responsibilities for coastal management have been

devolved to the local government. This set-up benefits us, village-level organisations,

because we work closely with the LGUs. I cannot imagine village-level organisations

taking orders directly from the national government.

On a negative note, one (7.14%) interviewee expressed a different opinion on the effect of

decentralisation on coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf. He stated that

207

Maybe in other local government services decentralisation works, but from a coastal

management perspective, in my opinion, it did not really help that much. The

Lingayen Gulf continues to be the only declared environmentally-critical area in the

Philippines.

8.4.4 Interagency cooperation/coordination in Lingayen Gulf management

The community sector interviewees were also asked to share their opinions and perceptions

regarding the working relationships between the sectors involved the management of the

Lingayen Gulf. Specifically, the interviewees were asked the following question:


management?

The interviewees provided varied reactions and responses to the question (see Table 8.6). Six

interviewees (42.86%) maintained that there was an evident conflict between and among the

agencies tasked to manage the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf. They further claimed that

the capacity of these agencies to protect the well-being of the Gulf was adequate but the will to

work with each other was lacking, and often problematic. The interviewees specifically pointed

to the conflicts they had noticed between the lead agencies in coastal management such as BFAR

and DENR as the major reason for not attaining effective interagency cooperation and

coordination. According to the interviewees, this had adversely affected the overall management

performance in the Lingayen Gulf. As one interviewee commented:

I think there is a problem with BFAR and DENR which is very noticeable in

mangrove management. Mangroves are technically part of the forest resources and at

the same time considered coastal resources. As forest management is the sole

responsibility of DENR, the agency also takes part in managing the mangroves which

is supposed to be a responsibility of BFAR as it is mainly concerned with coastal

management. This causes overlapping in the functions of both agencies which has

been triggering tremendous confusion for everyone.

Also, after decentralisation the Office of Municipal Agriculture cannot proceed with

any coastal management program or project without the approval of the Local Chief

Executive (LCE) or mayor. The problem here is if the LCE, who has a 3-year electoral

term, does not prioritise coastal management during his/her term of office, then

managing the Lingayen Gulf, in particular will be compromised.

208

Another interviewee, while recognising the significance of BFAR and DENR, admitted to

confusion about their roles. He noted:

We don’t really know the difference between the responsibilities of BFAR and DENR

because both agencies are always present whenever there are coastal management

activities. As far as I know they have conflicts in mangrove management.

Table 8.6 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on Interagency Cooperation in



Good 6 21.43

Not good 3 42.86

No comment 4 28.57

Uncertain 1 07.14

Total 14 100

Three interviewees (21.43%) simply replied that all agencies involved in Lingayen Gulf

management were coordinating with each other well, but did not elaborate further. (During the

interview it was evident that the interviewees were not knowledgeable about the nature of the

cooperation that was supposed to take place in Lingayen Gulf management; they did not think

that the nature of the cooperation was a matter in which they should be involved).

On the other hand, four interviewees (28.57%) were uncertain of the overall picture of

government agency responsibilities and cooperation. Thus, one interviewee remarked:

I only work directly with the LGU, particularly in the Municipal Agricultural Office

(MAO). I take orders directly from them. I do not personally know which one does

what. I take orders from the MAO. But what I know is both agencies (BFAR and

DENR) are always present in every coastal management activity that I am involved in.

I cannot comment on that. I am directly working with the LGU. I seldom meet the

DENR people, but I work with them sometimes.

One (7.14%) interview was not asked this particular question because he claimed that he was a

new member of his organisation, and as such did not have enough experience of working with

209

government organisations to make informed comments on the overall government arrangements

and activities.


Formulation and enactment of legal instruments for coastal management in the Philippines

involves various groups, including the national government agencies, the local government units,

the private sector, and the community sector. The involvement of the coastal community sector

in the law-making process for the management of the Lingayen Gulf is crucial. Members of this

sector are direct stakeholders of the coastal resources and, for the most part, depend on the

coastal environment for food and livelihood. However, the community sector in the Gulf is not

knowledgeable about its legal obligations in coastal management (DENR et al. 2001e).

Having a very critical role in the legal arrangements for coastal management, the community

sector interviewees were asked the following question:


laws? By whom?

A similar pattern of responses was recorded from the interviewees on the question of whether

enactment of new coastal mandates is necessary in order to address the persistent problems in the

Lingayen Gulf (see Table 8.7). Nine interviewees (64.29%) felt that there were enough laws that

deal with coastal management. These interviewees all claimed that despite the enactment of

numerous coastal laws in the Lingayen Gulf area, enforcement of these laws was lacking. As one

of these interviewees remarked:

We have the Fisheries Code which covers everything about fisheries management in

the country including the Lingayen Gulf. The LGUs have MFOs. So what more is

lacking? Just enforce them fairly and strictly to get rid of the coastal problems. I am

certain that illegal fishing activities can only be stopped if laws are properly

implemented.

210

Table 8.7 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Importance of Enacting New

Coastal Laws for the Lingayen Gulf


Yes 5 35.71

No 9 64.29

Total 14 100

However, five interviewees (35.71%) believed that there was still a need to formulate new

coastal laws for the Lingayen Gulf. Three of these interviewees commented that providing

incentives and alternative livelihood opportunities to both the fishers and the coastal volunteers

required legislation as this would strengthen the chances of getting the support of the community

sector for full participation in coastal management. This could also reduce the incidence of

illegal fishing activities. A coastal patrol volunteer who was serving as head of a municipal

People’s Organisation explained:

We deserve some form of incentives because we are doing a lot of work in assisting

the LGUs in managing the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf. Only the president

(myself) is given an honorarium for this job, my members don’t get anything. What I

mean here is the government should at least give scholarships to the children of all the

members of the fishing community organisations, or something to that effect. This

strategy will boost active participation of all the members in effectively managing the

gulf. The government should have legislation like this.

Two other interviewees pointed out that proper implementation of the coastal laws should

involve the provision of alternative livelihood projects by the government so that the

small/marginal fishermen who had been affected by illegal fishing could have alternative sources

of income. The interviewees also theorised that alternative livelihood projects could encourage

local coastal violators to stop engaging in illegal fishing activities.

One interviewee who was an active participant in coastal patrol services proposed the

establishment of a special court to try marine/fisheries offences. This interviewee maintained

that, based on his observation, lawyers who had tried previous coastal violation cases were not

well versed in the coastal environment and its management as well as the legal instruments

relating to them. As a result, he explained, the cases were either dismissed or court decisions

211

were delayed. Before ending the interview, the interviewee admitted: ‘... it is very rare that a

coastal violation is tried in court because most illegal fishers are protected by powerful

politicians and public officials’.


Involvement in the overall management of the Lingayen Gulf was a very important question for

the community sector. The ICM principle recognises the role of the community as vital in

conserving and preserving the coastal resources. In the same way, various Philippine legal

instruments such as the Philippine Fisheries Code, the Local Government Code, and Municipal

Fishery Ordinances, among others, also consider the participation of the community an important

facet of coastal management.

In order to probe perceptions on the involvement of the community in managing the resource of

the Lingayen Gulf, the interviewees were asked the following question:


processes? How does it perform?

The question yielded positive responses from 12 interviewees (85.71%) representing the

community sector (see Table 8.8). However, two of these interviewees, who were both heads of

community organisations, requested that their responses be excluded from the final transcript of

the interview; for purpose of clarity, they claimed that because of the minor coastal management

role they were expected to perform they would normally ask their members to represent them.

These two interviewees who asked to have their responses excluded from the thesis were

concerned about the potential adverse effects of their answers on their jobs as heads of their

organisations. The two remaining interviewees (14.29%) simply declined to answer the question,

claiming that they could not comment on how they were represented in coastal management.

According to these two interviewees, they were involved in some coastal activities but they were

not sure if their involvement constituted management and decision-making processes in the

Lingayen Gulf.

212

Table 8.8 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on Their Representation in the



Represented 12 85.71

Not represented - -

No comment 2 14.29

Total 14 100

In general, the most common response derived from asking this question was as follows: ‘The

community is involved in CRM activities’.

Such a response was concrete proof that the local government units within the Lingayen Gulf

area were taking into consideration the important role of the community sector in coastal

management. While 10 interviewees expressed this answer to the question, there was variation in

their responses in terms of the degree and nature of their participation in Lingayen Gulf

management. One active Fishermen’s and Farmers’ Association leader noted: ‘We are involved

in coastal management activities in our municipality. I think the LGU considers us an important

component of Lingayen Gulf management’.

In agreement, a Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council leader who also

served as a coastal watch volunteer stated:

We assist the LGU in managing the Lingayen Gulf coastal resources. We are always

there if they need us. We don’t formulate our own coastal management plans and

strategies, we only follow what LGUs tell us to do.

Five other interviewees, who noted that they were taking part in coastal management activities

through the initiatives of the local government, expressed different standpoints on the nature of

their engagement in Lingayen Gulf management. Their engagement, they believed, was not

considered by government as participating in major coastal management and decision-making

activities. One interviewee who supervised the bantay dagat in one municipality commented:

213

‘We are invited to coastal management meetings all the time. That is our only engagement in

coastal management’.

A former barangay official who headed the People’s Organisation for coastal management in his

area believed that the community played a role, but a supporting one. He observed: ‘We are

involved in CRM activities, but only on minor activities such as coastal clean-up activities’.

Similarly, another person in charge of a Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management

Council claimed:

The community is participating in CRM. It is part of our commitment. For us our

participation in coastal management is not a job, it’s a commitment. We are doing this

for ourselves and for the future generation, we are not doing this because the law

requires us to participate or because the government wants us to take part.

Unfortunately not all members of the Lingayen Gulf community have the same

sentiment and mindset as I do. I think it is probably because some members of the

Lingayen Gulf community know that they will not get anything from volunteering, so

it’s about time for the government to think about this issue to boost community

participation in coastal management.


Circulation of information regarding proper supervision and administration of activities carried

out in the coastal environment and the sustainable management of its resources is an initiative

that encourages the involvement of the community sector. This is evidently true for the case of

the Lingayen Gulf. Information dissemination efforts have originated from the local government

since decentralisation under the supervision of the national government, particularly BFAR and

DENR. The local government engages the community sector in spreading the proper care and

nurturing of the coastal resources.

The purpose of incorporating the community sector in information dissemination drives is based

on legal mandates that oblige the participation of the community sector in coastal management

activities as well as on the principles of ICM which uphold the important role of the community

in coastal management. In order to assess whether the community sector within the Lingayen

214

Gulf area is represented and/or involved in IEC campaigns for the development and sustainable

management of the gulf’s resources, the community interviewees were individually asked the

following question:

Did the local government provide adequate education and information campaigns regarding the

poor condition of the Gulf and the need to sustainably manage it? Were the local people

informed about the impact of coastal degradation (e.g., destructive fishing, overfishing, among

others) on their well-being, and on the welfare of the Lingayen Gulf environment?

All interviewees (100%) provided affirmative responses to this question (see Table 8.9). They

asserted:

Information dissemination drives initiated by the local government, in which the

community has been involved, have played a vital role in enlightening and educating

the people about appropriate management of the coastal resources particularly in the

Lingayen Gulf.

Table 8.9 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on the Adequacy of IEC



Adequate 14 100

Inadequate - -

Total 14 100

All the interviewees agreed that they were actively participating in the efforts of the local

government to disseminate information about coastal management. Moreover, eight interviewees

professed certainty that the local government was doing a good job in promoting awareness and

information campaigns in the area through the production of brochures and pamphlets distributed

not only among the coastal community but also in public places, such as schools, public markets,

and municipal halls. Radio broadcasts, according to these interviewees, were also used by the

local government to relay the information to the public. Regular meetings involving community

leaders were also mentioned by the interviewees as essential means of informing the community

215

about the development of coastal management programs and projects in the Gulf, and

particularly the status and condition of the coastal environment.

One of the interviewees remarked:

I learned everything about the poor condition of the Gulf and its proper management

to prevent it from further degradation through meetings where I was invited to the

municipal hall, and sometimes to the provincial hall. I always shared this information

with the members of our organisation.

...I think there are radio broadcasts and information brochures provided by the LGU

but the problem is many of the coastal area residents are illiterate so they don’t

understand the information. They only learn it if the information is explained

thoroughly to them. Brochures will only end up in the bin for these people, and radio

announcements will serve nothing to them unfortunately.

Three interviewees supported the point that the lack of education in the case of some residents in

the Gulf often defeated the purpose of awareness and information sharing schemes. These

interviewees also suggested that the local government should do more than just distribution of

information leaflets, posting of notices, and mass media campaigns. One interviewee offered the

following opinion:

The LGU people should go out of their offices and disseminate the information

personally to the people. That’s part of what they are paid for. Direct interaction with

people is crucial here because the problem is getting worse.

In addition, the three interviewees stated that illegal fishers were normally aware of the

appropriate fishing practices but ignored them in favour of illegal fishing which they saw as a

fast and easy source of income. The interviewees further claimed that whenever illegal fishers

were apprehended by the member of the maritime police, they would always use ‘poverty’ as

excuse.

On the other hand, three other interviewees said that apart from the problem of lack of education

among local fishers, coastal laws were poorly enforced in many coastal areas in the country and

coastal management was not given appropriate support by the government. He also pointed out

216

that their LGU had only limited access to facilities such as patrol boats and GPS to monitor the

coastal area.

In his concluding remarks, a veteran community leader who started as a reluctant member of the

community organisation cited instances of illegal fishers being reformed as a result of tragic

experiences. He recounted the following incidents:

There were some accidents in blast fishing. There was one whose hand was amputated

because it got caught up with the dynamite. It served him a lesson, now he is doing

hook-and-eye fishing. That person said to me he would not fish illegally any more.

Another former illegal fisher admitted to me that when he learned and saw what is

happening in the Lingayen Gulf through media broadcasts and government

information drives he came to realise the importance of the coastal resources. This

made him decide to become a volunteer to help preserve the coastal resources.


The interviews revealed that the community sector was actively involved in various coastal

management activities in the area. Thus, as a final question, the community sector interviewees

were asked to evaluate their participation and involvement in managing the coastal resources of

the Lingayen Gulf. The interviewees responded to the following question:


A total of 11 interviewees (78.57%) stated that they were performing their allocated tasks to the

best of their ability by assisting the concerned national government agencies and the local

government units in the protection and preservation of the marine resources of the Lingayen Gulf

to the best of their abilities (see Table 8.10). All of these interviewees, however, admitted that

they were not satisfied with their performance nor with the result of their performance.

According to these interviewees, their involvement in the management of the Gulf was limited.

This hampered their ability to participate fully in the management and decision-making

processes. The following was typical of the responses of the interviewees: ‘I am doing my job.

217

What impedes me sometimes in effectively performing my job is the deficiency of facilities and

funds for coastal management activities’.

Table 8.10 Community Sector Interviewees’ Perceptions on their Performance in the



Satisfied 0 0

Not satisfied 11 78.57

No comment 3 21.43

Total 14 100

Two of these interviewees responded emotionally to the question; both were close to tears,

particularly when they talked about their respective families. These interviewees included a head

of a Fishermen’s and Farmers’ Association in one municipality, and a deputy chief of a People’s

Organisation in a neighbouring municipality, who were both disappointed with the outcome of

their coastal management involvement. According to them, they dedicated all their effort, time,

and energy in managing the coastal environment on which they relied for many years for food

and livelihood, for their families and for future generations. One of these interviewees stated:

I am a very active member of our association. I sacrifice a lot of my family time

because of my CRM commitment. Sometimes even if I am not feeling well I still

attend meetings or report to the Municipal Agriculturist if they need me. This small

role that I contribute to the Lingayen Gulf means so much to me and my family.

...I have dedicated my life to this job (as head of a Fishermen’s and Farmers’

Association) because it is where I get my source of living.

Another one of the 11 interviewees unabashedly expressed his dissatisfaction with his

performance by saying:

I can only be satisfied with my performance or the contribution of the other sectors

involved in Lingayen Gulf management if there are tangible results of our efforts

already. So far, the Lingayen Gulf is still in a poor condition. How can I be proud of

that, so is everybody else in the management team?

On the other hand, three interviewees (21.43%) opted to comment on the performance of the

national government agencies responsible for coastal management and the local government

218

units covered within the Lingayen Gulf. These interviewees felt that it was more appropriate to

evaluate other sectors involved in the management process rather than their own performance

which they thought may be biased. They admitted that they did not feel able to judge their own

performance. These three interviewees pointed out that the national and local government sectors

were carrying out their coastal management duties to manage the Gulf and protect it from further

damage. One interviewee shared his perceptions, noting:

The national and local government agencies are okay, except that they don’t provide

adequate incentives to the members of the organisations that they are organising,

particularly the community organisations, to help them look after the coastal area.

