Environmental Impact Monitoring System (EIMS);

Sustaining our Coasts: The Ridge-to-Reef Approach A Compilation of Technical and Policy Papers

User Fees and Resource Rents Sustaining our Coasts: The Ridge-to-Reef Approach A Compilation of Technical and Policy Papers

User Fees and Resource Rents

Department of Environment and Natural Resources Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Coastal and Marine Management Office Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife Center, North Avenue, Quezon City and

Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project (ICRMP)

2013

Printed in Manila, Philippines

Citation: Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2013. Sustaining our Coasts: The Ridge-to-Reef Approach -- A Compilation of Technical and Policy Papers: User Fees and Resource Rents. Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project (ICRMP) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Quezon City, Philippines, 126 p.

This publication is made possible through funding assistance from the Asian Development Bank (ADB Loan No. 2311-PHI) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF Grant No. 0071-PHI).

This publication may be reproduced or quoted in other publications as long as proper reference is made to the source.

Photo Credits: Front Cover: Chen Reyes-Mencias

ISBN 978-971-8986-91-2 Table of Contents

ICRMP Background v

Foreword ix Director, DENR-PAWB

Message xi Undersecretary and Chief of Staff, DENR

Message xiii Secretary, DENR

Introduction xv Executive Director, DENR-PAWB-CMMO

About the Papers xvii

User Fees and Resource Rents for 1 Major Coastal Habitats

Acknowledgements 126

ICRMP Background

cosystems are interconnected; what happens in one will ultimately affect the other. Forest EXPECTED OUTCOME denudation, for example, results in soil erosion Sustainable Management of Ecausing siltation of rivers and estuaries. Improperly coastal resources and increased managed solid waste/waste water end up in coastal areas and pollute these resources, a major source of food and income for coastal communities livelihood for millions of Filipinos. Development efforts – establishment of industries, ports, tourism programs, EXPECTED IMPACT various sources of livelihood – also have to take into Enhanced coastal resources consideration the carrying capacity of our environment and natural resources.

The Integrated Coastal Resources Management SCOPE AND COVERAGE Project (ICRMP) promotes the “ridge-to-reef” approach in managing coastal resources. This management The project covers provinces and municipalities approach -- addressing threats in the uplands, lowlands surrounding four “extremely high” marine biodiversity and coastal areas in an integrated way -- is expected corridors of national and global importance as to result in the development of coastal resources that identified by the Philippine Marine Biodiversity is sustainable, allowing these resources to continue Priorities. These are: (i) the Babuyan corridor along the providing environmental services to support livelihood, northern coast of Luzon joining the Pacific Ocean and eco-tourism, industrial and other socio-economic West Philippine Sea; (ii) the Ticao Pass-San Bernardino activities. Strait-Samar corridor; (iii) the Daan Bantayan corridor straddling the Visayas Sea and the Tañon Strait; and The ICRMP is a seven-year project (July 2007 (iv) the Pujada Bay corridor, an important point of to June 2014) implemented by the Department of convergence of bioregions of the Pacific Ocean and the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Bureau of Celebes Sea. The Zambales marine ecosystem in the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and Municipal Sulu Sea and the Bohol small-island marine ecosystem Development Fund Office (MDFO). It aims to follow the between the Bohol Sea and Sulu Sea were added to “ridge-to-reef” approach for sustainably managing the the project areas for their “high” to “very high” priority coastal resources and to increase income of the fisher marine biodiversity significance and proximity to folks by providing them greater access to livelihood marine corridors. opportunities. Its implementation is supported by US $33.8M loan proceeds from the Asian Development The project covers 80 municipalities as shown in Bank (ADB) and US $9M grant proceeds from the Global the map and table below: Environmental Facility (GEF).

v Component B - ICRM and Biodiversity Conservation

This component promotes basic ICRM and biodiversity conservation practices. Technical assistance was provided to participating LGUs to develop and adopt municipal ICRM plans that shall guide local development initiatives towards sustainable management of coastal resources. In 2011, 63 out of 80 LGUs have already allocated budget to implement ICRM plans. The component also supports the rehabilitation and reforestation of mangrove and watershed areas with active participation of local communities, complementing the National Greening Program (NGP). The project already rehabilitated and reforested about 2,000 hectares of mangrove and about 7,000 hectares of watershed. Other on-going assistance to LGUs include development/adoption of Marine Protected Area (MPA) Management Plans, development of conservation projects, among others. Map of the covered provinces under the ICRMP. Component C - Enterprise Development and PROJECT COMPONENTS Income Diversification Implemented in collaboration between BFAR and Component A - Policy and Institutional DENR, this Component is committed to provide the Strengthening and Development municipal fisherfolks with supplementary income and reduce their reliance on fishing by promoting This component aims to (i) rationalize Government environment-friendly and sustainable enterprises and policy for ICRM and improving coordination livelihoods (e.g. natural salt production, reef discovery, mechanisms, (ii) strengthen national and local etc.). Assistance is on-going to establish about 370 government institutional capacity, and (iii) develop a enterprises/livelihoods that would benefit thousands of performance-based incentive and disincentive system households in the project sites in 2012 to 2014. for local governments. Major accomplishments include (i) development of the National Integrated Coastal Component D - Social and Environmental Management (ICM) Program as mandated by the EO 533, Services and Facilities (ii) completion of various policy studies (e.g. Mangrove Management, Foreshore Management, User’s Fees In collaboration with the Municipal Development and Resource Rents, Environmental and Social Impact Fund Office (MDFO), DENR provides assistance to LGUs Assessment, Live Reef/Food Fish Trade, etc.) which in realizing basic social services requirements of coastal provide corrective measures recommendation on communities and to complement with LGU efforts policy weaknesses and legal gaps in the management to address coastal pollution and mitigate resource of coastal zones and habitats, (iii) provision of trainings degradation. Technical assistance is on-going to LGUs on Biodiversity Conservation, Gender Sensitization, for the development, appraisal and approval of about Environmental Assessment and Review Framework, 30 infrastructure sub-projects (e.g. sanitary landfill, MPA Networks and Institutional Arrangements, Initial materials recovery facility, slaughterhouse, water Environmental Examination, for hundreds of staff from supply, etc.) amounting to roughly PhP 300M. DENR and participating municipalities.

vi (Clockwise from top left) For Component A, a series of planning and review workshops have been conducted, such as the Environmental Assessment and Review Framework for ICRMP Subprojects; For Component B, rehabilitation and reforestation of mangrove forests and watershed areas have complemented the DENR’s National Greening Program (NGP); For Component C, environment-friendly and sustainable enterprises, such as eco-tourism, have been promoted and implemented by the DENR and DA-BFAR; For Component D, the DENR assists LGUs to develop, appraise, and approve infrastructure sub-projects

vii

Foreword

In the end, we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand and we will understand only what we are taught. – Baba Dioum, Senegalese conservationist

The key to understanding the coastal and marine ecosystems is by learning to value the products and services that they provide. Equipping direct and indirect users, namely, policy and decision makers, the coastal communities, and various stakeholders, with the appropriate knowledge, skills, and tools on resource valuation is, thus, a crucial step towards this endeavor.

This publication underscores the need to undertake economic valuation studies and establish market-based instruments and user fee systems. The Workshop conducted in 2011 covered the results on surveys on resource rents from municipalities of two sites of the Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project (ICRMP), as well as, the assessment of the implementation of DENR Administrative Order 2000-51 or “Guidelines and Principle in Determining Fees for Access to and Sustainable Use of Resources in Protected Areas.”

May this Policy Study be a promising instrument as national and local implementers proceed with the implementation of the workplans on user fee studies and/or setting of user fees which emanated from the Workshop conducted in 2011.

Theresa Mundita S.Director Lim Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau

Message

The ADB-assisted Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project (ICRMP) supported the Philippine Government’s efforts to address the critical issues of sustainable management of the coastal and marine resources. One of the identified major activities is the conduct of study on policies governing user fees and resource rents of major coastal habitats.

This publication, Policy Paper on User Fees and Resource Rents, seeks to improve and promote the sustainable management of coastal and marine resources by highlighting ecosystem processes in terms of the production and delivery of services across human and habitat linkages.

It is the hope of this Department that other project sites of ICRMP can follow suit and conduct their own surveys to set their respective user fee schemes. With a better appreciation of the economic and legal principles behind the setting of appropriate user fees and estimating resource rents in major coastal habitats, the key players in conservation and protection efforts – from scientists, policy makers, decision bodies, industry sectors, to grassroots practitioners – are set towards making sustainable management happen.

UndersecretaryAtty. Analizaand Chief ofR. StaffTeh Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Message

Coastal and marine ecosystems are richly diverse and complex. Their ecological functions and processes are essential to the regulation and provision of ecosystem services to society. The multiple uses of these environments are further translated into economic activities which benefit the people and nation as a whole. Through economic valuation, we will learn that sustainable schemes can, be devised. For instance, ecotourism programs can be developed in such a way that natural resources will provide recreational value to tourists and at the same time ensure their protection and conservation.

The municipal fishing sector can charge registration and license fees. Meanwhile, rents for the use of coastal and marine resources can be made site-specific. These and other policy recommendations on user fees and resource rents on major coastal and marine habitats are underscored in this publication.

The DENR is in line with the its conservation and protection mandates by converting ecosystem functions, such as, production, regulation, protection, among others, into quantitative values and by recognizing the dynamic linkages between the land- and water-based ecosystems. Policy and decision makers are, thus, invited to scale up studies and plans in incorporating the proper resource valuation systems and tools for resolving conflict and gaps in managing the coastal and marine environments.

Ramon J.P. Paje Secretary Department of Environment and Natural Resources

xiii

Introduction

This book is the fourth in a compilation of ten technical and policy papers on Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) in the Philippines. The compilation entitled Sustaining our Coasts: The Ridge-to-Reef Approach aims to provide decision makers, managers and field implementers with a sound policy environment for ICM.

User Fees for Marine Protected Areas and Resource Rents for Major Coastal Habitats, provides information on appropriate instruments on prescribing fees for access to and sustainable use of resources in protected areas, as stipulated in DENR Administrative Order (DAO) 2000-51, which set the guidelines and overriding principles in the utilization of these resources. The workshop conducted in October 2011 involving DENR, DA-BFAR, and Local Government Units resulted to a better appreciation of the economic and legal principles behind the setting of user fees and resource rents in major coastal habitats. From the outputs of primary surveys conducted in 11 municipalities of Cagayan and 11 municipalities/city of Masbate, workplans have been formulated for the conduct of further user fee studies.

With more than three decades of experience in coastal resources management, the Philippines has undertaken a progressive journey towards ICM. Managing the coastal and marine resources has progressed into taking on a “ridge-to-reef” approach that is integrative, holistic, multi-sectoral, and ecosystem-based, in order to address the inter-linkages among associated watersheds, estuaries and wetlands, and coastal seas. Significantly, Executive Order No. 533, which was issued on 6 June 2006, has adopted ICM as the national strategy and policy framework to ensure the sustainable development of the coastal and marine environment and resources. Alongside this major landmark in the history of ICM development is the opportunity to strengthen ICM practice in the country through the Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project (ICRMP).

The DENR, in consultation with other concerned agencies, sectors and stakeholders, has conducted policy and technical studies on user fees and resource rents, mangrove management, foreshore management, impact monitoring, and management effectiveness tracking for Marine Protected Areas. The results of these studies have been packaged into a compilation of technical and policy papers comprising:

1. National Integrated Coastal Management Program (NICMP) for Sustainable Development of the Coastal and Marine Environment and Resources of the Philippines; 2. Mangrove Management; 3. The Emerging Challenges of Foreshore Management: A Review of Foreshore-related Laws and Policies, Institutional Arrangements and Issues; 4. User Fees for Marine Protected Areas and Resource Rents for Major Coastal Habitats; 5. Environmental Impact Monitoring System (EIMS);

xv 6. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) for MPA; 7. Marine Protected Areas under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act; 8. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment; 9. Live Reef/Food Fish Trade; and 10. Environmental Hazard Management

May this compilation direct, guide, and support implementers from concerned government agencies and local government units, including private and public sectors, and other stakeholders, and ultimately, attain the expected outcome of sustainably managed coastal resources and increased income for coastal communities.

Jacob F. Meimban, Jr. Executive Director Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau Coastal and Marine Management Office About the Papers

NATIONAL ICM PROGRAM MANGROVE MANAGEMENT

he Philippines, through the passage of Executive he DENR, through PAWB-CMMO and the Integrated Order No. 533 in 2006, has adopted Integrated Coastal Coastal Resources Management Project (ICRMP), ManagementT (ICM) as the national strategy to ensure recognizesT the urgency of restoring, developing, protecting, sustainable development of the coastal and marine maintaining and managing mangrove resources in light environment and resources. of the current problems on food security, environmental stability, social development and economic growth in EO No. 533 mandates DENR to develop a National ICM coastal communities. Such development is affected by Program (NICMP), in consultation with other concerned climate change. To achieve this, it has to formulate policies agencies, sectors and stakeholders to provide direction, on mangroves that will guide DENR in the implementation support and guidance to local government units (LGUs) and of its mandates in the mangrove areas of the country. stakeholders in the development and implementation of their local ICM Programs. For this mangrove policy study, the following policy concerns identified as critical by PAWB-CMMO are: (1) The National ICM Program drew up from the Sustainable Reversion of Abandoned, Undeveloped and Underutilized Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS- Fishponds under Fishpond Lease Agreements to the SEA) Implementation Plan of DENR and PEMSEA and Department of Environment and Natural Resources through the National ICM Program prepared under the Integrated the National Convergence Approach; (2) Cancellation Coastal Resources Management Program (ICRMP). The of Illegally Titled Fishponds and Illegally Constructed streamlining of these two initiatives was undertaken by Fishponds in Classified Forestland and Reclassification CMMO and PEMSEA, leading to the development of a of Intact Mangrove Forest in Classified Alienable and unified and comprehensive NICMP that accounts for all Disposable Land; (3) Special Agreement for Mangrove Area sectoral, local and transboundary initiatives under a common Development as a Legal Instrument for the Development agenda of goals, targets, outputs and measurable outcomes, and Management of Mangrove Areas Including Beach Areas including the establishment of a national ICM coordinating and Foreshore Areas under the Administrative Jurisdiction mechanism. The NICMP is set to provide direction, support of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources; and guidance to local government units and stakeholders (4) Implementation of Laws and Relevant Administrative in the development and implementation of their local ICM Issuances Relating to Foreshore Areas that are Actually programs. Mangrove Areas; and (5) Repeal of the Policy Prohibiting the Cutting of Mangrove Forest and in the Collection of Forest Charges Therefrom Embodied in RA 7161.

To address the mangrove policy problems, draft administrative orders were prepared, namely: (1) Draft JAO: “Guidelines on the Reversion of Abandoned, Undeveloped and Underutilized Fishponds under Fishpond Lease Agreements to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources through the National Convergence Approach”; (2) Draft DAO: “Cancellation of Illegally Titled Fishponds and Illegally Constructed Fishponds in Classified Forestland and Reclassification of Intact Mangrove Forest in Classified Alienable and Disposable Land”; and (3) Draft DAO: “Special Agreement for Mangrove Area Development as a Legal Instrument for the Development and Management of Mangrove Areas Including Beach Areas and Foreshore Areas under the Administrative Jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources”, among others.

xvii FORESHORE MANAGEMENT USER FEES AND RESOURCE RENTS

ffective management of foreshore areas in the Philippines inancing of programs and projects is critical to the requires a shift in the government’s development sustainable management of protected areas. The paradigm.E While there are existing laws and policies formulationF of appropriate instruments for prescribing governing foreshore, the dominant perspective articulated by fees for the enjoyment and sustainable use of resources in these policies has been one of utilization. Current policies and protected areas is the main focus of DAO 2000-51. A focus guidelines focus on the use and development of the foreshore group discussion was held among PAMB and DENR staff in area and inadequately provide the legal protection needed by the implementation of the DAO, and a number of constraints the foreshore and its adjacent shore lands. have been identified in its smooth implementation in the field. Recommendations to address these constraints are The challenges faced by the coastal zone include among composed of the following, among others: (1) The PAWB may others, weak enforcement of existing laws and guidelines, try to maximize its existing projects and external funding the jurisdictional conflicts and institutional overlaps among sources to contract out the estimation of user fees in NIPAS various agencies exercising responsibilities covering the PAs. The skills required for estimating user fees do not seem foreshore and the coastal zone. to match the set of skills possessed by the current PAMB staff complement; (2) PAMB staff members should be oriented The policy study has identified the following key concerns with the results of existing valuation and user fee studies, so in addressing the problems and issues facing the management that cross-learning may be achieved. In PAs where it may be of foreshore areas: (1) Harmonization of development too costly for PAWB-DENR to contract out user fee setting paradigms perspectives in order to integrate conservation, studies, results for other PAs may be applied to them granted coastal zone management, and such concerns as climate resources, uses and users are similar in nature. PAWB can change, local development planning and disaster risk therefore do an inventory of all user fees being implemented reduction; and (2)Pursuit of vigorous enforcement strategies and recommended in all NIPAS sites, and share them with all and participatory and inclusive monitoring processes to PAMB staff members nationwide; (3) The NIPAS law provides ensure implementation of existing laws and guidelines. a much wider discretion for fines to be set at higher levels. PAMBs might consider setting their respective fines at levels The study recommends the following ways forward: (1) that approximate the amount of damages potentially incurred Developing a Foreshore Management Policy Agenda; (2) by specific violations; and (4) In areas where overlaps of NIPAS Inter-agency or multi-institutional Assessment of Policies PAs occur with other legal instruments such as the Local and Programs relating to Foreshore; (3) Capacity/Training Government Code, the Fisheries Code or the CADTs through Needs Assessment and Information and Education of key the IPRA, it is suggested that PAMBs explore the possibility stakeholders in foreshore “hotspots”; (4) Building More of co-management arrangements with other management Effective Enforcement Strategies, including multipartite stakeholders such as LGUs or IP groups. There are some PAs monitoring schemes and the setting up of a systematic that have successfully pursued this arrangement such as in inventory (or database) of foreshore cases and legal problems; Tubbataha Reef Natural Park and St. Paul Subterranean River. and (5) Revisiting/Reviewing comprehensive land and water use plans of LGUs. The following outputs emanated from the workshop: (1) Identification of possible resource uses for implementation of user fee studies; (2) Formulation of workplans for the conduct of user fee studies and/or for setting user fees within their respective jurisdictions; and (3) A better appreciation of the economic and legal principles behind the setting of appropriate user fees and estimating resource rents in major coastal habitats. Photos by: Badi Samaniego xviii ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING SYSTEM (EIMS) TRACKING TOOL (METT) FOR MPA

he ICRMP small scale subprojects that would require he Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool has been the preparation of IEE and the acquisition of ECC from developed by the World Bank/WWF Alliance Worldwide EMBT are subject to Environmental Impact Monitoring (EIM) toT help track and monitor progress in protected area in accordance with the EIA law. However the Environmental management effectiveness. It is designed to be a basic and Management Bureau’s prescribed requirements for EIM are simple mechanism for monitoring progress towards more designed for large projects that are environmentally critical effective management over time. It was initially developed (ECPs) and for non-ECPs that are located in environmentally for terrestrial protected areas that later became the basis for critical areas (ECAs) as defined under the EIA law. the development of the tracking tool for marine protected areas (MPA). The MPA tracking tool uses a Score Card In view of this, the Environmental Impact Monitoring developed by the World Bank in 2004 to assess progress System (EIMS) is designed for subprojects under ICRMP to in achieving management effectiveness goals for Marine ensure that the (1) environmental management plan and the Protected Areas. The Score Card has been built around the required conditions under the ECC are properly implemented application of the World Commission Protected Area (WCPA) by the project proponent; (2) to determine the effectiveness Framework comprising of six components i.e. context, of environmental management measures in reducing planning, implementation, inputs, outputs and outcomes. the actual impacts of the subprojects; and (3) to use the information gathered in improving project design, correcting It was developed with the following attributes: (1) It flaws and addressing deficiencies in project implementation. is capable of providing a harmonized reporting system for forest protected area assessment within both the World The EIMS has two components: (1) Compliance Bank and WWF; (2) It is suitable for replication; (3) It is able monitoring; and (2) Impact monitoring. Compliance to supply consistent data to allow tracking of progress over monitoring determines whether the project proponent is time; (4) It is relatively quick and easy to be completed by able to implement the actions such as mitigation measures protected area staff or managers, so as not to be reliant on that are required. Impact monitoring, on the other hand, is high levels of funding or other resources; (5) It is capable of to measure and determine the environmental changes that providing a “score” if required; and (6) It is based around a can be attributed to project construction or operation and to system that provides four alternative text answers to each check the effectiveness of mitigation measures put in place question, strengthening the scoring system. by the proponent. As per the Project Management Consultant’s Terms of The EIMS also involves the development of the Reference, the WB score card will be used by the ICRMP for Environmental Monitoring Framework and Plan. The monitoring and evaluation of the management effectiveness Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMoP) provides the of MPAs. However, since this is the first time the WB score card parameters and indicators to be monitored, source(s) of is used to assess locally managed MPAs in the Philippines, it samples, frequency of monitoring, method of analysis was essential to test whether in its current format and content and responsible institution(s) for each proposed ICRMP this assessment tool is suitable to test the management subprojects. The monitoring framework will serve to guide effectiveness of ICRMP locally managed MPAs. The METT the project implementers and stakeholders in monitoring test-run exercise was conducted in parallel with the ICRMP the performance and effects or impacts of the mitigation catch-up activities and the development of MPA Plan and measures. management planning guidelines. This created opportunities for an effective iterative feedback process leading to several In addition to formulating a monitoring program, it is modifications and refinements of the original WB Score Card. also crucial to work out a plan for its implementation. This Indeed, during the MPA management planning workshops, includes assigning institutional roles and responsibility, several management concerns were identified that were reporting requirements, enforcement capability, and not covered in the original WB Score Card, hence, additional ensuring that adequate resources, in terms of staffing and questions were incorporated to cover these specific aspects skills, equipment, training and budget are provided to support as will be further described in the report. EIMS implementation. Photos by: Badi Samaniego

xix

User Fees for Marine Protected Areas and Resource Rents for Major Coastal Habitats

Contents

List of Figures xxii Meeting Highlights 14 List of Tables xxii Recommendations 16 Acronyms and Abbreviations xxvi Estimating User Fees and Resource Rents in 18 Executive Summary 1 Major Coastal Habitats Survey Design and Methods 18 Introduction 5 Mangroves 18 Foreshore Areas 19 Estimating Resource Rents: Economic and 7 Coral Reefs 19 Legal Framework Survey Sites 20 Economic Framework 7 Training of Enumerators 20 Legal Framework 8 Survey Schedule 20 National Integrated Protected Areas 8 System (NIPAS) ACT Survey Results Wildlife Act 9 Mangroves 22 Fisheries Code 9 Fishpond Operations 22 E.O. 533: Integrated Coastal 9 Nipa Harvesting in Cagayan 29 Management Resource Gathering in Masbate 33 Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) 10 Foreshore Areas 38 Clean Water Act 10 Rent Estimates from Revenues and 39 Climate Change Act 10 Costs Rules and Regulations Governing 10 Rent Estimates using CA 141 41 Foreshore Areas, Marshy Lands and Coral Reefs 44 Other Lands Bordering Bodies of Fisheries 44 Water Tourism Establishments 52 Rules and Regulations Governing the 11 Prospects for Ecotourism 55 Lease of Public Lands for Fishpond Economic Value of Ecotourism 56 Development Regulations Governing the Utilization, 11 Policy Recommendations 56 Development and Management of Mangroves 56 Mangrove Resources Foreshore Areas 57 Coral Reefs 58 Literature Review 12 Review of DAO 2000-51 13 Bibliography 77 Methodology for Review 13 Annexes Annex G: Survey of Foreshore Area 104 Annex A: Dao 2000-51 78 Occupants in Cagayan and Masbate

Annex B: Focus Group Discussion 84 Annex H: Survey of Tourism Establishments 105 on “Guidelines and Principles in Cagayan and Masbate for Determining Fees for Access to and Sustainable Use of Resources in Annex I: Survey of Municipal and Commercial 108 Protected Areas” Fishers in Cagayan and Masbate

Annex C: Survey of Fish Pond, Fish Cage 86 Annex J: General Perceptions on Factors and Aqua-Silviculture Operators Affecting Fishing Activities, Cagayan and 114 Masbate Annex D: Survey Instrument for Nipa 91 Harvesters in Cagayan Annex K: Workshop Proceedings 117

Annex E: Survey of Mangrove Park 96 Annex L: List of Workshop Participants 124 Managers in Masbate

Annex F: Survey Instrument for Resource 99 Gatherers in Masbate Mangrove Parks LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES

Figure Description Page Table Description Page No. No. 1 Breakout Groups during the Training 4 1 Survey Sites and Sample Sizes in 21 Workshop on Estimating User Fees Cagayan for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) 2 Survey Sites and Sample Sizes in 21 and Resource Rents for Major Coastal Masbate Habitats. 3 Distribution of Enumerators per 21 Coastal Habitat in Cagayan 2 Foreshore Area 11 4 Distribution of Enumerators per 21 Coastal Habitat in Masbate 3 Mangrove Forest in Sta. Ana 56 Cagayan 5 Demographic Profile of Fishpond 22 Operators, Masbate and Cagayan, 4 Foreshore Area 57 2010 6 Educational Attainment of Fishpond 23 5 Coral Reef 58 Operators in Masbate and Cagayan, Frequency in %, 2010 6 Day 1, Workshop in Estimating User 119 7 Annual Average Household Income 23 Fees for MPA and Resource Rents of Fishpond Operators, Masbate and for Major Coastal Habitats Cagayan, 2010 8 No. of Fishpond Lease Agreement 24 7 Presentation on Legal Framework 120 (FLA) Holders in Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 8 Break-out Groups in “Resource Uses 120 9 Tenure Status of Fishponds in 24 in Respective Coastal Habitats” Masbate and Cagayan, Frequency in %, 2010 9 Sharing of the Results of Foreshore 121 Area Policy Study 10 Average Number per Household and 25 Size of Fishponds in Cagayan and 10 Presentation in Estimating User 121 Masbate, 2010 Fees and Resource Rents 11 Average Net Income from Fishpond 25 Operations in Cagayan and Masbate, 11 Presentation of the Survey Results 122 per HH per year, In PhP, 2010 Conducted into Two Pilot Sites 12 Resource Rent Estimates for Fishpond 26 (Cagayan and Masbate) Operators in Masbate and Cagayan, per Household per year, in PhP, 2010 12 Break-out Group in Planning for 123 13 Attainment of Maximum Production, 26 Estimating User Fees in Respective Fishpond Operators in Masbate and Coastal Habitats Cagayan, Frequency in %, 2010 14 Productivity Trends in Fishpond 27 Operations, Masbate and Cagayan, Frequency in %, 2010 15 Perceived Negative Impacts of 27 Fishpond Operations in Masbate and Cagayan, Frequency in %, 2010 16 Willingness to Pay for Rental Fees for 28 Fishpond Operations in Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 xxiii LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table Description Page Table Description Page No. No. 17 Average and Total Area Used for 28 29 Average Annual Income from 34 Fishpond Operations, Cagayan and Resource Gathering, in PhP, 2010 Masbate, 2010 30 Annual Average Volume of 35 18 Demographic Profile of Nipa 29 Mangrove Resource Harvested in Gatherers in Cagayan, 2010 Sample Masbate Mangroves, per Household, in Kilos, 2010 19 Average Annual Income from Nipa 29 Harvesting and Other Sources, 31 No. of Harvesting Days in a Year, 35 Cagayan Nipa Harvesters, in PhP, Masbate Resource Gatherers, 2010 2010 32 Net Income from Resource 36 20 Major Uses of Nipa Harvested, 30 Gathering, Masbate, 2010 Cagayan, 2010 33 Resource Rent Estimates from 36 21 Revenues and Costs Of Nipa 30 Resource Gathering in Sample Harvesters Producing Both Shingles Masbate Mangroves, 2010 and Wine, Cagayan, per HH per year, in PhP, 2010 34 Perceived Trends in Resource 36 Harvesting, Masbate, 2010 22 Revenues and Costs of Nipa 30 Harvesters Producing Shingles, 35 Problems Experienced in Resource 37 Cagayan, per HH per year, In PhP, Gathering, Sample Masbate 2010 Mangroves, 2010 23 Revenues and Costs Of Nipa 31 Harvesters Producing Wine, 36 WTP for Resource User Fees for 37 Cagayan, per HH per year, In PhP, Resource Gathering, Sample 2010 Masbate Mangroves, 2010

24 Perceived Trends in Nipa Harvesting, 31 37 Inventory of Foreshore Area 38 Cagayan, 2010 Occupants in Sample Municipalities in Cagayan and Masbate, 2010 25 Measures Taken to Increase 32 Productivity, Cagayan Nipa 38 Foreshore Area Occupants in 39 Harvesters, 2010 Masbate and Cagayan, by Purpose of Establishment, 2010 26 Willingness to Pay User Fees by Nipa 33 Harvesters in Cagayan, 2010 39 Type of Infrastructure, Forehore 39 Area Occupants, Masbate and 27 Demographic Profile of Resource 33 Cagayan, 2010 Gatherers in Masbate, 2010 40 Average Acquisition Costs per 40 28 Other Sources of Income, Mangrove 34 Establishment in Foreshore Areas, Resource Gatherers in Masbate, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 2010

xxiv LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table Description Page Table Description Page No. No. 41 Revenues and Costs of Commercial 40 53 Resource Rent Estimates from 49 Establishments in Foreshore Areas, Fishing, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 Cagayan and Masbate, 2010 54 Perceived Frequency of Fishing 50 42 Annual Rent Estimates Based 41 Violations Being Caught, Masbate on Excess Profit, Commercial and Cagayan, 2010 Establishments in Foreshore Areas in Cagayan and Masbate, 2010 55 Perceived Probabilities of 51 Enforcement of Fishing Laws, 43 Average Total Area Occupied by 42 Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 Establishments in Foreshore Areas, in Square Meters, Cagayan and 56 Perceived Effectiveness of Bantay 51 Masbate, 2010 Dagat Teams in Masbate and Cagayan, 2011 44 Beach Front Property Prices in 42 Cagayan and Masabate, in PhP per 57 Attractions and Recreational 52 square meter, 2011 Activities Offered, Masbate and Cagayan, Frequencies in %, 2010 45 Annual Rent Estimates per 43 Establishment in Foreshore Areas 58 Gross Revenues of Tourism 52 Using CA 141, Masbate and Cagayan, Establishments in Masbate and 2011 Cagayan, in PhP, 2010

46 Annual Foregone Income from 43 59 Costs of Tourism Establishments in 53 Sample Foreshore Area Occupants, Masbate and Cagayan, in PhP, 2010 Masbate and Cagayan, 2011 60 Resource Rents of Tourism 53 47 Demographic Profile of Fishers 44 Establishments in Masbate and Surveyed in Masbate and Cagayan, Cagayan, in PhP, 2010 2010 61 Recommendations of Tourism 54 48 Average Household Income for 45 Establishments to Boost Tourism in Fishers in Masbate and Cagayan, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 2010 62 Summary of Policy 59 49 Purchase and Maintenance Costs 45 Recommendations on User Fees in of Fishing Boats in Masbate and Major Coastal Habitats in Masbate Cagayan, 2010 and Cagayan, 2011

50 Purchase and Maintenance Costs of 46 63 Workshop 1 Outputs: Resources, 62 Fishing Gear Used in Masbate and Uses and Users in Major Coastal Cagayan, 2010 Habitats

51 Gross Revenues from Fishing, 47 64 Workshop 2 Outputs: Workplans in 70 Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 Estimating User Fees and Resource Rents 52 Production and Operating Costs in 48 Fishing, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 xxv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CA Commonwealth Act FSP Fisheries Sector Program CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim GAA General Appropriations Act CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title ICM Integrated Coastal Management CC Climate Change ICRM Integrated Coastal Resource CCEF Coastal Conservation and Education Management Foundation, Inc. ICRMP Integrated Coastal Resources CENRO Community Environment and Natural Management Project Resources Office IEC Information, Education CI Conservation International and Communication CRM Coastal Resource Management IPAF Integrated Protected Area Fund CTI Coral Triangle Initiative IPRA Indigenous People’s Rights Act DA-BFAR Department of Agriculture – Bureau of LGU Local Government Unit Fisheries and Aquatic Resources MPA Marine Protected Area DAO DENR Administrative Order MPR Margin for Profit and Risk DAP Development Academy of the NAPOCOR National Power Corp. Philippines NEDA National Economic and Development DBM Department of Budget and Authority Management NEWCAPP New Conservation Areas for Protection DENR Department of Environment and in the Philippines Natural Resources NGO Non-government Organization DOE Department of Energy NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas DOT Department of Tourism System DOTC Department of Transportation and NPOA National Plan of Action Communications NRDC Natural Resources Development Corp. DPWH Department of Public Works and NSCB National Statistical Coordination Board Highways OFW Overseas Filipino Worker ECC Environmental Certificate of PA Protected Area Compliance PAMB Protected Area Management Board EMB Environmental Management Bureau PASu Protected Area Superintendent ENR Environment and Natural Resources PAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau ENRAP Environmental and Natural Resources PPA Philippine Ports Authority Accounting Project RA Republic Act FGD Focus Group Discussion REECS Resources, Environment and Econom- FISH Fisheries for Improved Sustainable ics Center for Studies, Inc. Harvest UNDP United Nations Development Program FLA Fishpond Lease Agreement USAID United States Agency for International FMB Forest Management Bureau Development FRMP Fisheries Resource Management WTP Willingness to Pay Project WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

xxvi Executive Summary

inancing programs and projects is critical to the 4. In areas where overlaps of NIPAS PAs occur sustainable management of protected areas. with other legal instruments such as the The formulation of appropriate instruments for Local Government Code, the Fisheries Fprescribing fees for the enjoyment and sustainable Code or the CADTs through the IPRA, it is use of resources in protected areas is the main focus of suggested that PAMBs explore the possibility DENR Administrative Order (DAO) 2000-51. of co-management arrangements with other management stakeholders such as LGUs A focus group discussion was held among PAMB or IP groups. There are some PAs that have and DENR staff in the implementation of the DAO, successfully pursued this arrangement such as and a number of constraints have been identified in its in Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park and St. Paul’s smooth implementation in the field. Recommendations Subterranean River. to address these constraints are composed of the following: 5. In areas where conflicts arise among the various units within DENR (e.g. the case of Mt. 1. The PAWB may try to maximize its existing projects Isarog), the issue might be better resolved at a and external funding sources to contract out the higher level of management, such as the level estimation of user fees in NIPAS PAs. The skills of the Regional Executive Director, or even at required for estimating user fees do not seem to the Central Office level. This is an internal issue match the set of skills possessed by the current that can be resolved within DENR itself. PAMB staff complement. 6. For large users of PA resources, intervention 2. PAMB staff members should be oriented with the might be needed at the national level, e.g. results of existing valuation and user fee studies, so with NWRB, DOE, DOTC, AFP, etc. For users that cross-learning may be achieved. In PAs where who complain that the fees are too high, the it may be too costly for PAWB-DENR to contract PAMB will simply have to assert its right in out user fee setting studies, results for other PAs collecting such fees, provided that the fees are may be applied to them granted resources, uses economically justified. This is where economic and users are similar in nature. PAWB can therefore valuation studies serve their purpose. do an inventory of all user fees being implemented and recommended in all NIPAS sites, and share 7. In areas where numerous fees are collected them with all PAMB staff members nationwide. from tourists and collection becomes too costly both for the PAMB and the users, 3. The NIPAS law provides a much wider discretion the PAMB might consider rationalizing and for fines to be set at higher levels. PAMBs might simplifying their fee system. consider setting their respective fines at levels that approximate the amount of damages potentially 8. Whenever user fees are introduced, it incurred by specific violations. is always good practice to conduct IEC activities before the fees are imposed on 1 users, especially if the Park’s resources were not IPAF Governing Board. Given that the Board has subjected to user fees earlier. not met in years and there are no plans of reviving it, the PAWB may wish to issue guidelines and 9. On the matter of disbursement of IPAF funds, the criteria for all PAs to allow them to submit requests meeting agreed to take up the matter with the for accessing the National IPAF Funds. new administration, with the hope that the new Secretaries of DBM and DENR will be more open Surveys were conducted among the various users to a more decentralized process of disbursing IPAF of the major coastal habitats in Masbate and Cagayan. funds. The process involved is detailed in the main report, and the survey instruments used are attached as Annexes. 10. Finally, on the issue of accessing the National Policy recommendations emanating from the survey IPAF, PAWB may wish to review the need for an results may be summarized accordingly:

Habitat Type of Fee Amount Remarks Mangroves Fishpond Operations Masbate: PhP 1,000 to Use minimum amount to target all fishponds 29,000 /ha/yr to be regulated, use higher amount to decrease Cagayan: PhP 1,000 to the total number of fishponds 632,000 /ha/yr Net benefit from mangroves: BFAR to get into co-management schemes with PhP 9,000 /ha/yr LGUs for monitoring fishpond operations Nipa gatherers in PhP 180 / hh/ yr Cagayan Resource gatherers in PhP 76 /hh/yr Masbate Foreshore areas Foreshore lease 3% of market value per Use market values of beachfront lots being sold agreements square meter, using lowest in the province and highest beachfront prices in the province for If total area of establishment is not available, the range 1% value of use average size in this study, using 2 categories improvements of small-medium and large scale

If 1% value of improvements is not available, use average values in this study for the two categories of small-medium and large scale

Inventory of establishments needs to be done

DENR may get into co-management arrangements with LGUs to undertake inventory and to monitor FLAs Coral Reefs Commercial fishing Maximum of PhP 130,000 BFAR may decide on a certain percentage of license fees per vessel per year rent to be captured, with increasing levels over a certain period, e.g. every 5 years Municipal fishing PhP 500 in Masbate (10% of LGU can decide on the percentage of rent to be registration and license rent) captured fees PhP 1,000 in Cagayan (1% of rent) Enforcement should be undertaken more vigorously

Need for increasing rent in Masbate, e.g. MPA establishment, decreasing fishing effort Tourism establishments PhP 700 to 6,000 in Masbate Lower range values will encourage all PhP 2,400 to 15,000 in establishments to register; Higher range values Cagayan will force establishments to be more efficient, and increase revenues of LGUs Ecotourism PhP 1,000 – 3,000 per visitor Should be adjusted later on to account for WTP of visitors, when surveys can already be conducted Filming PhP 20,000 per day Can be adjusted to account for long periods of filming in the same area

2 The training workshop was intended to share the will they fund, etc. Finally, violators should not be results of the primary surveys conducted in the 11 allowed to use the payment of user fees as an excuse municipalities of Cagayan and 11 municipalities and to continue violating. Illegal activities should simply be City of Masbate. As far as user fees set at the national subjected to enforcement of the law, and should not be level are concerned, such as commercial fishing license part of the target respondents and stakeholders for user fees and fishpond lease agreements, the workshop fee schemes. intended to share these results in order to facilitate implementation of revised fees, in the event that they Collection schemes should be as simple as possible do get revised. both for the collector and the user/s. Too many layers of fees tend to make transactions costs too high. On the whole, there are enough legal bases for using economic instruments based on resource rent With respect to foreshore areas, instead of both estimates to provide incentives and disincentives in DENR and LGUs collecting fees, it would be better if marine and coastal conservation using the pricing they enter into a co-management scheme and share scheme. Problems arise when there are conflicts in the revenues instead. The process can be started with the government bureaucracy on which agency has the ICRMP sites and identify which LGUs are interested primary mandate to manage specific coastal areas. in entering such schemes. This can be part of the Co-management schemes among DENR, BFAR and management guidelines being finalized at the national LGUs are being proposed, given that their mandates level. overlap and cannot be finely delineated. BFAR was recommended to complete the inventory of operating The potential for navigational routes to be subjected and abandoned fishponds, possibly through ICRMP to user fees has not yet been studied extensively, at least assistance, and provide the list to DENR and the in the Philippines. The CMMO may wish to consider this concerned LGUs. for future work.

