The Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation

East-West Environment and Policy Institute

Research Report No. 4

Fishery Management and Extended Maritime Jurisdiction: The Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation

by Virginia L. Aprieto

East-West Center Honolulu, Hawaii THE EAST-WEST CENTER—officially known as the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East and West—is a national educational institution established in Hawaii by the U.S. Congress in 1960 to promote better relations and understanding between the United States and the nations of Asia and the Pacific through cooperative study, training, and research. The Center is administered by a public, nonprofit corporation whose international Board of Governors consists of distinguished scholars, business leaders, and public servants. Each year more than 1,500 men and women from many nations and cul• tures participate in Center programs that seek cooperative solutions to prob• lems of mutual consequence to East and West. Working with the Center's multidisciplinary and multicultural staff, participants include visiting scholars and researchers; leaders and professionals from the academic, government, and business communities; and graduate degree students, most of whom are enrolled at the University of Hawaii. For each Center participant from the United States, two participants are sought from the Asian and Pacific area. Center programs are conducted by institutes addressing problems of com• munication, culture learning, environment and policy, population, and re• source systems. A limited number of "open" grants are available to degree scholars and research fellows whose academic interests are not encompassed by institute programs. The U.S. Congress provides basic funding for Center programs and a va• riety of awards to participants. Because of the cooperative nature of Center programs, financial support and cost-sharing are also provided by Asian and Pacific governments, regional agencies, private enterprise and foundations. The Center is on land adjacent to and provided by the University of Hawaii.

THE EAST-WEST ENVIRONMENT AND POLICY INSTITUTE was established in October 1977 to increase understanding of the interrelationships among policies designed to meet a broad range of human and societal needs over time and the natural systems and resources on which these policies depend or impact. Through interdisciplinary and multinational programs of research, study, and training, the Institute seeks to develop and apply concepts and approaches useful in identifying alternatives available to decision makers and in assessing the implications of such choices. Progress and results of Institute programs are disseminated in the East-West Center region through research reports, books, workshop reports, working papers, newsletters, and other educational and informational materials.

William H. Matthews, Director East-West Environment and Policy Institute East-West Center 1777 East-West Road Honolulu, Hawaii 96848 Fishery Management and Extended Maritime Jurisdiction: The Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation

by Virginia L. Aprieto

Research Report No. 4 • March 1981 East-West Environment and Policy Institute VIRGINIA L. APRIETO is Director for Research, University of the Philippines in the Visayas, Diliman, Quezon City, 3004 Philippines. She was a Research Fellow at the East-West Environment and Policy Institute from 1 January to 31 December 1979.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Aprielo, Virginia L., 1931- Fishcry management and extended maritime jurisdiction.

(Research report/East-West Environment and Policy Institute; no. 4) Bibliography: p. I. Tuna fisheries — Philippines. 2. Fishery policy — Philippines. 3. Economic zones (Maritime law) — Philip• pines. I. Title. II. Series: Research report [East- West Environment and Policy Institute (Honolulu, Hawaii)]; no. 4. SH35I.T8A67 333.95'6 81-3262 AACR2

PREFACE v ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Toward a New Regime 2 Tuna and Tunalike Fishes: The World Situation 3 PHILIPPINETUNA FISHERIES 6 Maritime Zones and Fishing Areas 6 Economic Importance of Fisheries and the Tuna Fishing Industry . .8 Stock Structure 10 Administration 14 Municipal Tuna Fishery 14 Commercial Tuna Fishery 18 Purse Seine-Bamboo Raft Method 20 The Philippine Tuna Producers and Exporters Association 22 Catch Statistics 24 Exploitation and Production Potential 25 Exportation 27 Government Organization and Policy 28 Tuna Fishery Business Arrangements 30 DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT 31 Opportunities and Constraints 31 Utilization of Small Tunas 36 Local Fishery Management System 36 Scientific Research Strategy and Management Needs 37 Foreign Fishing Operations in Philippine Waters 39 EXTENDED FISHERY JURISDICTIONS 41 The Exclusive Economic Zone 41 Rights and Duties of the Coastal States 43 Tuna Management Options in the Philippine FEZ 44 REGIONALTUNA MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA 49 The Need for Cooperation 49 Tuna Fishery Commissions 50 Indo-Pacific Tuna Management Efforts 52 Southeast Asian Coastal States and Regional Tuna Management. . .54 APPENDIX: THE TUNA FISHERY 57 Worldwide Overview 57 The Philippine Tuna Fishery: Species and Biology 57 NOTES 59 BIBLIOGRAPHY 69 iv

Figures

Figure 1. Maritime zones and tuna-fishing grounds of the Philippines 7 Figure 2. Spawning grounds and proposed range and migration routes of skipjack subpopulations in the Western Pacific 11 Figure 3. Composite seasonal distribution of yellowfin larvae in the Pacific Ocean 12 Figure 4. Distribution of larvae of tunas and tunalike fishes in Philippine waters 13 Figure 5. The thirteen administrative regionsofthe Philippines 15 Figure 6. Immature tunas caught by purse seine fishing 33 A. Immature yellowfin tuna caught by purse seine and ring net B. Mature yellowfin tunas on deck of a tuna long line vessel Figure 7 Japanese tuna management fishing zones in the Pacific Ocean 47

Tables

Table I. Catch Trends of Tuna and Tunalike Fishes of Countries Fishing in the Western Pacific 4 Table 2. Estimated Potential Catches of Tunas from World Oceans . . .5 Table 3. Forecasts of Total World Tuna Consumption to 1990 6 Table 4. Ten Most Abundant Commercial Fish Groups, 1978 9 Table 5. Tuna Production by Species, 1974- 1978 10 Table 6. Estimated Number of Municipal Fishermen and Bancas by Re• gion 16 Table 7. Tuna Production by the Municipal Sector 16 Table 8. Tuna Production by Species of Commercial and Municipal Fisheries Sectors (MT) from 1974 to 1978 18 Table 9. Total Tuna Production and Relative Abundance of Commercial and Municipal Fisheries (MT) from 1976 to 1978 18 Table 10. Annual Catch of Tunas by Commercial Fishing Vessels (1961- 1977). .• . . .21 Table 11. Tuna Exports (1972-1980) 27 PREFACE

This study was undertaken as part of the research activities initiated by the East-West Center Environment and Policy Institute (EAPI) for a proj• ect titled Marine Environment and Extended Maritime Jurisdictions: Transnational Environment and Resource Management in Southeast Asian Seas. This part presents the ocean assets, activities, policies, and problems of one country (the Philippines) as they relate to fisheries man• agement and the emerging regime of extended maritime jurisdiction. The tuna-fishing industry was studied for two reasons: first, tunas comprise the most important commercial fishery of the country; and second, this resource is transnational in distribution and therefore likely to transcend national maritimejurisdictional boundaries. While the tuna-fishing industry is not new in the Philippines, data in a useful form are difficult to find or, when available, are not always compre• hensible or reliable. This situation can exist in other countries in the region as well. In undertaking this study, therefore, existing reports and data were evaluated against actual field situations and information. The author spent two months traveling to fishing ports, markets, and villages in the Philippines, witnessed fishing and fish-landing operations, and interviewed fishermen, managers, entrepreneurs, and government offi• cials. The study reveals many deficiencies in fisheries management policies and practices in the country, as well as the mounting problems the Philip• pines faces in dealing with its neighbors in relation to the use of a shared resource. The deficiencies and problems appear common to most, if not all, the countries within the area of present concern to EAPI. The Philippine case, therefore, provides important first insights into present and future trends in fishery interest and resource use in the Southeast Asian seas —transnational ocean management and the poten• tial problems and opportunities for subnational, national, and interna• tional action and interaction. The author wishes to thank the following persons for their support, help, and advice in undertaking this study: William H. Matthews, EAPI director, and Mark J. Valencia, project coordinator; John E. Bardach, Gerald Marten, Yoshiaki Matsuda, Salvatore Comitini, Phiphat Tangsubkul, and Diane Drigot, research associates and fellows; Virginia Jamieson, Rochelle McArthur, Fannie Lee Kai, Marian Inouye, Marina Chang, Rita Davis, Pamela Morton, and Jean Morris, administrative staff of the EAPI; George Kent of the Department of Political Science of the University of Hawaii; Richard Shomura, Gerald Weatherall and Hazel Nishimuraof the National Marine Fisheries Service, Honolulu; Arthur G. V]

Woodland of the South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinat• ing Program, Manila; Candido Ramos, Jose de la Cruz, Jose Ordonez, Raul Almazan, Eberhard Gamalinda, Abraham Dubuozet, Oscar Fran• cisco, Horacio Torres, Sixto Laron, Ruben Estudillo, Romeo de Sagun, and Anselma S. Legaspi of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Re• sources, Manila; Gloria Enriquezand Efren Floresof the University of the Philippines; Elizabeth Samson and Florentina Tan of the Fishery Indus• try Development Council, Quezon City; Ruben Martinez, Frank Thomas, Ruperto Gonzales, B.A. Tony Curatolo, Domingo Ang, Victor Hizon, and Jose Pagayon of the Philippine Tuna Producers and Exporters Asso• ciation, Manila; Galicano Briones, Romeo Villar and Juanito Galsim of the Development Bank of the Philippines; Benito Bengzon and Percival Padua of the Philippine Fish and Marketing Authority, Navotas; Capt. F. Balita of the Philippine Coast Guard; and the innumerable tuna boat skippers, Fishermen, brokers, and fish vendors in Cagayan de Oro, Gen• eral Santos, San Jose de Buenavista, Zamboanga, Davao, and Cebu. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 1

Fishery Management and Extended Maritime Jurisdiction: The Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation

Virginia L Aprieto

ABSTRACT Since 1915, the Philippine tuna fishery has become the largest fishery in the country through the use of a highly efficient purse seine method in combination with bamboo rafts, locally called payaw. The tuna fleet consists of purse seiners and ring netters that range in size from less than 100 gross tons (GT) up to "super seiners" of 1600 GT. It has expanded to an aggregate tonnage of more than 25,000 GT. Production increased from 25,300 metric tons (MT) in 1974 to a yearly average catch of 175,000 MTor nearly 12 percent of the total marine fish .production from 1976 to 1978, valued at PI .5 billion or about 16 percent of the total value offish andfishery products. Half of the tuna catch consisted ofyellowfin and skipjack, of which 30 percent was exported. Tuna-fishing activities are con• fined within territorial and archipelagic waters and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), particularly in the Sulu Sea, Mindanao Sea, Mow Gulf, and adjacent waters of the Celebes Sea as well as off western Luzon, but plans are undenvayfor expanding activity to neiv tuna-fishing grounds. The Philippines has not completely established fisheries jurisdiction within her maritime zones. Japanese, Taiwanese, and South Korean fishing vessels conduct operations within the territorial xoaters and EEZ, harvesting annually more than 20,000 MTof the principal tuna market species. Philippinefisheries policies are development and export oriented but inadequate for resource management and conservation purposes. They are not designed to cope with the emerging regime of the sea and the growing importance of tunas in the world market. Because of their global distribution and migratory nature, tunas are evidently a shared resource. Their rational development, management, and conservation can• not be achieved by the unilateral extension of maritime jurisdiction or by other national legislative measures. Such a goal would, need regional collaboration, particularly in the western Pacific where no system of tuna management exists. Management options for the local tuna fisheries are proposed and the feasibility of regional tuna management is discussed. 2 Environment and Policy Institute

INTRODUCTION

Toward A New Regime

A new regime of the oceans is emerging from the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The worldwide unilateral declaration of 200-nautical-mile (nmi) exclusive economic zones (EEZ) or fishing zones is a move toward reallocatingjurisdiction and management of a substantial part of the worlds fishery resources heretofore consid• ered a common resource. The desire to extend maritime zones ofjurisdic • tion was inspired largely by the fact that more than 90 percent of the annual marine fish catch is captured within 200 nmi of coastlines, and by the fact that these areas are dominated by the large, highly mobile fishing fleets of industrial countries.1 Moreover, 80 to 95 percent of the world's known oil deposits are concentrated within this 200-nmi-wide zone.2 The consequences and impact of this new regime on the development and management of national and international fisheries are diverse and depend on the interests, needs, and capabilities of the owners and users of the resource for fishing, conservation, surveillance, and enforcement. A growing body of literature attempts to reconcile the strategies and goals coastal states and flag states (those with long-range fleets) would adopt to maximize the benefits of reallocating maritime jurisdiction. The interest of flag states in maintaining their dominance in the high seas fisheries now within EEZs will have to be reconciled with the desire and need of coastal states to exploit and manage these resources themselves. Although it may take time before a Law of the- Sea convention is adopted, ratified, and implemented, much of the readjustment and real• location, some successful, some floundering, has already taken place. Even before the inception of the EEZ in Southeast Asia and in the South Pacific, many fishery business agreements had already been imple• mented between coastal and distant-water fishing countries.3,4 As of March 1976, Japan alone was involved in 173 joint fishing ventures in 51 countries.5 That country continues to conduct fishing surveys in waters with potential for exploitation by its long-range fleets and to negotiate and renegotiate agreements because of the anticipated displacement of its long-range fleets by the 200-nmi EEZ.6,7 Potential areas for fishery coop- ' eration are being explored between and among coastal countries in the South China Sea to alleviate the negative effects of extended jurisdiction.8,9 The Philippines is not a distant-water fishing country. All its fishing activities are confined within territorial waters. It has strong marine fish- Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 3

ery interests because of its insular nature and its dependence on marine fisheries as a major source of protein and of foreign currency. In South• east Asia, it ranks among the highest of fish-producing countries. In recent years, on account of the expanding fishing fleet and improved fishing methods, it has become the highest producer of tuna and tunalike fishes in the region (Table 1). This has placed the Philippines among the important suppliers of the principal tuna species to the world market. The emerging regime of the sea may well bring solutions to some persistent fishery problems, as well as usher in new conflicts. This report explores, from the Philippine perspective, the development and manage• ment of tuna fisheries and some implications of extended maritime juris• diction.

Tuna and Tunalike Fishes: The World Situation

The tunas and tunalike fishes are highly specialized, fast-growing fishes that spend their entire life in oceanic waters. They include a large variety of species that, for management purposes, are generally considered together because they are caught in the same fishing operations. They are encountered throughout the major temperate and tropical oceans of the world, primarily between 35°N and 35°S.10 Species composition, scientific names, and a summary of what is known of their biology in Philippine waters may be found in the appendix. The worldwide catch of the principal market species rose from 300,000 metric tons (MT) per year prior to 1940 to more than 2,000,000 MT in the late 1970s. The largest catches are made in the Pacific Ocean (67 percent) and smaller ones in the Atlantic Ocean (22 percent) and the Indian Ocean (11 percent). Of the principal market species, skipjack constitutes nearly 50 percent of the world catch.11 Since tuna and tunalike fishes are found off nearly all countries having coasts in the tropical and temperate oceans, many of these countries have both coastal and distant-water tuna-fishing fleets. Long-range fishing boats after the principal species are longliners which catch-relatively large-sized albacore, bluefin, and yellowfin tunas (100-170 cm) in subsurface layers. Purse seiners, which aim at surface schools, capture the smaller yellowfin and skipjack. The latter tunas are also caught by pole-and-line fishing.12 Forty nations harvest the world tuna resources. Japan, the United States, Taiwan, Korea, and France, however, account for more than 80 Table 1. Catch Trends of Tuna and Tunalike Fishes of Countries Fishing in (he Western Pacific (MT)

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 World 1,965,400 2,092.900 2,252,620 2,095,208 2,294.253 2,334,109 USA 176.100 159,000 181.281 180.752 230.282 157,800 Japan 659.700 730.300 767,766 618,126 768.518 668.358 Korea 88.800 96,500 113.402 129.114 138.037 159.092 Taiwan' 131.777 144,989 127,078 127,665 13 1,569 Hong Kong 2,700 2.400 2.403 2.734 3,634 Indonesia 66,700 74,500 86,412 86,507 92.440 98.628 Malaysia 14,000 12.000 16.816 19,077 16,556 25,751 The Philippines'' 138,622 234.883 239.370 Singapore 100 100 106 93 32 6 Thailand 9,900 13,100 14.700 26,719 18.568 19,536 Vietnam' (716.300) (723.600) (723,600) (723,600) (723.600) (723,600) ''Fisheries Yearbook, Fisheries Bureau, Taiwan, 1977. ''Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines; production data prior to 1975 is incomplete. 1 Total marine catch. Source: F"AO Yearlwok of Fisheries Statistics, Vols. 43 and 44. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 5

Table 2. Estimated Potential Catches of Tunas from World Oceans (000 MT)

Estimated Maximum Average Sustainable Yield Region Fullenbaum Cullancl

Atlantic Ocean Albacore 40.4 Yellowfin 44.4 200- 250 Bluefin 18.8 Skipjack 101.1 250- 300 Total Atlantic 204.7 450- 550

Pacific Ocean Albacore 133.2 Yellow fin 205.4 350- 450 Bluefin 72.7 Bigeye 109.6 Skipjack 1,080.0 500- 800 Total Pacific 1,600.9 850 - 1.250

Indian Ocean Large tunas 265.9 160- 300 Skipjack 258.9 100- 150 Total Indian 524.8 260- 450

Total (all oceans) 2,330.4 1.560-2,250

Boniios and little tunas (all oceans) 240.0 500

World totals 2,570.4 2,060-2.750

Source: S. Saila and V. Norton. 1974.

percent of the catch of the six major species, with Japan and the United States together accounting for nearly 60 percent. These countries operate distant-water tuna fleets that are highly mobile and, in a single year, fish all the major oceans. Tuna consumption is also greatest in economically rich countries. Fresh or frozen, processed or canned, tuna is moved from developing to developed countries. Ninety percent of the recorded world tuna consumption takes place in the United States, Japan, and some West European countries. The estimated potential tuna catch (Table 2) is not expected to keep 6 Environment and Policy Institute

Table 3. Forecasts of Total World Tuna Consumption to 1990 Based on Increases in Population and Per Capita Income For Selected Countries" (round weights 000 MT)

Country 1966 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 (Actual)

United States 382.8 511.3 671.6 845.3 1,055.8 1,318.4 Japan 378.8 408.6 514.5 649.5 820.3 1,037.2 EEC 159.0 210.5 281.4 382.8 552.5 713.4 Spain 69.6 69.4 72.4 97.5 133.1 183.7 Peru 50.2 98.7 137.3 194.7 275.1 387.4 Taiwan 44.8 47.9 71.8 119.7 217.0 425.0 Turkey 16.0 17.9 20.6 23.5 26.9 30.7 j Canada 9.7 11.6 15.2 19.5 25.0 32.1 United Kingdom 7.6 7.4 7.8 8.0 8.3 8.6 Total 1,118.5 1,383.3 1,792.6 2,340.5 3,084.0 4,136.5 (selected countries) Grand Total 1,320.0 1,659.6 2,151.1 2,808.6 3,700.8 4,963.8 (projected at 120% of total for selected countries) aPrices are held constant at 1966 value, as if unlimited supplies were available. These projections include all tunas and tunalike species —not just the six major species. Source: F. W. Bell, 1969, "Forecasting World Demand for Tuna to the Year 1990," Commercial Fisheries Review 31(2):24-31. Cited in S. Saila and V. Norton, 1974. pace with demand. World consumption of the major tuna species has been increasing at an annual rate of 8 percent (Table 3). On a global basis, with the exception of the skipjack resource, the major tuna species are heavily or fully exploited. The effort exerted by the tuna fleets as a whole has reached a level at which a significant increase in total catch cannot be expected from further increase in fishing effort.

