I'm so proud of this
For our environmental economics class, we had to come up with a paper. And come up with a paper we did. Here it is, the culmination of our groupwork. Around 17 pages (1.5 spacing) without the charts, maps, tables and bibliography.
My groupmates: Mae, Mel, Alex, Kimoi and Pia. Hakuna Matata group. hehe
Managing Marine Protected Areas: Lessons Learned from Apo Island
INTRODUCTION
For the longest time, we have utilized nature to satisfy our basic needs and wants. In particular, we have employed bodies of water such as seas and rivers to supply us with different goods and services. We harvest fish and other marine creatures in order to suffice the ever growing demand for food.
In tropical countries like the Philippines, biodiversity thrives due to the warm climate, so marine biodiversity is richer here than in other waters. Surpassing that of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, the number of species coexisting in Philippine waters is so high, that the Philippines is declared by international marine scientists as the “Center for Marine Biodiversity” in the whole world (Adraneda, 2006) . With over two thousand species of saltwater fishes alone, we hold the highest concentration of marine species per unit area according to Carpenter (“The Philippine Marine Biodiversity: a Unique World Treasure,” 2007). What is more interesting is that both local and foreign scientists believe that the full extent of our marine life is yet to be discovered.
Along seashores are coastal communities that depend on water resources for their income. For so many years now, our waters have never ceased to offer us resources such as fish, pearls, weeds, and beautiful reefs. Submarine habitats serve as attractions for tourists who visit the country. The Philippines is a natural hotspot, with crystal clear beaches, surfing areas and numerous diving sites around the country. Over the years, the Philippines have become a hotspot for divers, researchers and marine biologists. The revenue generated from tourism and research is essential not only to the people living in the coastal areas but also to the whole economy as well.
However, in order to satisfy our needs, we have harvested marine resources at a rate faster than their ability to regenerate or multiply. Several human activities like over-fishing, poisoning, blasting of coral reefs, and toxic waste chemical dumping have damaged the seas, impairing its ability to provide resources. Marine life’s sustainability is also affected due to the depletion of genetic diversity, but most importantly, sustainability is hindered due to the destruction of coral reefs.
There is more to the decrease in the absolute number of life forms in our seas. A more serious problem comes from the loss of biodiversity, where a chain of repercussions roots, affecting not only the locality and the country but also the international aim to sustain the environment. Water bodies throughout the world are connected to one another. The events in one place trigger a series of other events that affect other water areas. Losing a certain number of species of marine creatures here affects the rest of the world.
It is under this light that different organizations throughout the world have expressed their concern for our waters. Different agendas have been prepared and participant countries have been mandated towards conservation and preservation of marine biodiversity. Here in the Philippines, environmental legislations easily find their way towards approval ever since environmental degradation became a hot issue. Most of marine legislations revolve around efficient management of over 400 marine protected areas. In order for these legislations to be implemented well, support from the government and cooperation from the local community involved are two main points to be considered.
Contextualizing programs based on the community level management is one of the proposed solutions for biodiversity conservation. So far, it worked for some protected areas. We look into the case of Apo Island, a small island in Negros Oriental, a province in Central Philippines which is known as the “Center of the Center of Marine Biodiversity” because it has the highest concentration of marine species and endemism according to OneOcean. In the case of Apo Island, different projects are conceptualized, implemented and supported by the locals. Initiative from the people and from the local government has prompted coastal preservation even before the national government stepped in through NIPAS (National Integrated Protected Area System). In an article in the Manila Times, it was mentioned that Apo Island is a model for other marine reserves to imitate (Roblas, 2006).
This paper focuses on the different ways on how the interaction of the national, sub national, community and other organizational levels work together in order to prevent further biodiversity loss. We try to define the legislations and the different agencies who are responsible for mitigating the abuse of water resources. Also, we try to evaluate the programs implemented in these protected areas and assess their costs and benefits as well as their efficiency. Specifically, we determine the impacts of these projects on the coastal community; whether or not these schemes lead to better management of water resources and biodiversity conservation. In particular, we look into the case of Apo Island and its projects’ transition from a locally planned and administered program to a centrally planned project under the NIPAS program.
