Starting point or solution? Community-based marine protected areas

Journal of Environmental Management (2002) 66, 441±454doi:10.1006/jema.2002.0595, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

1

Starting point or solution? Community-basedmarine protected areas in the Philippines

P. Christie* ², A. White ³ and E. Deguit ³

² School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, 3707 Brooklyn Ave. NE, Seattle,WA 98105-6715, USA³ Coastal Resource Management Project, Tetra Tech EM, Inc., 5th Floor, CIFC Tower, Cebu City,Phillipines 6000

Received 2 January 2001; accepted 10 June 2002

In 1985, in response to declining coral reef conditions, local residents and of®cials established small, no-take marinesanctuaries on Balicasag and Pamilacan Islands through a community-based process. The implementation of marineprotected areas (MPAs) on Balicasag and Pamilacan Islands has been a partial success. As a direct result of protection,living hard coral cover has increased by 119% in Balicasag's sanctuary and by 67% in the non-sanctuary during the period1984 to 1999, but Balicasag's reef is increasingly affected by breakage from anchors from dive boats and Crown-of-thorns star®sh infestations. During the same period, living hard coral cover decreased by 20% in Pamilacan's sanctuaryand by 45% in the non-sanctuary from 1984 to 1999. The decrease in living hard coral cover in Pamilacan's sanctuary ismost likely a result of the 1998 bleaching event, Crown-of-thorn star®sh and possible storm damage. Although there wasan initial increase in the economically important target ®sh abundance in the Balicasag sanctuary and non-sanctuary andin the Pamilacan sanctuary during the ®rst two years of implementation in the mid-1980s, there has since been asigni®cant decline. Mean target ®sh abundance for the Balicasag non-sanctuary at 230 (+65) individuals per 500 m2 is notsigni®cantly different from control sites without MPAs on nearby Panglao and Cabilao Islands at 164 (+67) individuals per500 m2. In general, ®sh abundance and diversity inside and outside the sanctuaries peaked in 1986, a year after theestablishment of the sanctuaries when enforcement was strictest. Therefore, despite considerable success in enforcingregulations associated with these small MPAs at Balicasag and Pamilacan Islands, a trend of declining ®sh abundanceand species richness among economically valuable species immediately outside the no-take areas highlights thelimitations of small and isolated MPAs. This study contributes to the growing sentiment that it is not realistic for scattered,small no-take areas to maintain ®sh abundance and diversity on surrounding reefs when intensive ®shing effortimmediately adjacent to no-take areas removes most ®sh that exit these areas. This ®nding emphasizes the importance ofnesting individual MPAs within broader management regimes that lead to overall ®shing effort reduction and networkingof MPAs. Among other recommendations, the authors advocate for continued support for community-based MPAs,a network of MPAs, reduced ®shing effort in areas surrounding the MPAs and other management measures to improvethe quality of the coral reef habitats.

# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Key words: marine protected areas, coral reefs, Philippines, ®sheries.

Introduction

Community-based marine protectedareas in the Philippines

Efforts in the Philippines have been at the forefrontof establishing exemplary community-based marine

0301±4797/02/$ ± see front matter

* Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

protected areas (MPAs) since the early 1980s.Various case studies (White et al., 1994; Ferreret al., 1996; Christie and White, 2000; Salm et al.,2000; White et al., 2002) which highlight the`success stories' document this approach and itsimpacts on marine resources and communities.Other, detailed, longitudinal studies demonstratethe positive impacts of MPAs on ®sh populations(Alcala and Russ, 1990; Russ and Alcala, 1996;Roberts et al., 2001). More recently, comparative

# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

442 P. Christie et al.

research, that has surveyed numerous such MPAsin the Philippines, has documented that the major-ity (up to 80%) of these MPAs are not successfuland that their implementation is quite challengingin the current socio-political and environmentalcontext (Pollnac et al., 2001). This comes as nosurprise to anyone that has attempted to addressthe myriad of simultaneous forcesÐsuch as weakinstitutions, lack of ®nancial and human resourcesand povertyÐthat undermine the sustainablemanagement of Philippine coastal resources.

The establishment of community-based MPAsin the Philippines follows a well-de®ned blueprintwhich employs community organizing, educationand leadership development as means to addressingsocietal problems facing politically and economicallymarginalized communities (Wells and White, 1995;Alcala, 1998). It is based on an iterative processof problem identi®cation, education, leadershipbuilding and action taking (White et al., 1994;Ferrer et al., 1996). The outcome of this process, inthis instance, has been the establishment of small,community-controlled marine protected areas,usually intended to protect fringing coral reefs(and their associated ®sh and invertebrate commu-nities) and to improve the socio-economic oppor-tunities available to coastal communities largelythrough increased ®sh yields and alternativeincome generation.

The MPAs on Balicasag and Pamilacan Islandshave been in place since 1985 and 1986, respectively,and are generally well managed (Savina and White,1986b; Wells and White, 1995). Detailed longi-tudinal databases for each island document bio-logical and community responses to these MPAs.This study assesses the biophysical responses of thecoral reefs and their associated ®sh populations in

Table 1. General characteristics of Balicasag and Pamilac

Characteristics Balicasag Island

Population Approximately 800Island's area Approximately 30 haReef area 31 haReef morphology Dramatic drop-offs, narrow reef

Sanctuary size 8 ha (25�8% of reef area)Enforcement date

of sanctuaryDecember 1985

Important events Ordinance passed July 1986, reestablished in 1990, displacemcommunity management com

Yield No ®sh yield studies done

1 Savina and White, 1986b.

and near the two MPAs on Balicasag and Pamilacanand compares their condition to six pooled controlsites on Panglao and Cabilao Islands where nominalMPAs exist. It considers how social and institutionalconditions in¯uence the implementation of theseMPAs. In conclusion, recommendations are madefor the management of such MPAs.

