Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91 – 106
                                                www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon




                          SPECIAL ISSUE

    THE VALUES OF WETLANDS: LANDSCAPE AND INSTITUTIONAL
             PERSPECTIVES
  Development and conservation of Philippine mangroves:
           institutional issues
                          J.H. Primavera*
      Aquaculture Department, Southeast Asian Fisheries De6elopment Center, Tigbauan, Iloilo 5021, Philippines




Abstract

  The decline of Philippine mangroves from half a million hectares in 1918 to only 120 000 ha in 1994 may be traced
to local exploitation for fuelwood and conversion to agriculture, salt beds, industry and settlements. But brackishwa-
ter pond culture, whose history is intertwined with that of mangroves, remains the major cause of loss. The paper
discusses the institutional issues — aquaculture as development strategy, low economic rent of mangroves,
overlapping bureaucracy and conflicting policies, corruption, weak law enforcement and lack of political will —
relevant to this decline. Recommended policies are based on these institutional factors and the experiences in
mangrove rehabilitation including community-based efforts and government programs such as the 1984 Central
Visayas Regional Project. These recommendations include conservation of remaining mangroves, rehabilitation of
degraded sites including abandoned ponds, mangrove-friendly aquaculture, community-based and integrated coastal
area management, and provision of tenurial instruments. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aquaculture; Brackishwater ponds; Community-based management; Integrated coastal area/zone management; Tenurial/
property rights




1. Introduction                           sources are important in providing food and other
                                  goods and services because more than half of the
  The Philippines is an archipelago of about 7100         country’s 1500 municipalities and 42 000 villages
islands bordered by 17 460 km of coastline and           are coastal. Fish, for example, provide the great-
26.6 million ha of coastal waters. Marine re-            est (65%) and cheapest form of dietary protein. Of
                                  a total 2.77 million mt fisheries production in
 * Fax: + 63-33-3351008.
                                  1996, 32.8% was contributed by municipal
 E-mail address: jhprima@aqd.seafdec.org.ph (J.H. Primav-     fisheries, 31.7% by commercial fisheries and 35.4%
era).                                by aquaculture (Anon., 1997).

0921-8009/00/$ - see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0921-8009(00)00170-1
92                 J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106


  A positive correlation between nearshore            tainable management       and   conservation   of
yields of fish and/or shrimp and mangrove area           mangroves.
has been documented in the Philippines (Cama-
cho and Bagarinao, 1986), Indonesia (Martosub-
roto and Naamin, 1977), Malaysia (Macnae,             2. Philippine mangroves and brackishwater culture
1974), and Australia (Staples et al., 1985). Such         ponds
correlation is reflected in the parallel decline in
Philippine mangrove areas and production from            Major and minor mangroves (Tomlinson, 1986)
nearshore municipal fisheries that contrasts with         in the Philippines total some 40 species belonging
the increase in brackishwater pond area and            to 16 families (Table 1). Another 20–30 species of
aquaculture contribution to total fish production         shrubs and vines can be classified as mangrove
(Fig. 1(a, b)).                          associates (Arroyo, 1979; Fernando and Pancho,
  This paper will describe the intertwined histo-        1980). Of the remaining 120 500 ha of Philippine
ries of Philippine mangroves and aquaculture           mangroves as of 1994, almost half were found in
ponds, including pertinent legislation; discuss          Western Mindanao and a quarter in the Southern
relevant institutional issues, e.g. low economic         Tagalog region (Table 2). In addition to these same
rent of mangroves, aquaculture as development           regions, substantial mangrove forests could still be
strategy, and ineffective government manage-           found in Central Luzon, Western Visayas, Bicol and
ment; and offer recommendations for the sus-           Eastern Visayas more than 40 years ago (Table 2).




Fig. 1. Changes in (a) mangrove and brackishwater pond area and (b) contribution of municipal fisheries and aquaculture to total
fisheries production in the Philippines, 1976–1990 (Primavera, 1997).
                    J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106              93

Table 1                               2.1. Mangro6e decline
Major and minora mangrove species in the Philippinesb

Family        Species                      Among the major marine ecosystems including
                                   seagrasses and coral reefs, it is mangroves that
I. Acanthaceae    1. Acanthus ebracteatus            have suffered the earliest and greatest degradation
           2. Acanthus ilicifolius            in the Philippines because of their relative accessi-
II. Avicenniaceae   3.  A6icennia  alba             bility and a long history of conversion to aquacul-
           4.  A6icennia  officinalis          ture ponds. Estimates of the country’s mangroves
           5.  A6icennia  marina            were not made until 1918 (Brown and Fischer,
           6.  A6icennia  rumphiana
                                   1918), although ponds were already on record in
III. Bombacaceae   7. Camptostemon philippinensis         1863 (Table 3). The former comprised not only
           8. Camptostemon schultzii
                                   primary and secondary forests, but also vast
IV. Combretaceae   9. Lumnitzera littorea             stands located near Manila of Rhizophora culti-
           10. Lumnitzera racemosa            vated for firewood and nipa palm for roof shin-
           11. Lumnitzera rosea c
                                   gles (Brown and Fischer, 1920).
V. Euphorbiaceae   12. Excoecaria agallocha             Mangrove decline to only 120 000 ha in 1994–
VI. Lythraceae    13. Pemphis acidula              1995 (Tables 2 and 3) may be traced to overex-
VII. Meliaceae    14. Xylocarpus granatum
                                   ploitation by coastal dwellers, and conversion to
           15. Xylocarpus mekongensis           agriculture, salt ponds, industry and settlements.
                                   However, aquaculture remains the major cause
VIII. Myrsinaceae   16. Aegiceras corniculatum
           17. Aegiceras floridum             — around half of the 279 000 ha of mangroves
                                   lost from 1951 to 1988 were developed into cul-
IX. Myrtaceae     18. Osbornia octodonta
                                   ture ponds (Figs. 1 and 2). Ninety-five percent of
X. Palmae       19. Nypa fruticans               Philippine brackishwater ponds in 1952–1987
XI. Plumbaginaceae  20. Aegialitis annulata            were derived from mangroves (PCAFNRRD,
XII. Rhizophoraceae  21.  Bruguiera cylindrica           1991). Mangrove-to-pond conversion and its at-
           22.  Bruguiera exaristata           tendant socioeconomic changes have been docu-
           23.  Bruguiera hainesii            mented in detail for the village of Lincod in
           24.  Bruguiera gymnorrhiza          Maribojoc, Bohol (Ajiki, 1985) and for the munic-
           25.  Bruguiera par6iflora
                                   ipality of Batan in Aklan (Kelly, 1996).
           26.  Bruguiera sexangula
           27.  Ceriops decandra              Pond construction peaked in the 1950s and
           28.  Ceriops tagal              1960s at 4000–5000 ha/year with government in-
           29.  Kandelia candel             centives in the form of loans (Villaluz, 1953). The
           30.  Rhizophora apiculata           Fisheries Decree of 1975 (P.D. 704) mandated a
           31.  Rhizophora lamarckii
           32.  Rhizophora mucronata
                                   policy of accelerated fishpond development and
           33.  Rhizophora stylosa            A.O. 125 extended 10-year fishpond permits and
                                   leases to 25 years (see Table 5). During the
XIII. Rubiaceae    34. Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea
                                   Shrimp Fever of the 1980s, pond development
XIV. Sonneratiaceae  35.  Sonneratia  alba            again increased to 4700 ha/year (Table 3).
           36.  Sonneratia  caseolaris
           37.  Sonneratia  gulngai c
                                    Another widespread mechanism by which man-
           38.  Sonneratia  lanceolata c        groves have been lost from the public domain is
           39.  Sonneratia  o6ata            when local residents or even outsiders stake claim
                                   on mangrove areas by paying to municipal gov-
 a
  Based on Tomlinson (1986).                    ernments a real estate tax on such areas. Because
 b
  Sources: Brown and Fischer, 1920; Arroyo, 1979; Fer-
                                   local governments are hard-pressed for cash, they
nando and Pancho, 1980; Tomlinson, 1986; Anon., 1996;
Spalding et al., 1997; Yao, 1999.                  accept the taxes without checking the status of the
 c
  N.C. Duke, University of Queensland, personal communi-      given area, whether forest reserve, protected man-
cation.                               grove or Alienable and Disposable (A&D). These
94                  J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106


