ARTICLE IN PRESS

Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Marine protected areas for whom? Fisheries,

tourism, and solidarity in a Philippine community
Enrique G. Oraciona,, Marc L. Millerb, Patrick Christieb
a

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Silliman University, Dumaguete City 6200, Philippines
b
School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, 3707 Brooklyn Ave. NE, Seattle,
WA 98105-6715, USA
Available online 31 May 2005

Abstract
The coastal economy of the municipality of Mabini located on the Calumpan Peninsula of
Luzon has roots on one coast in the harvest of sh and on the opposite coast in the attraction
of dive tourists and other recreationalists from metropolitan Manila. Marine protected areas
at the base of the municipality promoted by foreign and local conservationists provide de facto
illustrations of integrated coastal management. Social survey results show that MPA
management and enforcement policies have both beneted and disappointed shery and
tourism constituencies. To a degree, the inherent economic advantages enjoyed by the tourism
sector have marginalized the shery sector in terms of access and control of the MPAs both
sectors helped to establish in the municipality. The viability of MPAs in Mabini will depend on
the abilities of leaders and managers to reconcile top-level policies of conservation and
economic development with local community aspirations.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Integrated coastal management policies and regulationshowever well-intentioned and justiedimmediately become controversial. This is understandable
when one realizes that the coastal zone is congested in the rst place because of
Corresponding author.

E-mail address: ikeoracion@lycos.com (E.G. Oracion).

0964-5691/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.013

ARTICLE IN PRESS
394

E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

widespread recognition of the multiple amenities, opportunities, and satisfactions to

be found there. Multiple-use and -value problems arise through competition within
the private sector, and through the reactions of diverse publics and special interest
groups. And it is the job of various elements of government to reconcile differences
and to encourage sustainable development reform.
In this paper, we focus on a small Luzon peninsula considering a de facto instance
of integrated coastal management (ICM) in which the wedded futures of a shery
sector and a tourism sector are shaped by a marine protected area (henceforth,
MPA) tool of governance. Protection of marine life and habitat and the compatible
development of the two sectors are overarching concerns.
It is, therefore, the major objective of this paper to contextualize and quantify the
tension between the two sectors. First, we look into the signicant role of shing to
the local subsistence economy as this relates to the increasing development of
tourism in the community. Second, we examine the perceptions and satisfactions of
representatives of these sectors regarding how MPAs are appropriated. And third,
we consider the judgment of MPA managers regarding the behaviors of shers and
private tourism brokers to conrm sectoral claims as to who benets and are most
supportive in the success of MPAs.

2. Theoretical considerations
2.1. Conservation and solidarity drivers of MPAs
In application, MPAs have been implemented under a variety of names (e.g.,
marine reserves, sanctuaries, parks, and the like) and with different combinations of
motives, and permitting differing levels of human access [1,2]. We observe there are
two principal drivers for the institutionalization and renement of MPAs in
Southern Luzon as well as elsewhere in the Philippines. The rstthe conservation
driveris outcome-oriented and is equated with the conservationistic motivation of
special interest groups to protect marine life and habitat while sustaining selected
forms of subsistence and business. For those with this inspiration, MPA activities are
to be judged successful only if the conditions of coral reef ecosystems and preferred
associated economic sectors are maintained, restored, enhanced, or otherwise
improved through regulation.
Generally speaking, MPAs are human impositions on nature and society.
Conservation actions are prompted by a variety of unacceptable relationships
linking humankind to other life form and the environment. There are several
conservation logics that separately or in combination dene the purposes of MPAs.
In an introduction to environmental ethics, Hargrove [3] illuminates that the eld
fundamentally concerns decisions that humans make regarding values that accrue to
people (because only people can notice or impute values), and that these values fall
along a continuum. At one end of a spectrum of these environmental values are
those which are instrumental and which rather obviously concern enhancements
in the well-being of people at the cost of transformations of nature (e.g., the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

395

nutritional value of sh to people). At the other end are environmental values which
are more relatively intrinsic and which also benet humanity, but with less or no
modication of nature (e.g., the value of visited coral reef, the value of a not-visited
pristine ecosystem).
Relatedly and in an introduction to social science treatments of natural resource
management systems such as sheries, forests, and national parks, Miller et al. [4]
point out that conservation ethics necessarily reect a concern for sustainability, but
that exactly what should be sustained and for whom depends on the objectives of
managers. These authors use the term extractive conservation to denote an
environmental ethic which emphasizes resource harvests (and Hargroves instrumental environmental values), and the term aesthetic conservation to refer to
environmental appreciation (and some values in Hargroves intrinsic category).
To thisand to incorporate the remaining intrinsic values in Hargroves frameworkwe add a third variant of the conservation ethic which we label as biotelic
conservation (bio life, telos purpose (Greek)) in which the intention of
management is to substantially leave nature entirely alone for its own sake (see
Fig. 1).
A second MPA driverwhat we term a solidarity driverdiffers from the rst in
that the motivation for people to pursue institutional change stems not so much
from the obligations of a conservation ethic or a sense of environmental urgency, but
instead from grass-roots cultural and political satisfactions found in barangay
(meaning village) solidarity. With driver of this kind, people choose to become active
in the MPA movement because the process itself (as opposed to the intended
regulatory outcome) has a solidarity value in bringing people together and
motivating people to take action. This has some historical foundations in the
Philippines.