PHILIPPINE TUNA FISHERIES "; . ) Maritime Zones and Fishing Areas The Philippines comprises more than 7000 islands with a coastline of more than 17,000 km. The total area within the territorial jurisdiction Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 7

Productive Tuna Fishing Grounds

Figure 1. Maritime zones and tuna-fishing grounds of the Philippines. extends 860 km between longitudes 116°E and 127°E and 2620 km be• tween latitudes 4°23'N and 21°25'N. The sea area within these limits covers nearly 1.7 million km2 of archipelagic and territorial waters. These two maritime zones are considered "historic waters" in which the Philip• pines claims full sovereignty for all-purpose use including fisheries (Fig• ure 1). The composite limits of the territorial sea, which extend from 8 Environment and Policy Institute

straight baselines, are defined by three treaties, namely, the Treaty of Paris concluded between the United States and Spain on 10 December 1898, the treaty concluded at Washington between the United States and Spain on 7 November 1900, and the treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on 2 January 1930.13 The archipelagic waters, enclosed within 80 straight baselines connecting the outermost points of the islands, measure 446,121 km2 (170,200 nmi") and are claimed under the Archipelago Concept and the new Philippine Constitution of 17 Janu• ary 1973.14 On 31 August 1979, the Philippines' claim for a 200-nmi EEZ took effect." Except in the northeast and northwest where the territorial sea boundaries already exceed 200 nmi, the adoption of an EEZ gained for the Philippines additional marine areas of 947,000 km2 particularly in the southeast and southwest, for resource exploitation and conservation. Un• der international law, the Philippines may use the treaty limits of the territorial sea as baselines for the determination of boundaries of mari• time zones including the EEZ, but this would deviate from the Law of the Sea Conference Informal Composite Negotiating Text (ICNT) provision on archipelagos and from the Philippine law (Republic Act 3046) defin• ing the territorial sea baselines. The Philippines continues to plan for, develop, and manage the fishery resources within its jurisdiction on the basis of unilateral and treaty-based claims for its territorial seas, archipela• gic waters, and EEZs. Its principal fishing grounds are located in archipelagic waters, and fishing operations are concentrated in the shallow areas between the coast and the 200-meter (m) depth contour, including semienclosed bays and gulfs denting the coast. With the development of the tuna fishery using the purse seine; tuna boats have extended operations to deeper waters of up to 2000 m. Except in tuna fishing, the offshore and oceanic waters beyond the 200-m depth contour are not exploited by Philippine fisher• men. The most important fishing grounds for tunas are the Sulu Sea, Moro Gulf, and the adjacent waters of the Celebes Sea.

Economic Importance of Fisheries and the Tuna-Fishing Industry

Fisheries constitute an important segment of the general economy. In 1978, fish production was 1.5 million MT valued at P10.5 billion (US$1.4 billion), which contributed 4.7 percent to the gross national product (GNP), provided a livelihood for 5 percent of the total labor force, and comprised 0.3 percent of the value of all goods exported.16 Although production has doubled in the past decade, the Philippines has been a net Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 9

Table 4. Ten Most Abundant Commercial Fish Groups, 1978a Relative F"ish Group Catch (MT) Abundance(%)

Tunas 219,908 14.2 Round scads 189,841 12.2 Sardines 129,874 8.3 Milkfish 123,733 8.0 Slipmouths 75,173 4.8 Round herrings 61,869 4.0 Bigcyed scads 57,199 3.6 Mackerels 54,909 3.5 Thread breams 53,176 3.4 Anchovies 51,068 3.3

Total Fish Catch-1,546,468 MT Preliminary data. Source: Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Marine Fish Production, 1978. NOTE: See section on Catch Statistics for constraints on data.

importer of fish and fish products because production has not matched the annual population growth of 3 percent. Fish is a staple in the Filipino's diet, second only to rice in importance, and comprises about 54 percent of the total protein intake of the population. It is the cheapest and largest single source of animal protein. About 800,000 fishermen, 5 percent of total employment, work in the fishing industry. The industry also providesjobs for those engaged in fish trading and processing, operating fish ports and markets, ice plants and cold storage facilities, and for those in support industries, such as rope and net making, gear manufacture, and boat building and repair. The marine fishery resources comprise a typical tropical multispecies fauna/more than Fifty varieties of which are commercially exploited. Four fish groups, the tunas (see Appendix), the round scads (Decaptcrus spp.), the sardines (Sardinella spp.), and the milkFish (Chanos chanos), dominate and account for more than 40 percent of total fish production (Table 4). In recent years, the weight of the aggregate catch of tunas has increased significantly. They have become the most valuable fish export in terms of volume, as well as an important food fish in terms of local consumption, particularly in the southern islands (Table 5). In 1978, their catch weight was 183,999 MT, or 14.2 percent of total marine fishery production, valued at nearly PI.5 billion (US$.2 billion), or 18 percent of the total value of all fishery products.17 In 1980, 41,462 MTof yellowfin and skip• jack, representing more than 50 percent of the total volume of fishery 10 Environment and Policy Institute

Table5. Tuna Production by Species, 1974- 1978 (in MT)

Eastern Total Percent Little Frigate Produc• Increase/ Year Yellowfin Skipjack Tim a Tuna tion Decrease 1974:I 11,415 2,761 8,915 2,248 25.339 _ 1975a 9,964 3,181 5,288 3,396 21,559 _ 1976 44,478 29.174 23,328 28,328 124.984 — 1977 63,059 55.090 43.007 43,007 215,900 +86.4 1978 47,029 49,730 50,899 50.899 183,999 -14.8 ''Commercial catch data only since there is no record of municipal production prior to 1976. Source: Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines.

export (includes shrimp, lobster, shellfish, shellcraft, seaweeds, etc.), was exported at a value of nearly P429 million (US$58.5 million) or 50 percent of the total value of fishery exports. Frozen tuna export for 1981 was expected to increase by over 200 percent of the 1980 volume.

Stock Structure

The Philippine tunas are considered components of the wide ranging Pacific stocks of yellowfin and skipjack.18,19 Considerable progress has been made in the investigation of the stock structure of the tunas in the western Pacific. Genetic studies (esterase gene frequency) of skipjack subpopulations, tagging experiments, and other biological observations have resulted in several theories which postulate the existence of one to five subpopulations.20 There is considerable evidence that Pacific skipjack may be divided into an eastern subpopulation between about 180° and the American continent and a western subpopulation between about 180° and Australia. Findings also show that the western Pacific subpopulation is composed of two smaller groups, A and B, which overlap in distribution and probably interbreed to some extent. After thejuvenile stage, a major• ity migrate northward and southward to temperate waters (Figure 2).21 Some stocks remain for considerable periods in coastal waters, while some are merely seasonal visitors, such as the skipjack stock in the waters off New Zealand. Biological information on the yellowfin in the Pacific Ocean is based on studies of morphology, biology (Figures 3 and 4) and fisheries supple• mented by genetic studies (using transferrin) and by tagging in the east• ern Pacific. Findings show there is apparently one homogeneous popula• tion with three "semi-independent" stocks —a western, a central, and an Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation

Figure 2. Spawning grounds and proposed range and migrat ion routes of skip• jack subpopulations in the western Pacif ic. Source: Fujino, 1972.

eastern —each extending north and south of the equator.22 Japanese longline and surface fisheries catch data in the tropical Pacific indicate that high catch rates occur along the equator, are highest in the western equa• torial areas, and gradually decrease toward the east.23

The stock structures postulated are not well documented. While the uncertainty is not a serious problem in the distant-water longline fish- 14 Environment and Policy Institute eries, which range widely over the entire species distribution, the question becomes more serious as localized fisheries develop, such as those of the Philippines, Indonesia, and the South Pacific islands. For the planning of appropriate management measures, it will be necessary to determine the degree of interaction between these stocks and how exploitation affects them. It is not possible at present to determine the extent of the relationships between the exploited stocks of tunas in Philippine waters and the western Pacific stocks, because information on the biology and population struc• ture of Philippine tunas is scanty. Moreover, Philippine fishing operations and their intensity differ from those practiced in the western Pacific where mainly longline and live-bait fishing takes place. It is most impor• tant, however, to determine the relationship. If the Philippine yellowfin and skipjack are indeed part of the western Pacific stocks, they should be considered a common resource. Local regulatory measures, if any, will not be sufficient to keep productivity at'sustained levels over time, for there will always be a race to harvest the stocks.

Administration

For administrative purposes, Philippine marine fisheries are classified into two categories, municipal and commerical.

Municipal Tuna Fishery

The municipal sector includes all vessels less than 3 GTor those opera• tions using gear that do not require boats. It is administered by municipal or local governments, which are under the jurisdiction of the 13 regional offices of the Ministry of Local Governments (Figure 5). Essentially, the municipal fishing vessel consists of the traditional outrigger dugout, called a banco, many of which are nonmotorized. Municipal fishermen outnumber commercial fishermen by about 1 1 to 1 (500,600 against 45,000) and operate 243,500 bancas and a variety of small-scale fishing gears, mainly hook-and-linc or handlines, baby trawls, various types of encircling nets, and stationary fish traps, locally known as baklad. Fishing areas are confined to nearshore municipal waters.24 Production by the municipal sector, in 1977, was 874,934 MT or 58 percent of total fish production. Of this, 155,514 MTor 17 percent of the total catch consisted of tunas and tunalike fishes. Municipal tuna-fishingoperationsexistin nearly 6,000 fishing villages, most situated along the coastal areas of some 1,400 municipalities. These

f Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 15

Figure 5. The thirteen administrative regions of the Philippines. fishing activities are generally confined within the foreshore waters of their respective municipalities. Some municipal fishermen farm during the slack f ishing season. Statistics on the municipal fishery are limited. A system for collecting municipal catch data was developed and imple• mented in 1976, but there is no comparable data for earlier years. The 16 Environment and Policy Institute

Table 6. Estimated Number of Municipal Fishermen and Bancasby Region, 1977

Estimated Estimated Region Number of Number of Percent Fishermen Vessels Motorized

1 43.553 13,018 47 II 11,793 2,759 27 111 36.595 24,926 95 IV and 1V-A 66,026 24,369 60 V 63,912 26.409 38 VI 35,865 14,506 28 VII 67,147 52.770 39 VIII 46,549 18,661 48 IX 44,111 15,434 33 X 29,419 22,253 28 XI 42.536 18,158 62 XII 13.159 10,326 9 Total 500.665 243,589 43 (avg.;

Source: BEAR Expanded Fisheries Development Program., 1977.

Table 7. Tuna Production by the Municipal Sector (MT)

Yellowfin Eastern Frigate Region Skipjack Bigeye Little Tuna Tuna * Total % Abundance

1 418 2,732 70 904 4,124 2.7 II 117 26 89 232 .1 III 7 424 194 173 798 .5 IV 7,446 9,282 176 8,274 25,178 16.2 V 247 620 9,222 1.954 12,043 8.0 VI 3,998 426 10,394 1.124 15,942 10.2 VII 10 120 4.508 1,781 6,419 4.1 VI11 2.806 4,671 148 5,011 12,636 8.1 IX 2,403 1,200 9,383 4,691 17.677 1.1.4 X 1,007 2.472 3,791 2,296 9,566 6.1 XI 12,963 28.195 252 4,387 45,797. 29.3 XII 1,266 72 2,291 1.008 4,637 3.0 Total 52.571 50,331 40,455 31,689 155,046 100.0

Source: Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines, 1977. NOTE: See sections on the Municipal Tuna Fishery and Catch Statistics for constraints on data.

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) has assembled data on the number of fishermen and bancas per region (Table 6) and on the tuna catch by region (Table 7), but there is no specific enumeration of Fishermen, boats, and units of gear involved in catching tunas on a full- time or part-time basis. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 17

Tuna fishing in municipal waters occurs year round, but the abun• dance of tunas shifts to different areas in different months in an unpre• dictable manner. The main factors governing small-scale fishing opera• tions are the wind system and the typhoon season. During the northeast monsoon from November through March, the wind system streams in a southwesterly direction and brings strong winds and heavy rains to the eastern coast. At this time, fishing is shifted to the west side of the islands or the fshermen farm or do other short-term work. During the southwest monsoon from June to October, the wind streams in a northeasterly direc• tion making fishing operations difficult and unproductive near the west side of the islands. This monsoon season coincides with the typhoon sea• son, during which fishing is interrupted by up to 20 tropical storms or cyclones, about half of them of hurricane intensity. Locally known as bagyo, they originate east of the Philippines and usually cross the islands in an east-to-west direction. Typhoon "Yoling," which struck Manila 19 No• vember 1974, sank 26 fishing vessels. Typhoon incidence declines in a north to south direction. Most often hit by typhoons are northern Luzon, Bicol, and eastern Visayas. The western Visayas, Palawan, and Mindanao are affected infrequently, and fishing in these areas occurs throughout the year.

The most common fishing gear used by municipal tuna fishermen is the handline, which catches the deep-water and large-sized yellowfin tuna and some bigeye tuna and billfishes. In the early evening, fishermen proceed to the fishing ground at least 10 nmi from shore in 15-ft boats powered by a I6-hp engine and with a fish hold capacity of at least 300 kg. They return in the early morning to market their catch. Other gears used are small gill nets, trolls, beach seines, and stationary bamboo traps or nets set across known migration paths of tunas. Yellowfin are caught year round with a peak season from March to July in the Celebes Sea, Sulu Sea, and Mindanao Sea, which are centers of abundance. In the fish market in General Santos City in South Cotabato, from 100 to 200 MTof yellowfin tuna weighing from 30 to more than 100 kg each are landed daily. These are bought immediately by local tuna- exporting companies which transport the ice-packed tunas in vans to Davao City, three hours away, for quick freezing. This procedure is re• peated at a few other fish landings in the Mindanao area, where quick freezing is done in the nearest city. Tuna-exporting companies also oper• ate a fleet of ships (up to 300 GT) equipped with quick freezers. They collect tunas from the municipal fishing boats at the fishing site to ensure the supply and its freshness. In areas far from urban centers, municipal landing sites are scattered the length of remote coastlines, and much of the fish landed is consumed by communities in the vicinity or transported 18 Environment and Policy Institute

Table 8. Tuna Production by Species of Commercial and Municipal Fisheries Sectors (MT) from 1974 to 1978

Commercial Sector

Eastern Percentage Little Frigate Increase/ Year Yellowfin Skipjack Tuna Tuna Total Decrease

1974 11,415 2,761 8,915 2,248 25,339 1975 9,694 3,181 5,288 3,396 21,559 -14.9 1976 12,845 9,816 4,098 6,101 32,860 +72.3 1977 12,260 22,519 14,289 11,318 60,386 +92.0 1978 5,519 14,816 9,468 20,897 50,700 -16.1

Municipal Sector3

1976 31,633 19,358 18,906 22,227 92,124 1977 50,797 32,571 40,455 31,689 155,514 +84.5 1978 41.510 34,914 26,873 30.002 133,299 -14.3

"There is no available catch data for municipal fisheries before 1976. Source: Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines.

Table 9. Total Tuna Production and Relative Abundance of Commercial and Municipal Fisheries (MT) from 1976 to 1978

1976 % 1977 % 1978 %

Commercial 32,860 26.3 60,386 28.0 50,700 27.5 Municipal 92,124 73.7 155,514 72.0 133,299 72.5 Total 124,984 100 215,900 100 183,999 100

Source: Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines. to the immediate hinterlands. Little tunas (yaito and frigate tuna), caught by small gill nets, beach seines, and traps and that are seldom iced, are sold near the place of their capture. The recorded catch of tunas by the munic• ipal sector in 1977, the last year for which complete catch data are availa• ble, is 155,046 MTor 72 percent of the total tuna catch (Table 8). Of this, more than 53 percent consisted of yellowfin and skipjack. The rest were small tunas (Table 9).