In the case of estimating license fees for fishing, On the Supreme Court decision regarding Manila economic rent should be used as the primary basis, but Bay, CMMO was requested to provide copies of the total fishing effort should still be within the established continuing mandamus order to all those interested levels of maximum sustainable yield and maximum within DENR. economic yield. Fishpond operators were shown to be earning huge Breakout groups, divided by province, came amounts of excess profit. Unfortunately, many of these out with their respective lists of resources, uses and are not even registered with the BFAR, hence are not users in major coastal habitats found in their areas paying even the minimal amount of fishpond lease of jurisdiction. The initial list can serve as the primary agreements issued by the agency. Some LGUs allegedly inputs in determining which resource uses can be issue permits for fishpond operations. This needs to be subjected to user fees. Participants were cautioned validated and coordinated with BFAR, since the latter about imposing fees for all types of users, especially if is the only agency mandated to issue Fishpond Lease the major users involved belong to the poorer sections Agreements (FLAs). of the population. Capacity or ability to pay is also an important consideration, as well as the transaction costs Inventories were attempted in survey sites for involved for those who will implement the scheme. foreshore areas. None of the establishments were holders of Foreshore Lease Agreements (FLAs); hence Participants were encouraged to make specific none of them have paid any FLA fees to DENR. The proposals for ICRMP funding, particularly in conducting participants were urged to validate the survey results inventories in foreshore areas and undertaking IEC themselves. The estimated foregone income from the campaigns on how to properly manage foreshore areas. survey sites alone was substantial.

The databases developed from the surveys will be In terms of how much of resource rent should be provided to the CMMO and their partner LGUs. collected as user fees, it was recommended that only a small percentage be collected. This is to leave enough In deciding on the actual fees, study results provide incentive for further economic development, especially good starting points for negotiation. However, the if unemployment is a problem in the area. Participants decision is more political in the end, and it will depend who were interested in setting up their own user fee on the negotiating skills of the government, as well as schemes but could not afford to undertake primary the other party, on how much the actual fees will end surveys were encouraged to look at previous studies up being. As a general rule for first timers, it is more and adopt results that are applicable to their situation. important to get their cooperation to pay a positive If user fees do not seem feasible because of the nature amount in recognition that use rights should not come of the users, e.g. those belonging to low income groups, for free. User fees should be differentiated from permits other sustainable financing schemes may be considered, and license fees, the latter merely referring to the such as public-private partnerships. privilege of conducting a business. Corollary to that, it is equally important to establish what the user fees will be The second breakout group discussed used for, i.e. how they will be disbursed, what programs each province’s work plan in estimating and 3 establishing user fee systems for their various coastal 3. A better appreciation of the economic and legal habitats and uses. For the provinces of Masbate and principles behind the setting of appropriate Cagayan, their workplans focused on next steps on user fees and estimating resource rents in how to implement the study recommendations. For major coastal habitats the other ICRMP sites, primary surveys are planned to be undertaken once they can identify where to source A CD compiling all powerpoint presentations, their funds. It is recommended that the CMMO through workshop outputs, directory of participants, photos, the ICRMP project assist in funding these activities if the and two manuals on resource valuation which was current project funds will allow. Furthermore, it would distributed to all participants of the workshop. be good if CMMO would be able to regularly monitor the progress of the implementation of these workplans, On monitoring and evaluation, NGAs will have to and provide assistance if the ICRMP sites find difficulty complete their inventories before a comprehensive in some of the tasks identified. monitoring system can be set up. It will however be difficult to properly match their revenues with CRM The following outputs emanated from the workshop: expenses given that proceeds from national level user fees go straight to the National Treasury. LGUs can set 1. Identification of possible resource uses for up a proper monitoring system if their CRM plans are implementation of user fee studies; translated into business plans, so that revenues raised from user fees and resource rents can be properly 2. Formulation of workplans for the conduct of matched with CRM plan implementation. user fee studies and/or for setting user fees within their respective jurisdictions; and

Figure 1. Breakout Groups during the Training Workshop on Estimating User Fees for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Resource Rents for Major Coastal Habitats.

4 User Fees for Marine Protected Areas and Resource Rents for Major Coastal Habitats

INTRODUCTION

he coastal and marine resources of the The ADB-assisted Integrated Coastal Resources Philippines are of national and global importance Management Project (ICRMP) attempts to support because of their rich biodiversity and valuable the Government’s efforts to address the critical issues Tcontribution to the economy. However, these resources of sustainable management of marine and coastal are declining and biodiversity is under threat due to resources. One of the identified major activities is the human activities. Coral reefs, mangroves, sea grass, study on user fees and resource rents of major coastal and other important coastal habitats are under severe habitats. Within the first three (3) years of the Project, stress with consequential decrease in the production of such studies need to be pilot-tested in at least six (6) coastal fisheries.1 municipalities and completed within the identified project sites. The pilot sites will be a combination of “Since the mid-1980s, the Government has marine protected areas established pursuant to the implemented a number of coastal resources National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS), management programs, mostly as technical assistance Local Government Code and the Fisheries Code of from multilateral and bilateral agencies and some as 1998. The main stakeholders that will be involved and part of major investment and policy initiatives in the strengthened are multi-sectoral organizations involved sector. Interventions under these programs, notably in in ICRM namely: the Protected Area Management marine protected areas, resulted in significant positive Boards and Fisheries Resources and Management impacts on biophysical parameters such as coral cover, Councils. The Local Government Units, DENR and fish catch, and biodiversity; promoted good governance DA-BFAR staffs and other stakeholders will also be practices especially locally with the participation capacitated in the process.3 of local communities in resource management and law enforcement; and created an awareness Indeed, financing of programs and projects is among local officials and coastal communities of critical to the sustainable management of protected the need for conservation and protection of coastal areas. The formulation of appropriate instruments for ecosystems. Despite these significant gains, threats prescribing fees for the enjoyment and sustainable use to the management of coastal resources and marine of resources in protected areas is the main focus of biodiversity persist due to a number of complex factors DAO 2000-51, entitled, “Guidelines and Principles for including lack of an ICRM approach to coastal zone Determining Fees for Access to and Sustainable Use planning, policy and institutional weaknesses, weak law of Resources in Protected Areas”. The Guidelines have enforcement, high poverty incidence among coastal been formulated and detailed Manual of Procedures fisherfolk, and open access to marine and coastal was also issued for the guidance of the respective resources.2 PAMBs designed to effectively and efficiently

3 Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Terms of 1 http://www.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/PHI/33276-PHI-RRP.pdf Reference, ICRMP-IC-01-2009 2 http://www.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/PHI/33276-PHI-RRP.pdf 5 implement the Guidelines at the protected area level. Aside from DAO 2000-51, there are also other successful initiatives in setting up user fee systems that can serve as models within and outside NIPAS.4

This final report contains the results of the focus group discussion held with selected Protected Area Management Board members from ICRMP study sites. The FGD attempted to assess the experiences of PAMBs in implementing DAO 2000-51, including gaps in the current set of rules and challenges PAMB members face in the course of implementation. Recommendations are made in order to take the implementation of DAO 2000-51 forward. The report further provides recommendations on user fees for mangroves, coral reefs and foreshore areas within ICRMP sites based on the results of surveys conducted in Cagayan and Masbate involving the primary users of these ecosystems. Details of the sampling design, the survey methods used, and data analysis leading to policy recommendations are provided in the succeeding sections below. It is hoped that through these recommendations, PAMBs will be able to generate the much-needed revenues for PA management. More importantly, economically sound user fees will hopefully send the appropriate signals and incentives to resource users for sustainable and wise use of resources in the coming years. A workshop was held to share the results of the surveys to other ICRMP sites, and to detail the process that was undertaken in estimating user fees and resource rents for mangroves, foreshore areas and coral reefs. Break-out groups came up with their respective resources, uses and users that can potentially be subjected to user fees and resource rent estimates, all of which were translated into workplans that intend to replicate the results of this study in other ICRMP project areas. The workshop proceedings make up the last section of the report.

4 Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Terms of Reference, ICRMP-IC-01-2009

6 ESTIMATING RESOURCE RENTS: ECONOMIC AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK5 borne by the public in general. In the Philippines, the growing number of MPAs nvironmental degradation, declining natural has attested to the increasing scarcity of natural resources and threats to biodiversity have largely resources in the marine sector due to the increasing been attributed to growing human demand number and intensity of resource use conflicts. The which in turn has led to resource use conflicts. Conflicts management of these marine protected areas itself E is a direct cost which society bears. Government in the use of natural resources have been going on for ages, but conflict intensity that has led to scarcity has resources are allocated for MPA management which occurred only during the last few decades of the 20th in turn decreases the amount of resources that could century. Natural resources have regenerated at a much be used for other government priorities. Despite that, slower pace than the growth in human demand for their government recognizes the need to establish and use. Hence, the current supply cannot satisfy all human manage MPAs because of the welfare gains that society needs and wants anymore. Allowing the use of natural gets from doing so. In other words, there are benefits resources by one group (or type of user) will necessarily that are perceived to outweigh the maintenance and deny its use by others. It then becomes an issue of which operating costs of environmental protection. use/s will have the greatest positive effect on society’s welfare as a whole. The establishment of MPAs also imposes opportunity costs to groups of users who have The last statement begs the question of how does traditionally used the resources without any one measure the various conflicting uses, and how restrictions in the past. Many of these affected groups do these measurements translate into welfare? A are those that reside within or near MPAs and most of complicating factor is the non-market characteristic the benefits they have enjoyed make up a significant of natural resources and their services, i.e. the lack proportion of their livelihoods. The imposition of of market prices for which uses can be measured and regulations and limitations in resource use most compared. Because they do not have prices, they are probably would have caused negative impacts on their treated as free goods with no accompanying costs well-being thus offsetting a proportion of society’s in using them. Yet the very presence of conflicts and welfare gains. In assessing the total impact of MPAs, it scarcity produces a positive value of such goods and will be vital to identify what the benefits and costs are, services based on the benefits enjoyed from their use and to whom will each of them accrue. or consumption. On the other hand, there are costs involved when the use of one group precludes the use The growth of the field of environmental and of others. If the use of such goods and services prevents natural resource economics has led to the development other groups from using them, opportunity costs are of various techniques in measuring the value of these incurred. And because most of these natural resources goods and services. In comparing and contrasting the are located in public lands and waters, the costs are different uses with each other, there should first be a consensus on what the current uses are, and what 5 Rosales, RMP Sept 2006. Walton Foundation & Conservation Internation- uses will be allowed to continue. Some of them al-Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. 7 come into conflict with each other, e.g. extractive vs. Aside from the information that WTP estimates can non-extractive uses, while some are complementary, generate, such as the economic values of environmental e.g. recreational values and sustainable extraction. goods and services, such estimates can further be used Some of them involve direct uses, while some are as basis for economic instruments that can promote indirect. Still, some are what are termed as “non-use” sustainable use. Economic instruments may take the values, such as values derived from the mere knowledge form of licenses, user fees, taxes, charges, permit fees, or reassurance of the existence of natural resources, fines and penalties, and other financial incentives and or the value of bequeathing natural wealth to future disincentives. These instruments can generate revenues generations. Some may involve a significant amount for management authorities and environmental service of uncertainty, such as the value of keeping resources providers in the short run, and alter consumer behavior intact for potential discoveries for medicine or food. towards wiser resource use in the long run. Finally, some may be extremely difficult to quantify albeit should still be recognized, such as cultural and spiritual values of an area. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

In all valuation techniques that have been used, The Philippine Constitution provides for the the concept of “willingness to pay”(WTP) is present. protection and advancement of the right of the people WTP represents the costs to the user of the natural to a balanced and healthful ecology (Article 2, Section good or service, in order to derive the benefits from 16). This declaration has been translated into various such use. It is measured either by actual monetary laws with comprehensive and specific purposes. Among payments, or sometimes by implicit payments through the comprehensive national laws promulgated in other costs incurred in the use of the natural resource Congress are: Republic Act No. 7586, also known as the in question. They can be payments that do not involve National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) money directly, nevertheless are costs on the part of Act, Republic Act 9147 also known as the Wildlife Act the user, such as time or own labor. In measuring WTP, and Republic Act 8550 also known as the Fisheries complications arise when what is being valued is a non- Code. There are also comprehensive Executive Orders market good or service, i.e. no market price exists. issued by the Office of the President that directly relate Various techniques such as the restoration cost method, to biodiversity conservation. Laws in this category that hedonic pricing method, damage cost method, and the have relevant prescriptions on establishing user fees contingent valuation method have been used to come and/or resource rent estimates are enumerated below. up with estimates of WTP for such non-market goods and services. NATIONAL INTEGRATED In many instances in this study, the estimation of PROTECTED AREAS SYSTEM net benefits, represented by excess profit, was used (NIPAS) ACT to compute for rent. This is an implicit measure of WTP. Once it is established that the user is enjoying In 1992, the Philippine Congress enacted Republic net benefits, it is assumed that he or she would want Act No. 7586 establishing the National Integrated to continue doing so. The economic rationale for and Protected Areas System (NIPAS) for the Philippines. derivation of excess profit are contained in DAO 2000- The NIPAS law mandates the creation of protected 51, attached as Annex A, as well as in the Guidebook for areas to conserve biodiversity. It further provides the Estimating User Fees for NIPAS Areas6 . The reader is basic framework for the conservation and management advised to refer to these documents for a more detailed of protected areas in general. One of the features of description of excess profit and resource rent. the Act is the establishment of an Integrated Protected Area Fund (IPAF) to finance projects of the system. All There is a host of other factors that come into play funds generated from the protected areas shall accrue in estimating WTP, and there have been numerous to the IPAF, 75% of which will be retained by the area documents and studies churned out by environmental where the funds were generated, and 25% going to a economists in enumerating them. Such studies include central IPAF to finance other non-revenue generating the various uses that have had WTP estimates, as well PAs and the operations of the IPAF Governing Board. as techniques that can be used in estimating the figures. Some policy studies have made use of WTP estimates The NIPAS Act empowers the Secretary of the in coming up with instruments that promote wise and DENR to “… fix and prescribe reasonable NIPAS fees to sustainable use. In sum, the key to estimating values of be collected from government agencies or any person, natural goods and services is to estimate the WTP of the firm or corporation deriving benefits from the protected user of the good or service, and to estimate the costs of areas.” supplying the good or service.

6 Padilla, J., R. Rosales et. al. January 2000. Manual for the Furthermore, the Secretary “… can accept in the Implementation of Fee System Guidelines in Protected Areas. name of the Philippine Government and in behalf of ENRAP IV Technical Paper. USAID-DENR-REECS, Quezon City, NIPAS funds, gifts or bequests of money for immediate Philippines. disbursement or other property in the interest of the NIPAS, its activities, or its services.” 8 To implement these provisions in the NIPAS profit and for risk. In the fisheries sector, where a fishing Act, DENR Administrative Order 2000-51, entitled vessel harvests marine products from public waters, the “Guidelines and Principles for Determining Fees for economic costs of producing the output are subtracted Access to and Sustainable Use of Resources in Protected from the economic value of the output. The difference Areas” was formulated (Appendix A). The guidelines would be equal to the economic rent. If an output is were based on a review of the current uses and users being produced in an optimal manner, rent would be of resources in protected areas based on available positive. However, if production occurs at a rate where information from the Protected Area profiles and from costs are just equal to the value of the output, usually the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB). The because of too many producers, then rent would be identified types of fees also followed from the same dissipated in this case. One of the objectives of fisheries review. Prescribed fees were all based on economic management is to create economic rent from capture principles described in the Theoretical Framework fisheries. section above. In pursuit of this, a host of studies have been conducted in estimating and recommending the WILDLIFE ACT appropriate license fees based on resource rent estimates. One of the most comprehensive studies done RA No. 9147 sets four objectives: (1) to protect in computing for resource rent was the Fisheries Sector and conserve wildlife species and their habitat; (2) Program (FSP) study authored by the Development to regulate the collection and trade of wildlife; (3) to Academy of the Philippines (DAP)8 , which in turn was pursue with due regard to the national interest, the adopted in the Fisheries Resource Management Project country’s commitments to international conventions, (FRMP) study entitled “Commercial Fishing License protection of wildlife and their habitats; and (4) to Fees as a Policy Instrument”9 . The FSP and FRMP studies initiate or support scientific studies or conservation of were updated by another study entitled “Registration biodiversity. and Licensing Framework for the Commercial Capture Fisheries Sector of the Philippines” 10 under the Fisheries Section 29 of the Act creates a Wildlife Management for Improved Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project, to take Fund, which shall be replenished from “fines imposed account of the results of resource assessment studies and damages awarded, fees, charges, donations, and economic changes since 1996. endowments, administrative fees or grants in the form of contributions.” In the IRR, the permit fee for the export of wildlife species is pegged at 3% of the E.O. 533: INTEGRATED COASTAL export value excluding transport costs. A schedule of fees and charges for wildlife is likewise provided in DAO MANAGEMENT 2004-55 particularly for application and processing fees, inspection fees, permit fees, and charges against Executive Order No. 533 was issued by the President wildlife collection. Finally, DAO 2004-62 prescribes fees in 2006 adopting the Integrated Coastal Management and other guidelines pertaining to the registration of (ICM) as a national strategy to ensure the sustainable threatened, non-threatened and exotic faunal species development of the country’s coastal and marine under the jurisdiction of the DENR. environment and resources and establishing supporting mechanisms for its implementation. The Order likewise provides that ICM and related approaches, FISHERIES CODE such as coastal resource management or coastal zone management, shall be the national management policy framework to promote sustainable development of the RA No. 8550, otherwise known as the Fisheries country’s coastal and marine environment and resources Code, is another comprehensive law that calls for the in order to achieve food security, sustainable livelihood, management and conservation of fisheries and aquatic poverty alleviation and reduction of vulnerability to resources to maintain sound ecological balance. It natural hazards, while preserving ecological integrity. declares the achievement of food security as the overriding consideration in the utilization, management, ICM will be implemented in all coastal and marine development, conservation and protection of fishery areas, addressing the inter-linkages among associated resources. The Code, through Chapter 2 Section 6, is watersheds, estuaries and wetlands, and coastal seas, very specific in referring to resource rent estimates as by all relevant national and local agencies. It will be the basis for setting the levels of rentals for fishpond areas and license fees for Commercial Fishing Vessel 8 Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP). A Proposed Licensing and Gear Licenses. System for the Commercial Fishing Industry. Consultant’s Report submitted to the Fisheries Sector Program (FSP). (unpublished). 9 Trinidad, A. C. 2004. Commercial Fishing License Fees as a Policy Rent “…is a surplus – the difference between the Instrument. Fisheries Resource Management Project (FRMP) Technical price of a good produced using a natural resource and Monograph Series, No. 5 (Ablaza, E.C. ed.). the unit costs of turning that natural resource into the 10 Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc. (RE- good” 7. Unit costs would include a margin for normal ECS), Tetra Tech EMI, 2005. Registration and Licensing Framework for the Commercial Capture Fisheries Sector of the 7 Hartwick, J. and N. Olewiler 1998. The Economics of Natural Resource Philippines. United States Agency for International Development, Use. Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc., USA. Manila, Philippines. 9 used as the overarching framework in all endeavors considerations such as incentives and disincentives for relating to marine and coastal conservation in the polluters to modify their production or management country. Implementation of the ICM Program takes processes or to invest in pollution control technology into account the need for investment opportunities and to reduce the amount of water pollutants generated; sustainable financing mechanisms for environmental costs of administering water quality management protection and improvement and resource conservation. or improvement programs; and estimated damages Furthermore, supporting mechanisms and activities caused by water pollution on the surrounding include environmental and natural resources accounting environment, including the cost of rehabilitation. and valuation for ICM planning. The NSCB has been mandated to incorporate coastal and marine resource accounting in the national and regional accounts. CLIMATE CHANGE ACT

Republic Act No. 9729 entitled “An Act Mainstreaming CORAL TRIANGLE INITIATIVE (CTI) Climate Change into Government Policy Formulations, Establishing the Framework Strategy and Program on The CTI on coral reefs, fisheries and food security Climate Change, Creating for this Purpose the Climate is an initiative among six countries, namely Indonesia, Change Commission, and for Other Purposes” was Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Solomon signed into law in October 2009. The CC Act created the Islands, and Timor Leste to coordinate efforts in CC Commission which is the sole policy-making body preserving the coral triangle, also known as the global mandated to coordinate, monitor and evaluate CC- epicenter of marine life abundance and diversity. In related programs. The National Framework Strategy 2009, the six countries were able to complete their on Climate Change for 2010-2022 has recently been national plans of action which were then put together signed by the Commission. Ecosystems degradation, to formulate a regional plan of action. particularly loss of forest cover and degradation of coastal and marine resources, has been identified as one Under the country’s CTI NPOA, all five goals of six drivers of climate change; therefore ecosystem- recognize the need to undertake economic valuation based management is one of the strategies being studies and establish market-based instruments and promoted for CC adaptation and mitigation. Although user fee systems in pursuit of their strategies. A whole the framework will still have to be translated into an section on sustainable financing underscores the need action plan with detailed activities and programs, the to conduct economic valuation studies to provide the document recognizes the role of economic valuation bases for the various sustainable financing schemes to as one of four main means of implementing adaptation be recommended, not only to fund the CTI NPOA but and mitigation. One particular strategy identified in the more importantly to provide the proper incentives and document is that of implementing innovative financing disincentives for wise resource use and management. and incentive systems to stimulate climate change adaptation investments and encourage community The NPOA was adopted through Executive Order participation in resource management. No. 797 dated May 6, 2009. It states that the CTI shall serve as the primary framework for the development and implementation of all related plans and programs RULES AND REGULATIONS on marine and coastal resources management in the GOVERNING FORESHORE AREAS, country. The document adopts the ICM framework as MARSHY LANDS AND OTHER LANDS the overall guiding framework for pursuing CTI goals and strategies. BORDERING BODIES OF WATER Foreshore lands are under the jurisdiction of CLEAN WATER ACT DENR. DENR Administrative Order No. 99-34, entitled Rules and Regulations Governing the Administration, RA 9275 otherwise known as the Clean Water Act Management and Development of Foreshore Areas, of 2004 specifies the use of appropriate economic Marshy Lands and Other Lands Bordering Bodies of instruments for managing and protecting water Water was issued on August 10, 1999. Foreshore areas, resources as one of its declared policies. The Act covers except mangrove areas, are allowed to be leased to any water quality management in all water bodies in the person, corporation, association or partnership for a country, and primarily applies to the abatement and maximum size of 144 hectares and a maximum period control of pollution from land-based sources. A National of 25 years, renewable for another 25 years. Applicants Water Quality Management Fund has been created, to must pay a fee of PhP 100 for each application. Apart be sourced from fines imposed and damages awarded from the requirement of an ECC, there is no limit on to the Pollution Adjudication Board, proceeds of what type of projects can be pursued within foreshore permits issued by the DENR, donations, endowments areas, as long as they pass the ECC requirements and and grants in the form of contributions to the national no timber is cut. Annual user fees are prescribed for government under this Act. foreshore lease agreements in the amount of 3% of the value of the land and 1% of improvements. The DAO A wastewater charge system is required further states that reappraisal shall be made every 10 10 to be implemented, to be based on economic years except when new improvements/ developments have been introduced, upon which immediate appraisal Once suitability is determined by DENR, public is to be effected. The NRDC is authorized to collect user lands for fishpond development become under the fees on foreshore land leases, and it may utilize 60% of jurisdiction of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic collections for CRM purposes. Reforms. Individual Leases are effective for a maximum area of 50 hectares and a maximum period of 25 years, renewable for another 25 years, while corporate leases RULES AND REGULATIONS are allowed a maximum area of 250 hectares for the GOVERNING THE LEASE OF same period. Application fees are PhP 1,000 for each PUBLIC LANDS FOR FISHPOND application. DEVELOPMENT In consonance with the Fisheries Code, annual rentals are required to be set at levels that reflect An amending law to the former Comprehensive resource rent estimates, to be determined by the BFAR. Agrarian Reform Law was passed through Republic Act 1881 on February 1995 entitled “An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, entitled “An Act Instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE Program to Promote Social Justice and Industrialization, UTILIZATION, DEVELOPMENT AND Providing the Mechanism for its Implementation, and MANAGEMENT OF MANGROVE for other Purposes.” The DENR is authorized to declare RESOURCES certain areas as suitable for fishpond development. Section 65-B makes special mention of the conduct of an Under DENR Administrative Order No. 15-90, inventory of all government and private fishponds and existing mangrove areas with vegetation are no longer prawn farms, and the mandate of the BFAR to undertake allowed to be converted into any other use. All mangrove a program to promote the sustainable management swamps released to the BFAR which are not utilized or and utilization of prawn farms and fishponds. No have been abandoned shall revert to the category of lease may be granted until after the completion of the forest land. Mangrove areas should therefore not be inventory. The next section, Section 65-C, deals with the subjected to user fees anymore, unless the types of protection of mangrove areas, whereby existing FLAs use are non-extractive in nature. However, there are no should dedicate a portion of the fishpond fronting the existing guidelines or laws specific to mangrove areas sea as a buffer zone and should be planted with specified that discuss such types of use. mangrove species to be determined by the DENR.

Figure 2. Foreshore Area (Photo by Atty. Grizelda Mayo-Anda)

11 Literature Review

he earliest recorded attempts at establishing the user fee scheme, funds from which have directly user fees for local MPA users date back to the been used to support their MPA enforcement efforts. late 80s and the decade of the 90s. User fees Newer schemes include entrance fees for mangrove Twere first imposed on recreational visitors in MPAs, parks, such as those in Calatagan and San Juan, both in mostly in the Visayas region through the initiatives of Batangas province. Silliman University, e.g. Apo Island, and the former USAID-funded Coastal Resources Management Aside from recreational user fees, other types of Project, e.g. Sumilong, Gilutungan and Olango MPAs. uses that have been subjected to a user fee scheme Another USAID-funded project called Environmental (or at least a study thereof) are aquaculture activities and Natural Resources Accounting Project (ENRAP) and development fees for resorts or other large-scale set the technical guidelines in estimating user fees economic development projects located within or near through DENR Administrative Order 2000-51 that MPA boundaries. Examples include the development covered all protected areas under the NIPAS system, fee recommended for resorts in the municipality of El some of which included seascapes and MPAs. It pilot- Nido, Palawan, and the development fee imposed on tested the guidelines in four protected areas, two of the National Power Corporation’s coal-fired power plant which were in the marine sector: Hundred Islands located within the MPA of Masinloc, Zambales. National Park and El Nido Marine Park. Still, there were NGO initiatives in estimating scuba diving fees On the other hand, there are some LGUs that in locally protected areas such as those in the Mabini- charge environment or green fees among certain users Tingloy area, initiated by World Wide Fund for Nature in an area. In this sense, green fees are different from (WWF), Verde Island Passage MPAs as studied and user fees because they do not refer to any specific recommended by Conservation International (CI), and resource or service being used by the payer; rather they the Moalboal, Siquijor and Bohol MPAs recommended are usually applied in a general sense and are meant by the Coastal Conservation and Education to fund resource or environmental management in Foundation, Inc. (CCEF). In Palawan, the Tubbataha general. It is assumed though that the funds generated Reefs Marine Park earns around PhP 5 million pesos a from this scheme are earmarked specifically for ENR year from scuba diving entrance fees during the tourist or CRM management. An example of this is the green season of March to May. All fees accrue to a dedicated fee imposed on all tourists that enter Puerto Galera, fund used for management programs and expenses. whether they visit for scuba diving, snorkeling or simply Whaleshark watching activities in Donsol, Sorsogon lounging on the beach. have charged entrance fees from tourists during the past few years. Tourism arrival has leveled off at Ubay, Bohol is one of the few municipalities in 9255 visitors in 2007, generating a total of 1.7 million the Philippines where CRM has reached a relatively pesos from tourism fees. To date, these entrance fee advanced stage. The municipal government has made systems to be successful attempts in earning revenues significant strides in enforcing its very own Fishery for the management bodies and LGUs. They have Ordinance, which in turn draws heavily from RA consistently augmented their local budgets through 8550 otherwise known as the Fisheries Code of the 12 Philippines. In Ubay, certain business taxes have been Resources, Environment and Economics Center for charged against marine-related businesses such as crab Studies, Inc. (REECS) and DENR. The DAO is attached processing plants and fish vendors. At the start of 2008, as Annex A. the LGU has decided to expand its revenue-generating schemes that draw from natural resources in the marine A review of the DAO’s implementation was sector. Fish corrals are now being promoted, and there conducted to assess its effectiveness in establishing have been a number of them who have registered and financing schemes that will support the operation and paid taxes to the Municipal Treasurer. Special fishing management of NIPAS-established protected areas all permits are now sold to non-Ubay fishers who fish in throughout the country. Its applicability in other coastal their municipal waters. A registration and licensing areas that do not fall within the purview of the NIPAS scheme has been set up for fishing gears and boats. Act was also reviewed to the extent possible. Finally, the LGU has started issuing auxiliary invoices with concomitant fees for marine products that are The current set-up requires that all NIPAS-PA brought out of Ubay. 11 revenues be deposited into the Integrated Protected Area Fund before being utilized, a fund being co- User fee systems work as sustainable financing managed by the DENR Central Office and the schemes if the following important conditions are met. Department of Budget and Management (DBM). A First, there has to be a significant number of users against management plan is submitted by the PA and is used whom the fee will be imposed on if the unit amounts as basis for any fund disbursement. A maximum of are typically low, e.g. entrance or scuba diving fees. The 75% of total revenues deposited are allowed to be number of users, along with the price, will determine disbursed back to the site, while the remaining 25% is the volume of revenues that can be realized from the centralized in the IPAF and is allotted for non-earning scheme. The users should further be consulted on the NIPAS PAs. The process has caused unwarranted delays appropriate level of fees to be set. The amount should be in implementing management plans and has prevented based on their willingness to pay for the environmental PA managers to efficiently pursue their duties. DENR good or service being protected or managed. Finally, has attempted to streamline this process by requesting collection and disbursement schemes should be simple DBM to allow the funds to be utilized once earned at the and transparent. Complicated collection schemes will site. The request has been denied and options to speed only result in high transaction costs, and sometimes up the disbursement process are still being reviewed. low collection rates. On the other hand, if revenues collected are not perceived as being spent on the very intent of the fee, users may eventually protest against METHODOLOGY FOR REVIEW the scheme, creating lower collection rates and possible boycotts of the area. If any of these conditions are not A focus group discussion (FGD) was conducted met, the user fee scheme may not be able to raise the on July 20, 2010 at the PAWB-DENR Visitors’ Center needed funds to continue CRM or MPA management in to evaluate the effectiveness of DAO 2000-51. Local the area. managers of coastal areas in the ICRMP study sites were invited to attend the FGD, along with PAMB members of NIPAS sites that are geographically located within the six priority marine biodiversity corridors and ecosystems REVIEW OF DAO 200-51 covering 68 municipalities in the provinces of Cagayan, Cebu, Davao Oriental, Masbate, Siquijor, and Zambales. ne of the activities identified in the conduct of In particular, the following representatives from the six the study on user fees and resource rents is the marine biodiversity corridors were invited to attend: evaluation of DAO 2000-51 entitled “Guidelines Oand Principles for Determining Fees for Access to and 1. PAMB representatives, to include those that Sustainable Use of Resources in Protected Areas”. The have implemented the guidelines and those guidelines were based on a review of the current uses that have not implemented the guidelines and users of resources in protected areas based on available information from the Protected Area profiles 2. Representatives of national government and from the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau agencies implementing user fees in the area, (PAWB). The identified types of fees, i.e. PA entrance e.g. DOT, PPA, DPWH, DOE, DENR, DA-BFAR fees, facilities user fees, resource user fees, and development fees, also followed from the same review. 3. Representatives from DBM, particularly those Prescribed fees were all based on economic principles handling IPAF accounts particularly willingness to pay and resource rents. They were formulated and pilot-tested during the conduct of 4. Resource user representatives that have been the USAID-funded Environment and Natural Resources paying user fees, e.g. water districts, telecom Accounting Project (ENRAP) implemented by the companies, etc. 11 Rosales, RMP, Sept. 2008. Developing a Framework for Eco- nomic Analysis of CRM Investments: The Case of Ubay, Bohol. 5. ICRMP policy consultants and project Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project, United States staff International Agency for Development (USAID), Manila, Philippines. 13 Annex B contains the list of participants at the FGD. bias towards terrestrial PAs, and officials in marine and FGD guide questions were composed of the coastal PAs have difficulty applying the guidelines in following: their areas. The guidelines do not provide for charging penalties 1. What are the major strengths of DAO 2000-51? and fines for violations occurring within the PA. There What benefits have you derived in implementing are no provisions on estimating damages that arise the guidelines? from violations, and the PAMBs do not have any basis for estimating the amount of penalties that can be a. Resource managers charged against violations. b. Resource users There are conflicts encountered sometimes when 2. What are its weaknesses? What are the PAs overlap with CADC and CADT areas, or when MPAs challenges that you have faced in implementing are declared using the Fisheries Code as basis. the guidelines?

a. Resource managers CHARGING USER FEES AGAINST LARGE USERS b. Resource users Water districts seem to be a common resource user 3. What are your collection and disbursement that most PAs would like to be able to charge. However, schemes? most experiences show difficulty in getting water districts to pay for watershed protection fees. Many 4. How much revenues have you raised? Are they of them use the claim of exemption by the Pasonanca enough? water district in Zamboanga as basis for refusing to pay resource user fees. 5. For resource users: are you seeing the impacts of user fees on improved CRM? There is a similar experience with NAPOCOR in Masinloc, whereby the user acknowledges the need to 6. For resource managers: do you have plans of pay user fees but refuses to pay the assessed amount, implementing the guidelines for other resources claiming exemption because of their status as a in your area of responsibility? government entity.

In Tanon Strait, the PA would like to be able to assess In reviewing the IPAF disbursement scheme, the fees against large ships using the Strait as shipping following questions were used to guide the discussions: lanes, but there seems to be difficulty in finding the economic and scientific justification in doing so. 1. What are the issues in collecting IPAF funds from the local to the central IPAF? In the implementation of development fees, many large users complain of their inability to be able to pay a. IPAF Sources the assessed amount in excess of land rental and 1% of b. Central IPAF Manager the value of improvements, as required under the Land Act. 2. What are the issues in disbursing IPAF funds from the central to local? Finally, in some cases, the aesthetic value of the PA is being enjoyed by off-site users but there is a refusal to a. IPAF Sources pay for this value despite the fact that they profit from b. Central IPAF Manager the view, simply because they are located outside the PA. 3. What are your recommendations in improving collection and disbursement of IPAF funds? IMPOSING A VARIETY OF FEES AGAINST RE- SOURCE USERS

MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Many users complain of the numerous fees being imposed against them when they enter the PA. A case ESTIMATING USER FEES USING THE GUIDELINES in point is the entrance fee they are required to pay, followed by facilities user fees when they use picnic The PA managers find the process too tedious. It tables and huts. does not seem to be feasible to expect PA staff to be able to do the estimation procedures and surveys on Still, in some areas such as in Palaui Island, their own. Technical guidance is still required and there foreigners complain about differentiated fees between seems to be a dearth of assistance from the Central locals and foreigners. Office of DENR. There is further the seeming

14 LACK OF IEC BEFORE IMPOSING USER FEES disbursement procedures. In some regions, coordination with their regional offices seems to be a problem. PA In some PAs, users are taken aback upon the sudden site managers claim they submit their reports to the imposition of user fees. The problem may lie in the regional office regularly, but the reports don’t seem lack of information being disseminated prior to the to make their way to the DENR Central Offices such establishment of user fees. This problem can easily be as PAWB. PASus should therefore consider submitting solved by providing a grace period for users, say 3 to directly to PAWB at the same time when they submit 6 months, prior to the full implementation of the user their reports to their respective regional offices. fee scheme. In Palaui Island, for instance, visitors refuse to pay the entrance fee when they get to the island DENR has attempted to shorten the process because of lack of information on having to do so prior of disbursement by recommending that 75% of PA to their trip. revenues need not go through the process of approval for disbursement that will involve the central offices of DENR and DBM. The latter has rejected this idea, SECURITY ISSUES saying that all PA revenues are still considered to be part of the GAA, thus should be subject to DBM rules. In the case of the Bicol Natural Park, the facilities The meeting agreed to take up the matter with the new were ruined by intruders and armed insurgents, power administration, with the hope that the new Secretaries lines were cut and the gate was shut. Visitors as well as of DBM and DENR will be more open to a more the staff were deterred in entering the facilities because decentralized process of disbursing IPAF funds. At the of security reasons. As such, management of the Park very least, the process should end at the regional offices has been difficult to conduct. of DENR and/or DBM, so as to facilitate release of funds. The matter will be taken up during the succeeding PAMB Summits, wherein resolutions to this effect will COORDINATION ISSUES WITHIN DENR UNITS, AND be formulated. BETWEEN DENR AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGEN- CIES ACCESSING THE NATIONAL IPAF In some cases, one particular unit within the DENR would charge fees for the use of resources located Perhaps one of the most important issues brought within the PA, using another legal instrument aside up with respect to the usefulness of the guidelines is the from the NIPAS Act as legal justification. Users would lack of users in many NIPAS PAs all over the country. therefore refuse to pay another fee for the use of PA The guidelines obviously presuppose there are users, resources to the PAMB. A case in point is the case at but some PAs do not have direct resource users they Mt. Isarog, where a large user was fined by the EMB due can charge fees against. In such cases, the PAMB is to violations in the ECC. However, because the land is at a loss on how it can generate revenues to address part of the PA, the PAMB claims that a portion of the its management needs. The IPAF guidelines took this charges should be paid to the IPAF. The PA could not situation into account when it specified that 25% of all charge the user anymore because it will be considered revenues should go into a central IPAF account, which double taxation. in turn will be used to finance PAs that do not have any revenue generating measures set up yet, particularly In other cases, LGUs would be charging their own set those that do not have any resource users against of fees against users of resources within the PA, without which to charge user fees. However, accessing the providing any share of the proceeds to the PAMB. Most central IPAF is again another hurdle that PAMBs need of these LGUs undertake the management activities to surpass. Efforts have been exerted by some areas. themselves, therefore are justified in collecting the fees However, the IPAF Governing Board has come up with themselves. a long list of requirements that are difficult for some PAMBs to accomplish. In fact, the IPAF Governing Board has not met in a long time, and requests for funds by IPAF DISBURSEMENT ISSUES non-earning PAs have not been processed.