Balicasag Island

Balicasag Island is a small, remote island (approxi-mately 30 ha) in the Central Visayan region of thePhilippines (Figures 1 and 2, Table 1) (Wells andWhite, 1995). The island's approximately 800 resi-dents rely heavily on the reef's resources partlybecause the island is owned by the Philippine CoastGuard, thus denying residents land tenure. The31 ha reef surrounding the island, with steep drop-offs, has attracted the attention of conservationistsand divers since the 1970s.

By the 1970s, as throughout the Philippines,destructive ®shing practices such as blast ®shingbegan to seriously degrade the quality of the island'smarine resources. In response, 8 ha of the BalicasagIsland reef (along 550 m of the west shore) wereprotected as a marine sanctuary beginning inDecember 1985 through a community project imple-mented by Silliman University and ®nanced by theUnited States Agency for International Develop-ment (White and Savina, 1987; White and Dobias,1991; Wells and White, 1995). Fishing, but only withtraditional and non-destructive methods, is allowedon the remainder of island's reef.

The sanctuary was established through a processof education and community organizing that culmi-nated in the passage of a local municipal ordinance.

an Islands

Pamilacan Island

Approximately 1250Approximately 200 ha180 ha

¯at Sloping reef, wide reef ¯at with seagrass,rock and sand cover extensive

14 ha (7�7% of reef area)March 1986

sortent of

mittee

Ordinance passed December 1985

17�9 tons/km2/yr (40% from gleaning onshallow reef ¯at) in 19861

Impacts of two marine protected areas 443

Historically, the ordinance was enforced by localpeople who were members of a management com-mittee. However, since 1990, that committee'sresponsibility has dwindled as a governmentagency, the Philippine Tourism Authority, estab-lished a resort on the shores of the sanctuary, andgenerally usurped the decision-making process andtook over active protection of the sanctuary.

Although detailed historic data are not available,dive tourism on Balicasag is perceived to haveincreased substantially since the establishment ofthe MPA. Recent observations revealed thatapproximately 12 000 visitors dive on the reef annu-ally. Only a small proportion of these visitors stay onthe island. Associated cottage industries, such asshell craft and souvenirs, catering to these visitorshave become an important source of income forisland residents.

Figure 1. Survey sites.

Pamilacan Island

Pamilacan is also a small island (approximately200 ha) in the Central Visayas (Figures 1 and 3,Table 1) (Savina and White, 1986a, b; White andSavina, 1987). The sloping 180 ha of reef (to the 20 misobath) around the island are less dramatic thanBalicasag's, more dominated by exposed rock(perhaps due to strong monsoon season wave action)and more heavily impacted by destructive ®shing inthe 1970s and 1980s. The island's approximately1250 residents utilize their island's reef resources,but rely to a greater extent than Balicasag ®sherson pelagic marine resources such as whale sharks(Rhincodon typus), mackerel (Scombrids), andmanta rays (Manta birostris). In 1986, less than20% of the ®sh catch was reported to come from the

Figure 2. Balicasag Island and sanctuary.


reefÐan indication of the reef 's poor condition andthe traditional dependence on deepwater species(Savina and White, 1986a). In that year, inverte-brates, small ®shes and algae gleaned from the reef¯ats comprised 40% of the 17�9 metric tons/km2

yield, indicative of the importance of reef ¯ats onthis island and the very productive nature of thisnearshore ecosystem (Savina and White, 1986b).

Beginning in March 1986, 14 ha of Pamilacan'sreef (along 600 m of shore on the west side) wasprotected as a marine sanctuary by the communitythrough the previously mentioned project imple-mented by Silliman University (White and Savina,1987; Wells and White, 1995). This sanctuary hasbeen carefully maintained according to island resi-dents and government of®cials. For example, when

Figure 3. Pamilacan Island and sanctuary.


the authors arrived, unannounced, to the sanctuaryin 1999, they were immediately asked by a local®sher to report to community leaders to explain thepurpose of their visit and that no ®sh would becollected as part of this research. Unlike BalicasagIsland, the sanctuary does not attract many scubadivers and the island community does not encouragediving within the sanctuary. The rest of the island's

reef is managed as a traditional ®shing reservesimilar to Balicasag.

Panglao and Cabilao Islands

Compared to Balicasag or Pamilacan Islands, littleis known about the coastal communities and marine


resources of nearby Panglao and Cabilao Islands.Panglao is a relatively large island off of southwestBohol Island and is within 10 km of Balicasag Island(Figure 1). Panglao Island has a number of smallcommunities and resorts scattered along its shores.Both islands are surrounded by wide seagrass bedsand fringing reefs. According to comments madeby local ®shers, destructive ®shing and over®sh-ing appear to be impacting these islands' marineresources. Nominal MPAs without any enforcementare scattered along these islands' shores. GivenPanglao and Cabilao Islands' proximity (they arethe nearest small islands) and similar biophysicalstructure to Pamilacan and Balicasag Islands (asfringing reefs with seagrass dominated reef ¯ats),®ve sites on Panglao Island and one on CabilaoIsland's reef are used as control sites to assess theimpacts of MPAs on the other two islands with well-established MPAs. Since this study is concernedwith trends over time for particular sites wherethe MPA consists of both a no-take area and a tradi-tional ®shing area that serve as one cohesive MPAunit, control sites away from Balicasag andPamilacan Islands were necessary.

