Chatsea-WP-13-Katigbak.Pdf

THE CHALLENGES OF THE AGRARIAN TRANSITION

IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

ChATSEA

ChATSEA Working Papers

Working Paper no. 13, November 2010

Aquaculture for Rural Development: An Asymmetrical Initiative

Evangeline O. Katigbak

ISSN 1919‐0581

Published by the Canada Research Chair in Asian Studies – Université de Montréal 3744 Jean‐Brillant, office 420, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3T 1P1

ChATSEA

The Challenges of the Agrarian Transition in Southeast Asia Project (ChATSEA) is spon‐ sored under the Major Collaborative Research Initiatives of the Social Sciences and Hu‐ manities Research Council of Canada. With its primary focus on Southeast Asia Region, the Project seeks innovative understandings of the agrarian transition understood as the multiple, uneven, and reversible pathways and processes through which agrarian rela‐ tions are transformed. Key processes being studied include agricultural intensification and expansion; commodification; peri/urbanization, industrialization, human mobilities, intensification of regulation; ecological change; agrarian social movements; and the re‐ making of agrarian wealth and poverty. The Project involves an interdisciplinary team from Canada, Southeast Asia, Europe, and Australia. It is directed by Professor Rodolphe De Koninck, Canada Research Chair in Asian Studies, Université de Montreal, Canada. It runs from 2005 to 2011. For more information: http://www.caac.umontreal.ca/en/chatsea_intro.html

ChATSEA Working Papers

The ChATSEA Working Paper Series is intended to present empirical findings from origi‐ nal research concerning the agrarian transition, with an emphasis on contemporary con‐ text. The Series includes work done by faculty and graduate students sponsored by or af‐ filiated with ChATSEA, and by other scholars who are not affiliated but whose research concerns similar themes. Working Papers should speak directly to the question of agrarian transition in Southeast Asia. It may approach the topic through a focus on one or more of the constituent proc‐ esses of the agrarian transition, identified as: 1) agricultural intensification and territorial expansion; 2) increasing integration of production into market‐based system of exchange; 3) accelerating processes of urbanization and industrialization; 4) heightened mobility of populations both within and across national borders; 5) intensification of regulation, as new forms of private, state and supra‐state power are developed and formalized to gov‐ ern agricultural production and exchange relationship; 6) processes of environmental change that modify the relationship between society and nature to reflect new human im‐ pacts and new valuations of resources. Working Papers are sent out for anonymous review by scholars in the field. The maxi‐ mum length for a Working Paper is 8000 words. Please submit papers, or abstracts of planned papers, to the managing editor by email. The managing editor of the series is To Xuan Phuc, PhD. Email address pto@forest‐trends.org. Members of the editorial board are Keith Barney, Philip Kelly, PhD, Tania Li, PhD, To Xuan Phuc, PhD, and Peter Vandergeest, PhD.

ChATSEA Working Papers

Working Paper no. 1, The Retreat of Agricultural Lands in Leblond, Jean‐Philippe Dec. 2008 Thailand Working Paper no. 2, Cultivating Alternative Livelihoods Hill, Kathryn Jan. 2009 Strategies and Gender Identities in Naga City, Philippines Working Paper no. 3, Of Rice and Spice: Hmong Livelihoods Tugault‐Lafleur, Claire Jan. 2009 and Diversification in the Northern Viet‐ and Sarah Turner nam Uplands Working Paper no. 4, Ethnic Politics, Migrant Labour and Latt, Sai S.W. Feb. 2009 Agrarian Transformation: A Case Study of the Hmong and Shan in a Royal Project in Northern Thailand Working Paper no. 5, Marketing Strategies and Community Wyatt, Brett June 2009 Culture: Certified vegetable farming and consumer markets in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand Working Paper no. 6, Agrarian Transitions in Sarawak: Cramb, Rob A. June 2009 Intensification and Expansion Reconsid‐ ered Working Paper no. 7, Agrarian Transition in Northern Thailand Bruneau, Michel June 2009 (1966‐2006): from Peri‐urban to Mountain Margins Working Paper no. 8, Population Displacement and Forest Leblond, Jean‐Philippe March 2010 Management in Thailand Working Paper no. 9, Agrarian Class Formation in Upland Li, Tania Murray March 2010 Sulawesi, 1990‐2010 Working Paper no. 10, Contested Upland Landscapes: the Mean‐ Rakyutidharm, May 2010 ings of Feed corn and Upland Farmer Atchara Identities Working Paper no. 11, Paddy Crop Transition after 31 Years of Ahmad, Raiha October 2010 Green Revolution: Restudy on Farmersʹ Communities in Northern Peninsular Ma‐ laysia Working Paper no. 12, Intertwined lives: household dependence Salamanca, Albert M October 2010 and the livelihood strategies of morning glory (Ipomoea aquatica Forskal) producers in desakota areas in mainland Southeast Asia

Working Paper no. 13, Aquaculture for Rural Development: Katigbak, November 2010 An Asymmetrical Initiative Evangeline O.

AQUACULTURE FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT: AN ASYMMETRICAL INITIATIVE

Evangeline O. Katigbak MSc Geography [email protected] Department of Geography, University of the Philippines‐Diliman, Faculty Center 3055 Diliman, Quezon City, 1101, Republic of the Philippines

Acknowledgements I am grateful to the reviewers of the initial draft of my paper for their comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank my colleagues from the Department of Geography at the University of the Philippines‐Diliman, especially my thesis adviser Dr. Doracie Zoleta‐Nantes, for their valuable insights and assistance that they extended to me while working on this research. Many thanks are also due to the wonderful people from my research site who shared their ideas, thoughts and time to accomplish this study. Lastly, I acknowledge the research program The Challenges of the Agrarian Transition in Southeast Asia (ChATSEA) for funding this project.

Abstract The aquaculture sector in the Philippines has seen tremendous growth over the last three decades. Its growth is largely supported by both national and various local government units as aquaculture is seen to support food security programs in the country’s drive towards economic development. This is in response to food security challenges at the present and in the future, and also because growth in the sector is seen to increase export gains in the country. This study provides an analysis on how aquacul‐ ture development, which has largely been driven by the international demands for seafood, has im‐ pacted the livelihoods of coastal dwellers in the Philippines. The study captures local communities’ responses to this initiative as seen in the experiences of the people of Infanta, Quezon. It details the assertion of local peoples of their rights over mangrove areas, which are common property resource, against more economically and politically powerful fishpond developers who are not from the mu‐ nicipality. The study hopes to add further to the understanding of how conversion of mangrove areas to fishponds is transforming livelihoods and identities of peoples in the local communities. This re‐ search employs political ecology in locating the ecological transformations and the consequent changes in livelihoods and identities of the local population in Infanta.