The age-old problem of slow disbursement of In this regard, a review of the composition of the funds is still a problem being experienced by NIPAS PA IPAF Governing Board may be in order. It might be more managers. Although the PAWB claims that once they efficient to limit the approval of such requests atthe receive requests and if documentation is complete, it level of PAWB. Furthermore, it might be appropriate takes around a month or two for the Central Offices of for the guidelines for releasing funds for non-earning DENR and DBM to release the funds. But Region 4-B PAs to be reviewed at this point. The criteria should be belies this claim, and says that it still takes at least 6 relaxed to make it easier for these sites to access funds, months for requests to be processed. Region 7 further particularly those that have been pursuing enforcement noted that only Apo Island has experienced efficient efforts and management activities but do not have the disbursement of its IPAF funds, while the other PAs in opportunity to charge user fees in their area. the region still have a hard time complying with the

15 RECOMMENDATIONS for would-be violators to violate, given that the cost of compliance is higher. As such, offenses Based on the assessment of how stakeholders have are committed repeatedly, some by the same (or have not) used the guidelines contained in DAO violators. The NIPAS law provides a much wider 2000-51 as well as the urgency to address revenue discretion for fines to be set at higher levels. PAMBs generating needs of protected areas, the following might consider setting their respective fines at recommendations are being made by the study: levels that approximate the amount of damages potentially incurred by specific violations. Again, this will require economic valuation skills that 1. The PAWB may try to maximize its existing might be difficult for PAMB staff members to projects and external funding sources to contract perform. Nevertheless, the issue is being flagged out the estimation of user fees in NIPAS PAs. The here since this came out as a potential source of skills required for estimating user fees do not revenues for NIPAS PAs. seem to match the set of skills possessed by the current PAMB staff complement. Foresters still 4. In areas where overlaps of NIPAS PAs occur dominate the PA staff most of whom are highly with other legal instruments such as the Local skilled in other forest management concerns, but Government Code, the Fisheries Code or the experience challenges in setting economically CADTs through the IPRA, it is suggested that sound user fees. It may likewise be unfair to expect PAMBs explore the possibility of co-management them to perform surveys and statistical analysis if arrangements with other management their academic experience did not train them for stakeholders such as LGUs or IP groups. There such tasks, and short-term training sessions may are some PAs that have successfully pursued this not be enough to transfer such skills adequately. arrangement such as in Tubbataha Reefs Natural It is not impossible for them to acquire user fee Park and St. Paul’s Subterranean River. The LGUs setting skills. But given the amount of work they perform most of the management duties, and are have to perform in managing PAs and the meager thus authorized to collect revenues from users of staff complement, protected area management the Park. In return, DENR is provided a share in the might be better off farming out the task of setting revenues for their share in management. Given revenue generating measures to others who may the lack of manpower of PAMBs in patrolling and have more time and skills in performing such tasks. implementing community development projects in some of these areas, conservation might be 2. PAWB is now trying to harmonize its existing better achieved if DENR shares its management projects in setting user fees in both marine responsibilities and potential revenues with local and terrestrial PAs (i.e. ICRMP, ENRMP, and stakeholders who might have more advantage in NEWCAPP). It would be good if all PAMB staff performing some of the PAMB’s functions. members are oriented with the results of these studies, so that cross-learning may be achieved. In 5. In areas where conflicts arise among the various PAs where it may be too costly for PAWB-DENR units within DENR (e.g. the case of Mt. Isarog), to contract out user fee setting studies, results the issue might be better resolved at a higher level for other PAs may be applied to them granted of management, such as the level of the Regional resources, uses and users are similar in nature. Executive Director, or even at the Central Office PAWB can therefore do an inventory of all user level. This is an internal issue that can be resolved fees being implemented and recommended in all within DENR itself. NIPAS sites, and share them with all PAMB staff members nationwide. It has been suggested that 6. For large users of PA resources, intervention an option DENR can take is to set uniform rates might be needed at the national level. For water across all PAs for certain types of uses. Although resources, the DENR Central Office, maybe this would be simpler and transaction costs would through the FMB and PAWB, might need to be lower, uniform rates are usually not efficient intercede in behalf of its PAs that serve as in capturing the appropriate economic values. watersheds for some water districts. The same These are site-specific and depend primarily on holds true with energy companies who benefit the characteristics of both the site in question from protection and should therefore share in and the users of the site’s resources. But if costs in management expenses. DENR may need to deal establishing individual sets of user fees would be with DOE and other government entities in the too high for PAWB to undertake, this option can energy sector to resolve this. For PAs being used be explored in certain cases. as shipping lanes, DENR might need to discuss the issue with DOTC and the shipping sector 3. Fines and penalties against violations of whose main offices are usually located in Manila. environmental laws that are being implemented Similarly, PAs that are experiencing security issues all throughout the country are admittedly very may need higher offices to intervene in their low. They do not provide the proper disincentives behalf. DENR might consider having separate

16 meetings and agreements with the Armed Forces the lack of manpower of PAMBs in patrolling and of the Philippines for PAs that are still experiencing implementing community development projects insurgency problems. For users who complain that in some of these areas, conservation might be the fees are too high, the PAMB will simply have better achieved if DENR shares its management to assert its right in collecting such fees, provided responsibilities and potential revenues with local that the fees are economically justified. This is stakeholders who might have more advantage in where economic valuation studies serve their performing some of the PAMB’s functions. purpose. 9. In areas where conflicts arise among the various 7. Fines and penalties against violations of units within DENR (e.g. the case of Mt. Isarog), environmental laws that are being implemented the issue might be better resolved at a higher level all throughout the country are admittedly very of management, such as the level of the Regional low. They do not provide the proper disincentives Executive Director, or even at the Central Office for would-be violators to violate, given that the level. This is an internal issue that can be resolved cost of compliance is higher. As such, offenses within DENR itself. are committed repeatedly, some by the same violators. The NIPAS law provides a much wider 10. For large users of PA resources, intervention discretion for fines to be set at higher levels. PAMBs might be needed at the national level. For water might consider setting their respective fines at resources, the DENR Central Office, maybe levels that approximate the amount of damages through the FMB and PAWB, might need to potentially incurred by specific violations. Again, intercede in behalf of its PAs that serve as this will require economic valuation skills that watersheds for some water districts. The same might be difficult for PAMB staff members to holds true with energy companies who benefit perform. Nevertheless, the issue is being flagged from protection and should therefore share in here since this came out as a potential source of management expenses. DENR may need to deal revenues for NIPAS PAs. with DOE and other government entities in the energy sector to resolve this. For PAs being used 8. In areas where overlaps of NIPAS PAs occur as shipping lanes, DENR might need to discuss with other legal instruments such as the Local the issue with DOTC and the shipping sector Government Code, the Fisheries Code or the whose main offices are usually located in Manila. CADTs through the IPRA, it is suggested that Similarly, PAs that are experiencing security issues PAMBs explore the possibility of co-management may need higher offices to intervene in their arrangements with other management behalf. DENR might consider having separate stakeholders such as LGUs or IP groups. There meetings and agreements with the Armed Forces are some PAs that have successfully pursued this of the Philippines for PAs that are still experiencing arrangement such as in Tubbataha Reefs Natural insurgency problems. For users who complain that Park and St. Paul’s Subterranean River. The LGUs the fees are too high, the PAMB will simply have perform most of the management duties, and are to assert its right in collecting such fees, provided thus authorized to collect revenues from users of that the fees are economically justified. This is the Park. In return, DENR is provided a share in the where economic valuation studies serve their revenues for their share in management. Given purpose.

17 ESTIMATING USER FEES AND RESOURCE RENTS IN MAJOR COASTAL HABITATS

he ICRMP attempts to support the Government’s Uson, Placer, Batuan, Claveria, Monreal, San Jacinto, efforts to address the critical issues of San Pascual and Masbate City. sustainable management of marine and coastal Tresources. One of the identified major activities is the Three major coastal habitats were identified as the study on user fees and resource rents of major coastal main coastal ecosystems for which resource rents will habitats. Within the first three (3) years of the Project, be estimated, i.e. mangroves, foreshore areas and coral such studies need to be pilot-tested in at least six (6) reefs. Although foreshore areas arguably do not fall municipalities and completed within the identified within the same technical classification as mangroves project sites. The pilot sites will be a combination of and coral reefs, they were included due to the legal marine protected areas established pursuant to the jurisdiction of DENR over their use. National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS), Local Government Code and the Fisheries Code of 1998. The main stakeholders that will be involved and MANGROVES strengthened are multi-sectoral organizations involved in ICRM namely: the Protected Area Management All remaining mangrove forests have been legally Boards and Fisheries Resources and Management declared as protected areas, and further conversion Councils. The Local Government Units, DENR and to fishponds is now prohibited. However, there are DA-BFAR staffs and other stakeholders will also be existing tenure instruments such as Fishpond Lease capacitated in the process. 12 Agreements (FLAs) that are still in effect, and are being respected by law. FLA rental fees amount to PhP 1,000 per hectare per year, according to DA-BFAR. SURVEY DESIGN AND The amount was supposedly based on a mangrove valuation study in 1995 that attempted to determine METHODS the amount of resource rent accruing from fishpond activities in mangrove areas. Furthermore, there exist The user fee study was conducted in two of the previously mangrove areas that are now titled lands, an seven identified provinces covered by the ICRMP, occurrence that may be incompatible with the objective namely Cagayan and Masbate provinces. Twelve (12) of rehabilitating all mangrove areas as part of the municipalities have been identified as project sites in national climate change adaptation strategy. Cagayan, namely: Sta. Ana, Gonzaga, Sta. Teresita, Buguey, Aparri, Ballesteros, Abulug, Pamplona, The survey focused on how to capture resource Sanchez Mira, Claveria, Sta. Praxedes and Calayan. rents from existing fishpond operations particularly Meanwhile, sixteen (16) municipalities and one City those operating within the legal framework, i.e. those have been identified as project sites in Masbate, who are FLA holders. It further tried to estimate how namely: Aroroy, Baleno, Cataingan, Cawayan, much resource rents should be captured for those Dimasalang, Esperanza, Milagros, Mobo, Palanas, operating outside the legal framework, i.e. non- licensed fishpond operators within public lands. For 12 Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Terms of 18 Reference, ICRMP-IC-01-2009 those operating within titled lands and for areas with abandoned fishponds, options on how to revert them back to mangrove forests are explored in a separate Preliminary interviews with Engr. Eli Mabasa, study of ICRMP. Division Chief of the Lands Management Division of DENR Region 02 reveal that most holders of foreshore The results of this survey may be able to feed lease agreements, except for one, have not paid user into the recommendations of that separate study fees and have accrued substantial back rentals. None of on determining the appropriate policy on mangrove them have submitted any management plan as required forests in the country. by DAO 2004-24. DENR is further increasing its mandate on foreshore areas by now studying whether ports can For Cagayan nipa harvesters, resource user fees be covered by the DAO, given that ports are located in were estimated, assuming they are still operating foreshore areas. Likewise, preliminary interviews with within sustainable levels, and within a legal framework. the Section Chief of the Land Use Classification Division The determination of sustainable levels may be done of DENR Region 05 reveal that the Regional Office has through the drafting of CRM plans of each municipality yet to issue any Foreshore Lease Agreement to any of or city. the foreshore area occupants of the coastal areas in Masbate. Needless to say, none of the occupants have Individual surveys were conducted among fishpond paid user fees as prescribed by law, and none of them operators and Cagayan nipa harvesters. Economic have submitted any management plan as required by revenues and expenses were used as basis for DAO 2004-24. As a precondition in applying for FLAs, computing resource rent. Annexes C and D contain the the DENR has decided to charge occupancy fees, the survey instruments used. process of which allegedly follows a less stringent list of requirements compare with the FLA process. On the other hand, there are mangrove forests in Masbate that have been declared as protected areas This study also attempted to conduct an inventory and are now being managed by the national and local of foreshore lease agreement applicants, or at least governments and by people’s organizations living in foreshore area occupants, and assess how much fees the surrounding communities. The Bongsanglay NP should they be paying as required in the law, i.e. 3% of was declared as a NIPAS PA through PP 319 on May the value of the land and 1% of all land improvements. It 21, 2000 and is considered to be the largest natural further tried to determine if there are any foreshore area mangrove forest (with a total area of 244.72 has.) in the occupants that have paid occupancy fees and whether whole Bicol region. It is being managed by a Protected these are sufficiently covering the required FLA fees. Area Management Board (PAMB) and reforestation and Annex G contains the survey instrument used among protection activities are being carried out by member foreshore area occupants in Cagayan and Masbate. POs and funded by the municipal government of Batuan, to which the NP belongs. There is also the Pawa The inventory may later on contribute to a separate Mangrove Park in Masbate City being managed by a policy study under this same project that will directly women’s PO, which has entered into a reforestation affect foreshore areas and foreshore lease agreements. contract with DENR. Both of these mangrove parks do It may further be used as input later on for vulnerability not allow any timber extraction within the Parks, and assessments to determine the proper climate change both have the potential for ecotourism to be undertaken adaptation strategy for the coastal municipalities of as an economic activity for the communities managing Cagayan and Masbate. the mangroves.

Annex E contains the survey instrument used CORAL REEFS to determine the cost of management activities for mangrove parks in Masbate, while Annex F contains the Coral reefs have multiple uses and users, first and survey instrument used for resource gatherers therein. foremost of which are the municipal fisherfolk living in coastal municipalities. There are some municipalities that have installed a registration and licensing scheme FORESHORE AREAS among their municipal fishers, and there are some who have even gone to the extent of crafting their own Foreshore areas are under the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Code. Encroachment of commercial fishing DENR, particularly under the CENRO assigned in the into municipal waters as well as the use of illegal fishing particular political jurisdiction the area falls under. methods such as dynamite and cyanide fishing are still Existing laws require annual foreshore lease user fees the largest threats experienced in the municipal fisheries in the amount of 3% of the value of the land and 1% of sector. Some municipal LGUs have delineated portions all land improvements. DENR determines the allowable of their municipal waters as marine protected areas, activities and infrastructure to be built on foreshore while others plan to declare their own MPAs within areas, based on guidelines contained in DAO 2004-24. the ICRMP project’s duration. Among those who have ECCs are required, along with management plans to be delineated their MPAs, tourism is the main activity that approved by the Department of Tourism (DOT), before allows them to earn from entrance fees charged against foreshore lease agreements are supposedly issued. visitors who access the area for recreational 19 purposes. Finally, there are some municipalities where The survey instrument for tourism establishments in man-made facilities have been put up to cater to tourists attached as Annex H, while Annex I contains the survey who visit their area, such as lodging facilities and other instrument for municipal and commercial fishers. water sports-related equipment.

This study focused on the potential of tourism to SURVEY SITES earn revenues from MPAs and designated tourism areas within the ICRMP sites. Various tourist attractions are Based on discussions with DENR and LGU personnel being offered in the coastal municipalities, and each as well as site-based project staff, the sites and sample type should offer a different set of user fees to reflect size in tables 1 and 2 were targeted for the surveys. The varying recreational values that correspond to the sample sizes were based on a certain percentage of coastal resource or recreational activity at hand. For the the estimated population totals for each type of user, Cagayan sites, Palaui Island has a comprehensive user ranging from 10% of the estimated fishing population fee system and tour package has already been designed. to 50% of the estimated number of fishpond operators This study will not attempt to revise the current set-up in a particular municipality. Random sampling was for that area. In Gonzaga, there are MPAs that have been attempted if circumstances permitted. But in cases successfully set up and are earning from their user fee where users were extremely difficult to talk to, systems. Again, the study will not attempt to revise that enumerators were allowed the flexibility of interviewing user fee system. Rather, it recommends that Gonzaga’s the next potential user in order to complete the target MPA user fee system be replicated in other MPAs within number of respondents as soon as possible. the project sites. In Calayan, humpback whale watching is being eyed as a major tourist attraction. This is a highly unique activity and can be treated as having huge potential for a major ecotourism program in Cagayan. TRAINING OF ENUMERATORS The beach resorts in Claveria offer lodging facilities that may be enjoying net benefits from being located right Training workshops for enumerators were held next to natural resources that are the main attraction in both provinces. The workshops consisted of a for recreation. Finally, Sta. Praxedes has the potential presentation of the objectives of the survey, in-depth for another major ecotourism program that will make discussions of each of the questionnaires involved use of its lush mountains that are right next to its for each type of coastal habitat, determination of shorelines, offering another unique ecosystem that can the sample size and choice of municipalities for each become a major tourist attraction in the province. type of survey, and tasking for the enumerators that will participate in the study. Mock interviews were In Masbate, manta ray interaction through scuba conducted for each enumerator, to determine their diving is being marketed as a major tourist attraction in strengths and weaknesses in conducting surveys. The San Jacinto. This is a highly unique activity and can be exercise was done in plenary so that the participants treated as having huge potential for a major ecotourism could learn from each other. Enumerators were broken program in the area. The LGU has entered into a MOA down according to the schedule described in tables 3 with Donsol, Sorsorgon and Monreal, Masbate in the and 4. sharing of proceeds from tourism. What might be added later on is how the proceeds can be channeled The number of municipalities for each coastal back to CRM, so as to encourage visitors to keep on habitat may not tally with the number of survey sites paying user fees for such recreational activities. Just like agreed upon for each type of survey (from the previous in Cagayan, the beach resorts in Masbate City, Mobo, tables), because there was an agreement that some San Jacinto, Monreal and other municipalities offer enumerators will cover more than one survey in a lodging facilities that may be enjoying net benefits from particular municipality. This breakdown was intended to being located right next to natural resources that are show the distribution of enumerators per municipality. the main attraction for recreation. Finally, many of the coastal areas in Masbate have huge potentials of being marketed as movie locations. A survey of film makers SURVEY SCHEDULE and producers in Manila was planned to determine how much they would be willing to pay to use Masbate’s All surveys were targeted to commence in August coastal areas as locations for their future films or 2010 and be completed by end of October 2010. shows. Unfortunately, this could not be accommodated However, numerous delays were experienced at the anymore within the Project’s budget and had to be sites, primarily caused by delays in the payment of dropped from the survey design. enumerators. Constant follow-ups were done with each of the provincial coordinators of the project, but there Estimation of resource rents in both municipal seemed to be problems in communication between and commercial fishing was attempted. However, the the field enumerators and the DENR Regional Offices survey was not successful in interviewing commercial involved. The final sets of completed survey forms from fishers in Cagayan. The results for commercial fishing Masbate were submitted to the consultant by mid- are therefore limited to Masbate. March 2011, and those from Cagayan were submitted mid-June 2011. 20 Table 1. Survey sites and sample sizes in Cagayan Table 2. Survey Sites and sample sizes in Masbate

Target No. of Target No. of Municipality Target Users Municipality Target Users Respondent Respondent Buguey Fishpond operators 80 Aroroy Foreshore area occupants 26 Fishcage operators 34 Tourism establishments 2 Foreshore area occupants 5 Batuan Resource gatherers 11 Abulog Nipa (leaf) harvesters 15 Claveria Fishpond operators 8 Nipa (sap) harvesters 15 Resource gatherers 36 Pamplona Fishpond operators 10 Fisherfolk 90 Nipa harvesters 50 Masbate City Resource gatherers 29 Aparri Nipa harvesters 25 Foreshore area occupants 14 Foreshore area occupants 20 Tourism establishments 7 Fisherfolk 20 Mariculture 3 Sta. Ana Tourism establishments 8 Fisherfolk 80 Foreshore area occupants 15 Cawayan Fishpond operators 37 Fishcage operators 1 Resource gatherers 46 Fishpond operators 5 Foreshore area occupants 49 Claveria Foreshore area occupants 38 Milagros Fishpond operators 32 Fisherfolk 40 Resource gatherers 18 Tourism establishments 5 Fisherfolk 48 Fishcage operators 8 Mobo Fishpond operators 3 Fishpond operators 5 Tourism establishments 1 Calayan Fisherfolk 50 Placer Fishpond operators 14 Camiguin Fisherfolk 40 Resource gatherers 14 Sta. Teresita Fishpond operators 10 Fisherfolk 37 Sanchez Mira Fishpond operators 23 San Jacinto Resource gatherers 14 Fishcage operators 25 Fisherfolk 50 Gonzaga Foreshore area occupants 18 Tourism establishments 4 Total 565 Foreshore area occupants 12 San Pascual Resource gatherers 29 Fisherfolk 46 Uson Fishpond operators 32 Resource gatherers 4 Total 796

Table 3. Distribution of Enumerators per Coastal Habitat in Cagayan

Coastal Habitat No. of Municipalities Enumerators per Municipality Total No. of Enumerators Mangrove 5 2 10 Foreshore Areas 4 2 2 Coral Reefs Fisheries 2 2 10

Table 3. Distribution of Enumerators per Coastal Habitat in Masbate Coastal Habitat No. of Municipalities Enumerators per Municipality Total No. of Enumerators Mangrove 5 2 10 Foreshore Areas 4 2 2 Coral Reefs Fisheries 2 2 10

21 SURVEY RESULTS

MANGROVES

FISHPOND OPERATIONS

perating fishponds is the most common economic activity undertaken in mangrove swamps. Table 5 shows the demographic profile of fishpond operators in selected municipalities of the provinces of Masbate and Cagayan. The choice of municipalities was determined through consultations with the local officials of OBFAR and LGU personnel knowledgeable on fishpond operations. Operators are usually in their early 50s, and Masbate operators have a few years of experience more than their Cagayan counterparts. Most respondents have been operating for more than a decade, except in Mobo, Pamplona and Sta. Ana where presumably fishpond operations are still new. An overwhelming majority of them are male, except in Mobo where majority are female, in Sta. Ana (40% female) and in Claveria-Cagayan where almost a third are female.

Table 5. Demographic Profile of Fishpond Operators, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010

Average Age Average Years of Experience % Male %Married

Total Sample 53 15 87% 92% Masbate 54 19 90% 96% Cawayan 60 26 92% 97% Claveria 61 22 100% 100% Milagros 51 17 84% 88% Mobo 56 2 33% 100% Placer 54 18 86% 100% Uson 47 12 100% 100% Cagayan 52 12 84% 89% Pamplona 53 6 80% 90% Buguey 50 16 80% 84% Claveria 52 10 69% 92% Sanchez Mira 53 12 92% 92% Sta. Ana 61 4 60% 60% Sta. Teresita 53 16 100% 100% Total No. of HH 256 256 223 236 22 In terms of educational attainment, a fourth of the respondents were able to finish elementary education, and another fourth earned a college degree. Less than half were able to finish secondary level, while there were quite a few (4%) who earned a vocational degree.

Table 6. Educational Attainment of Fishpond Operators in Masbate and Cagayan Frequency in %, 2010 % Elem. % High School % College % Vocational Total Sample 24% 39% 24% 4% Masbate 26% 43% 26% 1% Cawayan 11% 54% 27% 3% Claveria 33% 17% 0% 0% Milagros 41% 31% 28% 0% Mobo 0% 0% 100% 0% Placer 21% 43% 36% 0% Uson 31% 50% 16% 0% Cagayan 23% 35% 23% 7% Pamplona 30% 20% 30% 0% Buguey 16% 43% 18% 2% Claveria 46% 31% 15% 8% Sanchez Mira 20% 34% 28% 12% Sta. Ana 0% 20% 40% 20% Sta. Teresita 40% 30% 10% 0% Total No. of HH 62 99 62 10

Household incomes of fishpond operators are relatively high at PhP 357 thousand per year on the average. Noteworthy is that income from fishpond operations make up more than half of total household income, except in Uson and Placer in Masbate, and in Sta. Ana in Cagayan. The operators from these municipalities have larger sources of household income relative to what they get from fishpond operations. Other sources of income include small businesses, employees of either private companies or of the government, farming, fishing, remittances from OFW family members, and pension sources.

Table 7. Annual Average Household Income of Fishpond Operators, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010

Average Annual % Fishpond Income to Total No. of Location Income/HH Total HH Income Respondents

Sample 356,814 55% 72 Masbate 423,797 52% 26 Cawayan 337,767 46% 3 Claveria 424,067 41% 4 Milagros 420,703 63% 11 Mobo 4,522,333 - - Placer 147,296 48% 6 Uson 231,889 38% 2 Cagayan 296,314 57% 46 Pamplona 396,337 64% 7 Buguey 385,278 51% 10 Claveria 547,533 72% 9 Sanchez Mira 178,318 52% 15 Sta. Ana 81,001 42% 4 Sta. Teresita 139,732 81% 1 23 The survey was able to estimate the number of FLA holders relative to those who did not have any legal permit from DA-BFAR to operate. On the whole, only 16% of those surveyed had FLAs issued by BFAR, and 64% were operating without permits. If those who did not respond are assumed to be operating without permits as well, then an overwhelming majority (84%) of those surveyed are not in possession of FLAs. In Masbate, around a fourth of those operating claim they have FLAs. But in Cawayan and Claveria in Masbate, almost all operators do not have permits. In Cagayan, only 8% have permits. In Pamplona, none of the operators have FLAs, while in Sanchez Mira, almost all of them do not have any permits. What is surprising in Cagayan is that some operators in Claveria, Sanchez Mira and Sta. Ana claim they have FLAs, but according to the BFAR database, only 9 operators have permits, all of whom are located in Buguey. In fact, there seems to be a significant number of fishpond operators that are not accounted for in the BFAR database, particularly those operating in Cawayan and Uson in Masbate and in all the municipalities surveyed in Cagayan.

Table 8. No. of Fishpond Lease Agreement (FLA) Holders in Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 No. of Operators Location FLA holders Non FLA holders No response FLAs per BFAR Surveyed Sample 16% 64% 20% 256 Masbate 24% 69% 7% 124 169 * Cawayan 3% 92% 5% 37 12 Claveria 0% 83% 17% 6 2 Milagros 31% 56% 13% 32 41 Mobo 0% 67% 33% 3 10 Placer 43% 50% 7% 14 15 Uson 41% 59% 0% 32 23 Cagayan 8% 60% 32% 132 913 Pamplona 0% 100% 0% 10 0 Buguey 11% 43% 45% 44 9 Claveria 31% 62% 8% 13 0 Sanchez Mira 2% 82% 16% 50 0 Sta. Ana 20% 20% 60% 5 0 Sta. Teresita 0% 0% 100% 10 0 Sta. Teresita 139,732 81% 1 *Whole province

Almost half of the respondents are operating privately-owned fishponds, and only 16% are leasing them from other owners. There are more leased fishponds in Masbate though, with 27% of the respondents stating so. However, there is a larger percentage of untenured fishponds in Cagayan.

Table 9. Tenure Status of Fishponds in Masbate and Cagayan, Frequency in %, 2010 Location Leased Private Untenured No Response Sample 16% 49% 7% 28% Masbate 27% 55% 2% 16% Cawayan 3% 86% 0% 11% Claveria 0% 0% 17% 83% Milagros 41% 41% 6% 13% Mobo 0% 67% 0% 33% Placer 50% 50% 0% 0% Uson 38% 44% 0% 19% Cagayan 8% 44% 10% 38% Pamplona 0% 90% 0% 10% Buguey 18% 33% 3% 46% Claveria 15% 45% 0% 40% Sanchez Mira 0% 38% 22% 40% Sta. Ana 20% 60% 0% 20% Sta. Teresita 0% 67% 0% 33% Total No. 44 132 18 76 24 Most sample operators own an average of one fishpond, with an average area of 7 hectares and a depth of 2 meters. In Cagayan, there are slightly more fishponds owned per household, but the size is much smaller on the average. Masbate fishponds tend to be much bigger. In Cawayan and Milagros, fishponds can reach 17 and 18 hectares on the average, respectively.

Table 10. Average Number per Household and Size of Fishponds in Cagayan and Masbate, 2010 Average no. of Average fishpond area Average fishpond Location fishponds/hh (ha) depth (m) Sample 1.1 7.0 2.0 Masbate 1.0 14.3 2.0 Cawayan 1.0 17.3 - Claveria 1.0 6.5 - Milagros 1.0 17.9 - Mobo 1.0 6.0 2.0 Placer 1.1 11.9 - Uson 1.0 10.3 - Cagayan 1.2 0.8 2.0 Pamplona 1.0 0.1 1.0 Buguey 1.0 2.1 1.6 Claveria 1.5 0.2 1.6 Sanchez Mira 1.3 0.2 2.4 Sta. Ana 1.3 2.0 1.0 Sta. Teresita 1.1 0.8 1.6 Total No. 252 270 113

On the whole, net income from fishpond operations was still positive in both provinces, although far more lucrative in Masbate compared to Cagayan. Cawayan in particular was an outlier, wherein income was very high at more than PhP 1.2 million per household per year, on the average. On the other hand, Buguey operators were experiencing net losses on the average, in the range of PhP 220 thousand per household per year due to very low harvests sold and extremely high total costs. Sta. Ana operations were positive but low, which is consistent with their claim that they have not achieved their full potential in fishpond operations (see discussion below). Note that revenues were computed using volume sold, not volume harvested, to allow for the operators’ own consumption. Meanwhile, total costs consisted of variable costs, fixed and variable labor costs, depreciation costs, and operating and maintenance costs.

Table 11. Average Net Income from Fishpond Operations in Cagayan and Masbate, per HH per year, In PhP, 2010

Location Average Harvest Sold Average Total Costs Net Income

Sample 411,306 89,383 321,923.49 Masbate 632,463 80,990 551,473.39 Cawayan 1,320,027 87,510 1,232,516.95 Claveria 230,173 44,173 186,000.50 Milagros 264,984 39,128 225,855.98 Mobo - 25,347 - Placer 286,691 65,804 220,887.01 Uson 389,890 134,077 255,812.52 Cagayan 120,572 97,577 22,994.34 Pamplona 5,967 19,458 (13,490.83) Buguey 22,780 242,825 (220,044.62) Claveria 235,583 60,449 175,133.97 Sanchez Mira 134,664 8,657 126,007.00 Sta. Ana 92,083 57,497 34,586.00 Sta. Teresita 173,309 54,051 119,257.57 25 From the positive net income estimates, a 15% margin for profit and risk (MPR) was computed, in consonance with the NEDA threshold of 15% return on investment. Subtracting the MPR along with the allowance for the operators’ own labor contribution from net income, estimates of resource rent can be computed. Rent turns out to be high at almost PhP 231 thousand for the whole sample. Masbate rent estimates are much higher at PhP 414 thousand per household per year due to the high income estimates for Cawayan, while Cagayan estimates are negative due to the high negative income estimates in Buguey and Pamplona. Still, there were more operators sampled in Sanchez Mira than Buguey (50 and 44, respectively), and the former exhibited positive rent estimates.

Table 12. Resource Rent Estimates for Fishpond Operators in Masbate and Cagayan, per Household per year, in PhP, 2010 Average Own Labor Location Net Income 15% MPR Rent Estimates No . of HH Costs Sample 321,923.49 48,288.52 42,726.49 230,908.48 256 Masbate 551,473.39 82,721.01 54,385.29 414,367.09 124 Cawayan 1,232,516.95 184,877.54 71,613.33 976,026.07 37 Claveria 186,000.50 27,900.08 43,050.00 115,050.43 6 Milagros 225,855.98 33,878.40 29,520.00 162,457.59 32 Mobo - - 3 Placer 220,887.01 33,133.05 34,850.00 152,903.96 14 Uson 255,812.52 38,371.88 61,500.00 155,940.64 32 Cagayan 22,994.34 3,449.15 37,063.64 (17,518.45) 132 Pamplona (13,490.83) (2,023.63) 32,620.00 (44,087.21) 10 Buguey (220,044.62) (33,006.69) 37,409.44 (224,447.37) 44 Claveria 175,133.97 26,270.10 22,523.33 126,340.54 13 Sanchez Mira 126,007.00 18,901.05 39,553.17 67,552.78 50 Sta. Ana 34,586.00 5,187.90 27,960.00 1,438.10 5 Sta. Teresita 119,257.57 17,888.64 52,425.00 48,943.94 10

Majority of respondents claim they have not reached the maximum potential of production for their fishponds. In Masbate, only around a fifth of the sample claim they have. In Cagayan, less than a third say they were able to reach their maximum potential, none of whom are operating in St. Ana and Sta. Teresita. Most of these respondents blame natural disasters and the changing climate as the principal reasons for not being able to achieve maximum potential.

Table 13. Attainment of Maximum Production, Fishpond Operators in Masbate and Cagayan, Frequency in %, 2010 Location Yes No No Response Sample 26% 61% 14% Masbate 21% 70% 9% Cawayan 8% 89% 3% Claveria 17% 67% 17% Milagros 13% 88% 0% Mobo 0% 33% 67% Placer 36% 64% 0% Uson 41% 38% 22% Cagayan 30% 52% 18% Pamplona 20% 80% 0% Buguey 18% 50% 32% Claveria 8% 85% 8% Sanchez Mira 58% 36% 6% Sta. Ana 0% 100% 0% Sta. Teresita 0% 40% 60% Total No. of HH 66 155 35

26 In terms of trends in productivity of their fishponds, most of them claim productivity has increased, particularly in Milagros, Cawayan and Uson in Masbate, and Claveria, Sanchez Mira and Sta. Ana in Cagayan. These results are consistent with the earlier claims of those that have not reached their maximum potential. According to the respondents, various improvements in fishpond management such as improvement of dikes have been undertaken thus leading to increasing productivity.

Table 14. Productivity Trends in Fishpond Operations, Masbate and Cagayan, Frequency in %, 2010 Location Increased Decreased No response Sample 66% 18% 17% Masbate 77% 16% 6% Cawayan 86% 14% 0% Claveria 50% 50% 0% Milagros 94% 6% 0% Mobo 33% 33% 33% Placer 36% 64% 0% Uson 78% 0% 22% Cagayan 55% 19% 27% Pamplona 30% 10% 60% Buguey 41% 18% 41% Claveria 77% 8% 15% Sanchez Mira 70% 24% 6% Sta. Ana 100% 0% 0% Sta. Teresita 10% 30% 60% Total No. of HH 168 45 43

Very few respondents believe that fishpond operations produce negative environmental impacts. It was only in Claveria in Masbate where respondents believed the activity was the cause of mangrove destruction, and only in Sanchez Mira in Cagayan where respondents blamed the activity for causing pollution. Despite this, more than half of the respondents (coming from all sample municipalities Masbate, and Buguey and Sta. Ana in Cagayan) prefer that government provide training programs and seminars on proper fishpond management, while around 25% of them (mostly coming from Pamplona, Claveria and Sanchez Mira in Cagayan) would rather government provide free inputs or financial assistance to the operators.

Table 15. Perceived Negative Impacts of Fishpond Operations in Masbate and Cagayan, Frequency in %, 2010 Mangrove Location Pollution Siltation destruction Sample 2% 9% 0% Masbate 3% 1% 0% Cawayan 3% 0% 0% Claveria 33% 0% 0% Milagros 0% 3% 0% Mobo 0% 0% 0% Placer 7% 0% 0% Uson 0% 0% 0% Cagayan 1% 17% 1% Pamplona 0% 0% 0% Buguey 2% 2% 0% Claveria 0% 0% 0% Sanchez Mira 0% 42% 2% Sta. Ana 0% 0% 0% Sta. Teresita 0% 0% 0% Total No. of HH 5 23 1 27 When asked to comment on the current rate of rental fees being imposed by DA-BFAR on FLAs, most of the respondents did not respond. In some municipalities, none of them responded, such as in Cawayan and Claveria in Masbate, and in Pamplona, Claveria, Sta. Ana and Sta. Teresita in Cagayan. This is most probably due to the fact that most survey respondents are not currently paying any rental fee for their fishpond operations. Nevertheless, there was a positive willingness among all of the respondents to pay rental fees, with Masbate residents willing to pay more than double the amount proposed by Cagayan respondents. On the average, the amount they were willing to pay was a little more than half the current rate of BFAR, i.e. PhP 587 as opposed to 1,000 per hectare per year. Mobo respondents had the lowest bid, while those located in Placer had much higher amounts compared to all other respondents. According to the respondents, fees would best be spent for trainings and seminars, as well as provision of financial assistance to operators in need.

Table 16. Willingness to Pay for Rental Fees for Fishpond Operations in Masbate and Cagayan, 2010

Location On Current Rental Fees Willingness to pay Php/ha/yr

Too low Just right Too High No Response Sample 2% 17% 21% 60% 587 Masbate 3% 8% 40% 49% 736 Cawayan 0% 0% 0% 100% 719 Claveria 0% 0% 0% 100% 692 Milagros 3% 13% 47% 38% 720 Mobo 0% 33% 33% 33% 50 Placer 21% 36% 14% 29% 2,573 Uson 0% 0% 97% 3% 341 Cagayan 1% 26% 4% 70% 333 Pamplona 0% 0% 0% 100% 400 Buguey 0% 11% 11% 77% 488 Claveria 0% 0% 0% 100% 142 Sanchez Mira 2% 58% 0% 40% 337 Sta. Ana 0% 0% 0% 100% 150 Sta. Teresita 0% 0% 0% 100% - Total No. of HH 5 44 54 153 181

Aside from the individual household survey, the study tried to estimate the total area within certain municipalities dedicated to fishpond operations. Given that the BFAR database was wanting in providing a realistic picture of the extent of fishpond establishment in the two provinces, the study tried to do an inventory in the municipalities covered by the survey. In Buguey for instance, a total of 355 fishponds have been set up which accounts for almost three fourths of the total area in the province dedicated to fishponds, but the BFAR database reflects only 9 for the whole province all of which are supposedly located in Buguey. Furthermore, there are 289 fishponds operating in Sta. Teresita, and some more operating in Claveria, Pamplona, Sanchez Mira and Sta. Ana. The actual area being used for fishponds totals around 1,328 hectares in Cagayan, and 3,461 hectares in Masbate. In the latter province, there are 137 fishponds operating in Milagros, 41 of which are accounted for by BFAR.