Methods

In 1999, Earthwatch volunteers used SCUBA tocollect data on each reef's substrate. The authorscollected ®sh species richness and abundance datain all years and substrate data in years previous to1999. The 1984 and 1985 data serve as a baseline tostudy the impact of the MPAs over time. Thefollowing methods were consistently employed andagree with other studies in the Philippines(Uychiaoco et al., 2001) and Reefcheck methods(Hodgson, 2000).

Substrate cover

Scuba surveys were conducted using 50-m transectlines laid parallel to the reef drop-off (in depthsranging from 5 to 7 m) and closely along thesubstrate. The substrate immediately below thetransect-line was classi®ed and recorded every0�25 m using descriptive categories such as: rubble,block, living soft coral, living hard coral and deadstanding coral. The incidence of each substrate typewas translated into percent of substrate cover foreach category. Since at least ten 50-m transectswere conducted at each site, percent substrate

coverage calculations are based on a minimum of2000 samples.

Fish species richness and density

These data were collected by recording the diversityand abundance of ®sh in a 500 m2 area estimated byusing a 50 m transect line as the upper boundarylaid at approximately 7 m depth parallel to the reefcrest. The observers swam 10 m along the line, thendown the slope and 10 m parallel to the line and thenback to the line in this pattern until reaching thetransect end. This procedure was repeated inthe opposite pattern back to the beginning of thetransect line. The number of individuals per specieswas noted employing logarithmic categories forthose species with large numbers of individuals.The families surveyed were: Acanthurids*,Siganids*, Serranids*, Lutjanids*, Haemulids*,Lethrinids*, Carangids*, Caesionids*, Nemipterids*,Mullids*, Scarids*, Kyphosids*, Balistids, Chaeto-donids, Pomacanthids, Labrids, Pomacentrids.Anthids (family Serranidae) and Zanclus cornutuswere also counted. (The twelve ®sh families markedwith asterisks are commonly targeted by ®shers dueto higher market values and recorded as `targetspecies'.) Fish surveys were conducted in 1985,1986, 1992 and 1999 but were not consistentlyconducted during a particular month, which mayresult in some abundance variability associatedwith seasonal ¯uctuations of several ®sh families.Fish abundance data were only collected for controlsites in 1999, for the Balicasag non-sanctuaryin 1985 and 1999, and never in the Pamilacannon-sanctuary.

In addition to biophysical monitoring, a Filipinoresearcher conducted structured, in-depth inter-views of community leaders and resource user ineach location that focused on knowledge about theMPA, attitudes, resource conditions, impact ofthe MPA on the resources and community andmanagement issues. This social research wasconducted at the same time as the biophysicalmonitoring in all years.

Results

Coral condition

Living hard coral cover has increased from 20 to46% in Balicasag's sanctuary and from 19 to 30% inthe non-sanctuary during the period 1984±1999,


although one study found that 17.6% of the hardcorals on Balicasag (mainly the foliose form ofMontipora) were killed by the 1998 bleachingevent (Figure 4) (Divinagracia, 2000). These levelsof bleaching are signi®cantly lower than in areassurveyed on the Great Barrier Reef that also cate-gorized foliose Montipora as highly susceptible tobleaching (Marshall and Baird, 2000) or in otherareas in the Philippines. Living soft coral cover hasdecreased slightly in Balicasag's sanctuary andincreased signi®cantly in the non-sanctuary from1984 to 1999, although these corals still compriseless than 10% of the substrate in either area.

Living hard coral cover remained constant from10 to 8% in Pamilacan's sanctuary and decreasedslightlyfrom11to6%inthenon-sanctuaryfrom1984to 1999 (Figure 5). Similarly, living soft coral coverhas ¯uctuated between 3 and 10% in Pamilacan'ssanctuary and decreased from 28 to 14% in the non-sanctuary from 1984 to 1999. As part of this researcheffort, Divinagracia (2000) estimated that bleachingkilled 10% of Pamilacan's hard corals in 1998.

In agreement with other reports (Chou, 2000),data collected in 1999 demonstrate that various

Figure 4. Coral cover: Balicasag Island.

Figure 5. Coral cover: Pamilacan Island.

activities and conditions impact each site (Table 2).Anchor damage and breakage are some of the mostcommon impacts, especially where tourism usage ishigh as on Balicasag. Crown-of-thorn star®sh andthe 1998 bleaching also had considerable impacts.Blast ®shing has been eliminated on Balicasag andPamilacan Islands. The infrequent sighting of large®sh and marine life outside the sanctuaries indi-cates that all reefs open to ®shing are heavilyexploited.

