PROCEEDINGS OF THE

Mini-Symposium 21: Social-ecological Systems

Convened and edited by:

T. Hughes, M. Nystrom, J. Cinner, S. Foale

961

Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July 2008 Session number 21

Measuring the effects of Marine Managed Areas: A global management effectiveness study
T. W. Campson1, R. Pomeroy2 1) Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA 2) Senior Research Fellow, WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia Abstract. This paper presents preliminary results from a multidisciplinary research project on factors influencing the performance of Marine Managed Areas. This study is unique in that it investigates the impact of the timing of management interactions on a number of performance outcomes, across a global sample of MMAs. Data sources for the study comprise an extensive review of literature, key informant interviews, and household surveys in 24 villages from eight MMA sites in tropical regions. Analysis of household surveys indicate that adequate funds at the beginning, enforcement, shared benefits, community organizations, conflict management mechanism, and external support during implementation, and education and training programs, government support, and legislation today together account for 18% of the variance in the socio/ecological component of MMA performance. Alternative livelihoods, shared benefits, and leadership in the beginning, education and enforcement during implementation, and legislation, conflict management, and accountability today account for 17% of the variance in the empowerment and security component of MMA performance. Finally, the combined effects of community influence and education in the beginning, consultations, leadership and education programs during implementation, and influence, shared benefits, community organizations, and legislation today, account for 20% of the variance in the conflict component of MMA performance. Key words: Marine Protected Areas, Economics of natural resources. Introduction The purpose of this study is to assess the factors related to the social and environmental effects of Marine Managed Areas (MMAs). In particular, it explores the links between socioeconomic, governance, and ecological circumstances, events, or interventions and changes in the human or natural environment of the MMA over time. Attention to the links between MMA design and implementation processes and their longer-term outcomes has increased in recent years. In June of 2006, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations convened an expert group to develop recommendations for the use of Marine Protected Areas as a fisheries management tool. The panel, composed of social and environmental scientists from many disciplines, developed numerous recommendations for the effective design and management of MPAs. The panel noted that the design of MPAs would benefit from more support for effectively designed and conducted studies of MPAs, emphasizing the diversity of situations in which MPAs have been applied, design and implementation processes, monitoring and performance, and ultimately, lessons learned. (FAO 2006) This study support the goals articulated in the FAO document by investigating the relationships between socioeconomic, governance, and ecological factors and MPA outcomes. As noted by Pomeroy and Mascia in the FAO report, The four principal elements of MPA design decision-making arrangements, resource use rules, monitoring and enforcement systems, and conflict resolution mechanisms directly and indirectly shape human resource use patterns and, ultimately, the biological and social performance of MPAs. (FAO 2006) Material and Methods Data sources for the study comprise an extensive review of literature, key informant interviews, and household surveys in 24 villages from eight MMA sites in tropical regions. Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the analytic framework for this study. The outcomes (effects) of the MMAs are defined as a difference in the levels of MMA performance indicators from a time before the MMA was initiated to today. Socioeconomic, governance, and ecological factors were measured at three time periods in the early phases of the MMA project, during implementation of the MMA, and today. The curved arrows in the graphic represent relationships between the socioeconomic, governance, and ecological factors that are related to the outcomes of MMAs. The dark, straight arrows represent

962

Before the MMA was initiated

In the early phases of the MMA

During implementation of the MMA

Today

Performance indicators

Socioeconomic Factors

Governance Factors

Ecological Factors

Time = 0... present

Figure 1: Analytic framework for GME study

relationships between independent variables (socioeconomic, governance, and ecological factors) and dependent variables (the change in performance indicators, or the effects of the MMA). In order to conduct a quantitative assessment of the relationships between these dependent and independent variables, it was necessary to obtain comparable data from each MMA site. Although these sites were chosen based in part on the availability of secondary data, the data on socioeconomic and governance factors was not directly comparable across sites. Therefore, it was decided to conduct surveys with 40-60 households at each MMA. These surveys utilize the baselineindependent method for impact evaluation developed by Pomeroy et al. (1997) and widely employed by authors involved in coastal management research since that time (for example, Cinner et al. 2005; McClanahan et al. 2006). These household surveys provide comparable data on socioeconomic and governance factors present at each site and their timing, as well as the levels of socioeconomic and governance performance indicators before the MMA project and today. A significant difference in the reported level of a performance indicator is considered an effect of an MMA. The household surveys were developed following a review of guidelines on the socioeconomic assessment of MMAs and coral reef management (Bunce et al. 2000; Pollnac 1998; Pomeroy et al. 2004). The survey instrument consists of three sections and about 50 questions. The first section contains questions about general household characteristics, respondent demographics, and community characteristics. The first section also asks

the respondents whether they consider the MMA a success. The second section asks about the timing of factors that might be important in establishing and managing an MMA. These are our Critical Determining Factors, or CDFs. The third section asks about respondent perceptions of the level of indicators (before the MMA and today) that could be considered the outcomes or outputs of MMAs. This study uses a visual, self-anchoring, ladder-like scale which allows for making fine ordinal judgments, places minimal demands on informant memory, and can be administered rapidly. Using this technique, the subject is shown a ladder-like diagram with 10 steps. The subject is told that the first step represents the worst possible situation. For example, with respect to coastal resources, the subject might be informed that the first step indicates an area with no fish or other resources, that the water is so foul nothing could live in it. The highest step could be described as rich, clean water, filled with fish and other resources. The subject would then be asked where the situation was before the MMA, and where it is today. In all cases, local partners were enlisted to lead the implementation of the household surveys. The research team worked on-site with each local project leader to ensure that the survey questions were clear, and that they were appropriate to the communities being surveyed. Samples were drawn from the population of stakeholders in communities surrounding or near to the MMA who are involved with or are knowledgeable about the MMA. These individuals were either identified by the survey enumerators on-site by asking a screening question of randomly selected community members, or pre-

963

screened by MMA management prior to the research visit. Results For the overall sample, there was a statistically significant increase in perceived levels of all 12 of the impact indicators (p<0:01). In particular, there were large positive changes perceived in compliance, and ecological health and biodiversity. The next highest positive change was in livelihoods, with the smallest changes reported for peace and order and crime levels. Changes in the levels of effect indicators were not as pronounced for the subsample of fishers.
Indicator T2-T1 P

peace and order load highly, resulting in identifying the component as indicating Empowerment and security. Finally, items loading highest on the third component are related to various types of conflict in the community; hence, the component is named Conflict. We can then investigate the relative importance of the predictor variables in terms of their individual and combined ability to account for variance in the three indicator components. This can be accomplished with regression analyses, and most efficiently with stepwise regression analysis. The results of these analyses for the three components can be found in Table 3. .
Independent variable Stand. coefficient Prob.

Livelihoods 1.348 <0.01 Food security .973 <0.01 Resource conflicts 1.054 <0.01 MPA conflicts .933 <0.01 Participation 1.143 <0.01 Influence 1.233 <0.01 Peace and order .877 <0.01 Crime .771 <0.01 Village conflict .935 <0.01 Compliance 2.247 <0.01 Ecological health 2.294 <0.01 Biodiversity 2.126 <0.01 Table 1: before/after MMA differences perceptions of performance indicators

in

The next step was to reduce the number of independent variables for further analysis. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was used to elucidate patterns of relationships between the degrees of change in the 12 indicators. The scree test was used to determine the number of components, resulting in three components, which account for a total of 62% of the variance in the data set.
Component Livelihoods Food security Resource conflicts MPA conflicts Participation Influence Peace and order Crime Village conflict Compliance Ecological health Biodiversity Table 2: factor loading analysis 1 2 3 .639 -.065 .470 .659 -.038 .458 .254 .181 .773 .131 .244 .806 .032 .712 .310 .034 .682 .322 .340 .591 .073 .213 .686 -.053 .426 .358 .454 .620 .384 .165 .794 .232 .109 .841 .264 .079 for principal component

A. Dependent variable: socio/ecological component scorea ENF_IMPL .166 .001 EDUC_TODAY -.179 .000 SHAREBEN_IMPL .165 .000 COMMORG_IMPL .123 .010 GOVTSUP_TODAY -.101 .027 LEGISL_TODAY .127 .010 CONFLMGMT_IMPL -.100 .032 EXTSUPP_IMPL .171 .000 FUNDS_BEG -.090 .050 B. Dependent variable: empowerment and security component scoreb EDUC_IMPL .169 .000 LEGISL_TODAY .097 .050 CONFLMGMT_TODAY .126 .009 ENF_IMPL .126 .006 ALTLIV_BEG -.138 .003 SHAREBEN_BEG .173 .001 LEAD_BEG -.162 .002 ACCOUNT_TODAY .111 .035 C. Dependent variable: conflict component scorecc COMMINFL_TODAY .136 .011 SHAREBEN_TODAY .162 .002 COMMORG_TODAY .195 .000 LEGISL_TODAY -.176 .000 COMMINFL_BEG .145 .003 EDUC_BEG -.143 .010 CONSULT_IMPL .142 .008 LEAD_IMPL .120 .020 EDUC_IMPL -.121 .028 a R = 0.450, R2 = 0.202, Adj. R2 = 0.186, F = 12.288, p<0.001 a R = 0.433, R2 = 0.187, Adj. R2 = 0.173, F = 12.603, p<0.001 a R = 0.469, R2 = 0.220, Adj. R2 = 0.204, F = 12.288, p<0.001 Table 3: regression coefficients

Items loading highest on the first component are clearly related to both livelihoods and ecology; thus, the component is named Socio/ecological. On the second component items related to participation and

The results in Table 3(A) indicate that adequate funds at the beginning, enforcement, shared benefits, community organizations, conflict management mechanism, and external support during imple mentation, and education and training programs, government support, and legislation today together account for 18% of the variance in the Socio/ecological component score.