Keywords aquaculture, mangrove conversions, fishponds, rural development. 2 Introduction ties respond to aquaculture as a rural develop‐ ment strategy that facilitates the encroachment An increasing number of the world’s popu‐ of intensive fishery production sites onto public lation is relying on fishery related activities, lands, particularly mangrove areas, in terms of particularly aquaculture, for income and nutri‐ transformations in their livelihoods and identi‐ tion (World Bank, 2006). Aquaculture is seen as ties. It situates the experiences of local residents an effective development strategy that would on the use of aquaculture as a rural development alleviate poverty in the rural areas by provid‐ strategy and the negotiations that the local peo‐ ing the rural population with a more stable ple take vis‐à‐vis the processes that lead to eco‐ employment and income. The Asian Develop‐ logical transformations in their community. It ment Bank’s (ADB, 2005) case studies on aqua‐ focuses on how the operation and expansion of culture in Bangladesh, Philippines and Thai‐ fishponds affect and configure changes in the land indicated that fish farming and freshwater local community members’ livelihood strategies, aquaculture generate self‐employment oppor‐ identities and environment. Development tunities in the rural areas, as well as diverse strategies such as the conversion of mangrove livelihood opportunities for fishpond opera‐ areas to aquaculture ponds that are aimed at tors, and employees in seed nurseries and marking the Philippines’ position in the global hatcheries, and seed and fish traders. The pres‐ economic arena have overlapped with the daily ence of such economic activities also provides negotiations of identities, politics and economies part‐time employment such as pond construc‐ of individuals, households and local communi‐ tion and repairs and fish harvesting for the lo‐ ties. This study also aims to understand how cal population (ADB, 2005). However, aquacul‐ global market forces, as incorporated into the ture has also brought about disadvantages to Philippine government’s program on develop‐ the rural population. Cases in many countries, ment, influence the decision to convert agricul‐ such as Thailand, Mozambique, and Indonesia, turally productive forest lands particularly man‐ for instance, show that aquaculture activities grove areas to other uses such as aquaculture have displaced local populations, bringing ponds. This study also situates the responses of about economic dislocations as the villagers different actors in Infanta to the facilitation of were denied access to the source of their tradi‐ the national and local governments of the devel‐ tional livelihoods (Environmental Justice opment of intensive fishery production sites in Foundation [EJF], 2004; Sathirathai and Barbier, their community. 2001; Kairo et al., 2001). In light of these, I argue that local communi‐ The Philippines’ experience in employing ties initiate and pursue collective struggle when aquaculture as a rural development strategy their common resources, which are sources of has likewise resulted to the massive displace‐ their livelihoods, are threatened. Hence, it is im‐ ment of rural population away from their tradi‐ portant not to treat villagers as passive actors tional economic spaces and the massive con‐ but include their voices and their traditional version of mangrove ecosystem (White and De knowledge in drafting development policies in Leon, 2004). These happenings point to several the countryside. In this study, I show that top‐ questions that critique ‘development’ strategies down approach to policy‐making, especially as that are actively employed in the countryside regards local development, can at times produce and how these impact the rural population. results that are reversed to the desired effect of This study provides an analysis on how aqua‐ development policies. This, I contend, is because culture development, which has largely been such policies sometimes do not take into consid‐ driven by the international demands for sea‐ eration the needs and capabilities of local com‐ food, has impacted the livelihoods of coastal munities. I use the struggle between fisherfolks dwellers in the Philippines. In particular, this in a village in Infanta, Quezon and a politician study seeks to understand how local communi‐ from Metro Manila over a fifteen‐hectare man‐ ChATSEA Working Paper no. 13, November 2010 Aquaculture for Rural Development: An Asymmetrical Initiative 3 grove area that the latter illegally cut and con‐ organizations and personalities have also taken verted to fishpond to illustrate and articulate steps to counter expansions of fishponds and my contention. resist development strategies that contribute to ecological transformations which they deem ex‐ Situating Aquaculture for Rural clusionary in orientation and would keep them Develpoment Geographically, Con‐ from also benefiting from such transformations. With both the Fisheries Code of the Philip‐ ceptually and Methodologically pines and the Agriculture and Fisheries Mod‐ Aquaculture for Rural Development in ernization Act (AFMA) emphasizing food secu‐ rity and poverty alleviation in the countryside, The Philippines BFAR, together with other institutions and gov‐ In 1974, the Bureau of Fisheries and ernment offices such as the National Fisheries Aquatic Resources (BFAR) started a program Research and Development Institute (NFRDI), of developing mangrove forests into fishponds. has developed the Aquaculture for Rural Devel‐ This national policy that encouraged brackish opment (ARD) Program. ARD is said to veer water pond culture was premised on the belief away from the old way of aquaculture practice that mangroves and other wetlands are waste‐ that is detrimental to the environment (Escober, lands (Primavera, 2000). This program contin‐ Jr. and Jacinto, Jr., 2006). ARD is an on‐going ef‐ ued into the 1990s with more than 200,000 hec‐ fort to disseminate the use of mature and proper tares of mangroves converted during its technologies in the rural areas, particularly to implementation, largely aggravating the situa‐ the small and medium scale practitioners. This tion of the mangrove areas in the country. Ac‐ program heralds its claim to support commu‐ cording to White and De Leon (2004), about nity‐based projects as well as simple and envi‐ 95,000 hectares were allocated for the devel‐ ronment‐friendly technologies that are aimed at opment of fishponds. Of these, 63,000 hectares income and employment generation for the rural are under Fishpond Lease Agreement (FLA), population (Escober, Jr. and Jacinto, Jr., 2006; with 16,000 hectares under short‐term leases Platon and Israel, 2001). and about 8,000 hectares under private owner‐ The components of the ARD include (Esco‐ ship. They further noted that some areas are ber, Jr. and Jacinto, Jr., 2006; Guste and del still undeveloped and some are illegally occu‐ Rosario‐Malonzo, 2004): pied. 1. Establishment of mariculture parks pat‐ Aquaculture as a rural development strat‐ terned after the concept of industrial egy was met with both enthusiasm and resis‐ parks; tance by various NGOs, local communities and 2. Conversion of ‘wastelands’ (marshlands, big capitalists in the fishing industry. Those swamplands, sand dunes, lahar areas, who favored aquaculture were primarily big etc.) into productive aquaculture areas; capitalists in the fishing industry that could 3. Promotion of rice‐ulang (giant freshwater provide enough capital to develop large fish‐ prawn) culture; ponds. There are also other local organizations 4. Promotion of saline‐tolerant tilapia for and residents that supported this initiative. Re‐ mariculture; sistance, on the other hand, came mostly from 5. Culture of fish in condominium‐type fish other local organizations and villagers who tanks; were directly affected by aquaculture devel‐ 6. Development of village‐level aquarium opment projects. While loans for pond con‐ industry; and structions from different banks and lending 7. Establishment of seaweeds village eco‐ institutions such as the Asian Development zones. Bank (ADB) poured in beginning the 1950s The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Re‐ (Primavera, 2000a; 2000c), local communities, sources (BFAR) is the government agency man‐ Katigbak, Evangeline O. MSc, Dept. of Geography, University of the Philippines Diliman 4 dated to issue the Fishpond Lease Agreement 2006; Juliano, 1996). The sector also has potential (FLA). The FLA is a 25‐year contract issued to to supply for both domestic and export markets. those who wish to develop fishponds on gov‐ ernment land. Republic Act (RA) 8550, other‐ Fishponds in Infanta wise known as the Fisheries Code of 1998, Infanta (Figure 1) boasts of having the most stipulates that the area leased for fishpond extensive brackish water fisheries in Quezon purposes shall be no more than 50 hectares for province. It also has a vast mangrove area that individuals and 250 hectares for corporations serve as a rich breeding ground for a wide vari‐ and fisher folk organizations. Moreover, the ety of species, sheltering them also from strong Fisheries Code mandates FLA holders to pay a winds and flood waters (CCLFI, 2003). The com‐ lease rental that reflects the resource rent accru‐ bination of marine fisheries and aquaculture has ing from the utilization or resources. This fee is made Infanta a net exporter of fish (Infanta to be determined by the Bureau (Sec 6, RA CLUP, 2002). Fisheries are divided into three 8550). White and De Leon (2004) argue that a types, commercial, municipal and inland fisher‐ major problem with FLAs is the very low rental ies, which are comprised primarily of aquacul‐ rates of just about PhP100.00 ($ 2) per year per ture (CLUP, 2002: II‐5). Municipal fisheries in‐ hectare. This fee was way below the estimated volve fishers using below 3GT fishing vessels. values of $538/ha per year and $42 to $156/ha To date, there are around 1,025 fisher folks in per year, respectively, for fish and wood har‐ Infanta. Lastly, commercial fisheries involve vests from Philippine mangroves (Primavera, fishers using more than 3GT fishing vessels. To 2005). White and De Leon (2004:85) claim that date, they employ about 171 fisher folks. Baran‐ this means that “conversion to fishponds does gay Dinahican hosts a wharf that serves as fish not carry penalties for low production and landing for municipal fisher folks and even pays little back to the government or commu‐ those of the Polillo Island. The national govern‐ nity for losses associated with conversion of ment has already planned for the upgrade of the mangrove ecosystems”. Hence, policies such as wharf into a national fish port. The municipality this encourage even more clearing of man‐ is promoting the area as a growth center that groves. Based on the mangrove resource valua‐ specializes in fishery industries and tion study done by Dr. Delos Angeles (1996), beach/coastal recreation. This is in connection fishpond operators can, in fact, afford to pay with the on‐going regional industrialization the proposed increase in lease fees from programs of the national government and with PhP100.00 (US$ 2) per hectare to PhP1, 000.00 the three municipalities of Quezon, namely Real, (US $20) per hectare. The implementation of Infanta and General Nakar (REINA) being iden‐ higher fees is encouraged in order to push for a tified as a growth corridor, different projects, more efficient use of the land. The implementa‐ such as the construction of the Marikina‐Infanta tion of this increase in fees is being opposed Highway and the establishment of the Interna‐ heavily by commercial fishpond operators (Pri‐ tional Container Port in Real are underway. In‐ mavera, 2005). fanta has also identified different growth centers The aquaculture sub‐sector in fisheries has in anticipation of the establishment of the Inter‐ also been identified as one of the major sources national Container Port in Real. Magsaysay East of jobs in the rural areas in the coming years. Growth Center, for instance, is proposed to serve The projected growth in aquaculture is seen to as the new town site and will have the special‐ likewise support food security programs in the ized function as an industrial area. The Dinahi‐ country’s drive towards economic develop‐ can Growth Center, on the other hand, will be ment. Growth in this sector is envisioned to be promoted as a growth center specializing in attained through increasing production inten‐ fishery industries and beach or coastal recreation sity and diversification in the existing com‐ (CLUP, 2002). modities and fishery farms (ADB, 2005; Lopez, ChATSEA Working Paper no. 13, November 2010 Aquaculture for Rural Development: An Asymmetrical Initiative 5