Biotelic
Conservation
Conservation

Extractive
Conservation
Conservation

Aesth
Ae
sthetiticc
Conserv tion
Conservation

Fig. 1. Conservation foundations of marine protected areas.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
396

E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

The fundamental territorial unit and political building block of Filipino society is
the barangay. There were sovereign and economically self-sufcient villages led by
chieftains, warriors, and elders before the Spaniards colonized the country. Each
barangay was home for about a hundred to a thousand persons who acknowledged
some kind of common origin and linked by blood, marriage, or friendship [5]. For
over four hundred years after the Spanish conquest of the Philippines, barangays
were known by Spanish term barrios. In 1974, Presidential Decree No. 557
formally reinstitutionalized the barangay as the basic local government unit
throughout the Philippines [5].
For the pre-hispanic Tagalog people of Luzon, chiefs (called datu) administered
the needs of the barangay, and also settled disputes with absolute power according to
customary law [6]. However, barangay social order was also managed by respect for
mutual help or bayanihan. This spirit also existed among friendly barangays pooled
together as confederations for whatever common objectives, interest and aspirations
whether in war or peace [5]. Steinberg [7] points out that [b]ayanihan denotes team
spirit, an atmosphere of unselsh cooperation, and a sharing of labor and spirit for
the common good.
While the longest history of bayanihan is agricultural, the tradition has diffused
throughout pluralistic Filipino society, and in this it is today an expression of local
autonomy. Steinberg [7] illuminates that
There has long been a tension between those people who own or control land
and those who work on it or are employed by the landownersy Very often the
sense of local community has coincided with hostility to government abuses, and
taxes have been one of the key elements of contention.
With the substitution of a few terms (ocean areas for land, MPA managers
for landowners and MPA access fees for taxes) this general argument holds
as well for shing barangays.
The signicance of barangay socio-political dynamics and the bayanihan ethos in
contemporary Filipino culture cannot be overestimated. In the context of MPA
creation, barangay solidarity is not only a driver, but also an important end in
itself. Simply, the process of local governance and self-determination is as highly
valued indeed, sometimes more valued than any legal MPA denition or
regulation. Strengthening commitment to these concepts is at the core of what is
commonly referred to as community organizing or CO. This is a process of
group and leadership formation that was used during political mobilizations
against the Marcos Regime and is now used broadly to encourage community
engagement in environmental management work. Non-government organization
workers employed CO technique to establish MPAs in many coastal communities in
the Philippines.
We reiterate that tourism development necessarily puts social structures at risk.
While there are examples of positive coastal tourism where economies and quality
of life has changed for the better, there are also too many examples of negative
tourism where local culture has been corrupted. In the case of bayanihan, as one of
many socio-cultural glues that holds people together and motivates them to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

397

action, the threats of commoditization, commercialization, and business contracts

introduced by tourism growth turn it more to an ideal that many Filipinos could
only reminisce. The absence of bayanihan spirit being overtaken by personal
economic gains destroys barangay solidarity.
2.2. Resistance to MPA
MPA management, like politics, creates winners and losers. When the
process works smoothly, those affected by environmental policies accept their
fatewhatever the outcomeand continue to have condence in the system of
decision-making. However, when management decisions are poorly received by
constituencies, the potential for non-compliance, discontent and resistance can be
suddenly realized [2]. MPA management can breakdown entirely if those regulated
perceive that their resources (e.g., aquatic territory, land, sh) have been unfairly
appropriated or their access wrongly diminished.
As noted above, enthusiasm and initiative for the creation of MPAs can ow
from one or more conservation drivers, and also from a barangay driver that
encourages cooperation and local solidarity. Interestingly, support for MPA
resistance also has community roots. The implementation of MPA is especially
difcult when the issues of contention force debate about morals, ethics, and
ideology. In this regard, it is crucial to understand that it is problematic how
constituencies will respond to MPA preservation objectives and regulations of
access and behavior. On the one hand, barangay citizens who have condence in
agencies of management may support the creation of MPAs, even if as they
are asked to sacrice opportunities to sh in sanctuaries and also forego the
associated shery income at least until stocks recover. On the other hand, it is also
possible that barangay citizens may interpret the MPA movement as entirely
unacceptable for its failure to appreciate the development component of
sustainable development.
When differences in MPA understanding between managers and stakeholders are
fundamental (i.e., when they concern ideologies and political movements rather than
technical and scientic matters) a serious situation arises that we see can be usefully
analyzed with constructs of cultural politics and distributive conict. We
interpret cultural politics as politics that pit a dominant or national culture against a
traditional, local, or emerging culture. Cultural politics is something half-way
between domestic politics as normally conducted and revolution. This ts with
Hajer and Fishers [8] description of cultural politics as
the way in which different systems of ordering are either maintained or imposed
on others, how questions of identity feature within environmental discourse, how
social relationships get redened, or how particular ways of doing things either
get reproduced or are changed.
The dynamics of cultural politics come into play as barangay shers question
MPA policies and environmental objectives endorsed by NGO conservationists,
resort owners and operators, and workers such as boat and jeepney operators who

ARTICLE IN PRESS
398

E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

provide tourism services. This clash concerns the environmental (in)appropriateness

of traditional shing practices, but it also concerns the emergence of a new system of
authority, and the application of a new management tool that establishes boundaries
where there were none before. Cultural politics also concerns the behavior of
stakeholders in either accepting or rejecting political avenues available to them to
participate in the process of MPA management [9].
The tension over MPAs has to be viewed as emanating from the disruption it
creates in the traditional practice of open access shing and also to localized
perception of space. Moreover, the struggle over nature and its resources can also be
understood as an instance of what Hajer and Fischer [8] term distributive conict.
This involves how the subsistence needs of the poor (represented by the noncommercial shers) stymied by the commodication of the coral reef resources into a
luxury destination for middle- and upper-class consumers (represented by the
tourists and the tourism brokers).

