CAÑAL, Rio Ysabel A. Dec.

12, 2017

English 10/THW5

Position Paper

Protecting Philippine Marine Biodiversity’s New Frontier

When you look at tourism ads for the Philippines, more often than not you see pristine

white beaches and blue oceans. But one of the things that makes the Philippines such a popular

tourism spot is what lies below those waters – colorful and vibrant marine life that puts the

Philippines near the top of the list of most marine biodiverse countries in the world.

Using the definition from the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity,

biological diversity is “the variability among living organisms of all sources including, inter alia,

terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are

part: this includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems.” For simplicity,

biological diversity and biodiversity can be considered interchangeable (Biodiversity Preface).

The country has some of the highest biodiversity indexes in the Coral Triangle Region, a

roughly triangular area considered the global epicenter of marine biodiversity with 76% of all coral

species and 37% of all coral reef fish species in the world being found in its waters (Burke et al.

Section 1). The mean diversity index of coral reefs is 532 for the eastern side of the country and

539.3 for the Palawan-Northern Borneo area, with the highest value in the region being 543.7

(Coral Triangle 4). The Eastern Philippine area also has the highest number of coral reef species

in the region, with 1763 species being found out of a possible 2228 (Coral Triangle 5).

1
 However, these marine species and ecosystems are currently under threat of dying or being

destroyed. The threats that marine biodiversity face can be divided into two groups, local and

global threats. Local threats are mostly direct actions of humans, such as illegal fishing and coastal

development. In the Philippines, the biggest local threat to marine wildlife is overfishing and

destructive fishing, with about 98% of reefs nationwide being affected by this. Global threats, on

the other hand, are more easily linked to climate change. The greatest manifestations of these are

the widespread bleaching of corals because of rising water temperatures, and ocean acidification.

When these two types of threats are combined, over 80% of the Philippines’ coral reefs are

considered either highly or very highly threatened (Burke et al. Section 3). In light of all this, the

Philippine Rise can potentially act as a new ecological frontier for the country.

The Philippine Rise is a 13-million-hectare area off the coast of Aurora made of volcanic

rock. It was originally called “Benham Rise” after the geologist who first discovered the site, but

was renamed Philippine Rise after the United Nations granted the country’s claim to the territory

(CNN Philippines). Initial excursions to the shallowest portion of the area, Benham Bank, showed

an extremely rare sight of 100% coral cover, possibly the last place in Philippine waters in such

pristine conditions, and a deep-sea or “mesophotic” ecosystem which could act as refuge for

marine life affected by climate change (Roxas). Non-living resources were discovered as well,

such as large amounts of heavy metals like manganese, and the possibility of natural gas reserves

(Paterno).

However, the non-living resources will remain untapped as the area has already been

named a “protected food supply exclusive zone” by President Duterte, meaning no mining and oil

exploration activities can be conducted there (Santos). And while I think that was a good move on

2
his part, I’d like to go one step further: I think the Philippine Rise should be declared a marine

protected area.

Marine protected areas (MPAs), first and foremost, limit the interaction between humans

and marine wildlife. While most marine species and ecosystems have evolved in such a way that

they can survive or recover after periodic stresses such as high or low temperatures and salinities,

or severe storms (Kenchington et al. 6), stresses brought about by human activities are relatively

more constant and more often disrupt the lives of marine animals. Providing different fish species

a safe space will allow them to spawn and flourish, assuring a good level of biodiversity. Having

this level of biodiversity can allow an MPA to act as a “reservoir” of genetic material to possibly

assist in recovering areas affected by pollution, overfishing, or natural causes (Kenchington et al.

7). Aside from that, corals that come from areas with low human-induced stresses have been found

to have a higher capacity to recover from temperature-induced coral bleaching, as well as being

less likely to be killed by extreme coral bleaching (Kenchington et al. 6). Having healthy reefs in

the country is imperative, especially since we are listed as having “very high reef dependence” in

areas such as employment, nutrition, and shoreline protection (Burke et al. Section 4).

But you might then be wondering, “If we’re dependent on reefs for these things, isn’t

protecting the Philippine Rise counterproductive?” After all, the natural gas reserves in the area

could potentially be a way for the country to provide for its own energy, as well as become a source

of export revenue (Paterno). Not only that, fisheries would not be able to utilize the supposed

increase in fish populations, since fishing would not be allowed in the area. And not just fisheries,

but small-time fishermen who depend on the fish they catch for food and money. As it is, fish is

the primary source of protein for those who live in coastal communities and the average animal

protein consumption of the country is still below the recommended level (Regional State 20). Also,

3
there is no guarantee that declaring the Philippine Rise an MPA will actually protect different

species in the area.

