THE SEARCH FOR SOLUTIONS TO OVERFISHING IN THE BAY OF SAN MIGUEL,

William D. Sunderlin ICLARM, Manila, Philippines

ABSTRACT

San Miguel Bay, traditionally one of the most productive fisheries in the Philippines, has for many years been showing serious signs of overfishing. Three main approaches have been taken to try to deal with this problem but have not yet been successful. Government regulations designed to prevent overfishing and the misuse of the marine resources, in particular controls over trawling in shallow water, have failed because of a variety of obstacles to efficient enforcement. Community-based fishermens' organizations have been formed in an attempt to promote self-regulation but lack of funds and equipment, low morale and commitment by members and political problems have combined to retard their progress. Programmes administered by the Government to offer alternative employment options to fishermen wishing to seek a new livelihood have had little impact because of the weakness of the fishermens' orgarrizations through which the programmes should optimally be channelled. The paper offers two proposals for the more effective and equitable management of the Bay's resources. The first calls for the reinforcement and, above all, integration of the three approaches already tried. The second and more crucial proposition underlines the need for the permanent legal institutionalization of the interests of the artisanal fishermen, in particular steps to ensure their proper representation on a proposed Fisheries management Courlcil for the Bay.

1. Introduction

Competition for coastal resources and consequent overfishing have been the subject of much scientific research and policy attention in recent decades. This paper examines the problem of overfishing in San Miguel Bay, one of the most productive fisheries in the Philippines.

The Bay is a shallow, estuarine gulf in the Bicol region of Southern Luzon (see Figure 1). There are approximately 92,000 people residing in the 74 coastal baranguy (villages) on the Bay. Of these, approximately 5 ,OOO-6,OO people fish for a living. Shrimp are among the prized species in the Bay's multi-species fishery. The vast majority of the Bay's fishers use gill nets and a miscellany of small-scale gears, while a minority make their living with the 200-300 trawl gears current y estimated to be in use.

Research conducted in 1980 showed that the Bay was being overfished, in the sense that increased effort by either small (artisanal) fishers or by trawlers would not result in an increased catch from the Bay as a whole. Further research disclosed that the trawlable biomass had declined precipitously since 1947. Catch assessments carried out in 1993 tentatively indicate that the Bay is stilI overfished. Pacific Ocean Apuao

a San

San Miguel Bay

New Caaluan

Barcelonita

Symbol :

4 Survey Villages

Figure 1 : San Miguel Bay, Philippines There are three basic causes of the overfishing and decline of the fishery resource in the Bay. First, the population of the coastal municipalities has grown enormously from 121,324 in 1960 to 213,040 by 1990. Second, the introduction of trawls in the 1970s greatly increased the fishing effort and the competition for scarce resources. In 1980-81, the 95 "baby" trawlers in use in the Bay, representing three percent of the Bay's fishing units and seven percent of the fishery's labour force, earned 50 percent of that part of the profits going to fishers. Third, various activities in and around the Bay have depleted or degraded its resources, for example, the use of fine-mesh nets (which indiscriminately harvests immature fish), and blast-fishing, cyanide fishing, and the removal of coastal mangroves (which destroy ?sh habitats).

This paper examines the three principal forms of interventioh implemented to-date to alleviate pressure on the Bay fishery, i.e. (1) government regulation of fishing gears and of Bay resources; (2) efforts by community-based fishers' organizations to protect the interests of small fishers; and (3) attempts by both the govemment and fishers' organizations to reduce fishing effort through nonfishing livelihood programs.

These forms of intervention have not yet succeeded in reversing the trend toward overfishing and resource-depletion. The paper examines these forms of intervention and attempts to explain why the approaches have not yet accomplished their intended results. The paper concludes by making some recommendations for future management of the Bay based on analysis of efforts to-date in confronting overfishing.

2. Methodology

Data on the three forms of intervention were obtained through surveys conducted in the course of a multi-disciplinary research project on San Miguel Bay. The 17-month project was carried out by the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARhi), in cooperation with the Fisheries Sector Project (FSP) of the Philippines' Department of Agriculture, with funding from the Asian Development Bank.

Data on the status of fishers, on fishers' views of the three forms of intervention, and on fisher participation in organizations were obtained through a random survey of 536 fishing households in 12 of the 74 coastal baranguy. A "fishing householdwwas defined as one where the primary income-earner got all or most of hisfher income from fishing in the year prior to the interview.