Figure 1. Map of Infanta, Quezon, Philippines

In Infanta, fishing industry remains to be representing one‐fifth (21%) of all wetlands (In‐ the most important production activity in fanta CLUP, 2002). This figure, which is a result terms of volume and value of production, the of the barangay survey done by the Municipal area coverage and the number of households Agriculture Office (MAO) in 1999, contrasts with and individuals involved (Infanta CLUP, 2002). the figure that is included in the Physical and Fishing activities are classified into marine, Socio‐economic Profile (PSEP) of the municipal‐ inland and brackish fishing. Included in ma‐ ity which estimates the total coverage of fish‐ rine fisheries are municipal and commercial ponds at 858.12 hectares. Majority of the 858.12 fishing that are performed in the municipal wa‐ hectares is occupied by brackish water fishponds ters of Polillo Strait and Lamon Bay and the with 848.12 hectares and 10 hectares of freshwa‐ Pacific Ocean for commercial fishers. Inland ter fishponds. There is an absence of reliable and and brackish water fisheries involve the use of updated data on the extent of aquaculture in fish traps, fish cages and other forms of fish terms of hectarage and volume and value of capture along rivers and creeks and developed production, in the municipality. In spite of this, fishponds along estuarine portions of man‐ however, the MAO of Infanta approximates the grove forests and other wetlands (Infanta annual production in terms of volume at CLUP, 2002). 1,946.064 metric tons with estimated value of The total area occupied by fishponds in the PhP 92,803,200.00 per annum (Infanta PSEP, municipality is estimated to be 1,177.27 hec‐ 2004). The main species produced in these fish‐ tares. This is classified into 512 hectares of ponds are milkfish, tilapia, shrimp, prawns and FLAs and 665.27 hectares of private fishponds, crab. There are 70 fishpond operators in the mu‐

Katigbak, Evangeline O. MSc, Dept. of Geography, University of the Philippines Diliman 6

Table 1. Fishpond in Binulasan, BFAR. It (fishpond constructions and op‐ Infanta erations) began in the 1970s. DENR and BFAR can no longer rescind the contracts and demolish the fishponds even if we were requesting for it. They reason that those fishpond operators spent much for the development of their fishponds. That’s the reason why up to now, they are still renewing their FLAs when they have supposedly finished their contracts already. They continue to occupy their fishponds even now.

Tata Max, who is the president of the Binula‐ san Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Manage‐ ment Association (BFARMA), shares Mr. Cruz’ sentiments. According to Tata Max, there are many fishpond operators in Infanta who ille‐ gally expand their fishponds. He also laments Source: Infanta CLUP, 2002 the “inefficiency” of BFAR to regulate the opera‐ tion of these fishponds that are under FLAs. Tata nicipality. Fifty‐five are private owners and 15 Max also alleges that the DENR and the LGU are are Fishpond Lease Agreement (FLA) holders not effective in implementing RA 8550 in In‐ (ISO, 2007). Table 1 lists the hectarage of fanta. RA 8550, or the Philippine Fisheries Code, aquafarms per barangay in the municipality. stipulates the ban in the cutting of mangroves The figures mentioned above are, however, for fishpond purposes. refuted by leaders of different POs and some Mario Rona, head of the Binonoan Develop‐ local residents. They claim that there have been ment Cooperative (BIDECO), also expresses his illegal expansions of fishponds that entailed dismay over the lack of commitment of both clearing of vast mangrove areas. Arnulfo Cruz, DENR and BFAR in protecting mangrove areas head of Samahang Ipinagtatanggol ang Kapaka‐ in Infanta against illegal expansion of fishponds. tanan (SIPAKAT) (Movement to Protect Man‐ BIDECO is another PO that is based in Barangay grove Areas), asserts that both the Department Binonoan that is also concerned with the protec‐ of Natural Resources (DENR) and BFAR have tion of mangroves in Infanta, He narrates: loosely enforced the law that concerns the pro‐ tection of timberland, contributing to the exis‐ When we realized the value of man‐ tence of many illegal fishponds in the munici‐ groves, we knew that its destruction pality. He relates that: would also greatly affect us. Foremost, mangroves provide breeding grounds for The fishponds that were con‐ fish. There are many benefits that will be structed in various provinces violated derived from mangroves if it will not be laws and the DENR and BFAR are not destroyed. There are various laws drawn paying attention to it. The reason why I up by our government like Presidential said that was because when we con‐ Decree 704 that prohibits illegal fish‐ ducted our investigation with the ponds. Now, we have RA 8550 that con‐ DENR, we discovered that many fish‐ tains all the provisions that disallow the ponds were constructed in timberland destruction of mangroves. Despite these, areas, beyond the areas allowed by the however, destruction of our mangroves ChATSEA Working Paper no. 13, November 2010 Aquaculture for Rural Development: An Asymmetrical Initiative 7 continues. This is happening not only mangrove areas (kapakatanan/ pakat). here in Binonoan but in the whole of In‐ Binulasan was among the rural areas in the fanta. country where massive conversion of mangroves to fishponds took place when the government The sentiments of Cruz, Tata Max and Rona granted open access privilege to fishpond devel‐ reflect the important role of government insti‐ opers through FLAs in the 1960s. Records of the tutions, operating at different scales, in the im‐ MAO of Infanta show that there are about 151 plementation and monitoring of various envi‐ hectares of private brackish fishpond in the ronmental laws. barangay (Table 2). This represents 17.60% of the This research is focused in Barangay Binula‐ total aquaculture hectarage in Infanta. Residents san (Figure 2). This village has experienced of the barangay have expressed diverging views massive mangrove conversions to fishponds with regard to the issue of aquaculture expan‐ starting in the 1960s. Binulasan is a coastal sion and operation. This provides a good venue barangay in Infanta that is bounded by the for examining and situating experiences and re‐ Polillo Strait in the east and Barangay Antikin sponses of local communities to the promotion in the west. Its vast mangrove area serves as a and employment of aquaculture as a rural de‐ source of livelihood for the local people. velopment strategy. In this juncture, I will elabo‐ Barangay Binulasan was chosen as the research rate on the struggle that the people of Binulasan site because of the active movement towards had against the political figure that illegally op‐ mangrove protection and conservation. More‐ erated a fishpond in the area. over, the area is moving towards the applica‐ Using political ecology as lens, this study tion of proper technology, like aquasilvicul‐ examines how multi‐scalar development strate‐ ture, to effectively utilize their common gies, plans, policies and programs on aqua‐