Another interviewee highlighted the need for interagency cooperation as follows:

The local government plays a very important role in coastal management, but they are

just one sector. They need other agencies to work with them in order to be successful

in their quest to free the Lingayen Gulf from coastal problems, particularly the

prevalent illegal fishing, including dynamite and cyanide fishing. But the problem is

lack of interagency cooperation – this is obvious between BFAR and DENR,

especially when it comes to mangrove management.

8.5 Conclusion

This chapter explained the role of the community sector in coastal management, particularly in

the Lingayen Gulf. The community sector is an essential component of coastal management that

plays a vital role in managing the coastal resources on which local people in the Gulf have been

depending for food and livelihood. More importantly, this chapter presented the interviews

involving 14 member of the Lingayen Gulf community. These interviews, which comprised eight

questions focusing on the condition on the Lingayen Gulf and their management, generated a

range of opinions and observations from the interviewees. It was generally agreed by the

interviewees that the Gulf is besieged with management issues including illegal fishing,

degraded coastal habitat, and poor law enforcement as well as weak institutional arrangement. It

was also revealed in the interviews that there was lack of involvement and representation on the

part of the community sector in coastal management, a matter that was dominated by the national

government and the local government.

219

Chapter 9: Case Study Analysis

9.1 Introduction

Having discussed the empirical data on coastal management gathered from the research

interviews, this chapter now presents the analysis of the data to develop a clear understanding of

what has been happening in the Lingayen Gulf and its relationship to the model of ICM

presented in the literature. ICM is a widely accepted multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary

management approach for coastal environments.

The main area of inquiry in the chapter involves the effectiveness of the coastal management

mechanisms used in managing the Lingayen Gulf which will be measured against the ICM

model. This area of inquiry leads to several other questions relating to the management of the

Lingayen Gulf which are essential in evaluating and understanding how the Gulf has been

managed in the past, how it is managed at present, and how it should be managed in the future.

The chapter is divided into two sections. The first section presents an analysis of the

management roles, responsibilities and performance of the main actors involved in managing the

Lingayen Gulf. The second section focuses on the analysis of the governance and management

processes involved in managing the Gulf.

9.2 The Actors in Lingayen Gulf Coastal Management

The first area of analysis provides a detailed discussion on the management roles of the three

main actors in Lingayen Gulf coastal management, namely the national government, the local

government and the community sector. BFAR and DENR represent the national government; the

220

cities and municipalities within the Lingayen Gulf represent the local government; and the local

residents represent the community sector. These actors are regarded as important components of

coastal management under the ICM model.

The key actors involved in managing the Gulf have identified common coastal problems and

their causes in the area. These problems include illegal fishing, primarily with the use of

dynamite and cyanide, excessive fishing efforts causing serious depletion of fishery resources,

and coastal pollution emanating from households and industries. Poor coordination among

various sectors involved in coastal management and weak management capacity of the local

government have been identified as having contributed to the seriousness of the problems. In

addition, ineffective enforcement of coastal laws has been pinpointed as a significant

contributory factor aggravating the problems of overfishing, coastal pollution, and destructive

fishing activities in the area, all of which have gradually caused the deterioration of the health

and well-being of the Gulf’s coastal ecosystem.

Despite management interventions by various sectors, coastal problems in the Lingayen Gulf

have continued to exist and have even worsened. The roles of the different sectors involved in

overseeing the natural coastal resources of the Gulf are therefore explored in this section to

understand the extent to which their roles and functions may have contributed to the

development of management measures to deal with the coastal problems, and whether these

measures conformed to the ICM model.

9.2.1 National government: BFAR and DENR

The national government is an essential component of coastal management. According to the

ICM framework, the national government plays a crucial role in managing the coastal resources.

It principally ensures capacity-building, brings programs into effect, coordinates sectoral

programs, and consults on coastal issues with local government, the business community,

academe, resource user groups, and the general public (GESAMP 1996; Sorensen 1997; Olsen

2003). Sorensen (1997) further elaborated that in ICM the national government endorses the

objectives and goals necessary for establishing management direction, coordination of planning

221

and management, and criteria for monitoring and evaluation. In the case of the Philippines, there

are two national government agencies, BFAR and DENR, mandated to provide overall

supervision in managing the country’s coastal environment. BFAR and DENR are primarily

responsible for providing technical and financial support to coastal management programs in the

country, including the Lingayen Gulf area. Both agencies have been actively involved in coastal

management activities and well-represented in decision and law-making processes.

However, due to similarities in their prescribed management responsibilities, these agencies have

been enmeshed in legal and administrative conflicts and overlaps in the performance of their

coastal management functions and roles. For example, BFAR and DENR both share

responsibilities regarding coastal resource conservation, including fisheries and mangrove

forests, which have been causing confusion among LGU personnel and community users. They

also have inconsistencies in their functions related to the issuance of permits for coastal

management activities. This is because as BFAR is responsible for the issuance of leasing

permits for mangrove forest areas to be developed into fishponds, DENR issues permits for

overall forest areas, including mangroves (Balgos & Pagdilao 2002). Similarly, 62.5% of the

interviewees from BFAR and DENR, 60% from the LGUs, and 42.86% (where another 35.71%

were either uncertain or did not respond) from the community sector agreed that there was an

existing ‘overlapping of functions’ between the national agencies in carrying out their coastal

resource management functions. Based on Wesmacott’s (2002) observation, commitment,

flexibility and patience are needed urgently because conflicts among stakeholders are blocking

the success of ICM.

On a similar note, BFAR and DENR interviewees argued that the root of the problem regarding

their conflicting responsibilities was the ambiguous formulation and interpretation of laws in

relation to coastal management. According to the interviewees, there may have been

inconsistencies, misunderstandings and conflicts regarding their roles in managing the Lingayen

Gulf but they were only performing their functions based on the legal instruments mandating

them to do so. Such findings of this study suggest that a coastal mandate that clearly defines

specific management responsibilities for BFAR and DENR is necessary to address the

misunderstandings and conflicts and to encourage a functional management mechanism for the

222

coastal environment. This is particularly significant in the adoption of the ICM policy cycle to

guide the implementation of a coastal management program in the Lingayen Gulf. The ICM

policy cycle, which comprises five management steps, provides a comprehensive structure for

effective management of coastal resources (Olsen 2003). Step 1 of the policy cycle requires

consultation among different coastal stakeholders to identify priority issues. For effective

consultations and collaborations, ensuring good work relationships between these stakeholders is

essential before and during the adoption and implementation of the management steps and their

associated actions involved in the policy cycle.

9.2.2 Local government

Aside from the national government, the local government, which includes province, city, and

municipality, and their component barangays, is an equally important actor in the

implementation of an ICM program (Sorensen 1997; Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998; Westmacott

2002). In the Philippine coastal management practice, the local government plays a crucial role

in the management of the coastal resources. The expansion of the local government’s role in

resource management was primarily advanced by the process of government decentralisation in

1991. The discussion on decentralisation in Chapter 3 of this thesis is important in understanding

the arrangements for coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf. According to Sorensen (1993),

in a decentralised country, the role of the local government is particularly significant in policy

formulation, and the activities of the local government should be supported by the national

government in order to achieve success in coastal management.

Decentralisation in the Philippines took effect two decades ago but it remains a controversial

topic in the country, particularly in terms of its effect on local development, quality of

governance, and political stability (Llanto 2009). The decentralisation of the Philippine

government has been significant in promoting a paradigm shift in management and governance

arrangements in the country. DENR et al. (2001b) explained that the devolution of authority

from the national government to the local government in 1991 paved the way for LGUs to take

the lead role in coastal management. It allowed the LGUs to increase their management

responsibilities for their own coastal resources by tasking them to deliver basic services and

223

facilities, and to carry out regulatory and legislative functions affecting the well-being of their

coastal environments. Under decentralised government, the coastal management functions of the

local government cover planning, protection and preservation, enactment of legal mandates and

regulations, policy formulation, revenue generation, law enforcement, inter-governmental

coordination, including relations with community organisations and NGOs, as well as provision

of extension services (DENR et al. 2001d). The coastal management role of the local government

was further reinforced by the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998. This Code mandates the city or

municipal government to manage its resources within municipal waters which include streams,

lakes, inland bodies of water, tidal waters, and marine waters within 15 kilometres from the

shoreline seaward during low tide (DA-BFAR 1998).

However, this study has revealed that decentralisation has challenged the service delivery and

performance of LGUs because, in general, they lacked trained personnel, funding, and technical

know-how and experience to perform key responsibilities particularly in relation to coastal

management. Decentralisation in the Philippines happened abruptly and LGU personnel were not

given sufficient time to prepare for their roles. These personnel were not well versed in existing

coastal mandates, nor were they knowledgeable about the systems and processes involved in

coastal management. This means that they were unaware of their legal responsibilities. ‘Learning

by experience’ was the way in which LGU personnel adjusted to their coastal management

responsibilities brought about by devolution. This is contradictory to one of the requirements of

ICM that in order to establish and implement a program human resources are expected to be

trained and experienced (Westmacott 2002).

The participants interviewed for this research offered different viewpoints regarding the effect of

decentralisation on the performance of their coastal management duties. The majority of the

interviewees from BFAR and DENR (75%) asserted that decentralisation had not actually

removed their coastal management tasks. They claimed that they had remained active in

providing technical assistance and overall supervision to the local government for the protection

and preservation of its coastal resources. Relevant literature, however, points out that under the

decentralised government system, LGUs are mandated to perform the major role in coastal

management, while concerned national government agencies are only expected to coordinate and

224

advise LGUs on conservation, development and management of their coastal resources and

provide supervision.

In the case of the local government interviewees, 50% were either uncertain about the effect of

decentralisation because it had both advantages and disadvantages or opted not to comment

because they had joined the local government before decentralisation; 30% believed that

decentralisation had given them full decision-making and management authority which was

beneficial in managing the coastal resources. The rest of the local government interviewees

(20%) claimed that decentralisation had a serious impact on their performance as they were not

properly oriented or trained in preparation for work in a decentralised government environment.

Most interviewees from the community sector (78.57%) chose not to provide an opinion and

admitted that they were not familiar with the implications of decentralisation for managing the

coastal environment. Only three interviewees provided comments on the question: two (14.29%)

believed that decentralisation was good for the LGUs; and one interviewee (7.14%) opposed this

argument.

The observations and opinions from all the interviews indicate that devolution of coastal

management responsibilities to the local government did not have a significant effect on the

sustainable and effective management of the Lingayen Gulf coastal resources. More importantly,

these viewpoints suggest that the local government generally lacked the capacity to be in the

forefront of coastal management. This clearly contradicts a fundamental principle of ICM which

expects the local government to play the most important role, particularly in a decentralised

government.

The study further shows that major coastal management decisions are retained in the national

government despite the strengthening of the role of the local government. For instance, BFAR

issues licences for commercial fishing operations and regulates the conversion of mangroves to

aquaculture within the LGU jurisdiction. DENR, on the other hand, regulates small-scale mining

and quarrying, and issues leases for foreshore areas in the local government jurisdiction. As

relevant literature has indicated, the institutional presence of the national government is still

225

evident in the local government setting (Eisma et al. 2005). This was confirmed by the BFAR

and DENR interviewees. Additionally, it has also been established in this study that funding for

most local management projects and programs, including coastal management, generally come

from the national government. This means that the local government is not able to implement

coastal management initiatives without financial support from the national government which is

contrary to the principles of decentralisation. In particular, these issues caused uncertainty and

confusion on the part of the Lingayen Gulf local government staff as to the nature of their roles

and responsibilities, and how local government coastal management initiatives could be effective

when funds are not readily available.

9.2.3 The community sector

Based on the ICM model, one of the most important groups of actors is the community sector.

Relevant literature has suggested that the involvement of the community in the management and

decision-making processes is important in effectively managing the coastal environment

(Sorensen 1997; Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998; Westmacott 2002). In the Lingayen Gulf, which

serves as a primary source of food and livelihood for the majority of the members of the coastal

community, coastal management is considered a vital mechanism for improving marine

production and productivity. Decentralisation has brought the community sector closer to the

local government (DENR et al. 2001e). This has provided an opportunity for the community

sector to work directly with the LGUs in relation to overall resource management, including the

management of the coastal areas.

This study shows that among the coastal stakeholders involved in managing the Gulf, members

of the community sector have the most immediate access to the coastal environment as they live

within the coastal zone. Their traditional knowledge of coastal management is valuable in fully

understanding the complex management system that the Gulf requires. They have first-hand

interaction with the coastal environment and they witness the challenges besetting the Gulf

which provide them with ideas and suggestions in dealing with such challenges. Thus, the

community sector in the Lingayen Gulf plays an important role in coastal management.

226

In an attempt to broaden the understanding of the role of the community sector in coastal

management, this study probed the sector’s level of participation and involvement in Lingayen

Gulf management. Interviewees representing the national government – BFAR and DENR – all

agreed (100%) that the community sector was actively represented in the Lingayen Gulf

management. The local government interviewees (100%) also affirmed the active involvement of

the community sector in all aspects of management in Lingayen Gulf. Similarly, the majority of

the community sector interviewees (85.71%) positively stated that they had been involved in the

Gulf’s management. The rest of the community sector interviewees (14.29%) declined to

comment on the issue. All responses generated from the community sector concurred with the

responses from the national and local government interviewees as regards their direct

involvement in coastal management. However, it should be noted that such involvement,

according to the community sector interviewees, was limited to minor coastal management

activities, including participating in coastal clean-up drives and attending meetings at their own

expense. This minor participation was seen by the community as underestimation on the part of

the government agencies of the community’s much greater potential to contribute to managing

the Lingayen Gulf. This can also be interpreted as reluctance on the part the government to allow

the community sector to exert influence over decision-making.

The information provided by the community interviewees confirmed the observations of Pollnac

et al. (2001) and Christie (2005) that major planning, management and decision-making

processes in relation to managing the Gulf are largely performed by the government institutions

while the community sector is utilised for coastal-related undertakings that require voluntary

service, particularly patrolling MPAs. This means that the community’s participation in

managing the coastal resources of the Gulf has been restrained and delimited by the more

dominant management authorities of the local government and the national government. Clearly,

this creates the impression that in the Lingayen Gulf the role of the community sector is not

regarded as significant. This does not conform to the model of ICM which emphasises the

importance of the community’s role in managing the coastal environment.

227

On the other hand, the positive responses of the national and local government interviewees on

the participation of the community in Lingayen Gulf coastal management were predictable. This

is particularly because weak community participation in coastal management is perceived as

non-threatening by both the national and the local government, whereas the incorporation of a

strong community sector would challenge the status quo. In addition, both levels of government

wished to be seen as conforming to the coastal laws because they are both responsible for

encouraging community involvement in managing the coastal resources. For instance, the 1991

Local Government Code mandated the LGUs to promote the establishment and operation of

community organisations to enable them to participate in local governance, including the

management of the coastal resources (DILG 2005).

9.3 Governance and Management Processes in Lingayen Gulf

The second area of analysis in this study focuses on the governance structure and processes for

Lingayen Gulf coastal management in relation to ICM. Sorensen (1997) pointed out that in order

to attain a successful coastal management program, a strategic management structure which

incorporates various actors in the management system is necessary. The model of ICM is

considered a comprehensive management structure that guides the step-by-step implementation

of a coastal management program (GESAMP 1996; Olsen 2003; Harvey & Hilton 2006). This

model has been adopted successfully in the implementation of a number of coastal management

initiatives around the world, including China, Indonesia and Vietnam which were explored in

Chapter 2 of this thesis.

The management structure and processes involved in the Lingayen Gulf coastal management are

explained by exploring the different coastal management initiatives that have been undertaken in

attempting to conserve and nurture the fragile ecosystem, and to prevent the rapid deterioration

of the coastal environment. These initiatives are assessed in this chapter using the ICM model in

order to understand the coastal management approaches that have been adopted and how they

have been applied in managing the Gulf.

228

The Lingayen Gulf has rich coastal management experience. Attempts to introduce and develop

planned coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf have been around for over 20 years. During

this period, several management programs have been undertaken in the area involving various

sectors, including the national government and the local government, academic institutions, and

community groups. These programs were necessary to protect the ailing coastal environment of

the Gulf from a worsening situation of uncontrolled destructive human activities, such as illegal

fishing, overfishing and coastal pollution. These problems triggered the deterioration of the

health and well-being of the Gulf and severely affected the livelihood of the local fishers. The

coastal management programs were necessary to save the Gulf’s coastal resources and to prevent

them from further damage.