964

At the beginning or early phases of the MMA Socio/ecological component score

During implementation

Today

Respondent is a fisherman (-)----------------------------------------------------MMA has adequate funds (-) Enforcement Shared benefits External support Community organizations Community consultations (-) Conflict management mechanism (-) Education and training programs (-) Government support (-) Accountable management

Empowerment and security component score Religious diversity in the community -----------------------------------------------Alternative livelihoods Education and training programs promoted (-) Shared benefits Enforcement Leadership (-) Enabling legislation Enforcement Community organizations Conflict component score Respondent is a fisherman (-)----------------------------------------------------Socioeconomic diversity in the community ----------------------------------------Education and training Community influence programs (-) Enforcement Education and training programs (-) Community influence MMA is a success Respondent is a fisherman (-)----------------------------------------------------Community organizations Education and training programs Enforcement (-)

Legislation Conflict management Accountable management Community organizations (-)

Leadership Shared benefits Community organizations Legislation (-)

Accountable management Enforcement

Figure 2: timeline representation of significant regressors

Likewise in Table 3(B), alternative livelihoods, shared benefits, and leadership in the beginning, education and enforcement during implementation, and legislation, conflict management, and accountability today account for 17% of the variance in the Empowerment and security component score. Finally in Table 3(C), the combined effects of community influence and education in the beginning, consultations, leadership and education programs during implementation, and influence, shared benefits, community organizations, and legislation today, account for 20% of the variance in the Conflict component score. Figure 2 is a timeline-type representation of these regression results. Discussion The most striking result of the component regressions is that some of the coefficients are negative, contrary to expectations. Recall that these are supposed to be critical success factors; therefore all coefficients would be expected to be positive. Thinking about the implications of measuring perceptions can help to make sense of these counterintuitive findings.

For example, there may be some psychology at play in which respondents feel a sense of bonding together in a difficult situation that would explain why the coefficient on adequate funds is negative. Similarly, both alternative livelihoods and leadership at the beginnings are negatively related to the empowerment and security component score. Recall that the empowerment and security component is loaded most highly with perceptions of changes in influence and participation. It might be the case that if a strong leader comes in to a community with new ideas about changing traditional ways of life, that situation could be alienating and disempowering for some members of the community. In general, the variables with negative coefficients are associated with situations that may be generated from outside the community itself for example, strong leadership, legislation, education and training programs associated with the MMA, government support. It is also noteworthy that some of the coefficients are positive for one component but negative for another. Education and training programs, for instance, have a positive effect on the Empowerment and security

965

component score but a negative effect on the other two components. Strong leadership has a negative effect on the Empowerment and security component score but a positive effect on the Conflict score. Investigating the robustness of this finding will be a fruitful area for further research. This paper reports results from the first phase of an ongoing research project. Further steps will involve integrating quantitative ecological data from study sites into a comprehensive analysis. The authors welcome comments from readers to improve future versions of this report.
Acknowledgements This research was made possible with the financial support of Conservation Internationals Marine Management Area Science program. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the committed teams of local researchers who made this project happen, especially Haji Mahingika, Narriman Jiddawi, and Ali Abdullah in Tanzania, Michael Pido in the Philippines, Kim Ahn in Vietnam, and Nadia Sonia Cazaubon in Saint Lucia.

References
Bunce, L., P. Townsley, R. Pomeroy, and R. Pollnac (2000) Socioeconomic Manual for Coral Reef Management, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia

Cinner J, Marnane M, McClanahan T. (2005) Conservation and Community Benefits from Traditional Coral Reef Management at Ahus Island, Papua New Guinea. Conserv Biol 17141723. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2006) Report and documentation of the expert workshop on marine protected areas and fisheries management: review of issues and considerations. Rome, 1214 June 2006 McClanahan T, Marnane M, Cinner J, Kiene W. (2006) A Comparison of Marine Protected Areas and Alternative Approaches to Coral-Reef Management. Current Biology 16:14081413. McClanahan T, Verheij E, Maina J. (2006) Comparing the management effectiveness of a marine park and a multipleuse collaborative fisheries management area in East Africa Aquatic Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 16: 147165. Pollnac, R. (1998), Rapid Assessment of Management Parameters for Coral Reefs, ICLARM Contribution #1445, Coastal Management Report #2205, Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island. Pomeroy R, Pollnac R, Katon B, Predo C. (1997) Evaluating factors contributing to the success of community-based coastal resource management: the Central Visayas Regional Project-1, Philippines. Ocean Coastal Management 36:97120. Pomery R, Parks J, Watson L. (2004) How is your MPA doing? IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

966

Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July 2008 Session number 21

Towards a close integration of social and natural sciences

A. Coghlan1 1) James Cook University, School of Business, Cairns PO Box 6811, Qld 4870, Australia Abstract. Interdisciplinary teams are now commonplace in natural resource research centers. The evolution from pure biologists to a systems approach with ecologists and later on, social scientists and geographers reflects our understanding that no natural environment is exempt from human impacts; to protect the natural environment we must incorporate the human dimensions within the environment. Whilst conceding that interdisciplinary research is vital to the conservation of natural resources, I review our state of knowledge on interdisciplinary research and identify several barriers to successful integration. To address these, it is necessary to first articulate and understand these barriers. Only then can they be identified as they arise between researchers and successfully overcome in order to achieve sustainable natural resource management. This paper identifies four major barriers that hinder efforts at successful integration of social and natural science. These are (i) differences in epistemology, (ii) the place and hierarchy of each science within the wider community, (iii) researcher time constraints and (iv) publication pressures. The paper also provides a list of recommendations to overcome these issues in order to guide researchers through the challenges of producing integrated, quality, outcome driven research that serve both the community and the natural environment. Key words: Interdisciplinary research natural social science Introduction A cursory glance at some of the major natural resource research centres around the globe reveal a trend towards interdisciplinary research teams. One example of this trend include the Australian Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef studies, which employs ecologists, biologists, geneticists, sociologists, economists and anthropologists. The evolution of teams based in one discipline, e.g. biologists, to a system approach with ecologists and later the addition of social scientists and geographers reflect our understanding of the complexity of natural environment and its interconnectedness with human society and its impacts; we now realize that we must examine the system as a whole if we wish to protect it. For example, a relatively simple but pertinent question such as How can the harmful environmental impacts of human activities be reduced? can draw on the disciplines of demography, ecology economics, engineering, sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, law and ethics in order to reach a satisfactory answer (Daily and Ehrlich 1999). In addition, there is a recognition that, in order to successfully protect a natural resource such as coral reefs, there must be local support for the projects, and some incentive to preserve and manage the resource. Often in cases where no social scientist is immediately available, the responsibility falls to the natural scientist who has been working near or alongside the local community for many years to develop the incentive to preserve and manage the resource. However, as highlighted by the review of issues in interdisciplinary research that follows, an ad hoc, cross-disciplinary approach may not always be successful or achieve the desired outcomes; indeed authors such as Lele and Norgaard (2005) suggest that charged with providing policy recommendations, natural scientists have to make judgments about how society works. They do not have adequate training to do this, but they are perhaps emboldened to do so by their positions and are likely to adopt simplistic models of social dynamics. In this paper, I look first at the growing need for interdisciplinary research teams in natural resource management and environmental conservation. Next I draw on the literature, as well as personal experience, to identify and articulate some of the issues that such interdisciplinary research appears to face. Finally, and again based on existing literature in the area, some of the recommendations for overcoming these issues are discussed. Literature review When it comes to incorporating the social sciences into natural resource management, both natural scientists and social scientists may find themselves frustrated. Campbell recounts her experiences working with natural scientists at a turtle hatchery: I was once asked to conduct research that would show that tourism was more valuable than an extractive-use project. Biologists may see results that do not see a desired conservation outcome as a

967

betrayal, both personally and professionally (Campbell 2005). One reason for this, according to Campbell, is that natural scientists may have unconscious or assumed expectations about what results of socio-economic studies will show, and which do not always reflect the research paradigms or priorities of the social sciences. Indeed, some authors suggest that several misunderstandings may be at work here. First, a more palatable form of social science may be co-opted into a primarily natural science research team. In the words of Redclift (1998) There is considerable evidence that some kinds of research in the social science can be fashioned to meet the demands of the natural sciences, e.g. demographic analyses can provide scenarios of food availability, surpluses, and resource scarcities. But is this social science? Is it rather what natural scientists think that social scientists are doing? As a more extreme example we find the following In my experience, natural scientists turn to social scientists to better package or market their eco/bio principles to the general public. True collaboration suggests mutual recognition of the distinct theory and methods that respective disciplines can bring to complex problems (Fox et al. 2006). Conversely, however, it has been argued that social scientists must also be able to demonstrate that conservation-relevant social science is legitimate, worthy of pursuit and capable of answering questions of profound theoretical significance (Mascia et al. 2003). Clearly there is some feeling amongst the natural scientists that social science has in the past failed to provide the conservation outcomes required for adequate protection of a natural resource, and a certain level of frustration felt by social scientists working within conservation-oriented research teams. Aims and Objectives The aims of this paper are to: 1. To articulate some of the issues that face interdisciplinary teams 2. To help think about them and identify them as they arise 3. To make some recommendations for overcoming them Material and Methods The principle methodology for this paper is a review of the literature on interdisciplinary research, with a particular focus on those issues that arise in mixed social and natural science teams. The review is set within the authors own experience as a graduate in marine and environmental sciences, a doctoral degree in tourism, and a postdoctoral position in the School of Business, managing a research project on

sustainable use of marine resources within a tourism context. Results Based on some of the ideas presented above, as well as a more complete review of the existing literature, it would appear that there are four main issues that may lead to communication breakdowns in interdisciplinary teams. These are (i) differences in epistemology, (ii) the place and hierarchy of each science within the wider community, (iii) researcher time constraints and (iv) publication pressures. (i) Differences in Epistemology: Differences in epistemology is arguably the biggest area of potential conflict between social and natural scientists. (Lele and Norgaard 2005). It can be suggested that natural scientists believe in an absolute truth, which should be reached through a reductionist, positivist approach to reach general consensus, whilst social scientists may employ far more interpretive techniques that encourage debate and move away from consensus, admitting the existence of competing controversial universalities or distinct epistemic communities (Redclift 1998). A range of other related issues also appear in the literature. For instance, language issues may arise, as differences between a clearly technical language and a science built upon more common language may lead to misunderstandings. In particular social scientists who often use common language in their research complain that the uninitiated reader, may mistakenly conclude that he understands what is being said (Pearce 2008, pers. comm.; Wear 1999). An example from personal experience is the confusion between the terms tourists and holiday-makers. In these cases, interdisciplinary research requires a clearer description of framing theory and methodology, and some insights into constitutive metaphors in order to build a common language that may usefully serve both groups of researchers (Wear 1999). A second sub-issue resolves around the sensitive topic of values. This issue arises at all stages choice of questions, theoretical positions, variables chosen, styles of research. And whilst natural scientists like to think that they are value-neutral, e.g. through the use of the passive tense in reports, social scientists recognize the importance of the context of all research (Lele and Norgard 2005) allowing subjectivity to become part of the research. Moreover, Campbell (2005) points out that advocacy issues can be strong in conservation biology, sometimes to the detriment of science. The goal of conservation biologists is to preserve biodiversity. There is often therefore a value placed on social science that is able to achieve this conservation goal more effectively through