Figure 2. Barangay Map of Binulasan, Infanta

Katigbak, Evangeline O. MSc, Dept. of Geography, University of the Philippines Diliman 8

Table 2. List of Aquafarms in Barangay Binulasan to stemmed from the unavailability and inac‐ cessibility of fishpond operators and caretakers for interview. Most of the operators are not from Infanta while many caretakers reside in the fishponds, which are lo‐ cated very far from the community and can only be accessed by boat. There is also difficulty in communicating with Source: Source: Infanta CLUP, 2002 some of the caretakers culture and mangroves bring about degrada‐ who are living nearby tion of local environments, with empirical fo‐ because most of them are from the Visayas. They cus on the case of Infanta where the growth of find it very hard to communicate in Tagalog, the aquaculture industry had infringed on the live‐ vernacular used in Infanta. There were also lihoods of coastal dwellers. some refusals from village residents to grant me an interview and they did not want to respond Methodology to some questions. Their unwillingness to talk may be attributed to a controversial case that The primary data in this paper draws from happened in 2001 that involved an influential a field research that I conducted in April and political personality from Metro Manila who en‐ May 2006 and in July 2007. I conducted taped gaged some of the local people in a legal battle interviews with over 40 individuals, which are over a fifteen‐hectare abandoned fishpond in mostly in Tagalog. I then transcribed the inter‐ Sitio Saba in Binulasan. I use the narratives of the views fully and translated some of them to local people on this issue to investigate the re‐ English. Each of these interviews lasted for sponses of the local people to aquaculture ex‐ about an hour to an hour and a half. Most of pansion as a rural development strategy. I used the interviews were done in the houses of the pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality and pro‐ interviewees. Some of the interviewees were tect the identities of my respondents. members of the Binulasan Fisheries and Aquatic Management Association (BFARMA). Resisting Development? Most of them reside in Centro, a sub‐unit of the village that is considered as the center of the A Community Struggle for Magrove barangay. I also interviewed those who were Protection either current or former caretakers of fish‐ ponds. They mostly reside in Sitio Saba, which On May 30, 2000, a former politician from is located near the mangrove areas. I was also Metro Manila (henceforth referred to as the able to interview five fishpond operators, one Mayor) filed for a Fishpond Lease Agreement of whom lives in Barangay Abiawin and is op‐ (FLA) for a then abandoned fishpond formerly erating on a commercial scale, another one is owned by a certain Colonel Castro covered by renting his fishpond to the mud crab coopera‐ FLA 4460 issued by the BFAR on December 5, tive in the barangay and the other three are 1985. The Mayor’s fishpond workers wantonly backyard fishpond operators. The small num‐ cut full‐grown mangroves in the area despite the ber of fishpond operators that I was able to talk non‐issuance of legal papers approving his de‐