MARINE BIODIVERSITY
In general, biodiversity is known as “an attribute of an area and specifically refers to the variety within and among living organisms, assemblages of living organisms, biotic communities, and biotic processes, whether naturally occurring or modified by humans” (“Biodiversity,” MarineBio.Org). Stanford defines biodiversity as “the variety of all forms of life, from genes to species, through to the broad scale of ecosystems” (“Biodiversity,” 2003).
Marine biodiversity, as the name implies, refers to the variety of life in the ocean and coastal environments. Somehow, it is believed that the number of aquatic species exceeds that of its terrestrial counterpart. According to the Center for Marine Biodiversity in California, USA, even if 2.7 billion years of marine evolution has passed before land evolution, the latter receives more attention from scientists than the first (“Biodiversity in the Marine Environment,” Bedford Institute of Oceanography). Limited accessibility, underdeveloped technology, and the unpredictability of the nature of water (covering three-fourths of earth) impede exploration and identification of other marine life forms.
MarineBio identifies major benefits that we get from water (“Biodiversity,” MarineBio.Org). First of which is food. The variety of fauna offered by the sea constitutes a huge part of the world’s diet. Everywhere, especially in the developing world, fish is an integral part of people’s everyday diet. This is true especially for countries that have large communities dependent on the marine harvests. Second, marine life is a source of toxins and other ingredients needed to make various medicines. The full potential medicinal value is still unknown as more and more uses are being discovered. Third, marine biodiversity is a constituent of local tourism. Scuba divers, glass bottom boats, and whale watching cruises are all crafted to appreciate the richness of marine biodiversity. Finally, water is of great interest to many biologists. Continuous research and development brings about other purposes of marine life. The potential value of undiscovered marine life cannot be fully measured as of today because of the constraints imposed by practicalities and the limitations of current technology.
MARINE BIODIVERSITY IN THE PHILIPPINES
International scientists have branded the Philippines as the “Center for Marine Biodiversity” surpassing Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. It was found that the country has the highest concentration of marine species in the world. Specifically, Central Philippines is known as the “Center of the Center of Marine Biodiversity” according to OneOcean. The so-called “Coral Triangle,” bordered by the Philippines, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, contains 600 species of coral, 1200 species of fin fishes, 700 species of algae, 33 species of mangrove, five out of seven known species of sea turtles and 24 species of crustaceans. (“The Philippine Marine Biodiversity…” 2007)
In a Geographical Information System Analysis conducted by Carpenter and Springer, it was found that Indonesia has the highest coral reef fish biodiversity because it has a larger area. However, they also pointed out that with a smaller area jurisdiction, the Philippines has the highest concentration of species per unit area. (“The Philippine Marine Biodiversity…” 2007)
The Philippine’s coastline is one of the longest in the world and is home to a diverse set of marine ecosystems that are endemic to the country. As of February 2006, there are about 2,824 marine fish species listed for the Philippines. This consists of 33 endemic, 1,729 reef-associated, 169 pelagic and 336 deepwater species. Also, there are about 5,000 species of clams, snails and mollusks, 488 species of corals, 981 species of bottom-living algae and thousands of other organisms. (“The Philippine Marine Biodiversity…” 2007
Several recent studies have attested to the richness of the country’s marine biodiversity. The Panglao Marine Biodiversity Project 2004 headed by a team of international researchers attest to the bountiful marine life in the country. According to Associate Professor Ng, “About 1200 different species of crabs and shrimps were collected around Panglao - a phenomenal number considering that Japan has only about 1,600 different species in total” (Ai-Lien, 2004). In the same project, 6000 species of mollusks, including sea slugs and micro shells and hundreds of other previously unspecified organisms.
ISSUES REGARDING PHILIPPINE MARINE BIODIVERSITY
For the past decade, the issue of the loss of biodiversity has been receiving growing concerns from states, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and local governments alike.