3. Methods
Social survey and key informant interview were conducted in barangays
Bagalangit and San Teodoro in Mabini. The eldwork covered the months of
October 2001 and March 2002. A total of 70 interviews were conducted using
structured and open-ended questions for stakeholders consisting of shers (n 20),
boat (banca) operators (n 20), resort owners and operators (n 10), and MPA
managers (n 20). The MPA managers included ofcials from local (2) and
barangay (6) government, NGO community workers (2), and bantay dagat or sea
wardens (10).
Very generally, this design focused on individuals with commitments to the shery
sector (the shers), the tourism sector (boat operators and resort owners and
operators), and the management sector. All the respondents are non-purposive
samples identied through a snow-ball (i.e., respondent identication via personal
reference of a previously identied respondent) technique. Some respondents who
are more familiar of the circumstances in the development of MPAs in Mabini were
interviewed intensively as key informants.
Respondents of the survey were asked a variety of survey questions that broadly
concerned their understandings and preferences regarding the technical letter of
MPA regulations, their assessment of the biological condition of MPAs, and ratings
of their own engagement (and that of others) in the MPA process. Respondents used
a Likert ve-point scale in rating and categorized during the analysis as follows:
1.001.79 very low, 1.802.59 low, 2.603.39 moderate, 3.404.19 high,
4.205.00 very high. In general, the statistical analysis involves the use of
percentage distribution, mean, t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to
determine the commonalities and signicant differences on the perceptions of
respondents relative to the above issues. Information provided by key informant
provides the context in the statistical analysis, interpretation and discussion of
quantitative data.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

399

4. Results
4.1. Interfacing of fishery and tourism sectors
The geographic area of interest in this paper broadly encompasses the eastern
coastal region of Mabini, a municipality in the province of Batangas located on the
Calumpan Peninsula in Southern Luzon (see Christie in this edition for a site
description). Administratively, Mabini is divided into eight political units called
barangays. The two southernmost barangays in Mabini, Bagalangit and San
Teodoro which are the sites of the study, are about 20 kms south of the municipality.
Although Mabini is not a densely populated region, it is the touristic destination of
many from Metropolitan Manila including foreigners. It is located roughly 127 km
south of Manila, and is roughly 17 km from Batangas city.
Today, the economy of the coastal barangays of Mabini exhibits a double
commitment to sheries and tourism. Barangays on the Eastern coast of the
Calumpan Peninsula and which face Batangas Bay depend on subsistence and
commercial sh harvests. Barangays on the Western coast and facing Balayan Bay
also have a tradition of shing, but have witnessed the rise of marine-oriented
tourism and recreation industry since the 1970s.
Although shing is one of the oldest forms of economic activity in Mabini, there is
some evidence that this is declining in importance. According to the Haribon
Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources [10], the number of Mabini
families directly involved in shing on a full-time basis declined from 320 families in
1980203 in 1994. It is estimated that presently more than 10% of the municipalitys
population is involved in the shery sector where majority used hook and line and
gills as shing gears. Occupations include those of sher, vendor, and peddler. Major
sh landing points are found at Anilao on the West Coast and at Talaga East on the
East Coast. But relatively speaking, shing now has a higher prole on the East
Coast than on the West Coast. This may be attributed in part to the proximity of
Batangas city, but also to the growth of tourism on the West Coast.
However, multiple-use and -value conicts between forms of shing and forms of
leisure have become ICM governance conundrums. Mabini is a nearly perfect
example of a region with a long-standing reliance on commercial and subsistence
shing that has, in effect, been discovered by tourists. In the 1960s, tourists began
to be attracted by the coral reefs of Mabini. Situated on the northwestern coast of
the peninsula, Anilao emerged as a logistic hub, a place wheregiven the poor road
system throughout Mabinitourists could hire locals to transport them by boat to
SCUBA and snorkel diving sites.
Beginning in the 1970s and with time, Mabini diving became much more widely
known, resort enclaves (some modest, some considerably more upscale) were
constructed along the West Coast, and the economy diversied as tourism was
embraced. Today, the Mabini coastline of Balayan Bay from Anilao to Bagalangit is
dotted with 61 beach resorts making up about 7% of the total commercial
establishments of the municipality [11]. According to a 2002 report by the Haribon
Foundation, approximately 22,870 divers visited the Mabini area in 1994 [10]. The