ChATSEA Working Paper no. 13, November 2010 Aquaculture for Rural Development: An Asymmetrical Initiative 9 velopment of fishpond in the area. He also properties. The local people, in turn, filed a case built a concrete rest house in the middle of the against the politician for the illegal cutting of cleared mangrove area. The Mayor was only mangrove areas. The legal battle between the issued a conditional permit to operate based on politician and some local people is not yet over ‘humanitarian reasons’ after he spent money at the present. constructing dikes in the contested 15‐hectare This issue was met with different responses land. BFAR data on existing fishponds with from different actors in the local community. FLAs in Infanta, however, showed that the area Fishpond owner Tata Aldo, for instance, cites was fully developed and stoked with samaral, this case as an example of a “distorted view on milkfish, shrimp and mud crab in when the development”. He argues that fishpond industry inspection was done in 2001. Officials from re‐ in the area should be rationalized. He claims that lated offices of the local government unit views on mangroves should be that of “dual jus‐ (LGU) and the Community Environment and tice” which is “conservation of our existing man‐ Natural Resources Office (CENRO) declared grove resources, and at the same time utilizing the fishpond construction illegal. and converting them to economic use”. Resi‐ On February 8, 2001, about 1,500 locals dents from Sitio Saba, whose main household from different areas in Infanta as well as other earnings come from agriculture and from being concerned citizens and personalities from other employed in the fishponds, share the same areas in Quezon, including the Congressman views. These employments are, among others, then, officials and staff of the Integrated Com‐ dike building, fry gathering, harvesting and in‐ munity Development Assistance Incorporated stalling of pens where applicable. Many of them (ICDAI), BFARMA, SIPAKAT and some offi‐ were former fishpond caretakers. cials of the Sangguniang Barangay (Barangay Tata Aldo’s concern on development views Council) and the LGU, gathered to demolish and programs differ from those of the residents the dikes of the 15‐hectare illegal fishpond oc‐ with respect to the discourses of his arguments. cupied by the Mayor. According to those who Local people who are opposing aquaculture de‐ participated in the demolition, particularly velopment in the area base their resistance on members of BFARMA, personalities and or‐ economic displacements that they believe they ganizations involved secretly planned for this would suffer. Those who are supportive of the activity. They said they had to plan for effec‐ aquaculture industry likewise think about the tive strategies that they would employ in oust‐ economic benefits that could be derived from the ing the Mayor from their barangay. This was be‐ industry. Tata Aldo’s contention is based on cause the Mayor was a powerful personality theoretical underpinnings that reflect views that whose ties include tight friendship with, and are separate from the everyday politics and most especially, a former President of the Phil‐ needs of the local people. ippines. They even arranged for some local and Those who vehemently opposed the Mayor’s national media personnel to cover the activity. conversion of mangroves were mostly those who This was because they believed that if many believed that such happenings exclude many people would know about their struggle local people from accessing their pakat (common through the media, many concerned groups mangrove areas), which is key to their economic and citizens would eventually rally behind survival. Most of them are from Centro, the sub‐ them and support their cause. Consequently, village that is the center of the barangay. The the Mayor’s armed workers in the fishpond residents of Centro are highly politicized. This were not able to prevail over the 1,500 people may be attributed to numerous factors. The fact strong mob that demolished the Mayor’s fish‐ that many residents of Centro have college edu‐ pond (PDI, cited in One Ocean, 2001). The cation and work experiences outside Binulasan Mayor filed a case against the locals for tres‐ (for instance, the barangay captain worked as a passing, malicious mischief and damage to community organizer in ICDAI, while another Katigbak, Evangeline O. MSc, Dept. of Geography, University of the Philippines Diliman 10 resident organized and headed a labor union in ponds reveal that many of them are highly poli‐ a factory in Manila) may have contributed to ticized and opinionated. It reveals that there are the expression of their active stand regarding local actors who would not take perceived injus‐ the issue of mangrove conversions. Florence, tice passively but will stand up for their rights for instance, was initially appointed as secre‐ and make their voices heard. Their statements tary of BFARMA because of her college educa‐ likewise show that the struggle against the Mayor tion. Moreover, because a majority of the Sang‐ has a high economic orientation. They were con‐ guniang Barangay (village council) members are cerned that the local residents will not be able to from Centro, many of them are exposed to partake of whatever benefits can be derived various trainings and seminars that pertain to from mangrove conversions. leadership, empowerment and many other The local people oppose the conversion of relevant matters. Most of them are also mem‐ mangroves to fishponds primarily because they bers of BFARMA, which remain to be at the feel excluded from the benefits that can be de‐ front of the continuing struggles over the man‐ rived from aquaculture development. This feel‐ grove areas. Mara and Tata Max, for instance, ing is not unfounded. In Lucas’ case, for exam‐ fervently contested the politician’s fishpond ple, he thinks that only big players in the development on grounds that the local people aquaculture industry, especially those who have will be barred from entering their pakat. They huge amounts of capital will benefit from aqua‐ state, respectively: culture. He shared that he operated a backyard fishpond. This was just so he can have addi‐ We fought collectively to throw him tional income for his family. When the Mayor (the Mayor) out of our mangrove areas started constructing his fishpond, which was because he will be the only one who adjacent to Lucas’, the Mayor blocked the water will benefit from it… on the other hand, source of Lucas’ fishpond. When he raised the if the propagules that we planted will issue to the barangay council, the Mayor was be inhabited by fish, the village people adamant and insisted that Lucas just accept the will all benefit from it. That’s why we money that he was offering as compensation for will not allow our mangroves to be con‐ “damages”. The operation of big capitalists verted. therefore threatens the livelihoods and source of I am not in favor of converting man‐ living of small players in the aquaculture indus‐ groves to fishponds because the village try. people are disadvantaged whenever Not only are the economic benefits occupy‐ mangroves are converted to fishponds. ing central position in these issues. Many local If illegal fishponds are able to operate people also voiced out views, which are indica‐ because they are powerful, they have tive of the high environmental awareness of documents… what happens, eh? It many residents in the barangay. Cris, for exam‐ should definitely be converted back to ple, states: its original state, that’s our opin‐ ion…We can look for fish and crab fry Mangroves are the breeding ground in the mangroves. And if we will be of fish. First, if the area is forested, their able to ask funds from the government roots become the breeding ground of for our projects, we will be paid for crabs, tiger prawns, shrimp, fish and maintaining the mangroves. So why shellfish. It becomes their habitat because would we want it converted? No, we bigger fish are unable to feed on the will plant trees instead. smaller ones. That is one importance of mangroves. Second, big mangroves trees Mara’s and Tata Max’ strong reaction against are able to control strong winds. Hence, the conversion of mangrove stands to fish‐ the impact of very strong winds would ChATSEA Working Paper no. 13, November 2010 Aquaculture for Rural Development: An Asymmetrical Initiative 11 be less in the community. Second, man‐ in arguing for the collective use of traditional groves are also able to control floods. It resource areas. Central to the struggle of the controls tsunami. Strong currents of wa‐ residents of Binulasan against the Mayor was the ter will not be able to easily flow in the denial of their access to mangrove areas where barangay nor different things that are they get food and fuel wood resources, which carried away by floods. For example, are vital for the economic survival of their when the current is flowing directly to households. It has been argued in this study that the community, mangroves will be able local communities oftentimes stand at the fore‐ to control it. Third, of course, it gives front of the fight for mangrove protection be‐ the local people extra income. This is cause they are the ones who are generally af‐ because, again, mangroves are breeding fected by its conversion to other uses. This is ground of fish and other resources that especially true among poor households whose they sell in the market. income is derived mainly from the resources that they gather from the kapakatanan (common man‐ The issue of class is likewise a very impor‐ grove areas). tant consideration in the collective struggle of Their struggle also highlights the important the people. Poor local people who cannot boast role of local organizations in staging a big battle of any political connections are challenging a (between poor local residents and a wealthy and very influential political figure. In the Philip‐ well‐connected politician). ICDAI played an im‐ pine culture, class plays a significant role in portant role in the mobilization by assisting in both eminent and/or mundane decisions. The community organizing and providing technical wealth and class standing of rich people can support. Some of the community organizers of afford them favor and other benefits that poor ICDAI assisted concerned residents, particularly people can never, or could hardly attain. For BFARMA members, in the planning of the instance, the Mayor was able to readily operate demolition activity. They also coordinated this the 15‐hectare contested mangrove area even move with other POs like SIPAKAT and mem‐ without approved legal papers while bers of the LGU. In particular, the Binulasan BFARMA, which has applied for Community Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Based Forest Management Agreement Association (BFARMA) is a community‐based (CBFMA) still awaits the approval of their ap‐ people’s organization that is primarily con‐ plication for a tenurial instrument after about cerned with the protection and proper utiliza‐ seven years of going back to and from various tion of mangrove areas in the barangay. Since the offices of the DENR. It was also evident to me Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resources during the course of my stay in the area that Council (IFARMC) mandates every coastal big capitalists, or fishpond operators who are barangay of Infanta to organize local FARMCs, operating on a commercial scale, are sympa‐ the Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resources thetic to the “loss” of the Mayor while indignant Council or BFARMC was organized in Binula‐ with those “poor” villagers who demolished san, along with similar organizations in other the fishpond of the Mayor. According to some coastal barangays in Infanta. BFARMC later on of them, such protest actions exposed the “ar‐ became BFARMA at the height of the struggle rogance” of the local people who should have against the Mayor, from Metro Manila in 2001. just accepted and rejoiced over the fact that an This organization has since come at the front of influential political figure such as the Mayor issues that pertain to mangroves not only in the had taken notice of an “unimportant” village barangay but also in the whole of Infanta and in like Binulasan. other coastal towns of Northern Quezon. Collective struggle has been used by many communities in resisting “development” pro‐ grams that people deem disadvantageous, and Katigbak, Evangeline O. MSc, Dept. of Geography, University of the Philippines Diliman 12 Asymmetrical Development tant resource. Meanwhile, some residents noted that the Residents of Binulasan generally see the conversion of mangroves to commercial fish‐ mangrove areas as a common property re‐ ponds provides them with employment. They source that should be taken care of. This are hired to build dikes of fishponds during the springs from their view that their pakat pro‐ early phase of its construction and whenever vides them with supplemental sources of in‐ dikes need to be repaired. They are paid about come. This is especially because municipal fish‐ PhP150.00 to PhP200.00 (US$ 3‐ 4) a day. This job ing and farming, which are the major sources has become a source of alternative income for of income for many of them, are not steady some men in Binulasan. However, it would only sources of earnings. They are often subjected to last for about a month or two, after which, they different environmental factors, which are of‐ will be unemployed again. This is oftentimes tentimes beyond their control. For instance, done under an exploitative system called according to some fisherfolks, their catch dur‐ “pakyaw system” or a contract agreement under ing the months of April and May are very few which aquaculture workers perform a certain job because fish are believed to be “pregnant”, if for a fixed fee (Guste and del Rosario‐Malonzo, not laying their eggs during these months. 2004). Moreover, some absentee owners of Their catch would recover when the northeast commercial fishponds have opted to bring in monsoon starts. However, big waves during laborers from their provinces. This practice dis‐ these periods make it difficult for them to catch places many male residents of Binulasan who fish in the sea. A wife of a fisherfolk shared look forward to building fishponds as their their observations in this regard: ‘sideline’. Caretakers of fishponds are often mi‐ grants to the area, too. They are oftentimes un‐ When it is nearly May, fish are able to integrate in the community because they “shy”. I don’t know. Some say they are have to live within the area occupied by the fish‐ pregnant. But, it’s true we could not ponds only. catch anything. Not like during the The BFARMA, which is led by Tata Max, northeast monsoon. But the problem is cites a number of disadvantages to the local that we cannot go out into the sea be‐ people once fishponds are allowed to operate in cause of the big waves… –Lyn the municipality. According to him, it will dis‐ Lyn’s comment reveals the importance of place small fisherfolks who are largely depend‐ mangrove areas to the subsistence and liveli‐ ent on mangroves for subsistence. Moreover, he hood of the village. It shows the reliance of mentions that while it had been heralded that people on mangrove areas for their economic fishpond operation will bring jobs for the local survival especially when primary sources of people, this has not been the case for many local income of households are affected by environ‐ residents. He cites the example of the Mercado’s mental factors that are beyond their control. family who are from Visayas who brought During the monsoon times, for instance, many workers from his hometown. Tata Max argues of them turn to the mangrove areas to catch that the law stipulates that local people should fish, crabs, shrimp and shellfish for their con‐ be given priority for employment in local areas. sumption. They would also sell whatever is left But this is clearly not happening in many areas. of what they have gleaned from the mangrove When I interviewed the present caretaker in the areas. This, however, is limited by the massive fishponds of the Mercados’, I had great difficulty conversions of mangrove forests to fishponds with the language barrier. The caretaker is an in Binulasan. Since fishponds, whether under old man from the Visayas who does not speak FLA or titled, are deemed private properties, the vernacular. His daughter sometimes aid in local residents are unable to access this impor‐ translating my questions and his answers. How‐ ever, I find it inadequate, as I was not able to ask ChATSEA Working Paper no. 13, November 2010 Aquaculture for Rural Development: An Asymmetrical Initiative 13 any further questions. This results in the per‐ to the owners of the fishponds. The only ception of villagers that such ventures do not benefit we village people get from it is help the barangay and the municipality in any when we are hired to construct new way. ponds. But if the ponds are already con‐ structed, we don’t get anything from The big fishpond operators may be them. If, however, they are always open said to benefit the village in the sense and accessible to us, they will forever be that they are able to generate employ‐ a source of livelihood for us. There are ment for the residents. But the advan‐ cruel operators who shoot at by‐passers tages are very minimal. There are op‐ when they pass through their ponds late erators who import manpower. Are at night. They say that it’s private prop‐ they paying local taxes? I doubt it. Are erty. But people were just passing by. they paying business taxes? I doubt it. There were mothers who tried to catch Some of their products may be helpful small fish and happened to step on the in ensuring food security here but more dike of their fishpond. She was fired at. often, they sell it in other markets out‐ Although they did not really aim at peo‐ side Infanta. Are they helping in the se‐ ple, will you not be terrified. –Laney curity aspect? Again, I doubt it. – Don Local people are oftentimes repulsed by the The negative views toward private fish‐ arrogance of fishpond operators and caretakers ponds are aggravated by the inability of the as they hardly participate in barangay activities. owners to integrate in the community. They are Fishpond operators allegedly cut mangrove trees perceived to be indifferent and unjust. Many illegally in order to expand their fishponds. fishponds owners who live in the community BFARMA are particularly disgusted by the fact are confined to the areas where their fishponds that many fishpond owners in Infanta, particu‐ are located. They are hardly able to blend in larly in Binulasan, are doing so without the with other members of the community. In fact, proper documents. Tata Max indicated that there there are many fishpond caretakers who are is one fishpond owner who illegally operates still unable to speak the vernacular even if they and expands his fishpond, without legal papers have lived there for many years already. This is in about 77 hectares of timberland. The percep‐ because there are not many opportunities tions that concerned LGU officials are siding available for them to communicate with other with “illegal fishpond operators” aggravates the people in the community as they are often al‐ situation. ways in the location of the fishponds. The fact that many operators are absentee owners also Spatialities of their Struggle aggravates these negative impressions on The community’s struggle against the Mayor them. over the 15‐hectare mangrove area that was con‐ The commercial fishponds here are verted to fishpond revealed a divide on how the not really beneficial to the community villagers regard their common mangrove re‐ because they jeopardize our livelihood. source in the light of the aquaculture for rural Their fishponds are sometimes illegal. development strategy. Residents of Sitio Saba, One operator here, Santos, was not es‐ the sitio nearer to the private fishponds, are more teemed by the people due to his bad at‐ supportive of the Mayor’s fishpond project. The titude. He was not willing to allow former caretakers of the fishponds reside here. them to rest… –Tata Max The residents in the area who oppose such pro‐ Conversion of our mangroves to jects believe they were alienated from the man‐ commercial fishponds is beneficial only grove areas that are their supplemental sources