968

deliverables. Campbell suggests however, that issues of advocacy will influence human subjects through their perceptions of the overall research team and project and not just by the social scientists with whom their interact. This will have detrimental effects on the quality and validity of the social science. (ii) The place of science in society: Another sensitive issue that is identified in the literature is that of the place of science in society and associated issues of funding (Roughley 2005). A form of hierarchy of intellectual rigor appears to exist in the sciences from the so-called hard sciences such as physics and chemistry through to softer sciences such as ecology and psychology, leading finally to anthropology and sociology. This hierarchy of worth, and the funding discrepancies associated with it has been accused of creating arrogance or defensiveness within disciplines, and forming a barrier to successful interdisciplinary research. Some authors therefore argue for personal characteristics of interdisciplinary researchers to be carefully considered, and point to the need for trust, patience, responsibility and honesty (Naiman 1999). This may also help to overcome apparent issues of power imbalances, whereby research leaders are often based in the natural sciences and the natural scientists, by the nature of research methods, may outnumber the social scientists. The interpersonal skills of the research leader will therefore also play an important role in creating good interdisciplinary science within large teams. He or she will need to ensure that everyone shares the same general vision, but have specific parts of the overall project so that they have ownership. This may require the commitment of senior people who have little to risk professionally and are anxious to involve bright junior people in their efforts. Furthermore, whilst there is often only one social scientist in the team, this person will be required to represent a broad suite of social science concerns and represent the team in a social context, e.g. educate local people or fix socio-economic problems. Both of these roles are demanding and can be exhausting, and again, require good interpersonal skills and a strong commitment to the project. (iii) Issues of time: When talking about interdisciplinary research, it has been suggested that mutual understanding and cooperation build slowly (Daily and Ehrlich 1999). Social interaction and long-term association that allow friendships to develop create stronger interdisciplinary teams. Furthermore, it takes time to develop common language and familiarise oneself with other disciplines, as well as build the research program around several disciplines so that it may be

truly inclusive, empowering and truly reflect the issues at hand (Naiman 1999). On the other hand, conservation has a certain level of urgency associated with it. It may be therefore that much of social science research and methodology are a luxury that conservation practioners cannot afford (Brosius 2006). Another issue that is related to time constraints is the issue of good science: the commitment of time and energy into understanding other disciplines invariably detracts from the time and commitment put into maximising ones own mastery of a single discipline. The result is a perception that interdisciplinary scientists are less competent or accomplished, and that interdisciplinary science is less exacting (Fox et al. 2006). (iv) Publishing Issues A final major issue that has been noted in the literature comes with the publication process for researchers. Pressures to publish in high ranking academic journal may limit incentives to publish in the newer interdisciplinary journals, or in journals that may not lead to high citation rates. Furthermore, reviewing processes might be more difficult as interdisciplinary articles require more time and effort from editors and reviewers. Review processes for interdisciplinary journal are also felt to be biased towards natural scientists, and reviewers are often interested in and familiar with the issues addressed but unfamiliar with theories and methods. According to Campbell (2005) this does not stop reviewers from suggesting related revisions, usually inappropriately. It is suggested that there is a need to expand list of social scientists on editorial boards and use these more fully. Discussion Whilst this review does not provide a comprehensive list of all issues facing indisciplinary research teams, it had highlighted some of the key issues. By articulating some of the more commonly cited issues that arise in interdisciplinary research, it is hoped that researchers in this situation will be able to recognize and circumvent barriers as they arise. Some recommendations highlighted in the literature, particularly in Naimans (1999) and Mascia et al.s (2003) papers, include the following: Make a conscious commitment to cooperate, and visualise and acknowledge the personal and professional sacrifices as well as the rewards Cooperate with colleagues who have a similar level of commitment to team research. Team research is freely sharing ideas, a commitment to excellence, being honest and having an arena of mutual respect in which to work

969

Choose people that are willing to assume and share leadership and responsibility. Take the time to educate new team members and to ensure their ownership of a significant aspect of the project. Build confidence as well as ownership Find ways to encourage continuous communication of new ideas, even though one may not always agree, do validate the person as well as his/her willingness to share Never forget that we are all individuals with our own strengths and weaknesses. Value everyone in the group, not just those with the best work habits or ideas. Learn how to continue learning in an ever changing world, practice tact and patience; demonstrate respect. Encourage social scientists to make a greater effort to initiate and obtain funding for their own environmental management or conservation projects, to which they could include natural scientists. Hire social scientists for leadership positions and provide them with the mandate to build social science into organisational decision-making Enlist social scientists to develop and manage rapid social assessment programs, which would provide decision-makers with a rough sketch of critical social information at potential conservation sites through short-term but intensive inquiry. Document and share success stories that illustrate the value of social scientific information to on the ground conservation results. Such success stories not only foster organisational learning, internal support and conservation success, but also justify donor and organisational investment in the social sciences.

research, in turn allowing communities to adapt to rapidly changing natural environments. Finally, more dialogue between social and natural scientist is encouraged through such media as peer-review publications (examples include the Journal of Environmental Management, Natural Resources Journal and Society and Natural Resources) and conference presentations. The emerging interdisciplinary teams can and should add new perspectives to each science and allow them to learn from each other, particularly, in the words of Lele and Norgaard (2005), once each side acknowledges what the other does not know. References
Daily GC and Ehrlich PR (1999) Managing Earths Ecosystems: an Interdisciplinary Challenge. Ecosystems 2: 277-280 Balmford A. and Cowling, R.M. (2006) Fusion or Failure? The Future of Conserv Biol 20(3): 692-695. Brosius J (2006) Common ground between Anthropology and Conservation Biology. Conserv Biol 20(3): 683-685. Campbell L (2005) Overcoming Obstacles to Interdisciplinary Research. Conserv Biol 19(2): 574-577. Dailey G and Ehrlich P (1999) Managing Earths Ecosystems: an interdisciplinary Challenge. Ecosystems 2:277-280. Fazey I, Fischer J and Lindenmayer D (2005) What do conservation biologists publish? Biol Conserv 124: 63-73 Fox HE, Christian J, Nordby J, Pergams O, Peterson G and Pyke C (2005) Perceived Barriers to Integrating Social Science and Conservation. Conserv Biol 20(6): 1817-1820. Hatcher B (1999) Varieties of Science for Coral Reef Management. Coral Reefs 18: 305-306. Lebel L, Anderies J, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, Hughes T and Wilson, J (2006) Ecology and Society 11(1): 19. Lele S and Norgaard R (2005) Practising Interdisciplinarity. Bioscience 55(11) 967-975. Mascia M, Dobson T, Forbes B, Horowitz L, McKean M and Turner N (2003) Conservation and the Social Sciences. Conserv Biol 17(3): 649-650. Naiman R (1999) A perspective on Interdisciplinarity Ecosystems 2: 292-295 Nyhus P, Westley F, Lacy R, and Miller P (2002) A role for Natural Resource Social Science in Biodiversity Risk Assessment. Society and Natural Resources 15(10): 923-932. Redcliff M (1998) Dances with wolves? Interdisciplinary Research on the Global Environment. Global Environ Change 8(3): 177182 Roughley A (2005) Knowing People: Reflections on integrating social science 1978- 2002. Land and Water Australia; Canberra. Wear D (1999) Challenges to Interdisciplinary Discourse. Ecosystems 2: 299-301

By adopting some or all of the recommendations outlined above, it may be possible to achieve a greater integration of natural and social sciences and achieve significant progress in interdisciplinary research. In conclusion, the greater integration of social and natural science may adopt a more outcome driven approach that creates good, creative interdisciplinary

970

Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 711 July 2008 Session number 21

The political aspects of resilience

Michael Fabinyi Resource Management in Asia-Pacific Program, The Australian National University, ACT, Australia. Abstract. This study investigates the political aspects of resilience in social-ecological systems. Based on long-term anthropological fieldwork in the Calamianes Islands, Philippines, the study focuses on the diverse and contested human interests that make up social-ecological systems. In the Calamianes, what promotes the interests of one group of people may impact negatively for another group of people, or the ecosystem in which they live. Fishers, for example, have struggled greatly to preserve their patterns of marine resource use, and to oppose various forms of regulation that have been introduced. Following Armitage and Johnson (2006), this study has found that deciding for what and for whom are we trying to promote resilience? becomes a critical question. Answering such a question will require decisions that will favour certain elements or resource users within any social-ecological system, and disadvantage others. The study concludes therefore that such political aspects of resilience thinking require greater attention, and that more attention could be paid to negotiations over tradeoffs among various stakeholders, if the resilience concept is to be more widely accepted in policy and management arenas. Key Words: resilience, social-ecological systems, politics, anthropology, Philippines Introduction This paper emphasises how greater attention could be paid to the political nature of resilience, and of policies designed to promote resilience. Building on the notion that social-ecological systems are made up of diverse and contested human interests, the paper shows how any attempt to promote resilience for the overall social-ecological system will have differentiated impacts and effects among the diverse elements within it. The paper will show how policies designed to improve social-ecological resilience were transformed, and ultimately rejected, by fishing communities concerned with resisting these policies. Here, there is a significant gap between the particular social and economic interests of fishers, and the resilience of the broader social-ecological system. The paper suggests that resilience must therefore be understood within its political context, and that we need to pay more attention to the need for negotiations over tradeoffs among various stakeholders. Methods The paper takes an anthropological perspective to examine the issues surrounding the political aspects of resilience and social-ecological systems. Research was conducted for twelve months between September 2005 and January 2007 in the Calamianes Islands. The author was based in two locations during this period: Esperanza, a small coastal community within Coron municipality, and Coron town, the capital of Coron municipality and the largest town in the Calamianes. Coron municipality was chosen to study the political aspects of marine resource management because of the high importance of commercial and small-scale fishing, and the high number of marine resource regulations implemented at the time of fieldwork. Esperanza has a particularly high population of fishers, and several of the MPAs that are discussed in the paper were located in fishing grounds used by fishers from Esperanza. Specific methods adopted for the study included observation at meetings, and numerous formal and informal interviews with a variety of different stakeholders. These included dive operators and divers, fishers of all ages and types, government officials, and nongovernment organization workers. Interviews with fishers were conducted in Tagalog. In addition to the in-depth data gathered from Coron and Esperanza, the author frequently visited and interviewed residents at other locations of the Calamianes. Diverse and contested human interests Scholars in resilience theory have typically tended to reduce the differences between social and ecological systems. Berkes et al. (2003), for example, state that the delineation between social and natural systems is artificial and arbitrary. Social science scholars, however, have tended to emphasise the distinctiveness of human systems because of the vital presence of human agency. Social scientists have long affirmed that human relations with the environment cannot be reduced to energy flows; they contain value and agency (Burnham and