ARTICLE IN PRESS
400

E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

vast majority of the divers surveyed by the Haribon study were Filipinos from
Manila.
4.2. Chronology of MPA management in Mabini
The recent history of Mabini shows that MPAs, or marine sanctuaries as
used in the community, have been conservation tools of both authorities that have
focused on the interests of the tourism sector and of authorities who have sought to
sustain local sheries. Indeed, and depending on the situation at hand MPA
management can be regarded as a kind of wilderness management, a kind of shery
management, or as a kind of tourism management. In a manner of speaking, MPA
management as it has played out in Mabini is de facto a variety of multiple-objective
or ICM.
Important events in the story of MPA management in Mabini over the last 25
years are summarized here to provide the background of the tension between the
shery and tourism sectors and with the local authorities at present. In the 1970s,
beach resorts and dive camps begin to appear along the West Coast of the Calumpan
Peninsula. The further development of tourism enterprise was regulated by
Presidential Proclamation No. 1801 in 1978 that declares the whole of Batangas
coastline and the offshore islands to be tourist zones and marine reserves under
the administration and control of the Philippine Tourism Authority. With the
proclamation, no development projects or construction for any purposes were to
be introduced without PTA approval. It was also widely understood that tourist
diving in the designated areas was permissible, but that spearshing with SCUBA
gear was prohibited along with other forms of illegal shing.
The coming of Haribon Foundationa Filipino conservation NGOin 1988 to
work with resort owners and operators in the barangays of Bagalangit and San
Teodoro intensied the protection of the marine environment and dive sites. Largely
because of conservation work and the local inuence of the Haribon Foundation,
Municipal Ordinance 1191 was passed in 1991 to create four sh sanctuaries at
Cathedral Rock, Arthurs Rock, White Sand Rock and Twin Rocks in the barangays
of Bagalangit and San Teodoro [12]. Certainly, and given the involvement of resort
owners and operators, one main purpose of the sh sanctuaries was to protect corals
and sh as dive amenities from illegal shing.
But Municipal Ordinance 1191 was amended in 1993 upon which a municipal
marine reserve was created to encompass the entire shoreline and reef of 700 m
offshore of both barangays (Section 1). More over, the sh sanctuary of White Sand
Rock was eliminated and the area re-designated as part of the marine reserve where
traditional forms of shing (hook and line, spearshing without compressor/
SCUBA, use of nets, salok (scoop net) for catching dulong or anchovies, and traps)
were permitted. It was understood that tourist diving was permissible within the
marine reserve, and that other forms of illegal shing such as sodium cyanide shing
and blast shing were prohibited. (Section 3 and Section 5). Meanwhile, the sh
sanctuaries of Cathedral Rock, Arthurs Rock and Twin Rock were dened within
the marine reserve and to extend 500 m offshore (Section 2). It was determined that it

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

401

was lawful in the three sanctuaries to gather seashells at a maximum knee-depth

level of water during certain months, but that it was illegal to catch sh, and gather
corals (Section 4).
However, in a provision at the end of Section 3, it was determined that SCUBA
diving and snorkeling was illegal in the sanctuary. If sanctuary here pertains to
the three sh sanctuaries, this clause would seem odd given the history of tourist
diving in Mabini. Since 1993, this ban on diving has been contested by resort
owners and operators while shers have endorsed it. It is not surprising that the
ban in the 1993 amendment to M.O. 1191 is controversial. Dulong (anchovy)
shers who had pushed for the White Sand Rock re-classication originally
proposed the ban. Eisma et al. [13] report that most respondents familiar with the
course of events agreed that the amendment passed without proper consultations
of resort owners and other tourism sector stakeholders. But most importantly, the
ban up to the time of the study (2002) has not been enforced [13].
4.3. Stakeholder understandings of MPA regulations
Perhaps the ordinance amendment banning scuba diving in the sanctuaries is not
well enforced because it is understood in different ways by stakeholders and that
there is a general lack of understanding of the legal denition of the MPAs. Fifty
percent of all stakeholders surveyed including the MPA managers opine (incorrectly)
that scuba diving inside the sh sanctuaries is legal and that shing is illegal, whereas
only about 39% of those interviewed (correctly) believed both scuba diving and
shing to be illegal. Furthermore, half of the shers surveyed believe that shing (but
not scuba diving) is prohibited, but nearly as many (40%) know (correctly) that both
shing and scuba diving are illegal. While many shers and resort owners and
operators know the law, the majority (70%) of the boat operators who benet from
it consider scuba diving inside the protected areas not to be a violation of the
ordinance (see Table 1).
Boat operators would be expected to favor scuba because their trade entails
ferrying tourist divers to various dive sites that include the MPAs. The position of
the boat operators toward dive tourism contrasts with that of the shers who are
fellow residents in barangays San Teodoro and Bagalangit. The boat operators are
now more aligned with the resort operators who are generally newcomers to the
community. A pro-dive tourism attitude is obviously reective of what economic
benets the boat and resort operators directly derive from this enterprises that bring
tourism to the MPAs.
The unexpected result in Table 1 concerns the number of the MPA managers who
believe that scuba diving is legal within sh sanctuaries. This would seem to conrm
the notion that proper deliberation was lacking during the amendment of the
municipal ordinance with the inclusion of the no scuba diving or snorkeling
provision. Stakeholder understandings of regulations suggest that the details of the
MPA ordinance are not recognized or internalized by shers, resort owners and
operators, or even by the MPA managers who are charged with enforcement of the
ordinance.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
402

E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

Table 1
Regulatory understandings of stakeholders regarding whether scuba diving and shing inside the sh
sanctuaries are violations of the municipal ordinance
Regulatory proposition

Fishers
(%)

Boat
operators
(%)

Resort
operators
(%)

MPA
managersa
(%)

Total (%)