Table 17. Average and Total Area Used for Fishpond Operations, Cagayan and Masbate, 2010 Location Number Ave. Area/HH, in sq. m. Total Area, in sq. m. % of Total Area Cagayan 735 17,865 13,275,376 100.0% Buguey 355 27,679 9,826,141 74.0% Sta. Teresita 289 10,452 3,020,600 22.8% Claveria 20* 2,306* 46,115* 0.3% Pamplona 37 929 34,390 0.3% S.Mira 54 4,627 249,880 1.9% Sta. Ana 5* 19,650* 98,250* 0.7% Masbate 212 162,943 34,609,640 100.0% Placer 14 115,286 1,614,000 4.7% Uson 61 69,393 4,233,000 12.2% Milagros 137 210,156** 28,371,090** 82.0% Claveria 6* 65,258* 391,550* 1.1% *Based on the individual household survey results 28 **Based of BFAR database NIPA HARVESTING IN CAGAYAN

A total of 105 nipa harvesters in 3 municipalities of Cagayan were surveyed, 30 of which were located in Abulog, 25 in Aparri and 50 in Pamplona. According to the demographic profile of the respondents, most of these gatherers were in their mid-forties, majority of whom reached their elementary level of education or had at least some years of elementary education. In Pamplona, there was a significant number of high school graduates (34%). Majority of the gatherers were male, but almost half of those in Aparri were female. There was an equal distribution of Ilocanos and Ibanags among them. An overwhelming majority were married.

Table 18. Demographic Profile of Nipa Gatherers in Cagayan, 2010

Cagayan Abulog Aparri Pamplona

N/Municipality 105 30 25 50 Average age, in yrs. 46.03 49.59 45.36 44.27 Average Harvesting Experience, in yrs. 24.26 22.30 29.24 22.92 Educational Attainment, frequency in % a.Elem Level 24.8% 30.0% 44.0% 12.0% b. Elem grad 41.9% 43.3% 28.0% 48.0% c. HS grad 24.8% 23.3% 8.0% 34.0% d. College grad 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% d. No response 6.7% 3.3% 20.0% 2.0% Male, frequency in % 68.6% 93.3% 56.0% 60.0% Ethnicity, frequency in % a. Ilocano 48.6% 73.3% 32.0% 42.0% b. Ibanag 45.7% 20.0% 68.0% 50.0% c.Ilocano-Ibanag 3.8% 6.7% 0.0% 4.0% d. No response 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% Civil Status, frequency in % a. Single 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% b. Married 92.4% 93.3% 100.0% 88.0% c. Widowed 3.8% 6.7% 0.0% 4.0% d. No response 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0%

Incomes of harvesters come from varied sources, although very few provided answers on average income levels from other sources of livelihood. Nevertheless, apart from Aparri respondents who did not provide other income sources, nipa harvesting constitutes only around a third of incomes of majority of those who responded to the survey. Relative to other sources, it represents the lowest average annual source of income.

Table 19. Average Annual Income from Nipa Harvesting and Other Sources, Cagayan Nipa Harvesters, in PhP, 2010

Source of Income Cagayan Abulog Aparri Pamplona

Ave. Annual Income from Nipa Harvesting 25,404 34,627 20,298 22,965 Ave. Annual Income from Other Sources Fishing 31,020 43,200 - 28,584 small business 40,267 4,933 - 75,600 Farming 30,900 57,600 - 22,000 OFW 54,700 50,000 - 64,100 Private Employee 52,720 41,600 - 55,500 Gov't Employee 87,000 - - 87,000 Carpenter 39,000 - - 39,000 % of HH income from Nipa Harvesting 36% 31% - 37% Total No. of Respondents 105 30 25 50

29 The average harvesting area per household is small, ranging from 0.05 has in Aparri, to 0.61 in Abulog, and 1.84 in Pamplona, producing an average of 0.69 has per household in Cagayan province. Harvested parts consist of nipa shingles used for housing material and the sap which is usually transformed into wine.

Table 20. Major Uses of Nipa Harvested, Cagayan, 2010 Use Cagayan Abulog Aparri Pamplona Housing Material 96% 97% 100% 94% Food/Beverage 93% 100% 100% 86% Packaging Material 2% 0% 0% 4% Total No. of Respondents 105 30 25 50

Harvesting is done year-round, although the peak months of harvesting fall within the summer period of March until May. On the average, a household harvests for around 100 days in a year. Pamplona respondents harvest for 66 days, Abulog respondents for 81 days, and Aparri residents for 189 days in a year, on the average. Usually, processed nipa is bought by a middle man, except in Aparri where all harvesters sell their produce directly in the market. Nevertheless, their produce is still bought by bulk buyers even when sold directly in the market.

In terms of net income, those producing wine from nipa in Pamplona got the largest net incomes on the average, but those coming from the same municipality doing both shingles and wine production had negative incomes. On the other hand, Abulog harvesters producing shingles only had negative net incomes on the average. Nevertheless, all types of nipa harvesting produced negative resource rent estimates, with net incomes not being large enough to cover their own labor costs.

Table 21. Revenues and Costs Of Nipa Harvesters Producing Both Shingles and Wine, Cagayan, per HH per year, in PhP, 2010 Cagayan Abulog Pamplona N Ave. Total Revenues 7,776 8,478 7,073 6 Ave. Total Variable Costs 1,165 1,625 705 4 Ave. Total Fixed Costs 1,732 2,453 650 5 Ave. Total Hired Labor Costs 19,872 - 19,872 1 Ave. Total Costs 5,665 3,803 7,527 6 Ave. Net Income 2,111 4,675 -454 6 Ave. Own Labor Costs 8,280 5,520 16,560 4 15% MPR 317 701 - Resource Rent -6,486 -1,546 - N 6 3 3

Table 22. Revenues and Costs of Nipa Harvesters Producing Shingles, Cagayan, per HH per year, In PhP, 2010 Cagayan Abulog Aparri Pamplona N Ave. Total Revenues 7,944 2,981 12,879 7,978 39 Ave. Total Variable Costs 2,691 2,077 4,097 1,188 33 Ave. Total Fixed Costs 414 936 150 133 38 Ave. Total Hired Labor Costs 10,350 6,210 - 12,420 3 Ave. Total Costs 4,450 5,239 4,570 3,363 38 Ave. Net Income 3,608 -1,883 8,309 4,615 39 Ave. Own Labor Costs 32,680 25,323 46,841 14,352 32 15% MPR 541 -283 1,246 692 Resource Rent -29,613 -26,924 -39,779 -10,429 N 39 14 14 11

30 Table 23. Revenues and Costs Of Nipa Harvesters Producing Wine, Cagayan, per HH per year, In PhP, 2010 Cagayan Abulog Pamplona N Ave. Total Revenues 21,629 18,934 23,152 36 Ave. Total Variable Costs 541 500 546 10 Ave. Total Fixed Costs 4,433 6,261 3,182 32 Ave. Total Hired Labor Costs 7,125 7,367 6,035 11 Ave. Total Costs 6,833 11,913 3,688 34 Ave. Net Income 15,176 7,021 19,785 36 Ave. Own Labor Costs 24,353 16,560 26,751 17 15% MPR 2,276 1,053 2,968 Resource Rent -11,453 -10,592 -9,933 N 36 13 23

Respondents were asked to comment on general trends in nipa harvesting that they have been observing over the past five years or so. In terms of the quantity of nipa they are able to harvest, respondents were divided. Abulog and Aparri respondents claim there have been changes, while Pamplona respondents don’t think so. Aparri respondents claim their harvests have increased, but Abulog respondents are divided on whether there have been increases or decreases. The same trend holds true for the perceived quality of nipa harvested. Pamplona residents don’t think there have been any changes, while Abulog and Aparri respondents claim they are now smaller in size. Abulog and Aparri respondents feel there have been increases in their costs, particularly in terms of marketing and transport costs. However, they also feel nipa prices have increased as well, probably brought about by the increase in costs.

Table 24. Perceived Trends in Nipa Harvesting, Cagayan, 2010

General Trends Observed Over the Years Cagayan Abulog Aparri Pamplona

Changes in the quantity of nipa harvested: Yes 55.2% 83.3% 100.0% 16.0% No 43.8% 16.7% 0.0% 82.0% No Response 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% Harvest increasing or declining: increasing and sometimes declining 8% 20% 0% 4% Increasing 29% 13% 96% 4% declining 7% 17% 0% 4% depends on weather 9% 30% 0% 0% No Response 49% 20% 4% 88% Changes in the quality of nipa harvested: Yes 50% 80% 100% 8% No 47% 17% 0% 88% No Response 3% 3% 0% 4% Changes in quality observed: different taste 1% 3% 0% 0% easier to wilt and torn leaves due to storm 4% 13% 0% 0% less sap extracted 3% 7% 0% 2% smaller in size 33% 27% 100% 4% No Response 59% 50% 0% 94% Changes in the prices of inputs used: Yes 59% 87% 100% 22% No 35% 3% 0% 72% No Response 6% 10% 0% 6%

31 General Trends Observed Over the Years Cagayan Abulog Aparri Pamplona

Inputs that have changed in value: Bamboo 1% 0% 0% 2% Fuelwood 3% 0% 0% 6% Marketing 11% 40% 0% 0% Storage Equipment (containers, Jars, drums etc) 4% 0% 0% 8% Transportation, Marketing, Labour 29% 47% 64% 0% Transportation 9% 0% 36% 0% No Response 44% 13% 0% 84% Changes in the price of nipa: Yes 69% 97% 96% 38% No 20% 0% 4% 40% No Response 11% 3% 0% 22% Nipa price higher or lower: Higher 33% 33% 80% 10% Lower 3% 10% 0% 0% Both 13% 17% 0% 18% depends on season 2% 7% 0% 0% depends on supply 3% 10% 0% 0% No Response 46% 23% 20% 72%

Nipa harvesters claim they have been taking measures to increase productivity of the livelihood activity. In Abulog and Aparri, half and almost all respondents, respectively, have undertaken area management and rehabilitation of the harvesting area. In Pamplona, clearing and thinning of the nipa population has been undertaken as well.

Table 25. Measures Taken to Increase Productivity, Cagayan Nipa Harvesters, 2010

Measures Cagayan Abulog Aparri Pamplona

Clearing and thinning the population 30% 3% 0% 60%

Find larger area 1% 3% 0% 0%

Improve product quality 2% 0% 0% 4%

Increase production 1% 3% 0% 0%

Proper area management 13% 43% 0% 2%

Proper harvest practice 3% 10% 0% 0%

Rehabilitation of the area 23% 0% 96% 0%

Stocking of product 2% 7% 0% 0%

No Response 26% 30% 4% 34%

Respondents did not perceive that there was any negative impact from nipa harvesting. Furthermore, when asked if they were willing to pay a regular fee for the activity (Table 26), majority responded that they were, except in Aparri where they believed that nipa harvesting should be conducted for free. Abulog respondents were willing to pay an average amount of PhP 75 per household per year, while those from Pamplona had higher values, averaging at PhP 184 per household per year. Majority believed the fees should be used to fund local projects, including rehabilitation of nipa areas in Aparri despite their unwillingness to pay any kind of fee.

32 Table 26. Willingness to Pay User Fees by Nipa Harvesters in Cagayan, 2010

Cagayan Abulog Aparri Pamplona

Willingness to Pay User Fees Yes 61% 60% 4% 90% No 32% 40% 84% 2% No Response 7% 0% 12% 8% Average Amount, PhP/year 179 75 No Data 184 Reasons For Not Willing to Pay User Fees Additional expense 1% 3% 0% 0% Area is tax declared 4% 13% 0% 0% Doesn't own a lot 2% 3% 0% 2% Insufficient income 5% 13% 0% 2% Nipa permits should be free (gratis) 20% 0% 84% 0% Weaver only 1% 3% 0% 0% No Response 68% 63% 16% 96% Preferred Use of User Fees Local projects 55% 47% 40% 68% Livelihood project 11% 17% 0% 14% Medical assistance 5% 0% 20% 0% Rehabilitation of nipa area 6% 0% 24% 0% No Response 23% 37% 16% 18%

RESOURCE GATHERING IN MASBATE

Gatherers of various natural resources within mangrove swamps were surveyed for purposes of determining the relevant role of resource gathering in people’s livelihoods, and whether gatherers were still realizing any resource rent. The survey further attempted to look at the costs of managing the Bongsanglay NP from the point of view of the managers themselves. Unfortunately, this survey was not conducted by the enumerators, hence could not feed into the analysis.

In Masbate, out of a total of 180 gatherers, the demographic profile shows that the average resource gatherer is middle-aged, with around 11 years of harvesting experience. Most of them either had some years of elementary education or finished elementary, with less than a fifth being able to finish high school. In Uson, all respondents were able to finish their elementary level, while in Batuan and San Jacinto, the bulk of respondents were able to finish high school. Gatherers were typically male, except in Placer, Milagros and San Jacinto. Most were married, except in Batuan where majority of gatherers were single.

Table 27. Demographic Profile of Resource Gatherers in Masbate, 2010 Ave. Average Harvesting % Elem % Elem % HS % Location age, in % Male N Experience, Level grad grad Married yrs. in yrs. Masbate 38 11 32% 47% 18% 72% 77% 180 Batuan 24 5 0% 25% 75% 94% 38% 16 Placer 47 20 0% 81% 6% 44% 100% 16 Milagros 44 13 0% 78% 22% 28% 94% 18 San Pascual 41 11 69% 21% 7% 72% 97% 29 Claveria 37 11 63% 33% 4% 100% 78% 27 Cawayan 36 7 46% 48% 7% 100% 57% 46 San Jacinto 40 10 0% 36% 64% 7% 79% 14 Masbate City 43 22 0% 80% 10% 50% 100% 10 Uson 49 11 0% 100% 0% 75% 100% 4

33 Resource gathering does not seem to be the only source of income for many of the respondents. Other sources of livelihood include farming, fishing, labor contracts, and operating small businesses in their localities. In Uson, for instance, all those involved in resource gathering are operating small businesses at the same time. In Masbate City, 27% of the respondents belong to fishing families as well. Table 28 below shows the distribution of other income sources among the municipalities involved in the survey.

Table 28. Other Sources of Income, Mangrove Resource Gatherers in Masbate, 2010

Barangay Gov't Nipa Small Location Craftsmen Employee Farming Fishing Laborer Official Employee Making business

Masbate 1% 1% 0% 5% 7% 0% 4% 0% 4% Batuan 0% 2% 0% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% Placer 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 13% Milagros 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 4% San Pascual 0% 1% 0% 11% 13% 1% 3% 1% 0% Claveria 0% 1% 0% 7% 7% 0% 14% 0% 0% Cawayan 0% 0% 1% 4% 4% 0% 4% 0% 1% San Jacinto 14% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 10% 0% 19% Masbate City 0% 0% 0% 0% 27% 3% 0% 0% 7% Uson 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Total No. 6 3 1 27 39 2 24 1 20

Income from resource gathering was very low. On the average, Masbate respondents reported getting around PhP 18,000 per year from resource gathering, which is way below the poverty threshold of PhP ___ in the province. Clearly, households were getting most of their income from other sources, and resource gathering is only meant to augment their livelihoods as additional sources of food for households. Moreover, 94% of respondents indicated that food was the primary use of resource gathering, income from resource gathering represented only 9% of total income on the average if reported income was used. But if figures from the survey are used, the share of resource gathering to total income of the household is much larger at 30% on the average. Cawayan respondents were getting almost half of their income from this livelihood activity.

Table 29. Average Annual Income from Resource Gathering, in PhP, 2010 Reported Annual Income % Share of Annual Income from Resource Location from Resource Gathering, Gathering to Total HH Income in PhP Using Reported Using Production Income Data Masbate 17,976 9% 30%

Batuan 4,203 9% 11% Placer 8,469 8% 29% Milagros 18,827 9% 17% San Pascual 2,460 4% 25% Claveria 18,382 11% 34% Cawayan 38,500 16% 48% San Jacinto 540 4% 6% Masbate City 15,750 10% 17% Uson 44,000 - -

34 Resources gathered consisted of a variety of species. Bagongon and shells were the most common species harvested, along with caras-caras. Bagongon and caras-caras were mostly harvested in Placer, and shells in Cawayan and Uson. Crabs were harvested in Claveria, Batuan and San Pascual, while tuway was found only in Placer. All in all, Placer reported the most number of species harvested from mangrove swamps.

Table 30. Annual Average Volume of Mangrove Resource Harvested in Sample Masbate Mangroves, per Household, in Kilos, 2010

Mangrove Resource Annual Volume Harvested, in kilos

Bagongon 594 Bakalan 108 caras caras 480 Crabs 77 Imbao 42 Kagang 54 Karigmata 16 Oyster 44 Punao 80 Sese 71 Shell 978 Sulip 213 Takla 65 Tuway 268

In terms of harvesting days, Milagros respondents harvest almost two thirds of the year, Cawayan harvest respondents harvest around half of the year, while Masbate City and Uson respondents harvest around one-third of the year. Claveria respondents harvest a little over 3 months in a year, while Batuan, Placer and San Pascual harvest approximately two months in a year. San Jacinto harvesting days are negligible, registering less than two weeks in terms of days of harvest in a year. Policies affecting resource gathering in mangroves will hence affect Milagros and Cawayan respondents more than those in other municipalities.

Table 31. No. of Harvesting Days in a Year, Masbate Resource Gatherers, 2010

Location No. of Harvesting Days, per Year

Masbate 106 Batuan 52 Placer 66 Milagros 209 San Pascual 50 Claveria 98 Cawayan 162 San Jacinto 11 Masbate City 132

35 In terms of net income, all municipalities exhibited positive net incomes from resource gathering. As mentioned earlier, annual incomes per household were way below the poverty line. This was to be expected, given that resource gathering was merely less than 10% of total household income on the average.

Table 32. Net Income from Resource Gathering, Masbate, 2010 Ave. Total Ave. Total Ave. Production Ave. Total Fixed Ave. Total Ave. Net Profit/ Municipality Variable Costs/ Hired Labor Value/hh/yr * Costs/hh/yr *** Costs/hh/yr hh/yr hh/yr** Costs/hh/yr Masbate 16,433 990 761 14,400 1,970 14,905 Batuan 3,563 173 189 14,400 2,282 1,281 Placer 26,836 1,263 194 - 568 26,282 Milagros 3,920 623 679 - 1,503 2,417 San Pascual 5,106 360 854 - 871 4,436 Claveria 10,164 534 51 - 556 9,609 Cawayan 37,607 10,250 4,750 - 6,684 34,652 San Jacinto 540 71 40 - 55 511 Masbate City 15,750 416 2,466 - 2,911 13,219 Uson 35,750 502 547 - 1,728 33,538

*Reported gross income was used for samples with no production data **For samples with no data: Attributed values = computed as average cost (for all municipalities excluding Cawayan)/12 * no. of months resouce gathering ***Ibid

However, resource rents were negative, when their own labor and a 15% margin for profit and risk are accounted for. Only Placer, Cawayan and Uson exhibited positive rent estimates, but the average for the whole province was negative on the whole.

Table 33. Resource Rent Estimates from Resource Gathering in Sample Masbate Mangroves, 2010 Municipality Ave. Net Profit/hh/yr* Ave. Total Own Labor Costs/hh/yr 15% MPR Resource Rent Masbate 14,905 13,687 2,236 (1,018.18) Batuan 1,281 4,950 192 (3,861.29) Placer 26,282 7,650 3,942 14,689.43 Milagros 2,417 28,193 363 (26,137.72) San Pascual 4,436 6,800 665 (3,029.55) Claveria 9,609 13,770 1,441 (5,602.71) Cawayan 34,652 19,784 5,198 9,670.54 San Jacinto 511** 1,545 77 (1,110.93) Masbate City 13,219** 16,200 1,983 (4,963.91) Uson 33,538 15,060 5,031 13,447.67

Respondents were asked about trends they experienced in their resource gathering activities. Majority (73%) indicated that they experienced changes in the quantity of the resource harvested through the years, with 64% claiming a decline. There were no perceived changes in the quality of the harvest though, and among those who did perceive changes in quality, 37% indicated smaller sizes compared with previous years. Prices of inputs did not change as well (67%), but prices in the resources were perceived to have changed (57%). Nevertheless, only 39% claimed that resource prices were now higher, while 59% of respondents did not provide a response to the question.

Table 34. Perceived Trends in Resource Harvesting, Masbate, 2010 General Question Frequency of Responses, in % Experienced change in quantity of resource harvested 73 Decline in quantity of resource harvested 64 No change in quality of resource harvested 53 Smaller in size 37 No change in prices of inputs for resource harvesting 61 Experienced changes in the price of the resource itself 57 36 Higher price of the resource 39 Respondents varied in the type of problems they claim to have encountered in resource gathering through the years. In San Pascual for instance, cutting of mangroves is blamed as their primary problem. In Uson, natural reasons are cited, such as natural calamities and tidal changes. In Milagros, weather is likewise cited as the main problem of almost all respondents. In Batuan, competition was being experienced by almost half of the respondents. Placer, Cawayan and Masbate City respondents declined to give a response.

Table 35. Problems Experienced in Resource Gathering, Sample Masbate Mangroves, 2010 San San Masbate Problem Experienced Masbate Batuan Placer Milagros Claveria Cawayan Uson Pascual Jacinto City Competition 8% 44% 6% 0% 3% 7% 0% 29% 0% 0% Mangrove cutting 20% 6% 0% 0% 93% 11% 4% 21% 0% 0% Declining catch 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 9% 21% 10% 0% Difficulty in gathering 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 2% 14% 0% 0% Injuries 6% 0% 19% 0% 0% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% Lack of equipment 2% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% Low price 1% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Natural Calamities 2% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 25% Weather/tidal condition 11% 0% 0% 94% 0% 0% 2% 0% 10% 25% No Response 39% 31% 56% 6% 3% 37% 72% 14% 80% 50%

When asked what type of government assistance would be most useful for them, livelihood assistance was high on the list for Batuan (81%) and San Pascual (34%) respondents. Milagros and Cawayan respondents preferred direct financial assistance (61% and 30%), while San Jacinto (50%) and Uson (25%) respondents wanted more regulations in resource gathering. Finally, trainings and seminars were requested by Placer (25%), San Pascual (41%), Claveria (44%), Cawayan (26%), and San Jacinto (21%) respondents.

Despite negative resource rent estimates, willingness to pay fees for resource gathering was present in majority of the respondents. On the average, they were willing to pay a fee of PhP 76 per household per year. For those who were not willing to pay, particularly in Placer, Milagros, and Claveria, insufficient income was cited as the main reason for their unwillingness, except in San Jacinto where they claimed resource gathering was for family consumption only. Uson respondents did not respond to the questions on WTP despite having the second largest rent estimates from the survey. Placer had the largest rent estimates, but respondents were not willing to pay for resource user fees. This may be because almost a third of their household income was coming from resource gathering, using the income results of the survey. Despite having positive rent estimates, they may not be willing to pay additional fees because total household income on the whole is still very low.

Table 36. WTP for Resource User Fees for Resource Gathering, Sample Masbate Mangroves, 2010 Insufficient Income as WTP, frequency Amount WTP, in PhP, Location Reason for Not WTP, in % per HH per year Frequency in % Masbate 52% 32% 76 Batuan 69% 31% 11 Placer 44% 50% 79 Milagros 0% 94% - San Pascual 83% 21% 8 Claveria 33% 59% 468 Cawayan 83% 9% 48 San Jacinto 7% 14% 5 Masbate City 30% 0% 100 Uson 0% 0% -

As far as where the fees should go are concerned, all Batuan respondents and half of the respondents in Cawayan want the funds to be spent for mangrove reforestation efforts, while those from San Pascual preferred direct assistance be provided to the population.

37 FORESHORE AREAS

For foreshore areas, a survey was done on the establishments located in chosen municipalities in the provinces of Cagayan and Masbate, namely: Buguey, Aparri, Sta. Ana, Claveria and Gonzaga, and Aroroy, Masbate City, Cawayan and San Jacinto, respectively. Unfortunately, only five municipalities were able to complete their surveys for foreshore area occupants, namely: Claveria, Sta. Ana, Aparri and Buguey for Cagayan, and only Aroroy for Masbate.

Table 37. Inventory of Foreshore Area Occupants in Sample Municipalities in Cagayan and Masbate, 2010

Location Number Average Size, Sqm Total Area, Sqm

Cagayan 158 588 21,759 Claveria 67 - 0 Hotel/Lodging/TE 19 - 0 Residential 43 - 0 Hall/Basketball Court 3 - 0 Commercial 2 - 0 Sta Ana 49 - 0 Hotel/Lodging/TE 20 - 0 Residential 26 - 0 Commercial 3 - 0 Aparri 16 25 319 Residential 13 25 319 Commercial 1 - 0 School 1 - 0 Government 1 - 0 Buguey 26 893 21,440 Residential 21 61 1,220 School 2 5,050 10,100 Government 1 10,000 10,000 Masbate 847 562 475,788 Aroroy 847 562 475,788 Residential 755 216 163,188 Commercial 32 3,957 126,618

Open 10 10,220 102,200 No classification 50 1,676 83,782

Among those surveyed, the total number of residential occupants was 103 in Cagayan and 755 in Aroroy, representing 65% and 89% respectively of the total foreshore area occupants in the province. Commercial establishments represented only 28% and 4%, respectively, while public establishments were only 5% of the total occupants in Cagayan.

For the more detailed survey of foreshore area occupants, majority of those surveyed were non-commercial in nature. In Masbate, there were more commercial than residential establishments by only 10%, many of which were located in Aroroy and Mobo. In some municipalities such as San Jacinto, Masbate City, Gonzaga and Claveria, an overwhelming majority of the occupants were residential (Table 38).

38 Table 38. Foreshore Area Occupants in Masbate and Cagayan, by Purpose of Establishment, 2010

Location Purpose

Large Commercial Residential Gov't No Response Commercial Sample 33% 3% 56% 4% 5% Masbate 53% 4% 43% 0% 0% Aroroy 89% 11% 0% 0% 0% Cawayan 49% 0% 51% 0% 0% Mobo 75% 25% 0% 0% 0% San Jacinto 14% 0% 86% 0% 0% Masbate City 14% 0% 86% 0% 0% Cagayan 7% 1% 72% 8% 12% Gonzaga 9% 0% 70% 17% 4% Aparri 9% 4% 43% 4% 39% Claveria 5% 0% 90% 5% 0% N=190 62 5 106 7 10

In terms of materials used for construction, majority of establishments used concrete. Only a few were made of light materials, mostly located in Masbate City.

Table 39. Type of Infrastructure, Forehore Area Occupants, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 Location N Concrete Semi- Concrete Light Materials Others Sample 190 52% 21% 9% 18% Masbate 105 53% 29% 13% 5% Aroroy 27 67% 26% 4% 4% Cawayan 53 58% 38% 4% 0% Mobo 4 50% 0% 0% 50% San Jacinto 7 57% 14% 0% 29% Masbate City 14 7% 14% 79% 0% Cagayan 85 49% 12% 5% 34% Gonzaga 23 13% 0% 0% 87% Aparri 23 26% 30% 17% 26% Claveria 39 85% 8% 0% 8% N 98 40 18 34

RENT ESTIMATES FROM REVENUES AND COSTS

Average acquisition costs ranged from less than a million pesos to as high as PhP 242 million for large commercial establishments. For commercial establishments the lowest average acquisition cost was in Gonzaga at only PhP 80 thousand, while the highest was in San Jacinto at PhP 3.9 million. Non-commercial establishments were more or less uniform in costs, except in Gonzaga and Aparri, which were outliers in the sample (Table 40).

39 Table 40. Average Acquisition Costs per Establishment in Foreshore Areas, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 Large Non- Location N Commercial N N Commercial commercial Sample 51,047,112 5 357,253 61 156,826 108

Masbate 63,574,111 4 368,209 55 137,653 43

Aroroy 3,950,000 3 220,508 24 - 0

Cawayan - 0 191,442 26 151,378 27

Mobo 242,446,443 1 1,566,667 2 - 0

San Jacinto - 0 3,860,000 1 161,667 4

Masbate City - 0 895,000 2 94,767 12

Cagayan 939,115 1 255,000 6 169,514 65

Gonzaga - 0 80,000 2 46,450 18

Aparri 939,115 1 580,000 2 573,773 11

Claveria - 0 105,000 2 115,850 36

N 5 61 108

In doing a survey of revenues and costs, small and medium commercial establishments exhibited a positive net income on the average, except for those located in Cawayan, Masbate. Aroroy establishments had the highest average income at almost PhP 200 thousand per establishment per year. Unfortunately, some municipalities were not able to report any revenues for the year 2010. This may not necessarily mean they did not earn; the enumerators were just not able to get information from them when the survey was conducted. Note that large commercial establishments likewise did not report any income when surveyed for this study.

Table 41. Revenues and Costs of Commercial Establishments in Foreshore Areas, Cagayan and Masbate, 2010

Ave. Revenue/ Ave. Dep'n Ave. Maintenance Ave. Labor Ave. Net Income/ Location estab./yr Cost/ estab./yr Cost/est/yr Cost/ estab/yr estab/yr

Sample 237,610.87 23,952.84 60,430.21 145,370.50 69,906.65

Masbate 242,411.36 24,521.37 64,342.81 152,114.33 68,219.07

Aroroy 373,394.44 22,888.93 72,283.05 120,153.00 198,092.15

Cawayan 149,791.67 11,339.21 37,257.14 154,680.00 (28,834.15)

Mobo 175,000.00 120,000.00 100,000.00 102,000.00 64,000.00

San Jacinto - 280,000.00 43,600.00 657,360.00 -

Masbate City - 40,000.00 - 80,300.00 -

Cagayan 132,000.00 18,836.11 20,000.00 3,750.00 107,033.33

Gonzaga - 2,375.00 - - -

Aparri - 49,166.67 25,000.00 2,500.00 -

Claveria 132,000.00 4,966.67 17,500.00 5,000.00 107,033.33

N 46 60 34 44 46

Estimating for their own labor costs and assuming the usual 15% margin for profit and risk result in rent estimates of around PhP 9,000 per establishment per year for the total sample surveyed. Aroroy estimates were high at more than PhP 110 thousand, along with Claveria establishments at PhP 42 thousand per establishment per year. (Table 42)

40 Table 42. Annual Rent Estimates Based on Excess Profit, Commercial Establishments in Foreshore Areas in Cagayan and Masbate, 2010

Location Ave. Own Labor/estab./yr 15% MPR Rent Estimates

Sample 50,846.40 10,486.00 8,574.25 Masbate 51,321.60 10,232.86 6,664.61 Aroroy 51,321.60 29,713.82 117,056.72 Cawayan 51,321.60 (4,325.12) (75,830.62) Mobo 51,321.60 9,600.00 3,078.40 San Jacinto - Masbate City 51,321.60 Cagayan 49,183.20 16,055.00 41,795.13 Gonzaga 49,183.20 Aparri 49,183.20 Claveria 49,183.20 16,055.00 41,795.13 Buguey -

Estimates of resource rent for large commercial establishments could not be done because none of them reported their revenues for the survey. Non-commercial establishments obviously did not have any revenues as well.

RENT ESTIMATES USING CA 141

Current regulations specify how to compute for the amount of fees for foreshore lease agreements (FLAs) mainly based on CA 141, or the Land Act. The latest directive from the DENR requires that market values be used in computing for FLA fees for commercial and industrial uses. DAO No. 2010-26 states that “…. The appraised or re-appraised value of properties classified as residential or agricultural shall not be less than the average of the current zonal and assessed value thereof. If the property is classified as commercial or industrial, the appraised or re-appraised value shall not be less than the zonal value or market value thereof whichever is higher…”

It further states: “If the property has not yet been declared for taxation purposes or its market value is not available, the market value of other properties located in the area or adjacent barangay/municipality/city which is of similar character with that of the property being appraised of shall be used. If the zonal value is not available, the zonal value of properties of similar character in the area or adjacent barangay/municipality/city shall be used.”

Using data on acquisition costs, and a quick survey of market values of land in the survey municipalities, as well as actual (or in cases where data is unavailable, the average) area occupied by the type of establishments located in foreshore areas of Cagayan and Masbate, the foregone income from FLA fees can be computed. Note that the study is advocating for the use of market values in computing for FLA fees, whether the occupant is commercial or not. This is to provide a premium for locating within foreshore areas. In the absence of actual economic values of the various ecological services provided by foreshore areas, the study recommends the use of market values to provide a premium in valuing them.

The average total area occupied by establishments located in foreshore areas is given in Table 43. Only a few municipalities were able to provide details on total area occupied by the establishments surveyed. For the large commercial establishments, the provincial averages were similar. For commercial establishments, only Aroroy was able to provide data on this indicator. For non-commercial establishments, those located in Cagayan were more than twice the size of those in Masbate.

41 Table 43. Average Total Area Occupied by Establishments in Foreshore Areas, in Square Meters, Cagayan and Masbate, 2010 Location Large Commercial N Commercial N Non-commercial N

Sample 7,461 4 4,145 30 234 792

Masbate 7,423 3 4,145 30 216 755

Aroroy 1,135 2 4,145 30 216 755

Cawayan - 0 - 0 - 0

Mobo 20,000 1 - 0 - 0

San Jacinto - 0 - 0 - 0

Masbate City - 0 - 0 - 0

Cagayan 7,572 1 - 0 588 37

Gonzaga - 0 - 0 - 0

Aparri 7,572 1 - 0 25 13

Claveria - 0 - 0 - 0

Buguey - 0 - 0 893 24

N 4 30 792

On the other hand, market values of beachfronts were obtained from available data on the internet. For areas that did not have any data readily available, prices of the neighboring city or municipality were used. For instance, Cawayan and Mobo did not have beachfront prices published on the net. Instead, prices in Masbate City were used.

Table 44. Beach Front Property Prices in Cagayan and Masbate, in PhP per square meter, 2011 Min Max

Masbate 430 3,000

Aroroy 430

Cawayan (Masbate City used) 590

Mobo (Masbate City used) 590

San Jacinto 450

Masbate City 590 3,000

Cagayan 200 1,200

Gonzaga 200

Aparri 200

Claveria 386

Sta. Ana 278 700

Ballesteros 350

Buguey 125 200

CA 141 states that rent can be computed at 3% of the total value of the land on which the property stands, together with 1% of the value of total improvements. In using market values of beachfronts in the two sample provinces, payments can be computed at a minimum of PhP 430 per sq. m. in Masbate and PhP 200 per sq.m. in Cagayan, and at a maximum of PhP 3,000 per sq.m. in Masbate and PhP 1,200 per sq.m. in Cagayan. In computing for 1% of total improvements, 1% of acquisition costs were used (see Table 45).

42 Table 45. Annual Rent Estimates per Establishment in Foreshore Areas Using CA 141, Masbate and Cagayan, 2011

Province/Indicator Type of Establishment in Foreshore Area

Large Commercial Commercial Non-Commercial Masbate 3% Market Value Minimum 95,761.00 53,469.64 2,788.24 Maximum 668,100.00 373,044.00 19,452.87 1% Improvement 635,741.11 3,682.09 1,376.53 Total Rent 200 1,200 Minimum 731,502.11 57,151.73 4,164.78 Maximum 1,303,841.11 376,726.09 20,829.41 Cagayan 3% Market Value 278 700 Minimum 45,432.00 24,869.60 3,528.49 Maximum 272,592.00 149,217.60 21,170.92 1% Improvement 9,391.15 2,550.00 1,695.14 Total Rent Minimum 54,823.15 27,419.60 5,223.63 Maximum 281,983.15 151,767.60 22,866.06

Using the average sizes of establishments obtained from the survey, rent estimates can be in the range of PhP 731 thousand to PhP 1.3 million for large commercial establishments in Masbate, and between PhP 55 thousand and PhP 282 thousand in Cagayan. For small and medium commercial establishments, rent can be in the range of PhP 57 thousand and PhP 377 thousand in Masbate, and PhP 27 thousand and PhP 152 thousand in Cagayan. For non- commercial establishments, and assuming they are still allowed to exist in foreshore areas, rent estimates can be between PhP 4 and 21 thousand in Masbate, and PhP 5 and 23 thousand in Cagayan. Note that the commercial rent estimates using revenues and costs in Masbate are much lower then these estimates, but are in the range established for Cagayan.

These estimates can be used to compute for foregone income from foreshore area occupants. According to the survey results, none of these establishments have paid any FLA fees to the government since they were established. From Table 46 below, the government has been deprived of at least PhP 7 million in Masbate, and PhP 248 thousand in Cagayan. Estimates can reach as high as PhP 31 million and PhP 1.1 million, respectively, if maximum unit costs are used to compute for rent values. Furthermore, these values refer only to the sample of foreshore areas that were covered by the study. As far as total number of establishments is concerned, the survey targeted only a maximum of 50% of the estimated total number in the municipalities covered. Not all municipalities were covered. Only two per province were able to deliver survey results for foreshore area occupants. Hence, total foregone income per province would be a lot more than what is being reported in this study if the total number of foreshore area occupants in all municipalities are taken into consideration.

Table 46. Annual Foregone Income from Sample Foreshore Area Occupants, Masbate and Cagayan, 2011 Large Commercial Commercial Non-Commercial TOTAL Masbate Minimum 2,194,506.32 1,714,551.88 3,144,407.61 7,053,465.81 Maximum 3,911,523.32 11,301,782.68 15,726,200.87 30,939,506.87 Cagayan Minimum 54,823.15 193,274.17 248,097.32 Maximum 281,983.15 846,044.17 1,128,027.32 43 CORAL REEFS

FISHERIES

A total of 495 fishers residing in Cagayan (153) and Masbate (342) were interviewed for the survey. The demographic profile of fishers surveyed in Cagayan and Masbate reveal that most fishers are in their 40s, and as expected, the sector is dominated by males. Majority were able to finish elementary level of education, with less than a third earning a high school diploma and less than a tenth being able to finish college. Aparri had a high number of respondents who were able to finish college. An overwhelming majority of them are married.