Commercial Tuna Fishery

The commercial fishery includes all vessels of 3 GTand larger and is licensed by the BFAR of the Ministry of Natural Resources. It is administered through 13 regional offices, each with a regional director. Ownership and operation of commercial fishing vessels is vested in more than 1300 individuals and companies. There are nearly 2300 commercial Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 19 fishing vessels ranging from 3 to more than 1500 GTand more than 200 hp. A majority of these vessels, especially the bigger purse seiners and trawlers, were imported as secondhand trawlers and longline vessels, most more than 15 years old, from Japan and the United States and refitted to suit local fishing situations. The fleet operates in areas not less than 14-m deep using a variety of mechanized fishing gears such as the otter trawl, purse seine, and bag net (basnig).2* In 1977, the commercial sector landed 519,000 MTor 35 percent of the national fish catch. Tunas comprised 60,386 MTor 11.5 percent of the commercial fisheries' catch. The development of the commercial tuna fishery to industrial scale started in 1975. In previous years, a number of commercial fishing vessels of from 50 to 300 GToperated purse seines and ring nets, which largely caught small pelagic fishes such as round scad and mackerel, little tunas, and some small yellowfin and skipjack. The limited combined catches of the municipal and commercial tuna fisheries that met the standard quality requirements supplied the export market. In 1974, the South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Program (SCSP) of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) based in Manila, in collaboration with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and some commercial fishing companies, conducted purse seine fishing surveys to determine the tuna catch rates obtainable with modern fishing vessels and gears.26,27 For this purpose, two well-equipped Canadian purse seiners, the Southward Ho (420 GT; 1125 hp) and the Royal Venture (283 GT; 850 hp) were chartered. During the test-fishing period, using daytime eastern Pacific Ocean methods it was demonstrated that, although many tuna schools were seen on the move or associated with floating objects, capture of the tunas was difficult, since the schools were wild and quick to escape the enclosing nets. It was noted, however, that local small purse seiners and ring net operators fishing at night and using drifting bamboo rafts (payaw) for attacting live bait and tunas were making good hauls, up to 5 MTa night. (See Purse Seine-Bamboo Raft Method.) This purse seine-bamboo raft method was modified and standardized by the SCSP survey team and the procedure was adopted in the fishing survey operations. It was estimated that the potential catch of a seiner, such as the Southward Ho or Royal Venture, fishing commercially in the Philippines for 25 fishing days per month for 10 months, would be at least 1500 MT. While big fishing companies have used bamboo rafts as lures during purse seine fishing for round scad and mackerel, the procedure as used for tuna fishing had not been documented until the completion of the SCSP surveys. Thereafter, the fishing companies began shifting some of their purse seine operations for small pelagic fishes to tuna purse seining. This involved the 20 Environment and Policy Institute acquisition of tuna purse seine nets and the reriggingof vessels for tuna purse seine fishing. The RJL Martinez Corporation, one of the bigger fishing companies, spearheaded tuna purse seining with bamboo rafts and presumably has the most number of tuna vessels in operation. At present, there are more than 80 large commercial tuna purse seine boats ranging in size from 150 to 1600 GT with an aggregate tonnage of more than 25,000 MTand owned by seventeen fishing companies. Each vessel catches annually from 3000 to 12,000 MTof tunas and tunalike fishes.28 During fishing operations, each catcher vessel is supported by a complement of carrier vessels, scout boats, and service boats. More than a thousand units of drifting raft, a few made of steel for longer life, some owned by the fishing companies and others by concessionaires, are deployed in the purse seine fishing grounds in waters up to 2000 m deep. In the archipelagic waters, bamboo rafts are dispersed in the Moro Gulf, the Mindanao Sea, the Sibuyan Sea, most of the central and southern Sulu Sea including the southwest coast of "Panay and Negros, and off the northeastern coast of Palawan and the adjacent waters of the Celebes Sea (Figure 1). Exploratory fishing is now undertaken by fishing companies in nontraditional fishing grounds in northwestern Luzon and along the eastern coast. Aside from the purse seiners, an undetermined but increasing number of smaller vessels of from 10 to 50 GTand operating gill nets and small purse seine nets steadily increase the tuna catch of the commercial sector. The catch of these vessels is marketed locally. Moreover, during the peak season, sardine and mackerel purse seiners and even trawlers are tempo• rarily converted for tuna purse seine fishing to take advantage of the abundant tunas in otherwise less productive fishing grounds. The tuna catch of the commercial sector is shown on Tables 9 and 10. The largest catch was taken in 1977 with a total of 60,386 MT or 28 percent of the total tuna catch (Table 8). Of this, the most abundant are the skipjack (37.5 percent) and the eastern little tuna (23.8 percent). Yel• lowfin and frigate tunas occur in about the same abundance (Table 9).

Purse Seine-Bamboo Raft Method

The effectiveness of bamboo rafts in increasing efficiency in nighttime purse seine fishing operations has triggered the expansion of the com• mercial tuna fishery. The technique combines indigenous and modern technology which, when operated separately, would not be as productive. Bamboo rafts are a native fishing gear that lures small pelagic fishes in rivers, estuaries, coves, and nearshore quiet waters. The original version Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 21

Table 10. Annual Catch of Tunas by Commercial Fishing Vessels, 1961 -1977 (MT)

Eastern Frigate Year Skipjack Yellowfin Little Tuna Tuna8

1977 22,519 12,260 14.289 11,318 1976 5,138 5,270 395 6,101 1975 3,102 19,811 3,693 3,396 1974 2,761 11.415 8,915 2,247 1973 1,463 6,865 11,071 3,200 1972 130 1.856 7,253 1971 225 3,775 4,246 1970 122 1,685 7,247 1969 2,316 2,522 12,392 1968 1,041 6,020 13,282 1967 230 3,804 14,245 1966 169 3,871 5,547 1965 95 1,594 3,030 1964 ... 990 1,756 1963 32 4,390 220 1962 ... 2,483 227 1961 1,899 IS

•'Separate recording lor f rigate tuna began in 1973. Source: Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines. NOTE: See section on Catch Statistic s f or constraints on data. consisted of a tied layer of bamboo with a bundle of twigs hanging on the underside. It was floated across the migratory paths of fishes. Simple handlines or various types of enclosing nets were used to harvest the fish that were attracted to the underside of the lighted raft. When the highly mechanized sardine purse seine using the puretic block was introduced to the Philippines in the early 1960s, larger and more strongly built rafts were used. Today, the raft is made of two layers of bamboo 10 to 15m long and 2 m wide. The underside is rigged with coconut or palm fronds, and the whole structure is anchored with a steel barrel f illed with rock and concrete. The rafts are set about 7 nmi apart from 20 to 60 nmi from the shore in oceanic waters. Small scout boats with fish finders and ship-to-shore communica• tions monitor the rafts for fish concentrations sizeable enough to purse seine. When "harvestable" rafts are identified, the scout boat contacts the catcher vessel and gives it the positions of the rafts. The catcher vessel immediately proceeds to the f ishing area and prepares for purse seining. The vessel is tied up to the raft and drifts with it during the remainder of the day. At dusk, the vessel turns on its floodlights, usually four 400-watt mercury lamps or 1000-watt bulbs to attract more small fish, which accu- 22 Environment and Policy Institute mulate around the vessel and the raft and serve as live-bait for tunas. At about 0400 hr, two gas lamps are fixed onto the vessel's small service boat, which is then lashed to the raft. Both are then released from the vessel. Simultaneously, the floodlights are gradually turned off. The raft and the service boat, with the small fish beneath them, drift away from the vessel. The vessel keeps watch by sonar on the fish under the shelter, and when a good concentration of tunas is detected, the raft is disengaged from the anchor line, which is marked by a buoy. Thereafter, purse seine fishing begins. If the following night the fish are still abundant in the area, the same raft could be used for another purse seining operation. The purse seiner may work one bamboo raft but fish one or two in any night. Usually, rafts are harvested every 5 to 6 days. Depending on the season, up to 100 MTof young yellowfin and skipjack 1 to 2 years old, a mixture of smaller tunas (frigate and eastern little tuna), and mackerel are hauled in during a single purse seining operation. Detailed records of catch and size composition are not available, however. Bamboo rafts are owned by fish• ing companies or leased by concessionaires to commercial f ishing-boat operators. Bigger fishing companies use the longer-lived steel rafts. Handline fishermen are allowed to fish the bamboo or steel rafts owned by fishing companies when commercial vessels are not f ishing in the area.

The Philippine Tuna Producers and Exporters Association (PTPEA)

Prior to the 1970s, the tuna-fishing industry was unstable. The supply of export tunas coming from the municipal fishery was limited and of unreliable quality due to poor postharvest handling facilities and technol• ogy. Attempts to establish locally joint ventures with foreign companies for purse seine, longline, and live-bait fishing or integrated fishing and processing operations had failed. Lack of expertise and inadequate fish• ing and processing equipment and managerial and technical skills had resulted in a poor supply of bait, a shortage of raw materials, high operat• ing costs, and other difficulties with a subsequent loss of interest on the part of the foreign partner and eventual cessation of operations.29 The international market, at this time, was erratic and often rejected the low quality frozen tunas, causing considerable losses for the exporting companies. Then, in the early 1970s, the fishing and exporting compa• nies began to establish suitable freezing and processing facilities to meet the standard requirements of the export market. The steady demand for tunas, coupled with attractive export prices and improved business op• portunities, encouraged exporting companies to organize municipal Philippine Tuna Fishery Situalion 23 fishermen into hook-and-line operations. They provided them with in• centives, small fishing boats (less than 3 GT), gear, and operating ex• penses to work in the tuna-rich offshore waters of Mindoro, Palawan, Negros, and Mindanao islands. The catches were purchased immediately at the fishing ground, loaded into refrigerated carrier vessels, and trans• ported to the nearest shipping ports. Improved postharvest handling and the increased tuna production resulting from the purse seine-raft method developed markedly the tuna fishing industry and brought about a proliferation of companies engaged in tuna buying and exporting. Tuna fishing and exporting companies, which perceived the growing potential of tunas as a major export product, realized the necessity to promote, develop, and protect the industry through cooperative efforts and unified action. On 22 November 1973, officials of nine fishing and exporting companies founded the Philippine Tuna Producers and Exporters Association, Inc. (PTPEA). Its objectives were to establish the confidence of the foreign markets, to foster fair and friendly competition and understanding among members, and to pro• mote cooperative studies with the Philippine government and interna• tional agencies for effective development and exploitation of the coun• try's fishery resources. The association has since been the spokesman of the tuna-fishing industry. The original members of the association are: Dole Philippines, Inc.; Ephirol Fishing Enterprises, Inc.;Judric Seafoods Co.; Lindamar Corp.; Manteri Fishing Co.; Mar FishingCo., Inc.; Oceanic Fisheries (Phil), Inc.; Purefoods Corp.; P.R. Garcia and Sons Development Corp.; RJL Mar• tinez Fishing Corp.; Ricsan Development Corp.; and South Pacific Ex• port Corp. Five of these companies are engaged in both fishing and exporting operations. Three are involved solely in exporting and the rest in canning. Since the founding of the association, more than a dozen tuna-exporting companies have been established resulting in heavy com• petition among them. Some of the tuna-exporting companies are in the process of acquiring fishing vessels for tuna-fishing operations to insure their supply of export tunas. In 1979, three new tuna-canning factories started operations mainly for the export market. The PTPEA is one of 10 organizations representing the various fishing and processing sectors of the fishing industry, including both commercial and municipal fisheries from the various regions that have formed the National Federation of Fishing Associations (NFFA) and the Philippine Chamber of Fisheries. The NFFA has been actively representing the fish• ing industry in the discussion of government policies affecting the devel• opment and management of the marine fisheries resources and the fish• ing industry. 24 Environment and Policy Institute

Catch Statistics

Available statistics on fish production are generally unreliable and in• adequate for development and management planning. Since 1951, mu• nicipal fishery data were collected and published for selected years, but this was stopped in 1959. The data covered less than 50 percent of the total landings, and the catch data for tunas hardly reflected the produc• tivity and production potential of the tuna fisheries. Until very recently, there had been no attempts to monitor catch or efforts related to specific fisheries, and very little data were available from which to assess the effects of fishing on any of the marine fishery resources.30 In collabora• tion with the SCSP, the BFAR has standardized sampling collection of catch statistics for both commercial and municipal fisheries following the International System of Classification of Aquatic Animals and Plants (IS- CAAP) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Enumerators and technicians, however, need further training in the accu• rate identification of early juvenile stages of tunas. For example, in the coastal villages bordering the northwestern Sulu Sea, where the 1SCAAP manual is used in recording catch figures, all early juvenile stages of tunas less than 30 cm in length, regardless of species, are locally called aloy and are officially recorded as eastern little tuna. The large catch figure for eastern little tuna is misleading, since the fish is not commonly seen at the fish landings or markets.

The new procedure was implemented on a pilot basis in 1976 and full coverage was approached in 1977. Because 1976 was the first full year in which municipal catch statistics were collected, but not data on the growth of the fishing fleet, it is not possible to determine the expansion rate of the municipal tuna fishery or the rate of development of the catch. Municipal tuna production has apparently increased steadily. Considering the lim• ited fishing grounds and the seasonal and small-scale operations of mu• nicipal fishermen, however, it is likely that the officially recorded catch of from 92,124 to 155,514 MT representing an average of 72.5 percent of the total tuna catch of the municipal fisheries from 1976 to 1978 was overestimated (Tables 8 and 9). About half of this reported catch may represent the total landed for several years.31 In the commercial tuna fishery, catch statistics are based on fishing vessel returns, which are generally understated. A raising factor is applied to the commercial returns observed by enumerators at the landing sites in order to arrive at a realistic quantity.32 Identification of species composi• tion is poorly undertaken. Table 10 shows the annual catch in the com• mercial sector of yellowfish, skipjack, eastern little tuna, and frigate tuna from 1961 to 1977. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 25

The total tuna catch increased 86.4 percent from 124,984 MT in 1976 to 215,900 MT in 1977, but declined to 183,999 MT in 1978. While this increase is reasonable in view of the apparently rapid expansion of the tuna-Fishing fleets, the relative distribution of catch is not consistent with the catching capabilities of the commercial and municipal sectors. In both years, the municipal sector contributed 72 percent, while to the commer• cial sector is attributed only 28 percent of the total tuna catch. Consider• ing the much stronger fishing capability of the commercial fleet and the rather small-scale fishing operations of the municipal sector, the ratio of relative production should in fact be reversed. The recent revision of the system of catch data collection may not have solved all the problems of data gathering. As previously mentioned, fish• ing and exporting companies operate fleets of carrier vessels which ferry caught or purchased tunas from the fishing grounds to various landing or shipping ports. It is possible there still exists confusion in the recording of sources and catch estimates and in the application of the raising factors to correct the understated returns from the industry. In general, the actual catch figures and the specific locations of fishing areas are highly guarded trade secrets because of the costly, competitive, and seasonal nature of fishing operations. The adoption of bamboo rafts has eliminated the secrecy. Bamboo rafts are indicators of tuna-fishing grounds, which are confined at present to the archipelagic and nearshore waters. Accurate catch landing figures are likely to remain trade secrets for a long time because of the prevailing system of catch declarations, the numerous unloading sites where municipal and commercial fishing and carrier vessels may land or sell the catch, and the inadequate monitoring of the portion of the catch that is exported. However, an accurate assess• ment of the relative contributions of the two fisheries is important in planning for the development and management of the tuna fisheries in an economic and biological context.

Exploitation and Production Potential

In view of the rapid development of the tuna fisheries, particularly those of the skipjack and yellowfin, within the last three years, the revision of the system for collecting fisheries production statistics, and the com• plete absence of data on catch per unit of effort, it is not possible to determine the present level of tuna exploitation or to give an accurate idea of fishery potential. Based on the apparently increasing tuna catch, however, it can be assumed that the tuna fishery is underexploited and diat larger catches are possible. The likelihood of increased production is 26 Environment and Policy Institute supported also by the rapid expansion of the commercial fleet, by the increased number of credit incentives given to municipal fishermen for mechanizing their vessels and gears, by the implementation of a country• wide network of marketing infrastructures including market-port com• plexes, ice plants, and cold storage facilities, and more important, by the growing demand for tunas at attractive prices in the world market. The decline of 14.8 percent in total tuna catch from 1977 to 1979 (Table 9) may be attributed to natural fluctuation in exploited stocks and the revised system of catch data gathering. It is too premature to relate this decline to fishing effort in the absence of data for this and for sizes offish caught. According to a resource evaluation undertaken by the South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Program, the catch for yellow• fin and bigeye in theSulu Sea and MoroGulf alone could be doubled, and the catch for skipjack could be increased by 100,000 MT.33 In both the commercial and municipal fisheries, yellowfin and skipjack comprise from 53 to 56 percent of the total tuna catch. Eastern little tuna and frigate tuna make up the remainder. Because of their export value, yel• lowfin and skipjack appear to be the main object of tuna-fishing opera• tions. The incidental catching of the smaller tunas is considered a nui• sance by the commercial fishery because of the fishes' abundance without profitable local markets. When in season, the little tunas are the cheapest fish available locally. Not popular as a food fish, they are apparently underutilized although they are larger and have less waste than the belter prized smaller fishes such as mackerels, sardines, or roundscads. Because of crude posthandling practices, the little tunas, oily fishes that spoil easily, reach the market in poor condition and often cause food poisoning. For this reason, these fishes are shunned in the markets, espe• cially in the urban areas. Local canneries, however, have been canning the larger-sized eastern little tuna in limited quantities. In spite of their wide range, the extent of the resource of little tunas is not known. During the tuna resource survey of the SCSP in Philippine waters, frigate tuna {Auxis spp.) 30- 50 cm long were often caught in large quantities. The research vessels avoided catching them and those caught (quantity unknown) were usually dumped because there was no market for them.34 Little tunas are apparently abundant in Philippine waters and are extensively caught by local fishermen using ring net, baby purse seine, otoshi-ami (anchored nets), and troll. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 27

Table 11. Tuna Exports (1972 - 1979)

Quantity (kg) Value (P)

1972 5,161,340 17,737.195 1973 8,544.521 30.119,823 1974 11,376,469 51,860,440 1975 8,119.982 36,616.062 1976 5.734.684 26.81 1.659 1977 15.619.308 85.366.532 1978 19,771,434 1 14,826.837 1979 33.775,000 222,723,000 1980 41,463.000 430,319,000

Sources: Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines; Bulletin, National Federation of Fishing Association. NOTE: See section on Catch Statistics for constraints on data.