Fishing is a violation, but

scuba diving is not a violation.
Scuba diving and shing are
both violations
Neither scuba diving nor
shing is a violation.
Scuba diving is a violation,
but shing is not a violation.
Total

10 (50.00)

14 (70.00)

5 (50.00)

6 (30.00)

35 (50.00)

8 (40.00)

3 (15.00)

4 (40.00)

12 (60.00)

27 (38.57)

3 (15.00)

1 (10.00)

1 (5.00)

5 (7.14)

1 (5.00)

3 (4.29)

20 (100.00)

70 (100.00)

2 (10.00)
20 (100.00)

20 (100.00)

10 (100.00)

Four barangay ofcials and three bantay dagat members believe that scuba diving inside the sh
sanctuaries is not a violation while a municipal ofcial conditionally believes that shing inside the
protected area is not a violation if the method used is traditional and non-destructive.

Table 2
Preferences of stakeholders regarding scuba diving and shing as regulated by municipal ordinance
Regulation preferences

Fishers (%)

Boat
operators
(%)

Resort
operators
(%)

MPA
managersa
(%)

Total (%)

Open only for scuba diving

Closed for scuba diving and
shing
Open for scuba diving and
shing
Open only for shing
Total

9 (45.00)
7 (35.00)

14 (70.00)
1 (5.00)

7 (70.00)
2 (20.00)

6 (30.00)
7 (35.00)

36 (51.43)
17 (24.29)

2 (10.00)

5 (25.00)

1 (10.00)

5 (25.00)

13 (18.57)

2 (10.00)
20 (100.00)

20 (100.00)

10 (100.00)

2 (10.00)
20 (100.00)

4 (5.71)
70 (100.00)

a
Four bantay dagat members, three barangay ofcials, one municipal ofcial, and one NGO worker
favor scuba diving inside the MPAs. A municipal ofcial and a NGO worker said they would allow shing
if the method is traditional and non-destructive.

4.4. Stakeholder preferences regarding MPA regulations

Table 2 shows that across sectors most Mabini stakeholders (36%) would prefer
that the marine sanctuaries be open for scuba diving (but not shing). Nonetheless,
there are differences in preference depending on the sector with which respondents
are associated. Seventy percent of the resort owners and operators (and also 70% of
the boat operators) would like to see scuba only permitted in marine sanctuaries,
whereas only 45% of the shers have this preference. These ndings suggest that
while stakeholders endorse biotelic conservation (nearly 25% of respondents would

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

403

close the marine sanctuaries to all activities), they are, relatively speaking, more
committed to aesthetic conservation (over 50% of respondents encourage scuba
diving in marine sanctuaries).
Interestingly, supporting interview data suggest that there are also shers who are
assimilating an aesthetic conservation ethic that would underwrite sustainable
tourism. Still, some shers continue to contemplate the opening of the marine
sanctuaries to shing, as what occurred with White Sand Rock sh sanctuary. As a
whole, it could be concluded that stakeholders across sectors have ambivalent
positions regarding the appropriate management and use of the marine sanctuaries.
4.5. Stakeholder engagement in MPA management
All stakeholders evaluated the biological and physical condition of the MPAs to
be good. Stakeholders were convinced that management had brought improvements
in the quality and quantity of sh and corals within the protected areas. The
perceptions of stakeholders are supported by the ndings of the sh and coral
monitoring surveys conducted by marine scientists over time [14]. Supporting
interview data also show that all stakeholders agree about the threats posed by
indiscriminate anchoring and illegal shing within the protected areas which ag an
unresolved tension between the shery and the tourism sectors at present with
regards to the regulation of MPAs [15].
Insofar as benets of MPA management are seen to accrue to stakeholders,
Table 3 reveals that resort operators provide the highest estimations of received
benets, followed by boat operators, and shers. This result is consistent with the
fact that the MPA regulations have been interpreted and enforced in ways that
encourages dive tourism.
Results show that respondent support of MPA in the past (i.e., in the period from
the late-1980s until 2001) was the highest for resort owners. The average self-rating
of shers falls substantially below the self-rating of the resort operators, but this does

Table 3
Comparison of selected MPA management ratings by stakeholder
Rating

Present MPA conditionb

MPA benets receiveda
Past MPA supportc
Present MPA supporta
Future MPA supportb
MPA access and controlc
a

Fishers

Boat operators

Resort operators

Mean

Variance

Mean

Variance

Mean

Variance

3.70
2.55
2.40
2.25
3.80
2.90

1.06
1.63
3.62
3.99
2.59
3.25

4.00
3.05
2.70
3.30
4.35
3.80

0.74
1.31
2.72
2.12
0.77
1.54

3.70
4.67
4.14
4.00
4.20
4.40

1.22
0.25
0.81
1.33
1.29
0.49

Difference among groups is signicant at 0.05 (t-test and ANOVA).