Table 47. Demographic Profile of Fishers Surveyed in Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 Average % High Total Province/ Municipality % Male % Elem. % College % Married Age School Sample Hh

College 43 96.8% 53.5% 28.3% 7.9% 88.9% 495

Married 43 98.2% 57.6% 26.3% 7.3% 89.2% 342

Claveria 42 98.9% 42.5% 27.6% 4.6% 90.8% 87

Masbate City 42 98.8% 66.7% 22.6% 6.0% 81.0% 84

Milagros 41 100.0% 70.6% 20.6% 5.9% 94.1% 34

Placer 44 95.1% 58.5% 24.4% 14.6% 92.7% 41

San Jacinto 47 96.0% 56.0% 28.0% 12.0% 86.0% 50

San Pascual 46 100.0% 60.9% 34.8% 4.3% 97.8% 46

Cagayan 43 93.5% 44.4% 32.7% 9.2% 88.2% 153

Aparri 46 89.5% 57.9% 10.5% 26.3% 94.7% 19

Camiguin Calayan 40 95.7% 47.3% 28.0% 8.6% 82.8% 93

Claveria 48 90.2% 31.7% 53.7% 2.4% 97.6% 41

Household incomes were low for all sites surveyed, as expected (See Table 48). The average household income in Claveria in Masbate, though was almost double the averages of other municipalities in the survey, while Aparri, despite having a relatively higher percentage of college graduates, had a very low average income in a year. For an average family size of six (6), 2009 poverty thresholds for Cagayan and Masbate were PhP 94,494 and PhP 96,138, respectively. The average family income among sample respondents in Cagayan was way below the poverty threshold, while that in Masbate was just slightly above.

Incomes came from a variety of sources, such as:

1. Retail selling 2. Carpentry, driving and other blue-collar jobs 3. Farming 4. Fishing 5. Government or private sector employment 6. Livestock raising 7. Household help 8. Resource gathering 9. Pension sources

Fishing and farming are still the major income sources for most of the respondents.

44 Table 48. Average Household Income for Fishers in Masbate and Cagayan, 2010

Location Average Household Annual Income, in PhP Total Sample HH

All Respondents 92,056 414

Masbate 99,408 272

Claveria 157,045 79

Masbate City 80,754 37

Milagros 61,532 34

Placer 76,970 41

San Jacinto 82,896 36

San Pascual 75,835 45

Cagayan 77,973 142

Aparri 42,239 18

Camiguin Calayan 78,399 90

Claveria 95,765 34

Municipal fishers own one fishing boat while commercial fishers in Masbate own two fishing boats on the average. Average construction/purchase prices range from less than PhP 4 thousand to PhP 9 thousand for non-commercial non-motorized boats, while motorized ones cost between PhP 31 thousand and PhP 44 thousand. Non-motorized boats are much cheaper to maintain in Masbate (less than half of the maintenance cost in Cagayan), while motorized ones are a bit cheaper to maintain in Cagayan. It is thus cheaper to buy and maintain a non-motorized fishing boat in Masbate, but it is cheaper to buy and maintain a motorized boat in Cagayan. Commercial fishing boats cost around PhP 234 thousand in Masbate. The average lifespan of a municipal fishing boat is around 6 years, while commercial boats last twice as long in Masbate.

Table 49. Purchase and Maintenance Costs of Fishing Boats in Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 Ave Ave. Ave Capacity/ Construction Ave Econ Total Fishing Craft Ave no./HH Maintenance boat (t) Cost/ Purchase Life/boat Sample Cost/boat/year Price

Masbate 1.1 373

Non-Commercial Non-Motorized 1 0.3 3,647 4 1,061 79

Non- Commercial Motorized 1 1.0 43,690 6 5,253 257

Commercial 2 3.2 234,054 12 43,253 37

Cagayan 1 111

Non-Commercial Non-Motorized 1 0.2 9,129 6 2,377 31

Non- Commercial Motorized 1 0.9 31,281 6 4,857 79

A variety of fishing gears is used for fishing in the two sample provinces. Only the top five gears are presented in the table, otherwise the table will be too large to digest. Gill nets, nets and hook and line are the most popular among the municipal fishers of Masbate, while spearguns and gill nets dominate the choices for fishers in Cagayan. Acquisition prices of gill nets and nets vary tremendously between the two provinces, with the non-commercial motorized sector in Masbate registering extremely high acquisition costs. The more expensive gears to maintain are the multiple hook and line and nets, though (see Table 50).

45 Table 50. Purchase and Maintenance Costs of Fishing Gear Used in Masbate and Cagayan, 2010

No. of Ave. Acquisition Ave. Maintenance Ave. Econ Ave. Quantity Gear Sample Users Cost/Gear, in PhP Cost/Gear/Yearin PhP Life, in Yrs. Owned/HH

Non-Commercial, Non Motorized 1,792 1,073 hook and line 43 346 876 1.3 2.0 gill net 23 2,845 1,371 1.6 1.4 Net 14 1,695 1,072 2.8 3.9 multiple hook and line 9 1,175 2,234 0.6 1.0 Speargun 9 917 224 4.0 1.8 Non-Commercial, Motorized 10,142 1,796 gill net 98 24,327 555 3.2 1.6 Net 68 12,536 3,436 3.3 4.2 hook and line 59 941 802 1.1 2.4 multiple hook and line 39 1,440 2,109 1.6 3.1 Speargun 26 413 400 3.3 1.5 Commercial 158,948 6,657 Kalansisi 10 336,000 8,537 4.9 3.8 Pakitan 9 1,850 1,652 1.2 1.6 Net 5 10,380 4,282 2.5 1.2 Anod 3 69,467 22,440 4.3 26.0 Palutang 3 5,060 1,284 3.3 5.7 Masbate Non-Commercial,Non –Motorized 1,794 891 hook and line 34 361 544 1.1 1.9 gill net 17 3,461 792 1.6 1.2 multiple hook and line 9 1,175 2,234 0.6 1.0 Net 8 2,357 841 2.0 2.3 Lagulo 6 112 422 0.8 3.0 Non-Commercial, Motorized 15,675 1,272 gill net 73 32,342 484 3.7 1.5 Net 45 16,697 2,396 3.4 4.4 hook and line 39 868 608 1.1 2.6 multiple hook and line 14 1,313 816 0.8 2.1 Pamo 11 13,591 639 3.8 3.6 Commercial 166,510 6,985 Kalansisi 10 336,000 8,537 4.9 3.8 Pakitan 9 1,850 1,652 1.2 1.6 net 5 10,380 4,282 2.5 1.2 anod 3 69,467 22,440 4.3 26.0 palutang 3 5,060 1,284 3.3 5.7 Cagayan Non-Commercial, Non- Motorized 1,788 1,576 hook and line 9 284 2,093 1.8 2.1 tabukot 9 4,000 2,000 6.0 2.2 speargun 8 1,006 224 4.4 1.6 sigay 7 4,750 810 7.4 1.4 gill net 6 1,100 3,540 1.6 2.2 Non-Commercial, Motorized 2,895 2,550 speargun 26 413 400 3.3 1.5 gill net 25 1,244 728 1.8 2.0

46 No. of Ave. Acquisition Ave. Maintenance Ave. Econ Ave. Quantity Gear Sample Users Cost/Gear, in PhP Cost/Gear/Yearin PhP Life, in Yrs. Owned/HH multiple hook and line 25 1,506 2,432 2.0 3.6 net 23 4,937 5,569 3.1 3.9 hook and line 20 1,084 1,203 1.2 1.9 Commercial 7,700 420 sigay 1 15,000 600 15.0 1.0 tabukot 1 400 240 1.0 1.0

Gross revenues from fishing were derived from the survey. From the results, non-commercial motorized fishers were earning three times more than those using non-motorized boats, while commercial fishers were earning 12 times more than non-commercial motorized fishers, and 37 times more than non-motorized fishers. In Calayan, Cagayan, value of catch sold is much larger than the other municipalities, even approximating more than half of the value of catch of Masbate’s commercial fishing sector. This is probably due to the high farm gate prices being offered by Taiwanese buyers of fish in the Babuyan Islands13. In most places, 10% or less of catch is kept for own consumption, except in some municipalities and cities in Masbate where around one-fifth to one-third are consumed by the fishers’ families themselves.

Table 51. Gross Revenues from Fishing, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 Ave. Value of Ave. Catch Ave. Catch Ave. Value % of Catch Catch Sold/ No. of Volume/HH/ sold/HH/ of Catch/HH/ Consumed HH/ year, Respondents year, Kg. year, Kg. year, PhP PhP Masbate 4,455 4,092 8% 369,725 352,627 288 Non Commercial, Non Motorized 988 911 8% 62,458 57,878 58 Claveria 1,431 1,320 8% 77,366 73,725 12 Masbate City 1,285 1,027 20% 87,653 75,707 3 Milagros 2,981 2,845 5% 198,220 190,860 8 Placer 576 576 0% 11,520 11,520 1 San Jacinto 474 416 12% 35,084 30,423 18 San Pascual 287 194 32% 14,702 9,942 16 Non Commercial Motorized 4,015 3,617 10% 198,315 183,868 194 Claveria 3,174 2,922 8% 152,066 141,594 48 Masbate City 3,736 3,585 4% 240,775 231,049 53 Milagros 11,460 9,276 19% 428,109 373,226 26 Placer 2,233 2,217 1% 146,644 135,540 32 San Jacinto 1,692 1,439 15% 60,400 53,233 10 San Pascual 1,934 1,797 7% 89,095 82,194 25 Commercial 18,420 17,911 3% 2,311,657 2,265,866 36 Claveria 46,227 46,227 0% 2,589,604 2,589,604 11 Masbate City 28,490 27,700 3% 16,940,667 16,519,133 3 Milagros - - - - - Placer 1,312 1,112 15% 147,860 144,640 4 San Jacinto 3,751 2,862 24% 194,904 173,221 17 San Pascual 144 96 33% 7,200 4,800 1 Cagayan 10,386 9,396 10% 706,186 641,558 107 Non Commercial, Non Motorized 4,978 4,633 7% 318,573 297,189 22 Aparri - - - - - CamiguinCalayan 7,227 7,011 3% 435,378 408,140 12 Claveria 1,831 1,779 3% 166,727 164,048 10 Non Commercial Motorized 15,867 14,455 9% 1,118,740 1,020,270 85

13 Personal Interview with humback whale research group, June 2010 47 Ave. Value of Ave. Catch Ave. Catch Ave. Value % of Catch Catch Sold/ No. of Volume/HH/ sold/HH/ of Catch/HH/ Consumed HH/ year, Respondents year, Kg. year, Kg. year, PhP PhP Aparri 3,594 3,594 0% 484,090 484,090 12 CamiguinCalayan 20,572 18,579 10% 1,383,329 1,244,275 59 Claveria 7,102 6,864 3% 547,673 535,835 14 Commercial - - - - - Aparri - - - - - CamiguinCalayan - - - - - Claveria - - - - -

Costs of fishing were likewise computed. Production costs are broken down as follows:

1. Fixed costs, consisting of permits and registration fees, flashlights, goggles, ice chests, and buoys 2. Variable costs, consisting of fuel/gas/wood/oil, batteries, signal lights/lighters/ matches, food, medicine, water and other drinks, ice, loads for cellular phones, fishing material and cigarettes 3. Annual maintenance costs for fishing boats and fishing gears 4. Annual depreciation costs for fishing boats and fishing gears 5. Paid labor costs

Motorized municipal fishers paid seven times more for fishing costs compared with their non-motorized counterparts in Masbate and four times more in Cagayan. However, they were only earning three times more, as shown in the table earlier. Meanwhile, commercial fishers in Masbate paid for fishing costs four times more than motorized municipal fishers, and 30 times more than non-motorized commercial fishers. But they were earning 12 and 37 times more for the same counterparts. Costs therefore had smaller discrepancies between commercial and non-commercial fishers relative to revenues, further increasing the divide between municipal and commercial fishers.

Table 52. Production and Operating Costs in Fishing, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 Variable Maintenance Depreciation Fixed Costs/ Labor Costs/ Total Costs/ Location Costs / HH/ Costs/ HH/ Costs/ HH/ HH/ Year HH/ Year HH/ Year Year Year Year Masbate Non Commercial, Non Motorized 182 7,727 1,824 3,372 11,946 25,050 Claveria 57 10,912 1,108 6,424 7,079 25,579 Masbate City 500 3,660 975 4,177 18,000 27,312 Milagros 299 17,160 5,331 2,912 39,150 64,852 Placer 230 11,376 1,670 390 - 13,666 San Jacinto 233 5,799 1,821 1,105 7,867 16,825 San Pascual 173 6,044 1,149 2,784 4,330 14,479 Non Commercial Motorized 380 55,180 1,681 19,894 94,764 171,898 Claveria 247 45,165 1,015 12,271 183,605 242,303 Masbate City 470 48,258 2,037 9,523 69,158 129,447 Milagros 196 122,271 1,221 75,402 159,431 358,522 Placer 626 67,279 3,601 8,965 70,166 150,637 San Jacinto 211 28,962 1,087 7,760 16,251 54,271 San Pascual 141 14,435 523 26,615 12,268 53,981 Commercial 1,088 424,487 7,174 54,099 258,721 745,569 Claveria 2,700 370,538 6,902 103,768 507,738 991,645 Masbate City 300 3,400,280 13,333 128,103 1,124,000 4,666,017 Milagros ------Placer 663 93,604 4,282 14,973 18,480 132,002 San Jacinto 322 39,020 6,930 23,487 29,958 99,718 San Pascual 75 21,600 5,000 63,000 2,400 92,075

48 Variable Maintenance Depreciation Fixed Costs/ Labor Costs/ Total Costs/ Location Costs / HH/ Costs/ HH/ Costs/ HH/ HH/ Year HH/ Year HH/ Year Year Year Year Cagayan Non Commercial, Non Motorized 283 12,226 3,156 2,746 39,969 58,381 Aparri ------Camiguin Calayan 259 14,626 3,685 2,517 37,354 58,441 Claveria 310 5,986 2,628 2,976 46,071 57,970 Non Commercial Motorized 311 114,136 5,303 9,754 107,668 237,171 Aparri 202 - - 14,464 170,329 184,995 Camiguin Calayan 339 58,345 3,137 9,549 83,212 154,583 Claveria 309 374,491 12,141 9,913 157,878 554,731 Commercial ------Aparri ------Camiguin Calayan ------Claveria ------

Combining revenues and costs gives us the gross profit each fishing household gets in a year. If we allot 15% margin for profit and risk to account for the working capital fishers shell out for fishing activities, and account for their own labor costs in fishing, resource rent turns out to be almost negligible for non-motorized municipal fishers in Masbate, while municipal motorized fishers have dissipated all resource rent in their waters. Commercial fishers meanwhile are still enjoying rent estimated at almost PhP 1.3 million per household per year. In Cagayan, rent estimates are still positive in the municipal fishing sector, mostly due to the large rent estimates in the Camiguin and Calayan islands. As noted earlier, this may be due to the high farm gate prices being paid by Taiwanese boats that frequent the islands to purchase freshly caught fish.

Table 53. Resource Rent Estimates from Fishing, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010 Gross Total Gross Imputed Rent, 15% Location 15% MPR Revenues Costs Profit Labor Costs MPR Masbate Non Commercial, Non Motorized 57,878 25,050 32,827 4,924 23,347 4,557 Claveria 73,725 25,579 48,146 7,222 33,778 7,146 Masbate City 75,707 27,312 48,394 7,259 37,638 3,497 Milagros 190,860 64,852 126,008 18,901 34,871 72,236 Placer 11,520 13,666 (2,146) (322) 26,568 (28,392) San Jacinto 30,423 16,825 13,598 2,040 21,929 (10,371) San Pascual 9,942 14,479 (4,537) (681) 8,986 (12,843) Non Commercial Motorized 183,868 171,898 11,970 1,796 28,909 (18,734) Claveria 141,594 242,303 (100,709) (15,106) 36,850 (122,452) Masbate City 231,049 129,447 101,602 15,240 27,246 59,116 Milagros 373,226 358,522 14,704 2,206 44,394 (31,895) Placer 135,540 150,637 (15,097) (2,264) 26,833 (39,665) San Jacinto 53,233 54,271 (1,038) (156) 22,730 (23,613) San Pascual 82,194 53,981 28,214 4,232 5,948 18,034 Commercial 2,265,866 745,569 1,520,296 228,044 1,292,252 Claveria 2,589,604 991,645 1,597,959 239,694 1,358,265 Masbate City 16,519,133 4,666,017 11,853,117 1,777,968 10,075,149 Milagros - - Placer 144,640 132,002 12,638 1,896 10,742 San Jacinto 173,221 99,718 73,504 11,026 62,478 San Pascual 4,800 92,075 (87,275) (13,091) (74,184) Cagayan Non Commercial, Non Motorized 298,796 58,381 240,415 36,062 40,055 164,299 Aparri - - 49 Gross Total Gross Imputed Rent, 15% Location 15% MPR Revenues Costs Profit Labor Costs MPR CamiguinCalayan 408,140 58,441 349,699 52,455 38,857 258,388 Claveria 167,584 57,970 109,614 16,442 41,731 51,441 Non Commercial Motorized 1,031,930 237,171 794,760 119,214 35,074 640,472 Aparri 484,090 184,995 299,095 44,864 25,478 228,752 CamiguinCalayan 1,249,487 154,583 1,094,904 164,236 38,872 891,797 Claveria 566,995 554,731 12,263 1,839 24,242 (13,818) Commercial - - - Aparri - - - CamiguinCalayan - - - Claveria - - -

The negative rent estimates in Masbate’s municipal fishing sector may have serious implications on the long-term sustainability of fishing at the current effort level. Government may wish to consider this in doing their CRM programs. There might be a need to increase no-take zones, or lessen the fishing effort, to allow resources to regenerate at levels that can result in positive rents in the future.

92% of respondents indicated a change in the volume of fish caught throughout the years, 82% of which complained of a decrease. Only the commercial fishing sector of Masbate indicated an increase in fish catch. As a consequence, most respondents have experienced longer fishing trips to catch the same volume, except in Milagros in Masbate and Aparri in Cagayan. On the average, fishing trips have been extended by 3 hours in Cagayan and 5 hours in Masbate. Cagayan fishers overwhelmingly expressed concern on experiencing problems in fishing, mainly because of illegal fishing activities that persist in their area. In Masbate, the same problems in illegal fishing activities are being experienced by half of the respondents, particularly those coming from San Jacinto and San Pascual. Close to half of the respondents in Masbate City and Placer still complained of illegal fishing activities. For both provinces, illegal fishing is seen to be caused by a number of factors, which include minimal patrolling in these areas, sheer volume of fishers in both municipal and non-municipal waters, and the lack of alternative livelihood opportunities. The latter was particularly glaring in San Jacinto and Placer in Masbate, and in Aparri in Cagayan. Meanwhile, 80% of San Jacinto respondents indicated institutional problems as hindrances in improving their fish catch. Details of these results are found in Annex J.

As far as enforcement is concerned, respondents indicated that rarely are violators caught, especially in Cagayan (Table 54). When asked about probabilities of being caught, Cagayan fishers scored this part of the enforcement chain the lowest, at 2.9. Related to this, the probability of repeat offenders was high at 6.4 for Cagayan fishers, and 5 for the total sample. In Masbate, the lowest probability was given to conviction, which reflects their low regard for the local judicial system in the province (Table 55). These scores were consistent with the ratings the respondents gave to the effectiveness of their respective Bantay Dagat teams (Table 56). Cagayan respondents rated their BD teams as being half effective, while Masbate respondents had a higher regard for theirs. Reasons for the low rating in Cagayan included the lack of Bantay Dagat presence for a fifth of the respondents, with another 15% claiming that patrolling was done with minimal effort, and another 12% saying their Bantay Dagat were poorly equipped.

Table 54. Perceived Frequency of Fishing Violations Being Caught, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010

Sample Masbate Cagayan

No. of Respondents 495 342 153

Everyday 2% 3% 0% 3-4x/wk 5% 5% 5% 1-2x/wk 3% 3% 5% 2x/month 10% 13% 3% Once a month 8% 8% 8% seldom/rare 37% 26% 63% never 4% 2% 8% No Answer 31% 41% 7%

50 Table 55. Perceived Probabilities of Enforcement of Fishing Laws, Masbate and Cagayan, 2010

Repeat No. of Detection Arrest Prosecution Conviction Offenses Respondents

Sample 3.6 3.6 3.1 3.1 5.0 495

Masbate 4.1 3.8 3.1 2.8 4.1 342

Cagayan 2.9 3.3 3.0 3.6 6.4 153

Table 56. Perceived Effectiveness of Bantay Dagat Teams in Masbate and Cagayan, 2011 (Scale of 1 to 10)

No. of Ave. Effectiveness Location Reasons Frequency Respondents of bantay dagat

Masbate 342 7

Cannot catch illegal fishers 1.2%

Connivance w/ illegal fishers 1.2%

Good implementation 14.6%

Minimal patrolling 9.9%

New Bantay Dagat 0.3%

No Bantay Dagat 14.3%

Not effective 9.4%

They patrol 17.0%

Cagayan 153 5

Cannot catch illegal fishers 4.6%

Connivance w/ illegal fishers 2.6%

Few members of the Patrol Team 0.7%

Good implementation 0.7%

Illegal fishers are not jailed 0.7%

Minimal patrolling 15.0%

New Bantay Dagat 1.3%

No Bantay Dagat 19.0%

Not compensated 2.6%

Not effective 5.2%

They patrol 11.1%

Finally, when asked for suggestions on how to improve fisheries management, 25% of all respondents indicated the need for stricter enforcement of fishing rules and regulations, while 31% noted the need for alternative forms of livelihood for fisherfolk. Fourteen percent (14%) still complained about encroachment of commercial fishers within municipal waters, mostly coming from Masbate. MPAs were seen as a solution by almost a fourth (24%) of Cagayan respondents accompanied by the need for regular patrolling (41%), indicating a high recognition of MPA benefits among fisherfolk in the province.

51 TOURISM ESTABLISHMENTS

The beach resorts in Masbate and Cagayan offering lodging and tourist facilities are assumed to be enjoying net benefits as a consequence of being located right next to natural resources, which in turn are the main tourist attractions. The net benefits may be estimated from the operations of resorts, which approximate their willingness to pay for such fees. An indicator of these net benefits is excess profit from their operations. Excess profit, which is also known as economic or resource rent, realized by these resorts is attributable to their location’s unique nature- based features for water-based recreation. A more technical description of the economic framework and excess profit computation is available in some of the individual reports of the Environmental and Natural Resource Accounting Project (ENRAP) and the Guidebook in Estimating User Fees, also an output of the ENRAP Project.

A total of 33 resorts were surveyed, 16 of which were located in Masbate and 17 in Cagayan. When asked what the main attractions were in their area, a variety of reasons came out, as presented in the following table:

Table 57. Attractions and Recreational Activities Offered, Masbate and Cagayan, Frequencies in %, 2010 Whale & dolphin Variety Coral Peace and watching, Location Beach Scuba Diving Swimming of tourist Manta rays Reefs Quiet Fishing, Trekking, activities Snorkeling All 72.7% 24.2% 12.1% 72.7% 78.8% 30.3% 7.4% 3.7% Masbate 73.3% 13.3% 20.0% 66.7% 73.3% 20.0% 13.3% 0.0% Aroroy 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Masbate City 83.3% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mobo 100.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% San Jacinto 40.0% 0.0% 40.0% 60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% Cagayan 70.6% 35.3% 5.9% 82.4% 88.2% 41.2% 0.0% 5.9% Sta. Ana 90.0% 50.0% 0.0% 90.0% 80.0% 30.0% 0.0% 10.0% Claveria 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 71.4% 100.0% 57.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Beaches and the serene atmosphere are the most common tourist attractions in both provinces, and obviously swimming is the most common recreational activity. Coral reefs seem to be more popular in Cagayan than in Masbate, but scuba diving is a more common sport in the latter. Unique wildlife interactions are offered in both provinces, with manta ray interactions being offered in San Jacinto Masbate, and whale and dolphin watching being sought after in Sta. Ana Cagayan. All in all, tourism in these areas is indeed nature-based. Note however that these are responses made by the owners of tourism establishments, not by the tourists themselves. There were no tourists available during the time of the survey, i.e. 3rd and 4th quarters of 2010. Nevertheless, tourism establishments would presumably know what tourists are after through their experience in the sector.

Revenues were computed from the rental of both lodging accommodations and facilities offered by the resorts. The latter includes restaurants and catering services, the use of function halls, videoke rooms and machines, and massage services. Figures presented are averages of establishments located in that particular municipality. Masbate revenues were almost double those of resorts in Cagayan, mainly due to the high revenues from facilities rental in Masbate City and Aroroy. Lodging revenues though were around a third higher in Cagayan than in Masbate.

Table 58. Gross Revenues of Tourism Establishments in Masbate and Cagayan, in PhP, 2010 Ave. Revenues from Lodging / Ave. Revenues from Facilities Total Average Revenues / Location Establishment/Year Rental / Establishment/Year Establishment/ Year All 267,500 475,350 742,850 Masbate 220,692 777,938 998,630 Aroroy 332,000 660,000 992,000 Masbate City 350,467 1,116,000 1,466,467 Mobo 105,000 105,000 San Jacinto 65,840 50,720 116,560 Cagayan 335,111 248,408 583,519 Sta. Ana 207,675 296,900 504,575 Claveria 437,060 199,917 636,977

52 Meanwhile, total costs were composed of depreciation or fixed costs, annual maintenance costs, variable costs including electricity, water, transportation and communication costs, and paid labor costs. Just like in the earlier table, Masbate costs were more than double Cagayan costs. Significantly higher are maintenance costs (more than 4 times higher), as well as fixed costs (more than 5 times higher).

Table 59. Costs of Tourism Establishments in Masbate and Cagayan, in PhP, 2010 Ave. Ave. Fixed Costs/ Ave. Variable Costs/ Ave. Labor Costs/ Total Costs/ Est/ Location Maintenance Est/Year Est/Year Est/ Year Year Costs/Est/Year All 143,171 316,211 195,938 183,275 838,595 Masbate 189,388 442,583 240,746 219,300 1,092,017 Aroroy 789,167 190,000 621,000 216,000 1,816,167 Masbate City 95,000 738,333 318,400 246,400 1,398,133 Mobo 83,333 350,000 52,000 485,333 San Jacinto 84,365 50,333 46,567 60,000 241,265 Cagayan 35,333 99,571 123,125 147,250 405,280 Sta. Ana 16,000 70,333 109,600 113,500 309,433 Claveria 45,000 121,500 145,667 158,500 470,667

Gross profits for Masbate resorts are almost all negative, except for those located in Masbate City. As such, only Cagayan resorts were able to show excess profits from their operations. A 15% margin for profit and risk (MPR) is allotted to the establishment owners to represent the cost of working capital, and to follow the return on investment required by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). Upon deducting the MPR, Cagayan resorts exhibited excess profits close to PhP 150 thousand per year, while Masbate City resorts showed excess profits of almost PhP 60 thousand per year. This now represents the surplus which according to Hartwick and Oleweiler (1998) represents “…the value of the resource itself – the land, water,…,fish, minerals, forests, and environmental resources such as air and water.”14

Table 60. Resource Rents of Tourism Establishments in Masbate and Cagayan, in PhP, 2010 Location Total Revenues Total Costs Gross Profit Resource Rent, 15% MPR All 742,849.52 838,595.05 (95,745.53) (81,383.70) Masbate 998,630.09 1,092,017.24 (93,387.16) (79,379.08) Aroroy 992,000.00 1,816,166.67 (824,166.67) (700,541.67) Masbate City 1,466,466.67 1,398,133.33 68,333.33 58,083.33 Mobo 105,000.00 485,333.33 (380,333.33) (323,283.33) San Jacinto 116,560.00 241,265.08 (124,705.08) (105,999.32) Cagayan 583,519.44 405,279.76 178,239.68 151,503.73 Sta. Ana 504,575.00 309,433.33 195,141.67 165,870.42 Claveria 636,976.67 470,666.67 166,310.00 141,363.50

The negative profits exhibited by Masbate resorts may be due to several factors. For one, Mobo and San Jacinto resorts reported very low revenues, which may be a case of under-reporting. Otherwise, they would not be able to continue operating throughout the years. In Aroroy, fixed costs reported were abnormally huge, which might have been a factor of underestimating the economic life of their structures. It would be good to revisit these establishments and show them the results of the survey for validation. Nevertheless, the Cagayan and Masbate City surveys seemed to be reliable; thus can be used for purposes of drafting recommendations for this study.

Despite having negative profits and resource rent estimates, all resorts expressed their willingness to pay a fee for boosting the tourism sector in their respective provinces, provided the fees are spent on the following suggested government programs. Tourism fairs and media linkages topped the list for Cagayan, while tourism fairs and financial assistance were being suggested by Masbate resorts. To pay for such programs, resorts were willing to pay an average of PhP 700 in Masbate and PhP 2,400 in Cagayan. The latter figure represents 2% of the average excess profits in the province. Assuming these were collected from the sample, this will translate into revenues worth PhP 11,200 in Masbate and 38,400 in Cagayan. These amounts are not much to start with realistically, and it would be too costly for the LGUs to start tourism fairs and strengthen media linkages with these small amounts of revenue.

14 Hartwick and Oleweiler, 1998. In Padilla, J., R. Rosales, et. al. 1999. Determination of Development Fees for Tourism Establishments Located in El Nido Marine Reserve. PEENRA/ENRAP IV Technical Paper. USAID/DENR/REECS. Quezon City, Philippines 53 Alternatively, the Cagayan LGUs may wish to target at least 10% of the excess profits which will amount to around PhP 15,000 per resort in Cagayan to capture part of the resource rent. This will result in revenues worth PhP 255,000 per year from the sample respondents. It would be unwise to try to capture the whole amount of excess profit. Leaving a substantial portion with the establishment owner may serve as an incentive for technological and other innovations that would increase the surplus later on15. It must be made clear, however, that the revenues to be generated from this scheme would go directly to programs that will enhance the natural features of the province, particularly programs contained in their approved CRM Plans. Only then will establishment owners be willing to part with a portion of their excess profits on a regular basis.

For Masbate, however, the figures for excess profit need to be validated with the owners themselves. If they validate the survey results as accurate, then the LGU can start a fee scheme with the WTP amount stated by the resorts themselves. Until such time that rent figures become positive, the fees should be kept at a minimum to allow establishments to recuperate from their losses. Masbate City may be considered to be the exception, and establishments there may be charged at 10% of their excess profit, which is equivalent to around PhP 6,000 per year. This exception may be justified since the establishments there presumably capture majority of the tourists that visit the province. Furthermore, the CRM programs for the City would presumably be more costly relative to CRM programs of other municipalities in the province. There is thus the willingness and ability to pay for such fees, coupled with a greater need for the LGU to raise revenues for its CRM program.

Table 61. Recommendations of Tourism Establishments to Boost Tourism in Masbate and Cagayan, 2010

Recommended Govt. Masbate San Masbate Aroroy Mobo Cagayan Sta. Ana Claveria Programs City Jacinto

Tourism Fair 12.5% 50.0% 8.3% 0.0% 10.0% 17.6% 15.0% 21.4%

Solid waste 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% management program

Financial assistance 9.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Tourism activities 6.3% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 10.0% 0.0%

Maintain peace and 3.1% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% order Good transportation 3.1% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% facilities

Media linkage 3.1% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 29.4% 15.0% 50.0%

Cross visit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 5.0% 0.0%

Maintain cleanliness 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 5.0% 0.0%

Eco Tourism 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 2.9% 5.0% 0.0%

Willingness to pay for 700 750 667 - - 2,406 2,167 2,714 programs: Php/Year

15 Padilla, J., Rosales, et. al. 1999. Determination of Development Fees for Tourism Establishments Located in El Nido Marine Reserve. PEENRA/ENRAP IV Technical Paper. USAID/DENR/REECS. Quezon City, Philippines

54 PROSPECTS FOR ECO-TOURISM The second potential for Cagayan is the introduction of humpback whale watching in the Calayan and Prospects for eco-tourism in both Masbate and Camiguin islands. Humpback whales are found in the Cagayan are very high. Both provinces possess unique Babuyan channel, and there is no reported sighting of natural features that offer landscape and seascape this species anywhere else in the country. They traverse beauty as well as wildlife interactions that cannot around the five islands in the channel, namely Calayan, be found in any other place in the country. With the Camiguin, Fuga, Dalupiri and Babuyan islands. In a few growing market of eco-tourism worldwide, there instances, they were spotted around Palaui Island near is great potential that eco-tourism can contribute the Cagayan mainland. However, it has been noted that both to economic development and environmental the only place now where there is a 100% chance of conservation if the programs are appropriately designed seeing the whales is around Camiguin Island. to address both objectives. Beginning in the year 2000, a group of researchers has been documenting scientific data concerning Ecotourism, as defined in the literature is nature- humpback whales through annual expeditions. The based, and has a low impact on the environment, while at research period begins as early as February and ends the same time characterized as ethical and contributes in May. Lately though, February has proven to be a to equitable distribution of economic benefits 16. risky month to start the expedition due to huge swells Majority of tourism products in developing countries in the channel experienced in recent trips. April is the are nature-based, and there exist numerous activities month when waters are at their calmest, but March is that can be promoted. The term was first coined in the month when most whales are sighted. As of this the mid-1980s and it used to cater to a special niche in writing, around 160 individual whales have already been the market, namely explorers, adventurers, scientists identified. Only a portion of this population has had a and students. This represented a mere 10% of the constant presence in the area. total tourist market. As the years passed, eco-tourism has penetrated the mass market to the point that a constant struggle now exists between the provision of Whale watching can serve as the main tourist economic benefits and environmental preservation. attraction. According to the researchers, hearing their Nevertheless, it provides great opportunities for areas songs and seeing them in the wild can turn out to be that are determined to address both concerns. Tourism a life-changing experience for some people. Aside from as a whole is a networked industry with both upstream this activity, the island of Camiguin can offer other forms and downstream linkages in the economy, thus is able of recreation. Its unique landscapes are unparalleled to provide economic growth and development to a in the country, as attested to by videographers and wide section of the population with proper planning and photographers who have joined the research group. implementation. Furthermore, the very product it sells Scuba diving and snorkeling are additional activities that is directly compatible with environmental conservation. can be promoted, with the high probability of seeing Thus, it is in the industry’s interest to take good care of other forms of wildlife like turtles, dolphins, sharks and natural resources and preserve their habitats to ensure sting rays, to name a few. Hot springs abound, and rock their continued existence. climbing and biking are land-based activities that can be included in the trip.

CAGAYAN Developing an ecotourism program for humpback whale watching will entail preparing the islands and its residents for catering to the tourism industry. In Cagayan, two possibilities for an eco-tourism Transportation to and from the islands will need to be program exist. Sta. Praxedes has a unique beach forest planned thoroughly, as there are only small boats with that is virtually untouched simply because there is double 16 HP engines that currently ply the route from hardly any access to the area by land. It is this virgin Sta. Ana to Camiguin. The boat ride alone takes four state of both the forest and the coastal area that makes hours, which might prove to be too exhausting for most it attractive for an eco-tourism program. It is located tourists. Likewise, there are no lodging facilities that right next to Pagudpud Ilocos Norte which is now a exist on the small islands, and food is not yet produced popular tourist destination for people coming from as in surplus amounts that will be able to accommodate far as Manila. If a comprehensive ecotourism plan can tourists. The island is not supplied with constant be made for Sta. Praxedes, there is no reason why it electricity 24 hours a day; hence food storage is not yet cannot serve as an alternative destination for those who possible. Initially, homestay programs can be developed are willing to travel from Manila. Its vast wilderness area that will make use of locals’ houses as lodging facilities. is enough to serve as the main ecotourism product to There are two places where the researchers have been be marketed. Along with the ecotourism plan, proper staying while on the Island. Alternatively, the activity infrastructure must be put in place, such as roads and can be marketed to cruise ships. In this case, the carrying trails for tourists, decent lodging facilities, a nearby capacity of the area needs to be determined so as not to hospital and bank, and a variety of local cuisine that will put too much stress on the whales. cater to various types of tourists.

16 Libosada, Carlos M. Jr. Business or leisure? Economic development and resource protection-Concepts and practices in sustainable ecotourism. Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 390-394. 55 MASBATE

Ticao Island has the unique advantage of having sightings of manta rays in large numbers while scuba diving in its waters. There are resorts located in San Jacinto that promote this feature, and according to the caretakers, tourists have seldom been disappointed. This can translate into huge recreational values for the area.

