REGIONAL FISHERIES LIVELIHOODS PROGRAMME FOR SOUTH AND SOUTHEST ASIA (RFLP) ___________________________________________________________________________ GCP/RAS/239/SPA: RFLP Philippines Baseline Study Executive Summary Regional Fisheries Livelihoods Programme for South and Southeast Asia Philippines Component JOSE RIZAL MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITY Research Unit
21
Embed
Executive Summary - Food and Agriculture · PDF file1 Executive Summary Prepared by JOSE RIZAL MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITY Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte Written by Maria Rio Abdon
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
REGIONAL FISHERIES LIVELIHOODS PROGRAMME
FOR SOUTH AND SOUTHEST ASIA (RFLP) ___________________________________________________________________________
GCP/RAS/239/SPA: RFLP Philippines Baseline Study
Executive Summary
Regional Fisheries Livelihoods Programme for South and Southeast Asia Philippines Component
JOSE RIZAL MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITY
Research Unit
1
1
Executive Summary
Prepared by
JOSE RIZAL MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITY
Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte
Written by
Maria Rio Abdon Naguit, Evelyn R. Campiseno, Wilson Nabua, Narcisa Bureros,
Arnel Cuivillas, Leonardo Cainta, Jane Aquino, Ana Liza Lopez, Josephine Subong, Christopher Tagupa, Wilfredo D. Carreon, Jr., Bobmil C. Flores,
Salvador Y. Campiseño, Ma. Blanca S. Sy, Ed Neil O. Maratas, Joseph Salvel R. Campiseño, Jay D. Telen, Jeremias B. Narvaez, Paterno S. Baguinat III, J
ohn Wayne V. Jacinto, Daylinda R. Laput, Clarita Bidad, Carina Romarate, Bernard Gilaga, Romie Laranjo, Renato Malate,
December 2011
2
Introduction
The primary goal of Regional Fisheries Livelihoods Programme (RFLP) is to improve
the livelihoods of small-scale fishers in the program area through targeted interventions that
will produce grass root effects of improved fisheries management and livelihood
development. The ultimate aim is to have community organizations and government
institutions at different levels supporting efforts for fisheries co-management, livelihood
development, improved quality and reduction of vulnerability in small-scale fishing
communities. Realizing this noble goal of RFLP requires data for designing and
implementing intervention programs.
The baseline study covers some selected but adjacent coastal communities in the
province of Zamboanga del Norte which is the largest province of Zamboanga Peninsula in
terms of land area. These communities, which are classified into three clusters, are situated in
important bodies of water to the fishing and canning industries in the province that provide
employment to a significant portion of the coastal population. Cluster 1 is composed of
Dapitan City, Rizal and Sibutad which are correspondingly facing Dapitan Bay and
Murceilagos Bay. Cluster 2 covers Dipolog City, Katipunan, Manukan and Roxas while
Cluster 3 includes Jose Dalman, Leon Postigo, Liloy, Salug and Sindangan. Cluster 2 is
facing Dipolog Bay and Cluster 3 is facing Sindangan Bay. Biophysical data show that all the
aforementioned bays have suffered much from intensive fishing and destructive human
activities within these waters and in terrestrial areas that resulted to the deteriorating quality
and quantity of fishery resources that feed a growing population within and outside of
Zamboanga Peninsula.
The primary method of gathering socioeconomic data was social survey using quota
sampling technique and included households located along the coasts and engaged in fishing-
related activities. Fish survey and actual resource assessment were conducted in the
aforementioned bays to generate biophysical data that described the status of coastal and
fishery resources in the said areas. Secondary data were also utilized to complement the
primary data gathered. There were key informant interviews and focus group discussions
conducted involving local government officials and natural resource managers working with
local agencies concerned with marine and fishery resources. The socioeconomic data
generated provided some insight into how the current management and utilization of the
resources within the municipal waters have been on-going as bases for developing
interventions, and subsequently in measuring impacts that promote a multi-stakeholder
approach or participation in coastal resources management. The succeeding sections highlight
the salient findings of the baseline study.
On Co-management Concept
Current understanding and expectations of the concept “co-management”
Based on what the majority of respondents had said, the prevailing perception is that
government agencies have the major responsibility in fisheries management particularly in
planning, decision-making, enforcing, studying problems, assessing and monitoring fishery
resources and implementing projects. At first glance there is the general absence of the
practice of co-management particularly on matters that require expert knowledge and
authority at certain levels in the bureaucracy. It is too generalizing, however, to say that there
3
are no indications that co-management is exhibited in some areas of natural resource
management and in what communities. In fact, there are resemblances of co-management that
can be more enhanced in some communities.
For instance, majority (57%) in Cluster 1 perceived ensuring the compliance of laws
and regulations as a shared responsibility among fishers and women’s associations as well as
government agencies. The same perception was shared in Cluster 3, specifically by 59% of
the respondents in Sindangan. But this was certainly at the lower level in the management
process and not on the upper level where certain policies and regulations were being
formulated. In Cluster 2, particularly in Manukan and Roxas, majority considered monitoring
and assessing the status of fishery resources as a joint undertaking of the government and
fishing households and organizations. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents in Leon Postigo
of Cluster 3 likewise noted this. But again this sharing of task is at the lower level in the
management process and suggests that the involvement of the community seemed to be
during the implementation only but not in the research design stage.