claims are generally handed down to family mem-             ing the area declared A&D by the Department of
bers or ‘sold’ to other parties. A prerequisite to            Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), if
legal ownership through issuance of titles is hav-            the interested party has adequate finances. Thus

Table 2
Mangrove areas in the Philippines by region, 1951–1994

Region                           1951a                  1994b

                              (ha)          (%)        (ha)         (%)

I            Ilocos Region              771         0.2         100        0.1
II           Cagayan Valley            7322          1.7        3800         3.2
III           Central Luzon            56 799         13.3         100        0.1
IV           Southern Tagalog           77 997         18.2       29 400        24.4
V            Bicol Region             42 234         9.9         600        0.5
VI           Western Visayas           49 035         11.4        3000         2.5
VII           Central Visayas           24 213         5.6        2500        2.1
VIII          Eastern Visayas           36 501         8.5         600        0.5
IX           Western Mindanao           91 072         21.3       54 100        44.9
X            Northern Mindanao          18 273         4.3       20 300        16.8
XI           Southern Mindanao          17 518         4.1        5800        4.8
XII           Central Mindanao            6647         1.6         200        0.2
Total                            428 382        100.1       120 500       100.1

 a
   Villaluz, 1953.
 b
   DENR, 1996.

Table 3
Total mangrove and brackishwater culture pond area in the Philippines (after Primavera, 1995)a

Year   Mangrove area   Brackishwater ponds           Remarks
     (ha)

              Total area (ha)  Increase
                       (ha/year)

1860   No data (n.d.)  n.d.        762         First pond recorded in 1863
                       (1860–1940)
1920   450 000      n.d.       n.d.
1940   n.d.        60 998      1176
                       (1941–1950)
1950   418 382 (1951)   72 753      5050         Fishpond boom: Fisheries bureau created; IBRD US$23.6 M
                       (1951–1960)      for pond development
1960   365 324 (1965)  123 252      4487
                       (1961–1970)
1970   288 000      168 118      811         Conservation phase: Natl. Mangrove Committee; 79 000 ha
                       (1971–1980)      mangroves for preservation and conservation
1980   242 000      176 231      4668         Shrimp Fever: Commercial availability of fry and feeds;
                       (1981–1990)      US$21.8 ADB shrimp and milkfish project
1990   132 500      222 907      3052
                       (1991–1994)
1994   120 000      232 065

 a
  Sources: Brown and Fischer, 1918; BFAR, 1970; BFD, 1970; BFAR, 1980; BFD, 1980; Philippine Census, 1921 in Sidall et al.,
1985; NAMRIA, 1988; BFAR, 1990; Auburn University, 1993; BFAR, 1994; DENR, 1996
                  J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106                  95




Fig. 2. Changes in mangrove and brackishwater pond area by Philippine geographical region, 1951 – 1990 (Primavera, 1997).


have many mangrove areas passed from govern-           shrimp and fish culture ponds — Thailand, Viet-
ment jurisdiction to private hands — through de          nam and the Philippines.
facto (real estate tax) and/or legal means.
                                 2.3. Legislation pertaining to mangro6es and
2.2. Anthropogenic pressure                    aquaculture

  The Philippine population grew steadily from           Tables 5 and 6 list the more important promul-
10.3 million in 1918 to 73.3 million in 1995.           gations pertaining to Philippine mangroves and
However, the increase from 23 to 622 persons/ha          culture ponds, mainly from the DENR, Depart-
mangrove over this period, in particular the sharp        ment of Agriculture (DA) and the Bureau of
doubling in the late 1980s (Fig. 3), can be traced        Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR; Cadiz,
to aquaculture pond development (Table 3), in           1987; DENR, 1990; Primavera, 1993).
addition to population increase.                   Early promulgations on mangroves were
  Among Southeast Asian countries (Table 4),           lumped with other forestry activities (DENR,
population pressure on mangrove resources is rel-         1990). Only in the 1980s did mangrove manage-
atively low (B50 persons/ha mangrove) on a            ment and conservation gain impetus with the
countrywide basis in Brunei, Malaysia and In-           revision of guidelines for zoning of forestlands
donesia because of a small population and/or           into fishponds and declaration of 79 000 ha as
abundant mangrove resources. Greater pressure           wilderness and forest reserve areas (Tables 5 and
( \ 200 persons/mangrove ha) can be found in           6). The mangrove greenbelt and buffer zone re-
countries with wide expanses of brackishwater           quirement was extended to typhoon-prone and
96                   J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106

other coastal and estuarine areas (Table 6). Subse-          2.4. Mangro6e rehabilitation
quently, A.O. 15 of 1990 integrated all piecemeal
policies on mangrove utilization, development              Mangrove reforestation projects have been ini-
and management (DENR, 1990).                     tiated mainly in Visayas, central Philippines,
 Notwithstanding P.D. 704, which disallowed             whose numerous islands are more vulnerable to
private ownership and placed mangrove forests             typhoons than the bigger islands of Luzon to the
under the joint administration of BFAR and              north and Mindanao to the south. As early as the
DENR and the mangrove protectionist policies of            1930s–1940s in Bais Bay, Negros Oriental, and
the DENR, the yearly ‘Fisheries Statistics’ contin-          the 1950s–1960s in Banacon, Jetafe, Bohol,
ued to list mangroves as ‘Swamplands available            coastal residents, students and school officials
for development’ up until 1984.                    planted mangroves primarily for wood supply and




Fig. 3. Changes in Philippine population, mangrove area and population pressure on mangroves, 1918 – 1995 (Sources: Montilla and
Dimen, 1953?; Anon., 1971; NEDA, 1984; NSCO, 1985; BAS, 1988; Famighetti, 1995; NSCB, 1995; Ibon, 1998).

Table 4
Mangrove area (1997) and population (1996) in Southeast Asia.