All of these are valid points. However, I believe that despite not being able to fully utilize

all the resources of the Philippines Rise, protecting it is still comparatively beneficial.

Let me first address the concern of natural gas. The composition of natural gas varies

depending on factors such as location and geological structure of the region it was found, but it

consists mainly of hydrocarbons such as methane. Other components that are commonly found in

natural gas are carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen, and helium, though these usually appear

in negligible amounts in the gas save for certain areas where their concentrations can be

considerably higher. For example: hydrogen sulfide, a water-soluble component of natural gas,

can account for more than 20% of the composition of natural gas in certain conditions. Hydrogen

sulfide can cause hazardous pollution situations in both the water environment and the atmosphere,

disturbing the chemical composition of surface waters. Aside from that it is a poison with acute

effects, with especially severe consequences for humans and the surrounding ecosystem being

observed by the Volga River in Russia. Additionally, gaseous poisons in the water can easily

penetrate into fish through their gills and disrupt main functional suctions such as respiration and

blood formation. Prolonged exposure leads to chronic poisoning, with some symptoms including

the rupture of tissues, swim bladder enlargement, and disturbances in the circulatory system

(Cascio). While these threats are not present in all natural gas excavation sites, I think there is

enough reason to speculate how beneficial natural gas really is, especially since its price has

dropped in comparison to the previous year and to historical prices; the current price of natural gas

is $2.91/mmBTU [Million British Thermal Unit], the price in December 2016 was $3.79, and

$8.35 in December 2007 (Natural Gas Prices).

4
 Next is the issue on fisheries. It’s true that people won’t be allowed to fish inside the

protected area, but MPAs have actually been shown to help fisheries with their overall catch.

MPAs allow fish stock to “rebuild” and attain some stability. Fish are allowed to spawn and grow

in MPAs and when mature, may travel outside of them and “spillover” to the areas where fishing

is allowed. The catches of the industry are actually enhanced because of the increase in number

and size, since their catch will consist primarily of adult fish (Guidelines Introduction). That being

said, it is possible that declaring an area a marine protected area could just shift the fishing pressure

elsewhere (Hilborn 224) which brings me to the last issue presented, the effectivity of an MPA.

I admit that not all MPAs are effective. In fact, less than 1% of the coral reefs in the Coral

Triangle region are effectively managed, and only 5% are partially effective MPAs. In the

Philippines alone only 25 out of 232 sites were marked effective (Burke et al. Section 5). But what

does “effective” mean? A study by Edgar et al. was able to determine five key features that made

an MPA actually effective, namely that it was no take, well enforced, old (i.e. protected for more

than 10 years), large (i.e. larger than 100 km2), and isolated by deep water or sand. The Philippine

Rise easily fits into the “large” criterion, with the area being equal to 130,00 km2. This large area,

if made into an MPA, could help reach the 10% of coral reef area in no-take MPAs conservation

target of the Philippine Marine Sanctuary Strategy (Weeks et al. 7). And in protecting the

Philippine Rise now, the “old” criterion can be sooner reached and with it, the full benefits of

protection may be fully reaped. The only problem now is to make sure that it is well enforced.

The management and planning of an MPA cannot be done by the government or whatever

governing body alone. Relevant sectors such as the fishing and tourism industries must also be

consulted, especially those who are “opponents” of the MPA. Talking to these sectors allows a

fuller picture of interests to be made, as well as to possibly convert the “opponents” into allies.

5
The Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas suggests assigning top priority of cooperation to those

responsible for fisheries, as they are often the main source of livelihood for local communities, as

well as the exploitation of marine ecosystems. Lack of cooperation with said fisheries is usually a

major reason why MPAs fail and have to be abandoned. Fishers will instinctively think that their

interests will be harmed if an MPA were to be established, and the regulating body has to make

sure that they (the fisherfolk) understand the benefits of an MPA in relation to their livelihood, as

explained earlier with the “spillover” effect.

Another thing that can be done to ensure effective MPAs is to clearly define and lay out

the boundaries, goals, and restrictions of an MPA. The easiest way to do that is to properly establish

the legal framework. Legislation regarding MPAs can either be “umbrella” legislation or site-

specific, such as the legislation regarding the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. For the Philippine

Rise, I believe that site-specific legislation is necessary given the size and projected effort in

managing it.