Exportation

Tunas are the most important fishery export of the Philippines in terms of volume and value. In 1980, tunas exported weighed more than 41,000 MTand were valued at about P430.3 million (US$58.5 million) (Table 11). This was over 100 percent more than the volume exported in 1977. The biggest foreign markets are the United States and Japan, which purchased 92 percent of the total export of frozen tunas in 1978 and 1979. The rest went to Hong Kong and some European and Middle East countries. Export prices ranged from US$850 to US$1470 per MT for yellowfin and from US$650 to US$ 1348 per MT for skipjack. The volume of tuna exports from 1972 to 1979 (Table 11), especially in the latter years, does not seem to reflect realistic quantities, considering that the bulk of yellowfin and skipjack caught by both commercial and municipal fisheries is directed to the export market. In 1977 and 1978, there was a continuous buildup of the tuna purse seine and ring net fleets and of the municipal handline fleet. The yellowfin and skipjack catch reached a total of from 96,759 to 181,149 MT, making it unlikely that only up to 33,775 MT, or only from 13 to 22 percent of the exportable catch, was actually exported. The industry would have suffered difficulty in marketing up to 102,530 MT of exportable tuna in the local market, especially if these are undersized, let alone disposing the catch of more than 90,000 MTof the not-so-popular little tunas. The small proportion of the reported tuna export relative to the total tuna caught is dubious. Such a situation would not be sufficient incentive for the commercial tuna fishery to expand fleet and fishing operations further when it can- 28 Environment and Policy Institute not even export all the exportable tuna catch. It is possible that the bulk of the catch did not meet export market standards in terms of size or fresh• ness and resulted in biological and economic waste. There is, apparently, an urgent need to monitor closely the size composition of the catch and the flow of tunas to foreign markets. Possibly, tunas exported from ports other than Manila are not properly documented. It is also possible that buying by foreign boats occurs in fishing areas not reached by military or civilian surveillance operations. Some fishing and exporting companies have complained of such activities.* The loss to the government may be considerable in fees and taxes.

Government Organization and Policy

The government structure, organization, and policy for fisheries are defined in Presidential Decree 704 of 16 May 1975, which is a revision and consolidation of all Fishery laws and the sole basis of policies governing the development and management of fishery resources and the fishing in• dustry in the Philippines. There are a number of agencies with responsi• bilities related to fisheries, but the five principal ones are the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), the Fishery Industry Develop• ment Council (FIDC), the Philippines Fish Marketing Authority (PFMA), the Maritime Industry Authority (MIA), and the Philippine Coast Guard. The first three agencies are under the Ministry of Natural Resources. The FIDC undertakes overall fishery planning and coordination and establishes comprehensive policy guidelines for the management and uti• lization of fishery resources. This agency prepared the Integrated Fish• eries Development Plan that defined the goals, strategies, and programs of fishery development for the country. The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources is the substantive government fishery agency and is charged with the development and management of fishery resources and the fishing industry. The specific functions of the BFAR are to implement a technical assistance and training program for the industry and for fish• ery educational institutions and to conduct research on fishing, aquaculture, and processing; to disseminate results of such research; and to en• force fishery regulations. The PFMA has the responsibility of construct• ing, managing, and developing fish port and market complexes and other infrastructures related to the fishing industry throughout the Philip• pines. The Philippine Coast Guard is in charge of the registration, docu-

*Personal communication with fishing company officials. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 29 mentation, and inspection of all fishing vessels and their operation. The Maritime Industry Authority's role is to regulate all industries concerned with the production and trade of all types of vessels and maritime machinery. The Integrated Fisheries Development Plan formulated by the FIDC is designed for the integrated development of the industry. The main objec• tives of the plan include: (1) to attain and maintain self-sufficiency in fish; (2) to optimize utilization of fish and fishery products and reduce wast• age; (3) to promote import substitution and increase exportation of fish and fishery products; and (4) to achieve and maintain the optimum pro• ductive conservation of fishery resources. The main thrust of the plan is to enable the municipal fishery to improve its vessels and gears for wider range, and for the commercial fishery to modernize its fleets as well as acquire new vessels to permit offshore exploitation. The in frastructure part of the plan includes a major marketing compo• nent for handling, storage, and distribution of the fish catch. Fourteen fishing ports, the first five to be constructed at Uoilo City, Lucena City, Camaligan (Camarines Norte), Sual (Pangasinan), and Zamboanga City, are planned to service both commercial and municipal fisheries. Thirty- three other sites have been identified for port construction in the near future. The ports are designed to serve as supply points for vessels away from home ports. A network of ice-making, freezing, and cold storage facilities in strategic areas is planned throughout the Philippines to re• duce waste. To realize the objectives, the Ministry of Natural Resources, through its agencies (BFAR, FIDC, and PFMA), is negotiating loans from the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and from the government of Japan for an integrated infrastructure-credit-marketing-extension program. Though no part of this program is specifically directed at the tuna fisheries and fishing industry, tuna fishermen stand to benefit significantly because of the increased activity made possible by their use of fishing infrastructures and by the availability of credit for the improve• ment of vessels and gears. The fishery policies are very economic-development oriented, but, in general, they are inadequate for the purpose of management and conser• vation, or for coping with the emerging fishery regimes and the growing importance of tunas and other fishery products in international markets. Obviously lacking are policy provisions on fishery core issues such as management of migratory species, traditional fishing rights, total allowa• ble catchjoint venture, regional fishery arrangements, technology trans• fers, and scientific research to explore for resources and to understand the productivity and production potential of the marine fishery re• sources. More than 90 percent offish production in the Philippines comes 30 Environment and Policy Institute from the marine fishery resource, but the extent, biology, and dynamics of this resource are poorly understood because research manpower and facilities have been neglected. To date, there is not a single species of fish whose complete life history is known. The Philippine economic development goals and strategies are export oriented. Various government-sanctioned opportunities exist for local and foreign business arrangements to exploit and utilize natural re• sources with high export potential. Related policies encourage and pro• mote the export of fish and fishery products to enable the fishing indus• try to contribute significantly to the growth of the national economy.35 Be• cause there is a recognized scarcity of capital for the expansion of the fishing industry, the Fisheries Decree allows Philippine citizens engaged in commercial fishing to enter into business agreements with foreigners for fishing, processing, and marketing.36 The Ministry of Agriculture, under the Agriculture Investment Incentives Act, provides foreign com• panies various incentives in the form of tax remissions and other business privileges.37 Recently, as an added incentive, permanent resident status may now be awarded to foreign investors in designated areas.38

Tuna Fishery Business Arrangements

At present, three types of fishery business arrangements exist in the Philippines. They are the joint venture, the Philippine-based but foreign- owned company, and the totally Filipino-owned company. In 1977, the first successful joint venture fishing company, the Penin• sula Fishing Corp., Inc., was established by and between RJL Fishing Corp. of the Philippines and Dole (Philippines) Inc. of the United States. The Philippine company holds 70 percent of the total equity. This com• pany has chartered, from Bumble Bee Samoa, Inc. of the United States, a 795-GT purse seiner, equipped with modern navigational, fishing, and brine-freezing facilities, which is under Philippine registry as required by local maritime authorities. The joint venture vessel harvests a monthly tuna catch of 500 MT, which is caught by the purse seine bamboo raft method (see pp. 20 to 22). The catch is exported mainly to American mar• kets. Because of the initial success of the partnership and its operations, the company acquired two additional vessels after the first year to in• crease its fishing capacity for an apparently expanding market. The suc• cess of this joint venture has encouraged other local fishing companies to enter into similar business arrangements with foreign companies. As an example of the second type of business arrangement, the com• pany foreign-owned and managed, is the Judric Canning Corp. in Taguig, Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 31

Rizal, established in 1977 entirely with Australian capital. In 1978, the tuna cannery processed 8000 MT purchased from local fishing compa• nies, all of which was exported at a value of US$5.4 million. The cannery has a daily processing capacity of 50 MT and employ 1200 Filipinos in three shifts. A katsubushi (steamed and smoked tuna loins) processing plant located outside Zamboanga City is supervised by a Japanese national, but com• pany ownership is not known. During the skipjack season, up to 10 MTof skipjack are processed daily. The products are exported mainly to Japan. The third business arrangement, to which a majority of the tuna busi• nesses belong, is the entirely Filipino-owned company involved in fishing or exporting or in an integrated fishing-processing-exporting operation. Belonging to this category is Philippine Tuna Ventures, Inc. which has leased, with an option to purchase, from a Polish company two seiners of more than 2000 GTeach. These vessels are harvesting at least 500 MTof tunas and tunalike fishes monthly, mainly for export.30

DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT*

Opportunities and Constraints

The Philippines' tuna fishery is in an early stage of growth, responding to increased exploitation in a manner typical of new fisheries.40 At this initial stage it is highly profitable. Expansion of the fleet has gained mo• mentum, and every unit of fishing effort added apparently brings a com• mensurate increase in catch. Nothing could be more encouraging for

"Development is the utilization of a fishery resource to meet the objectives of the governineni that are meant to raise the economic level of the people, earn foreign currency, provide employment, and so on. Development efforts are manifested through facilitation of credit availability, tax remissions, establishment of fishery infrastructures —ports, markets, ice plants. Management is the organization of the course of development to meet the objectives of resource utilization policy of the government (produce food, earn foreign currency, etc.) to attain a maximum sustainable yield at least cost (MSY—refers to amount of fishing thai will give the greatest catch rates over a period), and to deal with the allocation of common- use resources whether among local fishermen or between local and foreign fishermen or between governments. J. Marr. "Management and Development of the Fisheries in the Indian Ocean," /. Fish. Res. BmrdCan. 30(1970): 2312-2320. 32 Environment and Policy Institute

fishing companies and individual fishermen at this very productive stage of the fishery than expansion of fishing operations to meet the demands of a growing world market. However, there is at present no reliable evaluation of the potential productivity of the tuna stocks in Philippine waters. The Philippine tuna fishery is not new. Local sustenance fishing has been practiced for a long time, and the little tunas are a traditional food fish in some regions. Fishing was done on a small scale, however, and supplied only a small local market. As early as 1920,41 according to documented reports, tunas in Philip• pine waters were exploited by Taiwanese and Japanese boats from Okinawa and Taiwan. As noted earlier, tunas generally are not a popular food fish in the Philippines. This fact, together with the lack of adequate marketing facilities (ports, fish markets, ice plants, etc.) and inefficient gear, for many years discouraged increased exploitation of the resource by local fishermen. Since the opening of the export market, however, the commercial fishery has escalated development by expanding the fleet of catcher and carrier vessels, both in terms of tonnage and number, and by the adoption of modern gear and entry into nontraditional fishing grounds. Current high catches relative to catch potentials may be deceiving, since no reliable data are available on the catch rates (catch per boat) for the entire tuna fleet or on the economic effectiveness of the fishing effort. Neither is there reliable data on the size composition of the catch (see section on Catch Statistics). It should be emphasized again that the rapidly growing purse seine tuna fishery in the Philippines is catching an appar• ently significant quantity of immature tunas (10- 30 cm) (Figure 6). Prior to expansion, yellowfin tuna were caught by a local handline fishery only, which took the older and larger (100 + cm) deep-water stock. Interac• tion between surface and handline fisheries is likely to affect the long- term production potential of the yellowfin tuna. Studies of interaction between surface and longline (deep-water) fisheries where only a longline fishery existed previously suggested an increased total catch at the cost of decreased longline catches.42 In the 1960s, the expansion of the purse seine fishery in the eastern Pacific was accompanied by about a 40 percent reduction in the longline catches of yellowfin. In the case of the skipjack, no local large-scale fishery existed until the development of the purse seine-raft fishery. With the increased harvest• ing of young and immature tunas by this method, it is likely the tuna resource will reach a level of maximum sustainable yield sooner than expected, followed by a period of declining catches of smaller, less profit• able fish. Additional vessels, acquired on the basis of previous fishing successes, Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation S3

Figure 6A. Immature yellowfin tuna caught by purse seine and ring net.

Figure 6B. Mature yellowfin tunas on deck of a tuna long line vessel. 34 Environment and Policy Institute may enter the fishery after the breakeven point of productivity has been surpassed. If these vessels cannot be diverted to other fisheries or enter• prises (cargo, transport, etc.) the overcapitalization could lead to severe economic dislocation of vessels and people. Fishery infrastructures, in• cluding ports, ice plants, cold storage facilities, and the growing fleet of vans and tuna processing factories, will suffer similar economic difficul• ties. Expansion of the purse seine fishery is apparently rapid, and biological depletion of the resource may be realized long before adequate knowl• edge of yield potential is acquired. There is always a lag in the realization that overcapitalization has led to overfishing, and the decision to imple• ment remedial action lags even further behind.43 This sometimes results in the destruction of the various productive fisheries of the world. The Peru anchovy, the California sardine, and some North Sea ground fish are classic examples of fisheries that have undergone collapse because of the lack of appropriate management measures at the opportune time. Most of this discussion assumes that the Philippine tuna stocks are self-perpetuating units. If the tuna resource is part of western Pacific stocks, as tuna specialists are prone to theorize (see section on Stock Struc• ture), the continued exploitation of young tunas by the highly efficient purse seine-bamboo raft method may jeopardize not only the local tuna fisheries, but also those of adjacent coastal countries. Previously used only in the Philippines, the method is now used with local modifications in Japan, the Hawaiian Islands, and some countries in the South Pacific as well. The tuna fishery is likely to play an increasingly important role in Philippine national economic development in terms of food self- sufficiency and as a source of foreign currency. The industry is successful and needs to be given maximum support for proper development consis• tent with national development goals. At the same time, however, there are important management aspects that must be pursued systematically to maintain maximum production at sustained levels and the economic sta• bility of the industry. The proper time to take action to avoid these economic problems is during the early growth stage of the fishery.44 Skillful timing of economic and technical incentives (loans for vessel construction, skills training pro• grams, provisions for fishery infrastructures, etc.) during this early devel• opment stage when the catches are well below potential would be re• quired.45 As the maximum potential is approached, the incentives for future development should be discouraged and thereafter altogether withheld. In this manner the difficult task of regulation such as the ban- Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 35 ningofgear, closing of fishing grounds, and restrictions on exportation of fishery products that often causes severe economic dislocation can be averted.46 Fishery management is based on a sound understanding of the dy• namics of the exploited stocks (ie, the effects of fishing on the abundance of the fish and on the total catch), as well as on the socioeconomic impact of these interrelationships on the fishing community.47 Policymakers should, therefore, have three sets of data in planning for the development of a fishery, namely, the present catch, the best estimates of the potential sustained yield from the stocks, and the plans for increasing the catch. The potential sustained yield is defined by the relationship of catch rates to the total amount of fishing effort (or the proportion of the stock caught per unit of time) and the size of the fish caught. The precise relationship between catch rates and the amount of fishing will depend on the size or weight of fish caught. The relationship is not immediately obtained, because this would require monitoring catch rates per unit of effort and the biological characteristics of the fish.48 Even if data on catch rates were known, to be meaningful these would have to be oTa duration long enough to show the trend of fishery production. The most impor• tant biological information needed to complement the catch rate data is (1) the rate of growth of the fish as determined by the ratios of size or weight groups of fish at capture (also found by reading the scale growth rings on cold water fish); (2) patterns of migration as determined by tagging; (3) spawning information obtained by observation of gonadal maturity; and (4) general areal and seasonal abundance and distribution. These sets of information are vital in formulating management mea• sures for any fishery, whether national or regional. They give policyma• kers knowledge of the capability of the resource to replenish itself at different fishing rates. Such knowledge should form the basis of alloca• tion and regulation. The apparent abundance and richness of the tuna resource, its poten• tial as a protein source, and the growing importance of tunas as an export commodity should convince policymakers to give priority to comprehen• sive research programs that will hasten the collection of reliable data needed for the rational management of tuna resources. The Philippine government heavily funds research projects on aquaculture and minor fishery products (eg, seaweeds, corals) whose output cannot match the productivity and potential of the tuna fishery in terms of volume and value.49 It should seriously consider investing in research programs that will properly assess the tuna fishery. 36 Environment and Policy Institute

Utilization of Small Tunas

As noted elsewhere, the small tunas (eastern little tuna and frigate tuna) are abundant but apparently underexploited and the catches under• utilized (see section on Exploitation and Production Potential). In many coastal villages remote from urban centers in the southern islands, the fishery infrastructures needed by municipal fishermen to profitably mar• ket their tuna catches are acutely lacking. Ice and reliable transportation to other outlets are also deficient and cause waste. Until the problem of infrastructures is resolved, and a liking for small tunas is developed among the population, no large local demand for fresh small tunas can be anticipated. Accurate assessment of the abundance and distribution of the resource should be undertaken nevertheless. If their abundance and seasonal distribution are of a magnitude that can provide enough raw materials for processing into secondary products, a development-management program for their full utilization can be planned. Familiar and palatable products that need no refrigeration for a long shelf life can be developed from the small tunas such as salted fish flakes (bacalao type), fish chips, powdered fish flavors {katsubushi type), fish sauce, fish paste, fish sausage, and protein concentrates, and the discards can be reduced to fishmeal and oil. So far, small tunas, locally called tulingan, remain appreciated only in a few regions. They are prepared by steaming for one whole day in earthen pots and kept un re frige rated for one week. The product is locally called sinaing. The full utilization of the smaller tunas can increase significantly the availability of cheap protein to a protein-deficient population.