The rapid escalation of population has increased the demand for goods and services that have put a strain on the natural resources and the overexploitation of the global environment. Furthermore, serious scientific research in marine biodiversity has lagged for many years because the immediate effects of marine biodiversity loss are not evidently seen as compared to its terrestrial counterpart (Heip, “Marine Biodiversity: Past and Present Concerns”).
Moreover, marine biodiversity research is an expensive endeavor because of the state-of-the-art technical equipment needed to explore and assess the marine waters. This relative scarcity of information and expertise in marine biodiversity hinders the development of a workable base from which resource management systems may be developed. The issue of funding and lack of political support also hinders the effective resource management framework from materializing.
These issues not only affect the quality of the environment but also adversely affect the economic aspects our country.
The annual economic benefit from the Philippine’s coastal ecosystems are estimated at Php180 billion. It is estimated that 1 square kilometer of healthy coral reef generates an average of Php25 million from fishing and tourism. This contributes to at least Php70 billion annually to the economy, about 1.4 percent of the GDP. (“Coastal and Marine Resource Management in the Philippines,” 2005).
However, despite the richness of the country’s coastal waters, many local coastal residents still live under the Philippine poverty line. The dependence of the local people on coral reefs and associated shallow water ecosystems for their fish protein and the reported decline in capture fisheries since the 1970s has increased the disparity in the income levels of the rich and the poor in the country (Alcala, 2007).
“About 10 million fisher folk and 50 million people are dependent on the region’s seas for their livelihood” was reported by UN Development Program resident representative, Nileema Noble (“RP is the Center of Marine Biodiversity in the World,” 2006). The variance between the people and the marine’s economic prosperity is one of the issues that have prompted the institutionalization of the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) under the Department of Natural Resources (DENR) composed of representatives from national, provincial, municipal and local levels that seeks to decentralize the resource management structure of the country.
LEGISLATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS
Legislation in the Philippines on marine biodiversity signifies that the country recognizes its importance. The Presidential Decree no. 1151 or the Philippine Environmental Policy calls for the participation of the three pillars of governance: citizenry, private sector and the National Government in protecting the environment. The National Government’s role through the Department of Natural Resources is stated in PD no. 1152 or the Environmental Code: “shall establish a system of rational exploitation … and shall encourage citizen participation therein to maintain and/or enhance the optimum and continuous productivity of the same.”
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR) are the two government agencies mainly responsible for the national planning, policies and evaluation of the Philippine marine environment. The task of managing and implementing these policies have been mostly decentralized to the local government units after the ratification of the Local Government Code of 1991.
As shown above, the legislation in the country enhances the direct participation of the community in protecting marine biodiversity. It was given in the Local Government Code of 1991 or Republic Act 7160 that the municipality stands as a regulating body that can “grant fishery privileges within the municipal waters and impose rentals, fees or charges .” While the Sangguniang Bayan has similar regulating powers but also has “the authority to prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery laws.” The participation of the community as stakeholders is given in the Philippines Fisheries Code or RA 8550. It was indicated that the fishery sector or the community participating in sustaining marine biodiversity are entitled to a just share of the total revenue gain from the utilization of the marine resources.
These policies in protecting the marine ecosystem created environmental service markets. The existence of these markets generate revenues, jobs and as well as promoting tourism. User fees are charged for accessing the environmental resources. These user fees are part of the Integrated Protected Area Fund used in protecting the water reserves. Other measures in protecting the biodiversity involve the payment of bioprospecting fees from all stakeholders.
Three levels of markets for environmental services exist. The national level initiatives are managed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The local government efforts are embodied in the ordinances and regulations that they impose. The community-based management is run by the local residents.
The National Integrated Protected Areas System or NIPAS
In 1992, Republic Act 7586 provided for the establishment and management of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act to further encourage the establishment and management of community-based programs while at the same time centralizing the management of these protected areas in the country.
Technically, NIPAS is defined as “the classification and administration of all designated protected areas to maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems, to preserve genetic diversity, to ensure sustainable use of resources found therein, and to maintain their natural conditions to the greatest extent possible.”
This act designates specific protected areas as sanctuary for plant and animal life. It recognizes the critical importance of protecting and maintaining the natural biological and physical diversities of the environment notably on areas with biologically unique features to sustain human life and development.