Different management approaches and strategies for preserving and protecting the Gulf’s natural

coastal resources have been in existence since the 1980s. The first formal management attempt in

1986 was jointly initiated by ASEAN and USAID through the LGCAMP, a foreign-assisted

project which focused on addressing the problems of overfishing. The LGCAMP involved

different sectors in implementing strategies to achieve its aims and objectives. While a multi-

sectoral management approach was employed in the project, it was primarily an integrated and

collaborative coastal management program between and among different agencies of both the

national government and the local government. The exclusion of other important sectors and

organisations from the management of the project, such as the community sector, academic and

research institutions, and private organisations, meant that it did not qualify as an example of

ICM. According to Kenchington and Crawford (1993), one of the most important factors in

achieving integration in coastal management is the building of partnership in which individuals,

NGOs and all levels of government participate in decision-making and management processes.

This implies that different sectors working together can facilitate the achievement of sustainable

development in the coastal area.

In addition, the LGCAMP dealt mainly with the reduction of fishing activities in the Gulf. It

recommended fishing reduction measures which included banning illegal fishing practices and

commercial fishing in shallow waters. However, due to non-compliance and non-cooperation on

the part of the coastal people and members of the private sector, these recommendations failed to

229

mitigate the illegal fishing problems, causing the LGCAMP to change its course and focus on

education, generation of political will and development of CRM plans at the municipal level

(NEDA 1992; White et al. 2005b).

The first attempt at managing the Gulf, which ended in 1992, fell short of satisfying the criteria

set out in ICM for a multi-disciplinary approach for the protection and conservation of the Gulf’s

coastal resources. Nevertheless, the LGCAMP represented a breakthrough in coastal

management in the Gulf. It provided first-hand scientific information on the condition of the

area, and opened significant opportunities for comprehensive coastal management interventions

in the future.

In 1993, the LGCAMC, the first bay-wide coastal management program of the Philippine

government, was created under the Office of the President. The LGCAMC came into existence

through Executive Order 171 as the overall coordinating body responsible for the management of

the Gulf. The LGCAMC management dealt with the planning and implementation of

environmental education, policy advocacy, institutional development, livelihood development,

and overall management of the coastal resources (Talaue-McManus & Chua 1997). Drawing

from previous coastal management experience, the LGCAMC was designed to be integrative and

multi-disciplinary, involving all levels of government, the community and academic institutions

in addressing a number of coastal management issues surrounding the coastal environment. The

involvement of a range of different sectors in coastal management is crucial in the successful

implementation of ICM, and indeed, was instrumental in the success of the implementation of

ICM in Xiamen, BNP and Danang where different coastal stakeholders were actively involved in

the management and decision-making processes.

In the Lingayen Gulf, however, the implementation of LGCAMC faced challenges. For example,

it was seriously affected when the Philippine government was decentralised two years after its

inauguration. The findings of this study indicate that the initial period of decentralisation in the

country triggered confusion and uncertainty on the part of the local government personnel in

performing their jobs, including their coastal management roles. This problem was aggravated by

the changes in political leadership in the country in the wake of national and local elections and

230

the subsequent changes in government departments and personnel as a result. These changes in

governance and administration had a negative impact on the implementation of LGCAMC

mainly because different political leaders had different priority programs. As a consequence of

these adjustments, the LGCAMC lost the political support which was essential to strengthen and

sustain its implementation. In ICM, success is normally evaluated according to measures such as

sustainability over long periods of time, capacity to adapt to changing environments and

conditions, and ability to encourage collaborative efforts among different groups and sectors to

promote sustainable practice and resource use (Olsen 2003). The LGCAMC failed to meet these

criteria.

In addition, the findings of this study have shown that the government and the community sector

lacked a strong partnership during the operation of the LGCAMC. The community sector was

not provided with adequate opportunity to participate in the Gulf’s coastal management.

Members of the community sector were involved and consulted only to obtain their commitment

to serve as volunteers in law enforcement activities, and participate in coastal clean-up drives.

Similarly, most community interviewees admitted that they were invited to attend coastal

management-related meetings and workshops organised by the local government at their own

expense. This normally meant that they were unable to attend because they did not have funds

for transportation or meals. This experience was in stark contrast to the implementation of the

Danang ICM Project in Vietnam. This project established a central coordinating unit to

coordinate the roles and functions of all the agencies and sectors involved in management,

including various national government agencies, the local government, and civil society. These

agencies and sectors shared the responsibilities for managing the city’s coastal resources equally.

This was to ensure that conflicts of interest were avoided throughout the implementation of the

program (Danang Coastalink 2004; Nasuchon 2009)

On a positive note, there was general consensus among the interviewees on the outcome of the

information dissemination campaigns which were considered to have increased the awareness of

the local people about the problems besetting the Gulf and the management strategies and

institutional arrangements formulated to deal with these problems. Information campaigns in the

Gulf were initiated by the LGCAMC. According to Olsen (2000), public education is important

231

for successful ICM, as it is a responsible and effective way of raising social awareness on

environmental issues. All interviewees (100%) across the three groups, national government,

local government, community sector, generally agreed that the information dissemination

campaigns carried out by the various coastal management initiatives in the Gulf, particularly the

LGCAMC, were adequate. These campaigns were conducted mainly through the production of

brochures and pamphlets, internet-based Lingayen Gulf information, and radio broadcasts. The

interviewees maintained that the actors involved in the various coastal management initiatives in

the Gulf did a good job in informing the public about what was happening in the area. The

successful implementation of the BNP coastal management program and Danang ICM Project

also acknowledged the importance of conducting public awareness drives through print and

broadcast media as a programmed and recommended action under step 2 of the ICM policy

cycle.

The information campaigns in LGCAMC, however, were not enough to reverse the negative

impact of the lack of coordination within and among various sectors and agencies in the

management of the Gulf caused by political and bureaucratic changes. In early 2000, the

LGCAMC was terminated, leaving the Gulf without an overall management program and

continuing to be confronted by serious challenges to coastal resources and their sustainability.

In 2001, another coastal management initiative was installed, the ICRMP. This initiative is a

flagship program of the Philippine government and is currently being managed by a special task

force under RDC Region 1. RDC is a multi-sectoral organisation involving various national

government agencies and local government units in Region 1 (RDC-1 2001). The ICRMP is

responsible for managing not only the Lingayen Gulf but also the entire coastal area in the Ilocos

Region comprising four provinces – Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union and Pangasinan. It

focuses on addressing critical coastal issues, particularly the resource degradation affecting the

region’s coastal environment.

The state of management of the Lingayen Gulf under the ICRMP, as seen in this study, involved

collaborative management mechanism to address a variety of issues confronting the coastal

environment within the region. Evidently patterned after the concept of ICM, which primarily

232

aims to achieve sustainable development in the coastal environment, the main objective of the

ICRMP is to develop and implement an integrated and harmonised coastal resource management

program that upholds the socio-economic conditions of the local community and promotes

appropriate resource utilisation of the region’s coastal environment (RDC-1 2005). These are the

key elements of the ICM paradigm, and, specifically, an important management action within

Step 4 of the ICM policy cycle which advocates the implementation of sustainable development

practices in the coastal environment.

In addition, the coastal management framework adopted by the ICRMP to guide its management

activities towards attaining the goal of sustainably protecting and conserving the region’s natural

coastal wealth is indicative of the ICM policy cycle. Although the sequence of actions involved

within each of the steps under the ICRMP management framework was slightly different from

the ICM policy cycle, they both shared a similar goal – the generation of a successful ICM

program. However, the ICRMP has failed to incorporate the process of evaluation in its

management framework. Step 5 of the ICM policy cycle focuses on program evaluation, which

has been regarded as an important component of implementing a successful coastal management

program (Olsen 2003).

One major concern established in this study is the possibility of the ICRMP losing momentum

and facing discontinuation despite adopting a management framework that resembles the ‘tried

and tested’ ICM approach. This possibility arises as a result of several factors, including the lack

of funds for coastal management activities, and the poor participation and involvement of the

community sector.

The ICRMP is an on-going national government initiative implemented at the local government

level, in which the national government provides technical support to coastal management

initiatives. As per legal mandate, the national government is obliged to provide the necessary

financial assistance in order to mobilise these initiatives. However, limited financial assistance

has been provided by the national government. Such an arrangement gives weight to the claim

that the national government is not allocating sufficient funds for resource management,

including management of coastal resources (Milne & Christie 2005). This claim was confirmed

233

by a local government interviewee who pointed out that the decentralisation of the Philippine

government devolved a significant number of management responsibilities to the local

government, but without the funding required to fulfil those responsibilities. Lack of financial

support has caused the failure of many coastal management initiatives implemented in the

country, including the management initiatives in the Gulf. Financial availability is critical in

ICM because one of the requirements for achieving the sustainability of coastal management

initiatives is the ability to secure a long-term financial commitment (Burbridge 1997;

Westmacott 2002), an essential management concern evident in Step 3 in the ICM policy cycle

(Olsen 2003).

In addition, the results from the interviews and review of relevant literature suggest that ICRMP

failed to acknowledge the involvement of the community sector as an important component of

the Lingayen Gulf coastal management. This claim is evidenced by the non-representation of the

community sector in the list of the core members of the ICRMP management team. The

management team comprises nine national government agencies, four provinces, and six cities

(RDC-1 2010). These member institutions and agencies had the primary responsibility of

carrying out all the coastal management activities of the program. Ironically, one of the focal

points of the ICMRP was to enhance and empower the community sector in relation to the

sector’s roles in coastal management. This follows the ICM recommendation that the inclusion

of the community sector is a crucial factor in the success of ICM. Furthermore, the promotion of

collaboration among all levels of government and the community as well as other concerned

institutions and organisations is also necessary for the protection and development of coastal

ecosystems and resources (Olsen et al. 1997). In this sense, the exclusion of the community

sector from the membership of the ICRMP has defeated the purpose of ICM in which integration

of various sectors and institutions, particularly the community in the management and decision-

making processes, is a pivotal prerequisite.

Another concern about this study is that it leaves out the equally important multi-disciplinary

approach, by not incorporating various fields and disciplines in the management process. As

noted by Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998) and Chua (1993), for effective ICM, the overall

management of the coastal environment should involve natural sciences, social sciences,

234

economics, technical and legal aspects, information-sharing, and planning and monitoring. In

conformity to the ICM framework, these disciplines are important to be incorporated into the

ICRMP implementation because their complementarity enables a more coordinated and

considered approach to coastal management.

Although there may have been some flaws in the implementation of the ICRMP at the time of

this study, but there is still ample opportunity to improve and strengthen its management

structure and strategies. The ICRMP is a continuing project which has initially shown potential

success in ambitiously managing the entire coastal area of one large region. It has attempted to

integrate various agencies at the national and local government levels in its management

processes and formulated and adopted a comprehensive coastal management framework. This

can be seen as an encouraging start which has the potential to lead to improved coastal

conditions in the region, but only when a more effective management approach is taken into

consideration.

This study also analyses the implementation of a foreign-funded project called Sagip Lingayen

Gulf. This project was implemented from 2002-2007, during the early operation stage of the

ICRMP. There was a weak linkage between these two initiatives because the Sagip Lingayen

Gulf Project had its own pool of human resources, outside the local government. For reasons of

courtesy, the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project coordinated their management activities with the

LGUs, but no LGU personnel were directly involved in the project. On a positive note, however,

the management and research inputs of the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project were shared with the

local government to support the implementation of the ICRMP.

The Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project involved scientists who were responsible for the management

of coastal issues relating to the destruction of marine habitats, destructive fishing activities,

squatting, and pollution. It also involved legal experts to investigate the adverse impacts of the

lack of appropriate national and local coastal laws and policies under the existing coastal

management structure in the area.

235

The integration of scientific and legal expertise through the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project was a

significant effort in the Gulf’s management. Combining science and law is an essential element

of science management integration in coastal management. This form of integration refers to the

incorporation of natural sciences, social sciences and engineering in information-sharing,

planning and monitoring, and concerns economic, technical and legal approaches toward

effective coastal management (Chua 1993; English 2003; Harvey & Hilton 2006). The

integration of science and law in the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project resembles the effective and

successful multi-disciplinary management approach through the collaboration between scientists

and decision-makers/managers that took place in the Xiamen ICM Project. The collaboration of

science and management in the Xiamen ICM Project led to the formation of Xiamen Marine

Experts Group, which was mainly established to integrate the fragmented coastal management

system in the area. The Xiamen Marine Experts Groups comprised legal experts, scientists, and

economists who shared valuable insights and opinions in promoting safe and healthy coastal

management use and practice in Xiamen waters (Ruan & Yu 1999). ICM recognises the

importance of uniting science and management in the management system largely because

scientific inputs are essential in developing management programs for the protection and

conservation of the natural resources of the coastal environment (GESAMP 1996).

In this sense, the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project made a positive contribution to the attempt of

promoting the integration of science and law, a crucial element of ICM, in the Lingayen Gulf.

The scientists provided valuable inputs in identifying the extent of the damage, and in explaining

the complex biological systems of the natural resource and the management required for their

health. The legal experts were instrumental in promoting the more effective enforcement of laws

in the area which is a programmed management action under step 4 in the ICM policy cycle.

Furthermore, as Olsen (2000) pointed out, scientific information can assist in the policy

formulation required for ICM implementation. Thus, the collaboration between scientists and

legal experts was perceived by many coastal managers and practitioners as pivotal in providing

the sustainable form of management necessary to nurture the resources of the Lingayen Gulf and

protect the integrity of its coastal ecosystems. However, the implementation of the Sagip

Lingayen Gulf Project was too limited in scope and duration as it only operated in five LGUs for

five years which restricted the ability to achieve its desired goals.

236

Despite the scientific and legal integration in the management process of the Sagip Lingayen

Gulf Project, this study found that the ICM model was not employed as a management strategy.

The project focused largely on strengthening the dissemination of information regarding the

current state of the Gulf based on scientific information as well as on addressing illegal fishing

activities by promoting strict enforcement of coastal laws, thus, integrating science and law in

the management process. The use of information dissemination drives was evidenced by the

inclusion of coastal management in the public school education curricula as topic component for

science subjects in the elementary schools within selected municipalities in the Gulf. This was

done to inculcate the value and importance of coastal resources and the need to protect and

nurture them in the minds of young students. Olsen (2000) emphasised that it is important to

educate future coastal managers to equip them with the knowledge, skills and attitudes required

for the effective governance of ICM. In this aspect of ICM, the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project was

successful.

Similarly, the strict enforcement of coastal laws under the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project

minimised the prevalence of illegal fishing in the Gulf which has been a serious threat to coastal

resources. Through a strict law enforcement strategy, interviewees pointed out that the project

was a great help in reducing the incidence of illegal fishing activities in the four municipalities

within its coverage. This was necessary to prevent these resources from further deterioration.

These interviewees, who claimed that the weak enforcement of laws was the major factor that

aggravated the coastal problems, believed that in the Lingayen Gulf, strict legal enforcement was

necessary for the effective implementation of a coastal management initiative. Legislation of

new laws, they further claimed, was not needed because the Philippines had adequate coastal

laws. The problem was that these laws were not properly enforced, and new laws would only

cause confusion and conflict with the existing coastal legislation. This claim was supported by

the majority of the interviewees across the three sectors: national government (100%); local

government (75%); community sector (64.29%). These interviewees were in agreement that

there were enough national and local coastal laws in Lingayen Gulf. The need was for strict

implementation in order to avoid further violations and secure compliance from people. As

GESAMP (1996) noted, ICM prescribes adequate formulation and enforcement of coastal

237

policies and mandates, which aim to influence positive changes in people’s mindset particularly

in terms of their destructive fishing practices, to reverse the degradation of the coastal

ecosystems. While this is a commendable idea and logic, the inter-agency, local government and

national political interactions among coastal management stakeholders in Lingayen Gulf and

capacity limitations meant that ‘strict implementation’ was difficult to obtain.

The study has also revealed that the Sagip Lingayen Gulf Project became the subject of debate

among LGU personnel and coastal management advocates representing the community regarding

the name of the project when the selected municipalities involved represented only a small

proportion of the Lingayen Gulf. It was further argued that the project’s name has triggered

confusion about the extent and duration of the project operation. The project ended after five

years of implementation, and left some LGUs perplexed as to why their coastal areas were not

included among the project sites, and others completely unaware of the existence of the project

due to its limited scope and brief period of its implementation.