Local Fishery Management System

The most distinctive feature of Philippine marine fisheries manage• ment is that there is very little of it. Inadequate management or the lack of it (eg, the failure to achieve conservation and socioeconomic objectives) may be traced to a series of circumstances common in many developing countries. These are (1) insufficient understanding of the biological prin• ciples, particularly those related to population dynamics, upon which fisheries management rests; (2) crippling politics and confusing bureau• cratic decision making; (3) lack of complete perception of the important interdependence of the social, economic and biological aspects of man- Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 37 agement goals; and (4) inadequate comprehension of the essential func• tions of management and, therefore, a tendency to ignore management responsibilities. In the latter situations, management concerns itself entirely with the conservation of favored species and neglects socioeconomic problems. Management concentrates on the enforcement of fishery laws, rules, and regulations (mainly prohibitions against fishing with explosives and elec• tricity), the closing of fishing areas, and the banning of certain gear (trawl) without appropriate and adequate biological research and without pro• viding alternative sources of income in the affected communities. No system exists for allocating fishery resources between different fishing methods (mobile as in trawl fishing, and stationary as in gill netting) and has resulted in long-standing, often violent feuds between trawl fisher• men and gill netters. Failures to take a broad view of management objec• tives can result in overrestricuve regulations that prevent the develop• ment of an efficient fishery and delay the introduction of management measures. Various administrative ordinances are in effect and a presidential ac• tion has imposed absolute regulatory measures, such as the total closure in 1973 for five years of a fishing ground, a ban on certain gear, and a ban on catching certain species. These restrictions have been imposed without the benefit of appropriate and adequate biological and resource manage• ment studies in accordance with standard fisheries management proce- duresand principles. One restriction that banned the catchingof sardines from November to March in certain areas of the Visayan Sea had been "enforced" without review for 14 years, from February 1964 to Novem• ber 1978. Most of the restrictions have been imposed after only spot investigations or hurried visits by staff who have litde or no training in fish resource dynamics. In multispecies fisheries such as in the Philippines, drastic and absolute restrictions can do more harm than good. Less re• strictive measures such as limited entry, seasonal fishing, zoning, and mesh size regulation are suitable for each particular situation or species and are more appropriate biologically and economically. To date, there is no convincing evidence that restrictions have improved stock abundance or that the fishing communities depending on these fisheries have been economically benefited.50

Scientific Research Strategy and Management Needs

As a new entrant in a world fishery, the Philippines must assume its role in the proper development and management of its tuna fishery as a 38 Environment and Policy Institute beneficiary and a guardian of a national and a world resource. Manage• ment efforts should, however, begin at home. The seriousness of the management effort must be preempted by a recognition on the part of managing agencies of the value and fragility of the tuna resource. The management of tuna or any other species must be based on ade• quate scientific research. This does not mean complete scientific evidence. What is important is sufficient scientific evidence to arrive at reasonable decisions, plus a firm knowledge of the biological and socioeconomic consequences of such decisions. Since the Philippine tuna fishery is at the early developmental stage, the cardinal rule must be to impose only those restrictions involving the catching of unreasonably small sizes of tuna.51 In addition, the following activities should be undertaken:

1. resource surveys to determine the extent and distribution of the tuna stocks and the magnitude and location of tuna catches within the EEZ and contiguous waters; 2. collection of adequate fishing statistics including details of catch by species and size class for each unit of area (1° square for every fishing trip) and a detailed description of fishing effort including vessel size and tonnage, fish-carrying capacity, type of gear, and units of gear (size of net or number of hooks); 3. study of the biology and behavior of important species including basic information on growth rates and variations in growth that occur throughout the area of distribution; area, time, and dura• tion of spawning; patterns and degree of migration to and from major fishing grounds; and description of the food chains that support each species; 4. description of stock structure to determine the impact of fishing on the resources as a whole (this activity is difficult and should be undertaken in collaboration with regional efforts); and 5. description of the environment with a collation and analyses of the oceanographic information already available to guide collec• tion of additional data from commercial fishing vessels and re• search vessels in all fishing areas. A knowledge of oceanographic conditions is important in monitoring and predicting the areas of optimum fishing occurrence, which are to a great extent related to changes in the physical environment.

The collection and analyses of these data will contribute immensely to the characterization of the exploited stocks and to the economic status of the industry. Particular emphasis should be given to the speedy collection of catch Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 39 rate figures. Full cooperation of the various industry sectors would be needed, for they alone possess accurate catch data. Historically, fisheries elsewhere grew over several decades giving management considerable time to acquire and analyze technical information. Timely management action was therefore not so vital, but with the rapid development of fish• ing technology, vessel mobility, and innovation, some of the world fisheries have gone from maturity to collapse within a very short time, sometimes within 3 to 5 years.52 The tuna fisheries of the Philippines may experience a comparable development phase. Because of an acute lack of local exper• tise in fish population dynamics, especially for data analysis, technical assistance should be sought from international fishery agencies in the region, including the South China Sea Development and Coordinating Program, the South Pacific Commission, the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), the Marine Fisheries Department of SEAFDEC, and the governments of major fishing coun• tries such as Japan and Norway. To remedy the poor research capability in the Philippines, a marine fisheries research center should be established as an independent unit in the Ministry of Natural Resources, where adequately paid fishery scien• tists can pursue studies unencumbered by nonresearch assignments. At the same time, a manpower training program, to include fish population dynamics, fishing methods and technology, and fishing boat architecture, should be started through local and foreign fellowships. In this manner, research capability can be built and basic data gathered and analyzed properly for use by industry and government planners. The activities are the least that can be done to begin the protection of a multibillion peso industry, insure high productivity of the resource, and enable the industry to operate at minimum cost.

Foreign Fishing Operations in Philippine Waters

Japanese and Taiwanese tuna-fishing boats have been active for many decades in Philippine waters, and their operations have grown in scale. In the mid-1960s, Japanese operators explored the possibility of establishing joint ventures with local companies in tuna longline and bait-boat fishing but gave up the attempts. It apparently became obvious to them that cumbersome business arrangements were not necessary, since it was pos• sible for them to fish in Philippine waters with only a small risk of appre• hension. The expanse of water was large and surveillance systems weak. Taiwan started its high sea fisheries in the 1960s, and in 1970, its long-range fleet, operating out of Pacific Ocean bases, included 116 ves- 40 Environment and Policy Institute sels.53 Of these, 80 vessels operated in the western Pacific. In recent years, South Korean tuna-fishing boats have also been sighted frequently within Philippine territorial and archipelagic waters. South Korea operates as many as 500 long-range tuna-fishing vessels working from bases all over the world. Components of the Japanese, Taiwanese, and South Korean long- range tuna fleets conduct annual fishing operations in the western, cen• tral, and eastern Pacific Ocean encompassing Philippine territorial wa• ters. The season or duration of the fishing operations is undetermined. The Japanese fleet is operated by fishing cooperatives in various prefec• tures of Okinawa and the Japanese mainland, and by multinational cor• porations (Taiyo, Nippon Suisan, Mitsui, Nichiro, Marubeni, etc.). The tuna catch of yellowfin and skipjack in Philippine territorial waters, as estimated by the Fisheries Agency of Japan, was 7400 MT in 1977. The catch data of South Korean and Taiwanese vessels are not available, but their individual catches are presumably'comparable if not greater than those of Japan, considering the catches in the EEZs of South Pacific coun• tries by the longline boats of South Korea (15,475 MT) and Taiwan (12,499 MT) that were larger than that of Japan (11,280 MT) in 1977." From 1972 to 1977, the Philippine Coast Guard apprehended 144 Japanese and Taiwanese fishing vessels, an average of 2.3 vessels a month." Considering the long coastline and the limited surveillance and apprehension capability of the Philippine Coast Guard, the actual num• ber of foreign boats engaged in illegal fishing in Philippine waters is presumably much larger. According to Taiwanese fishery authorities, 5 fishermen have been killed, and 53 fishing boats and 167 fishermen from Taiwan have been detained by the Philippines in years past.56 The local fishermen have complained repeatedly of foreign fishing boats that ram their smaller boats or foul up their lines. The brazen attitude of foreign fishermen in Philippine waters has puzzled, angered, and disheartened local fishermen. Presumably, the Japanese, Taiwanese, and Koreans have been fishing in Philippine waters for many years and feel they have traditional rights which they choose to continue. Now that Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea have all declared extended maritime jurisdictions, the Philippines expects that its claim of a 200-nmi EEZ will be respected. Apparently Japanese, Taiwanese, and South Koreans find fishing in Philippine waters highly profitable in spite of higher operating costs and the risk of apprehension. The nearness of the fishing ground to the homelands of these fleets and the high concen• tration of valuable tuna only partly harvested by Philippine fishermen must be important factors. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 41

The long-range fleets of Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea have identi• fied fishing grounds in the major oceans where valuable fish are targeted for capture. In the Southeast Asian seas and the western Pacific, the stocks of yellowfin and skipjack off the coasts of islands are the main objective. The fleets must realize substantial economic returns to make extended fishing trips worthwhile. For this reason, stringent regulatory measures over foreign fishing may make the governments of long-range fleets reexamine their positions, in the wake of 200-nmi EEZ declarations. The Japanese who have concluded more than 200 fishing agreements with coastal countries facing all oceans while simultaneously fishing in Philippine territorial waters, and who are highly visible in local fishery establishments (fresh tuna, katsubushi, and eel culture), have not con• cluded a single fishery agreement with the Philippines on a government- to-government basis or negotiated any fishery business agreements re• viewed by government fishery agencies.

EXTENDED FISHERY JURISDICTIONS

The Exclusive Economic Zone

The United Nations Conference on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) response to problems of fishery management is a coastal state jurisdiction extended to 200 nmi from territorial baselines. The 200-nmi EEZ, which is now a right of coastal states under customary international law, evolved through decades of unilateral declarations by coastal states of extended zones of jurisdiction and has become part of the UNCLOS Informal Composite Nego• tiating Text (ICNT). 58 Within this zone, the state has sovereign rights for exploring, conserving, and managing the natural resources. In recent years, uncertain of the adoption, ratification, and enforce• ment by the world community of a just law of the sea convention, many coastal states extended jurisdiction over fishery or economic zones be• yond their territorial seas. Several factors may have helped prompt their actions. First is the awareness that in a large area of high sea only a comparatively small quantity offish is caught. Present catches beyond 200 nmi are only less than i0 percent (mostly tunas) of the world marine fish. Nearly 75 percent of the world catch (2.3 million MT in 1977) of tunas and tunalike fishes are taken within 200 nmi.50 This situation is of particu• lar concern to developing countries in whose offshore waters large distant-water fleets have been fishing heavily. Second, increasing rates of exploitation, the result of advanced tech- 42 Environment and Policy Institute nology, have made them realize fishery resources are finite. Unlimited access to fishery resources anywhere in the world's oceans outside territo• rial jurisdiction, a traditional concept, is no longer applicable. Some regu• lation of the amount of fishing will have to take place to ensure productiv• ity for future generations.60 Finally, the increased exploration, production, and transport of oil and gas and the development of coastal zones near ecologically sensitive ocean areas are causing considerable environmental disturbance of fish resources.81 The adverse effects of pollution and other human activities require that some entity with de• fined authority exercise control over the exploitation of fishery resources formerly regarded as common property. The claiming of extensive EEZs by coastal countries, however, is not likely to resolve major fishery management problems. For example, there are only a few fish stocks confined within individual 200-nmi EEZs. Be• cause of the highly migratory nature of fish, most stocks are shared be• tween two or more EEZs or between EEZs and the high seas. The lack of a defined principle or of an authority to oversee the high seas beyond the EEZ can perpetuate imbalances in resource exploitation and conserva• tion.62 In areas where stocks overlap the coastal zone and the high seas, long-range fleets can reduce the availability of fish within the zone. Simi• larly, states that manage the coastal zones and fishery resources inade• quately can disturb the early stages in the life cycles of commercial stocks and bring about their depletion in both coastal zone and offshore areas. For example, unrestrained conversion of mangrove swamps into fishponds or the development of urban centers on coastlines can destroy nursery areas of highly valued commercial fishes. Management problems arising from these interactions cannot be dealt with meaningfully either through unilateral action or through a consen• sus on EEZ practices among coastal states. Some problems may be solved if countries with adjoining EEZs coordinate their resource exploitation programs. In the case of the tunas, which move beyond 200 nmi and are also captured there by distant-water fleets, it is not likely that problems could be resolved by such measures. The complex nature of these prob• lems has hindered the work of international fishery institutions attempt• ing to introduce management measures, especially for migratory stocks.63 The beneficial effects envisioned for the EEZ, particularly for fish• eries management, may take time to be realized because of limited capital, technology, resource management, skills, and bargaining capability and the high costs of surveillance and enforcement. A government's degree of interest in fishery development will influence its willingness and ability to negotiate fisheries business agreements (fee Fishing, joint ventures, etc.) with distant-water fishing countries and to invest in surveillance equip- Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 43 ment. If the interest is high, some immediate political and economic gains are possible. A number of coastal states are already receiving generous fees for fishing privileges. For example, Kiribati, formerly Britain's Gilbert Island in the South Pacific which became independent in July 1979, has a 2-year agreement with Japan. Japan will pay US$600,000 annually and provide US$300,000 worth of equipment and facilities in return for its vessels' unrestricted access to marine waters under Kiribati's jurisdiction.84 The importance given to fishery management issues at the Law of the Sea Conference should spur governments of developing coastal states, particularly in Southeast Asia, to begin a careful evaluation of their fish• ery resources. They will also want to determine the best national and regional policies for rational and beneFicial exploitation of the resources under the regime of the EEZ. More than 90 of the 149 coastal states have now adopted extended maritime jurisdictions of 200 nmi.

Rights and Duties of the Coastal States

The rights and duties of the coastal state in the EEZ are given in Part V, Article 56 to 59, of the UNCLOS Informal Composite Negotiating Text. Arti• cle 56 states that the coastal state has within its EEZ "sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources," thus giving the coastal state full discretion within which to exercise its management preferences. Articles 61 and 62, how• ever, admonish the coastal state to

determine the total allowable catches (TAC) —and its capacity lo harvest the living resources of its exclusive economic zone; and where the coastal state does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch ... it shall.. . give other states access to the surplus of the allowable catch. . . .

Further, the coastal state in giving access to other states

shall take into account... the requirements of the developing countries in the subrcgion or region in harvesting part of the surplus and the need to minimize economic dislocation in states whose nationals have habitually fished in the zone or which have made substantial effort in research and identification of slocks.

It is quite clearly pointed out that any part of the TAC in surplus of the coastal state's harvesting capacity is to be made available to other coun• tries, particularly the developing countries in the region and the distant- 44 Environment and Policy Institute water nations who have habitually fished in the zone. Given the broad management powers the coastal states have, there is nothing to prevent them from declaring a small TAC or a negligible surplus. The coastal state is not compelled to give anything away; however, it may determine the size of the "surplus" and collect fees for fishing privileges or establish joint ventures with distant-water fishing countries. Alternatively, the coastal state can eliminate distant-water fleets through high cost surveillance and enforcement programs and may adopt a policy of not hurrying to fully exploit the resource.

Tuna Management Options in the Philippine EEZ

The precise juridical content of the Philippines' EEZ is still undefined, and the agencies needed to implement the laws fully have not been desig• nated. Common boundaries must be determined by agreement, since the outer limits of the zone at various points overlap the marine boundaries of neighboring states, such as those of Taiwan and Indonesia, and those of Vietnam, China, and Taiwan at the disputed Spratly Islands. At the current stage of fishery development in the EEZ, maximizing benefits from tuna resources, particularly yellowfin and skipjack, should be a major objective. Of the marine pelagic resources, the tunas remain one of the resources with a promising potential for increased exploitation. They are the main object of long-range fleets because of their high for• eign market value. In planning management options for the tuna fishery in the EEZ, the following may be considered:

1. Certain characteristics of the tuna fisheries and the industry make tunas an ideal object for a variety of business arrangements with foreign investors, especially those who can provide addi• tional capital and improved fishing and processing technology. First, tunas, particularly the export species such as yellowfin and skipjack, are not, in general, a popular food fish among Filipinos. The small local demand for tunas in certain regions is more than adequately supplied by the abundant little tunas, which do not as yet have export value. Second, tunas have a high demand and unit value in the export market and thus are a source of foreign currency, which can further national development. Third, while both the municipal and commercial fisheries supply the export market, no competition between the two sectors, which might prejudice the interest of municipal fishermen, is apparent at present. This may be because the fishing gear operated, the fish- Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 45

ing areas occupied, and the tuna stocks exploited by the two sec• tors are different. The municipal fishery exploits the deep-water, large-sized yellowfin tuna by the traditional handline method almost always in the same or adjacent fishing areas. The commer• cial fishery, on the other hand, with its mobile fishing vessels and mechanized purse seine gear, catches the surface and younger stocks of yellowfin and skipjack in various fishing grounds, gen• erally outside the sailing range of municipal fishing boats. 2. There is obviously a "surplus" of the principal species of tunas beyond the harvesting capability of the local fishing fleet. The distant-water fleets of Japan, Taiwan, and the Republic of Korea have been harvesting annually a catch estimated to be from 50,000 to 100,000 MTa year65 within the territorial waters and the EEZ of the Philippines. The determination of the total allowable catch (TAC) as re• quired in the ICNT is a long and tedious process. Catch data and a prediction modeling capability for determining the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), or "surplus" of yellowfin and other tunas are not available. Moreover, such activities would have to be un• dertaken in collaboration with all nations fishing and undertak• ing stock assessment studies in the region. Tunas caught by the foreign fleet, however, may be considered a "surplus," since the local fishing industry does not at present have a tuna longline or bait-boat fishery. 3. The local fishing industry does not have adequate technology for longline and bait-boat fishing. These are the most appropriate methods for harvesting tunas since the gears catch only the larger fish, thus allowing smaller ones to reach maturity and a more suit• able market size. Such fishing methods enhance the conservation of the stocks. Local investors, however, are deeply engrossed in expanding the very productive purse seine and ring net fleets, for which technology is well established. The local tuna fishing industry is developing rapidly by employing these highly efficient methods with the lighted raft and catching a considerable number of im• mature tunas in the process. Studies of the abundance of differ• ent size groups caught by the nonselective purse seine and ring net methods should be undertaken immediately. Ordinary purse seining is twice as productive as longline or bait-boat fishing. The use of the lighted raft has made this method even more efficient. Until the effect of this method on the exploited stocks is known, it should be modified to allow the escape of extremely immature 46 Environment and Policy Institute