Considering variations due to weather, time ofsampling and natural ¯uctuations, ®sh species rich-ness within the 19 families surveyed has beenmaintained within the Balicasag and Pamilacansanctuaries at pre-MPA levels (Figure 6). Thereare no consistently negative or positive trends inoverall species richness for the sanctuaries. Therehas been a reduction in species diversity (from amean of 54�1 to 46�2 species per 500 m2) in theBalicasag non-sanctuary from 1985 to 1999, where®shing is allowed (t-test, P� 0�03).

In agreement with Russ and Alcala (1996), therewas a signi®cant increase in mean number of speciesfrom 3�7 species in 1985 to 6�4 species in 1986

Table 2. Perceived causes of coral damage in 1999.

Balicasag Island Pamilacan Island Control sites

Sanctuary Non-sanctuary

Sanctuary Non-sanctuary

Danao Bolod Tawala Doljo Bil-isan Cabilao

Cause of coral damage (% of observers noting)Sediment 4 4Blasting patterns 4 4 33 46Crown-of-thorn star®sh 4 4 40 4 4 4 48 43 60Plastics and Trash 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Bleaching 53 31 4 4 4 25 41 43 4Storm or anchor damage 63 69 55 20 54 48 29 4 4 60

4�Minor problem.Underlined typeface indicates most common problem for each site.

Figure 6. Fish species richness: Balicasag, Pamilacan, Panglao Islands.


(t-test, P5 0�01) for large predatory species (in thefamilies Serranidae, Lutjanidae, Lethrinidae andCarangidae) in the Balicasag sanctuary, howeverthere was no signi®cant differences between1986 and 1999 (t-test, P� 0�89). Similarly, forPamilacan's sanctuary there was a signi®cant, posi-tive increase for mean number of ®sh species withinthese same predatory families from 1�3 species in1985 to 4�4 species in 1986 (t-test, P� 0�02), butthere was also a signi®cant decrease within thesesame families from a mean of 4�4 species in 1986 to1�3 species in 1999 (t-test, P� 0�01). When 1999 datafrom all six Panglao and Cabilao sites are pooled,species diversity in the control sites areas (45�6species per 500 m2) is comparable to the Balicasagnon-sanctuary area (46�2 species per 500 m2) (t-test,P� 0�83) and Pamilacan sanctuary (44 species per500 m2) (t-test, P� 0�75).

Fish abundance has ¯uctuated considerably overtime in all sites (Figure 7). In general, ®sh abun-dance in the Balicasag sanctuary peaked in 1986 andhas been maintained, but not increased, beyond the1985 level of 4291 (+74) individuals per 500 m2.

Similarly, ®sh abundance in the Pamilacan sanctu-ary has remained at the 1985 level of 2458 (+1356)individuals per 500 m2. Fish abundance in theBalicasag non-sanctuary area has signi®cantlydecreased from a mean of 4778 (+234) in 1985 to3314 (+241) individuals per 500 m2 in 1999 (t-test,P� 0�02), but remains higher than abundance levelsat control sites (t-test, P� 0�02).

Abundance of target ®sh species has signi®cantlydeclined from 1985±1986 levels to 1999 levels for theBalicasag sanctuary and non-sanctuary (Figure 8).There has been a decline in Balicasag sanctuarytarget ®sh abundance, from a peak mean of 2789(+176) individuals per 500 m2 in 1986 to a mean of713 (+428) individuals per 500 m2 in 1999 (t-test,P5 0�01). Much of the decline in target ®sh abund-ance can be explained by variations in the abundanceof Caesionids (fusiliers). This family of schooling®sh is a popular food-®sh in the Philippines and tendto swim along the reef crest of fringing reefs movingin and out of marine sanctuaries. Sightings offusiliers declined from 2309 (+148) to 409 (+227)individuals per 500 m2 in 1999.

Figure 7. Fish abundance (all spp.): Balicasag, Pamilacan, Panglao Islands.

Figure 8. Fish abundance (target spp.): Balicasag, Pamilacan, Panglao Islands.


Similarly, there has been a decline in Balicasagnon-sanctuary target ®sh abundance, from mean of1642 (+223) individuals per 500 m2 in 1985 to amean of 230 (+65) individuals per 500 m2 in 1999(t-test, P5 0�01). Target ®sh abundance has signi-®cantly declined within the Pamilacan sanctuarybetween combined 1985/1986 levels and 1999(t-test, P� 0�03). The Pamilacan non-sanctuaryarea was not monitored. Importantly, despite thecessation of illegal ®shing around Balicasag Island,mean target ®sh abundance for the Balicasag non-sanctuary at 230 (+65) individuals per 500 m2 in1999 is not signi®cantly different than abundance atthe control sites at 164 (+67) individuals per 500 m2

(t-test, P� 0�54). Nonetheless, the pooled 1999 tar-get ®sh abundance within the two sanctuariesremains higher than in the pooled abundance forthe Balicasag non-sanctuary and the control sites(t-test, P� 0�01).