ECONOMIC VALUE OF ECOTOURISM Figure 3. Mangrove Forest in Sta. Ana Cagayan (Source: The estimation of economic values for ecotourism http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/ana,cagayan/Timeline could not be done during the conduct of this study. Doing so needed a survey of current users of the resource, or in this case, tourists who have experienced the MANGROVES recreational activity. This could not be done in Cagayan for obvious reasons, i.e. there is no ecotourism program Apart from the main thrust of strictly preserving developed yet. Furthermore, the ecotourism activity of mangrove areas, the main use of mangroves in both humpback whale watching has not been established or Cagayan and Masbate are the operation of existing marketed in the country yet, hence a comparative study fishponds and a bit of natural resource gathering for could not be made for Cagayan’s potential. In Masbate, small commercial purposes. According to BFAR records, there were no tourists during the conduct of the surveys silviculture is practiced in a few areas such as Masbate on the island. Nevertheless, there are other areas in City, but the enumerators were unable to survey the the country that have been able to establish user fees local people involved. Fishpond operations have been based on economic valuation surveys and results. Fees contentious over the years as mangrove areas have can be as low as PhP 20 per tourist in Hundred Islands been cleared indiscriminately for this purpose, and Natural Park, to as high as PhP 3,000 for scuba diving without the proper monitoring mechanisms established in Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park. Many existing MPAs by the national government. Worse, some cleared areas in the country have established user fees for their use, have been abandoned, rendering the sites useless mainly for tourism purposes. In Gonzaga Cagayan either for economic development or for protection for instance, the Matara MPA has a user fee scheme against the negative impacts of natural disasters and established, which is being managed by the San Jose impending climate change. A separate policy study has Fisherfolk Organization. This can be used as a model been conducted within the implementation of ICRMP, for future MPAs to be established within Gonzaga, which will spell out how to treat abandoned areas and or even in neighboring municipalities. For the more how to revert them back to mangrove forests. unique ecotourism activities that have potential in both provinces, entrance fees can be estimated which may Meanwhile, for areas that will continue to be be closer to the higher value of PhP 3,000 per visitor used for fishpond operations, this study recommends per visit to account for the uniqueness of the activity. a revisit of the current level of fees associated with The total economic value will depend not only on the Fishpond Lease Agreements. Currently, FLA fees stand average amount a visitor is willing to pay to enter the at PhP 1,000 per hectare. The surveys in Masbate site, but also on the total number of visitors who have show high rent estimates for all municipalities covered, entered the site. If both figures are available, then the averaging at PHP 414 thousand per household. Dividing total economic value of ecotourism in Masbate and this by the average size of fishponds in Masbate (14.3 Cagayan can be estimated. hectares) results in rent estimates of PhP almost Php 29,000 per hectare per year. For Cagayan, rent estimates were negative, mostly due to the negative POLICY AND OTHER net income returns in Buguey and Pamplona. The four RECOMMENDATIONS other municipalities covered resulted in positive rent estimates from a low of PHP 1,400 (Sta. Ana) to a high of PhP 126 thousand (Claveria) per household per year. Based on the results of the surveys conducted This translates to PhP 719 to PhP 631,703 per hectare per in chosen municipalities and cities in Masbate and year. The respondents in those two municipalities with Cagayan, some policy recommendations can be put negative rent estimates admitted that their fishponds forth for consideration of DENR, DA-BFAR and their have not reached their maximum production potential, partner LGUs. and ironically, they had relatively higher fees they were willing to pay compared to respondents from other municipalities in Cagayan. On the other hand, a recent valuation study on mangroves reveal a net benefit of 56 PhP 8,859 per hectare per year, based on provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services derived Other commercial uses in mangrove areas include from the ecosystem in 2006 prices17. BFAR can use nipa harvesting in Cagayan, and shell and shellfish this as another basis for setting their FLA fees, on the gathering in Masbate. For nipa harvesters, although net grounds that these are the foregone benefits with the incomes were positive, resource rent estimates were conversion of mangroves to fishponds. negative once their own labor costs are accounted for. The same holds true for resource gatherers in Masbate, Ideally, fees should be set according to local except for a few municipalities that exhibited positive conditions, i.e. FLA fees in Masbate should be different rent estimates such as Placer, Cawayan and Uson. In from FLA fees in Cagayan, and so on with the rest of this regard, the study recommends that the stated the country. However, this might result in transaction WTP amounts for both sets of users be used as the costs that may be too high for BFAR considering their basis for setting resource user fees. Nipa harvesters lack of manpower to implement and monitor different can be charged PhP 180 per household per year, while FLA fees. If BFAR decides to implement different fees resource gatherers in Masbate can be charged PhP 76 across provinces, then it can try to approximate the rate per household per year. This will result to at least PhP of PhP 29,000 per hectare per year in Masbate, and PhP 18,900 per year in Cagayan, and PhP 13,700 per year 1,000 per hectare per year in Cagayan. However, if it in Masbate, based on the number of people surveyed. decides to have a uniform rate across the country, then This may not be much to start with, but it is estimated it might be more prudent to just continue with their that the total number of actual harvesters will be at rate of PhP 1,000 per hectare per year. The rate may least double the number of respondents, if not more. be increased annually until it reaches the amount of The funds can then contribute to funding management foregone benefits estimated at PhP 8,900 per hectare, activities for mangrove areas in these provinces. or every so often depending on what frequency BFAR is comfortable with.

What should be given more emphasis is for the agency to try to cover all existing fishpond operations as much as possible. Even this is a tall order for the agency. If they are able to do so, they will be able to increase their income from FLA fees, as well as establish the baseline of the true state of fishpond operations in the country. In Cagayan alone, collecting from all existing fishponds surveyed by this study will result in PhP 1,327,538 per year. In Masbate, potential income is even bigger at PhP 3,460,964. This figure will increase tremendously if the survey can be replicated in other municipalities where fishpond operations are being pursued. Figure 4. Foreshore Area (Photo by: Atty. Anda) The decision on which rate to use will depend on the overall direction BFAR wants to pursue. If it intends to strictly regulate fishpond operations and eventually minimize them through the years, then it can start implementing fees at the high end of the range. But if FORESHORE AREAS it wants to first get all existing fishponds under some sort of regulation, then it can just continue with the Foreshore areas in both provinces have not been existing fee of PhP 1,000 per hectare per year so as regulated despite the issuance of administrative orders not to discourage them from applying. Given BFAR’s from the DENR regarding Foreshore Lease Agreements recognized weakness in performing this task on their (FLAs). The rough inventory conducted reveals that own, the agency may wish to consider entering into a there are 158 structures in four municipalities in co-management scheme with LGUs. Whether at the Cagayan and 847 in just one municipality in Masbate provincial or municipal level, LGUs can act as partners occupying foreshore areas, but not being bound by any in managing, collecting from, and monitoring fishpond legal instrument. Majority of these establishments are operations in their localities. This will mean that the LGUs residential in nature, a type of use which is not even should be given an appropriate share from the proceeds allowed in foreshore areas according to existing DENR of the FLA fees, not just to cover for their expenses in regulations. monitoring and collecting, but also to serve as their own incentive to assist the national government in pursuing Using excess profit estimates, resource rent was its mandate in natural resource management. Initially, varied among the commercial establishments in both the sharing scheme may be divided equally among provinces. The average amount was small at PhP 8,574 BFAR and the LGU, or negotiations can be conducted per establishment per year. There were estimates as until both parties are satisfied with the arrangement. high as PhP 117 thousand in Aroroy, and almost PhP 42,000 in Claveria-Cagayan. On the other 17 Padilla, J. November 2008. Analysis of Coastal and Marine Resources: hand, there were negative rent estimates Contribution to the Philippine Country Environmental Analysis. World in Cawayan. Unfortunately, only a few (46) Bank, Manila, Philippines. 57 establishments were covered by this part of the survey. of establishments currently located in foreshore Large commercial establishments did not provide the areas, and make a decision on what to do with those relevant data for estimating excess profits, while non- found in violation of existing laws. A parallel study commercial establishments obviously did not have any on foreshore areas is currently being done which will revenue data to share. come up with recommendations on these issues. One possible arrangement in undertaking the inventory is The study recommends the use of land market for DENR to get into partnerships with LGUs to assist in values in computing for FLA rental fees, using the doing the surveys and collecting FLA fees. The sharing prescribed computation method in CA 141. This law arrangement may also include a certain percentage of has not yet been repealed despite being very old, thus the fees to be allotted for the LGUs in exchange for their is still valid in computing for rental of government participation in the scheme. land. Market values, instead of zonal values, are being recommended to account for the premium of locating in foreshore areas. Admittedly, land market values are not uniform, and can be represented in a range. For instance, in Masbate City, beachfront prices can go as low as PhP 590 per square meter to as high as PhP 3,000 per square meter. In Cagayan, the highest price of land found in the internet ws PhP 1,200 per square meter, and the lowest was PhP 125 in Buguey. The choice of which market value to use will now depend on the policy direction that DENR will want to take. If the objective is strict regulation and attrition of existing establishments on foreshore areas, then the DENR can use the maximum amount of land market prices in that area. On the other hand, if the policy direction is merely to first get all establishments regulated and complete the inventory of existing establishments on foreshore areas, then the minimum amount can be used to encourage everyone to apply for a FLA.

Similar with the policy recommendation for mangrove areas, ideally, rents should be site-specific. Land prices in Masbate would be vastly different from those in Cagayan, due to a host of factors such as Figure 5. Coral Reef (Photo by Alvin Simon) infrastructure development, natural resource attributes, etc. However, transactions costs for DENR might be too high to implement such a scheme. In this regard, DENR may wish to establish a list of market values per CORAL REEFS province, using the lowest and highest values found in the province, and make a decision on which rate within The municipal fishing sector showed positive rents that range to use. The unit cost will then be applied to in most of the areas surveyed in Cagayan, but a mix of the size of area to be occupied by the establishment, positive and negative rents in Masbate. Meanwhile, the and 3% of that total value can represent part of the commercial fishing sector in Masbate was still enjoying annual FLA fee. If this is- too difficult to do, DENR large resource rents a year. These estimates can be used can start out with the average sizes of small, medium as basis for updating license fees in the commercial and large scale commercial establishments already fishing sector. With an average of PhP 1.3 million per found in their database. The same can be done for the commercial fishing boat per year, BFAR may wish to computation of 1% of land improvements. In the case of capture a certain percentage of rent as license fees. For this study, improvements in Masbate averaged at PhP instance, BFAR may decide to capture 10% of current 636 thousand for large commercial establishments, PhP rents in Masbate, i.e. adjust license fees to the level of 3700 for small commercial establishments, and PhP PhP 130 thousand per commercial fishing vessel per 1,400 for non-commercial establishments. In Cagayan, year on the average. The current license fee scheme large commercial establishments were priced much has several categories, with the largest category at PhP lower, but this was because the Cagayan sample was 2,500 plus PhP 4/GT for vessels that are larger than 250 very small. As such, rent in Masbate can range from PhP GT. For a vessel weighing 260 GT, this amounts to only 731 thousand to 1.3 million per establishment per year PhP 3,540. There is certainly room for BFAR to increase for large commercial establishments. For small and its charges not only to capture a larger amount of medium ones, rent can go as low as PhP 57 thousand to economic rent from the commercial fishing sector and as high as PhP 377 thousand per establishment per year. increase the Bureau’s revenues, but also for the license The more crucial task for DENR is to do an inventory fees to serve as economic instruments in regulating the sector.

58 For the municipal fishing sector, there seems to should be clear at the onset where the revenues will be room for charging registration and license fees. be spent, such as for programs that will enhance the However, the negative rent estimates in Masbate’s natural features of the provinces or programs that are municipal fishing sector may have serious implications contained in their approved CRM plans. on the long-term sustainability of fishing at the current effort level. Government may wish to consider this in There are potentials for developing ecotourism doing their CRM programs. There might be a need to programs in both provinces. In Masbate, scuba diving increase no-take zones or lessen fishing effort, to allow with manta rays may be promoted more vigorously. resources to regenerate at levels that can bring about In Cagayan, humpback whale watching and the positive rents in the future. For one thing, encroachment development of the beach forest of Sta. Praxedes may of commercial fishers into municipal waters still seems be promoted. Because of the unique character of their to be a problem noted by Masbate municipal fishers. natural attributes, entrance fees can be set at high levels, Enforcement as a whole needs to be improved in both such as PhP 1,000 per visitor, or even approximating provinces, as shown by the low perceived probabilities the entrance fees in Tubbataha Park at PhP 3,000 per of the various parts of the enforcement chain and the visitor. What is more important is that the ecotourism perceived high probability of repeat offenses occurring. program be developed in such a way that will provide recreational value to tourists but at the same time For tourism establishments located in coastal areas, will ensure the protection and conservation of these Cagayan resorts exhibited positive rent estimates, areas against possible degradation from misuse by the while those in Masbate were negative except for those tourism sector. located in Masbate City. As mentioned earlier, the very low revenues reported in Mobo and the abnormally huge With respect to the use of the study sites for filming, fixed costs in Aroroy may be cases of misrepresentation the LGUs may wish to use the current fees being of the actual figures. It would be difficult for these implemented in NAPWNC, which charges PhP 20,000 establishments to continue operating with negative a day. For longer filming periods, such as one whole profits if this were the case. Government may wish to month, the government may apply lower rates, such use the average WTP results as the minimum fees to be as 50% less. This will depend on whether the LGU will charged against tourism establishments, i.e. PhP 700 in want to limit or encourage such activities in their area Masbate and PhP 2,400 in Cagayan per establishment of jurisdiction. It is suggested that a legal instrument, per year. Otherwise, it can use 10% of the excess such as an Ordinance, be formulated that will specify profit estimates as basis for annual development fees, the amount of fees to be charged for using the area for amounting to PhP 6,000 per resort in Masbate City and filming purposes. around PhP 15,000 per resort in Cagayan province. It

Table 62. Summary of Policy Recommendations on User Fees in Major Coastal Habitats in Masbate and Cagayan, 2011

Habitat Type of Fee Amount Remarks

Fishpond Operations Masbate: PhP 1,000 to Use minimum amount to target all fishponds 29,000 /ha/yr to be regulated, use higher amount to decrease Cagayan: PhP 1,000 to the total number of fishponds 632,000 /ha/yr Mangroves BFAR to get into co-management schemes with Net benefit from LGUs for monitoring fishpond operations mangroves: PhP 9,000 / ha/yr Nipa gatherers in Cagayan PhP 180 / hh/ yr Resource gatherers in PhP 76 /hh/yr Masbate Foreshore lease 3% of market value per Use market values of beachfront lots being sold agreements square meter, using lowest in the province and highest beachfront prices in the province for If total area of establishment is not available, the range use average size in this study, using 2 categories 1% value of improvements of small-medium and large scale

If 1% value of improvements is not available, Foreshore Areas use average values in this study for the two categories of small-medium and large scale

Inventory of establishments needs to be done

DENR may get into co-management arrangements with LGUs to undertake inventory and to monitor FLAs

59 Habitat Type of Fee Amount Remarks

Commercial fishing Maximum of PhP 130,000 BFAR may decide on a certain percentage of Coral Reefs license fees per vessel per year rent to be captured, with increasing levels over a certain period, e.g. every 5 years Municipal fishing PhP 500 in Masbate (10% LGU can decide on the percentage of rent to be registration and license of rent) captured fees PhP 1,000 in Cagayan (1% of rent) Enforcement should be undertaken more vigorously

Need for increasing rent in Masbate, e.g. MPA establishment, decreasing fishing effort

Tourism establishments PhP 700 to 6,000 in Lower range values will encourage all Masbate establishments to register; Higher range values PhP 2,400 to 15,000 in will force establishments to be more efficient, Cagayan and increase revenues of LGUs

Ecotourism PhP 1,000 – 3,000 per Should be adjusted later on to account for visitor WTP of visitors, when surveys can already be conducted Filming PhP 20,000 per day Can be adjusted to account for long periods of filming in the same area

REPLICATION IN OTHER ICRMP SITES The workshop proceedings are detailed in Annex K and the list of participants can be found in Annex In order to estimate user fees and resource rents in L. Tables 63 and 64 below contain a summary of the other ICRMP sites that were not covered by the user resource uses and users and the respective workplans fees surveys, a training workshop was held on October for estimating user fees and resource rents at the other 25 to 27, 2011 in Cebu City. The workshop was intended ICRMP sites. Meanwhile, other recommendations that to share the results of the primary surveys conducted in surfaced from the workshop are summarized as follows: the 11 municipalities of Cagayan and 11 municipalities and City of Masbate. From the experience of the LGUs, 1. Prioritize the inventories of existing and DENR and DA-BFAR personnel who participated in the abandoned fishponds, to be jointly undertaken surveys, it is hoped that other project sites of ICRMP by DENR, DA-BFAR and concerned LGUs can follow suit and conduct their own surveys to set their respective user fee schemes. As far as user fees set 2. Resolve legal problems relating to illegal titling at the national level are concerned, such as commercial of foreshore and/or mangrove areas fishing license fees and fishpond lease agreements, the workshop intended to share these results in order to 3. Initiate co-management schemes for marine facilitate implementation of revised fees, in the event and coastal habitats among DENR, DA-BFAR that they do get revised. and concerned LGUs in ICRMP sites

Proceeding from the training on how to estimate 4. Use resource rent estimates as basis for setting user fees and sharing of lessons learned from the surveys, fees either from the conduct of primary surveys each province has devised a workplan in estimating or from initially adopting results of the pilot user fees for marine and coastal resources found in sites their particular areas. For the provinces of Masbate and Cagayan, their workplans focused on next steps 5. Impose a moratorium on the issuance of new on how to implement the study recommendations. For FLAs pending a comprehensive inventory the other ICRMP sites, primary surveys are planned to nationwide be undertaken once they can identify where to source their funds. It is recommended that ICRMP fund the 6. LGUs may use land use plans to declare implementation of these workplans and monitor their foreshore areas as tourism or fish/mangrove progress in order to ensure that by the end of the sanctuaries to prevent occupation or issuance project, all ICRMP sites would have user fee systems of FLAs legislated and set-up which in turn will contribute to sustainably financing the implementation of the 7. Participants are encouraged to submit specific local CRM plans. proposals for ICRMP funding related to the 60 conduct of user fee studies and/or inventories remain under the jurisdiction of the LGU. It would thus of foreshore area occupants and fishpond be easier to track the revenues and expenses of revenues operations in their areas of jurisdiction from user fees and resource rents at the local level. Their CRM plans would therefore have to be translated into business plans and revenues and expenses for CRM plan MONITORING AND EVALUATION implementation should be properly recorded. Annual financial reports would therefore reflect if enough revenues are being raised to implement their plan, or As far as monitoring is concerned, the monitoring if there is a need to increase its revenue sources, or if and evaluation system will depend on which entity revenues need to be realigned so they are being spent collects the fees and rents from the users. appropriately for CRM purposes. In the case of national government agencies, it will Finally, the most important and immediate task be difficult to monitor where and how the proceeds to set up a monitoring system is to complete the from Fishpond Lease Agreements and Commercial inventories of foreshore area occupants, fishpond Fishing Licenses (in the case of DA-BFAR) and Foreshore owners and operators, municipal fishers, commercial Lease Agreements (in the case of DENR) go, as all fishers, tourism establishments and all other major proceeds from these fees go straight to the National resource users operating in ICRMP sites. The inventories Treasury. The line agencies do not have any control will first allow the government to estimate potential onhow these revenues are disbursed. Nevertheless, it revenues from their user fees. They will further provide is recommended that these line agencies maintain a the necessary information on whether there is a need to national database on how much fees are collected each decrease the number of users, and how the economic year from each municipality, province and region. The instruments can serve as regulatory instruments in revenues can be matched with the number of licenses weeding out those who are not willing to pay. Finally, issued and the actual inventory to be determined in the annual monitoring of the number of users should reflect future. a downward trend if overcrowding has been identified as a problem at the onset. In such cases, revenue In the case of LGUs, revenues from their user fees projections will have to be adjusted downward, and CRM still go to the common public fund of the LGU, but plan implementation should be realigned accordingly.

61 Issues Concerning Issues Management Inadequate logistic support Conflicting ideas on the implementation of policies Improper delineation/zoning of applied areas Lack of coordination in the enforcement of laws Lack of political will Laxity in the implementation on the rules and regulations, forest and environmental laws, fishery laws, and solid waste management ies Management Body/ PLGU/MLGU/BLGU, PLGU/MLGU/BLGU, PNP, DENR, BFAR, NGO’s DILG, DENR, BFAR, PLGU, PLGU, DENR, BFAR, PNP, BLGU, MLGU, Maritime Police, Gubat Bantay Navy, & NGO Users Issues Concerning Issues Siltation, sedimentation Illegal gathering of fry illegal use of fine mesh fishing illegal of use nets methods Inadequate knowledge on the requirements on the rules and regulations governing harvesting of mangroves to Inadequate access funding institutions Lack of alternative livelihood Improper waste management Lack of technical knowledge Illegal quarrying No delineated quarry concessions Unregulated squatters Unregulated putting up of fishponds Illegal occupation Illegal gathering

Structure Current Fee Docking fee fees of Registration fishing boats Entrance fee Entrance fees to catch/ Permit transport/operator Mayors/ business permit Landing fee Mayors/ business permit Barangay clearance

10 30 50 20 20 100 100 100 100 Users No. of 100 Type of User Type Contractors Concessionaires Tourists Charcoal maker Nipa gatherer Fishpond & fishcage operators Aquasilvi operators Gleaning Tourists Researchers Mining companies Construction workers Firewood gatherer Table 63. Workshop 1 Outputs: Resources, Uses and Users in Major Coastal Habitat Users in Major Uses and Outputs: Resources, 1 Workshop 63. Table Resources Beach, shells, sand, pebbles, stones, rocks, nipa Mangrove trees, fishes,mollusks, shells, crabs Coastal Habitat Foreshore Mangrove Region Cagayan

62 Issues Concerning Issues Management lack of coordination among agencies weak monitoring of PMRB/LGU none weak implementation of mun. ordinance weak enforcement of laws poor coordination of agencies lack of coordination among agencies weak implementation of law lack of monitoring lack of monitoring lack of coordination among agencies lack of monitoring no monitoring lack of monitoring no coordinating system on tourist Body/ies Management DENR, BFAR, PLGU/ DENR, BFAR, MLG/BLGU MLGU/DENR/ENRO MLGU MLGU/DENR/SIKAT MLGU MLGU MLGU/DENR MLGU MLGU MLGU/DENR MLGU/DENR MLGU MLGU MLGU MLGU Users Issues Concerning Issues foreshore encroachment solid waste disposal quarrying siltation Poaching(rare) disrupting migration of fish sedimentation due to river bank erosion Illegal cutting no ECC/FLA illegal pasturing no regulation no regulation no proper procedure on bird watching no regulation dredging no regulation no regulation

Structure Current Fee Real property tax, Real permit to transport to catch/ Permit transport/operate pesos/head 30-50 by resort) (collected per cubic meter none none none regular rate-resort none none none none none none none pesos/head 30-50 by resort) (collected Users No. of 100 50 medium scale hundreds small scale few many few few few few few few few few many Type of User Type Researchers Fishpond operators fishermen, Tourists, researchers, divers, local & foreign tourist gatherer/ financier local & foreign tourist local residents(fish trap) local residents private & local tourist local residents local residents local residents local tourist local residents local residents local residents local & foreign tourist Residential lots Residential Resources Fish cages, shells, seaweeds, crabs, shrimps, algae Fishes, cages, shells Sea grass, seaweeds sea shells, coral reefs,marine fishes, marine mammals, sea mollusks, algae Sand White beach Pebble Turtle Marine Nesting Area Fish Charcoal Tourism Goat food Sea foods (Crabs,fish, shells) Nipa gathering of sea birds Roosting Shell (gleaning) Fish fingerlings fish for Reef consumption (scuba Tourism diving, snorkeling) Coastal Habitat Fishpond Estuarine Open sea bottom Beach Estuary Area Mangrove Grass Sea Coral Reef Region Romblon

Issues Concerning Issues Management No Eco-Tourism Business Plan No Eco-Tourism No strict implementation of user's fee Capacity Building of PO’s Under implementation of MPA Plan Lack of funds for maintenance Lack of coordination with LGUs Lack of support from residents Lack of awareness Lack of support from residents low attendance during meeting low conservation awareness profit oriented

Body/ies Management PO's, LGU, & Brgy. PO's, LGU, DENR LGU, BFAR, Private individuals BFAR, LGU, Bantay LGU, BFAR, Dagat, DENR LGU PO, DENR PO, LGU PO, PO, LGU PO, org f-folks dive shop operators Users Issues Concerning Issues Under promotional stage Unregulated fishing activities disposal waste Improper Illegal fishing Illegal construction of fish corral&cages Illegal cutting of mangroves Illegal extraction of sand and gravel some structures are constructed in foreshore permit areas w/o LGU's Presence of illegal fishing Presence of illegal fishing wait and see warm attitude luke illegal fishing politics lack of awareness irresponsible illegal entry lack of coordination lack of monitoring lack of proper training Structure Current Fee php per head 50 php per head 50 Entrance: P10.00/ person house P500.00/tree P1,000.00/training C/O DENR for foreshore lease (EMB & PAWB) P100.00/diver/ dive site (without camera) P150.00/diver/dive camera) site (with P50.00/snorkeler P20.00/swimmer 20 300 Users No. of 10 tourists per day per head 50 500 more or less 900 more or less 2000 more or less 2000

Type of User Type Fisher Folks Tourists Site Fisher Folks/Divers Tourists/Beach operators fisherfolk fisherfolks, residents,tourists fisherfolks,CHB Residents Makers, beach resort and operators fisherfolks, divers, researches, tourists fisherfolks, residents, tourists f-folks scuba divers

Resources Crustaceans Trees Econ Tourism Kayaking/Banca Riding Other Fish and Seafood tree houses training venue sand gravel Fish and Other Fish and Seafood Fish and other seafoods Fish

Coastal Habitat Coral Reefs Grass Sea Beach Forest Estuaries Mangroves Foreshore Area Coral Reefs Seagrass Corals Region Zambales Siquijor Cebu

64 Issues Concerning Issues Management no corporate social responsibility lack of environmental awareness does not cooperate w/ the Lgu does not cooperate w/ the Lgu does not cooperate w/ the Lgu no sectoral representation lack of awareness lack of awareness lack of awareness lack of awareness lack of awareness does not cooperate w/ the LGU No monitoring, no coordination, no action, enforcement No implementation of ICRM plans, no enforcement of fishery and environmental laws Body/ies Management resort owners business operators dive shop operators resort owners resort owners PAMB org f-folk org f-folk business operators resort owners org f-folk resort owners DENR, LGU, BFAR, FARMCs FARMCs LGU, - Users Issues Concerning Issues solid waste mgt irresponsible no proper regulation fee does not pay user’s violating laws destructive fishing fishing municipal waters irresponsible diving acts illegal cutting of mangroves illegal hunting lack of coordination bet. & PAMB LGU illegal cutting of mangroves solid waste mgt settlement area unregulated collection destructive fishing solid waste mgt no FLAs use of noxious sub stances illegal cutting of mangroves solid waste mgt illegal settlement area irresponsible unregulated development no permit Illegal cutters, over- harvesters, unlicensed operators, users do not settlement pay, use of Over-fishing, beach seine, use of obnoxious substances, Structure Current Fee 100 400 150 20 20 10 BFAR 20 100 150 200,000 50,000

Users No. of none none Type of User Type tourist commercial Scuba Divers Tourist Tourist f-folks f-folks commercial tourists fishpond fisherfolks tourist Fisherfolk, Fishpond operators, Furniture operators, carpenters, operators, bakery Fisherfolks Resorts Resources Thresher Shark whale sharks Migratory Bird Inverts Mangrove tress Sea turtle Fish, Trees, Crustaceans, Mollusks Fish, crustaceans, sea weeds, Coastal Habitat Mangroves Seagrass Foreshore area Mangrove Seagrass Region Lapu-lapu City Masbate

65 Issues Concerning Issues Management Lack of enforcement, enforcement of Poor management plans Double application for FLA, settlement, lack of enforcement of zoning ordinance, timeline for FLA application Lack of funds for monitoring and lack of personnel evaluation, enforcement of mining law Poor enforcement of Poor environmental laws Illegal operation of resorts Conversion of spatial use Cutting of mangroves and mangrove associates Illegal construction of structures Illegal fishpond operation Illegal fishing, overgleaning, lack of fishery policy Lack of community education/ awareness (same as above) rise, destruction Erosion, sealevel Crops of pub. Infra, loss agri.

Body/ies Management DENR, DOT, LGU, LGU, DENR, DOT, FARMCs LGU,FARMCs DENR, LGU, FARMCs DENR, DENR, LGU DENR,LGU DENR, LGU BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, Users Issues Concerning Issues Cyanide and dynamite Cyanide fishers, illegal quarrying of coral reefs Presence of bird hunters, over gleaning, illegal fish pens and cages, construction of permanent improvements, (sea walls, reclamation, etc.), illegal quarrying, No improved forage, no stocking density, reforestation along riverbanks, creeks and slope, 50% illegal panning No reforestation in watershed areas Structure Current Fee 100,000 100,000 000 200, 90 1,000 100 Users No. of none None None P40.00/ha None None Type of User Type Fisherfolks, tourists, dive site operators Fisherfolks, tourists, shell craft makers, general Tourists, public Pasture lessee / applicants, small scale miners, purified water stations, water districts fishes, crustaceans, mollusks, etc. resort operators/ coastal dwellers firewood gatherers/ timber poachers coastal dwellers, fishpond operators tourists fishers, gleaners fishers, gleaners natural - Resources Fish, Crustaceans, Mollusks Shells, fishes, shells, migra Pearly tory birds Beach sand and gravel, trees, beach trees, Grasses, water, land, minerals Mangrove area, breeding/growing, area, tourism destination Fishery resources (fishes, crustaceans, seashells, mollusks, etc. Seagrass (4 species) fishery resources tidal flat Sand(dune, Coastal Habitat Coral Reefs Estuaries Foreshore Area Timberland/ Watershed Mangroves ha 1433.617 Coral Reefs Seagrass Bed Foreshore Region Davao Mun. of Baganga (with Baganga Protected Seascape)

Issues Concerning Issues Management illegal occupancy, poaching of illegal occupancy, pawikan eggs, enforcement of envi. laws lack of community education/ awareness of low level absence of PAMPlan, awareness Illegal operation of resort Conversion of spatial use Cutting of mangroves Illegal construction of structures Illegal fishpond operation No clear policy guideline/MPA Plan white sand mining (dahican) Lack of coordination between local & national agencies harvesting of protected species, overgleaning settlement encroachment, illegal structures forest denudation/timber of poaching, siltation, low level awareness forest denudation/timber poaching, rock mining, siltation,

Body/ies Management BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, Users Issues Concerning Issues

Structure Current Fee

Users No. of

Type of User Type natural, poachers fishes, crustaceans, mollusks, etc. resort operators/ coastal dwellers firewood gatherers/ timber poachers coastal dwellers, fishpond operators gleaners settlers,gleaners

Resources Buffer space, pawikan nesting site Mangrove area, breeding/growing area, recreation/ tourism sites Sea hare, seashells sand dune, mud flat, easement Coastal Habitat Shoreline Easement Mangroves ha 262.719 Coral Reefs Seagrass Bed Foreshore Shoreline Settlement Mangroves ha 175.145 Coral Reefs Seagrass Bed Foreshore Shoreline Settlement Mangroves ha 113.2 Region Mati City (Pujada Bay Protected Seascape) Cateel Gov. Generoso (with proposed San Isidro Protected Seascape)

Issues Concerning Issues Management chemical farming in rice paddies more fish loss of biodiversity (no fries, local crabs) shoreline sand quarrying strict enforcement of envi'l laws absence of users policy illegal fishing (use of prohibited fishing gears, poison/noxious chemicals, compressor fishing, active fishing in mun. waters)

Body/ies Management BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, Users Issues Concerning Issues

Structure Current Fee

Users No. of

Type of User Type fishers, fishpond operators

Resources resources, recreation sites fishponds Fishery, Marine biodiversity, fishery resources, recreation sites Marine biodiversity, fishery resources, recreation sites/ eco-tourism destinations

Coastal Habitat Coral Reefs Seagrass Bed Foreshore Shoreline Settlement Mangroves 1.5 ha Coral Reefs Seagrass Bed Foreshore Shoreline Settlement Coral Reefs Seagrass Bed Foreshore Shoreline Settlement Mangroves 1 ha each has MPA Region Lupon Tarragona Boston 7 ICRMP- covered LGUs

68 Issues Concerning Issues Management lack of local fishing policies: off season, fishcatch limit/reports, fishers & fishing gear registration encroachment from "outside" fishers lack of clearcut policy on coastal ecotourism lack of protected area management plan lack of info dissemination/ community education settlement encroachment unclear local policy on beached marine mammals (live or dead) pollution

Body/ies Management BFAR, DENR, LGU BFAR, Users Issues Concerning Issues

Structure Current Fee

Users No. of

Type of User Type

Resources

Coastal Habitat

Region Provincial Govt.

Other Issues Financial constraints Limited equipment for patrolling Informal settlers, un-cooperative resort owners Illegal quarrying, illegal construction of fish cages In-availability of fund Lack of logistics support Execution of EO Human Needed Resources Resources Enumerators, Encoders, Analyst Bantay Dagat, (DENR, Trainors PNP- BFAR, Maritime) Enumerators, Encoders, Analyst Enumerators, Encoders, Analyst Enumerators, Encoders, Analyst MLGU/DENR/ BFAR/PLGU/ MENRO & MAO, CENRO MENRO & MAO, CENRO TWG TWG 2,250 ENUMERATORS Needed Financial Resources Resources Php150,000 Php150,000 Php180,000 Php60,000 Php100,000 Php100,000 30,000.00 15,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 10,000.00 Php500,000.00 Person/s Person/s Responsible LGU, BFAR and BFAR LGU, DENR and BFAR LGU, DENR and BFAR LGU, DENR and BFAR LGU, DENR and BFAR LGU, DENR Researchers MENRO MAO, CENRO & MENRO MAO, CENRO & LGU/ Researchers LGU ICRMP TEAM Timeframe Jan - Dec 2012 Jan - Dec 2012 Jan - Dec 2012 Jan - Dec 2012 Jan - Dec 2012 3rd week of Nov December December 2012 January, 2012 January, Quarter 1st 2012 Establishing User Establishing Fees Activities for Estimating/ briefing consultation with all the IEC campaign, passing stakeholders, of resolutions/ordinances, and creation of technical working group (TWG), establishment of MPA, gathering of primary and secondary data of concerned agency (BFAR, DENR and LGU) strengthening of bantay dagat, IEC campaign, passing of ordinances for user fees, enforcement and monitoring, gathering of primary and secondary data consultation with the fisherfolks, data gathering, IEC campaign establishing good rapport to beach resort owners, creation of tourism council, inventory of settlers, gathering of primary and secondary data from DENR (FLA holders) inventory of fish cage operators and mining operators, gathering of primary and secondary data from DENR and LGU BFAR, results and Presentation of the survey TWG in recommendation to ICRMP the municipality Conduct validation Presentation of the result validation on the determination of Workshop User Fees Presentation of output to the MDC/SP for adoption Enumerators ID of Enumerators Training

Users Table 64. Workshop 2 Outputs: Work Plans in Estimating User Fees and Resource Rents User Fees and Resource Plans in Estimating Work Outputs: 2 Workshop 64. Table Tourists Tourists Tourists Fisher Folks Tourists Fisher Folks Fisher Folks Tourists Tourists Tourists Scale Small Mining Fisher Folks Fisher-folks Scuba divers

Resources Trees Eco-Tourism Kayaking/ Banca Riding fish for Reef consumption Tourism (scuba diving, snorkling) Shell Fishes Tourism Sand White beach Turtle Marine Nesting Area Black Sand Fishes Corals Mangroves

Coastal Habitat Mangrove Coral Reefs Grass Sea Beach Forest Estuaries Province Zambales Cagayan Cebu

70 Other Issues Lack of Comm. Lack of Participation Politicize of Availability Participants & Res. Speaker Human Needed Resources Resources Resource Resource &ICRMP Speaker Staffs- Support DENR PENRO Needed Financial Resources Resources Php 10,000.00 Person/s Person/s Responsible Enumerators Enumerators & Team Enumerators & Team Enumerators & Team Enumerators & Team LFC & ICRMP Team LFC & ICRMP SB Team, On Laws, Com. Finance & app. SB & Vice, ICRMP Team SB & Vice, ICRMP Team SB DENR-PLGU- ICRMP MLGU's Focal Persons, & NGO (SIKAT) Academe (RSU) Timeframe 2nd Quarter 2nd 2012 3rd wk November 2011 Establishing User Establishing Fees Activities for Estimating/ Pre-entry: Barangay visitation & IEC School visitation School to Procurement of supplies & other MOOE questionaires of survey Reproductions Orientation of questrionaires Schedules Survey Actual survey Conduct of Consolidation of survey barangay visitation for Re-entry validation survey Data encoding Analysis rent Estimating user's fees & Resource Draft schedule of user's fees and resource rent Conduct public consultations Final draft of RUF & RR Enactment of ordinance Key ICRMP with Orientation Meeting I. (DENR-BFAR-P/MLGU's- Stakeholders User re: Estimating NGO-Academe) for Major Rents Fees & Resource Coastal Habitats considering available User Adoption of or Survey options- Creation Fees from other project sites- of MTWG (multi-stakeholder)

Users Tourist Commercial Scuba Divers Tourist Fishpond operators Tourists

Resources seagrass foreshore area White sand beaches Coastal Habitat Beach Province Romblon

Other Issues Availability of Availability stakeholders key support of Availability Funding Support (Counterparting) of Availability Funding Support of Availability Funding Support Public Support Legislative/ Institutional Support of Availability Participants/ and Speaker Res. Funding of Availability MTWG Members Public/ Institutional Support

Human Needed Resources Resources DENR ICRMP Staffs- Support Secretariat / Trainers Student & NGO Volunteers DENR ICRMP and Personnel Staffs Support DENR Res. Persons DENR ICRMP and Personnel Staffs Support DENR ICRMP and Personnel Staffs Support Resource &DENR Speaker ICRMP Support Personnel Resource &DENR Speaker ICRMP Support Personnel DENR ICRMP and Personnel Staffs Support

Needed Financial Resources Resources Php 15,000.00 Php50,000.00 Php 50,000.00 Php 50,000.00 Php 20,000,00 Php 15,000.00 Php 200,000.00 Php 50,000.00 Php 10,000.00 Php 25,000.00

Person/s Person/s Responsible DENR-PLGU- ICRMP MLGU's Focal Persons, & NGO (SIKAT) Academe (RSU) DENR-PLGU- ICRMP MLGU's Focal Persons, & NGO (SIKAT) Academe (RSU) MTWG (multi- stakeholders) MTWG(multi- stakeholder) MTWG(multi- stakeholder) SB MLGU- (multi- Office stakeholder) DENR-PLGU- ICRMP MLGU's Focal Persons, & NGO (SIKAT) Academe (RSU) (Multi- MLGU stakeholder) (Multi- MLGU stakeholder)

Timeframe 4th wk Nov. to 4th wk Nov. Dec. 2011 Quarter 1st 2012 Quarter 2nd 2012 July 2012 August 2012 Sept. 2012 onwards 3rd wk November 2011 to last wk Nov. Dec. 2012 Jan. to February 2012

Establishing User Establishing Fees Activities for Estimating/ A.User FeesSurvey Coordination meeting w/ LCE; 1.) Validation of Municipal Generation or Activities Data and Preparatory User Fees Questionnaires) on (Survey Work through Fld. Rents and Resource User of Enumerators for Training 2.) Fees Survey Coastal Habitats (by of Surveys 3.) municipal) Analysis (by 4.) Data Encoding and municipal) Consultation (by municipal) 5.) Public Municipal 6.) Legal Instrument- Ordinance : Publication and IECUser Fees from other Adoption of B. ICRMP Sites Orientation Meeting on 1.) User FeesCreation of MTWG (multi- a.) and Resource stakeholder Rents: Generation of Data from possible 2.) sources: a.)Capacitating of MTWG (multi-stakeholder) Consultative Meeting 3.)Simultaneous Scheme and Resource User Fees on through multi-stakeholder Rents Adoption & approach (by municipal): Scheme for User Fees Finalization of submission to local sanggunian