Country            1997 mangrove area (×103 ha)a      Mid-1996 pop. (×106)b    Persons/ha mangroves

Brunei Darussalam        17.1                   0.30            17.5
Malaysia            642.4                  19.96            31.1
Indonesia           4542.1                  206.61            45.5
Myanmar             344.4                  45.98            133.5
Kampuchea            60.1                   0.86            180.7
Thailand            264.1                  58.85            222.8
Vietnam             272.3                  73.98            271.7
Philippines           160.7                  74.48            463.5

 a
   Spalding et al., 1997.
 b
   Famighetti, 1997.
                  J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106             97

Table 5                             Government-supported afforestation project in
Some Philippine laws on fishponds and mangrove conversion
                                 Kalibo, Aklan (Table 7). Both the CVRP-I and
(from Primavera, 1993)a
                                 the 1988 Integrated Social Forestry (ISF) Pro-
P.D. 704 (1975) Fisheries Code: policy of accelerated,      gram of the DENR were landmarks that provided
        integrated fishpond development; set       tenurial instruments in the form of the Certificates
        conditions for mangrove conversion to      of Stewardship Contract (CSC) and Mangrove
        ponds; public lands for fishponds can
                                 Stewardship Agreement (MSA), respectively, to
        only be leased, not owned
P.D. 705 (1975) Revised Forestry Code: retention (and      mangrove planters. The DENR also established
        exclusion from pond development) of 20      policies for community level stewardship of man-
        m-wide mangrove strip along shorelines      grove forests in the early 1990s (Table 6).
        facing oceans, lakes, etc.
P.D. 953 (1976) Fishpond/mangrove lease holders
        required to retain or replant 20-m
        mangrove strip along rivers, creeks       3. Institutional issues
P.D. 1586    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
 (1978)    system (covering resource extractive        Among the institutional factors that have af-
        industries such as fishponds)           fected mangrove development and conservation in
BFAR A.O. 125 Conversion of fishpond permits and
                                 the Philippines are the promotion of aquaculture,
 (1979)    10-year Fishpond Lease Agreement
        (FLA) to 25 years (to accelerate pond      low economic rent for mangroves, conflicting
        development)                   policies, and ineffective government management.
MNR A.O. 3   Revision of guidelines in classification
 (1982)    and zonation of forest lands           3.1. Aquaculture as de6elopment strategy
DENR A.O. 76 Establishment of buffer zone: 50 m
 (1987)    fronting seas, oceans and 20 m along
        riverbanks; lessees of ponds under FLA       The national policy encouraging brackishwater
        required to plant 50 m-mangrove strip      pond culture has been premised on the belief that
R.A. 6657    Exemption of fishpond areas from         mangroves and other wetlands are wastelands.
 (1988)    Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law        Thus Carbine (1948) described the Philippine ban-
        for 10 years
                                 gus (milkfish) industry as important ‘because it
BFAR A.O.    Increase in fishpond lease from US$2 to
 125-1 (1991) US$40/ha per year effective 1992         makes use of otherwise practically valueless (man-
BFAR A.O.    Full implementation of A.O. 125-1        grove) land’. Ohsima (1973) likewise declared that
 125-2 (1991) delayed                     ‘undeveloped’ mangrove forests extending every-
DENR A.O. 34 Guidelines for Environmental Clearance       where along the Philippine coastline were avail-
 (1991)    Certificate (applicable to fishponds)
                                 able for aquaculture.
DENR A.O. 21 Implementing guidelines for EIS
 (1992)                              The fishpond boom of the 1950s was fueled by
R.A. 7881    Fishpond exemption from agrarian         a loan of US$23.6 million for fishpond construc-
 (1995)    reform extended                 tion and operations from the International Bank
                                 for Reconstruction and Development (Siddall et
 a
  Abbreviations: A.O., Administrative Order; BFAR, Bu-     al., 1985) released through such conduits as the
reau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources; DENR, Department
of Environment and Natural Resources; MNR, Ministry of
                                 Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. These loans
Natural Resources; P.D., Presidential Decree; R.A., Republic   were intended ‘to accelerate... the conversion of
Act.                               vast areas of marshy lands (mangroves)… into
                                 productive fishponds’ (Villaluz, 1953, p. 20). The
                                 domestic priority on aquaculture continued in the
protection against monsoon winds and typhoons          1970s and beyond with the Central Bank and the
(Yao, 1986; Walters, 1998). Government-spon-           Development Bank of the Philippines providing
sored mangrove reforestation started only in the         assistance for pond construction, fish raising, pro-
1980s with the World Bank-funded Central             cessing and marketing through the Fishery Loan
Visayas Regional Project-Phase I (CVRP-I) cover-         and Guarantee Fund and similar programs
ing five sites in three provinces, and a Japanese         (Kelly, 1996). Commercial availability of shrimp
98                 J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106


seed and feed, and lucrative export prices led to         trol and waste treatment (dela Cruz, 1979;
the Shrimp Fever that swept the Philippines and          Saenger et al., 1983).
the rest of tropical Asia in the 1980s (Primavera,          However, conventional economic analyses of
1998). The Asian Development Bank made avail-           mangrove goods and services generally cover only
able US$21.8 million in aquaculture loans for           products that are traded, and ignore non-mar-
shrimp hatcheries and ponds (Table 3).              keted services such as coastal protection (Hamil-
  International aid to aquaculture has increased         ton and Snedaker, 1984). Reviews of published
from US$368 million in 1978 – 1984 (representing         valuation data reveal a range of US$10–4000/ha
only 14.1% of total fisheries assistance) to US$910        per year for forestry products (Radstrom, 1998)
million in 1988–1993 (33.7% of total fisheries           and US$775–11 282/ha for fishery products
assistance; Josupeit, 1984; FAO, 1995). Given the         (Ronnback, 1999).
high level of external assistance to aquaculture,          The value of fish and wood harvests from
the loss of mangroves in the Philippines and other        Philippine mangroves has been estimated at
developing countries has been facilitated by multi-        US$538/ha per year and US$42–156/ha per year,
lateral development agencies (Siddall et al., 1985).       respectively (Schatz, 1991). Based on the latter, a
Ironically, present-day mangrove restoration pro-         Fisheries Sector Program study suggested that the
grams are financed by some of these institutions.         Fishpond Lease Agreement (FLA) fee be in-
                                 creased to US$156/ha per year, a conservative
3.2. Low economic rent                      figure that only captures the value of foregone
                                 forestry products (White and de Leon, 1996).
  Aside from fisheries catches, mangroves provide         Similarly, the economic rent of mangroves con-
timber and wood products for fishing, construc-          verted into aquaculture ponds is US$20–130/ha
tion and fuel; minor items such as medicines, dyes        per year depending on culture crop, planning
and fodder for livestock; and services such as          horizon and discount rate (Evangelista, 1992).
storm protection, flood abatement, erosion con-          Obviously, the FLA fee of US$2/ha per year

Table 6
Some Philippine laws on mangrove conservation and rehabilitation (from Primavera, 1993)a

P.D. 705 (1975)   Revised Forestry Code: Mangrove strips in islands, which provide protection from high winds, typhoons
           shall not be alienated
P.P. 2151 & 2152   Declaration of 4326 ha of mangroves as wilderness areas and 74 767 ha as forest reserves
 (1981)
P.P. 2146 (1982)   Prohibition on mangrove cutting
MNR A.O. 42     Expansion of mangrove forest belt in storm surge, typhoon prone areas: 50–100 m along shorelines,
 (1986)       20–50 m along riverbanks
P.D. 1067      3–20 m of riverbanks and seashore for public use: recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage;
           building of structures not allowed
DENR A.O. 77     Implementing guidelines of Integrated Social Forestry Program (provides incentives in co-management
(1988)       of forest resources through provision of legal tenure)
DENR A.O. 15     Policies on communal forests, plantations, tenure through Mangrove Stewardship Contracts; revert
(1990)       abandoned ponds to forest; ban cutting of trees in FLA areas; prohibit further conversion of thickly
           vegetated areas
DENR A.O. 9     Policies and guidelines for Mangrove Stewardship Agreement
 (1991)
R.A. 7160 (1991)   Local Government Code: devolved management/implementation of community forestry projects,
           communal forests less than 500 ha, enforcement of community-based laws
DENR A.O. 30     Community-Based Mangrove Forest Management, NGO assistance
(1994)

 a
  A.O., Administrative Order, DENR, Department of Environment and Natural Resources; MNR, Ministry of Natural
Resources; P.D., Presidential Decree; P.P., Presidential Proclamation; R.A., Republic Act.
                   J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106                  99