Discussion

The Balicasag and Pamilacan MPAs have had mixedsuccess in maintaining the health of these coralreefs and their associated ®sh populations. TheMPAs on Balicasag and Pamilacan are respectivelyimproving or maintaining coral coverage at close tohistoric levels of the mid-1980s. The reasons thatcoral cover has improved in one site but not theother are not clear, especially as the incidence ofactivities and conditions resulting in coral damageare higher on Balicasag than Pamilacan (Table 2).One explanation, based on observations of the tworeefs since the early 1980s, is that the Pamilacanreef naturally has less coral cover than Balicasagbecause it is a more sandy environment with lesspronounced currents and drop-offs. Sedimentationis not a likely explanation since both islands are


small, relatively ¯at, and distant from larger islands.Bleaching and Crown-of-thorn star®sh impact eachof these reefs while poorly managed dive tourism (asindicated by the lack of mooring buoys resulting inanchor damage) is mostly affecting Balicasag's reef.Undoubtedly the cessation of destructive ®shingpractices has been a positive factor at both sites.

One of the most important ®ndings of this study isthat, despite considerable success in maintainingthe MPA at Balicasag Island, it has been unable toreverse the trend over time of declining ®sh abund-ance and species richness outside, but near, thesanctuary. In general, ®sh abundance and diversitywithin and outside the sanctuary peaked in 1986, ayear after the establishment of the sanctuary whenenforcement was most vigilant. This declining trendis distinct from that documented by Russ and Alcala(1996) for Apo Island, where with a similar MPAthere has been a signi®cant positive correlationbetween mean predatory ®sh density and speciesdiversity within the sanctuary and non-sanctuaryand years of protection (Russ and Alcala, 1996). OnApo, it appears that a spill-over effect from thesanctuary to the non-sanctuary had, as of 1993,increased both ®sh species richness and abundancein the non-sanctuary near the sanctuary. Robertset al. (2001) document spill over effects from largerMPAs. Considering living coral cover has beensteadily improving, the marked decrease in target®sh abundance and species richness in the Balicasagnon-sanctuary (which is no longer signi®cantly dif-ferent from control sites without enforced MPAs)suggests that the area outside the sanctuary issubject to considerable, and probably increasing,®shing effort. This is not likely the case for ApoIsland, due to its relative isolation, or for the Floridacase studied by Roberts et al. (2001).

It was not possible for the authors to collect time-series ®shing effort data. However, detailed analysisof national ®sheries statistics (Smith et al., 1983;Barut et al., 1997; White and Trinidad, 1998; Pauly,2000) and international trends (Silvestre and Pauly,1997; FAO, 1999), demonstrate that ®shing effortand ef®ciency have increased over time in through-out the Philippines, and is in excess of what isneeded to harvest maximum sustainable yield. In-depth interviews of resident Balicasag Island ®shersas part of this study and extensive rapid appraisalsconducted in the vicinity by the Coastal ResourceManagement Project indicate that ®shing effortcontinues to increase while catch-per-unit-effortdeclines in this part of the Philippines. In fact,these rapid appraisals reveal that daily ®sh catchhas dropped from approximately 20 to 22 kg per®sher per day over a 20-year period (White and

Trinidad, 1998). There is no indication in this study,nor other published accounts, of a lowering of ®sh-ing effort immediately outside no-take areas in thePhilippines. It is plausible, and worthy of investiga-tion, that the presence of the MPA and initialimproved ®sh abundances may attract ®shers fromoff-island (as there are no marine tenure or licen-sing systems to prevent this) while coral reef condi-tions worsen throughout the Philippines (Gomezet al., 1994).

Another important ®nding is that, while overallabundance of ®sh in the sanctuaries has beenmaintained, there is an obvious decline in target®sh abundances in the Balicasag and Pamilacansanctuaries. While data are not available fromcontrol sites over time, that ®sh abundance withinthe sanctuary for all species has stabilized at pre-establishment levels and ®sh abundance for targetspecies has declined is contrary to ®ndings for othersites in the Philippines (Russ and Alcala, 1996;Christie et al., in press). Furthermore, certain non-target ®sh such as Anthids and Pomacentridsare becoming more abundant and account for anincreasing percentage of the ®sh counted. In 1985,Pomacentrids and Anthids combined represented26 and 49% of the total ®sh abundances in thePamilacan and Balicasag sanctuaries respectively.By 1999, these two ®sh families combined accountedfor 75 and 81% of all ®sh within the Pamilacan andBalicasag sanctuaries. Combined contributionsfrom the target ®sh families Serranids, Lutjanids,Haemulids, Lethrinids, Carangids to overall ®shabundances in the two sanctuaries remained verylow ranging between less than 0�5% and no greaterthan 2%. Poaching inside and intense ®shing pres-sures outside sanctuaries may be reducing preda-tory ®sh. Release from predation may allowPomacentrids and Anthids to proliferate. Worsen-ing reef conditions at Pamilacan Island (Figure 5)may favor certain algae-grazing species.

Declining target ®sh abundance and speciesdiversity may also indicate that the sanctuaries onPamilacan (14 ha) and Balicasag (8 ha) are too smallto maintain ®sh populations both inside sanctuariesand on adjacent reefs considering the high level of®shing effort throughout the Philippines. While ApoIslands sanctuary is of comparable size (11�2 ha) anddesign, it is more remote than either Balicasag orPamilacan Islands, strictly enforced, and its resi-dents now bene®t from alternative income optionsassociated with increasing tourism. Tourism reven-ues directly bene®ting Apo Island residents wererecorded in 1996 to be more than double therevenues due to ®shing on the island from thesanctuary (Vogt, 1997; White and Trinidad, 1998).


The presence of an alternative livelihood may havethe effect of reducing ®shing pressure, however atleast one study came to the conclusion that ®sherscontinue to ®sh while taking on added work respons-ibilities (Pollnac et al., 2001). This comparisonwarrants further research.