Users Pebble Pickers Pickers Pebble & Financiers Local & Foreign Tourists Local Residents Local Residents Private owners Tourist & Local Local Residents Local Residents Local Residents Tourists

Resources Pebbles Turtle Marine Nesting Area Fish Resources Charcoal Goat Food Seafood Nipa Resources Sea Birds Coastal Habitat Estuary Area Mangrove Seagrass Province

Other Issues Legislative/ Institutional Support limited budget

Human Needed Resources Resources DENR ICRMP Personnel Resource Speaker limited budget (Municipality) 1 encoder/mun., Statistician

Needed Financial Resources Resources Php 15,000.00 Php 100,000.00 P5,000.00 P2,000/mun. x 6 mun = P 12,000.00 Trainers 4 enumerators/ mun. P5,000.00/mun. x 6 mun = P 30,000.00 P5,000.00/ mun. x 6 mun. = P 30,000.00 P10,000.00/ mun. x 6 mun. = P 60,000.00 Person/s Person/s Responsible MLGU- SB MLGU- Office (Multi- stakeholder) MPDCs, MAOs, PPDC LCEs DENR MAOs, P50,000.00 P20,000.00 P20,000.00/ mun. x 6 mun = P 120,000.00 Encoders , Staff PPDO TWG All Staff, DENR TWG SBs, All SBs, SPs

Timeframe March 2012 March 2012 onwards 3rd wk of Nov Ist wk of Dec 2nd wk of Dec MPDCs, PPDC MPDCs, MAOs, ICRMP,PPDC LCEs MPDCs, MAOs, ICRMP Enumerators, Bgy. Offls,DENR, MPDCs MAOs, May 2012 June 2012 June 2012 July 2012 Establishing User Establishing Fees Activities for Estimating/ 4.) Legal Instrument-Municipal 4.) Legal Instrument-Municipal Ordinance: Publication and IEC Consultation meeting w/ other LGUs & other agencies TWG s Creation of Inventory of coastal habitats & users per mun. 2nd wk of Dec 3rd wk of Dec. 4th wk of Dec. January 2012 April 2012 Data encoding and analysis Results Survey Presentation of Conduct of public consultation Legislation-Enacting Municipal Ordinance Users Local Residents Local Residents Local Residents Tourism Fisherfolks Comml Large Sampling survey Develop instruments Identifi-cation/ Hiring of enumerators of Training Enumerators Conduct of per survey barangay Fisherfolks Tourists

Resources Shells fingerlings Fish Resources Eco-Tourism Comml Small Residential Public Coastal Habitat Coral Reefs Mangroves Foreshore Areas Coral Reefs Province Siquijor

Other Issues

Human Needed Resources Resources Encoder, Encoder, Secretariat

Needed Financial Resources Resources P 417,000.00 P 417,000.00 TEV= P300,000.00 Supplies= P20,000.00 none Supplies/Food: 45 x pax x P450/day 2 days 40,500.00 supplies 3,000.00 none Travel/Mobility 20,000.00 supplies 5,000.00 supplies 3,000.00 supplies 5,000.00 Person/s Person/s Responsible DENR-PAWB Benito Salazar, Tito Velza, Larry Deinla, Librado Elnas, Fidel Avel Olofernes, Nuñez, Mabel Vallena DENR-PPIU, MPDOs SB members PAGRI, TO, MPDO ENRO, PTWG, component other LGUs, stakeholders PTWG MPDC/Mayor's Office P/MTWG P/MTWG, LCEs, SP/Bs P/MTWG P/MTWG, LCEs

Timeframe 1st week of 2011 November, December 2011-March, 2012 April, 2012 2nd to 3rd wk of Nov. 2nd wk, Dec. Dec. Dec. Nov.-Dec. Jan. '12 Nov.-Dec. Dec.-Jan. Establishing User Establishing Fees Activities for Estimating/ Creation of user fees and resource rents team results to Presentation of survey Agriculture, Fisheries SBs on LCEs, Treasurers, and Environment, MAOs, Tourism Zoning officers, Assessors, MFARMCs of the 16 ICRMP offices, participating LGUs Submission of results presentation and feedback to PAWB-CMMD Formulation of municipal ordinance in support to users fee Consultations 1. to LCEs 1.a Presentation/Reporting Order and creation of Executive Working Technical creating Prov’l. Group (PTWG) w/ DENR Workshop Consultative 1.b TOs, C/MENROs, MPDCs, MAOs, Center/Academe, BFAR Marine (Province and 1.c Drafting of MOA component LGUs) TWG per LGU Creation of 1.d Advocacy to LCEs 1.e Signing 1.f MOA Preparations Survey 2. Sourcing/ Preparation of 2.a Fund Proposal Research groups Organizing of Research 2.b to be deployed/LGU - Province level Group - Municipal Research Users Fisherfolks Tourists Fisherfolks, Tourism Tourist, establishments, fishpond operators, pasture operators

Resources Coastal Habitat Seagrass Mangrove, Grass, Sea Coral Reefs, Estuaries, Foreshore Areas, Timberland All Coastal and Marine Province Masbate Davao

74 Other Issues Human Needed Resources Resources

Needed Financial Resources Resources on. For supplies 15,000.00 Supplies/Food: pax 75 x 3 x P450/day days 101,250.00 8,000/ Travel: pax x 2 16,000.00 Honoraria: 3,000/ day x 3 days x 2 persons 18,000.00 supplies: 10,000 x 11 LGUs 110,000.00 H enumerators: 75 x pax x 200/day 40 days 600,000.00 Travel/mobility: pax x 100/day 75 40 days 300,000.00 Honorarium: 200/ x 11 day x 2/LGU 10 days 44,000.00 Supplies: 2,000/ x 11 LGUs LGU 22,000.00 Supplies: 2,000/ x 11 LGUs LGU 22,000.00 Person/s Person/s Responsible P/MTWG P/MTWG, Res. Grps/ Enumerators, Consultants P/MTWG, Res. Grps. P/MTWG, Res. Grps./ Encoders P/MTWG, Res. Grps. P/MTWG, Res. Grps.

Timeframe Dec.-Jan. Jan. Jan.-Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Establishing User Establishing Fees Activities for Estimating/ 2.c Preparation of Survey Survey 2.c Preparation of Questionnaire 2.d Enumerators training/workshop for the conduct of research (11 LGUs) Simultaneous Research 3. Survey Actual Field 3.a 3.b Data Encoding 3.c Data Processing Analysis 3.d Data Users Resources Coastal Habitat Province

75 Other Issues Human Needed Resources Resources

Needed Financial Resources Resources Supplies/Food: 45 x pax x P450/day 2 days 40,500.00 Supplies: 2,000/ x 11 LGUs LGU 22,000.00 Supplies: 2,000/ x 11 LGUs LGU Supplies: 5,000/ x 11 LGUs LGU 55,000.00 supplies: 1,000/ x 11 LGUs LGU 11,000.00 Travel/mobility: x 11 2,000/ LGU LGUs 22,000.00 Supplies: 5,000/ x 11 LGUs LGU 55,000.00 undetermined TOTAL 1,552,250.00 TOTAL Person/s Person/s Responsible P/MTWG P/MTWG P/MTWG SP/Bs P/MTWG, SP/SBs SP/SBs P/MTWG LGUs

Timeframe 1st-2nd wk of 1st-2nd March 3rd wk, March March March-April April May onward Nov. May onward Establishing User Establishing Fees Activities for Estimating/ 4. Consolidation of Survey Results Survey Consolidation of 4. 5. Presentation of findings/results and and recommendations to LCEs stakeholders Rents User Fees/Resource 6. Ordinance Drafting by component LGUs 7. Legislation/Adoption per LGUs Consultations/Hearings 7.a Public Ordinance Approval of 7.b Concurrence SP Submission for 8. Campaign 9. Information Education 10. Implementation Users Resources Coastal Habitat Province

76 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rosales, R. (2006). Potential Economic Instruments for the MBCCs of the Sulu Sulawesi Seascape Project. Walton Foundation and Conservation International-Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Terms of Reference, ICRMP-IC-01-2009.

Padilla, J., Rosales, R., Ulep, C., Meniado, A., Blastique, T., Cabrera, S., et al. (2000). Manual for the Implementation of Fee System Guidelines in Protected Areas. ENRAP IV Technical Paper. USAID-DENR- REECS, Quezon City, Philippines.

Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP). A Proposed Licensing System for the Commercial Fishing Industry. Consultant's Report Submitted to the Fisheries Sector Program (FSP). (unpublished).

Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc. (REECS), Tetra Tech EMI. (2005). Registration and Licensing Framework for the Commercial Capture Fisheries Sector of the Philippines. United States Agency for International Development, Manila, Philippines.

Humpback Whale Research Group. (2010, June). Personal Interview. (R. Rosales, Interviewer)

Libosada, C. M. (2009). Business or leisure? Economic development and resource protection-Concepts and practices in sustainable ecotourism. Ocean & Coastal Management (52), 390-394.

Padilla, J., Rosales, R., Blastique, T., Corcuera, E., Buen, R., Cabrera, S., et al. (1999). Determination of Development Fees for Tourism Establishments Located in El Nido Marine Reserve. PEENRA/ENRAP IV Technical Paper . USAID/DENR/REECS, Quezon City, Philippines.

Rosales, R. (2008). Developing a Framework for Economic Analysis of CRM Investments: The Case of Ubay, Bohol. United States International Agency for Development (USAID), Manila, Philippines.

Trinidad, A. (2004). Commercial Fishing License Fees as a Policy Instrument. Fisheries Resource Management Project (FRMP) Technical Monograph Series, No.5 .

Padilla, J. (2008). Analysis of Coastal and Marine Resources: Contribution to the Philippine Country Environmental Analysis. World Bank, Manila, Philippines.

Hartwick, J., & Olewiler, N. (1998). In J. Padilla, R. Rosales, T. Blastique, E. Corcuera, R. Buen, S. Cabrera, et al., Determination of Development Fees for Tourism Establishments Located in El Nido Marine Reserve. PEENRA/ENRAP IV Technical Paper. USAID/DENR/REECS, Quezon City, Philippines.

Hartwick, J., & Olewiler, N. (1998). The Economics of Natural Resource Use. Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc., USA.

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.adb.org/Documents/RRPs/PHI/33276-PHI-RRP.pdf 77 ANNEXES

ANNEX A: DAO 2000-51

DENR Administrative Order No. 2000-51 June 21, 2000

SUBJECT : Guidelines and Principle in Determining Fees for Access to and Sustainable Use of Resources in Protected Area

Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act 7586 otherwise known as the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, and in order to provide guidelines and principles in accessing and sustainably using resources in protected areas, this Order is hereby issued for the guidance of all concerned.

SECTION I TITLE

This Order shall be known as “Guidelines and Principles in Determining Fees for Access to and Sustainable Use of Resources in Protected Areas”.

SECTION II OVERRIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES IN PROTECTED AREAS

2.1 Sustainability is the overriding consideration in determining all types and rates of use of all resources in protected areas. Sustainable use shall be operationalized as follows:

2.1.1 For the extraction of renewable resources such as forest flora and fauna and other forest products, surface and ground water, fisheries, geothermal energy and similar resources, sustainable use shall be the rate of extraction that is lower than either the rate of regeneration or the rate that shall 78 endanger life forms inside the protected area. The rate of use shall and its immediate surroundings when taken individually or collectively or in relation to other uses of the area and that any form of use shall maintain the socio economic and cultural aspect of the area.

2.1.2 Any development of land and other resources in a protected area shall not alter the landscape and shall not significantly disrupt normal ecological functions and processes.

2.1.3. The recreational use of resources for tourism for filming or photography, shall preserve the natural landscape and not put significant stress on living resources by considering the carrying capacity of the area.

2.1.4. In the process of resource utilization, the introduction of substances or chemicals harmful to the environment shall not be allowed

2.2 Subsistence use of resources by indigenous peoples and tenured migrants shall be exempt from the payment of user fees. SECTION III OBJECTIVES

It shall be the objective of this Order to set forth the procedure which DENR through the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) and the Protected Area Management Boards (PAMBs) shall follow in determining fees for access to and sustainable use of resources located in protected areas for subsistence, recreational, extractive, commercial, and all other purposes. Revenues generated shall accrue to the Integrated Protected Area Fund (IPAF) which will be managed by the IPAF Governing Board and the concerned PAMB.

The revenue generated shall be disbursed solely for the protection, maintenance, administration and management of NIPAS, and duly approved projects endorsed by the PAMBs, in the amounts authorized by the DENR.

SECTION IV SCOPE

This Order shall cover identified major uses of all resources and facilities inareas comprising the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS).

SECTION V DEFINITION OF TERMS

5.1 Carrying capacity – refers to the ability of the natural or environmental resource to absorb stress without experiencing unacceptable – instability and degradation.

5.2 Commercial Use – is the use of resources in excess of subsistence use.

5.3 Cottage-Scale Development – any development that requires an investment of PhP 150,000 to 1.5 million.

5.4 Development of Land and Other Resources – involves all forms of improvement or enhancement of land and other resources within a protected area for any purpose.

5.5 Extractive Use – is the use of resources involving gathering, tapping, diverting, or any form of removal of resources within the designated multiple use zone, sustainable use zone and buffer zone.

5.6 Final Consumption – refers to use of resources where there source is no longer used as input to production of other goods or services.

5.7 Fishing – is the taking of fishery species from their wild state or habitat, with or without the use of fishing vessels.

5.8 Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous People (ICCs/IPs) – refer to a group of people or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership 79 since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized such territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural in roads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and cultures, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of in roads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains (Section 3(h), RA 8371).

5.9 Medium-Scale Development – any development that requires an investment of above PhP 1.5 million. to 60 million.

5.10 Marketed Resources – are resources which use entails voluntary exchange involving monetary transaction or non-monetary transaction as in the case of barter.

5.11 Micro-Scale Development – any development that requires an investment of PhP150,000 and below

5.12 Non-marketed Resources – are resources which use does not entail market transaction.

5.13 Recreational Use – is the use of resources for the primary purpose of personal enjoyment but which does not entail any form of extraction, except, for example, in recreational or sports fishing where regulated number of fish may be taken.

5.14 Resources – refer to all living and non-living, renewable or non-renewable, including but not limited to terrestrial, aquatic or both, surface or subsoil resources found within protected areas.

5.15 Small-Scale Development – any development that requires an investment of above PhP1.5 million to 15 million.

5.16 Subsistence Use – is the use of resources to satisfy the minimum basic requirements of households of indigenous cultural communities and tenured migrants including but not limited to food, dwelling, clothing, medical assistance and recreation.

5.17 Sustainable Use – is the use of components of biological diversity in away and at a rate that does not lead to the decline in the species used, thus, maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of the present and future Filipino generations.

5.18 Tenured Migrant – or communities within-protected areas are those who have actually and continuously occupied area five (5) years before the designation of such as protected area in accordance with the NIPAS Act and are solely dependent on the resource for subsistence (Section 4(l), RA 7586).

SECTION VI TYPES OF USES

The following are the types of uses of resources in protected areas on which fees shall be assessed or may be applied:

6.1 Subsistence use shall include but not limited to hunting of wildlife for household consumption, gathering of forest products for house construction, agriculture or fish culture to raise crops or fish for household consumption. Subsistence use shall be for the benefit of indigenous cultural communities and tenured migrants only.

6.2 Recreational use shall include but not limited to land, water-based activities such as snorkeling, SCUBA diving, swimming, boating, mountain climbing, trekking, picnicking, and bird watching, filming and photography; and all other similar activities as may be determined and allowed by the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB).

6.3 Extractive use shall include but not limited to: a) extraction or diversion of water for irrigation or domestic uses; b) collection or gathering of forest products such as vines, rattan, bamboo, resin, ornamental plants, bird’s nest, guano, honey; c) collection of wildlife such as monkeys, wild pigs, butterfly; d) extraction of flora and fauna and its by-products, parts and derivatives, including, but not limited to leaves, blood and samples ; e) fishing either in small or commercial scale.

80 6.4 Commercial use shall refer to the development of land and other resources such as construction of kiosks for vending food and souvenir items; construction of tourist and lodging facilities-shops for rental of recreational equipment such as boats, and such other activities as may be allowed by the Management Plan and in accordance with Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) guidelines.

Further,it shall also include existing activities relating to the use of geothermal energy, water resources for electric power generation, use of fish pens and fish cages, use of highways, relay stations and similar communication or transportation structure.

SECTION VII TYPES OF FEES

7.1 Protected Area Entrance Fee – is a fee paid to enter a protected area.

7.2 Facilities User Fee – is a fee paid for the privilege of using man-made facilities inside a protected area.

7.3 Resource User Fee – is a fee paid for the sustainable commercial use of a specified quantity of resources within protected area over a specified period of time.

7.4 Concession Fee – is a fee paid for the use of land or other resources for the privilege of undertaking micro and cottage-scale development for a specified period of time and for a specified nature of development.

7.5 Development Fee – is a fee paid for the use of land or other Resources for the privilege of undertaking small, medium and other bigger scale development in protected areas to the extent as may be allowed by PAMB and in accordance with the Management Plan for a specified period of time and for a specific nature of development.

7.6 Royalty may be defined as a The paid based on the gross output value or gross sales from products out of resources derived from a protected area

SECTION VIII SPECIFIC GUIDELINES AND PRINCIPLES IN DETERMINING FEES

One or more guidelines and/or principles may be employed in determining fees based on the following: a) capability to approximate closely the correct fee; b) availability of data as basis for computations; and c)costs to be incurred in estimating the fee.

8.1 Protected Area Entrance Fees and Facilities User Fees

Specific Principles

8.1.1 Cost-recovery principle – For Protected Area Entrance Fees, collected revenues shall cover, as much as possible, a reasonable proportion of all costs incurred in protecting, maintaining and enhancing the natural attractions of the protected area. For Facilities User Fees, collected revenues shall cover, as much as possible, a reasonable proportion of all costs incurred in providing and maintaining the man-made facilities in the protected area.

8.1.2 Willingness-to-pay principle – for protected area entrance fees, these shall be based on the willingness-to-pay estimates of the visitors based on appropriate surveys.

Guidelines

8.1.3 Protected Area Entrance Fees shall cover access to the protected area. If applicable, an additional facilities User Fees hall cover access to and the use of man-made facilities in the protected area.

8.1.4 For Protected Area Entrance Fees, the willingness-to-pay principle shall be the primary basis for computing fees. However, if information is not available, the cost-recovery principle shall be the basis of computation.

81 8.1.5 For Facilities User Fees on man-made facilities managed by private entities, rates shall be determined by the private entity but shall be comparable to fees charged for the use of similar facilities in a comparable location. All Facilities User Fees shall be determined in consultation with the PAMB.

8.1.6 For Facilities User Fees on man-made facilities managed by the government, these shall be determined using the cost-recovery principle and shall be comparable to the fees for the use of privately-managed facilities with similar characteristics.

8.1.7 A three-tiered system of Protected Area Entrance Fees shall be developed: lower rates, for Filipino students and senior citizens; normal rates for other Filipino visitors; lower rates for minors; higher rates for all foreign visitors.

8.2 Resource User Fees, Development Fees and Concession Charges

Guidelines and Principles

8.2.1 The PAMB may, to the extent feasible, enter into co-production, joint venture or production-sharing agreements with interested parties through the Natural Resource Development Corporation (NRDC) in the processing, marketing, and disposition of resources in appropriate management zones within the protected area.

8.2.2 The government share of the protected area through the Integrated Protected Areas Fund (IPAF) in these agreements shall be a reasonable proportion of the excess profits derived from the commercial extraction of resources.

8.2.3 Project proposals for development activities within protected areas which are outside the scope of the management plan shall be subject to an EIA as required by law and other pertinent laws and regulations prior to their implementation.

8.3 Royalty Guideline and Principle For any use of resources that result in the sale of goods or services where the value of total sales can be easily monitored, the resource fee may be based on royalty.

SECTION IX OTHER PROVISIONS

9.1 The computation of the excess profits shall be guided by the formula specified in Annex A . The corresponding government share from the excess profit shall be determined consistent with the appropriate instrument agreed upon by the contracting parties.

9.2 The rate of subsistence use shall be specified for each resource and where possible, for each household of indigenous people and tenured migrants. Such rate shall not exceed the rural annual capita threshold income by region as may be determined by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA).

9.3 The classification of development projects in protected areas in terms of investments shall be regularly updated in accordance with DTI guidelines.

9.4 The guidelines and principles enumerated herein shall be elaborated and operationalized in a handbook that shall be developed after pilot-testing in a sufficient number of protected areas.

9.5 The PAMB may enter into a MOA with NRDC to be its collecting arm, and/or fund manager and marketing arm. Furthermore, PAMB may also engage the services of NRDC to manage and operate areas it may deemed appropriate.

82 SECTION X RESPONSIBILITIES OF PAWB AND PAMB

10.1 PAWB shall:

10.1.1 Take the lead in pilot-testing these guidelines and principles in key resources and uses in collaboration with the PAMBs and DENR Field Offices;

10.1.2 Develop a manual to be used by PAMBs in the implementation of the guidelines and principles after pilot testing in a sufficient number of areas;

10.1.3 Assist the PAMBs to operationalize the manual; and

10.1.4 Assist in providing experts required by the PAMBs in the implementation of the guidelines and principles.

10.2 PAMB shall:

10.2.1 Collaborate with PAWB in the pilot testing of the guidelines and principles;

10.2.2 Be guided by the manual developed by PAWB in implementing the guidelines and principles;

10.2.3 Approve all types of uses of resources in a protected area through a Memorandum of Agreement with the concerned entity;

10.2.4 Conduct public consultations/dialogues with interested parties on proposed fees;

10.2.5 Formulate and pass all resolutions required to enable and facilitate the collection of fees; and

10.2.6 Determine through consultations with indigenous people the traditional uses of resources within protected areas.

This Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication and revokes, supersedes, and amends any order and/or instructions in consistent herewith.

(Sgd.) ANTONIO H.CERILLES Secretary Published at:

MALAYA- July 15,2000

83 ANNEX B: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION ON “GUIDELINES AND PRINCIPLES FOR DETERMINING FEES FOR ACCESS TO AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF RESOURCES IN PROTECTED AREAS”

July 20, 2010 PAWB Visitors’ Center LIST OF PARTICIPANTS NAMES OFFICE/ADDRESS

1. Eric Q. Passion CMMD-Region 2

2. Roman B. Capili DENR Region 2, CENRO, Aparri

3. Jimmy Juliana DENR- Region 2

4. Antonia V. Lopez AES-Masinloc Zambales

5. Carlito Samonte DENR-PENRO, Iba Zambales

6. Mary June F. Maypa DENR Region IV-B

7. Exequiel Dones Region 5- Masbate

8. Cheryl C. Abcede PENRO, Camarines Norte

9. Yolda T. Abarte DENR-CENRO, Naga City

10. Leonardo R. Sibbaluca RED Region 7, Cebu

11. Ariel N. Rica PASu, CCPL Region 7

12. Chamberlain Babiera PAWCZM-DENR Region 7

13. Maricar B. Ugay PASu, RSPL, Region 7

14. Nelson G. Castillo NRED, PAWB

15. Teresita T. Blastique BMD-PAWB, DENR

16. Lina D. Segunia BMD-PAWB, DENR

17. Alba Soriano PAWB-Accounting

18. Roselyn Batarra PAWB-Accounting

19. Samuel Rulso FASPO

20. Lucena U. Mercado DENR-FASPO

21. Benjamin Gonzales ICRMP-DENR

22. William R. Adan ICRMP-PMC

23. Mansueto G. Bolivar AFD-PAWB

24. Maria Cristina B. Fider PAWB

25. Angelita P. Meniado NRED-PAWB

26. Sarah Jane Tagtag PAWB

84 NAMES OFFICE/ADDRESS

27. Evangeline T. Corcuera Wildlife-PAWB

28. Francis A. Mansueto PACMAND-PAWB

29. Carlo C. Custodio PAWB-CMMO

30. Susan H. Roquez PAWB

31. Danny N. Malvas PAWB

32. Vina P. Macutungay PAWB

33. Lily P. Anova PACMAND-PAWB

34. Lea C. Avilla ICRMP-PAWB

35. Rosita P. Parina PACMAND-PAWB

36. Marlynn Mendoza PAWB

37. Maritess V. Agayatin PACMAND-PAWB

38. Ofelia B. Espayos PACMAND-PAWB

39. Rina Rosales REECS

40. Jon Josef Manlunas REECS

85 ANNEX C: SURVEY OF FISH POND, FISH CAGE AND AQUA-SILVICULTURE OPERATORS

All remaining mangrove forests have been legally declared as protected areas, and further conversion to fishponds is now prohibited. However, there are existing tenure instruments such as Fishpond Lease Agreements (FLAs) that are still in effect, and are being respected by law. FLA rental fees amount to PhP 1,000 per hectare per year, according to DA-BFAR. The amount was supposedly based on a mangrove valuation study in 1995 that attempted to determine the amount of resource rent accruing from fishpond activities in mangrove areas.

The continued operations of existing fish ponds, fish cages and aqua-silviculture operations until their expiration date have been identified as the major economic activities allowed in the remaining mangroves in the country. In this connection, a survey is being conducted among fishpond, fish cage and aqua-silviculture operators to determine the profitability and challenges encountered in their continued operations. The results of this survey may be able to feed into an appropriate policy on mangrove forests in the country.

I. Profile of Respondent

a. Position :______

b. Age :______

c. Fish Pond/Cage Experience (yrs) :______

d. Educational Attainment :______

e. Sex :______

f. Ethnicity :______

g. Civil Status :______

h. Other sources of livelihood

Time Spent (indicate no. of Income (specify unit, e.g. per Source days and months) day, per month, etc.)

i. Respondent’s gross monthly income from aquaculture before taxes: ______

j. Other Household monthly income before taxes:

Source Frequency (indicate months) Amount (specify unit)

k. Location of residence :______

II. Location of Fish Pond/ Cage

(1)______Leased Private Untenured

(2)______Leased Private Untenured

(3)______Leased Private Untenured 86 Total Area of Fish Pond/Cage

Length_____ Width_____ Depth_____

III. Date Established (month, year) :______

IV. FLA Holder? ____ YES _____ NO

V. Expenses (Pesos/year)

a. Taxes :______

b. Permits (inc. agency :______

TABLE 1. 2009 CROP PRODUCTION DATA (FISH POND/CAGE #___) Crop Number 1 2 3

1. Culture Period (days)

2. Type of Species a. Species 1

b. Species 2

c. Species 3

3. Grow-Out Area (has.)

4. Total no. of pcs. Harvested

a. Species 1

b. Species 2

c. Species 3

5. Ave. no. of Pcs/Kg

a. Species 1

b. Species 2

c. Species 3

6. Marketed Output

a. Species 1 Adult (no. of kgs.)

b. Species 2 Adult (kgs)

c. Species 3 Adult (kgs)

d. Others, wild: (kgs)

7. Price (Php)

e. Species 1 Adult (per kg)

f. Species 2 Adult

g. Species 3 Adult

h. Others, wild:

87 TABLE 2. 2009 MATERIAL INPUT DATA Crop Number 1 2 3 Inputs Qty Unit cost Qty Unit cost Qty Unit cost 1. Stocking Materials Species 1 a. Fry b. Fingerling Species 2 a. Fry b. Fingerling Species 3 a. Fry b. Fingerling

2. Feeds (kg) a. Commercial feeds b. Trash feeds c. Bread crumbs d. Others specify* i. ii. iii.

3. Other variable costs a. Gasoline for banca b. Food for caretaker/s c. Others, specify: i. ii. iii. *Others such as feed additives (e.g. vitamins, minerals, enzymes, hormones, etc)

TABLE 3. 2009 LABOR INPUT DATA FOR DAILY/WEEKLY LABORERS Crop Number 1 2 3 Total man Total man Total man Inputs Total cost Total cost Total cost days days days 1. Stocking 2. Growing 3. Harvesting 4. Other Activities* a. b. c. d.

*Others such as feed additives (e.g. vitamins, minerals, enzymes, hormones, etc)

88 TABLE 4. 2009 LABOR INPUT DATA FOR MONTHLY/YEARLY LABORERS

Duration of Percentage Time Spent per Crop Position Monthly Salary Employment 1 2 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

TABLE 5. FISH POND/CAGE STRUCTURE AND EQUIPMENT/MACHINERY (SINCE START OF OPERATIONS) Acquisition/ Con- Average Yearly Item Economic Life (yrs.) struction Costs Maintenance Cost 1. Farm house 2. Cage Structure 3. Net Structure 4. Other Structures (i.e. sinkers, etc) a. b. c. d. 5. Equipment/ Machinery a. Harvesting Nest b. Bancas c. Others, Specify i. ii. iii.

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

1. Have you attained maximum production potential of your fishpond/ fishcage? Yes__No_ If not, what constraints have you encountered?

Crop 1:______

Crop 2:______

Crop 3:______

2. In addition to the above, what other problems have you encountered in fishpond/ fishcage operations? ______

3. Has the productivity of your fishpond/ fishcage decreased over the years?__Yes __No

a. If yes, to what factors do you attribute this? ______

89 b. What measures have you taken to increase productivity? ______

4. Can you think of any negative impact of fishpond/ fishcage aquaculture? ______

5. What type of government extension service/s would be most useful for you to improve your operations? ______

6. Do you think the amount of rental fees being charged is too small/just right/ too big? (Please encircle the response.) How much less/more are you willing to pay for rental fees of your fishpond/ fishcage? Amount: PhP ______

7. What do you think should BFAR and/or the LGU spend the rental fees for? ______

8. Any other comments or suggestions? ______

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION

90 ANNEX D: SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR NIPA HARVESTERS IN CAGAYAN

All remaining mangrove forests have been legally declared as protected areas, and further conversion to any other land use is now prohibited. However, there are existing tenure instruments such as Fishpond Lease Agreements (FLAs) that are still in effect, and are being respected by law. Nipa harvesting is still being practiced in the province of Cagayan, although there are no monitoring systems in place to ensure sustainable rates of harvesting.

The continued harvesting of nipa has been identified as a major economic activity tacitly allowed in the remaining mangroves in the country. In this connection, a survey is being conducted among nipa harvesters to determine the profitability and challenges encountered in their continued operations, as well as assess the sustainability of their practices. The results of this survey may be able to feed into an appropriate policy on mangrove forests in the country.

I. Profile of Respondent

a. Position :______

b. Age :______

c. Nipa Harvesting Experience (yrs) :______

d. Educational Attainment :______

e. Sex :______

f. Ethnicity :______

g. Civil Status :______

h. Other sources of livelihood :______

Time Spent (indicate no. of Income (specify unit, e.g. per Source days and months) day, per month, etc.)

c. Respondent’s gross monthly income from nipa harvesting : ______

d. Other Household monthly income before taxes: ______

. Source Frequency (indicate months) Amount (specify unit)

e. Location of residence :______

I. Location of Harvesting Activities (1)______

(2)______

(3)______91 II. Estimated Size of Harvesting Area/s

Length_____ Width _____ Length_____ Width_____ Length_____ Width_____

TABLE 1: 2009 NIPA PRODUCTION DATA Item Harvested Unit No. of Units Price/unit 1. Leaf 2. Stem 3. Others

TABLE 2: QUANTITY AND PRICE OF INPUTS USED

Input Quantity Price/unit Economic Life*

1. Harvesting Implement (e.g. bolo) please indicate:

2. Storage Facilities

3. Tying implement (e.g. rope)

*How long before it is replaced?

TABLE 3: LABOR REQUIRED

Family Working Hours/ Number of days Designation Labor Cost/ Unit Member? (Y/N) Day in a month

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

III. What specific months do you harvest nipa? ______

92 IV. How often to you harvest in a week? ______

TABLE 4: PROCESSING: ACTIVITY (E.G. DRYING), LENGTH OF TIME, LOCATION (E.G. ROAD? BACKYARD?)

Processing Activity Duration Location

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

V. How does your harvest get to the market?

[ ] 1. I take my harvest to the market

Length of Time to get Mode of Transport Cost Location of the Market to Market

[ ] 2. A middle man picks up my harvest.

2.a. How long is the transaction? ______

[ ] 3. Other/s. Please indicate: ______

Mode of Transport Cost Location of the Market

VI. Do nipa harvesters avail of credit for nipa harvesting activities? [ ] YES [ ] NO

If NO, proceed to the next question.

Credit provider Amount Frequency Interest Duration of credit

93 I. As to your knowledge, how many nipa harvesters are there in this barangay? Municipality?

______

II. What do you think are the major uses of nipa harvested?

a. Housing material

b. Food

c. Packaging material

Others (specify):

d. ______

e. ______

f. ______

III. Is there a bulk buyer that purchases all nipa harvested in the area? If so, who/what company?

______

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

1. Have you experienced any changes in the quantity of nipa harvested over the past years? ____ Yes ____No

2. If yes, has your harvest been increasing or declining?______

3. Have you experienced any changes in the quality of nipa harvested over the past years? ____ Yes ____No

4. If yes, what are the changes? (E.g. smaller in size, easier to wilt, etc.) ______

5. Have you experienced any changes in the value of inputs used? ____ Yes ____No

6. If yes, what are the inputs that have increased in value? E.g. higher transport costs, more expensive marketing, less buyers, more expensive labor ______

7. Have you experienced any changes in the price of nipa over the years? Higher or lower? ____ Yes ____No

8. In addition to the above, what other problems have you encountered in nipa harvesting? ______

9. To what factors do you attribute this? ______

10. What measures have you taken to increase productivity? ______

11. Can you think of any negative impact of nipa harvesting? ______

12. What type of government extension service/s would be most useful for you to improve your operations? ______

94 13. If resource user fees were to be charged against nipa harvesters such as yourself, would you be willing to pay the fee? ____ Yes ____No

14. If yes, how much are you willing to pay for nipa harvesting fees?

Amount: PhP ______

If no, why not? ______

15. What do you think should DENR and/or the LGU spend the user fees for? ______

16. Any other comments or suggestions? ______

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION

95 ANNEX E: SURVEY OF MANGROVE PARK MANAGERS IN MASBATE

All remaining mangrove forests have been legally declared as protected areas, and further conversion to any other land use is now prohibited. The establishment of the Bongsanglay Natural Park and Pawa Mangroves Park in Batuan municipality and Masbate City respectively, are part of government’s efforts to protect remaining mangrove stands in Masbate province. Currently, both Parks are being managed by People’s Organizations and are partially funded from local government budgets. Admittedly, funds being provided are not enough to sustain the livelihoods of the PO members and additional sources of funding have to be identified in order to continue management activities in these Parks.

This survey is being conducted to determine the costs of managing the Mangrove Parks, including recurrent costs that are necessary for the conduct of management activities needed to enhance the Park and sustain its existence.

A. Profile of Park Managers

Name of PO: ______

Number of members : ______

Date of establishment of PO : ______

When did PO start managing the Park : ______

B. Activities Being Conducted

Frequency of Conduct of Activity Supplies/Equipment No. of People Activity Needed Involved Hrs/day Days/ Wk Wks/ Mo Mos/Yr

96 C. Activities Planned

Supplies/ Frequency of Conduct of Activity No. of People Activity Equipment Hrs/ Days/ Wks/ Involved Mos/Yr Needed day Wk Mo

D. General Questions:

1. What are the current threats to the existence of the Park? ______

______

2. How do you deal with the threats? ______

______

3. Was there an improvement in the Mangrove Park since it was managed by the PO? By the government?

□ YES □ NO

3.a If yes, what are these improvements?

______

3.b If no, why not?

______

4. What activities can you suggest to improve Park management?

______

5. Who else should be participating in Park management? Who should your partners be?

______

______97 6. What activities can you suggest to increase the income of the Park?

______

7. What incentives would you like to get for your continued participation in Park management?

______

8. Who should pay for these incentives?

______

9. Do you have any other comments or suggestions?

______

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION

98 ANNEX F: SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR RESOURCE GATHERERS IN MASBATE MANGROVE PARKS

All remaining mangrove forests have been legally declared as protected areas, and further conversion to any other land use is now prohibited. However, there are existing tenure instruments such as Fishpond Lease Agreements (FLAs) that are still in effect, and are being respected by law. Resource gathering, particularly shell fish, is still being practiced in the province of Masbate, although there are no monitoring systems in place to ensure sustainable rates of harvesting.

The continued harvesting of resources, e.g. shellfish has been identified as a major economic activity tacitly allowed in the remaining mangroves in the country. In this connection, a survey is being conducted among resource gatherers to determine the profitability and challenges encountered in their continued operations, as well as assess the sustainability of their practices. The results of this survey may be able to feed into an appropriate policy on mangrove forests in the country.

I. Profile of Respondent a. Position :______

b. Age :______

c. Resource Gathering Experience (yr) :______

d. Resource Gathering Location : ______

e. Educational Attainment :______

f. Sex :______

g. Ethnicity :______

h. Civil Status :______

i. Other sources of livelihood :______

Time Spent (indicate no. of Income (specify unit, e.g. per Source days and months) day, per month, etc.)

j. Respondent’s gross monthly income from resource gathering :______

k. Other Household monthly income before taxes : ______

Source Frequency (indicate months) Amount (specify unit)

l. Location of residence :______

99 TABLE 1: 2009 PRODUCTION DATA

Item Gathered/ Harvested Unit No. of Units Price/unit

TABLE 2: QUANTITY AND PRICE OF INPUTS USED

Input Quantity Price/unit Economic Life*

1. Harvesting Implement (e.g. net) please indicate:

2. Boat fuel

3. Storage Facilities

6. *How long before it is replaced?

TABLE 3: LABOR REQUIRED Family Member? Designation Working Hours/Day Labor Cost/ Unit (Y/N) 1.

10.

100 II. What specific months do you gather or harvest resources from the mangroves? ______

III. How often to you harvest in a week? ______

TABLE 4: PROCESSING: ACTIVITY (E.G. DRYING), LENGTH OF TIME, LOCATION (E.G. ROAD? BACKYARD?)

Processing Activity Duration Location

IV. How does your harvest get to the market?

[ ] 1. I take my harvest to the market

Length of Time to get Mode of Transport Cost Location of the Market to Market

[ ] 2. A middle man picks up my harvest. 2.a. How long is the transaction? ______[ ] 3. Other/s. Please indicate: ______

Mode of Transport Cost Location of the Market

101 III. Do harvesters avail of credit for harvesting activities? [ ] YES [ ] NO If NO, proceed to the next question.

Credit provider Amount Frequency Interest Duration of credit

1. 2.

3. 4.