Difference among groups is not signicant.
c
Difference is only signicant between shers and resort operators at 0.05 (t-test and ANOVA).
b

ARTICLE IN PRESS
404

E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

not differ signicantly with the boat operators who were at rst not very much
involved in the tourism enterprise. The present support of shers is somewhat less
than in the past, whereas present support of the boat and resort operators has
increased. With the increasing role of the resort operators in MPA management and
enforcement, one sher lamented: We no longer support because the resort
operators took control of it, as small shers we cant do anything.
Looking ahead, all three groups of stakeholders indicate expectations of
increasing their support of MPAs. This said, the relative levels of support across
types of stakeholders shows that boat operators signal they are likely to increase
their support for MPA management to a level (4.4) that exceed that even of that
reported by resort owners (4.2). It does not surprise that shers promise support
(3.8) at a level considerably lower than that of the other two stakeholder groups.
Table 3 also shows that ratings by stakeholders of the amount of MPA access they
have and the level of control they have in MPA management varies in
understandable ways across the three groups. Relatively speaking, shers feel least
engaged in management decision-making, feeling at the same time they have the least
access. In contrast, resort operators report the highest level of MPA access and
control. Boat operators report their MPA access and control in the management
process at a level (3.0) intermediate between that of shers (2.6) and resort operators
(4.7).
The proximity of the resorts to the MPAs is one reason why the resort operators
may indeed have greater MPA access and may exert more management control than
shers. These prime resort locations provide a tourism business advantage and at the
same time allow the resort operators opportunities to enforce the regulation
prohibiting shing. The selective enforcement of the municipal ordinance by the
resort operators has led some shers to accuse the resort owners of appropriating
MPA territories. Fishers contend that the resort operators have the money and
political inuence to undertake this move.
Fishers also insist that the employment opportunities the resort operators provide
to some local residentsand which entice shers to become tourism sector
workersexplain why the barangay government gives resort owners responsibilities
in MPA management and enforcement. Many shers further believe that because
resort operators pay for permits and pay business taxes the resort operators are
unfairly given the opportunity to make MPA policy and to enforce regulations in
their own best interests.
4.6. Correlations of stakeholder responses
The several tables discussed above concern results that include respondents (i.e.,
shers, boat operators and resort operators) self-reported support for MPAs, the
benets they have received and the access they have to MPAs as a consequence of
management, and evaluations of the biophysical condition of MPAs. These ndings
can be examined further to the end of identifying correlations between the categories
of respondent evaluations specically on MPA access and control, benets, present
support as well as in the future.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

405

Perception of
Scuba Diving as
Legal in MPAs
0.62
0.31
Future MPA
Support

MPA Access
& Control
0.56
0.61

0.43
Present MPA
Support

0.55
MPA Benefits
0.58

Fig. 2. Correlations of stakeholder self-ratings and perceptions (all signicant at po:01).

Aggregating all stakeholders, Kendall rank order correlation coefcients for

selected variables in Fig. 2 reveal the following trends:
1. the level of stakeholders self-rating of MPA access and control is positively
correlated with the self-rating of benefits accrued with MPA management
(r 0:61);
2. the level of stakeholders present MPA support is positively correlated with selfratings of benefits received (r 0:58), and MPA access and control (r 0:56);
3. the level of stakeholders future MPA support is positively correlated with selfratings of MPA access and control (r 0:62), benefits accrued (r 0:55), present
MPA support (r 0:43), and a perception that scuba diving is a legal in MPAs
(r 0:31).
The correlation results give hope despite the tensions of cultural politics and
distributive conicts between shers, and resort and boat operators alluded to
earlier, that MPAs could succeed in Mabini. Although they differ to some degrees
relative to MPA access, control and benets they actually enjoyed, the managed
barangay constituencies in aggregate who are supportive at present intend to
continue their support for the MPA regime.
4.7. MPA manager assessment of fishery-tourism interactions
Results reported earlier are based on respondents (i.e., shers, boat operators, and
resort operators) who are constituencies affected by MPA policies and regulations.
For comparison, this section focuses on how MPA managers rate them in terms of
their compliance with MPA regulations, MPA benets received, levels of MPA
access and control, and future MPA support (see Table 4).
The managers of MPAs report that the compliance of shers (4.0) is rather
substantially higher than that of boat operators (2.65) and resort owners (2.90). The
reports of MPA managers show more violations that are tourism-related than

ARTICLE IN PRESS
406

E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

Table 4
MPA managers ratings of stakeholder compliance, MPA benets received, and MPA access and control,
and future MPA support
MPA managers ratings

Compliance to MPA
regulations
MPA benets received
MPA access and control
Future MPA support
a

Fishers

If compared to boat
operators

If compared to resort
operators

Mean

Variance

Mean

Variance

Mean

Variance

4.00

1.15

2.65a

2.03

2.90

2.31a

3.05
2.55
3.95

2.50
2.58
1.16

3.85b
2.65
3.53

0.66
2.24
1.60

4.47
3.45
4.05

0.49a
2.60b
0.94

Difference among groups is signicant at 0.01 (t-test and ANOVA).

Difference among groups is signicant at 0.05 (t-test and ANOVA).