The above ®ndings imply that, while no-takeareas may be effective at maintaining ®sh abun-dance and diversity within their boundaries, it isprobably unrealistic for scattered, small no-takeareas to maintain ®sh abundance and diversity onsurrounding reef when high levels of ®shing effortremove almost all spill-over. Community-basedMPAs, while an important management tool, shouldbe utilized as one strategy within an overall schemethat addresses issues such as increasing ®shingeffort and ef®ciency and habitat degradation(Silvestre and Pauly, 1997; White and Vogt, 2000;Courtney et al., 2002; White et al., 2002). Imple-mentation of the recently passed Philippines Fish-eries Code (8550), which allows for licensing andcontrols the number of ®shers with access to anyparticular area, is essential to reduce ®shing effort.

Bene®ts from the MPAs are multiple, but not allaccrue to local island residents. While ®sh yield wasnot monitored quantitatively, other studies of simi-lar reefs indicate that the MPAs on Balicasag andPamilacan are likely to result in increased ®sh yieldsfor ®shers (White and Savina, 1987; Alcala andRuss, 1990; Christie and White, 1994; Russ andAlcala, 1996; Roberts et al., 2001). However, theincreased yields for local island residents realized inthe years immediately after MPA establishmentappear to be dwindling. During interviews, nine outof 15 ®shers from Balicasag reported that ®sh catchdecreased from 1992 to 1999 (while eight out of 11had reported that their ®sh catch had increasedfrom 1986 to 1992) and four out of ten ®shers fromPamilacan reported that ®sh catch decreased from1992 to 1999 (while 16 out of 18 had reported thattheir ®sh catch had increased from 1986 to 1992).Nonetheless, the vast majority of informants stillvalue the MPAs, perhaps since they realize at leastsome increase in yields. On both islands, informantsmaintain that non-resident ®shers, not dedicatingtheir own ®shing grounds to MPAs, are bene®tingas well.

Similarly, dive boat operators from Panglaobringing tourists from urban centers capturemuch of the pro®t associated with diving onBalicasag. While Balicasag residents bene®t fromalternative income derived from souvenir sales(mainly woven mats, t-shirts and deepwater shells),during the 8-day 1999 research trip, all commercialdive boats visiting Balicasag's MPA were from off

island. The management of dive tourism onBalicasag should be improved if the quality ofthe reef and, therefore, the level of tourism are tobe maintained. As with Apo Island, the level ofcommunity commitment to reef management andability to capture tourism revenues is correlatedwith bene®ts accrued to local residents (White et al.,1994; White and Vogt, 2000).

It is also likely that the erosion of communitycontrol over the Balicasag MPA has had a detrimen-tal effect on its management. Comments duringinterviews and the steady decline in ®sh abundancefrom the peak in 1986, when community participa-tion in the MPA implementing project and MPAenforcement were most effective, indicate that somepoaching has taken place. In the case of Balicasag, ithas been reported that some unscrupulous scubadivers have occasionally entered the sanctuary atnight to spear®sh. Residents complained of theheavy-handed in¯uence of the Philippine TourismAuthority that displaced the original community-led management organization. While it is uncon-®rmed, disgruntled local ®shers may also be poach-ing. As with other common pool resources, the lackof local control, breakdown in local leadership, andthe accruing of bene®ts to outsiders who do notshare the burden of the MPA tend to encourageresidents to violate the management regime (Cookeet al., 2000; Ostrom, 1992). Management of thesanctuary, while not perfect, is likely better than formost MPAs in the Philippines. For example, theauthors did not observe any violations while theywere present.

Despite these conditions that could erode localappreciation for the MPAs, approval ratings for theMPAs by local residents has increased for bothislands. In 1999, 14 out of 14 residents approved ofthe MPA on Balicasag (up from three out of six in1986), while 12 out of 12 residents approved of theMPA on Pamilacan (up from ten out of 12 in 1986).Despite their criticism of how the Balicasag sanc-tuary is currently managed, residents desire anactive role in managing the sanctuary and to cap-ture revenues for their community. This dynamicrequires further investigation.

Conclusion

The MPAs in this study, and others, have providedmodels for coral reef management in the Philippinesand elsewhere. The community-based MPAs of thePhilippines have inspired such efforts throughoutthe tropics, in the USA and elsewhere (Christie and


White, 2000). They have served as learning labora-tories that highlight the value of coral reefs andthe potential of communities to manage their ownnatural resources. Nonetheless, management ofthese MPAs needs to adapt to evolving circum-stances. Without addressing the larger issues suchas increased ®shing effort and lack of communitycontrol in Balicasag's case, these MPAs will comeunder increasing pressure and are likely to ultim-ately fail (Sandersen and Koester, 2000).

Despite these concerns, the authors discourage aconclusion that advocates exclusively for largeMPAs in lieu of small, community-based MPAs.Properly managed large MPAs, while more effectiveat protecting ecosystem functions, ®sh biomass andbiodiversity (Roberts, 1997), may not be feasible inthe Philippine context with widespread poverty anda challenging institutional context. Community-based MPAs, with their associated limitations,have been one of the few success stories in thesedif®cult contexts. In line with recent suggestions(Allison et al., 1998; Boersma and Parrish, 1999;Carr, 2000), the intention of this analysis is toprompt improved design and a realistic understand-ing of these types of MPAs.