Table 7
Mangrove reforestation projects in the Philippinesa

Location                 Area (ha)    Year       Remarks

1. Daco Is., Bais, Negros Oriental     –       1930s–1940s   Backyard planting
2. Bais Bay, Negros Oriental        –       1940s–1950s   ‘Hacienda’ (along edges) planting
3. Banacon Is., Jetafe, Bohol       400       1957–1958,    Community participation
                             1964–1970
4. Pagangan Is., Calape, Bohol       4.8 km    1968       Organized by school officials, students
                     causeway
5. Marungas, Sulu             150       1981       First large-scale government project
6. Basilan, Sulu              50       1985       Bureau of Forestry Development project
7. CVRP: 5 sites in Bohol, Cebu,     650       1984       Central Visayas Regional Project: World Bank
  Negros Oriental                             US$3.5 million (nearshore fisheries); awarded
                                      Stewardship Contracts
8. Community-based
Negros Oriental              14       (as of 1986)   57 planters, 2 towns
Cebu                   365               384 planters, 5 towns
Bohol                   562               870 planters, 10 towns
9. Kalibo, Aklan              50       1989       Phil. Peso 560 000 government project contracted
                                      by NGO
10. Aborlan, Palawan           \70       1990       200 000 seedlings planted, ADB funding through
                                      Japanese NGO, national and local government
                                      support
11. Bais City, Negros Oriental       55       1991       DENR community/family planting
12. CEP FSP               6857       1994 (as of   DENR Coastal Environment Program, Family
                             Dec. 1995)    community contracts under DENR Fisheries
                                      Sector Program; ADB funding
13. CBMFP                 No data    1996       DENR Community-Based Mangrove Forest
                                      Program, awards Mangrove Stewardship
                                      Agreement

a
  Sources: Cabahug et al., 1986; Yao, 1986; Alix, 1989; DENR, 1996; Guerrero, 1996; Primavera and Agbayani, 1997; Yao, 1997;
Walters, 1998.

charged for government-owned ponds is unrealis-          they share the same resource base, the govern-
tic. Yet a successful lobby by the aquaculture           ment agencies that administer mangroves
industry has indefinitely postponed the implemen-          (DENR) and brackishwater ponds (DA-BFAR)
tation of a fee increase to US$40/ha per year           do not coordinate much.
(Primavera, 1993).                          This lack of coordination is evident in the
  Such low government fees underprice the rights         earlier DA issuance of FLAs to mangroves
to harvest public forests and induce mangrove           around Cogtong Bay, Bohol province (Janiola,
conversion to ponds, but do not penalize low            1996). Fortunately, the DENR refused to grant
pond production (World Bank, 1989; White and            cutting permits in 1982 to save the thick man-
de Leon, 1996).                          groves from pond development. Moreover, many
                                  fisheries officials do not enforce the 20–100-m
3.3. Confused bureaucracy and inconsistent             wide mangrove greenbelt along shorelines and
policies                              riverbanks as required by law (Tables 5 and 6),
                                  out of ineptness or sheer ignorance. An aerial
 The less than optimal management of man-             view of the Philippine coastline will show a
grove resources may be traced to overlapping            monotonous succession of ponds with hardly a
bureaucracy and legislative ambiguities. Although         relief of green. Ironically, early Filipino fish cul-
100              J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106


turists planted rows of mangroves and nipa to        mangrove areas, suitable elevation, soil, etc.) and
protect their ponds against wind, waves and soil       FLA cancellation (violation of forestry/fisheries
erosion (Adams et al., 1932).                laws, obstruction of tidal flow, interference with
  Another source of ambiguity is the centralized      passage of people and navigation). However, ef-
nature of the DENR relative to the DA-BFAR.         fective enforcement is hampered by lack of man-
Under a decentralized DA (resulting from local        power and resources, overlapping jurisdiction,
autonomy: see Section 3.5 below), municipal and       and bureaucratic corruption at many levels of
provincial executives are vulnerable to pressure       government.
from local elites to approve pond permits in man-        Three cases — Sagay in Negros Occidental,
grove areas regardless of their classification as       Dasol Bay in Pangasinan, and Davao Gulf in
permanent forest (Walters, 1995). Hence, many        Mindanao — demonstrate how these factors have
large ponds in Negros Oriental and throughout        wasted once verdant mangroves and rich fishing
the country have legal permits from local officials      grounds that have provided livelihood to coastal
and/or FLAs issued by BFAR, but no formal          dwellers since time immemorial. In Sagay, a local
consent from the DENR (Walters, 1995). Perhaps        court declared null and void the title to 627 ha of
as much as 25–30% of Philippine brackishwater        primary mangrove forests held by the relative of
ponds have neither local permit, current FLA nor       an associate of then President Marcos because the
DENR clearance (J.H. Primavera, personal           area was already classified as timberland (Anon.,
observation).                        1993a). Reaffirmed by a higher court and the
  Similarly, municipal and provincial officials of      Supreme Court in 1988, the decision could not be
Batan, Aklan, blocked a national DENR project
                               enforced by the DENR even with military back-
to reforest 37 ha of foreshore land to give priority
                               up because many armed goons guarded the area,
to their own conservation program (Bandiola,
                               by then developed into ponds.
1995).
                                Further north, conversion of portions of a 100-
  Conflicting policies exist even within the same
                               ha mangrove in Dasol, Pangasinan, was initiated
agency. The total DENR ban on cutting in per-
                               by the municipal mayor and secretary in 1988
manent mangrove forests and reservations (P.D.
                               without legal permit or authority (Fuertes,
705, P.P. 2151 and 2152) is not consistent with the
limited use allowed under the CSCs and MSAs         1997a,b). Affected by declining fisheries catches,
granted by the Integrated Social Forestry Pro-        local communities appealed to municipal, provin-
gram and Community-Based Forest Management          cial and regional officials of the DENR, DA and
Program (Table 6). Stewardship agreements which       the Department of Agrarian Reform, and even to
assure planters valid possession of rehabilitated      then President Corazon Aquino to halt the illegal
areas (Cabahug et al., 1986) offer mangroves bet-      activities. More recently, mangroves surrounding
ter protection than official proclamations of re-       Davao Gulf and Sarangani Bay in southern
serve or wilderness status which cannot be          Philippines have been cleared for shrimp culture
enforced.                          projects funded by multinational corporations
                               and business associates of the city mayor (Anon.,
3.4. Corruption, weak law enforcement and lack        1993b), despite the 1982 prohibition on mangrove
of political will                      cutting (Tables 5 and 6).
                                Repeated throughout the archipelago countless
  A whole suite of administrative decrees, orders      times over the years, these case histories graphi-
and proclamations has been promulgated to pro-        cally illustrate the decimation of Philippine man-
tect remaining mangrove areas and mitigate wide-       groves since the turn of the century and their
spread deforestation (Tables 5 and 6). These         ongoing decline. They also explain how illegal
include criteria for permanent forests (areas for      development has transformed many large tracts of
shore/riverbank protection and bordering islands,      mangroves from public timberland and perma-
game and bird sanctuaries), fishponds (denuded        nent forest reserves into privately owned ponds.
                J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106            101