Data on govemment regulation were obtained from other sources, notably a suyey of key decision-makers in govemment management of the bay. Respondents included the seven municipal mayors, provincial and municipal-level officers of relevant government institutions (Department of Agriculture, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Maritime Police, Philippines National Police, and Coast Guard), the Vice-Governors of Camarines Sur and , and the Governor of Camarines Sur.

Information on fishers' organizations was obtained through a survey of 23 of the 44 existing organizations.

3. Government Regulation

Various laws in force in the Philippines are designed to control overfishing and the misuse of coastal resources. It is widely acknowledged that the Philippine government has been unable to enforce these laws effectively. While there has been some degree of recent success in enforcement in San Miguel Bay, the success is limited.

Trawling is viewed by local government officials and by fishers as the most pressing resource management issue in the San Miguel Bay fishery, the rapid growth in the use of trawl gears since the 1970s has increased the fishing effort, thus threatening the Iivelihoods of small nontrawl fishers.

National law prohibits all trawling in waters shallower than four fathoms, and prohibits commercial trawling in waters shallower than seven fathoms. At the level of national law, trawling in general should therefore be restricted to the approximately 50 percent of the Bay's surface that is deeper than four fathoms, and commercial trawling is restricted to appioximately 11 percent of the Bay's surface that is deeper than seven fathoms.

Local regulations may add to the restrictions imposed by national law. Under the Fisheries Law of 1975 (PD 704), trawling is permitted in "municipal waters" deeper than four fathoms only if authorized by a municipal ordinance. Only two of the Bay's seven municipalities authorize trawling through such ordinances.

Notwithstanding these considerable legal restrictions, the operation of trawls inside the Bay has been virtually uncontrolled during most of the two decades since they were introduced to the Bay. The number of "baby" trawlers (between two and six gross tons) grew from 94 in 1980 to approximateIy 150 in 1986. Occasionally, violent eruptions of tensions between small fishers and trawlers have been reported.

Since 1992, however, there has been considerable improvement in the enforcement of laws against trawling. For example, the mayor of the Municipality of Mercedes (Camarines Norte) and the Vice-Governor of Camarines Sur have led a crusade (named Bantay Dagat or "Defense of the Sea") to enforce laws against illegal fishing and have arrested and confiscated the equipment of several dozen trawlers operating illegally in the Bay. Most small fishers now view favourably the efforts of the government to manage the Bay. Though the Bantay Dagat has made a dedicated effort to control illegal trawling, there are limitations on its ability to control the problem. Illegal trawling is still rampant. Some trawlers escape arrest by operating under the cover of dark; others operate in the daylight but escape capture by receiving advance radio warning of efforts to arrest them. Other obstacles to effective enforcement are a lack of funds, equipment, and personnel for routine patrolling, lack of cooperation from some law enforcement officials, slowness and occasional corruption in the processing of legal cases against violators, and even death threats issued by people in commercial fishing interests.

Apart from efforts to control trawling, the government has also attempted to alleviate pressure on the Bay through regulations on mesh size, and through laws against the use of dynamite and cyanide in fishing. Again the laws tend to be inadequately enforced due to lack of political will, insufficient funds and personnel, and shortcomings in the judicial system.

Although efforts to regulate trawling have been more productive than regulation of other forms of illegal fishing, they fall far short of alleviating the threat posed to the Bay's fishers by overfishing. In nearly all twelve of the target villages, standards of living and levels of catch are now reported to be lower when compared to two years ago. 4. Community-Based Management

There are 44 community-based fishers' organizations in San Miguel Bay representing approximately 1,000 fishers. Most of these organizations have been formed since 1985, partly in response to increasing pressure on the fishery by trawlers.

Almost all these organizations are composed of, and function on behalf of, small fishers. Among their objectives are the provision of credit and loans, fishing assets, marketing outlets and nonfishing livelihood options. Many of the organizations seek to participate in the management of the Bay. Fishers' organizations in the Bay represent the most visible community-level efforts to address the problem of overfishing.

There are two general approaches in the attempts of these organizations to limit fishing effort in the Bay. The first is to enable small fishers to reduce their own effort through providing nonfishing livelihood options. The second approach is resistance to trawling and other forms of illegal fishing. This work tends to be carried out by the 13 organizations that are members of the Federation of Small Fishermen of San Miguel Bay (PEMMA - SMB).

There are five distinct ways in which these organizations have attempted to combat trawling and illegal fishing. The first is to exercise the power of citizens' arrest against illegal fishers and to otherwise assist efforts to capture illegal fishers. The second is to encourage and in some cases enable trawler crew members to convert from trawling to independent fishing or to other occupations. The third is to educate fishers (members and non-members alike) on the dangers of illegal fishing and natural resource destruction. The fourth is to engage in dialogue with trawlers on the problems facing people who derive their livelihood from the Bay. The fifth is to participate in lobbying efforts to reform national fisheries legislation in the interests of small fishers.