Recommendations for improving the manage-ment of these MPAs, and others in the region facingsimilar conditions, are the following.

(1) MPAs such as Balicasag and Paimilacan needsustained support from the government andnon-government sectors in a manner that doesnot marginalize local communities. In thePhilippine context the most logical supportunit is the local municipal government thatauthorize MPAs (White et al., 2002).

(2) Tourism should be well managed to minimizeenvironmental damage and maximize localbene®ts with full collaboration between thegovernment, private sector, and local commu-nities. Local resort owners and dive operatorsneed to assist in protecting the reefs they mostfrequent with paying guests. They should bewillingtopaydive feesand installmooringbuoys.

(3) The establishment of networks of MPAs, thatmight reduce the tendency of successful MPAsto attract other non-resident ®shers, should bepursued. This should be done within a broaderintegrated coastal management planningprocess that can address inter-institutionalmatters. A new coastal management initiativenamed the `Bohol Marine Triangle Project' willstrengthen this aspect.

(4) Management practices, such as licensing andmarine tenure regimes, that limit overall

®shing effort should be implemented. Inthe Philippines the Fisheries Code of 1998mandates all local government units to licenseall ®shers and to regulate their numbers toavoid unsustainable ®sheries.

(5) Research monitoring ®sh populations, coralreef conditions, and socio-economic dynamicsshould continue. Fishery monitoring should beimplemented. This research supplies commu-nity members and policy makers with usefulinformation to support the adaptive manage-ment process. There are opportunities for theprivate sector through both local and inter-national groups to assist with monitoring andassessing reef conditions and managementeffectiveness.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Earthwatch Institute andits volunteers for making this research possible. They alsothank the many hospitable local residents of Balicasag,Pamilacan, Panglao and Cabilao Islands. The partici-pation of Patrick Christie has been supported by theNational Science Foundation (Grant No. DGE-9809668)and the School of Marine Affairs, University ofWashington. The Coastal Resource Management Projectof the Department of the Environment and NaturalResources, supported by the United States Agency forInternational Development (Contract No. AID-492-0444-C-00-60028-00) and implemented by Tetra Tech EM, Inc.,supported the contributions of Alan White and EvelynDeguit. Comments from three anonymous reviewers wereinvaluable.

References

Alcala, A. C. (1998). Community-based coastal resourcemanagement in the Philippines: a case study. Oceanand Coastal Management 38, 179±186.

Alcala, A. C. and Russ, G. R. (1990). A direct test of theeffects of protective management on abundance andyield of tropical marine resources. J. Cons. Int. Explor.Mer. 47, 40±47.

Allison, G. W., Lubchenco, J. and Carr, M. H. (1998).Marine reserves are necessary but not suf®cientfor marine conservation. Ecological Applications 8,S79±S92.

Barut, N. C., Santos, M. D. and Garces, L. R. (1997).Overview of Philippine marine ®sheries. In Statusand Management of Tropical Coastal Fisheries in Asia(G. Silvestre and D. Pauly, eds), pp. 62±71. Manila:International Center for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement (ICLARM) and the Asian DevelopmentBank.

Boersma P. D. and Parrish, J. K. (1999). Limiting abuse:marine protected areas, a limited solution. EcologicalEconomics 31, 287±304.


Carr, M. H. (2000). Marine protected areas: challengesand opportunities for understanding and conserv-ing coastal marine ecosystems. EnvironmentalConservation 27, 106±109.

Chou, L. M. (2000). Southeast Asian reefsÐstatusupdate: Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines,Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. In Status ofCoral Reefs of the World: 2000 (C. Wilkinson, ed.),pp. 117±129. Cape Ferguson: Australian Institute ofMarine Science.

Christie, P., Buhat, D., Garces, L. R. and White, A. T. (Inpress). Social and ®sheries responses to eleven yearsof community-based resource management on SanSalvador Island, the Philippines. In ContestedNature: Power, Protected Areas and the Dispossessed±Promoting International Biodiversity Conservationwith Social Justice in the 21st Century. (S. R. Brechin,P. R. Wilshusen, C. L. Fortwangler and P. C. West,eds). Albany: SUNY Press.

Christie, P. and White, A. T. (1994). Reef ®sh yield andreef condition for San Salvador Island, Luzon,Philippines. Asian Fisheries Science 7, 135±148.

Christie, P. and White, A. T. (eds). (2000). TropicalCoastal Management. Theme issue Coastal Manage-ment 28, 1±122.

Cooke, A. J., Polunin, N. V. C. and Moce, K. (2000).Comparative assessment of stakeholder managementin traditional Fijian ®shing-grounds. EnvironmentalConservation 27, 291±299.

Courtney, C. A., White, A. T. and Deguit, E. (2002).Building Philippine government capacity for coastalresource management: methods, progress and trends.Coastal Management 30, 45±63.

Divinagracia, M. F. B. (2000). Extent and Degree ofCoral Bleaching in Selected Reefs in Central Visayas.Master Thesis, Silliman University, Dumaguete City,Philippines. 150 pp.

Ferrer, E. M., Polotan de la Cruz, L. and Domingo, M. A.(eds). (1996). Seeds of Hope. Manila: College of SocialWork and Community Development, The University ofthe Philippines.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (1998). TheState of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome.112 pp.