971

Ellen 1979). Because of the complexity of human agency, this means that social systems contain diverse and contested human interests. It follows that resilience has to take account of such contested interests if it is to be practically applied. As Johnson and Armitage (2006) point out, [f]or resilience to be useful in assessing social institutions and in marking roads to sustainability and social justice, it has to be situated in the context of complex, contested and changing human interests, and the uncertainty of the outcomes of human interactions. The Calamianes Islands can be seen as an example of a social-ecological system that contains diverse and contested human interests with regard to the management of marine resources. The main livelihood for the region is a variety of fisheries, both small-scale and commercial. While several fisheries have boomed and busted since the 1970s, the live fish for food trade is currently dominant; an estimate of the value of the trade in the Calamianes for 2002 was about US$5.3 million (Pomeroy et al. 2005). This fishery has been extremely profitable for local traders and fishers, but has also been highly ecologically destructive, characterised by overfishing and the common use of sodium cyanide (Fabinyi 2007). Stakeholders from the fishing industry have generally attempted to preserve the status quo, with minimal or no regulation of their activities. Conservationist organisations have been promoting the development of marine protected areas to work with dive tourism, and regulations designed to reform the live fish trade, which included a lengthy closed season. Much government planning and the everyday lives of residents in the broader region can be characterised by contestation over how best to access, exploit and manage these marine resources (Eder and Fernandez 1996). Socio-political interests vs. social-ecological resilience While not explicitly framed in terms of resilience theory, both sets of environmental reforms were attempts to promote social-ecological resilience by reducing both the long-term poverty of the coastal communities of the Calamianes, and degradation of the marine environment. The policy brief behind the development of the live fish regulations, for example, stated that [t]he policy goal is for a sustainable fishing industry in Palawan Province that ensures viable fish stocks, ecosystems and livelihoods for present and future generations (Pomeroy et al. 2005). Similarly, marine protected areas have been cited as a means of promoting resilience. In the Calamianes, their development was aimed at both maintaining the ecological integrity of particular

marine ecosystems, and at livelihoods through the development of tourism and by increasing the overall level of fish stocks. MPAs The ways local fishers understood and responded to many of these MPAs was extremely significant in determining their ultimate outcomes (Fabinyi 2008). Importantly, fishers placed their fishing practices within a social and political context. Small-scale fishers generally represented their patterns of fishing as possessing two key features: it was harmless to the environment, and it was closely tied to poverty. In contrast, tourists and tourist businesses were frequently objects of resentment by fishers, the latter seen as undeservingly profiting from the beautiful reefs of the Calamianes. From this perspective, any regulations to try and reduce problems of environmental degradation should not impact on the small time fishers, who could not afford it. They felt that any regulation that interfered with the activities of small-scale fishers, such as MPAs, would have to be accompanied by financial benefits of tourism. These perceptions meant that some [particularly younger] fishers were sometimes opposed to the creation of MPAs if they were not seen as benefiting local communities, and indeed felt justified in still fishing within them. Fishers would only tend to support MPAs if they did not impact significantly on their fishing practices, focusing instead on taxing tourists. Essentially, the perspective of many local fishers was that MPAs which interfered with existing fishing activities were to be opposed, unless they gave significant benefits in terms of tourism money. The planning processes for many of these MPAs illustrated this perspective of local fishers clearly. What was notable was the ways in which coastal people refused to allow the MPA to have any impact on their particular patterns of marine resource use. During the planning meetings for example, the core or no-take zones were changed from the original locations drawn up by the marine scientists in the conservation projects to account for the presence of several fish traps owned by local residents. And, in the buffer zones of the MPAs, residents ensured that their fishing practices would be allowed, while actively pushing for the fishing practices of neighbouring communities to be disallowed. For all of the fishers, the MPA had no ecological focus, but was viewed as something to support the community; something that was solely about assisting and protecting their livelihoods. Another key aspect of this planning process of the MPAs could be seen in the desire among fishers to obtain greater benefits out of the tourism industry in the form of user fees, which

972

were demanded by participants as an essential component of the MPA. For many coastal residents in the Calamianes, the socio-economic differences between foreign tourists and themselves were stark and inescapable. Foreign tourists were typical of the rich foreigner. Their very presence in a place like the Calamianes, pursuing nothing but leisure activities like SCUBA diving, was proof to locals that they had incredible amounts of money to burn. Versions of refrains such as You foreigners throw money away like it is rubbish were commonly stated assumptions among local fishers. In contrast, the Philippines was understood to be the most poverty-stricken place on Earth. The development of MPAs in the Calamianes can be seen as stimulating a sense of territoriality over the protected areas. In effect, they produced an artificial form of marine tenure or ownership among coastal communities. The rationale behind fishers support for these MPAs had less to do with conservation or even fisheries management, but more to do with an expression of political, livelihood claims. Fishers viewed MPAs as a way in which they could address some of the massive inequalities between themselves and those involved in the tourism sector. The claims of fishers about MPAs were based not on a logic of environmental management, rather on a belief that their poverty ought to be the focus of any external environmental intervention. For fishers, no purely technical, scientific management of MPAs would be fair or legitimate without taking into account their claims. As it turned out, these claims favoured the development of particular types of MPAs that had minimal restrictions on local fishers, were loosely enforced when it came to fishers, and involved user fees for tourists. The status of many of the MPAs in the Calamianes could be seen as somewhat ambiguous. Many were being created, but most of them were marked by serious shortcomings and limitations. Core zones were often minimised as much as possible and seen as a concession to conservationists, buffer zones were adapted to include the fishing techniques and gears of local fishers, and enforcement was rarely effective when it was conducted by locals. Whether the MPAs produce the increase in fish stocks as desired by the conservationists (and the fishers) remains very unclear because of these sorts of shortcomings. So, from this perspective, the proliferation of MPAs is not so much a victory for wise fisheries management or the promotion of social-ecological resilience, but more a way in which local fishers and some sympathetic local government officials were able to successfully advance their interests. Live Fish Trade Regulations

The second piece of environmental management that coastal communities responded to was the implementation of a series of regulations designed to reform the live fish trade. These regulations were approved in March 2006 at the provincial level, but the political system of the Philippines requires that provincial laws have to be approved by municipal laws before they are actually implemented in those specific municipalities. So, for most of 2006, the provincial council and the various municipal councils that supported live fishing were locked in a stalemate arguing about the new live fish regulations. At different points through 2006, the provincial government threatened the municipalities involved in live reef fishing with a moratorium on the renewal of all live reef fishing accreditations if these regulations were not adopted. Finally, in December, after a whole year had passed without the municipal governments creating specific municipal ordinances, the provincial Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources enforced a ban on all live fish exports from Palawan. Immediately after this, furious lobbying and negotiations occurred. Fishers went to the traders that supported and financed their fishing activities, asking for help. They argued that the imposition of the regulations was extremely unfair; that if there were any problems in the live fish trade it was, according to them, only because of a small number of fishers who used cyanide. The rest of the fishers who used legal methods should not be punished for the actions of a few. They argued that by imposing a closed season and creating MPAs in the best fishing grounds, this would send them back to the poverty-stricken lives they had lived before the introduction of the live fish trade in the Calamianes. In particular, fishers emphasised that the live fish trade was the only significant commercial industry in the Calamianes, and no alternative livelihoods existed that could even come close to the live fish trade in terms of financial benefits. Many people would go hungry, the fishers argued, and other community members also protested at the regulations, claiming businesses such as general stores would also suffer. Gaining national headlines in the newspapers, more than 500 fishers eventually trooped to the capital of the province to protest at the creation of the regulations. It seemed for a while that the provincial council was not going to back down, and that the moratorium would hold. Eventually however, they gave in to intense pressure by their local constituents. The ban was overturned at the New Year, and shipments were allowed to go through again. Another year and a bit on in 2008, and the

973

live fish trade continues in Coron with little regulation. Adger has defined social resilience as the ability of communities to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure (2000: 361). In the terms of this and other definitions the overall social resilience of fishers was probably quite low, given their high dependence on fishing and their lack of economic flexibility. However, suddenly taking a large part of this livelihood away through powerful regulations would have certainly increased their vulnerability in the shortterm at least, no matter how immensely important the ecological justifications were. In both of these cases, fishers were acting against what they perceived as a clear potential shock to their social and economic infrastructures. In a region with few available alternative livelihoods, the introduction of MPAs and a closed season for the live fish trade would have had a significant economic impact. It was therefore in their interests to oppose the live fish regulations and to influence the implementation of MPAs the way they did. Discussion In this context then, a contradiction can be observed between the resilience of the overall social-ecological system, and the interests of fishers and local government. Supported by the municipal government, fishers were able to promote their interests by manipulating the design of MPAs so that their social and economic benefits remained, and by rejecting the live fish trade regulations that would have heavily disrupted their most important economic livelihood. In doing so, such outcomes compromised the ecological resilience of the social-ecological system. This basic contradiction leads to a fundamentally important question about social-ecological resilience how is it possible to promote social-ecological resilience when any social-ecological system is composed of diverse and contested human interests? Or as Armitage and Johnson ask, [h]ow do we balance these divergent interests and the interest of ecological sustainability to define the ideal resilient system? (2006). Many analysts have argued strongly for the principles of good governance, as articulated through the themes of adaptive co-management, polycentric governance, interactive governance and other related terms (Armitage 2008). Lebel et al. (2006), for example, hypothesise that the existence of participation, polycentric and multilayered institutions, and accountable and just authorities can be associated with an increase in resilience for social-ecological systems. But while in many cases good governance may clearly be associated with resilient social-

ecological systems, in many cases it is not, as Lebel et al. also acknowledge (2006). As Armitage (2008) argues, governance attributes such as those described by Lebel et al. (2006) are productive and important, but they are circumscribed by context, and provide only partial direction for governance innovation. They represent a set of prescribed and normative governance values or principles. During the introduction of the environmental regulations in the Calamianes, for example, attention was paid to various principles of good governance outlined earlier. Indeed, it was the very existence of strong participation by the fishers in the design of the MPAs that led to their ecological compromise. In both instances, governments ultimately were accountable to their constituents and responded to what the majority of the stakeholders wished for, which were MPAs that fulfilled short-term social and economic objectives but had little ecological function, and the rejection of regulations for the live fish trade that would have been beneficial ecologically, but undoubtedly socially and economically damaging in the short-term. This can be seen as an example of governance that is good when understood from the perspective of the interests of fishers and the municipal government, but clearly damaging when viewed from the long-term perspective of the socialecological system. Some have lauded the potential of good governance to provide a situation which will be mutually beneficial to all stakeholders. In contrast, perhaps what we need to be more aware of is the inevitability of hard choices in marine resource management (Bailey and Jentoft 1990). Any decisions taken at the scale of the socialecological system are going to privilege some elements within this system, and alienate others. As in the case of the Calamianes, what may promote resilience for the system as a whole may not always be in the direct interests of particular groups within that system. Therefore, resilience, and activities undertaken to promote resilience at the scale of the social-ecological system, must be seen as a political concept. Resilience, like any other concept for ecological management, including those that emphasise good governance, cannot remove the need for political decisions and negotiations among diverse stakeholders to be made in particular local contexts. Similarly, practitioners in the field of integrated conservation and development projects have recently emphasized the need for greater attention to and understanding of the goals and interests of all the stakeholders around protected areas, noting that win-win solutions are usually unachievable: Once these different interests are identified, clarified, and understood, they argue,