Despite these efforts, achievements still fall far short of the needs and hopes of the Bay's small fishers. The ability of PEMMA to participate in controlling illegal fishing is limited by a number of inter-related factors. One is lack of funds and equipment. Members are not able, for example, to implement regular patrols of the Bay, because they lack funds to buy and maintain a boat and to compensate fishers who take a day off from fishing to patrol.

There are also presently relatively few fishers who are willing and able to take the risks involved in promoting the interests of small fishers as a whole. Among the obstacles to greater participation by some fishers is scepticism, based in a general sense that (in spite of Bantay Dagat) the government is biased in favour of monied interests, and fear, based in a history of violence and intimidation against small fishers. In the Bay-area, conflicts between the government and the New Peoples' Army (NPA), the and para- military units have tended to side with commercial fishers while the NPA has sided with the small fishers,

Another factor is the generally low morale of members of Bay fishers' organizations, owing to chronic lack of funds and instability in these organizations.

5. Alternative Livelihood Options for Fishers

Over a third of the respondents in the survey stated that they did not believe they could make an adequate livelihood from fishing in the foreseeable future, and nearly a half of these were thinking about changing from fishing to another occupation. If these fishers were indeed able to take up other forms of employment the pressure on the industry could be significantly reduced.

The problem is, however, that there are very few existing livelihood options that the fishers can avail of without assistance. Agriculture offers virtually no opportunities because fishers own no land and tend not to have farming skills; moreover, the demand for agricultural labour is seasonal and generally low. In short, alternative livelihood options for fishers in the Bay continue to be limited.

The Philippine Government has long understood that most fishers cannot diminish their dependence on fishing unless they have access to loans and/or government extension services. With such assistance, fishers might be able to engage in such occupations as animal husbandry, value-added processing of fish and other coastal resources, and mariculture or aquaculture. The key is to supply such loans and extension on a group basis through fishers' cooperatives, thus securing economies of scale and joint accountability.

The Department of Agriculture attempted to provide livelihood options for Bay fishers in the 1970s and 1980s through a number of national programs but most of the Bay cooperatives organized through these programmes have now dissolved. The failure of these cooperatives can be linked to a general pattern of failure of these programmes, at the national level, perhaps because they were organized by decree, leading to a lack of understanding among members of their rights, privileges, and duties.

In recent years, the Philippine Government has adopted what it calls a "bottom-up" approach in the establishment of rural cooperatives. This approach has involved recruiting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to assist in efforts to initiate organizations, to train their leaders, and to educate their members. In San Miguel Bay, the Fisheries Sector Programme of the Department of Agriculture has given a one-year contract to the Caceres Social Action Foundation (CASAFI) for the purpose of researching fishing communities in the Bay, to help establish fishers' organizations, and to train the managers and members of fishers' organizations.

It is too early to assess how effectively these more recent initiatives will assist the overall effort of supplying livelihood options to Bay fishers. There are grounds for pessimism as well as for optimism.

There are three interrelated factors which give grounds for pessimism. First, some of the organizations face problems severe enough to pose a threat to the survival of the organization. Second, half of the managers interviewed said that they or others in the organizations did not have the ability or experience to manage their organizations properly. Finally, some organizations find it difficult to move the beyond the basic functions of providing credit and loans for daily needs, to more ambitious objectives such as livelihood programs. In many cases, low repayment rates of credit and loans have undermined the potential for securing outside loans and have damaged group morale.

Among the grounds for optimism are the following. First, 70 percent of the 100 respondents in the survey who were currently members of fishers' organizations said that their organization helps to serve their needs as a fisher. If most members find value in the survival of the organizations, then perhaps this interest will help see the organizations through the current challenges. Moreover, although sources of funding for loans are currently scarce, there are some indications that funds may become more abundant. 6. Towards an Enduring and Equitable Management System

Overfishing is the central problem in the decline of the San Miguel Bay fishery and of the deteriorating livelihoods of the fishers who rely upon it. Two propositions are now advanced for effective and equitable management of the Bay.

Proposition 1: that all the three approaches already taken to reduce fishing effort - government regulation, community-based management, and projects for livelihood options - are jointly necessary for effective management in the short term.

Each element of this triad of approaches is necessary to the overall effort of alleviating fishing effort, and no single element can successfully be relied upon to bring fishing effort within manageable bounds and to set the stage for longlasting custodianship of the Bay.