The two objectives of NIPAS are biodiversity conservation and sustainability of the area. Furthermore, there are specific acts of which the Secretary of the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) is mandated to carry out in order to foster partnership between the Government and other interested parties including the indigenous cultural communities and the Local government Units (LGU’s).
Part of the mandate of this act is to conduct studies on the characteristics and conditions of the different protected areas and prescribe permissible or prohibited to human activities. This includes the adoption and enforcement of zoning plans in adjoining areas for the preservation and control of activities. DENR is also to authorize for the implementation of project proposals for the development of protected areas.
Determining fees to be collected from government agencies, any person or group benefiting from the protected areas is also a task imposed on DENR. The issue of administrative fees and fines for violator of the rules and regulations or for anyone who would endanger the protected area is also discussed by NIPAS. Another task of DENR is to enter into contracts and agreement with private institutions that have purposes in line with the objective of this Act. This is in close connection with another task that is to call on any agency, non-government institution, the private sector, and especially academic institutions for the accomplishment of the objectives.
APO ISLAND, NEGROS ORIENTAL
Before NIPAS
During the 1970’s muro-ami and dynamite fishing was rampant in the area. It was also around this time when the Marine Conservation Education Program was launched by the Siliman University Biology faculty to educate and inform the residents about the benefits of conservation over destructive fishing. They were successful in gaining support from the residents who took up the new methods of conservative fishing. The locals moved away from destructive fishing practices like dynamite fishing and muro-ami after realizing that they are also the principal stakeholders to the resource in question.
In the 1980s, Apo was declared a protected area under a municipal ordinance. Through the Siliman University the area was declared a ‘NO TAKE ZONE’, a 0.45-km stretch of reef set aside as a sanctuary or reserve, where no fishing or any recreational activities were allowed. This sanctuary is the breeding area of the fishes where they are given the spawning time for around 6 months. The plan was headed by the Marine Management Committee which was composed of the local residents. They were in charge of constructing and enforcing the regulations of the reserve in cooperation with the Philippine National Police while Siliman University provided technical advice.
During the spawning time, the communities were given alternative livelihood to live on other sources of income other than fishing. An example of which is tourism. There were other projects that were created to sustain local employment, such as cooperatives and fish landings.
Continuous information and education campaigns instigated by the local government units and the Siliman University convinced the community to stop their destructive activities. At the start, the costs of marine preservation were borne, not by the community, but by outside groups that started the protection efforts. Foreign and non-government funds have helped assembled projects that persuade the community to work for the sustainable management of the marine protected area.
During the 20 years that MMC managed Apo’s resources, enforced fishing rules, collected tourist fees and allocated tourism revenue. It managed APO under a marine protected area model a municipal reserve established by local government, which included a “no-take” sanctuary, bordered by a fished buffer zone. This has resulted to the same annual amount of fish yield. This is an indicator that the APO reef is sustainable.
At Apo, species richness increased from 1983 to 1993 by a factor of 5.7. No significant changes occurred in the intensely fished Apo non-reserve during the 10-year period of protection of the reserve. The areas outside the fish reserves also experience an increase in fish catches because the protection of the reserves exhibits a spillover effect. As the density of fish in the reserve increases, fish begin to move out of the reserve and into the fished areas where people catch them.
Findings from related literature seem to suggest that fishers catch more from a lesser area with a proportion held in reserve than from a situation wherein they are allowed to fish without protection. At high levels of fishing mortality, closing an area to fishing as a regulatory measure can enhance yield per recruit. There are also other factors such as the degree of migration of fish from the protected to the fished areas as well as the life history of the different fish species in the area.
In 1993, Apo became a Coastal Environment Program site, under DENR, in 1993. APO Island was reforested and many mangroves were planted in the lagoon. The area was then considered as one of the Pilot Site of the Coastal Research Management Program (CRMP). There were different phases of this program. But all in all, they were to assess the area, institutionalize through policies, and recommend it to be part of the NIPAS, if suitable.