Having assessed the implementation of the various coastal management initiatives in the Gulf,

this research has found that there has been no fixed coastal management framework or

permanent organisation structure in the Lingayen Gulf. Each of the previous coastal management

initiatives had its own management arrangements, but failed to institutionalise them in local

governance. Thus, a significant majority of the interviewees made no mention of learning from

these coastal management initiatives. This was in stark contrast to the ICM projects in Xiamen,

BNP and Danang, all of which were strongly supported by the local governments and became

learning and working models for the design and implementation of other coastal management

programs in China, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Interviewees from the national government, the local government and the community sector have

expressed varied viewpoints regarding the previous coastal management initiatives in the

Lingayen Gulf. The majority of the BFAR and DENR interviewees (75%) maintained a position

that the previous coastal management initiatives in the Gulf were successful. These national

agencies were actively involved in the implementation of the previous coastal management

initiatives and thus could be expected to defend or celebrate them. In fact, they emphasised the

238

reduced incidence of coastal malpractices, including blast and poison fishing, and illegal

commercial fishing operations in the area. However, a reduction in fishing activities in the

coastal area does not, by itself, constitute a basis for claims that coastal management attempts

were successful. This is because based on the ICM model, genuine success in coastal

management involves a range of factors including the establishment of a comprehensive

management framework, long-term funding, and effective planning and monitoring mechanisms,

among others (GESAMP 1996; Sorensen 1997; Olsen 2003). In addition, available data do not

support the claim made by these interviewees that the number of illegal fishing activities in the

Gulf has decreased. Significantly, two interviewees (25%) firmly believed that the Gulf still

remained in poor condition. One of these interviewees claimed that as the government continued

to prioritise infrastructure projects over coastal management programs, the poor condition of the

Gulf’s coastal environment would eventually be beyond repair. In the Philippines, infrastructure

projects are normally allocated with enormous budgets which can be a source of corruption in

the government. According to Christie (2005), corruption in Southeast Asia is a common

scenario. He described corruption in the coastal environment as a pay-off between violators and

government officials.

This study has validated the information that corruption is actually happening in Lingayen Gulf

coastal management. Some BFAR interviewees implied that DENR was guilty of corruption in

solely implementing coastal management initiatives that involved significant funding. Coastal

management initiatives are supposed to be a shared responsibility between the two agencies,

BAFR and DENR, and the community sector. As observed by Wesmacott (2002), large funding

for ICM in developing countries commonly attracts vested interests in the agency or agencies

involved. Moreover, some community interviewees also accused high-ranking officials, or

ninongs, of protecting illegal fishers from legal sanctions. These interviewees claimed that the

intervention of these ninongs was putting the environment of the Lingayen Gulf at a much

greater risk. Other literature on coastal management in the Philippines makes no specific mention

of corruption. The new information generated in this study sheds light on the problems besetting

coastal management in the Philippines and offers a possible explanation of why illegal fishing is

a lingering problem along the Philippine coasts, particularly in the Lingayen Gulf.

239

Interestingly, the local government interviewees rated the success of previous management

interventions according to three categories: not successful (55%), uncertain (30%) and successful

(15%). There were 11 interviewees (55%) who strongly believed that despite various attempts to

protect the coastal resources from degradation, coastal problems remained widespread in the

Gulf. Two of these interviewees, both senior coastal management officers, indicated that rampant

illegal fishing clearly explained the lack of success in the management efforts of the previous

initiatives in the Gulf. Similarly, another interviewee from this group of 11 interviewees claimed

that the Sagip Lingayen Project had been the most ineffective initiative because of a flawed

management strategy. The interviewee pointed out that the project commenced with an

information drive and implementation of other activities without encouraging community

participation. On the other hand, six interviewees (30%) were not sure and indecisive as to

whether the previous management initiatives had actually been able to bring improvements to the

condition of the Lingayen Gulf. These initiatives, the interviewees asserted, had encouraged

LGUs to intensify their coastal management intervention particularly through information

dissemination programs. This had resulted in a modest positive impact on the prevention of

illegal coastal activities. They admitted, however, that illegal fishing activities and coastal

pollution were still among the major problems facing the Gulf. This was contested by three

interviewees (15%) who believed that the previous coastal management initiatives in the Gulf

had been successful and had resulted in an increased fish catch, enhanced community

participation, reduced occurrence of illegal fishing, and strict enforcement of coastal laws.

Nevertheless, such claims were refuted by the vast majority of the interviewees.

Returning to the claim made by BFAR and DENR interviewees regarding the reduced incidence

of coastal problems in the Lingayen Gulf, this was supported by two interviewees (14.29%) from

the community sector. This interviewees specifically identified LGCAMC as the most successful

management program with the most strategic management framework comprising issues

identification, formulation of management strategies, and monitoring and evaluation. More than

half of the interviewees (57.14%), however, contested the claim that problems involving illegal

coastal activities in the Gulf had been minimised. These interviewees maintained that the

problems could be seen in the continued existence of illegal fishing, coastal pollution, weak law

enforcement, and poor coordination between and among the agencies responsible for overseeing

240

the management of the area. The existence of these problems was indicative of the failure to

conform to the principles of ICM which promote effective interagency coordination, strong legal

enforcement, and improved socio-economic situation in coastal areas. Of the four interviewees

(28.57%) who provided no responses, three had only recently joined the community organisation

and one was unaware of the outcome of previous management initiatives in the Gulf. It was

initially thought that the community interviewees, who claimed that the community sector has

been underrepresented in major coastal management activities in the Lingayen Gulf, would be

unable to provide comments on this question. However, they demonstrated sound knowledge and

understanding of the outcomes of previous management attempts. Overall, it has been clearly

revealed in the responses of majority of the interviewees from the national government, local

government, and community sector that previous coastal management initiatives in the Gulf were

not successful. Out of 42 interviewees, 21 claimed that previous management attempts were

unsuccessful. Only 11 maintained they were successful, while six were uncertain, and four had

no comments.

Similarly, this research has demonstrated that a significant majority of interviewees were not

satisfied with the outcome and contribution of previous coastal management initiatives in the

Gulf. This is because despite various coastal management initiatives, serious coastal problems

still confronted the Lingayen Gulf. This led to the question of what the interviewees had done in

the performance of their management tasks that could have influenced the overall results of the

previous coastal management initiatives. Specifically, when interviewees were asked if they had

fulfilled their roles in managing the Lingayen Gulf, the majority of them provided positive

responses. Six interviewees (75%) from the BFAR and DENR confidently claimed that they had

contributed positively to the protection and conservation of the Gulf’s coastal resources by

helping to reduce the number of illegal fishing activities, by installing marine sanctuaries, and by

rehabilitating mangrove areas. Similarly, 14 interviewees (70%) from the local government also

gave positive responses, although 10 of these interviewees admitted that much still remained to

be done, but that much could be done through improved budget allocations from the national

government. More importantly, these interviewees maintained that good work relationships of all

sectors, that they claimed to be in serious disagreement, involved in the Gulf’s coastal

management can help advance a successful ICM in the area. As this study has shown, addressing

241

management uncertainties and conflicts among various sectors is the first step that needs to be

taken into consideration to effectively carry out each of the management phases and actions

involved in the ICM policy cycle. In the ICM practice, it is necessary to address management

conflicts, and designing appropriate institutional and management arrangements can prevent the

emergence of conflicts and misunderstandings among various sectors involved (White et al.

2005a). In the case of the community sector, 11 interviewees (78.57%) asserted that that they did

their jobs to the best of their ability by assisting their partner agencies in managing the Lingayen

Gulf. However, all of these interviewees expressed dissatisfaction, claiming that their

participation in coastal management was limited. Although the majority of the interviewees felt

that they had performed their coastal management roles well, they were still dissatisfied and

disappointed that their management efforts had not produced the desired outcome, namely,

having a significant impact on reducing the problems affecting the Gulf and bringing forward the

sustainable development in the area.

It is evident that the management systems and processes adopted and applied in the Lingayen

Gulf have not appropriately addressed the problems that have confronted its resources over a

long period. Despite the limited success of the various initiatives, such initiatives have

nevertheless provided the necessary groundwork for the development of a more effective

management approach. The model of ICM, a comprehensive management framework that

underscores collaboration among various sectors and agencies, is seen in this study as a

necessary mechanism that can advance effective management arrangements in the Lingayen

Gulf. The complete ICM model has not yet been applied in any of the coastal management

initiatives introduced into the Gulf. It is argued in this thesis that with a true ICM initiative, the

Gulf’s stakeholders will be able to prevent further degradation of the coastal ecosystems which

can more seriously affect the welfare of the coastal resources and the local people dependent on

them. It should be emphasised, however, that ICM has its own limitations. It does not have

control over the many causes of poverty and rapid population growth and their effects on the

coastal environment, but it may be able to mitigate the impacts of these problems through strict

law enforcement, stakeholder cooperation and adequate management capacity of the

implementing agency or agencies.

242

9.4 Conclusion

This chapter presented the analysis of the governance systems and the management mechanisms

involved in the management of the Lingayen Gulf. The analysis was principally based on the

information gathered from the intensive review of literature relevant to coastal management,

particularly in relation to ICM, and on the data generated from the interviews involving 42

respondents. Findings revealed that despite various management initiatives undertaken in the

Gulf, coastal management problems still persisted. There had been several factors that triggered

the continued existence of these problems, as established in this chapter. These factors included,

but not limited to, poor coordination and work relationship among various management sectors

in the gulf; ineffective coastal management framework; lack of local government capacity to take

the lead role in coastal management; and weak community sector representation in coastal

management. According to the model of ICM, such factors pose serious threats to an effective

coastal management program. Evidently, there is an urgent need to reformulate the management

arrangements and mechanism in the Gulf for the achievement of a successful implementation of

ICM in the area.

243

Chapter 10: Conclusion and

Recommendations

10.1 Introduction

The concluding chapter of this research revisits the objectives, questions and discussions which

have been discussed in this thesis. Particularly important in this chapter is to reflect on the

research questions identified in Chapter 1. This is done by outlining how the research questions

have been addressed in the literature detailed in Chapters 2, 3, and 4, and in the fieldwork results

in Chapters 6, 7, and 8. This chapter also presents the implications of findings and contribution

to knowledge of this research. Finally, drawing from the research findings, it provides

recommendations for future directions for coastal management studies and coastal management

program implementation necessary for effective and sustainable management of the Lingayen

Gulf’s coastal environment.

10.2 Summary of Key Research Findings

The main objective of this research was to explore the reasons that caused the unsuccessful

design and implementation of coastal management initiatives and approaches in the Gulf. Of

central importance in addressing and attaining this objective was an evaluation of the roles and

performance of the different actors involved in the Lingayen Gulf coastal management.

Examining the effectiveness of governance and management processes in Lingayen Gulf coastal

management was also significant in answering the questions.

244

There are three major actors involved in managing the Lingayen Gulf coastal resources – the

national government represented by BFAR and DENR, the local government, and the

community sector – discussed in Chapters 6, 7, and 8 respectively. These actors are mandated by

law to perform specific coastal management roles and functions. In the Philippines, these actors

are considered indispensable in coastal management practice. Similarly, under the ICM

framework, the involvement of different sectors is required in order to attain successful

implementation of a coastal management program (Sorensen 1997; Cicin-Sain & Knecht 1998;

Westmacott 2002). This means that the incorporation of the national government, local

government and the community in the Lingayen Gulf coastal management is a necessary

condition for successful ICM.

In Chapter 6, it was explained that the BFAR and DENR share several common coastal

management responsibilities for the Lingayen Gulf. For instance, these agencies are both tasked

to provide policy directions on the implementation of coastal management programs in the

Philippines, and actively participate in major management and decision-making processes

associated with managing the Lingayen Gulf coastal resources. In addition, BFAR and DENR

are principally responsible for providing technical assistance, training and extension services for

coastal management at the local government level. These common management responsibilities

of BFAR and DENR, however, have caused serious administrative conflicts and overlaps in

coastal management leading to confusion among LGU coastal management implementers and

the community coastal resource users. Such confusion should not be part of ICM. Clear and

distinct role delineation and arrangements for joint decision-making by partners are seen to be

essential components of ICM. Findings of this study has shown that the conflicts and confusion

have been triggered by the ambiguous formulation and interpretation of national laws in relation

to coastal management, particularly under the Fisheries Code of the Philippine 1998 and the

Local Government Code of the Philippines 1991 which delegate common coastal management

responsibilities to BFAR and DENR. These coastal mandates set the primary foundation for

coastal management in the Philippines, including the Lingayen Gulf. The vested interests of

these agencies were also found to be aggravating the problems of poor coordination of coastal

management activities in the Gulf.

245

Chapter 7 explained the role of the local government in coastal management. This chapter also

identified the reasons that enabled the LGUs to expand their coastal management

responsibilities, particularly in terms of planning, protection and preservation, enactment of legal

mandates and regulations, policy formulation, revenue generation, law enforcement, inter-

governmental coordination, including relations with community organisations and NGOs, as well

as provision of extension services. One of the key findings in this chapter was that despite the

devolution of authority to local government placing it at the forefront of managing the coastal

resources of the Lingayen Gulf, major coastal management decisions, including budget

allocations for most coastal management programs, were still retained by the national

government even though it has been 20 years since decentralisation. The strong institutional

presence of national government has remained evident in local government (Eisma et al. 2005).

This triggered confusion and uncertainty among LGU personnel as to what roles and

responsibilities they are supposed to carry out in coastal management. According to Sorensen

(1997), in a decentralised country, the role of the local government is vital to the attainment of a

successful coastal management implementation. But in the Lingayen Gulf, the local government

failed to exercise its major authority over coastal management.

The transfer of coastal management responsibilities to the LGUs has brought them closer to the

community sector in managing the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf. Chapter 8 provided a

discussion of the community sector paying particular attention to it as the direct coastal

stakeholder because of their immediate access to the coastal environment and their dependency

on it. This has made them an important component of ICM as their first-hand interaction with the

coastal environment provide them with intrinsic knowledge for understanding the complex

coastal ecosystems, and for devising effective management strategies that the gulf requires

(Rivera & Newkirk 1997). But as established in this research, this intrinsic coastal management

knowledge of the community sector is under-utilised to support sustainable coastal management

of the Lingayen Gulf. This has been evidenced by the exclusion or the minor role of the

community sector in the key coastal management activities in which the national and local

governments take the lead roles. The community sector is commonly regarded as a less

significant player in the coastal management and decision-making processes for the Lingayen

Gulf.

246

The involvement and collaboration of the national government, the local government and the

community sector form the basis of the institutional arrangements for coastal management in the

Lingayen Gulf. There is, however, a clear absence of management structures that can serve as

useful guides for these institutions to follow in managing the Gulf’s coastal environment. This

means that the Lingayen Gulf does not have a permanent coastal management framework to

guide the implementation of necessary coastal management activities. Recalling the discussion in

the literature review in Chapter 2, establishing a strategic management framework is important

for achieving a successful coastal management program. ICM is seen by many coastal managers

and practitioners as an ideal management model as it guides the step-by-step implementation of a

coastal management program (GESAMP 1996; Olsen 2003; Harvey & Hilton 2006). The ICM

model has been adopted in different countries around the world for successfully implementing

their coastal management initiatives. For instance, as cited earlier, Xiamen, China, BNP

Indonesia, and Danang, Vietnam, attributed the success of their coastal management

implementation to the multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary approach of the ICM model. Thus,

the successful ICM experiences in Xiamen, BNP and Danang can be used as good points of

reference in developing and implementing coastal management initiatives in the Lingayen Gulf.

From reviewing the implementation of previous coastal management initiatives in the Lingayen

Gulf, it has been argued that the governance and management processes were indicative of the

old coastal management approach in which management responsibilities were controlled by

various levels of government. These previous approaches did not integrate other potential actors

in coastal management. In addition, the previous approaches also failed to recognise the

importance of simultaneously integrating various disciplines including natural sciences, social

sciences, law and management, and adopting information-sharing, planning and monitoring,

technology, and economics into the governance system, which are essential for implementing

successful ICM program. For example, in Xiamen, a group of legal experts, scientists, and

economists successfully worked together in promoting safe and healthy coastal management use

and practice in the city’s coastal waters (Ruan & Yu 1999). In the Lingayen Gulf, the Sagip

Lingayen Gulf Project attempted to incorporate legal experts and scientists in the coastal

management process. Scientific information explained the complex biological systems of the

natural resource and identified the extent of damage in the Lingayen Gulf coastal environment.

247

The data was utilised as one of the bases for strict enforcement of coastal laws in the area.