  There is a duality of interests among govern-       ments (Walters, 1995). Local ordinances prohibit-
ment officials tasked to protect mangroves who        ing the sale of mangrove fuelwood to bakeries in
also profit from the conversion of such mangroves       Bais, Negros Occidental (Walters, 1995), and out-
(as pond operators themselves or indirectly         side the municipalities of Candijay and Mabini in
through bribes). The corruption in Philippine        Bohol (Janiola, 1996) proved more effective than
agencies charged with managing forests and other       the mangrove ban itself in halting illegal cutting.
natural resources is due to reliance on rules and
regulations rather than on the proper pricing of
access rights (World Bank, 1989). The right price      4. Recommendations
can bend such rules and not a few fisheries and
forestry officials have enriched themselves by fa-       The following policy recommendations are
cilitating FLA approval and alienation of man-        based on the discussions in this paper and other
grove areas.                         reviews (Cabahug, 1989; White and de Leon,
  The lack of political will is clearly seen in the     1996; Primavera and Agbayani, 1997).
exemption of aquaculture ponds from the land-
mark 1988 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law         4.1. Mangro6es and aquaculture ponds
(R.A. 6657) which aimed to break up huge land-
holdings. The 10-year exemption was made per-         Conservation of the country’s remaining
manent in 1995 by the passage of R.A. 7881, one       100 000 ha of mangroves shall be prioritized. Pri-
of whose authors owns 200 ha of ponds (Anon.,        mary forests with high species diversity such as
1997). In contrast, the successful conservation of      those around Pagbilao Bay, Quezon, and Ulugan
the 200-ha Talabong Mangrove Forest and de-         Bay, Palawan, may be designated as biodiversity
crease in illegal pond expansion in Bais City,        reserves for scientific studies and ecotourism (Ba-
Negros Oriental, were due to the personal com-        conguis et al., 1990). The status of other perma-
mitment of the mayor and local officials, in addi-      nent mangrove forests, especially those near
tion to community empowerment and provision         populated areas, shall be re-evaluated for possible
of tenurial instruments by DENR (Walters, 1995).       application of family- or community-based man-
                               agement schemes to ensure their protection and
3.5. Local go6ernment autonomy                prevent an ‘open-access’ situation.
                                Rehabilitation of degraded sites must also be
  Political power in the Philippines has been con-     undertaken with priority given to islands among
centrated in the Manila-based national govern-        the 7100 in the archipelago vulnerable to the
ment through almost five centuries of Spanish and       20–30 typhoons that yearly wreak havoc on lives
American colonial rule, and even as an indepen-       and property (Primavera, 1993). Aside from
dent nation. The Local Government Code (R.A.         coastal protection, each hectare of protected or
7160) of 1991 corrects this bias by decentralizing      restored mangroves can contribute 600 kg each of
power and basic government services from na-         fish and shrimp (Sasekumar and Chong, 1987;
tional and regional agencies to the provincial,       Singh et al., 1994) to artisanal catches based on
municipal and village levels. Under the Code,        the nearshore mangrove-fisheries linkage earlier
community-based forestry projects and environ-        discussed, thereby providing food and income to
mental laws can be implemented at the municipal       fisherfolk.
and provincial levels, respectively. Local auton-       Mangrove planting projects shall follow bio-
omy was invoked by the Mayor of Batan, Aklan,        physical criteria, e.g. suitable species, sites and
when he assigned mangrove planting to the mu-        seasons, to avoid the high mortality rates of many
nicipal government and rejected a national          DENR programs. Socioeconomic factors such as
DENR project (Bandiola, 1995). Aside from in-        local knowledge and skills, social organization
creasing administrative authority, the Code allows      and institutions, land use and tenure must also be
local executives to test new management arrange-       considered in mangrove restoration programs
102              J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106


(van Mulekom and Tria, 1997; Walters, 1997).        aquaculture, forestry, industry, etc. Management
The costs of planting 1 ha of mangrove (Rhi-        of mangroves and other marine habitats shall be
zophora) at 0.5–1.0 m spacing is US$40 – 80/ha in      community-based, in cognizance of the role of
Central Visayas (Cabahug et al., 1986). In Thai-      local residents as users and day-to-day managers
land, replanting mangroves costs US$946/ha         of coastal resources (Ferrer et al., 1996). Commu-
(3758 baht/rai) compared to only US$189/ha (757       nity involvement in the planning and implementa-
baht/rai) for protecting existing mangroves. Still,     tion of coastal resource management (CRM)
these are less expensive options compared to reha-     projects and sharing in the benefits of such inter-
bilitating abandoned shrimp ponds which requires      ventions will contribute to the success of CRM.
US$13 750/ha (55 000 baht/rai) (Sathirathai,          Aside from community participation, co-man-
1997).                           agement of CRM with local government units
  All government-leased brackishwater ponds        (LGUs) is also important, especially in the con-
shall remain as public lands and not be alienated      text of the Local Government Code (see Section
for private ownership (to counter a strong indus-      3.5). Local government officials are responsible
try lobby). The privatization of these public lands     for the enactment of ordinances pertaining to
(80 000 ha in 1994) will pre-empt future govern-      marine conservation and rehabilitation and their
ment efforts to restore former mangrove areas.       enforcement, i.e. the apprehension and punish-
Abandoned or undeveloped ponds shall be re-         ment of violators. When local officials of Sumilon
turned to DENR management for rehabilitation.        Is., Cebu, and Cogtong Bay, Bohol, were replaced
  Fees for aquaculture ponds shall be increased      during elections by politicians not supportive of
to encourage efficient pond utilization and cap-       CRM projects, illegal fishers made a comeback,
ture economic rent that can provide funds for        sanctuaries were violated and fish catches drasti-
mangrove rehabilitation. The Fisheries Sector        cally declined (White, 1989; Janiola, 1996; Katon
Program study recommended rates of US$360 –         et al., 1998).
800/ha per year (Schatz, 1991) whereas Evange-         Aside from local government support, property
lista (1992) suggested US$130/ha per year based       rights and community involvement, other factors
on economic rent of shrimp/milkfish ponds which       important in CRM initiatives are effective educa-
approximates the US$120 – 600/ha per year mar-       tional programs, supplementary livelihood op-
ket rental fee for privately held ponds (White and     tions, and external technical expertise and funding
de Leon, 1996).                       (Heinen and Laranjo, 1996; Janiola, 1996). Al-
                              though the Nearshore Fisheries component of
4.2. Mangro6e-friendly aquaculture, ICZM and        CVRP-I improved fish catches and household in-
community-based CRM                     comes for the shortterm, the project had short-
                              comings such as weak leadership, lack of LGU
  Mangroves and aquaculture are not necessarily      support, ineffective information dissemination, in-
incompatible. For example, seaweeds, bivalves        adequate technical expertise and follow-up (delos
and fish (in cages) can be grown in mangrove         Angeles and Pelayo, 1995).
waterways; and crabs, shrimp and fish in aquasil-
viculture or integrated mangrove ponds and pens       4.3. The role of go6ernment
(SEAFDEC AQD, 1999). Such mangrove-friendly
aquaculture (MFA) technologies are amenable to         There is a need to rationalize government poli-
small-scale, family-based operations and can be       cies and reconcile conflicting laws on mangrove
adopted in mangrove conservation and restora-        conservation and management. Also important is
tion sites.                         the dissemination of such policies not only to
  MFA and mangrove management projects shall        coastal residents, but also among government ex-
be in the context of a wider integrated coastal       tension workers responsible for enforcing forestry
zone/area management (ICZM or ICAM) that          and fisheries laws. For example, local govern-
coordinates the needs of various sectors: fisheries,     ments should stop the widespread practice of
                J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106                  103