shing-related. According to supporting interview data, the most common violations

include anchoring, scuba diving, and spearshing within the protected areas. Some
tourist divers are also accused of collecting giant clams and extracting some corals as
souvenirs. Meanwhile, the shers from within and outside the community committed
violations against shing directly inside the sh sanctuaries using spearguns, hook
and line and even nets. Expectedly, the resort and boat operators reported more
violations committed by shers in contrast to the reports of shers and MPA
managers.
Resort operators are beneted most by MPAs and shers least, with the benets of
boat operators intermediate between the two according to MPA managers. This
nding is consistent with the stakeholder self-ratings of benet as shown earlier.
Meanwhile, the difference between shers and boat operators is suggestive, but not
statistically signicant. Consistent with the benets accrued by each group, MPA
managers judge the MPA access and control of resort operators to be greater than
that of shers. This is consistent with stakeholders self-reports. The difference
between shers and boat operators as evaluated by managers is only suggestive, and
not statistically signicant.
Meanwhile, Table 4 also shows that the future support of MPA by stakeholders
does not reveal any statistically signicant differences, although all stakeholders are
expected by managers to be supportive. And despite the fact that the shers are
losing control and enjoying less benets, MPA managers are still optimistic that
shers would extend favorable support in the future. Such optimism is perhaps
warranted by the high compliance rating MPA managers give to the shers.
Arguably, managers count on the solidarity of the barangay in the future to support
the MPAs despite the management problems and the distributive conict
experienced. Access, control and benets are management effects that MPA
managers should democratize in order to promote solidarity and to ensure MPA
sustainability.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

407

5. Discussion
Attitudes and perspectives of shers, boat operators, resort owners and operators,
and MPA managers in Mabini were shaped and inuenced by ambiguities of
regulation, preferences for certain conservation principles over others, and
uncertainty about the consequences of economic development and population
growth for the peninsula particularly generated by tourism. It is a difcult question
to answer, then, as to for whom MPAs in Mabini have been or should be managed.
Clearly, MPAs have arisen to meet needs of shers, NGO conservationists, and
resort owners (and staff) in barangays. Yet, it is to be recognized that MPAs
also serve neighbors and others in barangays, as well as a citizenry throughout
the Philippines (who would visit and recreate at Mabinis MPAs and who
would consume shery products owing from MPA areas), not to mention
humanity at large.
With the above in mind, as well as an awareness that there will always be tensions
between levels of government and between longtime and new residents of any
barangay, stakeholders in this study were broadly equated with constituencies who
by law or in practice are either beneted or disadvantaged by the creation of a MPA
and its management policies. At the local level, primary stakeholders were seen as
represented by the voting constituency of barangays Bagalangit and San Teodoro
that are both MPA-dependent. The former, however, have residents whose
livelihoods that support aesthetic conservation and foster a tourism economy while
those of the latter more underwrite extractive conservation and a shing economy.
With the rapid expansion of tourism over the last several decades, cultural politics
in Mabini creates alliances and chasms between barangay residents according to their
postures regarding the creation (or dismantling) of MPAs. Examples of distributive
conict have been particularly common in interactions between shers on the one
hand, and resort and boat operators on the other. In the course of our study, we
repeatedly encountered evidence about shers who expressed negative sentiments
about resort operators and boat operators (and tourist divers) who are allowed
inside the sh sanctuaries.
Yet, MPA conict also occurs between shers. We were told, for example, of
confrontations between San Teodoro and Bagalangit shers, and also of conict
with shers from Maricaban Island who refused to recognize principles of local
territoriality and who shed inside Mabini MPAs. The cultural politics among
primary stakeholders reects their different interpretations about the use and
enforcement of the MPAs relative to the conicting livelihoods and conservation
ethics they want to protect. Therefore, cultural politics is also about attitudes of
ownership and appropriation. Fishers have, until the advent of MPAs, regarded sh
as resources that no one owns until they are harvested. Resort operators prefer to
treat MPAs in the manner of terrestrial territory.
Resort operators further contend that they have the resources to support the
maintenance of the MPAs and the enforcement of the regulations. It is argued that
because they contribute the funds crucial for the operations of the bantay dagat
resort operators are justied in making unilateral decisions about MPAs. One

ARTICLE IN PRESS
408

E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

operator claims that he owns the MPA in front of his resort; because he built it
himself, he has taken on the responsibility to protect it from illegal shers. Residents
of barangay San Teodoro expressed the same sense of ownership when they were
challenged about their management claim over the Twin Rocks sh sanctuary that
they built together with Haribon Foundation.
It should be mentioned that the power of MPA access and control have diffused
also to other constituencies via the resort operators. To illustrate, boat operators
who are hired to ferry guests to dive sites benet from resort operator inuence.
Then too, the tourists including foreigners who visit the Calumpan Peninsula and its
MPA dive sites are beneciaries of resort operator power in MPA management. Of
course, the tourists have paid for MPA access and privileges, but whether or not they
have compensated the right party is an open question. One MPA manager told us
that many tourists believe that the MPAs are developed not only for conservation
purposes but also for tourism. This is not surprising given that the MPAs are
commonly marketed in brochures and tourist guides as marine parks.

6. Conclusion
The coastal zone of Mabini has always been a productive place to sh and a
beautiful place to live. Today, it is increasingly becoming a beautiful place to visit as
well. The future of the Mabini coastal zone, whether expressed in human or
environmental terms, is dependent on effective and responsible MPA management.
In view of this development, our focus is on how the economic force of modern
tourism has moved down the peninsula to encounter a bastion of artisanal (or smallscale subsistence and commercial) shing in two barangays. Moreover, how MPAs
have gured in the emergence and reconciliation of shery-tourism tensions and in
the realization of sustainable development worthy of the name are also explored. We
conclude that unless a common understanding and interpretation of the signicance
of MPA is forged among multiple stakeholders its management will continue to be
lled with tension and threaten community solidarity. In fact, the barangays in
Mabini that are shery-dependent have been put at risk with the expansion of the
tourism sector not only economically but also socio-culturally.
The MPA management in Mabini emerges as a multi-objective enterprise that has
not yet reached a point wherein democratic choices of policies are ideally realized. A
balanced dialogue and judgment regarding the relative importance of extractive
conservation, aesthetic conservation, and biotelic conservation themes are not yet
reected in its MPA ordinance and enforcement up to the time of the study.
Confusion whether to pursue shery management, tourism and park management,
or wilderness management may undermine long-term sustainability of this MPA.
The question now arises as to how MPA managers should respond to this problem.
We recommend that MPA managers should treat selected shing communities as
MPA-dependent and to explicitly consider the costs and benets of social
structural and occupational change due to tourism in these communities on a caseby-case basis. Management decisions relative to the MPA, although emanating from