Katigbak, Evangeline O. MSc, Dept. of Geography, University of the Philippines Diliman 14 of income. The residents of Sitio Centro are the could at times produce results that are contrary ones who actively push for the protection of to the desired outcomes. The case of Binulasan the mangroves in the barangay. The residents of pointed to the conflicts that stem from handing Sitios Muslim and Boulevard, however, seem to in development policies that have been formu‐ be indifferent to the issue. Both sitios are situ‐ lated in the national government to the liveli‐ ated quite far from the mangrove areas. Sitio hoods and constructions of identities of the local Muslim is adjacent to Barangay Abiawin and people. The implementation of the ARD, which most of the residents are municipal fishers. Si‐ further tightened the conversion of mangrove tio Boulevard is adjacent to Barangay Dinahican areas and rice farms to fishponds, has brought and most of the residents are also municipal about the marginalization of the local people. It fishers. Inhabitants of both sitios, when asked drove away many farmers and fisher folks who about conversions of mangrove areas to fish‐ depend on common community resources for ponds, would always point to members of their economic survival, from the traditional ar‐ BFARMA as those who are more knowledge‐ eas of their economic activities and subsistence. able about the issue. The paper also showed the agency exercised by the local people in arguing for their own Conlusion rights over common property resources such as mangrove areas, which are impinged on by capi‐ This study sought to examine and under‐ talistic drives (which in this case is aquaculture) stand the experiences and negotiations of the that is initiated by the national and local gov‐ local people alongside the processes that lead ernments in the hopes of further integration in to ecological transformations in their commu‐ the global economy. Collective struggle of the nity, particularly the conversion of mangrove local population to fight for what they believe is forests to fishponds, in terms of the concurring right for them is an important tool to actualize changes in their livelihoods, identities and en‐ their needs. vironment. It situated the responses of differ‐ The elaboration of the ecological and social ent actors in Infanta to the facilitation of the impacts of massive conversion of mangroves to national and local governments of the devel‐ fishponds in Infanta adds to the burgeoning lit‐ opment of intensive fishery production sites in erature on this topic. Likewise, it adds to the their community, which results to the conver‐ mounting call for the necessity of a comprehen‐ sion of mangrove forests to fishponds. The sive mangrove survey in the country in order to study likewise analyzed the impact of aquacul‐ fully study the impacts of various development ture in local communities as illustrated in the strategies that are being conducted in the rural many cases of widespread conversion of man‐ areas, particularly aquaculture. This call is also grove ecosystems into fishponds, on the gen‐ to assess the impacts of the fishpond develop‐ eration and allocation of income and in power ment program in the country that was intro‐ representations and relational dynamics be‐ duced in the 1950s. The study likewise empha‐ tween and among genders in the local house‐ sizes the importance of more researches that holds. In a bigger context, the study sought to look into the plight of fisherfolks in the aquacul‐ further understand how global market forces, ture‐based communities as affected by the more as incorporated into the country’s program on intensive integration of local economies to the development influence the decision to convert global or international markets. agriculturally productive forest lands particu‐ larly mangrove areas to other uses such as fishponds. This paper also showed that top‐down policies on development, which are often done without much consultation to the local people,