accepting payments of real estate taxes on man-       Acknowledgements
groves (as a means of raising much-needed rev-
enues) and their corresponding declarations,          Thanks are due to the Beijer Institute for the
which clearly violates the protection conferred on      invitation to present this paper during the 4th
mangroves by national laws (Tables 5, 6).          GWEN Workshop held 16–17 November 1997 in
  Moreover, organized communities and commit-        Stockholm, J. Lebata for typing assistance and
ted leadership can only achieve limited success       preparing some tables and figures and L.M.B.
unless tenure or property rights are granted to       Garcia and Y. Primavera for some references.
resource users to improve sustainability of man-
grove restoration and other marine interventions       References
(Katon et al., 1998). Legal tenurial instruments
such as CSCs and MSAs legitimize the de facto        Adams, H., Montalban, H.R., Martin, C., 1932. Cultivation of
claims of local communities over coastal re-          bangos in the Philippines. Phil. J. Sci. 47, 1 – 37.
sources. By ensuring security to land and allowing      Ajiki, K., 1985. The decrease of mangrove forests and its effect
selective harvest of mangrove products for liveli-       on local peoples’ lives in the Philippines. In: Kikuchi, T.
                                (Ed.), Rapid Sea Level Rise and Mangrove Habitat. Insti-
hood, these renewable 25-year contracts encour-         tute for Basin Ecosystem Studies, Gifa University, Gifa,
age   community   participation  and  local       pp. 51 – 54.
responsibility.                       Alix, J.C., 1989. Community-based resources management: the
  The coordination and support of local govern-        experience of the Central Visayas Regional Project-I. In:
ment units (LGUs), national government agencies         Chua, T.E., Pauly, D. (Eds.), Coastal Area Management in
                                Southeast Asia: Policies, Management, Strategies and Case
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is          Studies, ICLARM Conf. Proc. 19, Ministry of Science,
essential. LGUs and NGOs can facilitate commu-         Technology and the Environment, Kuala Lumpur; Johor
nity organizing and strengthening of local associa-       State Economic Planning Unit, Johore Bahru; ICLARM,
tions and cooperatives. The DENR and other           Manila, pp. 185 – 190.
national agencies can provide planting materials,      Anon., 1971. Philippine Statistics 1969 Yearbook. Bureau of
                                Census and Statistics, Department of Commerce and In-
monitoring and technical backstopping.             dustry, Manila.
                               Anon., 1993a. Fishpond owner won’t leave rich mangrove site.
                                Phil. Daily Inquirer, 2 May 1993.
4.4. External de6elopment assistance             Anon., 1993b. Mangroves give way to more prawn farms.
                                Phil. Daily Inquirer, 16 August 1993.
                               Anon., 1996. Aurora Integrated Area Development Project II
  There is a need for international development        Philippines – A Management and Protection Strategy for
banks, bilateral funding sources and other exter-        Aurora Province. AIADP II Project Management Office,
nal assistance agencies to invest in the restoration      Baler, Aurora, Philippines, 98 pp.
of mangrove habitats (and agricultural lands)        Anon., 1997. 1996 Philippine Fisheries Profile. Bureau of
damaged by shrimp and other aquaculture, and to         Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Department of Agricul-
                                ture, Quezon City.
stop supporting the further expansion of unsus-       Arroyo, C.A., 1979. Flora of the Philippines mangrove.
tainable shrimp culture in the Philippines and         Biotrop Spec. Publ. 10, 33 – 44.
tropical Asia (Primavera, 1998).               Auburn University, 1993. Philippine Prawn Industry Policy
  In 1985–1989, only 0.1% of total external assis-       Study. Prepared for the Coordinating Council of the
tance to fisheries went to environmental protec-         Philippines Assistance Program and US Agency for Inter-
                                national Development. International Center for Aquacul-
tion in contrast to 27.9% for aquaculture (Insull        ture Environments, Auburn University.
and Orzescko, 1991). Guidelines for socially and       Baconguis, S.R., Cabahug, D.M. Jr, Alonzo-Pasicolan, S.N.,
environmentally responsible aquaculture are em-         1990. Identification and inventory of Philippine forested-
bodied in the NGO Statement on Sustainable           wetlands resource. Forest Ecol. Manage. 33/34, 21 – 44.
Aquaculture and the Choluteca (Honduras)           Bandiola, O., 1995. Who controls mangrove areas? Panay
                                News, 26 September 1995.
Declaration, both issued in 1996, and the 1997        BAS, 1988. Statistical Compendium on Agriculture, Fishery
FAO Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries (Aqua-         and Forestry. Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, Depart-
culture Development).                      ment of Agriculture, Quezon City.
104                 J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106