Under NIPAS
A Presidential proclamation in August of 1994 declared APO a Protected Landscape and Seascape and placed under the NIPAS by recommendation of Dr. Angel Alcala. Management of APO was turned over to the Protected Areas Management Board (PAMB) of the national government. The Board is composed of: DENR regional executive director, provincial planning and development officer, representative form municipal of Dauin, Barangay captain and representatives from NGOs. They are appointed by the national DENR office and each member has a 5-year term. In line with objectives of the NIPAS, the board collected fees from visitors and members of the community.
Advantages under NIPAS
In a personal interview with Ms. Jeanette Garcia of DENR, she said that it was undoubtedly rough sailing in the first years of the NIPAS. The locality had misconceptions of the intervention of the national agency. The community expected that since they are now under the NIPAS, the DENR will provide everything for them. However, DENR had no money to shell out. Also, the PAMB encountered some problems with the Local Government Unit (LGU). Before being incorporated in the NIPAS, the LGU receives all income from the area. They earn additional revenue from the registration of boats, user fees, entrance fees, and other taxes. But under the NIPAS, a provision states that all income from the area will be directed to the Integrated Protected Area Fund (IPAF) and all disbursement will pass through the National treasury for proper accounting. The IPAF is divided into: 25% for the Central IPAF and 75% for the Protected Area. The central IPAF is shared by other Protected areas that are not income generating. As of this date, the Apo Island protected area earns around P300, 000 per month.
One advantage of being under NIPAS is having a more accountable financial system. A Work and Financial plan where all the materials and corresponding amount needed are well-listed before submitted to the DENR. It is then properly evaluated before the money from the IPAF will be released to the area. This is in line with DENR’s task to authorize for the implementation of project proposals for the management of protected areas. This is also a way of making sure that the revenues from the area go back to the area of generation. On the record, the fastest release of disbursement for the Apo Island is one (1) month.
Garcia describes the NIPAS as a sustainable financing system. Only the protected area has access to its IPAF, and the IPAF is used only for the protected area. Moreover, NIPAS is a safety net to safeguard the funds from the unaccounted use of the LGU . The intervention of the national government can be seen as a check mechanism. Furthermore, the PAMB manages the user fees of tourists and other visitors of the area. Divers who want to dive in the protected area are required to pay triple the amount of user fee, a rate that somehow justifies the real value of the marine system. In a way, this rate in some way reflects how serious the agency is in conserving marine biodiversity in the area.
On one hand, NIPAS provides a safety net from unaccounted use of local officials by demanding greater accountability through IPAF and the financial plan. On the other hand, the benefit of a locally managed protected area is that the LGU can also distribute its earnings (75% of the revenues generated) from the area to the community by proving livelihood, health programs and other projects that will level up the quality of the whole community and the environment they live in. Local governments have freedom to provide the community with these programs because the money or fund is in their hands and need not pass to the National treasury or submit a financial plan.
In the bigger picture, the IPAF benefits the protected areas as a whole. Through the 25% central IPAF, other protected areas that are not income generating are supported. In some marine protected areas, tourists and divers are prohibited from entering due to sensitivity of the marine resources. Exceptions, of course, are those marine biologists and “sea rangers” who are licensed by the government to do research and check-ups on the restricted area. Maintenance of these areas entails costs-another reason why central IPAF is essential. The fact that income-generating areas, like Apo Island, subsidize the costs of non income-generating areas lies on the concept of interconnection of all marine areas.
Disadvantages under NIPAS
There were also drawbacks when Apo Island was integrated to the NIPAS system. Being part of the NIPAS system means that the revenues raised by the community will still have to go through the national treasury before being disbursed to the community. Although the fastest disbursement was given in one (1) month, it takes an average of 145.5 days for the revenue generated to return to the protected area because of the administrative process it undergoes . In the period of 1999-2002, there were only two disbursements made to the site since the introduction of the new pricing system in 1999 (Raymundo). This lag tends to serve as a disincentive to the community implementing the program because the benefits they receive are delayed.