However, the project was short-lived and limited in scope, and this negatively impacted on the

collaboration of science and law in coastal management.

The key question in this research focused on the identification of the factors that affected the

effective and sustainable management of the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf. Lack of

collaboration among different coastal stakeholders has been one of the major factors, leading

to the unsuccessful coastal management attempts in the Gulf, based on the findings of the

current study. This issue has seriously derailed the goal of ICM which sees it necessary to

involve various sectors in the management process. Weak local government capacity to take

the lead in implementing coastal management initiatives has also been seen by the

interviewees to be a major problem. Through decentralisation, the local government is

expected to take the lead role in resource management, including protection and conservation

of the coastal environment. But inadequate technical expertise among LGU personnel for

coastal management has rendered the local government an ineffective institution to plan and

administer coastal management activities in the Lingayen Gulf. Specifically, many LGUs in

the Philippines are faced with the problems of lack of management capacity to oversee their

coastal resources. These problems are caused by insufficient funding for coastal programs,

low numbers of often under-qualified and inexperienced staff and inadequate physical

resources that limited the activities that could be pursued in line with the sustainable

management. These problems were found in the Lingayen Gulf. For example, the city

government of Dagupan, the centre of commerce and business in the Province of Pangasinan,

had 4 permanent and 3 casual staff comprising the environment and natural resources

division. Of these, two staff were designated to take charge of all coastal management

projects in the area. They catered to 31 villages in the city, too large a task for such a small

number of staff. In the municipality of Anda, only two staff were administering coastal

management activities. Neither had appropriate training, and one of them had only been in

government employment for five months. In addition, Dagupan and Anda were faced with

insufficient financial resources for coastal management programs resulting in a lack of patrol

boats and other basic equipment for monitoring and surveillance. The financial constraints

also rendered the LGUs unable to hire additional staff for coastal management (Eisma et al.

248

2005; Lowry et al. 2005; Milne and Christie 2005). These cases in Dagupan and Anda are

representative of the normal state of affairs found in other LGUs in the Lingayen Gulf.

Findings have also demonstrated that the absence of a firm coastal management framework

for the Gulf is a serious issue that requires careful scrutiny and consideration. Various coastal

management initiatives have been carried out over three decades. Each has employed

different management techniques and strategies but coastal problems in the Gulf have

remained. This situation is proof that the government needs to restructure its coastal

management approach by adopting the ICM framework and observing strict compliance to its

step-by-step management guidelines and procedures.

10.3 Contribution to Knowledge and Implication of Findings

The concern of this thesis is to investigate the implementation of coastal management in the

Lingayen Gulf. Detailed exploration of the different coastal management initiatives in the Gulf

has provided a clear understanding of the institutional arrangements and governance systems

involved in the Lingayen Gulf coastal environment. One of the foundations of this research is to

offer valuable knowledge and insights by applying the concept of ICM in the Lingayen Gulf

coastal environment to benefit coastal managers and practitioners, researchers, school teachers,

students, policy-makers and coastal users, not only in the Lingayen Gulf coastal community but

also in the other coastal areas in the Philippines.

Generally, this research has made its contribution to knowledge by examining the effectiveness

of coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf, a matter that has not been explored by previous

studies. This contribution is manifested in two modes. First, as revealed from the empirical data,

this research argues that the poor sectoral coordination and work relationships among coastal

stakeholders has resulted in the lack of success in coastal management initiatives in the Lingayen

Gulf. It has been identified that the national government, local government and the community

are the three major actors in managing the Lingayen Gulf coastal resources. As discussed in

Chapter 9, these actors are mandated by law to perform coastal management responsibilities.

249

Findings, however, show that administrative shortcomings and conflicts put serious strain on the

working relationships among these actors in performing their coastal management

responsibilities. These shortcomings and conflicts clearly demonstrate that collaboration in the

management arrangements needs attention and action to forestall further deterioration of the

health and well-being of the Lingayen Gulf’s coastal ecosystem. Similarly, clear-cut formulation

and enforcement of coastal laws are important in properly delineating and allocating

management authorities and in addressing illegal and destructive coastal management practices,

and corruption relating to the coastal environment.

The second contribution to knowledge and future action of this research is that it contrasts the

important facets of the ICM model against experience. It is contended that the model of ICM can

help in effectively and sustainably managing the Lingayen Gulf coastal environment. Such an

assertion is supported by the fact that ICM has been successfully used as a coastal management

approach in different countries around the world, particularly in China, Indonesia and Vietnam.

These examples have established that ICM can be effectively implemented in different coastal

environments having dissimilar geographic, socio-economic, political and cultural settings. It

should be stressed, however, that although ICM can work in certain circumstances, one cannot

assume success in all places and situations.

Furthermore, this research provides an evidence-based discussion of the governance system, or

the lack of it, in the Lingayen Gulf coastal management (see Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9). The

discussion in these chapters has demonstrated that a more collaborative and integrative approach

in needed in managing the Lingayen Gulf coastal environment. It has been argued that the

absence of a comprehensive management framework for managing the Gulf’s coastal resources

is a case of non-conformity to the practices of ICM, and has become one of the primary causes

preventing the effective coastal management in the area. The management structure for the Gulf

has largely depended on the existence of discrete coastal initiatives, which has emphasised the

lack of a specific framework that could guide the on-going implementation of coastal

management activities in the area. The local government has fallen short in its role of being at

the forefront of coastal management in designing and developing a coherent and continuing

management framework. This is a matter that previous studies have not explored. The

250

implication of this finding is that the Philippine government needs to establish a rigorous coastal

management framework based on ICM principles and practices and to take steps to enable its

implementation across the marine environments of the country, including the Lingayen Gulf.

In conclusion, based on the findings from the literature and respondents’ viewpoints, this

research identified environmental problems in the Lingayen Gulf and provided evidence-based

arguments about what coastal management approach could more effective be adopted in the

Lingayen Gulf. This research revealed that the Gulf is in dire need of a harmonious collaboration

among concerned agencies and a comprehensive management framework that will direct all

management undertakings towards sustainable protection and conservation of its coastal

resources. Adoption of the ICM framework and strict implementation of its strategic activities

have been demonstrated to be the appropriate approach that the Philippine national and local

governments need to take into account for the Lingayen Gulf. Significantly, it has been shown

that the local government needs to be proactive in executing its authority to address issues on

illegal fishing, corruption and weak law enforcement, and to resolve conflicts of interests in

coastal management.

10.4 Recommendations

From the findings of this case study research, it is possible to make recommendations concerning

coastal management in the Lingayen Gulf and, more broadly, in the Philippines. This section

offers four recommendations that can be useful for enhancing coastal management practice in the

Gulf, particularly in designing and implementing an effective and sustainable coastal

management program. The Gulf has remained seriously confronted with many coastal problems

despite various management initiatives that attempted to reverse these problems and restore the

health of the area’s coastal resources.

The first recommendation is to formulate an underlying legal framework for coastal management

that will harmonise all coastal mandates in the Philippines, particularly in the Lingayen Gulf.

This should prevent conflict and confusion on implementing coastal management activities, by

providing appropriate delineation of responsibilities among different actors involved in

251

overseeing the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf. Moreover, setting up a legal framework,

which is expected to address weak management arrangements in Lingayen Gulf, should

encourage all stakeholders to harmoniously collaborate in managing coastal resources.

Harmonious work relationships among coastal stakeholders can be established before attempting

to adopt and implement a coastal program following the management steps under the ICM policy

cycle. Findings indicate that poor coordination and collaboration among the different coastal

stakeholders is one of the major problems in the Lingayen Gulf. This problem has been found to

be a result of ambiguous formulation and interpretation of coastal laws and ensuing conflicts of

interest among the stakeholders. This situation has been posing a serious threat to coastal

management. For instance, The Local Government Code 1991 and the Fisheries Code 1998 both

mandate the BFAR and DENR to share some coastal management responsibilities, including

mangrove management, issuance of fisheries-related permits, and coastal policy formulation.

This has caused confusion among coastal management implementers and coastal users in the

area. Thus, it is crucial for the policy/law-makers in the country to deal with the unclear and

confusing framing and application of coastal laws. This should ensure appropriate delegation of

management responsibilities, particularly between BFAR and DENR. Under the ICM

framework, good collaboration between and among sectors is essential in attaining a successful

coastal management.

The second recommendation focuses on adopting an ICM management structure that can

properly address the Gulf’s problems as against the ineffective management arrangements that

have prevailed until now. As shown in the research, the coastal resources of the Lingayen Gulf

have remained weakly managed, and it is important to consider a paradigm shift in the coastal

management approach. The ICM model, a widely accepted approach to managing coastal

environments globally, has been found to be an effective management approach in many coastal

nations, including China, Indonesia and Vietnam. This research found that the conditions

prevailing in the Lingayen Gulf would be an appropriate setting for ICM and that, if

implemented fully taking into account the specifics of local circumstances, ICM could make a

significant contribution to addressing the coastal management problems of the Gulf. ICM was

thus recommended as a coastal management approach for the Gulf. National agencies such as

BFAR, DENR, DILG and the League of Municipalities have formulated a coastal management

252

framework for the Philippines similar to the model of ICM, but it has been poorly implemented

in the coastal areas in the country including the Lingayen Gulf.

The policy cycle within the ICM framework contains basic management phases that are easy to

follow. However, the absence of functional and well-organised coastal management

arrangements can derail the execution of the policy cycle. For instance, Step 1 in the policy cycle

requires consultation among key stakeholders to identify coastal issues. Consultation, however,

could be challenging if conflicts exist between coastal management actors. Thus, it is important

that problems regarding governance systems for coastal management are addressed at the outset

of an ICM program. To reiterate one of the main points in the first recommendation, establishing

good work relationships among coastal stakeholders is essential to meet the requisites under Step

1 of the ICM policy cycle. Similarly, adopting the ICM policy cycle can provide a solution to

ineffective law enforcement in the Gulf, which has been identified in this study as an aggravating

factor of the coastal management problems in the area. This is because one of the important

elements under Step 3 of the ICM policy cycle concerns the application of legal mandates to

ensure effective implementation of an ICM program. Strict law enforcement can mitigate coastal

violations that cause serious problems in the coastal environment, including illegal fishing,

encroachment of commercial fishers in municipal waters, corruption in coastal management,

cutting of mangroves, and coastal pollution. But, as has been demonstrated, lack of capacity in

responsible government agencies and questionable commitment of some stakeholders are

barriers to strict enforcement of the existing laws and regulations. It should be emphasised, on

the other hand, that adoption and successful implementation of the ICM model is not a panacea

for resolving the various problems besetting the coastal environment, particularly the Lingayen

Gulf. This is because population pressure, greed and corruption, and poverty may not be resolved

by ICM.

The third recommendation, which is derived from the second recommendation, emphasises the

coastal community sector’s involvement in the design and implementation of coastal

management plans and activities along with other stakeholders. The community sector was an

under-utilised resource in the previous management approaches in the Lingayen Gulf, yet has the

potential to make a major contribution to bringing forward sustainable coastal management. One

253

of the findings of this research was that the involvement of the community sector in the Lingayen

Gulf coastal management was manifested in a weak form of participation. This was largely

because the community members were only involved in minor coastal activities such as

participating in coastal clean-ups, distributing information materials and attending meetings. The

ICM framework recognises the importance of incorporating the community sector as an

important actor in the effective management of the coastal environment. This sector should take

a pro-active role in coastal management and decision-making processes, and participate in all

coastal activities. The community sector’s intrinsic knowledge and understanding of the coastal

ecosystem can contribute valuable support for ICM attempts in the Lingayen Gulf. Importantly,

this recommendation has the potential to lessen or eliminate the burden of coastal violations in

the Gulf as members of the coastal community will be directly involved in the management and

decision-making processes for the coastal environment. This study also reveals that most

members of the Lingayen Gulf community are engaged in illegal fishing as their source of

livelihood. Illegal fishing has become a common practice among these community members.

Thus, actively involving them in major coastal management undertakings in the Gulf can

potentially turn them into reformed citizens and good custodians of the coastal environment

which has now been severely damaged. Their direct involvement in coastal management will

enlighten them on the true condition of the Lingayen Gulf’s coastal environment.

Finally, the fourth recommendation is about the need to set up a local government management

body that will specifically coordinate and implement all management activities required in the

Lingayen Gulf. This should put greater emphasis on the role of the local government as the chief

implementing and managing institution for coastal management, with BFAR and DENR

providing general supervision and the community as management partner. In a decentralised

country such as the Philippines, the local government should be placed at the forefront of coastal

management. This is consistent with the principle of decentralisation. The management body

should be ideally composed of ICM personnel from various Lingayen Gulf LGUs, in

collaboration with the community groups, research and academic institutions, and NGOs. This is

to ensure that a multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary approach to coastal management, which is a

prime requirement under the ICM model, is in place in the Lingayen Gulf. Continuous training

and capability-building should be provided to these sectors and agencies to keep them well

254

informed, and to enhance their capacity and expertise as coastal management actors. In the ICM

approach, in order to establish and implement a coastal management program, human resources

should be trained and experienced (Westmacott 2002).The management body shall see to it that

there is an appropriate governance system for the Gulf, and ambiguities of coastal mandates are

addressed. The LGCAMC has laid the groundwork for independent management of the Gulf.

However, the absence of an effective management framework, technical expertise and

commitment of the key players constrained the attainment of the LGCAMC’s objectives which

were to address the poor state of the Gulf’s coastal resources, and to improve the socio-economic

and environmental conditions of the area. Learning from the LGCAMC experience, the

installation of a new management body can increase the chances of achieving a successful

management program in the Gulf. As noted by Olsen (2003), a well developed management

capacity of the institution/s is crucial in attaining an effective and sustainable ICM.

In summary, this research has identified the longstanding problems that affect the Lingayen Gulf

coastal resources and has established evidence regarding the lack of effective coastal

management mechanisms for Lingayen Gulf despite several attempts to tackle its problems. The

research pointed to the need to install a comprehensive coastal management structure such as

ICM that will ensure strong collaborative efforts among various coastal stakeholders including

all levels of government and the community. These actors need to work closely together to

develop appropriate institutional arrangements, and functional governance and management

systems necessary for achieving sustainable development in the area.

255

Bibliography

Alave KL 2011, No more big fish; overfishing blamed, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Issued on

Tuesday, 13 September 2011.

Alongi, DM 2002, ‘Present and future of the world's mangrove forests’, Environmental

Conservation, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 331-349.

Anonuevo, MA & Zaragoza, EZ 1986, ‘Marketing practices for raw shells, ornamentals and

shellcrafts’, Proceedings of the Seminar-Workshop on Status of Mollusk Resources and

Prospects for Development, May 2-3, 1986, EcoTech Center, Cebu City.

Asian Development Bank 2002, Transforming a ravaged city into a model in local revenue

generation: the case of San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines. Asian Development Bank,

Manila, Philippines.

Balgos, MC 2005, ‘Integrated coastal management and marine protected areas in the Philippines:

concurrent developments’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 48, nos. 11-12, pp. 972-995.

Balgos, MC & Pagdilao, CR 2002, ‘Provincial and regional institutions in the Philippines: an

essential element in coastal resource management and marine conservation’, Institutional

Frameworks for Community-Based Coastal Resource Management and Marine Conservation in

the Visayas Region, Coastal Resource Center, Leyte, Philippines.

Balisacan, AM, Hill, H & Piza, SA 2006, Regional development dynamics and decentralization

in the Philippines: ten lessons from a 'fast starter', Australian National University, Research

School of Pacific and Asian Studies (ANU-RSPAS), No. 33, Canberra, Australia.

Beder, S 1994, ‘The hidden messages within sustainable development’, Social Alternatives, vol.

13, no. 2, pp. 8-12.

Bowen, RE & Riley, C 2003, ‘Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastal management’,

Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 48, nos. 3-4, pp. 299-312.

Brillantes, AB & Moscare, D 2002, ‘Decentralization and federalism in the Philippines: lessons

from global community’, International Conference of the East West Center, 1-5 July 2002, Kuala

Lumpur, Malaysia.

Brown, W 2004, Amoy Magic - Guide to Xiamen, Xiamen University Press, Xiamen.

256

Bryant, D, Burke, L, McManus, J & Spalding, M 1998, Reefs at risk, World Resources Institute,

Washington D.C.

Burbridge, PR 1997, ‘A generic framework for measuring success in integrated coastal

management’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 175-189.

Bureau of Census 1996, Population trends: Philippines, US Department of Commerce,

Economics and Statistics Administration, Washington D.C.

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 2003, ‘About us’, viewed 12 March 2008,

http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/aboutus/aboutus.htm.