BFAR, 1970. Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines. Bureau of     the Pacific (RAS/79/002), Natural Resources Management
  Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Department of Agricul-       Center and National Mangrove Committee, Ministry of
  ture, Quezon City.                         Natural Resources, Manila, pp. 383 – 405.
BFAR, 1980. Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines. Bureau of   Carbine, W.F., 1948. Bangos culture in the Philippines. Prog.
  Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Department of Agricul-       Fish. Cult. 10, 187 – 197.
  ture, Quezon City.                       dela Cruz, A.A., 1979. The functions of mangroves. Biotrop
BFAR, 1990. Philippine Fisheries Profile. Bureau of Fisheries      Spec. Publ. 10, 125 – 138.
  and Aquatic Resources, Department of Agriculture, Que-     delos Angeles, M.S., Pelayo, R., 1995. The nearshore fisheries
  zon City.                              in Central Visayas, Philippines: an impact evaluation re-
BFAR, 1994. Philippine Fisheries Profile. Bureau of Fisheries      port on the Central Visayas Region Project-I (CVRP-I). In:
  and Aquatic Resources, Department of Agriculture, Que-       Juinio-Menez, M.A., Newkirk, G.F. (Eds.), Fourth Annual
                                         ˜
  zon City.                              Common Property Conference, Manila, Philippines, 16 – 19
BFD, 1970. Forestry Statistics of the Philippines. Bureau of      June 1993. Coastal Resources Research Network, Dal-
  Forest Development, Department of Environment and          housie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Marine Science
  Natural Resources, Quezon City.                   Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon
BFD, 1980. Forestry Statistics of the Philippines. Bureau of      City, pp. 131 – 149.
  Forest Development, Department of Environment and        DENR, 1990. Compilation of Mangrove Regulations. Coastal
  Natural Resources, Quezon City.                   Resources Management Committee, Department of Envi-
Brown, W.H., Fischer, A.F., 1918. Philippine Mangrove         ronment and Natural Resources, Quezon City, 47 pp.
  Swamps, Bureau of Forestry Bull. No. 17. Department of     DENR, 1996. The Philippine Environmental Quality Report,
  Agriculture and Natural Resources, Bureau of Printing,       1990 – 1995. Environmental Management Bureau, Depart-
  Manila.                               ment of Environment and Natural Resources, Quezon
Brown, W.H., Fischer, A.F., 1920. Philippine mangrove         City.
                                  Evangelista, D.L., 1992. Management of mangrove areas in
  swamps. In: Brown, W.H. (Ed.), Minor Products of Philip-
                                    Calauag Bay, Quezon Province, Philippines. Naga
  pine Forests I, Bureau of Forestry Bull. No. 22. Bureau of
                                    ICLARM Q. 15, 47 – 49.
  Printing, Manila, pp. 9–125.
                                  Famighetti, R. (Ed.), 1995. The World Almanac and Book of
Cabahug, D.M., Jr., 1989. Community-based small-scale uti-
                                    Facts 1995. World Almanac Books, New Jersey.
  lization and management of mangrove areas in the Philip-
                                  Famighetti, R. (Ed.), 1997. The World Almanac and Book of
  pines. In: Soerianegara, I., Zamora, P.M., Kartawinata,
                                    Facts 1997. World Almanac Books, New Jersey.
  K., Umaly, R.C., Tjitrosomo, S., Sitompul, D.M., Syafii,
                                  FAO, 1995. Review of the state of world fishery resources:
  U.R.D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Man-
                                    aquaculture. FAO Fish. Cir. 886, 1 – 127.
  grove Ecosystem Management: Its Ecological and Eco-
                                  Fernando, E.S., Pancho, J.V., 1980. Mangrove trees of the
  nomic Considerations, BIOTROP Special Publication No.
                                    Philippines. Sylvatrop Philipp. For. Res. J. 5 (1), 35 – 54.
  37, BIOTROP, Bogor, Indonesia, August 1988.
                                  Ferrer, E.M., dela Cruz, L.P., Domingo, M.A., 1996. Seeds of
  BIOTROP, SEAMEO Regional Center for Tropical Biol-         Hope: a Collection of Case Studies on Community-Based
  ogy, pp. 207 – 211.                         Coastal Resources Management in the Philippines. Univer-
Cabahug, D.M., Jr., Ambi, F.M., Nisperos, S.O., Truzan,        sity of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
  N.C., Jr., 1986. Impact of community-based mangrove       Fuertes, Y., 1997a. Eject mangrove intruders, townsfolk urge.
  reforestation to mangrove dependent families and to         Phil. Daily Inquirer, 5 January 1997.
  nearby coastal areas in Central Visayas: a case example.    Fuertes, Y., 1997b. From mangrove reserve to fishponds. Phil.
  In: Mangroves of Asia and the Pacific: Status and Manage-      Daily Inquirer, 4 January 1997.
  ment, Tech. Rep. UNDP/UNESCO Research and Train-        Guerrero, A.M., 1996. Mangrove swamps rising in Palawan.
  ing Pilot Programme on Mangrove Ecosystems in Asia and       Phil. Daily Inquirer, 15 August 1996.
  the Pacific (RAS/79/002), Natural Resources Management      Hamilton, L.S., Snedaker, S.C. (Eds.), 1984. Handbook for
  Center and National Mangrove Committee, Ministry of         Mangrove Area Management. United Nations Environ-
  Natural Resources, Manila, pp. 441–466.               ment Programme, Kenya and Environment and Policy
Cadiz, E., 1987. Policies and regulations on Philippine man-      Institute, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, 123 pp.
  groves. In: Serrano, R.C., Malicsi, L.R., Bejosano, C.P.    Heinen, A., Laranjo, A., 1996. Marine sanctuary establish-
  (Eds.), State of the Art Mangrove Research, Forestry        ment: the case of Baliangao Wetland Park in Danao Bay.
  Research Series No. 4. Philippine Council for Agriculture,     In: Ferrer, E.M., dela Cruz, L.P., Domingo, M.A. (Eds.),
  Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Develop-        Seeds of Hope. University of the Philippines and NGO
  ment (PCARRD), Los Banos, Laguna, pp. 74–80.
               ˜                    Technical Working Group for Fisheries Reform and Advo-
Camacho, A.S., Bagarinao, T., 1986. Impact of fishpond de-       cacy, Quezon City, pp. 3 – 21.
  velopment on the mangrove ecosystem in the Philippines.     Ibon, 1998. Checking up on our resources. Ibon 21 (3 – 4), 2 – 5.
  In: Mangroves of Asia and the Pacific: Status and Manage-    Insull, D., Orzescko, J., 1991. A review of external assistance
  ment, Tech. Rep. UNDP/UNESCO Research and Train-          to the fishery sectors of developing countries. FAO Fish.
  ing Pilot Programme on Mangrove Ecosystems in Asia and       Cir. No. 755 Rev. 3, 1 – 74.
                   J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106                  105