This money is essential to the maintenance of the project because they will be used to develop the community. Generators, payments to the local Bantay Dagat force and health clinics are just some of the projects dependent on the timely release of funds back into the community. When the residents see positive results in their lives as a result of environmental protection, they begin to place a greater value on preserving the environment, leading to better cooperation, which further leads to lower enforcement costs. The flow of money from the IPAF needs to be streamlined to support the needs of the protected area.
The tourism industry is being used as an alternative to fishing as a source of income for residents of the island. However, there have been reports that these two economic activities may not always be compatible. Fishermen claim that tourists scare away the fish from their usual fishing areas as well as destroy nets laid out to catch fish (Raymundo). Fishing still remains the primary source of livelihood for most residents since tourism-generated revenue goes back into the community not necessarily in the form of cash to each family, but in the form of projects designed to improve their living standards.
Tourism has also been causing damage to the environment. Corals sustain damages from divers and skin divers who visit the area. The PAMB has made plans to reduce the incidents of tourist-related coral damage by limiting the number of diver and skin divers in the area, prohibiting the use of anchors and only allowing divers who have logged ten or more hours to dive within the protected areas. These regulations are hard to enforce, since the community tends to look the other way as long as people are paying for their use of the environment (Raymundo). Apo Island seems to be admitting tourists into the area at an unsustainable level. The local inhabitants must be educated about eco-tourism and proper management techniques with respect to regulating the number of tourists on the island.
It is also hard for the PAMB to make decisions regarding how much to charge for resource use. In the case of Mt. Apo, the PAMB is composed of more than 250 members because the coverage of the protected area is too large (Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies (REECS), Inc). Theoretically, it is easy for the community to accept the PAMB’s decision since the PAMB is usually made up of members of the community, but it is hard to reach a quorum during their meetings because of the sheer number of stakeholders.
One issue regarding the national management of protected areas is the fact that there is always a question about where the money should go. It is clear that the community and the stakeholders must derive the benefit from the revenue raised, but there is an issue about who exactly the stakeholders are and how much they should be emphasized regarding the allocation of funds.
The IPAF states that among the revenues generated by the site, 75% should go back to the community. It is unclear whether that 75% should go to the community managing the area or the Local Government Units in the area. People on other parts of the municipalities covered may also argue for a share in the revenue of the site generated by tourism. The Local Government Code (LGC) also has provisions that the local government is entitled to as much as a 30% share in the national wealth for all resources found within their jurisdiction. The NIPAS Act does not override the LGC and creates a lot of confusion and inefficiency in the community, making it harder for communities and LGU’s to draft and implement programs for the protected areas (REECS). This increased time and effort may be characterized as an additional administrative cost that must be taken into account in determining the fees charged for the use of the resource.
There may also be a loss of pride and ownership in areas where the local community-based protection programs are taken over by the national government (REECS). When the PAMB manages a protected area, the community feels it loses decision-making control of their resources. This dissatisfaction could lead to a reduction in participation or an increase in enforcement costs since people face less incentive to work for the protection of the area.
The PAMB board may have representatives from the community involved so they may voice the interests of their group, but this is still not always a fair process. Even if the intentions of the PAMB to coordinate their activities towards managing the protected area better are pure, some involved parties, especially indigenous people living inside the area, have a hard time following the discussions of the PAMB because they are not equipped with the same level of negotiating skills. Because of this, they sometimes feel misinterpreted and marginalized during the discussions (REECS) which is against the NIPAS Act. The NIPAS Act indicated that governments should have “partnership” with interested groups including indigenous people. The social costs to these indigenous people might not be expressed fully when negotiations are in order and may lead to the resource user fee price to be set to lower than sustainable levels. The indigenous people in the area must have better representation within the PAMB system.
Locally-Managed vs. Nationally-Managed
Both locally-managed and nationally-managed programs have goals that are inclined towards the benefit of the environment. However, both also have inefficiencies.
The cost of a locally-managed protected area is the vulnerability of projects since it is tied up with the incumbent local official. Projects depend on the priority of the local officers. Some officers, as said by Garcia, may opt not to continue the program of previous administration and pursue new projects for his credit. Also disbursement of revenues from the protected area is said to be not fully accounted. Some projects that are not for the protected area are funded by the revenues of the protected area.