ChATSEA Working Paper no. 13, November 2010 Aquaculture for Rural Development: An Asymmetrical Initiative 15 References Cleofe, J. 2004. “Regenerating Resources, Bridg‐ ing Lives:Women and MPA’s in the Philip‐ Adger, W. N., Kelly, M., Ninh, N. H., Thanh, pines”, in Women and in Fisheries and Aqua‐ N. C., 1997. Property Rights and the Social culture: Lessons from the Past, Current Incidence of Mangrove Conversion in Viet‐ Actions and Ambitions for the Future (AKTEA nam. Vietnam: Center for Environment Re‐ International Conference Proceedings) pp.73‐ search Education and Development. 82. Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Asociasion Ahmed, F. 1997. In Defence of Land and Live‐ Canaria de Antropologia. lihood. Penang, Malaysia: Consumers Asso‐ Cruz‐Torres, M. 2000. “Pink Gold Rush:” Shrimp ciation of Penang. Aquaculture, Sustainable Development, and Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2005. Techni‐ the Environment in Northwestern Mexico”, in cal Assistance to the Republic of the Philip‐ Journal of Political Ecology 7: 63‐90. pines: Strategy for Sustainable Aquaculture Curran, S. R. and Cruz, M. C. 2002. “Markets, Development for Poverty Reduction Project. Population Dynamics and Coastal Ecosys‐ Manila: Asian Development Bank. tems”, in Ambio 31(4): 373‐376 ______. 2005b. “Overview of Small‐scale Fresh‐ Delos Angeles, M. 1996. “Mangrove Resource water Aquaculture in Bangladesh”, in Case Valuation:Implications on Aquaculture Poli‐ Studies. Accessed on October 24, 2007, from cies: Executive Summary”, in Main Report of http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Fresh the 2nd National Workshop on Policy Plan‐ water‐Poverty‐Reduction/Case‐Studies.pdf ning and Industrial Development, Vol. 2, pp. Asis, P. 2005. The Philippine Environmental 139‐173. Quezon City, Philippines: Bureau of Governance 2 Project: Mangrove Tenure As‐ Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). sessment Report for Zamboanga Sibugay. Department of Environment and Natural Re‐ Quezon City: Philippine Environmental Gov‐ sources, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Re‐ ernance, Department of Natural Resources sources of the Department of Agriculture, and and United States Agency for International Department of Interior and Local Government. Development (USAID). 2001a. Philippine Coastal Management Guide‐ Barbier, E. B., Cox, M. 2004. “An Economic book no. 5: Managing Coastal Habitats and Analysis of Shrimp Farm Expansion and Marine Protected Areas. Cebu City: Coastal Mangrove Conversion in Thailand.” Land Resource Management Project of the Depart‐ Economics 80 (3): 389‐407. Brown, W. H. and ment of Environment and Natural Resources. A. F. Fischer. 1918. Philippine Mangrove ______. 2001b. Philippine Coastal Management Swamps. Department of Agriculture and Guidebook no. 1: Coastal Management Orien‐ Natural Resources. Bureau of Fisheries Bulle‐ tation and Overview. Cebu City: Coastal Re‐ tin No. 7. source Management Project of the Department Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Environment and Natural Resources. (BFAR) Region IV‐A. 2005. Fisheries in Department of Trade and Industry. 1991. The CALABARZON Region. Accessed on Octo‐ Master Plan Study on Project CALABARZON: ber 24, 2007, from Executive Summary Report. Philippines: Japan http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/programs/gma_fi International Cooperation Agency. sprogrm/fish_sector.htm. Environmental Justice Foundation. 2003. Smash Center for Conscious Living Foundation, Inc. and Grab: Conflict, Corruption and Human 2003. Institutionalizing Coastal Resources Rights Abuses in the Shrimp Farming Indus‐ Management Initiatives in Infanta, Quezon try. London: Environmental Justice Founda‐ towards Achieving Biodiversity, in Leverag‐ tion. ing Best Practices: A Collection of Vignettes ______. 2004. Farming the Sea, Costing the Earth: and How to Do it Manuals. Manila: UNDP Why we Must Green the Blue Revolution. and CCLF, Inc. London: Environmental Justice Foundation. Katigbak, Evangeline O. MSc, Dept. of Geography, University of the Philippines Diliman 16 ______. 2006. Mangroves: Nature’s Defence International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems. against Tsunamis— A Report on the Impact 2004. Mangrove Action Plan for the Sustain‐ of Mangrove Loss and Shrimp Farm Devel‐ able Management of Mangroves. Okinawa, Ja‐ opment on Coastal Defences. London: Envi‐ pan: International Society for Mangrove Eco‐ ronmental Justice Foundation. systems. Escober, J. E. Jr., Jacinto, E. Jr. 2006. Aquacul‐ Institute of Social Order. Community‐based ture for Rural Development in the Philip‐ Coastal Resources Management (CBCRM) Re‐ pines: Privatization vs. Community Property sources Center. n.d. Mangroves in Peril: Man‐ Rights. Quezon City: Tambuyog Develop‐ grove Utilization in Panulukan, Quezon. Que‐ ment Center. zon City: Institute of Social Order. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) ______. 2007. The Mangrove Forests in Northern Fisheries Department. 2006. State of World Lamon Bay. (Unpublished) Aquaculture 2006. Rome: FAO Janssen, R., Padilla, J. E. 1998. “Preservation or Gilbert, A. J., Janssen, R. 1998. “Use of Envi‐ Conversion? Valuation and Evaluation of a ronmental Functions to Communicate the Mangrove Forest in the Philippines.” Envi‐ Values of a Mangrove Ecosystem under Dif‐ ronmental and Resources Economics 14: 297‐ ferent Management Regimes.” Ecological 331. Economics 25: 323‐346. Juliano, R.1996. “Aquaculture in the Philippines: Guste, M. J., del Rosario‐Malonzo, J. 2004. Situation, Issues and Problems, Action Plans Women in Philippine Aquaculture. Manila: and Recommendations”, in Main Report of the IBON Foundation 2nd National Workshop on Policy Planning Halwart, M., Funge‐Smith, S., Moehl, J. 2005. and Industrial Development, Vol. 2, pp. 139‐ “The Role of Aquaculture in Rural Develop‐ 173. Quezon City, Philippines: Bureau of Fish‐ ment.” FAO Fisheries Circular Number 886 eries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). (Revision 2). Kairo, J. G., Dahdouh‐Guebas, F., Bosire, J., Haylor, G. & Bland, S. 2001. Integrating aqua‐ Koedam, N. 2001. “Restoration and Manage‐ culture into rural development in coastal and ment of Mangrove Systems‐ a Lesson for and inland areas. In R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, from the East African Region.” South African M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery & Journal of Botany 67: 383‐389. J.R. Arthur, eds. Aquaculture in the Third Masae, A., McGregor, J. A. 1998. “Sustainability Millennium. Technical Proceedings of the of a Fishery in Southern Thailand”, in King, V. Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Mil‐ (ed). Environmental Challenges in Southeast lennium, Bangkok, Thailand, 20‐25 February Asia. Great Britain: Nordic Institute of Asian 2000. pp. 73.81. NACA, Bangkok and FAO, Studies. Rome. Melana, D. M., J. Archue III, C. E. Yao, R. Ed‐ Huitric, M., Folke, C., Kautsky, N. 2002. “De‐ wards, E. E. Melana and H. I. Gonzales. 2000. velopment and Government Policies of the Mangrove Management Handbook. Depart‐ Shrimp Farming Industry in Thailand in rela‐ ment of Environment and Natural Resources, tion to Mangrove Ecosystems.” Ecological Manila, Philippines through the Coastal Re‐ Economics 40: 441‐455. source Management Project, Cebu City, Phil‐ Iftekhar, M. S., Islam, M. R. 2004. “Managing ippines. Mangroves in Bangladesh: A Strategy Analy‐ Infanta Municipal Ordinance No. 71 Series of sis.” Journal of Coastal Conservation 10: 139‐ 2002. An Ordinance Providing for the Estab‐ 146. lishment of a Municipal Fish Sanctuary in the Municipal Waters of Infanta, Quezon Border‐ ing the Coastal Area of Barangay Alitas and for other Purposes.