IV. As to your knowledge, how many harvesters or gatherers are there in this barangay? Municipality? ______

V. What do you think are the major uses of resources gathered or harvested? a. Housing material

b. Food

c. Packaging material

Others (specify):

d. ______

e. ______

f. ______

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

1. Have you experienced any changes in the quantity of resources harvested over the past years? ____ Yes ____No

2. If yes, has your harvest been increasing or declining?

3. Have you experienced any changes in the quality of resources harvested over the past years? ____ Yes ____No

4. If yes, what are the changes? (E.g. smaller or larger in size, sweeter, etc.) ______

______

5. Have you experienced any changes in the value of inputs used? ____ Yes ____No

6. If yes, what are the inputs that have increased in value? E.g. higher transport costs, more expensive marketing, less buyers, more expensive labor

______

102 7. Have you experienced any changes in the price of resources over the years? Higher or lower?

____ Yes ____No

8. In addition to the above, what other problems have you encountered in harvesting? ______

______

9. To what factors do you attribute this? ______

10. What measures have you taken to increase productivity? ______

11. Can you think of any negative impact of resource gathering or harvesting? ______

12. What type of government extension service/s would be most useful for you to improve your operations? ______

13. If resource user fees were to be charged against resource gatherers or harvesters such as yourself, would you be willing to pay the fee?

____ Yes ____No

14. If yes, how much are you willing to pay for resource gathering or harvesting fees?

Amount: PhP ______

If no, why not?

______

15. What do you think should DENR and/or the LGU spend the user fees for? ______

16. Any other comments or suggestions? ______

______

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION

103 ANNEX G: SURVEY OF FORESHORE AREA OCCUPANTS IN CAGAYAN MASBATE

Name of Respondent Position (owner, caretaker, manager, etc.) Type of Infrastructure Purpose (Commercial or Residential) Date established Amount of taxes paid per year Amount of permits paid per year Income earned from facility per year

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Repairs, Maintenance, Acquisition Replacement Acquisition Life Span in Type and Operating Costs Cost Cost Date Years per Year

1. Building 2. Facilities 3. Furniture 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

LABOR COSTS

Permanent or No. of Rate per day/ Other Non- Total Salary Position contractual Personnel month Cash benefits Paid in 2009

104 ANNEX H: SURVEY OF TOURISM ESTABLISHMENTS IN CAGAYAN AND MASBATE

RESORT REVENUE

Lodging Facilities

No. of visitor nights in Type of Room Room Rate No. of Rooms of this Type 2009

Total

Facilities (e.g. scuba diving equipment, boat, etc) Rental

No. of times/ No. of this type of Total Rental Income in Type of Facility Rental Rate Days Rented in facility 2009 2009

105 Other Services Offered, e.g. Restaurant

No. of times/ No. of this type of Type of Service Rate Days Used in Total Income in 2009 service 2009

RESORT COSTS

Fixed and Variable Costs

Repairs, Type Acquisition Replacement Acquisition Maintenance, Life Span in of Infrastructure / Cost Cost Date and Operating Years Facility Costs per Year

1. Building/ rooms 2. Facilities 3. Boats 4. SCUBA 5. Other facilities /infrastructure a. b. c. d. e. 6. Supplies 7. Electricity 8. Water Bill 9. Transportation 10. Phone Bill 11. Others, specify: a. b. c. d. e.

106 LABOR COSTS

Type (permanent or No. of Rate per Other Non- Total Salary Paid Position contractual) Personnel day/month Cash benefits in 2009

General Questions:

1. What are the main tourist attractions that you are offering? a. Beach b. Coral reefs c. Scuba diving d. Swimming e. Peace and quiet f. Variety of tourist activities g. Others, specify:

2. What government programs would you suggest to boost tourism in your area? a. ______b. ______c. ______

3. If a development fee is charged to fund these government programs, how much are you willing to pay as an annual fee? PhP ______

4. Any other comments or questions? ______

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION

107 ANNEX I: SURVEY OF MUNICIPAL AND COMMERCIAL FISHERS IN CAGAYAN AND MASBATE

ICRMP is being implemented by the DENR and DA-BFAR and is being funded by the ADB. One of the project’s aims is to improve management of our coastal resources through increased enforcement of fishing rules and regulations, among others. Related to this, we are undertaking a survey of fisherfolk in Masbate province regarding their fishing activities and their perceptions of how fishing rules are being enforced. The survey results will serve to guide activities and plans for further improving enforcement efforts in the Ticao Pass-San Bernardino Strait-Samar Sea corridor.

Please note that all responses will be treated as highly confidential. We will not reveal your names and answers to any authority that might use the information against you or your household.

Demographic Profile of the Respondent:

Name (optional):______Age:___ yrs. old Sex: ___Male ___ Female Educational Attainment: ___ Elem ___ HS ___ College Civil Status: ___ Single ___ Married ___ Separated Total No. of Household Members: ___ No. of HH members below 5 yrs old: ___ No. of HH members in school: ___ No. of HH members working: ___ No. of HH members involved in fishing: ___

Household Income and Sources:

No. of Times Per Week/ Month/ Source Amount per Week/ Month/ Year Year

1. What is the type of fishing craft that you own and utilize for fishing activities?

Cost of Size of fishing Type of Fishing boat utilized for fishing How construction boat (or Lifespan activities many? / acquisition/ capacity in (yrs) manufacture tons) (PHP)

Non – Commercial - non motorized fishing vessel Non Commercial- Motorized fishing vessel

Commercial fishing vessel

108 1.a Maintenance Costs for Fishing boat 1:

Cost Item Unit Price No. of Units per No. of repairs in a year Total Amount (PhP) repair

Oil Paint Wood Brush

1.b Maintenance Costs for Fishing boat 2:

Cost Item Unit Price No. of Units per No. of repairs in a year Total Amount (PhP) repair

Oil

Paint

Wood

Brush

2. What are the types of fishing gear you own and utilize for fishing activities?

Estimated Cost of acquisition/ Economic Life Type of Fishing Gear How many? manufacture per gear (yrs) Fish Species Caught

2 3 4 5

109 2.a Maintenance Costs for Gear 1:

Cost Item No. of Units per Unit Price No. of repairs in a year Total Amount repair

2.b Maintenance Costs for Gear 2:

Cost Item No. of Units per Unit Price No. of repairs in a year Total Amount repair

2.c Maintenance Costs for Gear 3:

Cost Item No. of Units per Unit Price No. of repairs in a year Total Amount repair

2.d Maintenance Costs for Gear 4:

Cost Item No. of Units per Unit Price No. of repairs in a year Total Amount repair

2.e Maintenance Costs for Gear 5:

Cost Item No. of Units per Unit Price No. of repairs in a year Total Amount repair

110 1. Are there other fixed costs that you incur for fishing?

Item Unit Price No. of Units Lifespan (yrs.)

2. How often do you fish? Where are your areas of fishery? How long have you fished in these areas?

Areas of Fishery / No. of Distance of areas of No of days Labor Cost Trips in No. of Type of Fishing fishery (estimated No of persons per fishing per fishing a Week/ Years boat (indicate size/ number of hours to involved in the trip trip (PhP) Month/ Fished capacity) reach the fishing fishing trip Year areas)

3. Variable Costs per Fishing Trip:

No. of Units per fishing trip Cost Item Unit Cost Total Cost Fishing Fishing boat 1 Fishing boat 2 boat 3

111 4. What are your target FISH species/ what FISH species are caught when you go on a fishing trip?

Location Volume of Selling Price Fish Species Caught Volume of of Market/ Months caught Catch per trip per kilo or by (please identify) Catch/ Trip Trading that is sold volume Centers

5. What is the degree of demand for the fish species caught? (Please fill succeeding table)

Nature of markets Fish Species Caught (Use Codes in next column)

1 Scale/ Codes for Column 2:

2 1= little demand or no established market exists: never sold/ traded 2= limited demand: can occasionally sell some 3 3= some demand : can sometimes sell it 4= strong demand: can usually sell it 4 5= very strong demand: can always sell it

6. Has there been a change in the volume of your catch over the last three to five years? ___ Yes ___ No

112 7. Has volume increased or decreased since then? ___ Increased ___ Decreased

8. Have your fishing trips gone longer today than it was three to five years ago? ____ Yes ____ No

a. If yes, how much longer? (specify in hours/ days) ______

8. Have you ever encountered PROBLEMS / CONCERNS regarding these Fishing activities? ____ Yes ____ No

If yes, in what areas?

Financing IIlegal Activities Others (specify):

Marketing Institutional (gov’t) ______

113 ANNEX J: GENERAL PERCEPTIONS ON FACTORS AFFECTING FISHING ACTIVITIES, CAGAYAN AND MASBATE, 2010

1. Are illegal activities prevalent in your area? ____ Yes ____ No 2. What are the reasons why illegal activities still occur? Please check all that apply.

 minimal patrolling  dwindling fish catch

 minimal fines and penalties when  no other alternative livelihood opportunities caught

 illegal activities do not destroy the marine environment  can easily bribe arresting authorities anyway

 authorities also involved in illegal  laws and regulations are too stringent/ strict; they should activities be relaxed

 increasing competition with  Others, specify: commercial fishing vessels ______ Increasing number of municipal ______fishers in the area

3. Where are these illegal fishing activities occurring? ______

4. In your opinion and experience, how often are illegal fishers caught?

___ everyday ____ 3-4 times a week ____ 1-2 times a week ____ twice a month ___ once a month ____seldom/ rare ____ never

5. On a scale of 0 to 10, what is the probability of being caught? Please circle the appropriate number.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(never) (certain)

5.a What is the reason for your rating? ______

6. On a scale of 0 to 10, when caught, what is the probability of being arrested? Please circle the appropriate number.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(never) (certain)

6.a What is the reason for your rating? ______

114 7. On a scale of 0 to 10, when arrested, what is the probability of prosecution? Please circle the appropriate number. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(never) (certain)

7.a What is the reason for your rating? ______

8. On a scale of 0 to 10, when prosecuted, what is the probability of conviction/ payment of fines? Please circle the appropriate number.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(never) (certain)

8.a What is the reason for your rating? ______

9. On a scale of 0 to 10, what is the probability of the illegal fishing activity being done again by the same person? Please circle the appropriate number.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(never) (certain)

9.a What is the reason for your rating? ______

10. Do you violate fishing rules and regulations? ____ YES (proceed to next question) ____ NO (proceed to question 23)

11. Have you ever been caught violating fishing rules? ____ YES ____ NO

11.a If yes, what were the penalties and fines imposed? ______

11.a.1 Did you find them reasonable or not? ____ YES ____ NO

11.a.2 If no, why not? What would be more appropriate? ______

11.b If no, why do you think have you not been caught? ______

11.c Are you a repeat offender? ____ YES ____ NO

11.c.1 If yes, why? ______

11c.2 If no, why not? ______

12. On a scale of 0 to 10, how would you rate the effectiveness of your Bantay Dagat? Please circle the appropriate number.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(never) (certain)

115 12.a What is the reason for your rating? ______

13. What do you suggest to minimize illegal activities?

a) On fishing rules and regulations: ______b) On enforcement agencies involved:______c) On fines and penalties (how much):______d) On patrolling:______e) On apprehensions:______f) On court proceedings:______

g) On MPAs: ______h) On fishing grounds:______i) On fishing seasons ______j) On municipal fishing: ______k) On commercial fishing:______l) On environmental management:______m) On livelihood:______n) On markets/ trading centers of fish: ______o) On pricing of fish: ______

p) Others, specify: ______

14. Do you have any other suggestions? Comments? ______

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND PARTICIPATION

116 ANNEX K: WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

training workshop was held on October 25 LEARNING METHODS AND to 27, 2011 in Cebu City. The workshop was WORKSHOP MECHANICS intended to share the results of the primary surveys conducted in the 11 municipalities of Cagayan A The activity employed lecture-discussion by the and 11 municipalities and City of Masbate. From the main consultant and her research assistant. The lecture- experience of the LGUs, DENR and DA-BFAR personnel discussion was aided by PowerPoint presentations. The who participated in the surveys, it is hoped that other lecturers explained the steps involved in conducting project sites of ICRMP can follow suit and conduct their surveys and the basic legal and economic framework own surveys to set their respective user fee schemes. As guiding the principles of setting user fees. far as user fees set at the national level are concerned, such as commercial fishing license fees and fishpond lease agreements, the workshop intended to share Breakout groups were held to come up with the list these results in order to facilitate implementation of of resource uses that can be subjected to user fees and revised fees, in the event that they do get revised.

Objectives to plan for future activities in setting their respective user fee schemes using primary survey methods and/or 1. Present the results of the survey on resource results of past studies. rent estimates for Cagayan and Masbate 2. Orient the participants on the methods used in Plenary sessions at the end of each breakout coming up with resource rent estimates session allowed participants to share the results of their 3. Explore potential of other ICRMP sites in workshop discussions and for the lecturers and other applying resource rents in their user fee participants to comment on their outputs and plans. schemes Open forums were likewise allotted for questions and 4. Recommend policy and implementing clarifications from the audience. schemes for applying resource rents in their respective areas Participants were grouped by province, to allow 5. Share the results of the assessment of the for comprehensive planning that can cover all types implementation of DAO 2000-51 with DENR of resource uses within their geographical jurisdiction. regional personnel in ICRMP project sites Regional personnel were allowed to choose which provincial groups they wished to participate in. As much Scope and Duration as possible, each provincial group had at least one The workshop was conducted to accommodate all regional personnel represented from DENR. ICRMP project sites from the following regions: 2, 3, 4-B, 5, 7, and 11. Other CMMO representatives at the workshop came from the following regions: PARTICIPANTS 1, 6, 9, 10, 13 and NCR. The workshop lasted for Participants were composed of the following three days, and covered the following topics: representatives:

1. National laws governing the setting of user Office Position Number fees in marine and coastal habitats 2. Basic concepts on willingness to pay and total Province PPDO 7 economic value Tourism Officers 7 3. Sharing of results of the assessment of the implementation of DAO 2000-51 in selected Municipal MPDO 80 NIPAS sites MFO 80 4. Enumeration of resource uses in coastal habitats of ICRMP sites DENR PAWCZMS 6 5. Steps involved in conducting surveys for user CMMD Chief 6 fees and resource rents in coastal habitats of ICRMP sites LMS 6 6. Sharing of results of the surveys conducted in BFAR PFO 7 Cagayan and Masbate 7. Planning for the conduct of user fee studies in Regional FRMD 6 other ICRMP sites A detailed list of participants can be found in Annex A special session at the end of the first day was A of this report. dedicated to sharing the results of the Foreshore Area Policy Study by Atty. Gerthie Mayo-Anda. 117 PROGRAM OF ACTIVITIES

DAY 1

TIME ACTIVITY PARTY RESPONSIBLE

9 - 10 am Opening Program, Introduction of Participants PAWB

10 - 10:30 am Leveling of Expectations PAWB

10:30 - 11 am Legal Framework Rina Maria Rosales

11 - 12 noon Basic Economic Concepts: WTP, TEV Rina Maria Rosales

Workshop 1: Resource Uses in Respective 1 to 4 pm Coastal Habitats Break-out groups

4 to 6 pm Plenary Workshop 1 PAWB

Sharing of Results of Foreshore Areas Policy Atty. Gerthie Mayo- 6 to 8 pm Study Anda

DAY 2

TIME ACTIVITY PARTY RESPONSIBLE

Steps in Estimating Resource Rent and User Fees in Coastal Habitats: 1. Scoping 2. Inventory of users 3. Sampling 4. Developing survey instruments 9 to 12 noon 5. Choosing enumerators Jon Josef Manlunas 6. Training of enumerators 7. Survey schedules 8. Data encoding and analysis 9. Public consultation 10. Legal instrument

1 - 2 pm Sharing of results: Mangrove surveys Rina Maria Rosales

2 - 3 pm Sharing of results: Foreshore area surveys Rina Maria Rosales 3 - 3:30 pm Break 3:30 - 4:30 pm Sharing of results: Coral reef surveys Rina Maria Rosales 4:30 to 6 pm Open forum PAWB Workshop 2: Planning for Estimating User Fees 6 to 9 pm in Respective Coastal Habitats Break-out groups

118 DAY 3

TIME ACTIVITY PARTY RESPONSIBLE

9 to 10 am Continuation of Workshop 2 Break-out groups

10 to 12 noon Plenary PAWB

12 to 1 pm Open Forum, Closing PAWB

WORKSHOP HIGHLIGHTS

Figure 6. Day 1, Workshop in Estimating User Fees for MPA and Resource Rents for Major Coastal Habitats.

OPENING CEREMONIES Congress include the NIPAS Act, Fisheries Code, Wildlife Act, Climate Change Act, and the Clean Water Regional Technical Director Melana, formerly of Act. Presidential proclamations include the Integrated DENR VII and now with DENR IX, opened the workshop Coastal Management and the Coral Triangle Initiative. with a keynote address. Participants shared their Various Department issuances by DENR and DA-BFAR expectations from the activity, most of which revolved complete the list. On the whole, there are enough around the need to provide proper economic basis for legal bases for using economic instruments based setting user fees and other innovative instruments for on resource rent estimates to provide incentives and managing coastal habitats. Sustainable financing is disincentives in marine and coastal conservation using sorely needed at the local level, not just for revenue the pricing scheme. generation but also for encouraging sustainable use Problems arise when there are conflicts in the of natural resources. The studies done for Masbate government bureaucracy on which agency has the and Cagayan should be able to give the participants a primary mandate to manage specific coastal areas. For comprehensive overview of how user fees are set and instance, foreshore areas are still within the purview of how resource rents are estimated. DENR, despite the decentralization of A&D lands and municipal waters. Management of abandoned fishponds in mangroves poses a bigger problem on which agency LEGAL FRAMEWORK should take the initiative, given that mangroves are under DENR’s management but fishponds are under Various laws and policies have been issued in BFAR’s. Worse, some fishpond areas have been support of sustainable financing schemes being titled, which is clearly in violation of the law as set up for conservation and management. Acts by mangrove areas cannot be subjected to titles. 119 Current consultations and inventories of abandoned fishpond areas are going on to resolve this issue and set the right procedures. Co-management schemes among DENR, BFAR and LGUs are being proposed, given that their mandates overlap and cannot be finely delineated. BFAR was recommended to complete the inventory, possibly through ICRMP assistance, and provide the list to DENR and the concerned LGUs.

Furthermore, despite legal provisions of setting fishing license fees based on resource rent estimates, amounts are still set at very low levels to the detriment of government revenues. Fines likewise do not reflect the value of damages from violations of environmental laws. Finally, national accounts do not seem to reflect the value of natural capital, hence are still not adequately considered as part of national wealth.

Figure 8. Break-out groups in “Resource Uses in Respective Coastal Habitats

WORKSHOP 1

Breakout groups, divided by province, came out with their respective lists of resources, uses and users in major coastal habitats found in their areas of jurisdiction. The initial list can serve as the primary inputs in determining which resource uses can be subjected to user fees. Figure 7. Ms. Rosales presenting the Legal Framework During the plenary session that followed, participants related to the Estimation of User Fees for MPA and Resource discussed the various issues they encounterved as Rents for Major Coastal Habitats managers, most of which had to do with unregulated use of resources and weak enforcement of their laws. Some had questions dealing with how to establish carrying capacity thresholds for specific resource uses. Still, others had difficulty straddling between LGU BASIC ECONOMIC CONCEPTS officials and DENR officials, particularly in cases where conflicting orders and permits are issued. Participants The basic economic concepts on willingness to were cautioned about imposing fees for all types of pay and total economic value were introduced. The users, especially if the major users involved belong to three types of economic relationships were discussed the poorer sections of the population. Capacity or ability and related to environmental functions that provide to pay is also an important consideration, as well as the and support life on the planet. The regulation function transaction costs involved for those who will implement stabilizes the three other functions, but it is this the scheme. The following table contains the summary particular function that is undervalued in the economy of the outputs of the six groups. thus has been deteriorating to the point of threatening the quality of life. The concept of public goods was defined in the context of coastal and marine resources FORESHORE AREAS POLICY STUDY and habitats. Other important concepts introduced include the law of diminishing marginal returns and the nuances of non-market values. Finally, scarcity Atty. Gerthie Mayo-Anda presented her and consumer preferences were identified as the main recommendations on how to deal with policy issues and determinants of economic value, thus making it difficult conflicts regarding foreshore areas in the country. The to establish values that would be applicable across the Fisheries Code is specific on only two allowed uses of board. In the case of estimating license fees for fishing, foreshore areas, i.e. reservation as fish sanctuary and economic rent should be used as the primary basis, mangrove cultivation areas. However, there are various but total fishing effort should still be within the legal instruments that cover this habitat. As in the case of established levels of maximum sustainable yield most environmental laws, the problem lies with the lack 120 and maximum economic yield. of enforcement. The main recommendation is to impose STEPS IN ESTIMATING USER FEES AND RESOURCE RENTS

Estimating user fees and resource rents involves a number of steps, including pre-survey preparations, the survey proper, and data analysis. The procedures implemented in both surveys of Cagayan and Masbate were described, including the basic data analysis used for deriving the values.

With respect to the survey instrument, participants were reminded to use neutral questions as much as possible, and to gradually build up the interest of the respondents so that sensitive questions are placed towards the end. Those who wish to modify the questionnaire used in Cagayan and Masbate were encouraged to do so as long as they are confident that they can implement the survey on their own. Figure 9. Atty. Mayo-Anda sharing the results of Foreshore Area Policy Study

a moratorium on the issuance of new FLAs pending a comprehensive inventory nationwide. In other words, unoccupied foreshore areas should be allowed to remain so until it is established scientifically that there is room for more FLAs to be issued. The moratorium should be accompanied with IEC campaigns among government and non-government stakeholders, possibly through ICMRP, on the value of foreshore areas and how LGUs and DENR can co-manage them. Although the legal mandate is still with the DENR, LGUs have the power to enact local ordinances, which in turn can impose penalties on violators. Figure 10. Mr. Manlunas discussing the procedure in estimating user fees and resource rents Questions focused on how to resolve conflicting claims between government agencies on which should eventually manage foreshore areas, and how enforcement has been weak in some areas. Some The databases developed from the surveys will be establishments are able to locate on foreshore areas provided to the CMMO and their partner LGUs. despite the absence of an ECC. For violations occurring, notices can be issued within 10 days for the violator to In determining the sample size, big numbers are vacate the area. In others, initiatives of the LGU are ideal but they have to be weighed against the costs of hampered by the lack of technical capability among its doing primary surveys. personnel to conduct appropriate inventories of legal and illegal occupants. In cases where LGUs would like The choice of enumerators can be made from to pass an ordinance prohibiting any human use of partner government agencies to promote inter-agency foreshore areas, the suggestion was to go back to their cooperation. They usually have a good grasp of the local land use plans and see if their foreshore areas can be situation; hence, can be relied on for troubleshooting declared as tourism areas or fish/mangrove sanctuaries purposes. On the other hand, students can be tapped in order to justify non-issuance of FLAs. Related to this, for greater efficiency and lower costs. The important LGUs need not apply for FLAs if they intend to take over points to consider include their confidence level, their management of foreshore areas if the use is consistent familiarity with the questionnaire, patience in dealing with their land use plans. For areas that were previously with all sorts of respondents, and their attention to above water but have now been submerged, land will detail when jotting down responses. be automatically appropriated back to the government. During the survey proper, it is common decency for Participants were encouraged to make specific the enumerators to pay courtesy calls to the barangay proposals for ICRMP funding, particularly in conducting leaders, as well as to avoid any form of suspicion on the part of the latter. Respondents should inventories in foreshore areas and undertaking IEC likewise be assured that their responses would campaigns on how to properly manage foreshore areas. remain confidential if they so desire. Choosing 121 the right respondent should be based on whom they SURVEY RESULTS consider to be more knowledgeable about the activity being surveyed. For instance, in the case of fishpond Results for the primary surveys done for the operations, the caretaker is usually more knowledgeable mangroves, coral reefs and foreshore areas of chosen than the owner, if they are two separate entities. This municipalities in Cagayan and Masbate were shared may not be the case in all instances, though. with the ICRMP participants.

In deciding on the actual fees, study results provide Resource rents from municipal and commercial good starting points for negotiation. However, the fishing were estimated, as fishing was the main decision is more political in the end, and it will depend use of coral reefs. Community perceptions on the on the negotiating skills of the government, as well as effectiveness of enforcement were likewise measured, the other party, on how much the actual fees will end and as validated by the participants themselves, up being. As a general rule for first timers, it is more enforcement in Masbate needs beefing up. Questions important to get their cooperation to pay a positive were raised on abnormally large amounts of income for amount in recognition that use rights should not come one particular municipality, but these were consistent for free. User fees should be differentiated from permits with the raw data obtained from the survey, as well as and license fees, the latter merely referring to the with the validation of the enumerators themselves. privilege of conducting a business. Corollary to that, it is equally important to establish what the user fees will be Tourism is at its infancy stage for both provinces. used for, i.e. how they will be disbursed, what programs Nevertheless, potentials for ecotourism in Cagayan will they fund, etc. Otherwise, users will tend to “protest” were featured. One particular activity, i.e. humpback any form of payment if they don’t believe the fees will whale watching, has the potential to bring in sustainable be used for improving the area directly. Finally, violators revenues from tourism given the uniqueness of the should not be allowed to use the payment of user fees activity to the Babuyan Channel. as an excuse to continue violating. Illegal activities should simply be subjected to enforcement of the law, Tourism establishments are mostly located in and should not be part of the target respondents and foreshore areas, posing a problem on which fees stakeholders for user fee schemes. would be more appropriate to collect. The type of fee to be collected is not contentious; rather, what is more Collection schemes should be as simple as possible important is the collecting agency should be that which both for the collector and the user/s. Too many layers of actually manages the area. Differentiating business fees tend to make transactions costs too high. permits or license fees from user fees was reiterated, based on how user fees are determined and what With respect to foreshore areas, instead of both they are used for. The proposed collection of user fees DENR and LGUs collecting fees, it would be better if simultaneous with payments for permits was deemed they enter into a co-management scheme and share feasible, as long as disbursements (or the separate uses the revenues instead. According to DENR data, only 3 of both fees) are clearly delineated. regions have been collecting FLA fees. There is enough room for LGUs in other regions to assist DENR in Fishpond operators were shown to be earning huge managing their foreshore areas and enjoy a reasonable amounts of excess profit. Unfortunately, many of these share of the revenues in the process. This is especially are not even registered with the BFAR, hence are not crucial in places where violations of FLA rules exist. paying even the minimal amount of fishpond lease DENR will need the assistance of the LGU concerned agreements issued by the agency. Some LGUs allegedly if they intend to enforce the law governing foreshore issue permits for fishpond operations. This needs to be areas. According to RTD Melana, DENR is now open validated and coordinated with BFAR, since the latter to the idea of co-management, and they can start with foreshore areas. The process can be started with ICRMP sites and identify which LGUs are interested in entering such schemes. This can be part of the management guidelines being finalized at the national level. The potential for navigational routes to be subjected to user fees has not yet been studied extensively, at least in the Philippines. The CMMO may wish to consider this for future work.

On the Supreme Court decision regarding Manila Bay, CMMO was requested to provide copies of the continuing mandamus order to all those interested within DENR.

Figure 11. Ms. Rosales presenting the survey results of Cagayan and Masbate 122 is the only agency mandated to issue Fishpond Lease WORKSHOP 2 Agreements (FLAs). The second breakout group discussed each Inventories were attempted in survey sites for province’s work plan in estimating and establishing foreshore areas. Unfortunately, most targets for the user fee systems for their various coastal habitats and inventory were not met. For those that had data, what uses. For the provinces of Masbate and Cagayan, their was alarming was the large number of residential workplans focused on next steps on how to implement establishments in foreshore areas, despite the fact that the study recommendations. For the other ICRMP this is not one of the legal or allowed uses. Worse, none sites, primary surveys are planned to be undertaken of the establishments were holders of Foreshore Lease once they can identify where to source their funds. It Agreements (FLAs); hence none of them have paid any is recommended that the CMMO through the ICRMP FLA fees to DENR. Some LGU participants questioned project assist in funding these activities if the current the results of the survey, claiming they did not tally project funds will allow. Furthermore, it would be good if with their own data. The participants were urged to CMMO would be able to regularly monitor the progress validate the survey results themselves. In any case, the of the implementation of these workplans, and provide estimated foregone income from the survey sites alone assistance if the ICRMP sites find difficulty in some of was substantial. DENR would have been able to double the tasks identified. their annual revenues by collecting just from the survey sites alone. As of 2010, the agency has only been able to collect FLA fees from three regions in the country. CLOSING CEREMONIES The lack of proper monitoring from these national government agencies was a common threat identified. Participants gave their impressions on the workshop Not only does this result in erroneous data, which may inputs and outputs. Judging from their reactions, most lead to improper planning, the government is also losing expectations seemed to have been met. There was an substantial income by not being able to collect from the increased appreciation of how user fees are determined, issuance of these instruments. and the importance of having a sound economic basis in setting fees. They were encouraged to communicate directly with the resource speakers if there were further In terms of how much of resource rent should be questions or clarifications on the lectures and workshop collected as user fees, it was recommended that only a outputs. small percentage be collected. This is to leave enough incentive for further economic development, especially if unemployment is a problem in the area. Participants The workshop was formally closed shortly after who were interested in setting up their own user fee noon. schemes but could not afford to undertake primary surveys were encouraged to look at previous studies and adopt results that are applicable to their situation. WORKSHOP OUTPUTS If user fees do not seem feasible because of the nature of the users, e.g. those belonging to low income groups, The following outputs emanated from the other sustainable financing schemes may be considered, workshop: such as public-private partnerships. 1. Identification of possible resource uses for implementation of user fee studies (Table 63)

2. Formulation of workplans for the conduct of user fee studies and/or for setting user fees within their respective jurisdictions (Table 64)

3. A better appreciation of the economic and legal principles behind the setting of appropriate user fees and estimating resource rents in major coastal habitats

4. A CD compiling all powerpoint presentations, workshop outputs, directory of participants, photos, and two manuals on resource valuation which was distributed to all participants of the workshop

Additional copies of the CD are available at the CMMO of PAWB-DENR.

Figure 12. Break-out group in Planning for Estimating User Fees in Respective Coastal Habitats 123 ANNEX L: LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS OCTOBER 25-27, 2011, CEBU CITY, PHILIPPINES

NAME DESIGNATION OFFICE ADDRESS

REGION 2 - CAGAYAN VALLEY

1. Jenifer J. Baquiran Tourism Officer Cagayan Valley

2. Corazon V. Estorquia Mun. Assessor/MENRO LGU Claveria, Cagayan 3. Jovy P. Tactac MPDC/MENRO LGU Sta. Teresita Cagayan

4. Marina Tamaray PDO II PPDO Cagayan

5. Trinidad M. Tarun Enterprise Development F.P. DENR RO2

6. Margie A. Ubiña Technical Staff BFAR-Tuguegarao City

REGION 3 - ZAMBALES

7. Lolita T. Abayan MA LGU San Antonio, Zambales

8. Annadine D. Encinares EMS 1 LGU Botolan, Zambales

9. Mark Noel Q. Nery MPDC Staff LGU San Felipe, Zambales

10. Frederick F. Torres MPDC LGU San Felipe, Zambales

11. Merlito A. Villar EMS I DENR R3

REGION 4B - ROMBLON

12. Ramund G. Inocencio EMS II LGU Odiongan, Romblon

REGION 5 - MASBATE

13. Larry C. Deinla MPDC LGU Uson, Masbate

14. Librado T. Elnas MPDC LGU Baleno, Masbate 15. Avel V. Nuñez MPDO Representative LGU Mobo, Masbate 16. Fidel Olofornes MPDC LGU Palanas, Masbate

17. Benito B. Salazar Forester III LGU Masbate City

18. Mabel G. Vallen Agriculturist LGU Dimasalang, Masbate

REGION 7 - CEBU CITY

19. Felix R. Albarando ICRMP Focal LGU Argao

20. Hazel Mae Añahian CMMD Technical Staff DENR R7

21. Edmondo P. Arregadas CMMD Chief DENR R7

22. Geronimo T. Basalo MPDC Barili, Cebu

23. Romeo T. Berame Zoning Officer Lapu-lapu City,Cebu

124 NAME DESIGNATION OFFICE ADDRESS 24. Adelbert E. Bruce MPDC Badian, Cebu 25. Romarico Cabellon MPDC MPDO, San Remegio

26. Jesus Rey S. Cavalida MPDC LGU-Alegria, Cebu

27. Marlinda M. Depillo CRMS DENR R7 - ICRMP

28. Romel Kirit Consultant Moalboal, Cebu

29. Vinesse Shalome A. Molina ICRMP Staff Cebu City - DENR

30. Grace Paulino Provincial Tourism Officer Cebu Province Tourism Office 31. Ramero Pungtod ICRMP Focal LGU Carmen

32. Larry Rosero LGU Dalaguete

33. Jason M. Ruelan MPDC LGU Alcoy, Cebu

34. Roderico Taga-an CENRO LGU Lapu-lapu City, Cebu

REGION 7 - SIQUIJOR

35. Jorge A. Arcaya MAO LGU Larena

36. Lynie B. Hora MPDC E. Villanueva

37. Letty Y. Mamhot MPDC San Juan, Siquijor

REGION 11 - DAVAO ORIENTAL

38. Vivencio L. Anislag Mun. Administrator LGU Tarragona, Davao Oriental

39. Redentor G. Magno CMMD Staff DENR Region 11 MPDC Office, Boston Davao 40. Sophia C. Marzo PDO II Oriental 41. Rotchie M. Ravelo EDU Head PLGU Davao Oriental

42. Miguelito V. Trocio Provincial Tourism Officer PLGU Davao Oriental

43. Dolores D. Valdesco SEMS ENRO-DENR R11

CMMD CHIEF/DENR REPRESENTATIVE

44. Josephine L. Araojo CMMD Chief DENR R13

45. Marizel C. Calpito CMMD Chief DENR R1

46. Teodulo A. Manit CMMD Chief DENR R10, CDO

47. Dioscoro M. Melana Regional Technical Director DENR R9

48. Neneth T. Ordoño CMMD Chief DENR R9

49. Dennis S. Piñosa CMMD Chief DENR R6

50. Teresa S. Salanguit CMMD Chief DENR-NCR

51. Theresa E. Yap PAWB

125 Acknowledgements

he ICRMP Compilation of Technical and Policy Papers: “Sustaining our Coasts: The Ridge-to Reef Approach” was made possible through the valuable contributions of the following resource Tpersons: Prof. Raphael Lotilla, Mr. Adrian Ross, Mr. Robert Jara, Ms. Nancy Bermas (PEMSEA), Dr. Etiene Baijot, Dr. Ninnette Lasola, Atty. Grizelda Mayo-Anda, Ms. Rina Rosales, Dr. Tonie Balangue, Dr. Candido A. Cabrido, Jr., Dr. Benjamin Gonzales, Dr. William Adan, (ICRMP), Dr. Merlinda Andelisio (UPV), Dr. Estifania Co., Ms. Frances Cabana (UP-NCPAG), Ms. Doris Dalanon, (Masbate School of Fisheries), Mr. Arsenio Tanchuling (Tambuyog), Mr. Dennis Calvan (NFR), Ms. Dolores Ariadne Fabunan (GIZ- ACCCoast), Ms. Luz Baskinas, Ms. Chrisma Salao (WWF-P), Ms. Nora Diaz (HLURB), Mr. Len Garces (WorldFish Center), Mr. Ditto dela Rosa (Haribon), Ms. Emerlinda Dizon, Mr. Rolan Geronimo (CI-P), Ms. Grace Garcia (SEAFDEC), Mr. Rommel Martinez (LMP), Mr. Jesse Alcaraz (LPP), Sandra Victoria Arcamo (DA-BFAR), Ms. Emma Sarne (DFA), Asec Rolando Acosta (DILG), Mr. Agapito Arrieta (PPA), Mr. Jaime Hernandez (PPA), PCSupt. Hitosis (PNP), Mr. Louie Mencias (PCSSD), Mr. Marco Perez, Ms. Grace Lopez (NFRDI), Ms. Ma. Janeete Verdida (NCIP), Mr. William Digyen (NICP), Mr. Jason Jude Villegas (DoE), Ms. Glenda Daco (Lower House Committee on Ecology), Usec. Analiza R. Teh, Usec. Manuel Gerochi, Sec. Neri Acosta (LLDA), Asec. Rommel Abesamis, Dir. Edwin Domingo, Mr. Ronald Buazon, Atty. Gandhi Flores, Atty. Jocelyn Lobino, For. Albino Belen, Ms. Gemma Monje, Mr. Emilio Vidad, Ms. Ma. Matilda Gaddi, Ms. Jeslina Gorospe, Mr. Wilfredo Saraca, Conrado Bravante, Jr. (DENR Central Office), Mr. Nelson Devanadera (PAWB), Atty. George Katigbak (LAMP2), Mr. Rolly Pablo (LMB), Mr. Jesus Posadas, Jr., Mr. Roberto Mollonga (FMB), Mr. Reynaldo Villela (MGB), Mr. Samuel Fabrio (EMB), RTD Poicarpio Najera, Ms. Maricel Calpito (DENR R1), Enrique Pasion (DENR Region 2), Jimmy Aberin, (DENR Region 3), Mr. Domingo Bravo, Ms. Amelia Abecina (DENR R4A), Porfirio Alchachupas, Ms. Ma. Luz Recilestino (DENR Region 4B), RTD Felix Mendoza, Rebecca Matusalem (DENR Region 5), Atty. White Gallego (DENR R6), Edmondo Arregadas (DENR Region 7), Ms. Neneth Ordono (DENR R9) RTD Myrna Erlinda Arbiol (DENR Region 11) and RTD Mario Eludo (DENR R13),

Finally, this publication depended much on the efforts exerted by CMMO Executive Director Jacob F. Meimban, Jr. and his staff, Lynette T. Laroya, Angelita P. Meniado, Renato D. Cruz, Imee S. Hacla, Ma. Lisette P. Perlado, Lea C. Avilla, Jhorace L. Engay, Milcah J. Geronimo, Criselda B. Castor, Christine N. Ladiero, Patrie Cianne S. Gelvezon, John Erick B. Avelino, Noel Jessie M. Aquino, and John Christian A. Blanco. The support of DENR’s Foreign Assisted and Special Projects Office (DENR-FASPO) as Project Management Office for the ICRMP is likewise gratefully acknowledged.

126

Contact Details:

Department of Environment and Natural Resources Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau COASTAL AND MARINE MANAGEMENT OFFICE

Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife Center North Avenue, Diliman, 1100 Quezon City, Philippines +632 925 8948 | +632 924 6031 to 35 loc 207