tunas at least. The Philippines' EEZ is within the identified spawning area of yellowfin and skipjack subpopulations in the western Pacific (see section on Stock Structure). Records of the relative abundance of different size groups in the catch will help determine the status of the stock. A decline in the larger size groups would be a clear indication of overfishing. 4. Joint ventures in longline and bait-boat fishing and processing with distant-water states, such as Japan, Taiwan, and South Ko• rea, would not only be consistent with the provisions in the ICNT for minimizing economic dislocation of distant-water fleets, but could, through agreements executed in good faith, bring in scarce capital. Fishing vessels and the much needed technology for longline and bait-boat fishing and for bait production are costly. Such agreements should include specific provisions for technology transfer and for the gradual phasing out of foreign participation when the capability and capital for local indepen• dent operation has been established. Japan, as a joint venture partner in tuna fishing, can also be a valuable source of expertise in high seas fisheries and fishery management and for information on the state of the exploited stocks in some tuna-fishing areas. Because of a unique fishing right-fishing license system for both coastal and high seas fish• eries, the Japanese government has been able to regulate its large and widely dispersed fishing fleet very effectively, so long as Japa• nese boats dominated the fishery.66,67 This has been true for its worldwide tuna fishery, including that in the western Pacific. All Japanese boats of specified tonnage are licensed to fish in speci• fied areas and oceans for certain species with a specific gear (Fig• ure 7). The total number of vessels is licensed only as long as the catches are below the potentials of the stocks being fished. When additional effort no longer adds to the total catch, no additional vessel is allowed to fish in the area concerned. In this way, the number of vessels and the fishing area can be regulated. Japanese fishery scientists are able to evaluate the catch rates of tuna vessels because of well-kept, complete records. The success of the Japa• nese worldwide longline fishery has depended on these records for the maintenance of catch rates at satisfactory levels.68 5. Surveillance and enforcement are undoubtedly the biggest prob• lem in fishery management, especially on the high seas. The Phil• ippine Coast Guard, which is charged with surveillance and en• forcement, recognizes the need for upgrading surveillance capability in the EEZ in terms of manpower, equipment, and Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 17

operations. It estimates that the cost of a surveillance network, in terms of vessels and equipment alone, would be about US$500 million.69 There are, however, ways to reduce the cost and com• plexity of surv eillance and enforcement operations. One way is to limit fishery arrangements to a few distant-water states, possibly to only one country by auction to the highest bidder. Al• ternatively, agreement awards could be given to not more than three distant-water countries, each of which could be assigned fishing zones within the EEZ beyond fishing areas of the local fleet. In this manner, they could police each other's operations and only minimum local surveillance might be necessary. If zon• ing is not economically feasible because of the as yet undeter• mined migratory movements, abundance, and distribution of tunas, agreements should provide for the reimbursement of all or part of the expenses incurred by the Philippine government for surveillance and enforcement operations.70 Surveillance by the Philippine government can also be shared with countries with which a Mutual Assistance Pact (MAP) exists.71 6. The largest tuna cannery in the country and perhaps the fifth 48 Environment and Policy Institute

largest in the world in terms of production capacity, Judric Can• ning Corp., is 100 percent foreign-owned and managed. It produces processed (canned) tuna primarily for export. This company buys tuna at local depressed prices using infrastructures . built with cheap labor and enjoys various investment and export incentives while selling the products at high world market prices. Tunas are the most abundant marine fishery resource in the country, the benefits of which the local food processing industry can also share if fish processing were written into joint venture agreements with local companies and investors rather than left to completely foreign-owned and managed companies. This would generate substantial multiplier effects: improvement of local can• ning technology and management; access by local processors to the canned fish export market; and generation of a larger share of local income from processing enterprises. 7. The FAO announced a US$35 million assistance program to help developing coastal states manage their fisheries in the EEZ.72 The FAO program includes assistance for stock assessment, manage• ment policies, strengthening regional bodies, fishery develop• ment investment, fish distribution and marketing, and legal and institutional aspects of management and surveillance. The Philippines should take advantage of this program, partic• ularly by requesting technical assistance for stock assessment and for negotiation of joint-venture agreements with distant-water- fishing countries. 8. The tunas exploited in Philippine waters are apparently part of the wide-ranging stocks of the western Pacific (see section on Stock Structure). Local management schemes should take into consideration the tuna development and management efforts of all coastal states, as well as the activities of distant-water fleets on the high seas and in the EEZs of coastal states in the region. Because of the paucity of information on tuna migration, stock structure, catches, age and size composition, and the present lack of a management agency in the region, there is a need for re• gional cooperation in the development of management objec• tives, goals, and collaborative efforts among the users of the re• sources, not only with the coastal countries but also with countries operating distant-water fleets in the region. The Philippines and the island countries of the South Pacific could play an important role in collaboration with the South China Sea Program and the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency in the establishment of regional cooperation in the management of the tuna resources. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 49

The Philippines, the biggest producer of tuna among the coastal countries of the South China Sea, would be the biggest loser if the tuna fishery in the region should fail.

REGIONAL TUNA MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

The Need for Cooperation

The tuna fishery constitutes a truly international resource whether considered in terms of biology, exploitation, or marketing.73 In view of the growing world demand for tuna products in the wake of decreasing worldwide catch rates, tuna management bodies, where they exist, need a new convention with particular reference to the rights of coastal states in their EEZs.74,75 Where none exists, management commissions should be established to at least initiate some controls on the fishing capacity pouring into the fishery and to conserve and reallocate equitably the benefits of fishing among the countries using world tuna resources. It seems apparent that extended zones of jurisdiction and increased coastal state control of broader maritime areas is not a panacea for the problems associated with the highly migratory tuna stocks, with the unre• strained expansion of the mobile fleets of industrial countries, and with the export market monopoly of developed countries over processed tuna products. Dominant tuna-fishing countries probably wish for a manage• ment system that would preserve the present pattern of catch distribu• tion, but this is no longer acceptable to the many coastal states who wish to develop their own tuna fleets and increase benefits from the resource within their newjurisdictions. The dilemma isexacerbated by the fact that enlargement of tuna fleets will not increase the worldwide catch very much. Any increase in the number and tonnage of tuna vessels from distant-water and coastal states would ultimately bring not only poor re• turns on investments but also would diminish economic gains to all those presently fishing.76 The need for authoritative regional and global tuna fishery manage• ment arrangements has been suggested repeatedly.77,7B" 70 The jurisdic• tional authority envisioned for such bodies, such as the power of enforce• ment of regulations, appears unrealistic in the present climate of national and world fishery politics.80 50 Environment and Policy Institute

Generally, the fishery commissions recommend management guide• lines and regulatory actions, but they are never authorized by their char• ters to recommend or implement enforcement systems. This demon• strates the reluctance of nations to delegate even minimal collective actions to institutions they themselves establish and control.81 Moreover, the trends in the Law of the Sea negotiations and the pattern in coastal state maritime jurisdiction are all directed at strengthening the authority of the coastal state over the living resources of the oceans. In the face of the emerging regime of the sea, the roles of regional and international fishery commissions need reexamination.

Tuna Fishery Commissions

Four international regional commissions exist that are involved in the scientific management and conservation of tunas and tunalike fishes within their areas of geographical responsibility: the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commissions (IATTC) for the eastern Pacific; the Interna• tional Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) for the entire Atlantic Ocean; the Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (IOFC) for the Indian Ocean and adjacent seas; and the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council (IPFC) for the Indo-Pacific region. The IATTC and ICCATare independent commissions established by treaties among member states, while the IPFC and IOFC are established within and subject to the control of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The broad terms of reference of these organizations are:

1. to make recommendations, on the basis of scientific investiga• tions, of processes to keep tuna stocks at levels of abundance that would permit maximum catches on a sustained basis; 2. to conduct research either through a scientific staff or by estab• lishing subsidiary bodies, as well as by calling upon outside exper• tise; 3. to promote, assist, and coordinate national fishery programs; and 4. to coordinate and encourage research and the dissemination of its results.

Lack of funds in most of these commissions has impeded the acquisition of data and the formulation of timely management advice. Of the four tuna management commissions, the IATTC, so far, has been the most effective. It has demonstrated that when tuna stocks are kept under close supervision and fishing intensity is kept at a level com- Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 51 mensurate with stock size, the productivity of the fishery can be kept at sustained levels.82 In 1950, well before any sign of overfishing or problems in the eastern Pacific tuna fisheries, the IATTC was established by Costa Rica and the United States as an open-handed convention in which any state might join whose nationals were participating in the fishery. Subsequently, Panama, Ecuador, Mexico, Canada, and Japan joined the IATTC. In the 1960s, when overfishing became evident, the commissions imposed manage• ment measures that set annual catch quotas (without country quotas or limits on entry of vessels) for yellowfin tuna in the commission regulatory area. Consequently, the stocks were restored and maintained near their maximum level of sustained yield. The problem, however, was to continuously and successfully imple• ment the protection measure, since enforcement was left to the responsi• bility of member countries. As more and more efficient vessels were added, and as new countries entered the fishery each year, the open season became progressively shorter (from 12 to 3.5 months) and resulted in overcapitalization and economic waste in the mutual race to harvest the resource. The developing states complained they could not develop their tuna fisheries under this management system and asked for special alloca• tions. In their view, they could not compete on an equal footing with fleets of developed nations, especially the United States. There appeared to be a serious problem of distribution of the allowable catch, since there was a rapid buildup of the fleet. That of the United States comprised 75 per• cent of the available capacity and took about 90 percent of the catch. When special allocations began, flag vessels shifted from nations with large fleets to nations with small fleets, resulting in the increase of num• ber of vessels involved in the fishery—complicating further the problems of implementation and enforcement. In spite of the management setbacks encountered by the IATTC, this commission has been able to maintain the yellowfin tuna fishery of the eastern Pacific Ocean since 1966, and the stocks appear to be at desirable levels of abundance. Escalating costs, however, have caused a progressive decline in net earnings. One advantage the IATTC has over other commissions is its interna• tionally recruited research staff. On the basis of its investigations, the IATTC can supply information and recommend appropriate manage• ment and conservation measures. The commission's greatest weakness, however, is lack of an enforcement system. This responsibility is left to member states and results in many violations and ineffective conservation efforts, to the disappointment of member states that complied with regu• lations. The United States, for example, has indicated that unless all coun- 52 Environment and Policy Institute tries fishing for tunas in the eastern Pacific enforce the recommendations of the IATTC, it will not regulate its fishermen.83 On the other hand, the less developed countries believe they cannot expand their tuna operations under the current tuna program and want assurance of a longer unre• stricted fishing season than the program allows. The survival of the IATTC as an effective management agency for tunas in the eastern Pa• cific will be a real test of the validity of international efforts to conserve the shared living resources of the oceans.84 Although the IPFC was organized in 1948 and is older than the IATTC, it has accomplished very little with regard to the assessment of tunas in the Indo-Pacific area. Lacking a scientific staff, it depends for basic information on the well-rehearsed statements and the reluctantly shared research results of member countries. At present, no management program exists for the tuna resources of the Indo-Pacific region. The South Pacific countries are not members of the IPFC, but have recently organized the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agencies to foster unity and cooperation in the management of the fishery resources within that re• gion.85

Indo-Pacific Tuna Management Efforts

Tuna fishery management in the Indo-Pacific area has been on the agenda of several sessions of the IPFC, but little action has been taken except for recognition of the problem.86 In 1969, a special committee on tuna management was designated within both the IOFC and IPFC to look at the tuna fishery situation in their respective geographic areas. During the fifth joint meeting, held in Manila in March 1978, the IPFC and IOFC Special Committees on Management of Tuna considered the present state of tuna fisheries in the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific Ocean, the potential management problems resulting from increased exploitation by distant-water fishing fleets, the implications of the newly created EEZs of coastal states in the region, and the need to reach practical and concrete conclusions regarding the management of tunas at the regional level. Subsequently, the committees concluded that the best short-term solu• tion would be to strengthen the IPFC secretariat or establish a separate tuna fishery secretariat within the IPFC. Since both administrative op• tions were considered ambitious in terms of funding, the committees recommended, as an interim measure, that a tuna specialist be appointed by the FAO to do the following: formulate options for short- and long- term management of tunas in the IPFC/IOFC region in consultation with all member countries; initiate the collection and storage, in computer Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 53 accessible files, of catch and effort data from the region with emphasis on data not generally available; and draft a series of options with budgets and suggested funding systems for the IPFC/IOFC tuna fishery secretariats, for consideration by each organization. The tuna specialist commenced his 1-yearassignment in March 1979 funded by the United Nations Devel• opment Programme. Thereafter, untjer FAO auspices, a series of management-related workshops was coordinated by the SCSP (the South China Seas Fisheries Development and Coordinating Program) to intensify interest in plan• ning for a regional tuna management system. This included a workshop on the assessment of the tuna fisheries of the Philippines and Indonesia in Jakarta in March 1979; a meeting of scientists from Pacific countries who reviewed the available information on the status of stocks for Pacific and Indian Ocean tunas and billfish (except skipjack) on 13-22June 1979, in Shimizu, Japan; and a Tuna Consultation Meeting at which tuna scientists and fishery administrators planned for tuna management in the Indo- Pacific area, on 2-30 June 1979 in Manila. Some of the conclusions arrived at during the latter meeting are:

1. Information on tuna migration, stock structure, catches, and age and size composition are very incomplete for the area, and pre• dicting the magnitude of the potential yield is not possible at present. 2. Although there appears to be no clear-cut evidence of biological depletion in most stocks, for a substantial number of fisheries, current levels of fishing effort are much higher than required to fully exploit the stocks; catch rates had fallen drastically, posing serious economic problems for both distant-water fleets and fleets of developing countries aspiring to enter the tuna fishery on an industrial scale for the first time. For some fisheries, there seem to be some opportunities for increasing economic benefits either by reducing the fishing effort (in some of the longline fisheries) or by increasing the catch of species for which values vary greatly depending on fish size (southern bluefin tuna). 3. Because the effects of current fishing activity might not become apparent for several years, any management scheme should en• sure that future fishing practices do not threaten the productivity potentials of the stocks. 4. The establishment of a 200-nmi exclusive economic or fishing zone in many countries in the last 2 years, and the anticipated extension of fishery jurisdictions over the next few years have changed the opportunities of distant-water fishing fleets and 54 Environment and Policy Institute

have drastically altered the circumstances of world fisheries in general. The expansion of coastal state fisheries facilitated by extensions of jurisdiction is expected to increase world tuna- fishing capacity. With a limited resource, however, and with catches of many slocks approaching maximums, the ques• tion of allocation becomes a major issue among users of the re• source and the one most often add ressed by prospective manage• ment arrangements. 5. Future management approaches must take into account resource allocation, development of locally based fisheries from both con• servation and economic perspectives, centralization of tuna fish• ery data, and the sharing of information, experience, and expec• tations of benefits from the resource among national and international groups. 6. Considering the competitive aspirations among resource users, the development of broad international objectives poses great difFiculties, which are compounded by the difficulties among some developing countries of identifying management objec• tives. The latter problem is due to lack of biological knowledge and technical skill, and therefore these countries need assistance in fishery development programs. 7. There was unanimous agreement that tuna fishery data for the entire Pacific area should be stored in a central depository where they would be readily available to all. 8. No precise form for future management arrangements evolved, and the present practice of considering tuna problems at joint meetings of the IPFC/IOFC Tuna Management Committees was retained. 9. Financing the establishment of subregional committees and fu• ture international arrangements for the Pacific remained unre• solved pending clarification of the FAO's policy.

Southeast Asian Coastal States and Regional Tuna Management

While coastal countries in Southeast Asia are aware of the responsibili• ties and problems of fishery management in relation to EEZs, there is an apparent lack of eagerness among governments to establish a regional tuna fishery management arrangement. Except for the rallying efforts of the FAO and, more recently, through the SCSP, there have been no na• tional manifestations of regional cooperation in regard to shared marine resources. ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations composed Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 55 of the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore, which has among its objectives "to collaborate more effectively for the greater utilization of .. . agriculture and industries .. .," could serve as an effec• tive tool for Southeast Asian fishery cooperation."7 Aside from having established a food production committee including fisheries, however, concrete efforts towards the promotion of marine fishery cooperation have not materialized.88 The pervasive lack of interest in organizing a regional tuna manage• ment body in Southeast Asia may be due to the fact that there are only a few countries with a tuna-fishing industry. Aside from the Philippines and Indonesia, no other developing country facing the South China Sea anticipates developing a tuna fishery of industrial scale in the near future. Moreover, developed countries with distant-water fleets includingjapan, Taiwan, and Korea seemingly are not enthusiastic over any regional ar• rangements that might weaken their position with respect to past and future bilateral tuna fishery agreements with coastal states. Furthermore, with or without regional arrangements, these countries already have a decided advantage over the small coastal states. Their access to large amounts of capital and superior technology gives them a strong bargain• ing position and assures a continuing dominance of the tuna fishery in the region. Coastal states, on the other hand, are not as yet ready to subject their newly acquired authority in the EEZ to regional management restraints. The performance of existing tuna commissions has not been admirable as far as participation of and benefits to developing countries, and this per• formance hardly encourages membership among developing coastal states. The pervading apathy of these governments toward establishing a regional tuna management convention that will be immediately respon• sive to their fishery management problems does not diminish the signifi• cance of the scientific work of regional bodies. Developing coastal states, because of their rights and responsibilities in the EEZ, will be compelled to devote considerable effort on stock assessment, prediction modeling, and the formulation and implementation of management measures. For these activities, they will need considerable advice from the IOFC and IPFC. Consequently, the Tuna Management Committees of the IOFC and IPFC should be enlarged to include a secretariat and an independent and neu• tral scientific staff similar to that of the IATTC. These could conduct their own investigations and coordinate, for regional considerations, national research programs and, thus, speed up the acquisition of the vital data needed for management purposes. Increasingly, they will have to serve as a consultative body to developing coastal states in tuna fishery develop- 56 Environment and Policy Institute ment and management. The FAO has offered assistance with the man• agement and development of fisheries in the EEZ and has allocated US$35 million for the purpose. It would be appropriate for part of this fund to be allocated toward the establishment of a regional tuna- management body within the IPFC, with the Tuna Management Commit• tees of the IPFC and the IOFC as a nucleus and counterpart funds from member countries. Because the current trend in' marine resource management is to in• crease the authority of the coastal state and diminish the role of regional and global organizations, the functions of a regional fishery management body should be well defined and limited to those acceptable to the mem• ber countries. The elements of a fishery management system include: data collection and decentralized storage; consolidation of processing and reporting services; biological studies and assessment of stocks; economic and sociological investigations; choice of management measures; imple• mentation, surveillance, and enforcement of measures; product utiliza• tion and marketing; and monitoring of programs. The role of a regional tuna management body for the Indo-Pacific region should be confined initially to a research and advisory context in relation to the elements of management. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 57

APPENDIX: THE TUNA FISHERY

Worldwide Overview

Tunas are most often grouped into three categories. The first includes the six princjpal market species, which make up 75 percent of the world tuna catch: yellowfin, Thunnus albacares; bigeye, T. obesus; albacore, T. alalunga; northern bluefin, T. thytmus; southern bluefin, T. macoyii; and skipjack, Katsuwonus pelamis. The second category, which constitutes about 22 percent of the world catch, also referred to as secondary market species, are the less heavily exploited smaller tunas: bonito, Sarda spp.; little tunas, Euthynnvs spp.; and the frigate mackerel, Auxis spp. The third category accounts for about 3 percent of the world catch and includes the billfishes of the families Xiphiidae and Istiophoridae. Many of the tunas and tunalike fishes are highly mobile and undertake extensive transboundary and transoceanic migrations. The northern bluefin and albacore in the Pacific Ocean travel between the nearshore waters off Canada, Mexico, and the United States and Japanese waters. In the central Pacific, skipjack migrates from its spawning grounds to the central west Pacific toward the east, north, and south directions. In the Atlantic Ocean, the northern bluefin moves between the Gulf Stream off North America and European waters from Spain to Norway. In the south• ern oceans, the southern bluefin migrates from its spawning area around Australia to the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans.