974

the opportunities for negotiation and tradeoffs can be explored (Wells et al. 2004). This paper has argued that we need to place greater emphasis on such political aspects of resilience if it is to succeed as a viable and practical management or policy concept. While resilience may be a useful metaphor to understand features of social-ecological systems, focusing on issues at this level of abstraction actually obscures somewhat the diverse social and political relations that actually make up these social-ecological systems, and how resilience affects and is affected by these relations in different ways.
Acknowledgements This research was conducted while I was a Visiting Research Associate at the Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University, and was funded by an Australian Postgraduate Award at the Australian National University. I thank both institutions for their support. Thanks to Colin Filer, Simon Foale and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper, and thanks to all the residents of the Calamianes who assisted in the research. References Adger, WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24:347364. Armitage D. (2008) Governance and the commons in a multi-level world. International Journal of the Commons, 2:732. Armitage D, Johnson D (2006) Can Resilience be Reconciled with Globalisation and the Increasingly Complex Conditions of Resource Degradation in Asian Coastal Regions? Ecology and Society, 11(1):2 (online).

Bailey C, Jentoft S (1990) Hard Choices in Fisheries Development. Marine Policy 14:333344. Berkes, F, Colding J, Folke C (2003) Introduction. In Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burnham PF, Ellen RF, eds (1979) Social and Ecological Systems. Academic Press, London, New York and San Francisco. Eder JF, Fernandez JO, eds (1996) Palawan at the Crossroads: Development and the Environment on a Philippine Frontier. Ateneo de Manila Press, Quezon City. Fabinyi M (2007) Illegal Fishing and Masculinity in the Philippines: A Look at the Calamianes Islands in Palawan. Philippine Studies 55:50929. Fabinyi M(2008) Dive tourism, fishing, and marine protected areas in the Calamianes Islands, Philippines. Marine Policy 32:898904. Lebel L, Anderies JM, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, Hughes TP, Wilson J (2006) Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society 11: (online). Pomeroy RS, Pido MD, Pontillas J, Francisco BS, White AT, Silvestre GT. 2005. Evaluation of Policy Options for the Live Reef Food Fish Trade: Focus on Calamianes Islands and Palawan Province, Philippines, with Implications for National Policy: Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest Project and Provincial Government of Palawan. Wells MP, McShane TO, Dublin HT, OConnor S, Redford KH (2004) The Future of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects: Building on What Works. In McShane TO and Wells MP (eds) Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work: Toward More Effective Conservation and Development. Columbia University Press, New York.

975

Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July 2008 Session Number 21

New eco-development initiatives involving local people in the conservation of Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park, Wandoor (India)
1

A. Saxena1 & M. Saxena2

Women Scientist, Port Blair, A & 2 Managing Director, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Forests & Plantation Development Corporation Limited, Van Vikas Bhawan, Haddo, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Islands (India) Email: dr_aloksaxena@rediffmail.com N Islands (India) Email: dr.manisaxena@gmail.com

Abstract. Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park situated at Wandoor about 29 km from Port Blair is among the first three Marine National Parks in India. Established in 1983 with the objective of conserving the unique marine diversity and the coral reefs, it also comprises 15 uninhabited islands. There are 6 villages in the adjoining area with a population of about 4157. The main occupation is fishing. No fishing is allowed within the Marine National Park but routes are demarcated for providing safe passage to local fishermen. MGMNP is an important eco-tourist site because of its unique marine biodiversity. In order to involve the local people in the conservation efforts, the Park authorities initiated action at a small level in 2003-04. The tsunami of 2004 affected not only tourism but also the efforts of Park authorities in peoples participation. Increased tourist inflow in the last two years led the park authorities to revive their ecodevelopment initiatives. New initiatives are being taken for providing livelihood means to locals and involving them in the conservation efforts. Key Words: Eco-development, tourism, fishing routes, livelihood options, Peoples participation Introduction Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park (MGMNP) was established in 1983 under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, with a view to protect and conserve the rich marine life found in this area. This was the first Protected Area notified in this Union Territory and also among the first three Marine Protected Areas of India. It is situated around 29 km from Port Blair, the Capital town of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The otal area of MGMNP is 281.50 km2 which includes 220.5 km2 of territorial water and 61 km2 of land area of 15 Islands located within the boundary of the National Park. All the Islands within MGMNP are uninhabited. Only two Islands namely Jollybuoy and Redskin are open for tourism, but no night halt is allowed. The Park is completely free from all rights. It is managed by the Department of Environment & Forests, Andaman & Nicobar Administration. Biodiversity Status The Park is known for its rich biodiversityboth plant and animals. There are 279 species of plants. Most of the islands have tropical evergreen forests and mangroves on the fringes. The tree species include Dipterocarpus, Terminalia, Pterocarpus, Diospyrus marmorata, Artocarpus chaplasha etc. Littoral species are dominated by Manilkara littoralis and important mangrove species are Rhizophora, Bruguiera, Avicennia officinalis, Ceriops tagal. The terrestrial fauna include Andaman wild pig, spotted deer, water monitor lizard and a variety of snakes including sea snakes. The birds include Andaman teal, white-bellied sea eagle, parakeets, sea herons among many others. The Park is rich in marine biodiversity. More than 280 species of fish, 57 species of mollusc, 52 species of echinoderms, 122 species of corals belonging to 54 genera, salt water crocodiles, four species of sea turtle, dolphin, dugong, a variety of sea weeds and sea grasses are reported to occur (Kulkarni et al., 2000, 2004). Socio-economic status of communities living around There are no inhabitants within the boundary of MGMNP. However, six villages adjoin the boundary of the Marine National Park. Population figures of these villages as per 2001 census are given in Table 1. Occupational pattern of the villagers is depicted in Figure 1 (Kulkarni et al., 2004). The data shown in Figure 1 is pre-tsunami data (i.e., before 2004). There has been a significant

976

Table 1: Population of villages adjoining villages Sl. Name of village Population No. 1. 2 3 4 5 6 Wandoor Hashmatabad Guptawara Manglutan Manjeri Rutland 1511 616 716 575 585 154

was higher than in 2004-05. Two new tourist attractions (New Wandoor beach and Mahua Dera beach) were identified and developed by the local people. Even without proper record, increase in the number of tourists was confirmed by the local people and the Park authorities. Objective The objective of the present study was to evaluate measures taken by the Park authorities to address the expectations of the local communities residing in the vicinity of the Park and to involve them in the conservation efforts being taken up in the MGMNP, Wandoor. Methodology Four villages (Wandoor, Guptawara, Hashmatabad and Manglutan) fell in the zone of influence. In addition to collection of basic data on the socio-economic profile of these villages, a survey was conducted to understand the extent of Awareness about the MNP Its objective and impact on occupations Their perception about changes taking place Their expectations Relation with Park Authorities Initiatives by the Park Authorities A questionnaire was developed and interviews were the main tool of data-collection. Stratified random sampling design was used. Sample size of each stratum was based on population as well as the relative importance. Strata-wise percent distribution of sample size is depicted in Figure 3.
Strata wise Percent Distribution of Sample size
17% 4% Fishermen 24% Tourism Service provider Shopkeepers Small vendors PRI Members 16% 15% Farmers Govt. Service Labours Students

change in the occupational pattern after the area was struck by a Tsunami in December 2004. A number of farmers lost their land due to submergence and have turned to other opportunities. A number of fishermen have taken up tourism related activities.
Occupation Pattern in Zone of Influence
21% 1% 7% 10% 11% 24%
Agriculture Labour Govt. Jobs Fishing Private jobs Shops/Traders Hotels Others

13% 13%

Figure 1: Occupational patterns of locals near MGMNP Source: Kulkarni et al., 2004
Tourist Inflow in MGMNP
70000 60000 No. of Tourists 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200601 02 03 04 05 06 07 200708

47231

50808

54129

59970

17036 191 1217

22255

7% 10% 4% 3%

Year

Fig. 2: Tourist inflow to MGMNP. This Park is an important tourist destination. The inflow of tourists was adversely affected by the Tsunami but in subsequent years the inflow increased again (Figure 2). Though the number of tourists visiting the Marine National Park appears to be still less than 50% of visitors in 2003-04, but the number of tourists visiting Wandoor in 2007-08

Figure 3: Occupations in the zone of influence of MGMNP. Results and Discussion It is revealed from Table 2 that there has been anincrease in economic activities particularly in the post-tsunami period. The number of bus services from Port Blair to Wandoor has almost doubled. The number of private taxis visiting Wandoor per day is presently around 50. The numbers of lodges

977

and restaurants did not increase much, probably because tourists visit this area during day time for enjoying the beach, swimming, snorkeling and viewing marine life. Local tourist services have also increased from nil to 12. It is quite evident from this Table that local people have realized the potential of tourism as an important livelihood option and therefore not only have they identified new areas of tourist attractions but have also acquired loans from Bank mainly to purchase boats for tourism purpose. Activity Pre 2000 2000 -04 5 2004 -08 6

Restaurants & 3 Lodges Ration shops 1 2 3 Bus Service (No. of 16 16 28 trips) Schools 2 2 2 Tourist Services Nil Nil 21 Other commercial 7 8 12 Establishments Loans availed for Nil Nil 37 boat New tourist Areas Nil Nil 2 identified by local people Table 2: Pattern of emerging economic activities Other important findings of the survey are as follows: About 93 % of the local people were aware of the objectives of the establishment of MGMNP in some form or the other. Of the total people interviewed, 66 % knew that the Park was constituted for protection of marine life, 22 % think that the purpose was for promoting tourism and 5% think it to be protection of Wildlife. (Figure 4).
4% 1% 1% 1% 5%

has adversely affected their occupations. Of this 91 % were fishermen as fishing is not permitted inside the Park and they have to go to far distances for fishing. Thirty six percent responded that the establishment of the Park has favorably affected their occupations. These include mainly tourist service providers, shopkeepers, small vendors etc. Four percent did not respond while remaining feels unaffected by the establishment of Park. About 99 % of the people interviewed were aware about the purpose of tourists visiting Wandoor. Of them, 65 % knew that tourists were coming for viewing marine life, 33 % think that they come for enjoying beaches and nature and 1 % think that wildlife is the major attraction for tourists. 95 % view the Park authorities behaviour towards them to be good and supporting. They expressed that there is regular interaction between them and Park authorities. Five percent (mainly fishermen) complained about occasional harassment.