The cost of a nationally managed protected area under the NIPAS is the cost of convening the PAMB or the cost of the logistics. They need to provide food, venue, and transportation for the members. Some PAMB groups are too large, composed of almost 200 members, that the cost of gathering them is too large. Some called meetings are being cancelled because there is no quorum, which may lead to the inactivity and inefficiency of the PAMB. While the success of the NIPAS relies largely on the active participation of the PAMB, the lack of funds to assemble them can hamper its success. Also there is a time cost for the disbursement of the fund for new projects. Work and financial plans are properly evaluated and passed on to different offices particularly the DENR, DBM, and Department of Finance before the money is released.
CONCLUSIONS
Undoubtedly, the Philippines has one of the richest marine resources in the world. We have been cited by different research groups and organizations both for the abounding resource and for the fast depletion of these endowments. Different groups particularly the national and local governments have worked to answer the problem of diminishing resources. The paper presented the benefits accrued and the costs entailed by both the national and local management of protected areas.
In the case of Apo Island, we have seen the success of devolving environmental sustainability policies to localized administration, as represented by the active PAMB. Decentralization is a key to targeting accurately the problems of marine biodiversity, an aspect that is too specific itself for the government. Authority must cease the employment of one-sized-fits-all directives which cover general environmental issues without addressing the specific problems per locality. Policy imposition should be a bottom-up process, starting at the very basic political structure, the barangay. In the case of Apo, the programs for sustainability and conservation were in place and already operational when it was recommended for inclusion in NIPAS. When the protected area was added in the NIPAS, it was under the directives of the DENR and management of PAMB, the projects became more efficient and more directed towards the growth of the area.
The decentralization of policy implementation is also a way to create efficient and timely results. If the administration of policies is left to the government, the body may create inefficiencies - deadweight losses in the form of excessive paper-writing for simpler and more transparent policies, unreciprocated administration and enforcement costs, and the costs of the transport and accounting of money in a heavily voucher laden framework. Instead, what the government should do is to police for abuse of local authority and to promote volunteerism par local level - disseminate information to the locality about biodiversity and let the locals do the job. Local volunteer initiatives are proven to be fit in addressing marine biodiversity issues because local volunteers are equipped with the knowledge of the area, and they themselves know what to do to their environment.
Lastly, both National and Local efforts for the protection of the Marine Protected Areas have costs and benefits. But as it is, as we have seen in the case of Apo Island, both governments are needed. The national and local government should work hand-in-hand for the success of the area. The National policy, particularly the NIPAS, needs the activeness of the PAMB, mostly composed of the LGU’s, to become effective. While the PAMB needs the support of the government for proper guidance of the projects for the protected area and accountability of the revenues of the area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Several recommendations are cited below to answer the problems of marine biodiversity protection, both for the national and local management programs.
First is the need for education, training and workshops particularly for the members of the community. Educating the fishermen about the importance of marine biodiversity and equipping them with knowledge to participate in discussions of the different issues would create unbiased plans and decisions for the community and the resource management. This can be provided with the help of the government through the allocation from the IPAF.
Second, as said above, the community must see some immediate results of their management efforts if they are to continue a management program intended to improve their marine environment. The national government should re-evaluate its process of allocating funds and revenues to the local government and the community to foster their management efforts. The results must not only be quantitative in nature but must also affect the perception of the community. Ms. Jeanette Garcia states: “the time cost now is high because the community and the government have not warmed up to the idea of requesting money from the IPAF and waiting for the disbursements. But when the time comes that they become used to it and the government have created the best way to accomplish this in the fastest time, this process proves to be more effective than the money-in-the-hand-of- the- LGU scheme.”
Lastly, when the management of a protected area is effective or adequate, the government should not step in, or at least offer aid within the management framework of the community. Who makes the decisions is often as important as the economic efficiency associated with the decision-making. If the national government persists in intervening in areas with adequate environmental management programs, the social costs associated with their intervention might rise.
PS: I can't get the LJ-cut to work in rich text mode. HTML just fucks up the format of the text, so there.