Burke, LA, Kura, Y, Kassem, K., Revenga, C, Spalding, M & McAllister, D 2001, Coastal

ecosystems, World Resources Institute, No. 77, Washington D.C.

Burns, R 2004, Introduction to research methodology, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne.

Business in Asia 2006, Investing in a New Factory in Vietnam: Danang and Quang Nam

Provinces, viewed 23 June 2011, http://www.business-in-

asia.com/factory_in_vietnam_danang.htm.

Celestino, AB, Ilago, SA, Ocenar, RD, Martir, RL, Santiago, EV & Joaquin, MT 1998, ‘Case

studies of the local government centre conducted for the UNDP Research Project on

decentralised government’, viewed 2 March 2007,

mirror.undp.org/magnet/Docs/dec/Case_Studies/Philippines-text.pdf.

Christensen, LB 1994, Experimental methodology, Simon & Schuster, Needham Heights, MA.

Christie, P 2005, ‘Is integrated coastal management sustainable?’, Ocean and Coastal

Management, vol. 48, nos. 3-6, pp. 208-232.

Christie, PK Lowry, ET White, EG Oracion, L Sievanen, RS Pomeroy, RB Pollnac, JM Patlis &

R-LV Eisma 2005, 'Key findings from a multi-disciplinary examination of integrated coastal

management process sustainability', Ocean and Coastal Management, 48 (3-6), 468-483.

Christie, P & White, A 2000, ‘Introduction: theme issue on tropical coastal management’,

Coastal Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1-122.

Chua, T-E 1993, ‘Essential elements of integrated zone management’, Ocean and Coastal


Chua, T-E 1998, ‘Lessons learned from practicing integrated coastal management in Southeast

Asia’, Ambio, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 599-610.

Chua, T-E 2009, 'A tale of two initiatives: integrated coastal management in Xiamen and

Batangas Bay Region', in K. Tsukamoto, T. Kawamura, T. D. Takeuchi, J. Beard and M. J.

http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/aboutus/aboutus.htm

http://www.business-in-asia.com/factory_in_vietnam_danang.htm

http://www.business-in-asia.com/factory_in_vietnam_danang.htm

257

Kaiser (eds), Proceedings of the 5th World Fisheries Congress, Yokohama, Japan, 20-24

October 2008, pp. 87-102.

Chua, T-E, Yu, H & Guoqiang, C 1997, ‘From sectoral to integrated coastal management: a case

in Xiamen, China’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 233-251.

Cicin-Sain, B 1993, ‘Sustainable development and integrated coastal management’, Ocean and


Cicin-Sain, B & Knecht, RW 1998, Integrated coastal and ocean management, Island Press,

Washington, D.C.

Commonwealth of Australia 1992, National Strategy for Ecological Sustainable Development,

Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee, Canberra.

Courtney, C & White, A 2000, ‘Integrated coastal resource management: testing new paradigm’,


Courtney, C, White, A & Deguit, E 2002, ‘Building Philippine local government capacity for

coastal resource management’, Coastal Management, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 27-45.

Creswell, JW 1994, Research design: qualitative and quantitative approaches, Sage, Thousand

Oaks, California.

Cruz-Trinidad, A 1996, Valuation of tropical coastal resources: theory of application of linear

programming, The World Fish Center, Manila, Philippines.

Cruz-Trinidad, A, Geronimo, RC & Alino, PM 2009, ‘Development trajectories and impacts on

coral reef use in Lingayen Gulf, Philippines’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 52, nos. 3-4,

pp. 173-180.

Cruz-Trinidad, A, White, A, Gleason, M & Pura, L 2002, The Philippine Coastal Management

Guidebook Series No. 6: Managing Municipal Fisheries, Overfishing: more than a fishers’

problem (an analysis of overfishing in the Philippines and its causes), USAID-CRMP, Cebu,

Philippines.

Danang City 2005, Danang City official website, viewed 21 September 2009,

http://www.danang.gov.vn/TabID/70/default.aspx.

Danang Coastalink 2004, ‘The ICM story in Danang’, viewed 12 January 2010,

http://www.danangcoastalink.org.vn/English/Danangcoast/story_icm.htm.

Danang People’s Committee 2001, Coastal strategy of Danang City, City Government of

Danang, Vietnam.

http://www.danang.gov.vn/TabID/70/default.aspx

http://www.danangcoastalink.org.vn/English/Danangcoast/story_icm.htm

258

Danang People’s Committee 2009, Danang People's Committee Report 2003-2009, Ministry of

Culture and Information, Danang, Vietnam.

Danang People’s Committee & Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East

Asia 2004, Danang initial risk assessment, report by the Danang People's Committee, Danang

City, Vietnam and Global Environmental Facility/United Nations Development

Programme/International Maritime Organization Regional Program on Building Partnerships on

Environmental Management for the Seas of the East Asia, Quezon City, Philippines.

Dela Cruz, RT 2004, ‘Conserving Lingayen Gulf resources’, Bureau of Agricultural Research

(BAR) - Research and Development Digest, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 6.

Denscombe, M 2007, The good research guide, Open University Press, Berkshire, UK.

Deocadez, MR, Alino, PM, Bautista, ALS & Gaite, PA 2003, Lingayen Gulf, Northwestern

Philippines. Philippine coral reefs through time, workshop proceedings (second of the Atlas of

Philippine Coral Reefs Series), Coral Reef Information Network (Philireefs), University of the

Philippines Marine Science Institute, Quezon City, pp. 13-17.

Department of Agriculture - Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 1998, Implementing

rules and regulations: The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550), DA-BFAR, Quezon

City, Philippines, viewed 12 March 2009,

http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/legislation/irr_8550/ra8550.htm.

Department of Agriculture 1998, 'Moratorium on Commercial Fishing Vessels in Lingayen Gulf'.

Retrieved 13 January 2012, from http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages/Legislation/FAO/fao194.html

Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2006, ‘About us’, viewed 12 March 2007,

http://www.denr.gov.ph/about.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2007, ‘Essential statistics on the

environment and natural resources Philippines 2004’, viewed 3 June 2007,

http://www.denr.gov.ph/section-facts-figures.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

& Department of Interior and Local Government 2001a, Philippine coastal management

guidebook series, USAID-CRMP, Cebu City, Philippines.


& Department of Interior and Local Government 2001b, Philippine coastal management

guidebook, series 1: coastal management orientation and overview, DENR, BFAR, DILG, Cebu

City, Philippines.


& Department of Interior and Local Government 2001c, Philippine coastal management

http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/legislation/irr_8550/ra8550.htm

http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages/Legislation/FAO/fao194.html

http://www.denr.gov.ph/about

http://www.denr.gov.ph/section-facts-figures

259

guidebook, series 2: legal and jurisdictional framework for coastal management, DENR, BFAR,

DILG, Cebu, Philippines.


& Department of Interior and Local Government 2001d, Philippine coastal management

guidebook, series 3: coastal resource management planning, DENR, BFAR, DILG, Cebu,

Philippines.


& Department of Interior and Local Government 2001e, Philippine Coastal Management

Guidebook, Series 4: Involving Communities in Coastal Management, DENR, BFAR, DILG

Cebu City, Philippines.

Department of Finance 2010, 'Management Functions', Retrieved 3 March 2012, from

http://www.dof.gov.ph/management_functions_pdf.

Department of Interior and Local Government 2005, The Local Government Code, DILG

Quezon City, Philippines.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2008, ‘About the department’,

viewed 20 September 2009, http://www.environment.gov.au/about/index.html.

Department of Tourism 2009, 'Structure and Functions', Retrieved 21 March 2012, from

http://www.tourism.gov.ph/SitePages/functions.aspx.

Dolan, RE 1991, Philippines: a country study, GPO for the Library of Congress, Washington

D.C.

Dryzec, JS 2005, The Politics of the earth. Oxford University Press, New York.

EcoGov - Philippine Environmental Governance Project 2005, The Philippines' Blue

Environment, EcoGov, USAID (Philippines) & DENR, Quezon City, Philippines, pp. 1-6.

Eghenter, C, C Wulandari, F Hanif & R Setiyaningrum 2007, Collaborative management of

national parks in Indonesia: an effective model for regulating the commons of conservation,

WWF-Indonesia.

Ehler, CN & Basta, DJ 1993, ‘Integrated management of coastal areas and marine sanctuaries: a

new paradigm’, Oceanus, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 6-13.

Eisma, RV, Christie, P & Hershman, M 2005, ‘Legal issues affecting sustainability of integrated

coastal management in the Philippines’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 48, no. 3-6, pp.

366-359.

English, BJ 2003, ‘Integrated coastal resource management: a prescription for sustainable

development’, Electronic Green Journal, vol. 1, no. 9, pp.1-15.

http://www.environment.gov.au/about/index.html

http://www.tourism.gov.ph/SitePages/functions.aspx

260

Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening Indefinite Quantity Contract 2002, Report

No 21: Environment policy- lessons learned, Indonesia.

Erdmann, MV, PR Merrill, I Arsyad & M Mongdong 2003, 'Developing a diversified portfolio of

sustainable financing options for Bunaken National Marine Park', 5th

World Park Congress:

Sustainable Finance Stream, September 2003, Durban, South Africa.

Erdmann, MV, PR Merrill, M Mongdong, I Arsyad, Z Harahap, R Pangalila, R Elverawati & P

Baworo 2004, 'Building effective co-management systems for decentralised protected areas

management in Indonesia: Bunaken National Park case study', Natural Resources Management

Program, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Fisheries Resource Management Project 2001, Fisheries Resource Management Project of

Lingayen Gulf: Resource and Social Assessment (RSA) Terminal Report. Appendix 3, pp. 1-23,


Gallagher, A, Johnson, D, Glegg, G & Trier, C 2004, ‘Constructs of sustainability in coastal

management,’ Marine Policy, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 249-255.

GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on

the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) 1996, ‘The contributions of science

to integrated coastal management', Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations,

Reports and Studies, GESAMP No. 61, pp. 66.


the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) 2001, ‘A sea of troubles’, Reports

and Studies, GESAMP No. 70, A Joint Report of GESAMP and the & Advisory Committee on

Protection of the Sea, pp. 35.


the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) 1990, 'Report of the twentieth

session, Geneva. 7-11 May 1990, Reports and Studies, GESAMP No. 41, pp. 32.

Governance and Local Democracy Project 2001, '10th rapid field appraisal', Governance and

Local Democracy Project managed by Associates in Rural Development, Inc. through support

provided by the United States Agency for International Development under AID Contract No.

492-0471-C-00-5089-00.

Green, SJ, White, A, Flores, J, Carreon III, M & Sia, A 2003, 'Philippine fisheries in crisis: a

framework for management', Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.

Greenwald, J 2005, Seacology News, Second Travel Dispatch from Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Guarin, FY 1991, 'Water quality management issues in Lingayen Gulf, Philippines and some

proposed solutions', Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 23, pp 19-23.

261

Guba, EG & Lincoln, YS 1989, Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage Publications Ltd, Newbury

Park, CA.

Guion, LA 2006, Conducting an In-depth Interview, University of Florida Press, Florida.

Hardin, G 1968, ‘The tragedy of the commons’, Science, vol. 162, no. 3859, pp. 1243-1248.

Harvey, N & Caton, B 2005, Coastal Management in Australia, Oxford University Press,

Oxford, UK.

Harvey, N, Clarke, BD & Carvalho, P 2001, ‘The role of the Australian Coastcare program in the

community-based coastal management: a case study from South Australia.’ Ocean and Coastal

Management, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 161-181.

Harvey, N & Hilton, M 2006, 'Coastal management in the Asia-Pacific region, in N Harvey (ed.),

'Global change and integrated coastal management: The Pacific Asia region, no. 10, pp. 39-66,

Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer.

Harvey, N & Mimura, 2006, 'Importance of global change for coastal management in the Asia

Pacific region', in N. Harvey (ed.), Global change and integrated coastal management, no. 10,

pp. 1-15, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer.

Haward, M 1995, ‘Institutional design and policymaking "down under": developments in

Australia and New Zealand coastal management’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 26, no.

2, pp. 87-117.

Hilomen, VV & WY Licuanan 2002, Status of the fisheries resources in Lingayen Gulf: Easing

the pressure and enhancing the resources, In Green, SJ et al. 2003, Philippine Fisheries in Crisis:

A Framework for Management. Cebu City, Coastal Resource Management Project of the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Hong, H & Xue, X 2006, ‘Building up a training base for integrated coastal management through

partnerships in Xiamen’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 49, nos. 9-10, pp. 685-695.

Hotta, K & Dutton, IM 1995, 'Introduction', in Dutton, I.M., K. Hotta (eds), Coastal Management

in the Asia Pacific Region, Japan International Marine Science and Technology Federation,

Tokyo, pp. 3-18.

Ilocos Region Information Sharing Network 2007, ‘Regional Development Council’, viewed 21

June 2008, http://ilocos.net.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=85.

Integrated Task Team of the Xiamen Demonstration Project 1996, The coastal environment

profile of Xiamen, MM-EAS technical report no.6, GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme for

the Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas. Quezon City, pp.

110.

http://ilocos.net.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=85

262

International Union for Conservation of Nature 2004, Managing marine protected areas: a

toolkit for the western Indian ocean, IUCN Eastern African Regional Programme, Nairobi,

Kenya.

Javier, JA 2006, ‘Proclamation No. 1081 September 21, 1972: Proclaiming a state of martial

law in the Philippines’, viewed 7 March 2008,

http://filipiniana.net/read_content.jsp?filename=E00000000001.

Johns, S 1980, The parastatal sector: Administration in Zambia, in W. Tordoff (ed.), Manchester

University Press, Manchester.

Kay, R & Alder, J 1999, Coastal planning and management, E & FN Spon, New York,

Kay, R & Lester, C 1997, ‘Benchmarking the Future Direction for Coastal Management in

Australia’, Coastal Management, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 265-292.

Kenchington, R & Crawford, D 1993, ‘On the meaning of integration in coastal zone

management’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 109-127.

Kimball, LA 1995, ‘An international regime for managing land-based activities that degrade

marine and coastal environments’ Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 187-260.

Lagura, N 2005, ‘Ecosystems services in the Philippines: for whom?’ Alumni Newsletter,

College of Natural Sciences, University of California – Berkeley, pp. 8-9.

Legard, R, Keegan, J & Ward, K 2004, 'In-depth interviews', in J. Ritchie and J. Lewis (eds),

Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers, Cromwell

Press Ltd, London.

Lin, H 2008, From local demonstration to regional partnership: integrated coastal management

experiences in Xiamen, ICM Project Management Office, Xiamen, PRC.

Lingayen Gulf Coastal Area Management Commission 1995, Lingayen Gulf Coastal Area

Management Commission Annual Report (1995), LGCAMC, Lingayen, Pangasinan, Philippines.

Llanto, GM 2009, Fiscal decentralization and local finance reforms in the Philippines.

Discussion Paper Series No. 2009-10, National Economic and Development Authority, Makati,

Philippines.

Lowry, K, White, A & Courtney, C 2005, ‘National and local agency roles in integrated coastal

management in the Philippines’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 48, nos. 3-6, pp. 314-335.

Maaliw, ML 1990, ‘Pollution’, in LT McManus and T-E Chua (eds), The coastal environmental

profile of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources

http://filipiniana.net/read_content.jsp?filename=E00000000001

263

Management on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations United States Coastal

Resources Management Project, Manila, Philippines.

McManus, LT & Chua, T-E (eds) 1990, The coastal environmental profile of Lingayen Gulf,

Philippines, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management on behalf of the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations United States Coastal Resources Management Project,


Mercado, RG 2002, Regional development in the Philippines: a review of experience, state of the

art and agenda for research and action, Discussion Paper Series No. 2002-03, Philippine

Institute for Development Studies and the National Economic and Development Authority,

Makati, Philippines

Milne, N & Christie, P 2005, ‘Financing integrated coastal management: experiences in Mabini

and Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 48, nos. 3-6, pp. 427-

449.

Milne, N, Christie, P, Oram, R, Eisma, RV & White, A 2003, Integrated coastal management

process sustainability reference book, University of Washington School of Maritime Affairs,

Silliman University and the Coastal Resource Management Project of the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines.

Nasuchon, N 2009, Coastal management and community management in Malaysia, Vietnam,

Cambodia and Thailand, with a case study of Thai fisheries management, Division for Ocean

Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations, New York.

National Economic and Development Authority - Regional Development Council Region 6

2010, ‘Legal Bases and Mandate’, viewed 12 September 2010, http://www.neda-

rdc6.ph/a/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=87.