ChATSEA Working Paper no. 13, November 2010 Aquaculture for Rural Development: An Asymmetrical Initiative 17 Infanta Municipal Ordinance No. 07, Series of ______. 2000c. Philippine Mangroves: Status, 2004. Kautusang Nagtatakda sa Pangingisda Threats and Sustainable Development. In In‐ at/o Pangisdaan sa Bayan ng Infanta, Quezon ternational Workshop. Asia‐Pacific Coopera‐ Nandeesha, M. 2004. Livelihoods: Women in tion Research for Conservation of Mangroves. Aquaculture and their Innovative Contribu‐ 26‐30 March 2000, Okinawa, Japan tions. Accessed on October 24, 207, from Republic Act (RA) 8435. Agriculture and Fisher‐ http:/AQUACULTURE. articles\Network of ies Modernization Act of 1997. Aquaculture Centers in Asia Pacific Women Republic Act (RA) 8550. Philippine Fisheries in Aquaculture and their innovative contri‐ Code. butions ‐ Livelihoods ‐ News.mht Sathirathai, S. n.d. Economic Valuation of Man‐ Naylor, R. L., Bonnine, K. M., Ewel, K. C., Wa‐ groves and the Roles of Local Communities in guk, E. 2002. “Migration, Markets, and Man‐ the Conservation of Natural Resources: Case grove Resources Use on Korae, Federated Study of Surat Thani, South of Thailand. Ac‐ States of Micronesia.” Ambio 31 (4): 340‐350. cessed on January 27, 2006, from, National Economic and Development Author‐ http://203.116.43.77//publications/research/AC ity. 2004. Region IV‐A: CALABARZON De‐ F9E.html. velopment Plan 2004‐2010. Quezon City: Sathirathai, S., Barbier, E. B. 2001. Valuing Man‐ NEDA. grove Restoration in Southern Thailand. Con‐ Neiland, A. E., Soley, N., Varley, J. B., Whit‐ temporary Economic Policy 19:109‐122 marsch, D. J. 2001. “Shrimp Aquaculture: Siason, I. 2004. “Women in Fisheries in the Economic Perspectives for Policy Develop‐ Philipppines”, in DA‐BFAR. In Turbulent Seas: ment.” Marine Policy 25: 265‐279. The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries. pp. One Ocean, 2001. “Quezon Folks Demolished 144‐149. Cebu City: Coastal Resource Man‐ Illegal Fishpond”, in Over Seas: the Online agement Project. Magazine for Sustainable Seas, 4(3). Avail‐ Subasinghe, R. 2004. “Sustainable Aquaculture able in for Poverty Alleviation (SAPA): A Strategy for http://www.oneocena.org/overseas/200103/coastal Improving Rural Livelihoods through Aqua‐ _alert.html#12. Accessed on May 12, 2006. culture and Aquatic Resources Management in Pabico, A. 2002. Small Fishers are Left‐out of Vietnam”. Accessed on October 24, 2007, in Aquaculture Projects. Manila: Philippine http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y2419e/y2419e Center for Investigative Journalism. 07.htm. Platon, R. R., Israel, D. C. 2001. The Bangkok Tanchuling, A. and Escobar, J. 2005. The Down‐ Declaration and Strategy for Aquaculture side of Shrimp Farming and Trade in South‐ Development Beyond 2000 and Philippine eastAsia. Quezon City: Tambuyog. Aquaculture. Discussion Paper Series No. White, A. T. and De Leon, R. O. D. 2004. Man‐ 2001‐21. Makati: Philippine Institute for De‐ grove resource decline in the Philippines: velopment Studies. Government and community look for new so‐ Primavera, J. H. 1997. “Socio‐economic Impacts lutions, p. 84‐89. In DA‐BFAR (Department of of Shrimp Aquaculture”, in Aquaculture Re‐ Agriculture‐Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic search 28: 815‐827. Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of ______. 2000a. “Development and Conserva‐ Philippine Marine Fisheries. CoastalResources tion of Philippine Mangroves: Institutional Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. Issues”, in Ecological Economics 35: 91‐106. 378 p. ______. 2000b. “Integrated Mangrove‐ Wilder, M. and Thanh, N. T. 2002. “The Status of Aquaculture Systems in Asia”, in Integrated Aquaculture in Mekong Delta Region of Viet‐ Coastal Zone Management, Autumn edition: nam: Sustainable Production and Combined 121‐130. Framing Systems”, in Fisheries Science 68: 1‐5.

Katigbak, Evangeline O. MSc, Dept. of Geography, University of the Philippines Diliman 18 World Bank. 2009. Fisheries and Aquaculture. ______.2005b. The Philippines Environment http://go.worldbank.org/DM59TK1531. Ac‐ Monitor (PEM) on Coastal and Marine Re‐ cessed on April 4, 2009. source Management no.4: Coastal and Marine ______. 2005a. The Philippines Environment Resources and Local Livelihoods. Manila: The Monitor (PEM) on Coastal and Marine Re‐ World Bank. source Management no.2: Resources and Ecosystems. Manila: The World Bank.

ChATSEA Working Paper no. 13, November 2010 Aquaculture for Rural Development: An Asymmetrical Initiative