Following were the main reasons for discont among the local communities: Ban on fishing inside the MNP No proper berthing place for fishing boats Occasional harassment by Forest/Police personnel within MNP Assurance of development made at the time of creation not fulfilled After Tsunami o o o Fish catch declined tremendously Agricultural land also affected No alternative means of livelihood except Tourism related jobs

Awareness about objective of MGM

Protection of marinelife Tourism Protection of wildlife Protection of forests Making Zoo/Museum Protection of sea sand Don't know

22%

66%

Figure 4: Awareness of the MGMNP. On effect of establishment of MGMNP on their occupation, 38 % responded that it

Recent restriction imposed on tourist boats plying to Mahua Dera beach, which is a new site with a beautiful beach and rich coral diversity attracting a large number of tourists. The site has been closed temporarily, which generated a lot of discontent since a number of fishermen turned tourist service providers had taken loans to buy motorized boats for tourism and faced difficulties in repaying loans due to the ban.

978

On interviewing people about their expectations from the Park authorities, they expressed following points: Permission within MNP o To carry tourists in small boats/country boats o For fishing Safe fishing routes through MNP to be demarcated Opening of Mahua Dera Beach for tourism through local tour operators Permission for country boats to carry eatables for sale to tourists within MNP Employment of local people as o Tourist Guides/Guards o Labourers Permission to open Shops and Restaurants near entrance of the Park

provide space to small vendors to run their shops near the entrance of Park provide training and employing unemployed youth as tourist guides inside MNP open Mahua Dera for tourism permit boats of local tour operators inside MNP after clearance of certain legal requirements These initiatives will be within the legal framework of existing Acts and Rules

It was revealed during the interviews with Park authorities that they have, after a series of meetings with local village leaders, initiated following actions/measures: Safe passage routes for fishing boats through MNP has been demarcated Alternative berthing site for fishing boat has been identified outside MNP in consultation with stakeholders Fish landing facility is being developed by Fishery Department Additional Island (Alexendra) has been opened for tourism Formation of eco-development committee is in final stage Employment of local youth in seasonal works Agreed to

It is evident from the survey done that the potential of tourism is realized by local people. As a result they are identifying new areas for tourism and also making investments. However, they need support of the Administration, particularly the Forest Department. In response the Authorities have initiated peoples involvement in conservation efforts through alternative livelihood options. Acknowledgement The assistance rendered by Mr. Rajkumar, Forest Ranger and in-charge of the MGMNP rendered in this study is gratefully acknowledged. Reference
Kulkarni, S., Saxena A., & Choudhury B. C. (2000) Ecological assessment of coral reefs in Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park, Wandoor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands: Conservation implication.. A technical Report (No. Coral/WII & RW/2000/6), Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun ( Kulkarni S., Saxena A., Choudhury B. C., Kakkar M. D. & Jagdale R. (2004) Dynamics of reef coral in Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park, Andaman Islands: Conservation Implications, A report (No. Coral/WII & RW/20040/116) by Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun (India).

979

Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July 2008 Session Number 21

Integrated economic valuation in coral reef management: Demonstration, appropriation and utilization of coral reef economic values for sustainability and conservation
Rodelio F. Subade 1, 2 1) Division of Social Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences 2) Institute of Fisheries Policy and Development Studies, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of the Philippines in the Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines Abstract Underappreciation of the true economic value of coral reef resources is a major problem in developing countries like the Philippines leading to a lack of accounting and accountability in policy and development decision-making. This paper aims to highlight the vital need to integrate economic valuation in coral reef management and in integrated coastal zone management. It uses the total economic value framework, and argues that much of the economic values of coral reef resources have not been properly demonstrated and expressed in the market and policy making, thereby resulting to over exploitation, damage and decimation of coral reefs. Mechanisms on how to demonstrate such economic values (like entrance fees, conservation fees and others) and policies towards their capture are crucial aspects of integrated economic valuation. A few cases in the Philippines show that this is possible and can provide a good framework in helping attain sustainability and conservation of such national treasures. Key Words: integrated economic valuation, coral reef management, economic values Introduction Coral reefs are highly productive and valuable marine resources and home to thousands of species. They provide habitats and food sources for countless organisms and reef-based tourism/ ecotourism is a major source of livelihood for various coastal communities. Other benefits include coastal protection, biodiversity and the reefs value as climate change indicators. The economic value of coral reefs is important, from direct use to indirect use and non use values (Table 1; Cesar 2000; Subade 2005). However, coral reefs are threatened by over fishing, destructive fishing, coastal development, marine-based pollution, climate change impacts, and many other global and local factors. Philippine coral reefs cover an estimated area of 27,000 sq km, and are considered to under threat (BFAR-NFRDIPAWB 2005). A large proportion of the impact stems from anthropogenic causes, caused by the very high population density of the country. Overfishing, destructive fishing practices (blasting and the use of toxic substances) and sedimentation top the list of these impacts. Thus, most of the countrys coral reefs are in a degraded state, with over 70% with poor or fair quality and quantity of coral cover; and only 5% in excellent condition (BFAR-NFRDI-PAWB 2005). Most reef areas in the Visayan Sea Basin, and in gulfs and bays are heavily overfished. In the Visayan seas, particularly in protected areas, poaching and fishing-related threats are the worst threats to coral reefs, followed by sedimentation, tourism related-activities, crown-of-thorns starfish infestations, and coastal development. Fishing and gleaning on coral reef areas account for 10-15% of the countrys total fish catch (BFAR-NFRDIPAWB.2005).

Table 1. Economic Values of Coral Reefs

DIRECT USE VALUES

INDIRECT USE NONUSE VALUES VALUES

980

Direct benefits Functional benefits Bequest Goods & Environmental and Existence Services, ecosystem values Option Usually marketed - nutrient retention Quasi-option values, like fish, - flood control sea cucumber, - storm/ coastal and scuba diving protection (with dive fees) -external ecosystem support A recent compilation of studies through time by the Philippine Coral Reefs Information Network (Philreefs 2008), showed mixed trends on the countrys coral reefs indicator such as hard coral cover, fish biomass and fish abundance. Generally marine protected areas (MPA) sites have had increasing or no net change trend, while most nonMPA sites have had decreasing or no net change trend. Usual Valuation Problem Failure to account adequately for their economic values in development decision making could be considered a major reason for coral reef decline. Since natural and managed environmental/ marine resources are not bought and sold on markets, they are generally ignored in private and public development decisions. Coastal development is often preferred over pristine/preserved coastal habitats because only market values are considered. Inclusion of non-market values might have caused many coastal development projects appear less attractive investment options. Reef fisheries are an over-capitalized sector where resources are invested to give lower net benefits. Because environmental/degradation costs are usually not included in cost/benefit calculations, the returns even from an over-fished fishery appear higher than they are in reality. Another undervaluation example is destructive fishing fines and penalties are not based on economic values of damages caused, thus the activity persists. Need to Integrate Economic Valuation in Coral Reefs Management Coral reefs management therefore should not be devoid of economic valuation. Moreover, coral reefs research needs to include economic valuation as an integrated component and not just an after thought. Economic valuation involves three major phases (Fig. 1). First demonstration of coral reef economic values (Georgiou et al. 1997). Then appropriation, which is capture of coral reefs economic values through appropriate policies and mechanisms (Georgiou et al. 1997). Third is utilization, which

concerns the use of measured coral reef economic values and/or captured coral reefs economic values in IEC, decision making and in financing of conservation The economic valuation of coral reefs, i.e. the demonstration, appropriation and utilization of their economic values is a crucial impetus to attaining their sustainability and conservation.
Human Activities Natural Disturbances

CORAL REEFS

DEMONSTRATION (Measurement)

CONSERVATION

APPROPRIATION
(Capture of Economic Values)

SUSTAINABILITY

UTILIZATION

ADAPTATION
(To potential climate change effects)

Figure 1. Integrated economic valuation in coral reefs management

Integrated Economic Valuation of Coral Reefs Improving coral reef management, in the context of Integrated Coastal Resource/Zone Management involves the integration of economic valuation and makes integrated economic valuation or (IEV) an inseparable part of sustainable ICZM or ICRM. IEV provides researched-based incentive/ disincentive mechanisms to: (i) attain sustainability, and (ii) generate financing source for conservation and / or coastal resource management. IEV does not end at mere study/ measurement of economic values but provides mechanisms to capture or appropriate them. IEV transcends policy analysis towards policy advocacy. In the ICZM or ICM developed at various sites by the UNDP-funded Partnership in Environmental Management of the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), economic valuations were embedded in various stages such as: preparing, initiating, developing, adopting, implementing, refining and consolidation of management plans (www.pemsea.org). Examples of IEV in Coral Reef Management The integration of economic valuation in coral reef management is evident in the examples of Mabini and Tingloy, Batangas and the Tubbataha Reefs

981

National Marine Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, where scuba diving tourism is a major activity. Economic valuation was undertaken by a WWFPhilippines-led team to demonstrate and appropriate coral reef economic values mainly through divers fees. A conservation fee surcharge or an annual divers pass was collected from divers (Padilla et al. 2005). The IEV process framework involved: Project design, marketing the project to LGU officials & stake holders, research /surveys, sectoral briefings & consultations, drafting of ordinance, stakeholders consultations, refinement & finalization of draft ordinance, provincial approval of the ordinance, IRR formulation, implementation, monitoring & evaluation. Over a period of eight months (September 2003 to May 2004) a total of 1.3 million pesos was collected from conservation fees. Proceeds from the collection were used for incentive rebates to boatmen (who are fishers) and for financing law enforcement through the Bantay Dagat (Sea Watch) that protected coral reefs and other coastal resources. At Tubbataha Reefs NMP, a similar process of economic valuation was also undertaken, though the implementing rule was for the Tubbataha Management Office (TMO) to collect the conservation fees both from the divers and the boat operators. A willingness to pay survey was undertaken that determined the entrance fees and conservation fees per diver as follows US$50 for foreign divers and US$ 25 for local divers : (Mejia et al. 2000; Tongson and Dygico 2007) The realized revenue is allocated among a seed fund for conservation, core park administrative costs, and livelihood of adjacent communities in Cagayancillo, Palawan. Resource Rent for Resource Conservation Resource utilization generates resource rent (benefits or revenues less costs), alternatively called economic profit or profit. This rent rightfully belongs to the resource, and should be used to conserve it and allow it to replenish, thereby attaining sustainability.