Gomez, E. D., AlinÄo, P. M, Yap, H. T. and Licuanan, W. Y.(1994). A review of the status of Philippine reefs.Marine Pollution Bulletin 29, 62±68.

Hodgson, G. (2000). Coral reef monitoring and manage-ment using reef check. Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement 1, 169±176.

Marshall, P. A. and Baird, A. H. (2000). Bleaching ofcorals on the great barrier reef: differential suscept-ibilities among taxa. Coral Reefs 19, 155±163.

Ostrom, E. (1992). Governing the Commons, the Evolu-tion of Institutions for Collective Action. New York:Cambridge University Press. 280 pp.

Pauly, D. (2000). Fisheries in the Philippines and in theworld: an overview. Tambuli 6, 23±25.

Pollnac, R. B., Pomeroy, R. S. and Harkes, I. (2001).Fishery policy and job satisfaction in three southeastAsian ®sheries. Ocean and Coastal Management 44,531±544.

Pollnac, R. B., Crawford, B. R., Gorospe, M. L. G. (2000).Discovering factors that in¯uence the success ofcommunity-based marine protected areas in the

Visayas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management44, 683±710.

Roberts, C. M. (1997). Ecological advice for the global®sheries crisis. Tree 12, 35±38.

Roberts, C. M., Bohnsack, J. A., Gell, F., Hawkings, J. P.and Goodridge, R. (2001). Effects of marine reserves onadjacent ®sheries. Science 294, 1920±1923.

Russ, G. R. and Alcala, A. C. (1996). Do marine reservesexport adult ®sh biomass? Evidence from Apo Island,central Philippines. Marine Ecology Progress Series132, 1±9.

Salm, R. V., Clark, J. and Siirila, E. (2000). Marine andCoastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners andManagers. Washington DC: International Unionfor Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.370 pp.

Sandersen, H. T. and Koester, S. (2003). Co-managementof tropical coastal zones: the case of the SoufriereMarine Management Area, St Lucia, WI. CoastalManagement 28, 87±97.

Savina, G. C. and White, A. T. (1986a). A tale of twoislands: some lessons for marine resource manage-ment. Environmental Conservation 13, 107±113.

Savina, G. C. and White, A. T. (1986b). Reef ®sh yieldsand nonreef catch of Pamilacan Island, Bohol,Philippines. In The First Asian Fisheries ForumProceedings (J. L. Maclean, L. B. Dizon andL. V. Hossiollos, eds), pp. 497±500, Manila: AsianFisheries Society.

Silvestre, G. and Pauly, D. (1997). Management oftropical coastal ®sheries in Asia: an overview ofkey challenges and opportunities. In Status andManagement of Tropical Coastal Fisheries in Asia.(G. Silvestre and D. Pauly, eds), pp. 8±25. Manila:International Center for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement and the Asian Development Bank.

Smith, I. R., Puzon, M. Y. and Vidal-Libunao, C. N.(1980). Philippine Municipal Fisheries: A Review ofResources, Technology and Socioeconomics. Manila:International Center for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement. 154 pp.

Uychiaoco, A. J., Green, S. J., Dela Cruz, M. T., Gaite, P. A.,Arceo, H. O., AlinÄo, P. M. and White, A. T. (2001).Coral Reef Monitoring for Management. University ofthe Philippines Marine Science Institute, UnitedNations Development Programme Global Environ-ment Facility-Small Grants Program, Guinuan Devel-opment Foundation, Inc., Voluntary Service Overseas,University of the Philippines Center for Integrativeand Development Studies, Coastal Resource Manage-ment Project, and Fisheries Resource ManagementProject. Manila. 70 pp.

Vogt, P. H. (1997). The economic bene®ts of tourism inthe marine reserve of Apo Island, Philippines. InProceedings for the Eighth International Coral ReefSymposium, Vol. 2, pp. 2101±2104, Panama City.

Wells, S. and White, A. T. (1995). Involving thecommunity. In Marine Protected Areas: Principlesand Techniques for Management, (S. Gubbay, ed.),pp. 61±84. London: Chapman and Hall.

White, A. T. and Savina, G. C. (1987). Community-basedmarine reserves, a Philippine ®rst. In Proceedings forCoastal Zone '87, pp. 2022±2036. Seattle.

White, A. T. and Dobias, R. J. (1991). Community MarineTourism in the Philippines and Thailand: A Boon or


Bane to Conservation? In Proceedings of the 1990Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism (M. L. Millerand J. Auyong, eds.), pp. 452±459. National CoastalResources Research and Development Institute.

White, A. T., Hale, L. Z., Renard, Y. and Cortesi, L. (eds).(1994). Collaborative and Community-Based Manage-ment of Coral Reefs. Lessons from Experience. WestHartford: Kumarian Press. 115 pp.

White A. T. and Vogt, H. P. (2000). Philippine coral reefsunder threat: Lessons learned after 25 years ofcommunity-based reef conservation. Marine PollutionBulletin 40, 537±550.

White, A. T., Salamanca, A. and Courtney, C. A. (2002).Experience with marine protected area planning andmanagement in the Philippines. Coastal Management30, 1±26.

Starting point or solution? Community-based marine protected areas

Documents

Transcript of Starting point or solution? Community-based marine protected areas