National Economic and Development Authority 1992, The Lingayen Gulf coastal area

management plan, ICLARM technical report, NEDA-Region 1, Makati City, Philippines, No. 3,

p. 87.

National Economic and Development Authority 2010, 'Functions and Organization', Retrieved f

http://www.neda.gov.ph/about/functions_and_organization.htm.

National Geographic Society 2004, Geographic Map of Xiamen, China, Washington D.C.

National Statistics Office 2007a, ‘Philippine census of population’, viewed 9 June 2007,

http://www.census.gov.ph/.

National Statistics Office 2007b, ‘Population and annual growth rates by region, province, and

city/municipality:1995, 2000, 2007’, viewed 12 August 2008,

http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2007/municipality.pdf.

http://www.neda-rdc6.ph/a/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=87

http://www.neda-rdc6.ph/a/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=87

http://www.neda.gov.ph/about/functions_and_organization.htm

http://www.census.gov.ph/

http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2007/municipality.pdf

264

Nichols, K. 1999, ‘Coming to terms with integrated coastal management: problems of meanings

and methods in a new arena of resource regulation’, Professional Geographer, vol. 51, no. 3, pp.

388-399.

Nong, TNM & Nguyen, MS 2003, ICM program development and implementation in Danang

City, Vietnam, Department of Science, Technology and Environment (DOSTE), Da Nang City,

Vietnam.

North Sulawesi Information 1998, ‘Bunaken National Marine Park’, viewed 17 October 2008,

http://www.sulawesi-info.com/bunaken.php.

Olsen, OB 2003, ‘Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal

management initiatives’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. ,46 no. 3, pp. 347–361.

Olsen, R, De Leon, D & White, A 2005, ‘Do biophysical studies and coastal databases enhance

coastal management sustainability? Several Philippines cases’, Ocean and Coastal Management,

vol. 48, nos. 3-6, pp. 411-426.

Olsen, S, Tobey, J & Kerr, M 1997, ‘A common framework for learning from ICM experience’,

Ocean and Coastal Management vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 155-174.

Olsen, SB 1993, ‘Will integrated coastal management programs be sustainable; the constituency

problem’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 201-225.

Olsen, SB 2000, ‘Educating for the governance of coastal ecosystems: the dimension of the

challenge’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 331-341.

Otadoy, BE 2004, 'Lowly fishers urge: save Lingayen Gulf from exploitation' Sun Star, 27,

October 2004, Pangasinan. Dagupan, Philippines.

Padovano, F, Sgarra, G & Fiorin, N 2003, ‘Judicial branch, checks and balances and political

accountability’, Constitutional Political Economy, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 47- 70.

Pan, SJ. & Xue, X 2001, ‘Development of a self-sustaining ICM program in Xiamen, China’,

Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Shihwa Management Strategy and Regional

Initiatives for Coastal Environmental Management, 15-16 March 2001, Korea Maritime

Institute, Seoul, Korea.

Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia 2006a, Xiamen: an ICM

journey., GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme on Building Partnerships in Environment for

the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), Quezon City, Philippines.

Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia 2006b, A perspective on

the environmental and socio-economic benefit and costs of integrated coastal management: the

case of Xiamen, PR China, PEMSEA, Quezon City, Philippines

http://www.sulawesi-info.com/bunaken.php

265

Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia 2009, ‘Vietnam

strengthens ties with PEMSEA for ICM scaling up’, viewed 12 January 2010,

http://www.pemsea.org/about-pemsea/pemsea-news/vietnam-strengthens-ties-with-pemsea-for-

icm-scaling-up/?searchterm=danang

Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia 2010, ‘About PEMSEA’,

viewed 21 March 2010, http://www.pemsea.org/about-pemsea.

Patton, MQ 2002, Qualitative research and evaluation methods (third edition), Sage

Publications, Inc., London.

Pauly, D, Smith, IR & Silvestre, G 1988, On development, fisheries and dynamite: a brief review

of tropical fisheries management, in A.T. Charles and G.N. White (eds), Proceedings of the First

Interdisciplinary Conference on Natural Resources Modeling and Analysis, 29 September - 1

October 1988, Centre for Resource Systems Analysis, St. Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova

Scotia, Canada, pp. 29-33.

Paw, JN & Chua, T-E 1991, ‘Managing coastal resources in Calicap, Indonesia, and Lingayen

Gulf, Philippines - an ASEAN initiative’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 23, pp. 779-783.

Philippine Constitutional Commission 1986, The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Republic

of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines.

Philippine Information Authority 2007, ‘Pangasinan towns vow to continue coastal resource

management project’, viewed 12 August 2007,

http://www.pia.gov.ph/?m=12&fi=p070509.htm&no=34.

Philippine Sustainable Development Network Foundation, Inc. 2000, ‘Bantay dagat’, viewed 16

February 2008, http://www.psdn.org.ph/sdvillage.ph/coastal/bantaydagat.htm.

Phuong, L 2007, 'Danang continues to implement the second phase of Integrated Coastal

Management (ICM) project', Unpublished Report, Danang City Government, Danang, Vietnam.

PNA 2007, 'Pangasinan LGUs vow to continue coastal resource', News Balita, 27 April 2007,

Pangasinan, Philippines.

Pollnac, RB, B. Crawford, BR & Gorospe, MLG 2001, ‘Discovering factors that influence the

success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines’, Ocean and


Pollnac, RB & Pomeroy, RS 2005, ‘Factors influencing the sustainability of integrated coastal

management projects in the Philippines and Indonesia’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol.

48, nos. 3-6, pp. 233-251.

http://www.pemsea.org/about-pemsea/pemsea-news/vietnam-strengthens-ties-with-pemsea-for-icm-scaling-up/?searchterm=danang

http://www.pemsea.org/about-pemsea/pemsea-news/vietnam-strengthens-ties-with-pemsea-for-icm-scaling-up/?searchterm=danang

http://www.pemsea.org/about-pemsea

http://www.pia.gov.ph/?m=12&fi=p070509.htm&no=34

http://www.psdn.org.ph/sdvillage.ph/coastal/bantaydagat.htm

266

Pomeroy, RS 1995, ‘Community-based and co-management institutions for sustainable coastal

fisheries management in Southeast Asia’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 27, no. 3, pp.

143-162.

Provincial Planning and Development Office of Pangasinan 2002, Coastal resource management

plan framework 2002-2010, Provincial Planning and Development Office, Lingayen,

Pangasinan, Philippines.

Regional Development Council Region I - CRMP for Ilocos Coast 2001, NEDA Region I RPFP

Report: provincial CRM framework plans of Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union and Pangasinan,

Regional Development Council Region 1, San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines.

Regional Development Council Region I - CRMP for Ilocos Coast 2005, NEDA Region I RPFP

Report: provincial CRM framework plans of Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union and Pangasinan,

Regional Development Council Region 1, San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines.

Regional Development Council Region I - CRMP for Ilocos Coast 2010, CRM Ilocos coast

brochure inputs 2010. Regional Development Council Region 1, San Fernando City, La Union,

Philippines,

Reinoso, RS 2004, 'Decentralisation: the case of the Philippines', Proceedings of the Forum on

the Pro-Poor Delivery of Rural Infrastructure Service: The Challenge of Decentralisation,

International Labor Organization, 4-6 November 2003, Bangkok, Thailand.

Rivera-Guieb, R 2001, 'A Reflection of Hopes, Inspirations and Limitations of the Community-

based Approach in the Philippines', in H. Lansdowne, P. Dearden and W. Neilson (eds),

Communities in Southeast Asia: Challenges and Responses, Papers from the Joint Northwest

Regional Consortium for Southeast Asian Studies and the Canadian Council for Southeast Asian

Studies Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada, pp. 34-42.

Rivera, R & Newkirk, GF 1997, ‘Power from the people: a documentation of non-governmental

organizations' experience in community-based coastal resource management in the Philippines’,

Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 36, nos. 1-3, pp. 73-95.

Rondinelli, DA & Cheema, SG 1983, ‘Decentralization and development: policy implementation

in developing countries’, in D. A. Rondinelli and S. G. Cheema (eds), Implementing

Decentralization Policies: An Introduction. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, pp. .

Ruan, W & Yu, H 1999, 'Design and implementation of marine functional zoning scheme in

Xiamen, China', Proceedings of the Challenges and Opportunities in Managing Pollution in the

East Asian Seas MPP-EAS Conference (12/PEMSEA Conference Proceedings 1),

GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution

in the East Asian Seas (MPP-EAS)/Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of

East Asia (PEMSEA), Quezon City, Philippines.

267

Salamanca, AA 2003, ‘The cost of action: CRM investment in the Philippines’, NAGA,

WorldFish Center Quarterly, vol. ,26 no. 2, pp. 25-29.

San Diego-McGlone, ML, Ranches, G 2003, 'Water quality assessment of Lingayen Gulf',

Philippine Scientist Publication 40:41–56.

San Diego-McGlone, ML, Jacinto, G, Velasquez, I, Padayao, D 2004. 'Status of water quality in

Philippine coastal and marine waters', pp96-108. In Department of Agriculture-Bureau of

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, In turbulent seas: the status of Philippine marine fisheries,

Coastal Resource Management Project. Cebu City, Philippines.

Scura, LF, Chua, T-E, Pido, MD & Paw, JN 1992, Lessons for integrated coastal zone

management: The ASEAN experience, Integrative Framework and Methods for Area

Management, International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM),


Sekhar, NU 2005, ‘Integrated coastal zone management in Vietnam: present potentials and future

challenges’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 48, nos. 9-10, pp. 813-827.

Sekiguchi, H & Arksonkoae, S 2008. 'Environmental Problems in the Coastal Zone', in N

Mimura (ed), Asia Pacific Coasts and their Management, Dordretch, The Netherlands, Springer.

Sievanen, L 2008, 'Inside Indonesia 91: Jan-Mar 2008', Retrieved 10 January 2011, from

http://www.insideindonesia.org/content/view/1034/47.

Siry, HY 2007, Making decentralized coastal zone management work for the Southeast Asian

region: comparative perspectives, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of

Legal Affairs, United Nations, New York.

Sorensen, J 1993, ‘The international proliferation of integrated coastal zone management

efforts’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 45-80.

Sorensen, J 1997, ‘National and international efforts at integrated coastal management:

definitions, achievements and lessons’, Coastal Management, vol. 25 no. 11, pp. 3-41.

Soy, SK 1997, The case study as a research method, University of Texas, Austin, TX.

Stake, RE. 1995, The Art of Case Study Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Stake, RE 2005, 'Qualitative case studies' in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds), The sage

handbook of qualitative research (third edition), Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.

Stojanovic, T, Ballinger, RC & Lalwani, CS 2004, ‘Successful integrated coastal management:

measuring it with research and contributing to wise practice’, Ocean and Coastal Management,

vol. 47, nos. 4-6, pp. 273-298.

268

Straton, A 2006, 'The joint outcomes of a ‘community jury’ workshop in North Sulawesi,

Indonesia', 2006 International Conference, 4-7 September 2006, Darwin, Australia.

Talaue-McManus, L & Chua, T-E 1997, ‘The Lingayen Gulf (Philippines) experience: if we

have to do it again’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 217-232.

Talaue-McManus, L, Licuanan, W, Asuncion, L, Silvano, K, Bonga, M & de Castro, C 2001,

Primary production and fisheries in Lingayen Gulf, northern Philippines: biological

oceanography component, final report of the SARCS/WOTRO/LOICZ project 1996-1999,

Texel, The Netherlands.

Thiele, MT, Pollnac, R & Christie, P 2005, ‘Relationships between coastal tourism and ICM

sustainability in the central Visayas region of the Philippines’, Ocean and Coastal Management,

vol. 48, nos. 3-6, pp. 378-392.

Tibalao, M 2007, ‘Pangasinan-UP MERF push Sagip Lingayen Gulf’, Pangasinan Star.

Dagupan, Philippines.

Tobey, J 2003, ‘Coastal management and poverty alleviation’, in O. B. Olsen (ed.), Coastal

Governance, Coastal Resource Management Project, Rhode Island, pp. 343-358.

Toengkagie, MA 2002, Charting a new course for co-management of Bunaken National Park,

United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP/EAS/ICRAN/WS Annex 3, pp.1-7.

Travaglia, C, Profeti, G, Aguilar-Manjarrez, J & Lopez, NA 2004, Mapping coastal aquaculture

and fisheries structures by satellite imaging radar: case study of the Lingayen Gulf, the

Philippines, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992, ‘Agenda 21: chapter 17’,

viewed 24 April 2007,

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/003/W1639E/W1639E00.HTM.

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 2004, Country reports

on local government systems: Philippines. UNESCAP, Bangkok, Thailand.

United Nations Environment Programme 2002, ‘Coastal zone management’, viewed 12 May

2007, http://www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/sensitive/coastal.htm.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 2003, A Final Report of the Workshop on the

Implementation of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Pacific

Islands: A Call for Action, no. FAO Fisheries Report No. 731, 27-31 October 2003, Naji, Fiji.

United States Agency for International Development 2007, ‘Coastal resource management: the

value of coastal ecosystems’, viewed 21 May 2007,

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/water/crm.html.

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/003/W1639E/W1639E00.HTM

http://www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/sensitive/coastal.htm

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/water/crm.html

269

United States Agency for International Development - Coastal Resource Management Project

1999, Primer on coastal resource management, USAID-CRMP, Cebu City, Philippines.

United States Agency for International Development-Coastal Resource Management Project

2000, Introduction to the establishment of a community-based marine sanctuary, USAID-

CRMP, Cebu City, Philippines.

United States Agency for International Development-Coastal Resource Management Project

2004, ‘Understanding the Philippine coastal environment: an endangered coastal environment’,

viewed 2 June 2007, http://www.oneocean.org/about_crmp/coastal.html.

University of the Philippines - Marine Environment and Resources Foundation 2007, ‘Some

administered projects’, viewed 23 August 2007, http://www.merf.org.ph/?q=node/6.

Vallega, A 1993, ‘A conceptual approach to integrated coastal management’, Ocean and Coastal

Management, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 149-162.

Vallega, A. 1996, 'The agenda 21 of ocean geography: the epistemological challenge',

Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Geographical Union International

Geographical Congress, Sea, Land and the Human Effort, 4-10 August 1996, The Hague, The

Netherlands.

van der Weide, J 1993, ‘A systems view of integrated coastal management’, Ocean and Coastal


Vera, CA, Cabaces, R & Reyes, L 2007, Asserting rights, defining responsibilities: perspectives

from small-scale fishing communities on coastal and fisheries management in Asia, International

Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), Siem Reap, Cambodia.

Villanueva, AB 1978, ‘Decentralization and executive-legislative relations in the Philippines,

1961-1967’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 377-392.

Walters, JS, Maragos, J, Siar, S & White. A 1998, Participatory coastal resource assessment: A

handbook for community workers and coastal resource managers, Coastal Resource

Management Project and Siliman University, Cebu City, Philippines.

Webb, B & Webb, S 1932, Methods of social study, Longsman Green, London, UK.

Westmacott, S 2002, ‘Where should the focus be in tropical integrated coastal management?’,


White, A & Lopez, NA 1991, 'Coastal resource management planning and implementation for

the fishery sector program of the Philippines', Proceedings of the 7th Symposium Coastal and

Ocean Management, 8-12 July 1991, Long Beach, CA.

http://www.oneocean.org/about_crmp/coastal.html

http://www.merf.org.ph/?q=node/6

270

White, A & Cruz-Trinidad, A 1998, The values of Philippine coastal resources: why protection

and management are critical?, USAID-CRMP, Cebu City, Philippines.

White, A, Christie, P, D'Agnes, H, Lowry, K & Milne, N 2005a, ‘Designing ICM projects for

sustainability: lessons from the Philippines and Indonesia’, Ocean and Coastal Management,

vol. 48, nos. 3-6, pp. 271-296.

White, A, Eisma-Osorio, R & Green, SJ 2005b, ‘Integrated coastal management and protected

areas: Complementarity in the Philippines’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 48, nos. 11-

12, pp. 948-971.

White, A, Dequit, E, Jatulan, W & Eisma-Osorio, R 2006, ‘Integrated coastal management in

Philippine local governance: evolution and benefits’, Coastal Management, vol. 34, no. 3, pp.

287-302.

White, A, Gomez, E, Alcala, AC & Russ, G 2007, ‘Evolution and lessons from fisheries and

coastal management in the Philippines’, in T. McClanahan and J. Castilla (eds), Fisheries

Management: Progress Towards Sustainability, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Limited, pp. 88-

111.