ICZM should therefore incorporate IEV which is a major factor (perhaps the key?) towards successful and sustainable ICZM (MPA). IEV can assure MPA sustainability and thereby provides sustainable financing mechanisms for marine conservation.
Acknowledgement The author thanks the ICRS for the conference travel stipend/ scholarship which enabled him to present this paper in the 11th ICRS held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA on July 7-11, 2008. References Barbier E Acreman M, Knowler D (1997) Economic valuation of wetlands: A guide for policy makers and planners. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Bureau, 127p. Cesar HJ (2000) Coral reefs: their functions, threats and economic value. In Cesar, H. 2000. Collected Essays on the Economics of Coral Reefs. Boras, Sweden: CORDIO and SIDA. Coral Reefs Information Network of the Philippines (PhilReefs) (2008) Reefs through time 2008: initiating the state of the coasts reports. Coral Reefs Information Network of the Philippines (PhilReefs), MPA Support Network, Marine Environment and Resources Foundation, Inc. and the Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines. Diliman, Quezon City. 152p BFAR-NFRDI-PAWB (2005) Biodiversity Indicators for National Use (BINU): Philippine Report on Coastal and Marine Ecosystems. BINU Project supported by UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) Global Environment Facility (GEF). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), National Fisheries Research and Development Institute (NFRDI), Department of Agriculture; and Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB), Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Quezon City, Philippines. 68p. Georgiou S, Whittington D, Pearce D, Moran D (1997) Economics values and the environment in the developing world. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers Lt. Mejia MN, Dygico M, Spergel B, Subade RF (2000) Paying for marine conservation through sustainable financing: the Tubbataha experience. Paper presented in the International Coral Reefs Symposium held in Bali, Indonesia. Padilla JE, Ansula AD, Tolosa MO (2005) Getting users to pay for conservation: a guide to site-based sustainable user fee schemes. WWF-Philippines Subade RF (2005) Valuing biodiversity conservation in a world heritage site: citizens non-use values for Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park, Philippines. Research Report No. 2005-RR4. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA). Singapore. Tongson E, Dygico M (2004) User fee system for marine ecotourism. The Tubbataha reef experience. Coastal Management 32:17-23

982

1
Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7 11 July 2008 Session number 21

Towards Local Fishers Participation in Coral Reef Monitoring:A Case in Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines
A.L.A. Subade1,3, R.F. Subade2, Z.B. Catalan1 1) School of Environmental Science & Management, University of the Philippines Los Banos 2) IFPDS-CFOS, and DSS-CAS, University of the Philippines Visayas; 3) University of the Philippines Visayas Abstract. The five-island municipality of Tingloy is a popular diving site known for its rich coral reefs. However, these reefs are being threatened by man-made stresses and natural disturbances. A monitoring framework was developed through the integration of scientific and indigenous knowledge in determining and assessing the present status of coral reef environment. One of the benefits of the developed monitoring framework is the empowerment of the fishermen. Institutions and fishermen in the area in cooperation with the academe provided the major backbone of the framework. The fishermen were interviewed, trained and participated in the whole year monitoring of the coral reef environment. The monitoring framework developed served as an overall guide for monitoring activities and the data gathered served as the baseline information of the coral reef environment in the area.
Key words: coral reefs, fishermen, monitoring framework, baseline information, Tingloy

Introduction The Philippines is blessed with one of the most diverse coral reef ecosystems in the world as it lies in the region known as The Coral Triangle. However, Philippine coral reefs are increasingly threatened ecosystems. Coral cover is rapidly declining, fish populations are low and reef productivity dropped by one-third during the last decades (Jameson et al. 1995). The damage that occurs to coral reefs is usually the result of natural and man-made interference. In Luzon, one of the most extensive coral reef ecosystems which is a favorite destination of scuba divers is found along the municipality of Tingloy, Mabini and its vicinity. Tingloy is located in Maricaban Island, Batangas, 120 km south of Manila. Tingloy is situated in the southern coast, and the coral reefs are found along Batangas Bay and Maricaban Strait . The western side of Tingloy (e.g. Sepoc point., Sombrero and Caban islands), is considered one of the best diving sites in the area (Uychiaoco and Alio 1995). The coral communities of Mabini and Tingloy are said to have traditionally supported rich near-shore fishing and in recent years, a growing tourism industry. In the early 80s however, increased fishing effort using destructive methods, uncontrolled development of the land, increased visitation by scuba divers and day-trippers and increased pollution (solid and liquid waste), began to threaten

the coral reef ecosystems of these areas (White and Vogt 2000). The WWF-Philippines (World Wide Fund for Nature) has been implementing conservation activities in Mabini and Tingloy since 1998. It started by setting up community-based, multisector inter-municipal council (MATINGCADC), which it envisions will eventually manage the areas rich marine resources. To further ensure this, the project strengthened the coastal law enforcers, Bantay Dagat that the local council has organized. With the success in the enforcement efforts of Tingloy to curb illegal and destructive fishing activities, members of the municipal council, Sangguniang Bayan who are also members of the local council, MATINGCADC, are now considering on identifying and declaring certain areas within their political jurisdiction as community-managed municipal marine reserves (Dumaop 2000). For the past 20 years, much has been done on coastal and reef management in the country, involving government, non-government organizations, local communities and resource users with emphasis on communities participation in the rehabilitation and conservation programs (White and Vogt 2000; Gutierrez et al. 1996; Fernandez, Matsuda and Subade 2000). There has been an increasing level of participation by local communities and resource users, particularly the fishermen in coastal management across the

983

2
country, as evidenced by several cases such as the stories of Apo Island, Banate Bay (Fernandez et al. 2000) and others. In most of those projects, coastal management and monitoring has been done mainly by scientists, and focused on biophysical and chemical aspects. Moreover, most of the monitoring guidelines and techniques were determined by the scientists. This situation makes it difficult for fishermen to be actually involved in monitoring activities. Thus, local participation would usually be limited to patrolling while monitoring would be largely done by the scientists. There is therefore a need of encouraging participation down to the grassroots level for monitoring and assessment since it is through this that one could determine the status of the coral reef ecosystem and the effectiveness of a policy, a program, or management activity being implemented. This study aimed to facilitate and encourage community participation in the development process of the integrated methodological framework for environmental monitoring of coral reefs in Tingloy, Batangas. It also integrated scientific and indigenous knowledge in determining and assessing the present status of coral reef, reef fish and water quality in the area. The framework developed could also serve as an overall guide for the monitoring activities that was undertaken by the coastal community. The development of methodological framework for environmental monitoring of coral reefs in Tingloy, Batangas, provided a good venue for the expression of communitys knowledge and participation in the formulation of monitoring plan for the management of their marine resources. The Research Process This study was conducted in the five islands of Tingloy, Batangas involving the community and different institutions for the rehabilitation and conservation of marine resources. Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework of the study. The first component is the community which composed of the fishermen, who are the main residents, and the local government unit (LGU) in the area. The second component is the organization of institutions that were equally important such as the Provincial Government Environment and Natural Resources Office (PGENRO), the academic institution and the Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas or the WWF-Philippines. The PGENRO and the academe provided the scientific knowledge in the environmental assessment while the role of KKPWWF was measured through its past and present efforts as well as future plans for the sustainable management of the aquatic ecosystem. The third component is the coastal environment specifically the extensive coral reef ecosystem of Tingloy.

Community Fishermen LGU

Indigeneous knowledge of the Status of Coastal Resources

Man-made stresses

Monitoring indicators Biophysical & Water Quality Characterization of Coral Reef Ecosystem Methodological Framework for Environmental Monitoring and Assessment of the Coral Reef Ecosystem

Integration of Knowledge

Problem Identification

Management Strategies

Other institutions Academe, PGENRO, KKPWWF, DENR

Scientific knowledge in Monitoring Methods

Natural disturbances

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the Study.

The framework could be viewed as a system with several components, interacting to come up with an integrated methodological framework for environmental monitoring. The methodological processes for the development of the said framework were shown in Figure 2.

Variables to be examined --biological, social, institutional, etc.

Review of secondary data

Coordination with Fishermen, Local Government Unit & other institutions

Development of methodological framework for monitoring

Training & workshop of Fishermen for coastal monitoring

Socio-economic & Reconnaissance survey

Field data gathering --benthic life forms, reef fish, water quality

Integration of results

OUTPUT: Status of Coral Reef Ecosystem in Tingloy, Batangas

Figure 2. The research process for the development of the framework.