It was only in Jose Dalman (Cluster 3) and Dipolog (Cluster 2) where 90% and 67%,
respectively, of the respondents noted that joint planning in the management of fishery
resources was an undertaking by concerned government agencies and the associations of
fishers and women. This illustrates a co-management practice at a higher level where the
community through its representatives contributes ideas to the plans being made by people in
the government. The community does not simply wait to implement what the government
wants it to do or to comply what policies and regulations are being promulgated. However,
this was not a general perception in all the clusters of communities studied, and the cases of
Jose Dalman and Dipolog were more of exemptions. Therefore, major interventions are
required for making all stakeholders understand how they can be highly involved in matters
pertaining to the management of fisheries as commons and not to be the sole responsibility of
state agencies.
Examples of existing policies and institutions that support or inhibit co-
management and identification of areas for strengthening
The primary bases for the local ordinances of the local government units for the
management and regulations in the use of the municipal waters are the Local Government
Code of 1991 (Republic Act 7160) and the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (Republic Act
8550). One of the major avenues by which participatory management is promoted is through
the creation of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (FARMC) in every
city and municipality, which is a multi-sectoral body tasked to formulate policies that
concerns the effective and sustainable development and use of coastal and marine areas.
Some examples of institutional or legal bases for fisheries co-management in Dapitan
Bay and Murcielagos Bay include the Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zone
(SAFDZ) of Dapitan City which was institutionalized by virtue of its Fisheries Ordinance of
2002 which also created the City Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council. The
local government unit of Rizal has its Municipal Fisheries Ordinance of 2002 while Sibutad
along with the adjacent municipalities of the neighboring province of Misamis Occidental
had enacted the Unified Fisheries Ordinance for Murcielagos Bay.
The other clusters have their respective ordinances and these are legal bases that
support how co-management can be realized among stakeholders from the public and private
4
sectors as well as among local government units within the same ecological zones. With the
legal basis of co-management, the community can demand the local government units to have
the various stakeholders be involved, similarly that the latter can expect support from these
stakeholders.
The attitudes and perceptions of fishers to formal and traditional
management systems and conflict resolution system
In Cluster 1, the prevailing preference among 85% of the fishing households surveyed
was that conflict around fishery resources should be resolved amicably in the community by
local leaders only while about 7% said that this should be brought to court and be resolved
according to the provision of the law. Interestingly, 8% believed that conflict would just die
down through time without having to settle them through either the formal or traditional
management systems or conflict resolution system.
Although still constituting the majority but lower than compared with Cluster 1, 65%
of the fishing households surveyed in Cluster 3 also agreed that conflict around fishery
resources should be resolved amicably by local leaders only. Only about 9% said that this
should be brought to court which is contrasted by 26% who believed that there is no need to
settle conflict over fishery resources because this will just die out. The last two figures are
higher compared to Cluster 1.
A different preference appeared in Cluster 2 where less than the majority or 49% said
that conflict around fishery resources should be resolved amicably in the community by local
leaders. But there is an increase among those who agreed (22%) that this should be brought to
court and resolve according to the provisions of the law. Interestingly, those who believed
that conflict will just die out as time passes by without settling them is highest (29%) in
Cluster 2 among the three clusters.
Stakeholder practices in current management systems and recommendations
for improvements
It was only in Cluster 1 where almost 68% or majority of the respondents observed
that the local government units were strongly enforcing the regulations pertaining to the
protection and conservation of fishery resources together with the active participation of
fishers either as individuals or associations. This is one area in resource management where
co-management is evident and this is a good indicator that the local government unit is
interested in involving the local community. However, in Clusters 3 and 2 less than the
majority or 47% and 37%, respectively, shared the same observations about the practices of
their respective local government units in the current systems of managing their fishery
resources.
Given the above situations it was inversely the case that more respondents in Cluster 2
(31%) would say that only the government was firm in the enforcement of fishery laws and
regulations followed, by Cluster 3 (25%) and Cluster 1 (22%). It likewise follows that those
who felt that only the fishers were engaged in the enforcement without the support from the
local government units were the highest in Cluster 2 (18%), followed by Cluster 3 (12%) with
Cluster 1 (3%) having the least. Based on the observations of the respondents it appears as a
whole that co-management system is not working well and much has to be done in order for
5
the local government units, the fishing sector and other stakeholders to work together. There
is a need to review how every local Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council
(FARMC) function in order to put co-management into real practice.
Current systems for conflict resolution
Majority of the respondents in all clusters reported that the aggrieved parties over the
utilization of certain fishery resources usually sought the intervention of local leaders. But the
percentage distribution was the highest in Cluster 1 (80%) and followed almost equally by
Cluster 3 (60%) and Cluster 2 (59%). This validated the earlier sentiments that conflicts
should be resolved within the local level and, as much as possible, should not be elevated to
the court to minimize or avoid litigation costs and save time would have to be spent in court
hearings. This is a good indication that co-management can be mainstreamed among the
fishing communities in the project sites by involving local leaders in conflict resolution over
resource utilization.
Gender roles and responsibilities
The respondents were asked to determine whom they observed in the community to
be doing certain social or group tasks or activities categorized into cooperative work with
manual labor, school meetings, political meetings, church meetings, preparing food for group
work, and protecting and conserving the environment. The responses showed that these tasks
were either done by men only, by women only or by both men and women. Generally, the
results showed that a plurality of the respondents in all clusters observed the aforementioned
tasks as done by both men and women in their respective communities and distributed as