World Bank 2005, Philippines Environment Monitor 2005: coastal and marine resource

management, The World Bank Group, Pasig City, Philippines.

World Bank & Asian Development Bank 2005, Decentralisation in the Philippines:

strengthening local government financing and resource management in the short term, The

World Bank and the Asian Development Bank Manila, Philippines.

World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our common future, Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

World Conference on Drowning Prevention 2011, Visitor Information, Retrieved 9 March 2012,

from http://www.worldconferenceondrowningprevention2011.org/content_common/pg-visitor-

info.seo.

World Guides (2010), 'Xiamen maps and orientation', viewed 12 June 2010,

http://www.xiamen.world-guides.com/xiamen_maps.html.

World Resources Institute 1992, World resources 1992-1993: a guide to the global environment,

Oxford University Press, New York.

Wowiling 2009, The Bunaken National Marine Park: 'Co-management Initiative', Retrieved 23

February 2010, from http://www.bunaken.org/index.php?p=about.

Xiamen Demonstration Project Office 1998, Integrated coastal management in Xiamen, 1994-

1998, GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme for the Prevention and Management of Marine

Pollution in the East Asian Seas (MPP-EAS), Quezon City, Philippines.

http://www.worldconferenceondrowningprevention2011.org/content_common/pg-visitor-info.seo

http://www.worldconferenceondrowningprevention2011.org/content_common/pg-visitor-info.seo

http://www.xiamen.world-guides.com/xiamen_maps.html

http://www.bunaken.org/index.php?p=about

271

Yates, S 2004, Doing social science research, Cromwell Press Ltd, London.

Yin, R 1984, Case study research, Sage Publications Ltd, Beverly Hills, CA.

Yin, R 1994, Case study research: design and methods, Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks,

CA.

Yin, R 2003, Case study research, design and methods, Sage Publications Ltd, Newbury Park,

CA.

Yu, H & Bermas, NA 2004, Integrated Coastal Management: PEMSEA's Practices and Lessons

Learned, GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme on Partnerships in Environmental Management

for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), Diliman, Quezon City.

273

Appendix 1

Appendix 1. General Coastal Management Functions of the BFAR

Prepare and implement a comprehensive National Fisheries Industry

Development Plan;

Issue licenses for the operation of commercial fishing vessels;

Issue identification cards free of charge to fishworkers engaged in commercial fishing;

Monitor and review joint fishing agreements between Filipino citizens and foreigners who

conduct fishing activities in international waters and ensure that such agreements are not

contrary to Philippine commitment under international treaties and convention on fishing in

the high seas;

Formulate and implement a Comprehensive Fishery Research and Development Program,

such as, but not limited to, sea farming, sea ranching, tropical/ornamental fish and seaweed

culture, aimed at increasing resource productivity improving resource use efficiency, and

ensuring the long term sustainability of the county's fishery and aquatic resources;

Establish and maintain a comprehensive Fishery Information System;

Provide extensive development support services in all aspects of fisheries production,

processing and marketing;

Provide advisory services and technical assistance on the improvement of quality of fish

from the time it is caught (i.e., on board fishing vessels, at landing areas, fish markets, to

the processing plants and to the distribution and marketing chain);

Coordinate efforts relating to fishery production undertaken by the primary fishery

producers, LGUs, FARMCs, fishery and organization/cooperatives;

Advise and coordinate with LGUs on the maintenance of proper sanitation and hygienic

practices in fish markets and fish landing areas;

Establish a corps of specialists in collaboration with the Department of National Defense,

Department of the Interior and Local Government and Department of Foreign Affairs for

274

Source:(BFAR 2003)

the efficient monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing activities within Philippine

territorial waters and provide the necessary facilities, equipment and training thereof;

Implement and inspection system for import and export of fishery/aquatic products and fish

processing establishments consistent with international standards to ensure product quality

and safety;

Coordinate with LGUs and other concerned agencies for the establishment of productivity-

enhancing and market development programs in fishing communities to enable women to

engage in other fisheries/economic activities and contribute significantly to development

efforts;

Enforce all laws, formulate and enforce all rules and regulations governing the

conservation and management of fishery resources, except in municipal waters and to settle

conflicts of resource use and allocation in consultation with the NFARMC, LGUs and local

FARMCs;

Develop value-added fishery products for domestic consumption and export;

Recommend measures for the protection/enhancement of the fishery industries;

Assist the LGUs in developing their technical capability in the development, management,

regulation conservation and protection of the fishery resources;

Formulate rules and regulations for the conservation and management of straddling fish

stocks and highly migratory fish stocks; and

Perform such other related functions which shall promote the development, conservation,

management protection and utilization of fisheries and aquatic resources.

275

Appendix 2

Appendix 2. DENR’s Power and Function

Other Functions:

Advise the President on the enactment of laws relative to the development, use, regulation,

and conservation of the country's natural resources and the control of pollution;

Formulate, implement, and supervise the government's policies, plans and programs

pertaining to the management, conservation, development, use and replenishment of the

country's natural resources;

Promulgate rules and regulations in accordance with law governing the exploration,

development, conservation, extraction, disposition, use and such other commercial

activities tending to cause the depletion and degradation of our natural resources;

Exercise supervision and control over forest lands, alienable and disposable lands, and

mineral resources and in the process of exercising such control the Department shall

impose appropriate payments, fees, charges, rentals and any such form of levy and collect

such revenues for the exploration, development, utilization or gathering of such resources;

Undertake exploration, assessment, classification and inventory of the country's natural

resources using ground surveys, remote sensing and complementary technologies;

Core Functions:

1. Formulate and implement policies, guidelines, rules and regulations relating to

environmental management, pollution prevention and control;

2. Formulate, implement and supervise the government’s policies, plans and programs

pertaining to the management, conservation, development, use and replenishment of the

country’s natural resources and ecological diversity; and

3. Promulgate and implement rules and regulations governing the exploration, development,

extraction, disposition, and use of the forests, lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural

resources.

276

Promote proper and mutual consultation with the private sector involving natural resources

development, use, and conservation;

Undertake geological surveys of the whole country including its territorial waters;

Establish policies and implement programs for the:

a) Accelerated inventory, survey and classification of lands, forest and mineral resources

using appropriate technology, to be able to come up with a more accurate assessment

of resource quality and quantity;

b) Equitable distribution of natural resources through the judicious administration,

regulation, utilization, development, and conservation of public lands, forest, and

mineral resources (including mineral reservation areas), that would benefit a greater

number of Filipinos;

c) Promotion, development, and expansion of natural resource-based industries;

d) Preservation of cultural and natural heritage through wildlife conservation and

segregation of national parks and other protected areas;

e) Maintenance of a wholesome natural environment by enforcing environmental

protection laws; and

f) Encouragement of greater people participation and private initiative in natural resource

management.

Promulgate rules and regulations necessary to:

a) Accelerate cadastral and emancipation patent surveys, land use planning, and public

land titling;

b) Harness forest resources in a sustainable manner, to assist rural development, support

forest-based industries, and provide raw materials to meet increasing demands, and at

the same time keeping adequate reserves for environmental stability; and

c) Expedite mineral resources surveys, promote the production of metallic and

non-metallic minerals and encourage mineral marketing.

Regulate the development, disposition, extraction, exploration, and use of the country's

forest, land and mineral resources;

Assume responsibility for the assessment, development, protection, conservation, licensing

and regulation as provided for by law, where applicable, of all natural resources; the

regulation and monitoring of service contractors, licensees, lessees, and permittees for the

277

extraction, exploration, development, and utilization of natural resource products; the

implementation of programs and measures with the end in view of promoting close

collaboration between the government and the private sector; the effective and efficient

classification and sub-classification of lands of the public domain; and the enforcement of

natural resources laws, rules and regulations;

Promulgate rules, regulations and guidelines on the issuance of co-production, joint venture

or production sharing agreements, licenses, permits, concessions, leases and such other

privileges and arrangements concerning the development, exploration, and utilization of the

country's natural resources and shall continue to oversee, supervise and police our natural

resources; to cancel or cause to cancel such privileges and arrangements upon failure, non-

compliance or violations of any regulations, orders, and for all other causes which are in

furtherance of the conservation of natural resources, and supportive of the national interest;

Exercise exclusive jurisdiction on the management and disposition of all lands of the public

domain and shall continue to be the sole agency responsible for classification, sub-

classification, surveying and titling of lands in consultation with appropriate agencies;

Implement measures for the regulation and supervision of the processing of forest products,

grading and inspection of lumber and other forest products and monitoring of the

movement of timber and other forest products;

Promulgate rules and regulations for the control of water, air and land pollution;

Promulgate ambient and effluent standards for water and air quality including the allowable

levels of other pollutants and radiations;

Promulgate policies, rules and regulations for the conservation of the country's genetic

resources and biological diversity, and endangered habitats;

Formulate an integrated, multi-sectoral, and multi-disciplinary National Conservation

Strategy, which will be presented to the Cabinet for the President's approval;

Exercise other powers and functions and perform such other acts as may be necessary,

proper or incidental to the attainment of its mandates and objectives.

Source:(DENR 2006)

279

Appendix 3

Appendix 3. Specific Roles and Function of Municipalities, Cities, and Provinces in Managing

the Coastal Environment

Municipality and City

Provide overall facilitation and coordination for planning and implementation

Develop a coastal environmental profile with maps for planning

Conduct information, education and communication and training activities for local

organisations

Develop and adopt 5-year CRM plan

Support CRM plan implementation through appropriate ordinances

Incorporate appropriate CRM best practices in plan

Implement CRM plans through annual investment plan and budget

Enact comprehensive fisheries management ordinance

Maintain a municipal coastal database to facilitate planning and implementation

Support participatory coastal resource assessments for each barangay FARMC

Monitor field activities and selected biophysical and socioeconomic indicators

Implement revenue generation mechanisms through licenses, fees and taxes

Network and collaborate with local and international funding institutions for

program/project implementation

Conduct IEC campaigns related to sustainable use of coastal resources

Conduct site-specific research

Collaborate with province, other municipalities or cities and national agencies to

develop multi-municipal CRM plans as required for special management areas

Province

Develop and implement policy and planning framework for CRM in province

280

Source:(DENR et al. 2001d)

Provide technical assistance to municipalities and cities for coastal management

planning and implementation

Monitor and evaluate all coastal management activities and results in province

Establish and maintain a training staff to train LGUs and other stakeholders in CRM

Assist coordination of law enforcement for multi-municipal areas

Establish, maintain, and update an information management system and database

Provide financial incentives for coastal management based on results from monitoring

Assist the national government in developing and implementing policy and planning

framework for CRM in the country

281

Appendix 4

Appendix 4. National Legal Instruments Mandating the Involvement of the Community Sector

in Coastal Management in the Philippines

Section 2, Article XII of the Philippine

Constitution 1987

The Congress may, by law, allow small-

scale utilization of natural resources by

Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish

farming, with priority to subsistence

fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes,

bays, and lagoons.

Section 7, Article XIII of the Philippine

Constitution 1987

The State shall protect the rights of

subsistence fishermen, especially of local

communities, to the preferential use of the

communal marine and fishing resources,

both inland and offshore. It shall provide

support to such fishermen through

appropriate technology and research,

adequate financial, production, and

marketing assistance, and other services.

The State shall also protect, develop, and

conserve such resources. The protection

shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of

subsistence fishermen against foreign

intrusion. Fish workers shall receive a just

share from their labor in the utilization of

marine and fishing resources.

Local Government Code, Book 1 Chapter

4, Section 34

Role of People's and Nongovernmental

Organizations. - Local government units

shall promote the establishment and

282

operation of people's and nongovernmental

organizations to become active partners in

the pursuit of local autonomy.


4, Section 35

Linkages with People's and Non-

Governmental Organizations. - Local

government units may enter into joint

ventures and such other cooperative

arrangements with people's and

nongovernmental organizations to engage

in the delivery of certain basic services,

capability-building and livelihood projects,

and to develop local enterprises designed to

improve productivity and income, diversify

agriculture, spur rural industrialization,

promote ecological balance, and enhance

the economic and social well-being of the

people.


4, Section 36

Assistance to People's and

Nongovernmental Organizations. - A local

government unit may, through its local

chief executive and with the concurrence of

the sanggunian (council) concerned,

provide assistance, financial or otherwise,

to such people's and nongovernmental

organizations for economic, socially-

oriented, environmental, or cultural

projects to be implemented within its

territorial jurisdiction.

Fisheries Code, Chapter 3, Article 2,

Section 69

Creation of Fisheries and Aquatic

Resources Management Councils

(FARMCs). FARMCs shall be established

283

in the national level and in all

municipalities/cities abutting municipal

waters as defined by this Code. The

FARMCs shall be formed by fisherfolk

organizations/cooperatives and NGOs in

the locality and be assisted by the LGUs

and other government entities. Before

organizing FARMCs, the LGUs, NGOs,

fisherfolk, and other concerned POs shall

undergo consultation and orientation on the

formation of FARMCs.

Sources:(Philippine Constitutional Commission 1986; DA-BFAR 1998; DILG 2005)

285

Appendix 5

LETTER TO THE INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT

The Interview Participant

(Organisation)

(Address)

Dear _______________,

The Lingayen Gulf comprises rich fishing grounds, productive brackish culture systems and

natural attraction for tourism. It is one of the country’s most economically important fishing

grounds which supplies approximately 70% of the fish demands the Luzon. However,

overfishing and blast fishing seriously affect both tourism and livelihood opportunities in the

area. Due to this tragic reality, the Lingayen Gulf has been declared an environmentally critical

area through Presidential Proclamation No. 156 in 1993, which remains critical until now. Thus,

there is a need to look deeper into the management system of the Lingayen Gulf to protect it

from further degradation.

This letter refers to my intention to invite you participate in an interview regarding my research

study on the Lingayen Gulf management. This interview is targeting people with working

knowledge and experience regarding the management of the Lingayen Gulf. The interview will

be conducted for not more than 1 hour at your work place, or at your own preferred venue at a

mutually agreed meeting time. I have attached an overview of my research proposal for your

perusal.

If you do not object to the purpose of the interview please let me know and I will immediately

arrange the details.

You may also suggest people who can potentially take part in the interview and I will organise a

separate interview for them. You may pass on this letter to them, or forward their details to me

and I will get in touch with them as soon as possible.

Thank you very much for your help in this matter.

Kind regards,

Jose C. Rodriguez

Doctorate in Public Administration Student

University of Canberra

Australian Capital Territory

Telephone: +61 (0) 2 6201 2714

Fax: +61 (0) 2 6201 5237

287

Appendix 6

LETTER TO THE HEAD OF ORGANISATION

The Director/Manager

(Organisation)

(Address)

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing to request permission to approach your staff (name/s of staff) to gather information

regarding my doctoral thesis project entitled ‘An Examination of the Effectiveness of

Institutional Arrangements for the Sustainable Management of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines’.

Ms/Mr ________ will be one my interview participants for my research project.

The interview ensures confidentiality and privacy between my interview participants and myself.

It will be treated as voluntary, thus the participants may not answer questions that they do not

feel comfortable with.

I guarantee that the interview, in particular, and the research, in general, will not have any hazard

towards the participants physically and emotionally, and no professional risk will be involved.

The research is mainly concerned with gathering viewpoints and opinions from appropriate key

informants regarding the management of the Lingayen Gulf.

I will be happy to provide you with a copy of my research Information Sheet for your perusal. A

copy of the approval letter from my institution, the University of Canberra’s Committee for

Human Ethics to conduct research with human participants will be immediately sent to your

office once the formal approval is received, if deemed necessary.

To be able to contribute new knowledge in the field of coastal management in the Philippines

through the Lingayen Gulf case study is the main objective of this research. I would greatly

appreciate the opportunity to conduct research within your organisation, through the identified

research participants, and look forward to your positive response to my request.

Very sincerely yours,

Jose C. Rodriguez

Doctorate in Public Administration Student

University of Canberra

Australian National Territory

Telephone: +61 (0) 2 6201 2714

Fax: +61 (0) 2 6201 5237

289

Appendix 7

CONSENT FORM

I have read the Information Sheet for the research study called ‘An Examination of the

Effectiveness of Institutional Arrangements for the Sustainable Management of Lingayen Gulf,

Philippines’, and understand my rights and role as a potential interview participant. I fully agree

with my participation.

Name: _________________________________________________

Profession: _________________________________________________

Department/Sector: _________________________________________________

Date: _________________________________________________

Signature: _________________________________________________

jose rodriguez - university of canberra · the role of institutional arrangements for the...

Documents