Government enforcement of fisheries laws can only have limited impact in alleviating overfishing because of the inadequacy of staffing and equipment and the unstable institutional foundation upon which current enforcement efforts stand. It is likely that small fishers will continue to have an adjunct role in the enforcement of fisheries laws, whether through government patrols or through implementing the law on their own. Fishers' organizations can also play a significant role in alleviating overfishing through the education of its members and other approaches.

It is clear that fishers' organizations, on their own, are presently incapable of controlling all forms of illegal fishing. They lack the resources, sufficiently committed members, and adequate institutional support and protection to carry out these tasks on their own.

Programmes to offer alternative livelihood options are presently far from capble of servicing the needs of fishers wanting to decrease their reliance on fishing. These programs will however be crucial in the mix of approaches for alleviating fishing effort. Government planners now recognize that nonfishing livelihood options will have to focus on part-time rather than full-time employment as "many fishers resist sudden abandonment of fishing either because of their love of work at sea, because of the risks involved in taking on unfamiliar employment, or both. If livelihood options programs focus upon part-time rather than full-time nonfishing employment, they will have to reach more fishers in order to significantly reduce overfishing . Alternative employment programs are particularly important because more effective enforcement of laws against trawling will reinforce the need for livelihood programs in the short term. As trawlers abandon fishing, employment alternatives must be found for displaced trawlers.

The Wad of approaches may jointly help to improve the short-term management of the Bay, but they are unlikely to be fully effective. Proposition 2, outlined below, describes another pre-condition for effective reduction of fishing effort and management of the Bay.

Proposition 2: that the effective and equitable management of the Bay will require permanent, legal institutionalization of the interests of small fishers within the regional political structure.

At present, small fishers' interests in the Bay are represented within the formal political system in a localized and possibly temporary way. For example, the mayor of Mercedes and the Vice-Governor of Carnarines Sur champion the interests of small fishers not because they are required to do so by law, but rather because they have decided to serve a large, disenfranchised constituency within their respective districts. Should they be voted out of office and if their replacements did not devote themselves to the interests of small fishers, then efforts by the government to control illegal fishing might well collapse. Reforms are needed in the political system to assure that fishery laws are enforced not just according to the preferences and orientation of the person in office, but are instead enforced as a matter of course.

A reform is under discussion which could help to eliminate the arbitrariness of fisheries law enforcement in the Bay. Provincial and municipal officials met in 1993 to discuss the possibility of a forming a San Miguel Bay Management Council. Through such a Council the Bay could be managed as an integral management unit, with one set of laws and regulations governing the whole Bay, rather than be divided administratively among the seven coastal municipalities.

Uniform, Bay-wide laws and regulations might help to counter the arbittariness and uneven regulation of the fishery, but do not assure that a Council would act in the best interests of small fishers. In fact, if the Council merely reflected the current political tendencies in the seven municipalities and two provinces in which the Bay is situated, then small fishers could find themselves less well represented than they were before.

In order for small fishers to be adequately and permanently represented in the polity of San Miguel Bay, a first step should be strong and legally-mandated representation in the decision-making structures of the Council. To this end, PEMMA has requested publicly that 60 percent of the decision-makers in the Council should be fishers. This may be a distant hope, given the political realities but it is nonetheless a step in the direction of equity and more effective management of the Bay.

7. Summary and Conclusion

Three approaches have been taken to control overfishing in San Miguel Bay but none has yet made significant headway in altering the trend toward continued overfishing and deterioration of the standard of living of the Bay's small fishers.

At a superficial level of analysis, efforts to control overfishing appear to have been encumbered by a shortage of individuals willing and able to enforce fishery laws, by insufficient funds and equipment, and by a lack of success with efforts to offer nonfishing employment. However, the fundamental obstacles to effective Bay management and to employment policies in support of small fishers are political in nature. Small fishers are inadequately represented in the economic, legislative, and judicial institutions that govern the Bay. Sound custodianship of the Bay's resources will require improvements in co- management, that is to say, strengthening of an interdependent and cooperative relationship between state and society in regulating use of the Bay's resources. To this end, two propositions are advanced. First, the existing government regulation, community-based management, and nonfishing livelihood programs should be viewed as a combined triad of approaches to confront overfishing; all of the approaches are necessary, and no one approach is individually sufficient to solve the basic problem. Secondly, this triad of approaches can best fulfil the objective of effective and equitable Bay management if the interests of small fishers are legally institutionalized in the regional administrative structures of the Bay.