In general, all MPA legislation should define the objectives, management rules and

penalties, boundaries, relationship with other national and local authors, and monitoring and

review, among others. Another thing is that the legislation must explicitly state that conservation

is the primary objective of the MPA, with conservation being defined as both the conservation of

biological diversity and biological productivity. Therefore, the issue of “sustainable use” should

be tackled in the legislation, which again involves communicating with affected sectors and clearly

laying out what they may and may not do with regards to the MPA in the written law (Guidelines

Section 2).

In conclusion, I reiterate my stance: the Philippine Rise should be declared a marine

protected area. While I recognize the potential benefits of utilizing the vast living and non-living

6
resources found in the area, I believe that the benefits of protecting it outweigh those. This belief

is made under the assumption that the marine protected area is an effective one. For that to happen,

the MPA should have good enforcement and must involve all relevant sectors such as fishing and

tourism. If, after dialogue with sector representatives, declaring the whole Philippine Rise is

deemed unfeasible, then I think at least a part of it, perhaps an area containing Benham Bank,

should be protected such that it will still fit the “large” criterion of Edgar et al.’s key features. Or

perhaps bans on specific kinds of fishing and the catching of certain fish species instead of an

overall blanket ban can be put into place and strictly reinforced, as suggested by Hilborn.

I cannot stress enough how important it is that we keep our reefs and marine life alive and

healthy, and protecting the Philippine Rise is one big step towards accomplishing that goal.

Protecting the Philippine Rise is not just an investment that we can enjoy today, but also a legacy

for future generations of Filipinos; a legacy of both marine biodiversity and sustainable biological

productivity.

7
 Works Cited List

Biodiversity: Measurement and Estimation, edited by David Hawksworth. Chapman & Hall,

1995. Google Books,

books.google.com.ph/books?id=E0F7zhnx1cgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=

false

Burke, Lauretta, et al. Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral Triangle. World Resources Institute,

2012. World Resources Institute, www.wri.org/publication/reefs-risk-revisited-coral-

triangle

Cascio, Elena. “Natural gas in the marine environment.” Offshore-environment, www.offshore-

environment.com/naturalgas.html

CNN Philippines Staff. “Things to know about Benham Rise.” CNN Philippines, 29 March 2017,

cnnphilippines.com/videos/2017/03/15/Things-to-know-about-Benham-Rise.html

Coral Triangle Facts, Figures, and Calculations: Part II: Patterns of Biodiversity and Endemism.

The Nature Conservancy, 2008. Coral Triangle Initiative,

www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/library/statistics-coral-triangle-facts-figures-and-

calculations-patterns-biodiversity-and-endemism

Edgar, Graham, et al. “Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five

key features.” Nature, vol. 506, Macmillan Publishers Limited, February 2014, pp. 216-

220. doi: 10.1038/nature13022

Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas, edited by Graeme Kelleher. IUCN – The World

Conservation Union, 1999. IUCN, https://www.iucn.org/content/guidelines-marine-

protected-areas

8
Hilborn, R. “Marine biodiversity needs more than protection.” Nature, vol. 535, Macmillan

Publishers Limited, July 2016, pp. 224-226. http://www.nature.com/news/policy-marine-

biodiversity-needs-more-than-protection-1.20229

Kenchington, R. A., et al. The Benefits of Marine Protected Areas. Australian Govt., Dept. of the

Environment and Heritage, 2003. www.environment.gov.au/resource/benefits-marine-

protected-areas-discussion-paper

"Natural Gas Prices - Historical Chart." Macrotrends.Net, 2017,

http://www.macrotrends.net/2478/natural-gas-prices-historical-chart.

Paterno, Esmaquel, II. “Benham Rise: PH’s new territory off Aurora.” Rappler, 2 May 2012,

www.rappler.com/nation/4617-sea-plateau-expands-ph,-bigger-than-luzon

Regional State of the Coral Triangle. Asian Development Bank, 2014.

Roxas, Joseph Tristan. “Oceana PHL urges gov’t to declare Benham Bank a ‘no-take’ zone.”

GMA News Online, 22 March 2017,

www.gmanetwork.com/news/scitech/science/604292/oceana-phl-urges-gov-t-to-declare-

benham-bank-a-no-take-zone/story/

Weeks, Rebecca, et al. “Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines for

Biodiversity Conservation.” Conservation Biology, vol. 24, no. 2, Society for Conservation

Biology, April 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01340.x