Janiola, E.S. Jr, 1996. Mangrove rehabilitation and coastal    Primavera, J.H., Agbayani, R.F., 1997. Comparative strategies
  resource management in Cogtong Bay: addressing man-        in community-based mangrove rehabilitation programmes
  grove management issues through community participa-        in the Philippines. In: Hong, P.N., Ishwaran, N., San,
  tion. In: Ferrer, E.M., dela Cruz, L.P., Domingo, M.A.       H.T., Tri, N.H., Tuan, M.S. (Eds.), Proceedings of Eco-
  (Eds.), Seeds of Hope. University of the Philippines and      tone V, Community Participation in Conservation, Sus-
  NGO Technical Working Group for Fisheries Reform and        tainable Use and Rehabilitation of Mangroves in
  Advocacy, Quezon City, pp. 49–65.                 Southeast Asia. UNESCO, Japanese Man and the Bio-
Josupeit, H., 1984. A survey of external assistance to the      sphere National Committee and Mangrove Ecosystem Re-
  fisheries sector in developing countries. FAO Fish. Cir.      search Centre, Vietnam, pp. 229 – 243.
  No. 755 Rev. 1, 1 – 54.                     Radstrom, A., 1998. Economic Evaluations of Mangrove
Katon, B.M., Pomeroy, R.S., Ring, M., Garces, L.R., 1998.       Ecosystems — A Review. Department of Systems Ecol-
  Mangrove rehabilitation and coastal resource manage-        ogy, Stockholm University, Stockholm.
  ment: a case study of Cogtong Bay, Philippines. Naga      Ronnback, P., 1999. The ecological basis for economic value
  ICLARM Q. 21 (2), 46–52.                      of seafood production supported by mangrove ecosystems.
Kelly, P.F., 1996. Blue revolution of the red herring? Fish      Ecol. Econ. 29, 235 – 252.
  farming and development discourse in the Philippines. Asia   Saenger, P., Hegerl, E.J., Davie, J.D.S., 1983. Global Status of
  Pacific Viewpoint 37, 39–57.                    Mangrove Ecosystems. IUCN Commission on Ecology
Macnae, W., 1974. Mangrove Forests and Fisheries, IOFC/        Papers No. 3. Gland, 88 pp.
  Dev/74/34. FAO/UNDP Indian Ocean Fishery Programme       Sasekumar, A., Chong, V.C., 1987. Mangroves and prawns:
  and Indian Ocean Fishery Commission, FAO, Rome, 35         further perspectives. In: Phang, S.M., Sasekumar, A.,
  pp.                                Vickineswary, S. (Eds.), Procedings of the 10th Annual
Martosubroto, P., Naamin, M., 1977. Relationship between       Seminar of the Malaysian Society of Marine Sciences.
  tidal forests (mangroves) and commercial shrimp produc-      University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 10 – 22.
  tion in Indonesia. Mar. Res. Indonesia 18, 81–86.        Sathirathai, S., 1997. Economic valuation of mangroves and
Montilla, J.R., Dimen, C.R., 1953?. Fisheries Statistics of the    the roles of local communities in the conservation of the
  Philippines 1952. In: Bunag, D.M. (Ed.) Philippine Fish-      resources: case study of Surat Thani, south of Thailand.
  eries Yearbook. Philippine Fisheries Commission, Manila,      Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia
  pp. 119 – 132.                           (EEPSEA).
NAMRIA, 1988. Land Condition Mapping Project of the        Schatz, R.E., 1991. Economic Rent Study for the Philippine
  Philippines, 1988 (Manual Interpretation of Spot Satellite     Fisheries Sector Program, Asian Development Bank TA
  Data). National Mapping Resources Information Agency,       1208-PH1, Manila, 42 pp.
  Makati, Metro Manila.                      SEAFDEC AQD, 1999. Proceedings of the Workshop on
NEDA, 1984. Philippine Statistics Yearbook 1984. National       Mangrove Friendly Aquaculture, Iloilo City, Philippines,
  Economic Development Authority, Manila.              11 – 15 Jan. 1999. SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department,
NSCB, 1995. 1995 Philippine Statistical Yearbook. National      Tigbauan, Iloilo.
  Statistics Coordinating Board, Makati, Metro Manila.      Siddall, S.E., Atchue, J.A., III, Murray, P.L., Jr., 1985. Mari-
NSCO, 1985. Philippine Yearbook 1985. National Statistics       culture development in mangroves: a case study of the
  Coordinating Office, National Economic Development Au-       Philippines, Panama and Ecuador. In: Clark, J.R. (Ed.),
  thority, Manila.                          Coastal Resources Management: Development Case Stud-
Ohsima, G., 1973. A geographical study on aquaculture in the     ies, Renewable Resources Information Series, Coastal
  Philippines. Kwansei Gakuin University Ann. Stud. 22,       Management Pub. No. 3. Prepared for the National Park
  29– 45.                              Service, US Dept. of the Interior, and the US Agency for
PCAFNRRD, 1991. The Philippines recommends for man-          International Development. Research Planning Institute,
  grove production and harvesting, Forestry research Series     Inc., Columbia, South Carolina.
  No. 74. Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and    Singh, H.R., Chong, V.C., Sasekumar, A., Lim, K.H., 1994.
  Natural Resources Research and Development, Depart-        Value of mangroves as nursery and feeding grounds. In:
  ment of Science and Technology, Los Banos, Laguna, 96
                        ˜           Wilkinson, C., Sudara, S., Ming, C.L. (Eds.), Proceedings
  pp.                                of the Third ASEAN-Australia Symposium on Living
Primavera, J.H., 1993. A critical review of shrimp pond cul-     Coastal Resources: Status Reviews vol. 1, Chulalongkorn
  ture in the Philippines. Rev. Fish. Sci. 1, 151–201.        University, Bangkok, Thailand, 16 – 20 May 1994. Aus-
Primavera, J.H., 1995. Mangroves and brackishwater pond        tralian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, pp. 105 –
  culture in the Philippines. Hydrobiologia 295, 303–309.      122.
Primavera, J.H., 1997. Socioeconomic impacts of shrimp cul-    Spalding, M., Blasco, F., Field, C. (Eds.), 1997. World Man-
  ture. Aquacult. Res. 28, 815–827.                 grove Atlas. International Society for Mangrove Ecosys-
Primavera, J.H., 1998. Tropical shrimp farming and its sus-      tems, Okinawa.
  tainability. In: De Silva, S. (Ed.), Tropical Mariculture.   Staples, D.J., Vance, D.J., Heales, D.S., 1985. Habitat require-
  Academic Press, London, pp. 257–289.                ments of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to
106                  J.H. Prima6era / Ecological Economics 35 (2000) 91–106

  offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, P.C., Hill, B.J., Staples,  Walters, B.B., 1998. Muddy intertidal mangroves and murky
  D.S. (Eds.), Second National Prawn Seminar, NSP2,         common property theories. Paper presented at the 1998
  Cleveland, Queensland, Australia, pp. 47–54.            Conference of the International Association for the Study
Tomlinson, P.B., 1986. The Botany of Mangroves. Cambridge       of Common Property (IASCP), Simon Fraser University,
  University Press, Cambridge.                    Vancouver, BC, 10 – 14 June 1998.
van Mulekom, L., Tria, E.C., 1997. Community-based coastal      White, A.T., 1989. Two community-based marine reserves:
  resource management in Orion (Bataan, Philippines):        lessons for coastal management. In: Chua, T.E., Pauly, D.
  building community property rights in a fishing commu-       (Eds.), Coastal Area Management in Southeast Asia: Poli-
  nity. Naga ICLARM Q. 20 (2), 51–55.                cies, Management Strategies and Case Studies, ICLARM
Villaluz, D.K., 1953. Fish Farming in the Philippines. Book-      Conf. Proc. 19, Ministry of Science, Technology and the
  man, Manila.                            Environment, Kuala Lumpur; Johor State Economic Plan-
Walters, B.B., 1995. People, policies and resources: mangrove     ning Unit, Johore Bahru; ICLARM, Manila, pp. 85 – 96.
  restoration and conservation in the Bais Bay Basin, Negros    White, A.T., de Leon, R.O.D., 1996. Mangrove resource de-
  Oriental and wider Philippine context. In: Juinio-Menez, ˜    cline in the Philippines: government and community look
  M.A., Newkirk, G.F. (Eds.), Fourth Annual Common          for new solutions. Tambuli, Nov, 1996 (1), 7 – 11.
  Property Conference, Manila, Philippines, 16–19 June       World Bank, 1989. Country Report: Philippines. Environmen-
  1993, Coastal Resources Research Network, Dalhousie        tal and Natural Resources Management Study. The World
  University, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Marine Science Institute,    Bank, Washington, DC, 173 pp.
  University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, pp.     Yao, C.E., 1986. Mangrove reforestation in Central Visayas.
  151 – 165.                             Canopy Intl. 12, 6 – 9.
Walters, B.B., 1997. Human ecological questions for tropical     Yao, C.E., 1997. Mangrove’s look-alike species. Canopy Intl.
  restoration: experiences from planting native upland trees     23, 2 – 3.
  and mangroves in the Philippines. Forest Ecol. Manage.      Yao, C.E., 1999. Bakawan hybrid, the fourth Rhizophora
  99, 275 – 290.                           species in the Philippines? Tambuli, May, 1999, pp. 19 – 20.




                                 .