The individual survey was conducted over a 5week period from June to July 2001 in Tingloy, Batangas. To gather the needed data, a structured and open-ended interview schedule was administered to the fishermen after it was translated to Tagalog and pre-tested in Barangay Sulo, Mabini. The questionnaire consisted of 10 pages divided into the following five sections: 1) demographic and socio-economic characteristics of

984

3
fishermen, 2) fishing and resource management practices including fishing effort and catch, 3) knowledge, 4) perception, and 5) attitude. In the last part of the questionnaire, the fishermen were asked if he is willing to participate in monitoring of coastal resources and the reason for his answer. A two-day training on coastal monitoring was conducted for the fishermen. Out of the 109 fishermen interviewed, eight participated in the training-workshop. The five criteria for the selection of participants in fishermens training were: 1) his willingness to volunteer without payment in the monitoring, 2) have at least a total score of 100 out of 128 points (on the perception, attitude and knowledge questions), 3) must agree or strongly agree to the establishment of marine reserves, 4) physically fit, and 5) able to read and write. One of the limitations in the number of participants is the limited funds considering that the activity only provided food and transportation expenses and no extra allowance was given. The data from the social survey provided input in the identification of the major problems to be addressed in monitoring. Out of the 26 problems identified, six major problems were identified with the fishermen for environmental monitoring The six major problems identified were poverty or low income among the municipal fisherfolks, overfishing or overexploitation of resources, habitat degradation due to dynamite and cyanide fishing, pollution due to the presence of considerable amount of garbage and oil in the coastal waters, and storms or typhoon. Based on the results of the reconnaisance conducted, five (5) sampling sites were identified for coral cover, reef fish and water quality assessment of the study. The five sites selected can give a representative estimate of the status of the coral reef ecosystem in Tingloy, Batangas. The criteria for the selection of the sites are as follows: 1) serve as a site of baseline data of the status of coral reefs in Tingloy 2) will serve as one of the major sites for future monitoring activities 3) serve as one of the possible sites for the establishment of marine reserve and 4) serve as one of the possible sites for protection and rehabilitation programs. Fishermen preferences of the sites as a fishing ground and where oil spill was observed were also considered. The results of manta tow survey was integrated in the focus group discussion to finalize the selection of sampling sites and appropriate sampling time for the wet and dry season of various physical, biological and chemical parameters of the study. Coral and reef fish surveys were done during the month of March. Two fishermen were assigned for each site for the coral and reef fish survey. A lineintercept technique and snorkel survey were used by the divers and fishermen, respectively in the assessment of coral reef and reef fish. Based on Gomez and Alcala (1978) studies, coral cover was categorized as Excellent (75-100%), Good (5074.9%), Fair (25-49.9%), and Poor (0-24.9%). Water sampling of coastal waters was quarterly scheduled in the months of August, November, February and June. Sample collection for each month was carried out by two fishermen for all the five sites over a one day period. Microbial, physical and chemical attributes of the coastal water were determined with assistance from PGENRO. Methodological Framework for Monitoring The framework was developed through the participation of the community particularly the fishermen and various institutions (Table 1). Status of Coral Reef Ecosystem The methodological framework was then applied to determine the status of the coral reef ecosystem in Tingloy, Batangas. Five sites were monitored for coral cover, reef fish and water quality. Coral Cover Sites chosen for the survey were the Caban reef, Macawayan Reef, Bonito Reef, Pisa Reef and Sto Tomas Reef. A coral reef assessment using the LIT by divers and snorkel survey by fishermen. Gomez and Alcala (1978) categorization was used. All five sites were categorized in fair condition by the fishermen survey. On the other hand, divers survey showed only two sites, Caban reef and Makawayan reef in good condition while the rest of the sites were in fair condition. Both sites had high live hard coral cover among the selected sites thus it can be said that areas in Caban and Makawayan are recommended sites for establishment of marine reserves. Fish Biomass Among the five sites, Caban reef (59428.21g) has the highest fish biomass while Pisa reef (12,372.34g) has the lowest. Other reef areas are as follows; Bonito reef (49900.34g), Makawayan reef (36222.93g) and Sto. Tomas reef (25183.46g). Fish biomass could not be determined from the fishermen survey because it requires that fish be identified at the species level.

985

Table 1. Integrated methodological framework for environmental monitoring of coral reefs ecosystem and social system in Tingloy, Batangas.
ISSUE OR PROBLEM Poverty or low income of municipal fisherfolk* Overfishing* CAUSES Too many fishermen, overexploited resources, low catch, management practices Changes in fishing effort, natural disturbances, changes in coral cover, management practices Increase in fishing effort, management practices like MPA enforcement Destructive fishing methods, natural disturbances, management practices like MPA Waste disposal practices, management practices POSSIBLE INDICATORS Income*, no. of fishers*, health condition Fish sizes and abundance MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Alternative livelihood*, fishing regulation through licensing Harvest regulations (MPA/Zoning, seasonal closure, gear restriction, species restriction), patrolling and enforrcement* WHERE TO MONITOR Per municipal barangay Inside and outside MPA, representative sites of the Tingloy Per municipal barangay Education campaign, patrolling & enforcement*, harvest regulations (MPA, seasonal closure, gear restriction, species restriction) Waste management (proper disposal system), Patrolling and enforcement*, Information campaign for proper sanitation Inside and outside MPA, representative sites of Tingloy Representative sites of Tingloy WHEN TO MONITOR Once a year MONITORING METHOD Social survey PERSON(S)/ INSTITUTION INVOLVED LGU, Academe, NGO, DENR Fishermen, Academe, NGO

Wet and dry season

Fish visual census

Fishing effort; catch per unit effort* Coral cover*

At least once a month Once a year

Fish catch monitoring Manta tow, snorkel survey

Habitat Degradation*

Fishermen, Academe, LGU, NGO Fishermen, Academe, NGO

986
Pollution (solid waste and sewage)* Garbage* Lack of toilet facilities, management practices Pollution (oil spill)* Industry and ships oil spill, management practices Loss of mangrove areas, deforestation, management practices Same as above Storms and/or global warming* Natural disturbances, increasing CO2 level Cases of diarrhea Oil spill* Pollution (sedimentation) Coral cover Siltation Coral cover* Legend: * - identified by fishermen

Every quarter of the year

Lobbying for waste reduction from oil refineries and ships*, patrolling and enforcement Mangrove reforestation, replanting of trees or vegetation in the upland

Representative sites of Tingloy especially Sto. Tomas site. Representative sites of Tingloy especially Sto. Tomas Representative sites of Tingloy especially Sto. Tomas Same as above Representative sites of Tingloy particularly Bonito

Every quarter of the year Every quarter of the year Once a year

Water quality analysis particularly on ammonia, nitrogen, phosphate, DO and BOD Water quality analysis particularly on Total and Fecal Coliforms Water quality analysis particularly on Oil and Grease Manta tow, snorkel survey Water quality analysis especially TSS Manta tow, snorkel survey

Fishermen, PGENRO, Academe, NGO Fishermen, PGENRO, Academe, NGO Fishermen, PGENRO, Academe, NGO Fishermen, Academe, NGO Fishermen, PGENRO, Academe, NGO Fishermen, Academe, NGO

Every quarter of the year Once a year

Reduce man-made stress to enable the environment to recover more easily

5
Fish Abundance About 31 families were recorded by the divers in all the five sites while the fishermen identified 25 families. Survey showed that Makawayan reef has the highest fish abundance, followed by Caban reef. Pisa reef and Sto. Tomas reef has the lowest fish abundance. By family, Pomacentridae had the largest contribution to the mean biomass, accounting for more than 30% of the total biomass for each site. It is also the most numerous fish group per individual counts for all sites. Fishermens survey on fish abundance per individual counts was also highest for Pomacentridae. Fishing Effort and Species Caught Most common fishing gear used was hook and line, aboard small and mostly non-motorized boats. Fishing was done almost everyday averaging 3-5 hours. Fish caught were mostly small pelagics such as skipjack tuna, mackerels and scads. Coastal Waters of Tingloy, Batangas In general, the water quality of coastal waters of Tingloy was still within the DENR standard for Class SA coastal and marine waters except for some areas in the total and fecal coliforms standard. Bonito and Sto Tomas are way beyond the maximum DENR standard for coliforms. All sites have high total suspended solids value for all quarters which indicate the degree of sedimentation in Tingloy. Among the five sites, the coastal waters in Sto. Tomas exceeds the allowable limit for Class SA marine water. Sto. Tomas has the highest readings in oil and grease, BOD, and fecal coliforms. It also has a high reading in total suspended solids and total coliforms. The level of oil and grease in Sto. Tomas showed that Tingloy is not spared from oil spill in Batangas. With these results, resort establishment is not advisable along the coast of Sto. Tomas. Conclusion and Recommendations The development of methodological framework for environmental monitoring involved the participation of coastal communities (i.e. fishermen) and institutions. However it appears that the fishermen need more practice for biological survey of benthic lifeforms as well familiarization with the scientific description of these substrate cover. In addition, consultation with the fishermen are necessary to improve the existing method or in trying another method like the pointintercept transect, whichever suits their capability. In retrospect, the benefits in the development of the methodological framework are the following: (1) The community and institutions are given a chance to participate and share their indigenous and scientific knowledge; (2)The fishermen are empowered in the development process of the framework; (3)The baseline characterization of the coral reef ecosystem is determined through the combined efforts of the community; (4) The framework could serve as a guide that can be applied by other coastal communities. Modifications may be made due to differences in human activities in the area. Limitations are as follows: (1) Its application in other areas may be limited by the capacity of the fishers in the area. Thus training of these fishermen should be considered; (2) Its application would require going into the different components of the framework and this would entail time and money. However, this framework could give a starting point for the development of other methodological framework in other communities. (3) Not all indicators were monitored due to time and financial constraint; (4). In this study, some local names of reef fishes were not identified. It is therefore recommended that a study be conducted for a uniform identification of reef fishes with its local name, English name, and scientific name.
Acknowledgement The authors would like to acknowledge the following: ICRS for the travel support, Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas (WWFPhilippines) for the research grant, Dr. Ida M. Siason, former UPVisayas Chancellor, PGENRO Batangas, SESAM-UP Los Banos, LGU-Tingloy and the fishermen of Tingloy, Batangas. References Dumaop N (2000) Personal Communication. Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas (WWF-Philippines). Mabini, Batangas. Fernandez, Jr. P.R., Y. Matsuda, and R. F. Subade. (2000) Coastal Area Governance System in the Philippines. Jour of Envi and Dev 9(4):341-369 Gomez ED, Alcala AC (1978). Status of Philippine Coral Reefs. in Proc Intern Symp Mar Biogeogr Evol S Hem, Auckland, New Zealand, 2: 663-669. Gutierrez JS, Rivera RA, De la Cruz QL (1996) The Sustainable Coastal Development (SCAD) Program in Barili, Cebu. in Ferrer E, Polotan-De la Cruz L, & Agoncillo-Domingo M (eds). Seeds of Hope, College of Social Work and Development, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, pp. 83-98. Jameson SC, Mc Manus JW, Spalding MD (1995) Regional Perspectives: East Asian Seas. in: State of the Reefs Regional and Global Perspective: An International Coral Reef Initiative, pp. 16-19. Uychiaoco AJ, Alio PM (1995) Maricaban Strait and Batangas Bay. in Philippine Coral Reef Information Network (PhilReefs). http://msi01.cs.upd.edu.ph/philreefs/ White AT, Vogt H (2000) Philippine Coral Reefs Under Threat: Lessons Learned After 25 Years of Community-Based Reef Conservation. Mar Pollut Bul 40:537-550.

987