The Philippine Tuna Fishery: Species and Biology

Documented information on the Philippine tuna fishery is minimal. Biological knowledge of the resource is sketchy, and information On the distribution or range of the self-perpetuating populations is completely lacking. Twenty-one species of tunas and tunalike fishes are found in Philip• pine waters.89 Of these, four are caught in commercial quantity and form the basis of the Philippine tuna-fishing industry; they are the skipjack, yellowfin, eastern little tuna or yaito tuna (Euthynmis affinis), and frigate tuna (Auxis (hazard). The yellowfin and skipjack are the most important because of their abundance, large demand, and high value in the export market. The eastern little tuna and frigate tuna are as abundant as the skipjack and yellowfin during certain seasons, but do not have export value and are consumed locally. The bigeye tuna are often caught in small numbers with the yellowfin and are not distinguished from the yellowfin 58 Environment and Policy Institute

unless they are more than 60 cm long. Other tunas caught occasionally in small quantities are the albacore; blackfin tuna (T. tonggol), black tuna (T. orientalis), and dog-toothed tuna (Gymnosarda mtda). Tunalike fishes, such as the various species of Spanish mackerel (5comberomorus spp.) and chub mackerel (Rastralliger spp.), are caught in commercial quantities during pelagic fishing operations. The billfishes, including the swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and the sailfish (Istiophorus orientalis), are also caught incidentally during deep-water handline fishing for the larger yellowfin and bigeye tunas. The Philippine waters are within the identified spawning areas of yel• lowfin and skipjack in the western Pacific. (See Figures 2, 3 and 4 in section on Stock Structure.)90,91 Larvae of tunas and tunalike fishes are found in the archipelagic and territorial waters of the Philippines. Based on the distribution of larvae, spawning apparently extends throughout the year. The peak spawning period for skipjack is April-July and for yellowfin May - August and October-December. Principal spawning areas are the northern Sulu Sea off the west coast of Mindoro Island, the South China Sea off the west coast of Palawan Island, the southern Sulu Sea, and the southern coast of Mindanao Island. (See Figure 4.)92 Early juveniles (from 20 cm) and adults of tunas and tunalike fishes occur and are caught in most months of the year in all the fishing areas. The areas of greatest abundance and productivity for skipjack, yellowfin, yaito tuna, and frigate tuna are in the southern seas, particularly the Sulu Sea, Celebes Sea, and Mindanao Sea.93 Purse seine fishing surveys indicated that in the Moro Gulf (Celebes Sea), 2-year-old skipjack (40-60 cm) and 1-year-old yellowfin (40-60 cm) predominate. In the Sulu Sea both species are 1 year older, indicat• ing that the Celebes and Sulu seas are nursery areas. Both species move through and spend another year (the third year for the skipjack and the second for the yellowfin) in the Sulu Sea and are abundant throughout the year, but less vulnerable to fishing from June to September.94 Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 59

NOTES

1. J. Gulland, "Developing Countries and the Law of the Sea," Ocean us 22(1)(1979): 37-42. 2. C. Siddayao, The Offshore Petroleum Resources of Southeast Asia (London: Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 23, figure 1. 3. Countries facing the South China Sea that have adopted extended maritime jurisdictions out to 200 nm include Vietnam (1977) and the Philippines (1979). A Guide to the Law of the Sea, Reference Paper no. 18, United Nations (UN), Dept. of Public Information, March 1979. 4. Many South Pacific countries have declared a 200-nm EEZ since the October 1976 meeting of the South Pacific Forum in Suva, Fiji, when the forum members declared their intention to establish 200-nm EEZs at appropriate times and after consultation with one another. R. Kearney, "The Law of the Sea and Regional Fisheries," Ocean Develop• ment and International Law Journal 5(2 - 3)( 1948):249 - 286. 5. G. Kent, "South Pacific Fisheries Management" (draft, Dept. of Politi• cal Science, Pacific Urban Studies and Planning Program, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1978). 6. Japan International Cooperation Agency, Report of Pish Finding (Skip• jack) Survey in the Philippines, Manila, May 1977. 7. H. Djalal, "Implementation of Agreements with Foreigners" (Discus• sion paper, Law of the Sea Workshop sponsored by ICLARM, Manila, 26-29 November 1978). 8. Djalal, "Implementation of Agreements," pp. 9-15. 9. Thailand, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Agreement Between the Kindgom of Thailand and the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh on Cooperation in Fisheries," April 13, 1977. 10. J.Joseph and J. W. Greenough, International Management of Tuna, Por• poise and Billfish: Biological, Legal and Political Aspects (Seattle, Univer• sity of Washington Press, 1979), pp. 2- 12. 11. J.Joseph, "Scientific Management of the World Tuna Stock of Tunas, Billfishes, and Related Species," J. Fish Res. Board Can. 30 (1973):2471-2482. 12. S. Saila and V. Norton, Tuna: Status, Trends and Alternative Management Arrangements (Washington, D.C: Resources for the Future, Inc., 1974). 13. Republic of the Philippines, Act No. 3046, "An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines" (17 June 1961). 14. The archipelago concept implies full dominion and sovereign rights over waters within baselines, primarily the waters between the islands which comprise the archipelago. By application of the concept, the 60 Environment and Policy Institute

identity of the Philippines as one state is preserved and the nation is not splintered into 7000 islands. E. Mendoza, "Current Developments on the Law of the Sea Relevant to the Philippines," in The Archipelagic Principle (Manila: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, undated). 15. Republic of the Philippines, Presidential Decree No. 1599, 31 May 1979. 16. Catch data are taken from the "Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines" for various years up to 1978, the last year for which complete statistics of fishery production are available. 17. Preliminary tuna production data for 1978 were provided by the South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Program, while the preliminary data for the 1979 and 1980 tuna exports were furnished by the Federation of Fishing Associations of the Philip• pines. 18. DeFinitions are adopted from R. Kearney, Some Hypotheses on Skipjack (Katsuxvonus pelamis) in the Pacific Ocean, South Pacific Commission Occasional Paper no. 7 (Noumea, New Caledonia, August 1978) p. 3. Population means all individuals of a species inhabiting a specific area. Subpopulation refers to the subset of a population that is a self- sustaining genetic unit (eg, Suzuki, et al 1978 postulated "semi- independent" western, central, and eastern subpopulations of yellow• fin). Stock is the exploitable subset of the population existing in a partic• ular area at a particular time and having some uniqueness relative to exploitation (eg, deep sea yellowfin tuna exploited by Philippine fishermen by handline fishing in the Sulu Sea). 19. S. Kikawa, Tuna andTuna-like Fish Resources in the South China Sea and its Adjacent Waters, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC/SCS.73:S-28), 1973. 20. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Report of the Workshop on the Tuna Resources of Indonesian and Philippine Waters, South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Program (SCSP SCS/GEN 79/29), 1979, p. 5. 21. K. Fujino, "Range of the Skipjack Subpopulation in the Western Pa• cific Ocean," in Proceedings of the Second Symposium on the Residts of the Cooperative Study of the Kuroshio and Adjacent Region, Tokyo, Japan, 1972. 22. Z. Suzuki, P. K. Tomlinson, and M. Honma, "Population Structure of Pacific Yellowfin Tuna," I titer-American Tropical Tuna Commission Bul• letin 1(5)(1978):298. 23. Suzuki, etal, "Population Structure," p. 287. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 61

24. The municipality is the administrative unit below the provincial level. Each province has jurisdiction over an average of 20 municipalities and each municipality is composed of the town proper and about 20 or more barrios or villages. Each region is made up of from 2 to 11 provinces. As defined in Presidential Decree No. 704 (Fisheries Decree), mu• nicipal waters include marine waters between two lines drawn per• pendicular to the general coastline from points where the boundary lines of the municipality touch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the general coastline and 3 nmi from such coastline. 25. Section 17 of Presidential Decree No. 704 (Fisheries Decree) limits the operation of commercial fishing vessels in waters 7 or more fathoms deep. 26. Japan and the Philippines so far are the only countries that have succeeded in tuna purse seining in the western Pacific, where pre• viously the failures were thought to be due to the clarity of water and the lack of a suitable thermocline. 27. FAO, Test Fishing for Tuna and Small Pelagic Fishes, South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Program (SCS/DEV/78/ 18,43). 28. The number and tonnage of the commercial purse seine fleet and catch per vessel were estimated through interviews with ofFicials of fishing companies and the Philippine Tuna Producers and Exporters Association. 29. Personal communication with the private sector. 30. This is the opinion of the members of the FAO Investment Centre Mission that visited the Philippines from May to June 1978 at the request of the Philippine government to undertake a review of the fishing industry. The visit followed the signing of an agreement be• tween the government and the Asian Development Bank providing for technical assistance prior to the implementation of a coordinated fishery development program. FAO, Investment Centre Mission, Fisheries Sector Survey and Project Identification Report (June 1978), p. 12. 31. FAO, Workshop on Tuna Resources, p. 5. 32. FAO, Fisheries Sector Survey, p. 12. 33. FAO, Report on the BFAR/SCSP Workshop on the. Fisheries Resources of the Sulu Sea, Bohol Sea and Moro Gulf Areas (SCS/GEN/77/11), 1977, p. 126. 34. FAO, Test Fishing for Tuna and Small Pelagic Fishes, p. 4. This is an odd research attitude and procedure considering that the immediate ob• jective of the program for which the cruise was undertaken was "to contribute to the better assessment of the pelagic stocks." 62 Environment and Policy Institute

35. Republic of the Philippines, Presidential Decree No. 704, Section 2, 16 May 1975. 36. Philippines, Decree No. 704, Section 21. 37. "Incentives for the Fisheries Industry," Philippine Industry and Invest• ment 3(1978):4-7. 38. Ho Kwon Ping, "The Mortgaged New Society," Far East Economic Review 104(26) (29June 1979):51. 39. Fisheries Today (FIDC, Philippines) 2(2): 30-31. 40. The effects of fishing on stocks of fish have been described by means of mathematical fish stock production models, but the implications for management and conservation are the same. All fisheries re• sources are limited. Even under favorable conditions, they can produce only a limited harvest each year. In the initial stages of devel• opment of a fishery, catch rates (catch per boat) increase almost in proportion to the amount of fishing. Beyond a certain level, the total catches increase only slightly with increased fishing effort (more boats or units of gear or longer fishing time) until further increase in fish• ing brings about a stable condition or declining total catch. This may be due to the early capture offish before they reach a reasonable size. If high fishing efforts persist, the stock of mature Fish is reduced to a point at which there are not enough in the seas to replenish the stock, because too few are able to reach sexual maturity. The situation calls for urgent management measures to alleviate the depletion of the stocks. J. Gulland, The Management of Marine Fisheries (Bristol: Scien- technica, Ltd., 1974), p. 191. 41. H. Warlel, Outlook for Development of a Tuna Industry in the Philippines, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Research Report no. 28 (Washington, D.C, 1950). 42. J. Gulland, "The State of Tuna Fisheries and Tuna Stocks in the Pa• cific and Indian Ocean" (Discussion paper, Tuna Consultation Meet• ing, Manila, 26- 30June 1979). 43. R. Lawson, "Problems of Exploitation of Fisheries in the Indo- Pacific" CRES Working Paper, R/WP36, 1979. 44. J. Gulland, Some Notes on the Assessment and Management of Indonesian Fisheries, FAO (IOFC/DEV/73/3I), 1973, p. 3. 45. The high seas fishery fleets of Japan and South Korea were built with assistance from their respective governments through low-interest loans that encouraged the building of larger and more substantial vessels. In 1954, thejapanese pioneered in high seas fishing and their vessels could be found in the south and central Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic oceans. Japanese brokers and bankers helped develop shore- based facilities and markets, often in partnership with the country Philippine Tuna Fishery Siiuation 63

involved, in many strategic areas facing all oceans. In 1962, Japan had 1590 vessels of more than 50 GTeach, with an aggregate tonnage of 340,000 GT, the biggest high seas fishing fleet in the world up to that time. J. Kask, "Tuna: A World Resource" Law of the Sea Institute Occasional Paper No. 2 (1969), Law of the Sea Institute, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. In South Korea, the development of the high seas fishery industry was encouraged through government assistance in financing vessel construction, personnel training programs, marketing arrange• ments, fishery surveys, and cooperation with international organiza• tions. South Korea engaged in high seas fisheries for the first time in 1957 with a single 22-GT tuna longliner, which made a trial cruise near Nicobar Island in the Indian Ocean. In 1971, there were 351 vessels with an aggregate tonnage of 109,000 GT, 291 of which were tuna vessels. Myong Nam Ahn, Expansion of Korean High Seas Fisheries, FAO(Fl:FMD/73/S-30), 1973. 46. On October 1973, a fishery administrative order imposed the total closure for 5 years of Malampaya Sound, a small but rich fishing ground in western Palawan, "to protect certain species of fish" and caused severe economic dislocation to 2000 families dependent on fishing the sound for their livelihood. In 1981, the fishing ground is still partially closed. Presidential Letter of Instruction (LOl) 480 imposed a 7-km ban on the use of the trawl in the provinces of Leyte, Samar, and Sorsogon in 1978. It has caused economic difficulties for a considerable number of fishermen. Section 36 of the Fisheries Decree prohibits the export of milkfish fry, but they are smuggled out of the country nevertheless. 47. J. Gulland and M. Robinson, The. Economics of Fishery Management, FAO(FI:FMD/73/4), 1973, p. 12. 48. It is very important that data be collected as early as possible in the development of a fishery when fishing is still having little effect on the stocks. Actually, all that is necessary is basic data, which is fairly easy and inexpensive to collect if technicians monitor the fish unloaded at fish landings and measure samples offish. Biological data could be taken at the time by working on samples. Such complementary basic catch and biological data can then be given to scientists who can ana• lyze it and provide advice to those concerned with fishery manage• ment. In the early stages of a fishery, scientific advice need not be precise. Data too skimpy to allow firm conclusions for publication in scientific journals is adequate for guidance on management mea• sures. Gulland, Management of Marine Fisheries, p. 187. 64 Environment and Policy Institute

49. The Philippines, as host country of the SEAFDEC Aquaculture De• partment, has contributed more than PIOO million for the establish• ment of lavish research facilities in the province of Iloilo and has provided an annual operating budget of P70 milion(US$ 12 million or twice as much as the annual budget of the FAO Department of Fisheries in Rome) and a staff of 600. Aquaculture activities in the Philippines contributes less than 10 percent to total Fish production. To date, there have not been any indications whether or not SEAF• DEC activities have increased aquaculture production rates in the Philippines or in other member countries. 50. Kearney, Skipjack in the Pacific, p. 23. 51. While a 20- to 30-cm length (3 to 5 pieces to a kilogram) is the common market size for mackerel (hasa-hasa) and is already large for the round scad (galongong), the optimum market size for yellowFin tuna is a meter or more with a weight of more than 80 kg, while that for skipjack is 40 to 60 cm and 8 to 12 kg. Yellowfin and skipjack 20 to 30 cm are identical to mackerels of the same size. The distinction is hardly noticed at fish landings and markets except by fish biologists. 52. D. Alverson, "Management of the Ocean's Living Resources: An Es• say Review," Ocean Development and International Law Journal 3(2) (1955): 99-125. 53. G. Kent, "South Pacific Fisheries Management," (draft, Dept. of Polit• ical Science, University of Hawaii, Honolulu). 54. W. Klawe, Estimates of Catches of Tunas and Billfishes by the Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese Longlinersfrom within the 200-mile Economic Zone of the Member Counhies of the South Pacific Commission. (Noumea, New Caledonia: South PaciFic Commission, September 1978.) 55. Fisheries Today (Philippines), 2(1) (February 1979):33. 56. Bulletin Today (Manila) 7 September 1979, p. 1. 57. The first move toward appropriation of extensive maritime zones beyond territorial jurisdiction began with the US Presidential Procla• mation of 1945, which asserted United States control over the con• tinental shelf and its fishery resources from its territorial sea out to the 200-m depth contour. This was followed in 1952 by the Santiago Declaration of Chile, Peru, and Ecuador, which claimed jurisdiction over the resources of both the sea and seabed within 200 nmi of the coast. Thereafter, one coastal country alter another claimed various types of extended jurisdiction (economic, fishing, conservation, etc.). See also R. Krueger and M. Nordquist, "The Evolution of the 200- Mile Exclusive Economic Zone: State Practice in the Pacific Basin" (Discussion paper, Training Workshop on Joint Venture Agreements in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, SCSP, Manila, January 1979). Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 65