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

409

municipal government, must be satisfying at the barangay level being primary

stakeholders. Looking to improve the Mabini MPA system and if these are not done
yet, we make the following recommendations concerning changes in institutional
structure, policymaking process, research, and management-constituency relations:
1. Marine protected areas (e.g., marine reserves, sh sanctuaries, marine parks) in
Mabini should be managed collectively as a network of MPAs with the local
government unit as the lead management entity. Other entities (e.g., representing
barangay, NGO, and tourism sector interests) should be involved in a cooperative
management enterprise that they would decide.
2. Municipal Ordinance 1193 should be claried and disseminated. This should be
basis for the preparation of an annual multi-objective MPA Management Plan
suitable to the needs and aspirations of those employed in the shery and tourism
sectors, and sensitive to biological ecological conditions of shery resources and
coral reef habitats. This planattuned to the alleviation of poverty and the
preservation of habitatshould be clear about the relative importance of biotelic
conservation (optimum biodiversity for endangered species management),
extractive conservation (optimum yield for shery management), and aesthetic
conservation (optimum visitation for tourism management) priorities. This would
require the collection of relevant data sets to support these policies.
3. The collection of various data requires a multidisciplinary research group to be
drawn upon government, university, NGOs, and other experts devoted to the
study of shery-tourism interactions in the context of a sustainable development
agenda.
4. Consideration should be given to how responsibilities for the functions of MPA
management-policy design, implementation, monitoring, enforcement and
evaluation are best assigned to municipal, barangay, private sector, and NGO
professionals.
5. User fees should be imposed for access and recreational activity not only to
sustain the nancing of MPA maintenance and management but also to develop
supplemental or alternative livelihood projects for the shing communities. This
will ensure indirect MPA benets particularly for those whose shing activities
have been drastically affected by the declaration of protected areas from
extractive activities.
6. Throughout the MPA management process, special consideration should be given
to barangay shers. This consideration should take forms that include engagement
in the policymaking process, education in the use of innovative and appropriate
shing technologies, and assistance in occupational diversication.

Acknowledgments
This research was made possible with the nancial support of the David and
Lucile Packard Foundation (Grant No. 2000-14652) and National Science
Foundation (Grant No. DGE-0132132). The opinions expressed herein are those

ARTICLE IN PRESS
410

E.G. Oracion et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 393410

of the authors and do not necessarily reect the views of the David and Lucile
Packard Foundation or National Science Foundation. The dedication of Demberge
Caballes, Esperanza Tabara and Wednesday Gaudan during eldwork is highly
appreciated. Equal thanks also go to the various local government ofcials, barangay
residents, and operators of resorts and dive boats in Mabini who willingly shared
their time to be interviewed. The comments of two anonymous reviewers to the early
draft of this paper are also well acknowledged.
References
[1] Agardy T. Marine protected areas and ocean conservation. Austin, TX: Landes; 1997.
[2] National Research Council. Marine protected areas: tools for sustaining ocean ecosystems.
Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
[3] Hargrove E. Foundations of environmental ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1989.
[4] Miller ML, Gale RP, Brown PJ, editors. Natural resource management systems. Social Science in
Natural Resource Management Systems. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 1986. p. 332
[5] Aralar RB. Barangay: the basic local government unit. Quezon City: Reynaldo B. Aralar and
Associates; 1989.
[6] Gagelonia PA. The Filipinos of yesteryears. Manila: The Star Book Store; 1967.
[7] Steinberg DJ. The Philippines: a singular and a plural place, 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press;
1994.
[8] Hajer M, Fischer F. Beyond global discourse: the rediscovery of culture in environmental politics. In:
Fisher F, Hajer MA, editors. Living with nature: environmental politics as cultural discourse. New
York: Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 120.
[9] Escobar A. Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of
social movements. Journal of Political Ecology 1998;5:5382.
[10] Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources. Facts about Philippine marine
reserves. Manila, Philippines, 2002.
[11] Mabini (Batangas, Luzon, Philippines). Ofcial Municipality of Mabini website. http://mabini.gov.
ph/, 2004.
[12] World Wildlife Fund (WWF)Philippines. Mga batas pampangisdaan at pangkalikasan ng Mabini
at Tingloy (Fisheries and environmental laws of Mabini and Tingloy educational pamphlet). No date.
[13] Eisma RV, Christie P, Hershman MJ. Legal issues affecting sustainability of ICM in the Philippines.
Ocean and Coastal Management, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.009.
[14] Christie P. Is integrated coastal management sustainable? Ocean and Coastal Management, this issue,
doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.04.002.
[15] Oracion EG. The dynamics of stakeholder participation in marine protected area development: a case
study in Batangas, Philippines. Silliman Journal 2003;44(1):95137.