58. UN, Office of the Law of the Sea Negotiations, Informal Composite Negotiating Text, Revision I (19 March-27 April 1979), Articles 55- 63. 59. FAO, Report on Asian Fishery Products: Development Potentials (SCS/ DEV/76/11), 1976, p. 102. 60. In common fishery resources, such as the tuna fishery of the eastern Pacific and the Antarctic whales, a few controls by international fish• ery agencies have been imposed, but only after it was evident that urgent measures were needed, and even these have not been effec• tively enforced. Gulland, Management of Marine Fisheries, pp. 10-37. 61. S. Holt, "Marine Fisheries," Ocean Yearbook 1, p. 39. 62. S. Holt, "Marine Fisheries," Ocean Yearbook 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, forthcoming). 63. Participation of Coastal States in the Exploitation of Tuna in the Management of the Fisheries, FAO (IPFC/IOFC:TM/78/6, 19.78). 64. G. Kent, "The 200-Mile Diversion" (Dept. of Political Science, Univer• sity of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii). 65. Boeing Co., Maritime Patrol and ASEAN Example Cost-Benefit Analysis Sample, October 1980. 66. Y. Asada, License Limitation Regulations: The Japanese System, FAO (FI: / FMD/73/5-23), 1973, p. 18. 67. W. Herrington, "Operation of the Japanese Management System," Law of the Sea Institute Occasional Paper No. 11 (November 1972), p. 21, Law of the Sea Institute, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 68. The entry of Taiwan and South Korea in the world tuna fishery has diminished the Japanese incentive to regulate tuna fishing and the sustained yield levels maintained for years could altogether break down. J. Kask, "Tuna: A World Resource," p. 35. 69. Fisheries Today, p. 33. 70. The 1972 fishery agreement between Brazil and the United States included provisions regarding enforcement expenses and any un• usual costs borne by Brazil in connection with seizure and detention of US vessels. The United States agreed to compensate Brazil in the annual amount of US$200,000 plus an amount of US$100 for each day a US fishing vessel was under the control of Brazilian enforce• ment authorities. FAO, Bilateral Fishery Agreements (COFI/78/Inf. 8), 1978. 71. Fishenes Today, p. 33. 72. FAO, press release (New York: 21 August 1979). 73. Kask, "Tuna: A World Resource" p. 22. 74. For the organization and functions of international fisheries institu• tions, see L. Alexander, "Marine Cooperation in Marine Science," 66 Environment and Policy Institute

report prepared for Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (Paris: December 1978). 75. Members of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) are in the process of negotiating a new convention. FAO, Fisheries Reportno.2l7(1978),p.4. Countries interested in fishing in the Northwest Atlantic have abandoned the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) and are negotiating a new body, the Northwest Atlantic Fishery Organization (NAFO). Holt, "Marine Fisheries" (forthcoming). 76. F. Christy, "Disparate Fisheries: Problems for the Law of the Sea Conference and Beyond," Ocean Development and International Law Journal 1 (4) (1974): 337 - 353. 77. Joseph and Greenough, International Management, p. 12. 78. J.Joseph, 1972 "An Overview of the Tuna Fisheries of the World," in Economic Aspects of Fish Production. International Symposium in Fish• eries Economics. Organization for Economic Cooperation, and De• velopment. Paris pp. 203-219. 79. R. Kearney, "Law of the Sea and Regional Fisheries Policy," Ocean Development and International Law Journal 5(2-3) (1978): 629-648. 80. E. Miles, Organizational Arrangements to Facilitate Global Management of Fisheries (Washington, D.C: Resources for the Future, Inc., June 1974), 23 pp. 81. Miles, Organizational Arrangements, p. 3. 82. J. Joseph, "Management of Tropical Tunas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean," Trans. Amer. Soc, (3) (1970): 629-647. 83. A. Rose, "The Tuna Example: Is There Hope for International Coop• eration," San Diego Law Review 11 (1974): 776-813. 84. Joseph, "Tropical Tunas," p. 804. 85. The South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agencies Convention was adopted by the South Pacific Forum at Honiara, Solomon Islands, in July 1979. Member countries include Australia, The Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nahuru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Is• lands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Western Samoa. 86. Tuna Consultation Meeting, SCS TC/79/4, Manila, June 26-30, 1979. 87. Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Declaration, 8 Au• gust 1967. 88. E. Solidum, Towards a Southeast Asian Community (Quezon City: Uni• versity of the Philippines Press, 1974) p. 222. 89. A. Herre,.Checklist of Philippine Fishes, US Fish and Wildlife Service Report no. 20 (Washington, D.C, 1953). Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 67

90. Z. Suzuki, et al, "Population Structure" p. 4. 91. K. Fujino, "Range of the Skipjack "pp. 373-381. 92. C. Wade, "Observations on the Spawning of Philippine Tuna " Fishery Bulletin 55(51) (1950): 409-423. 93: Personal communication with fishing boat operators. 94. FAO, Test Fishing, p. 5. 68 Environment and Policy Institute Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and Pamphlets

Boeing Co. 1980 Maritime Patrol and ASEAN Example Cost-Benefit Analysis Supplement. Boeing Company, Washington, D.C.

Christy, F. 1973 Alternative Arrangements for Marine Fisheries: An Overview. Wash• ington, D.C: Resources for the Future, Inc.

Gulland, J.

1974 The Management of Marine Fisheries. Bristol: Scientechnica, Ltd.

Holt, S. 1978 Marine Fisheries. In Ocean Yearbook 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marine Fisheries. In Ocean Yearbook 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Forthcoming. Joseph, J., and J. Greenough 1979 International Management of Tuna, Porpoises, and Billjishes: Bio• logical, Legal and Political Aspects. Seattle: University of Wash• ington Press.

Leng, Lee Yong 1978 Southeast Asia and the Law of the Sea. Singapore: Singapore Uni• versity Press.

Marr, J. 1976 Fishery and Resource Management in Southeast Asia. Washington, D.C: Resources for the Future, Inc.

Miles, E. 1974 Organizational Arrangements to Facilitate Global Management of Fisheries. Washington, D.C: Resources for the Future, Inc.

Saila, S., and V. Norton 1974 Tuna: Status, Trends and Alternative, Management Arrangements. Washington, D.C: Resources for the Future, Inc. 70 Environment and Policy Institute

Siddayao, C. 1978 The Offshore Petroleum Resources of Southeast Asia. London: Ox• ford University Press.

Solidum, E. 1974 Towards a Southeast Asian Community. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Tangsubkul, P. 1979 Law of the Sea and the Asean States with Special Reference to Fisheries Jurisdiction. Yearbook. Singapore: Southeast Asian Affairs, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Tussing, A., R. Hiebert, and J. Sutinen 1974 Fisheries of the Indian Ocean: Issues of International Management and Law of the Sea. Washington, D.C: Resources for the Future, Inc.

Periodicals

Anonymous 1979 Far East Economic Review, 29 June. p. 51.

1979 Fishery Industry Development Council, Philippines. Fisheries Today, 11(2): 30-31.

1979 Bulletin Today (Manila) 7 September, p 1.

Christy, F. 1974 Disparate Fisheries: Problems for the Law of the Sea Confer• ence and Beyond. Ocean Development and International Law 1 (4): 337-353.

Gulland, J. 1979 Developing Countries and the Law of the Sea. Oceanus 22(1): 36-42. 1978 Fishery Management: New Strategies for New Conditions. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 107( 1): I - 11. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 71

Joseph.J. 1973 Scientific Management of the World Stocks of Tunas, Billfishes and Related Species./, of the Fish. Res. BoardofCan. 30: 2471 - 2482.

Kaczynski, W.

1979 Problems of Long Range Fisheries. Oceanus 22(1): 54-59.

Kearney, R. 1978 The Law of the Sea and Regional Fisheries. Ocean Development and International Law Journal 5(2): 249-286. Kent, G. 1978 Fisheries and the Law of the Sea: A Common Heritage Ap• proach. Ocean Management 4: 1 -20.

Larkin, P. 1977 An Epitaph for the Concept of Maximum Sustained Yield. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106: 1 - 11.

Marr,J. 1970 Management and Development of the Fisheries of the Indian Ocean. J. of the Fish. Res. Board of Can. 30:2312- 2320. 1979 National Federation of Fishing Associations. Bulletin, Novem• ber 1978-October 1979.

Park, Choon Ho 1978 The South China Sea Disputes: Who Owns the Islands and the Natural Resources? Ocean Development and International Law Journal 5(1): 27-59.

1978 Republic of the Philippines. Incentives for the Fishing Indus• try. Philippine Industry and Investment 3: 4-7.

Suzuki, A., P. Tomlinson, and M. Honma 1978 Population Structure of Yellowfin Tuna. Inter-American Tropi• cal Tuna Commission Bulletin 1 (5): 277 - 441.

Valencia, M, 1978 The South China Sea: Prospects of Marine Regionalism. Ma• rine Policy (April 1978): 87- 104. 72 Environment and Policy Institute

Wade, C. 1950 Observations on the Spawning of Philippine Tuna. Fishery Bul• letin 55(51): 409-423.

Proceedings and Symposium Papers

Alexander, L., ed. 1972 The Law of the Sea, Needs and Interests of Developing Coun• tries. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Law of the Sea Institute. University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, 26-29June 1972.

Aprieto„y. ., ,u 1977 Fish Biology Research: An Imperative in Fisheries Development and Management. Souvenir issue of the National Convention of the Fishing Industry, Manila, 28-30 September 1977.

1977 Stock Assessment as a Joint Effort of the Government and the Private Sector. I n Proceedings of the Symposium on Municipal Fish• eries Development. Fishing Industry Development Council, Cavite City, Philippines.

Djalal, H. 1978 Implementation of Agreements with Foreigners. Discussion paper, Law of the Sea Workshop. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, 26-29 No• vember 1979.

Encina, V. and R. Ganaden 1979 On the Tuna Fisheries Development in the Philippines. Discus• sion paper, Workshop on the Assessment of Tuna and Tuna• like Fish Resources, Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Ja- ' karta, Indonesia, 20-24 March 1979.

Fujino, K. 1972 Range of the Skipjack Population in the Western Pacific Ocean. In Proceedings of the Second Symposium on the Results of Cooperative Study of the Kuroshio and Adjacent Region. Tokyo, Japan. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 73

Gulland, J. 1972 Some Thoughts on a Global Approach to Tuna Management. In Economic Aspects of Fish Production. International Sympo• sium on Fisheries Economics. Organization for Economic Co• operation and Development, Paris.

Johnston, D., ed. 1978 Regionalization of the Law of the Sea. Proceedings of the Law of the Sea Institute Eleventh Annual Conference, 14 — 17 November 1977. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Joseph, J. 1972 An Overview of the Tuna Fisheries of the World. In Economic Aspects of Fish Production. International Symposium on Fish• eries Economics. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris. '

Kask,J. 1969 Tuna: A World Resource. Law of the Sea Institute Occasional Paper no. 2., University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.

Koers, A. 1970 The Enforcement of Fisheries Agreements in the High Seas: A Comparative Analysis of International State Practice. Law of the Sea Institute Occasional Paper no. 6, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.

Krueger, R. and M. Nordquist 1979 The Evolution of the 200-Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the PaciFic Basin. Discussion paper in the Training Workshop on Joint Venture Agreements in Fisheries, Southeast Asia and Pa• ciFic. United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations/ Food and Agriculture Organization, Manila, 15-27 January 1979.

Lawson, R. 1979 Problems of Exploitation of Fisheries in the Indo-PaciFic. CRES Working Paper (R/WP 36). 74 Environment and Policy Institute

Public Documents and Reports

Alexander, L. 1978 Regional Cooperation in Marine Science. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Paris.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). 1967 Declaration.

Carroz, J. and M. Javini. 1978 Bilateral Fishery Agreements. FAO (FID/C 709), Rome.

Crutchfield, J., R. Hamlish, G. Moore, and C. Walker. 1975, Joint Ventures in Fisheries. FAO, Indian Ocean Fishery Commis• sion, Rome.

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. 1971 - 1978 Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines.

East-West Environment and Policy Institute. 1979 Marine Environment and Extended Marine Jurisdictions. General project research plan, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Food and Agricultural Organization. 1979 The Establishment of an Article 64 Type Body Dealing with the Con• servation and Management of H ighly M igratory Species in the Pacific Ocean (TC/INF/79/1). Tuna Consultation Meeting, 26-30 June, Manila.

1978 Fisheries Sector Survey and Project Identification Report. Invest• ment Centre Mission. 1978 National Legislation Relating to the Management of Fisheries Under Extended Zones of National Jurisdiction (COFI/78/Inf 9). 1979 Rapporteur's Report (TC/INF/79/11). Tuna Consultation Meeting, 26-30June, Manila. 1979 Report on the BFAR/SCSP Workshop on the Fisheries Resources of the Sulu Sea, Bohol Sea, and Moro Gulf Areas (SCS/GEN /77/11). South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Program, Manila. 1978 Report of the Fifth Joint Meeting of the Indo-Pacific Fishery Commis• sion and the Indian Ocean Fishery Commission, 3—4 March 1978, Manila (FID/R217). Rome. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 75

1976 Report of the Workshop on the Legal and Institutional Aspects of Fishery Resources Management and Development 5 -8 April. South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Program, Manila. 1979 Report of the Workshop on the Tuna Resources of the Indonesian and Philippine Waters (SCS/GEN/79/29). South China Sea Fish• eries Development and Coordinating Program.

1976 The South China Sea Fisheries: International Tuna Market (SCS/ DEV/13). South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coor• dinating Program. 1976 The South China Sea Fisheries. Report on Asian Fishery Products: Development Potentials (SCS/DEV/76/11). South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Program.

1979 Test Fishingfor Tuna and Small Pelagic Fishes (SCS/DEV/78/18). South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Program.

1972- 1978 Yearbook of Fishery Statistics. Gulland, J. 1979 Extractsfrom the Draft Report of the Shimizu Tuna Assessment Work- shop Concerning Statistics and Related Data. Tuna Consultation Meeting, 26-30June, Manila. FAO(TC/INF/79/7). 1973 Some Notes on the Assessment and Management of Indonesian Fish• eries. FAO(IOFC/DEV/73/31). Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council. 1979 The State of the Tuna Fisheries and Tuna Stocks in Indonesian and Philippine Waters. South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Program. Gulland,J., and M. Robinson. 1973 The Economics of Fishery Management. Technical Conference on Fishery Management and Development. FAO(FI:FMD/73/4). Herre, A. 1953 Checklist of Philippine Fishes. US Fish and Wildlife Service Re• port no. 20. Washington, D.C. Japan. Fishery Agency of Japan. 1979 Annual Report of Effort and Catch Statistics by Area on Japanese Skipjack Baitboat Fishery, 1974-1979. Tokyo (In Japanese). 1979 Annual Report of Effort and Catch Statistics.by Area on Japanese Tuna Longline Fishery, 1974-1979. Tokyo (In Japanese). 76 Environment and Policy Institute

Japan International Cooperation Agency. 1977 Report of Fish Finding (Skipjack) Survey in the Philippines.

Kearney, R. 1978 Some Hypotheses on Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) in the Pacific Ocean. South Pacific Commission Occasional Paper no. 7. Noumea, New Caledonia.

Kikawa, S. (undated) Tuna and Tuna-like Fish Resources in the South China Sea audits Adjacent Waters. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Cen• ter (SEAFDEC/SCS. 73:S-28).

Klawe, W. 1978 Estimates of Catches of Tunas and Billfishes by the Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese LongUners from within the 200-Mile Economic Zone of the Members Countries of the South Pacific Commission. Noumea, New Caledonia (South Pacific Commission).

Kume, S. 1973 Tuna Resources in the South China Sea. FAO(SCS/DEV/73/4). Rome.

Menasveta, D., S. Shindo, and S. Chullasorn. 1973 Pelagic Fishery Resources of the South China Sea and Prospects for Their Development. FAO(SCS/DEV/73/6). Rome.

Mendoza, E. (undated) Current Developments on the Law of the Sea Relevant to the Philippines. In The Archipelagic Principle (Manila: Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

Republic of the Philippines. 1977 Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines, 1961-1977. Manila. 1977 Maritime Industry Authority. Adoption of Policy Guidelines for Authority to Acquire Vesseb. Memorandum Circular no. 10. 1977 Ministry of Natural Resources. The Assessment of Fisfiery Re• sources in the Philippines. Fishery Industry Development Coun• cil. 1977 Ministry of Natural Resources. Integrated Fisheries Development Plan. Executive Summary. Fishery Industry Development Council. Philippine Tuna Fishery Situation 77

1978 Ministry of Natural Resources./om/ Ventures in Fisheries: Policies and Implementation Plan. Fishery Industry Development Coun• cil.

1979 Ministry of Natural Resources. Philippine Fisheries: Major Devel• opments in the 1970s and Directions for the 1980s. Fishery Indus• try Development Council.

(undated) National Economic Development Authority. Excerpts from Five-Year Development Plan 1978-1982. 1975 Presidential Decree No. 1599. Declaration of a 200-Mile Exclu• sive Economic Zone. 1975 Presidential Decree No. 704. Revising and Consolidating All Laws and Decrees Affecting Fishing and Fisheries.

1961 Republic Act No. 3046. An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the Philippines. • South Pacific Commission. 1978 Skipjack Survey and Assessment Programme Preliminary Country Report, nos. 1 -8. South Pacific Forum. 1979 South Pacific Forum Fisheries Convention. Adopted by the South Pacific Forum, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Thailand. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 1977 Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand and the Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh on Coopera• tion in Fisheries. United Nations. 1979 Office of the Law of the Sea Negotiation. Law of the Sea Informal Composite Negotiating Text, Revision 1. 1971 Industrial Organization. Manual on the Establishment of Indus• trial Joint Venture Agreements in Developing Countries. New York. United States Department of State. 1971 Straight Baselines: The Philippines International Boundary Study. Series A. Limits in the Sea, no. 33. Issued by the Geogra• pher, Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

Warfel, H. 1950 Outlook for Development of a Tuna Industry in the Philippines. Fish and Wildlife Service Research Report No. 28. Washington, D.C. 78 Environment and Policy Institute

Yonemori, T. 1979 Collection and Processing System of Japanese Tuna Fisheries Statis• tics. Tuna Consultation Meeting, 26-30 June, Manila. FAO (TC/INF/79/2). East-West Environment and Policy Research Reports contain Institute or cooperative research results that reflect the EAPI concept and approach to natural systems assessment for development, human interactions with tropi• cal ecosystems, environmental dimensions of energy policies, and marine environment and extended maritime jurisdictions. Manuscripts for this series are reviewed for substance and content by referees outside the Institute before the EAPI Academic Publications Commit• tee makes a recommendation to publish.

Richard A. Carpenter, Chairman EAPI Academic Publications Committee Sheryl R. Bryson, EAPI Publications Officer