Abstract

Fishing communities in many places around the world are facing significant
challenges due to new policies and environmental developments. While it is
imperative to ensure sustainability of natural resources, many policies may
overlook the contribution of fisheries to the sociocultural well-being of
coastal communities. Authors address the problem of valuing the
sociocultural benefits of fishing by exploring the role of fishing landscapes
and traditional working waterfronts in maintaining sense of place in fishing
communities. The paper explores how sense of place contributes to
understanding the relationship between fishing and cultural-ecosystem
services, drawing on case studies from four U.S. fishing communities in
Brunswick County, North Carolina. Through semi-structured and in-depth
interviews with fishing communities members, resident photography and
sites visits, this paper outlines how fishing contributes to sense of place in
terms of place-attachment and cultural-social memory. By understanding
the relationship between fishers’ sense of place, and the physical
environment in fishing communities in Brunswick County, the authors
identify the complexity and interrelated elements that shape the
relationship between fishermen and their cultural landscape. The paper
suggests that realizing the value of fishing cultural landscape can
encourage policies that promote preservation of fishing cultural heritage for
the sociocultural benefit of communities.

Introduction
With boats, fish houses, ship yards, crafts, traditions and other elements
related to fishing (Barrett, 1992), commercial fishermen have not only
intervened in the natural environment over centuries in the coastal areas,
but also have established identity and place attachment. Place attachments
are connections to certain physical and social settings that provide different
types of social and psychological benefits (Brown et al., 2003). Places are
characterized by the physical setting, as well as the range of human
activities and social processes that are carried out there (Stedman, 2003).
Fishermen and their material culture are a part of a maritime cultural
landscape and traditional working waterfront (Davise, 2001; Inscoe, 2006).
These places assist in understanding the culture of fishermen and the
meaning of this heritage in fishermen’s everyday life (Ford, 2011; Ransley,
2011). However, due to the changes in the use of resources and land/sea-
use regulations and policies (Hoyle et al., 1988), along with development
and climate change, fishing towns are in decline; in many places
development has taken over and gentrification has occurred (Jepson et al.,
2005; Coperthwaite, 2006). The result has been the loss of maritime
cultural heritage such as fishing material culture, traditional waterfronts,
and maritime cultural landscape. Based on my research, I suggest that
maritime cultural heritage is a public good that, if conserved, can slow or
prevent the loss of social value and well-being associated with commercial
fishing (Duran et al., 2015; Brown, 2004). Wellbeing has several
dimensions and attributes such as job stability and satisfaction, identity,
sustainability and attachment to place (Altman, 1993; (Hausmann et al.,
2015; García-Quijano, et al., 2015).
Some studies argue that fisheries policy does not adequately consider
social dimensions of fishing communities (Symes and Phillipson, 2009;
Steelman and Wallace, 2001; Symes, 2005; Bradshaw et al., 2001; Pollnac
et al., 2006; Worm et al., 2009). Others have highlighted the importance of
social and cultural contexts of fishing (Griffith, 1999; Urquhart et al.,
2014), suggesting that fishing is not just an occupation (Brookfield et al.,
2005; Jacob et al., 2005; Nuttall, 2000; García-Quijano, et al., 2015), but
also a highly satisfying way of life that which defines fishers’ identity.
Fishing communities can be the site for the creation of deep-rooted place
attachments, adding social value to the economic value of fishing (Jentoft,
2000; Marsden and Hines, 2008).
It has been noted that to sustain fishing communities new perspectives
and methods are needed that highlight the wide range of cultural and
social values that are generated by marine fishing activities (FAO, 2016;
Chapin et al., 2012; Colburn and Jepson. 2012; Kofinas and Chapin, 2009;
Johnson et al., 2014). This study investigates how place attachment is
strongly linked to material cultural and the cultural landscape. There are
three major components of place: the physical form, activity, and meaning.
Place is a space imbued with meanings (Relph, 1976). This paper reports
on the significance of traditional fishing working waterfronts and their
material culture for the fishermen in preserving sense of community and
place attachment as attribute of social wellbeing in fishing communities for
their sustainability. “Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic,
scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations.
Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use,
associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects. Places
may have a range of values for different individuals or groups.” (Australia
ICOMOS, 2000, Article 1.2; ICOMOS – ISCEAH – ICOMOS Ethical
Statement”, 2016).
Considering that heritage is “that part of the past which we select in the
present for contemporary purposes, be they economic, cultural, political, or
social” (Graham, 2002: 17), this research provides an inventory of valuable
commercial fishing cultural heritage in the targeted communities, and
investigates and explores the value and role of this heritage in the fishing
communities place attachment. This Research explores the proposition that
fishermen’s sense of place and attachment to their community is influenced
by the amount and quality of fishing material culture and built heritage.
This study explores the proposition that there is direct correlation between
community sense of place and their amount and quality of heritage and
traditional working waterfronts preservation.
The justifications for this research are: (1) although it has been
acknowledged that achieving sustainable fisheries is feasible through
integrating management and policies across biological, social and economic
dimensions (FCR, 2000; Forst, 2009), sociocultural values of commercial
fishing have mainly been underappreciated in coastal management
(Urquhart et al., 2014); (2) several fishing communities are in decline or in
danger of becoming extinct due to several natural and anthropogenic
causes, which will result in loss of part of the living history and authentic
heritage; and (3) by extinction of fishing communities, many related
cultural heritage will be abolished and replaced with new urban
development, which results in loss of part of human cultural heritage
(Jacob and Witman, 2006). Highlighting the values of fishing cultural
heritage helps to promote policies to ensure the continued existence of this
tradition as well its associated cultural heritage (Act of 2005; Act of 2009).
To preserve the long legacy of commercial fishing and seafood businesses,
several studies regarding tangible and intangible fishing heritage have
been conducted in the US, along the coast and also in North Carolina (NC
Sea Grant, 2007; http://www.wateraccessus.com/cslist.cfm; Griffith and
Mirabilio, 2012). However, no formal studies have previously been
conducted to assess the sociocultural role of fishing heritage in fishing
communities in southeastern North Carolina. Therefore, in recognition of
the dramatic collapse of fish and commercial fishing in this area, this paper
studies the role of communities’ cultural heritage in place attachment of
four existing and active fishing communities in Brunswick County. The
communities of Southport, Varnamtown, Holden Beach and Shallotte have
been observed and compared with each other in order to evaluate their
quantity and quality of fishing cultural heritage, and the role of heritage in
preserving sense of place attachment in the members of these fishing
communities. Better understanding of fishing cultural heritage in
southeastern NC will help demonstrate how the use-values as well as non-
use-values of cultural heritage can benefit people and incorporate in
communities’ sense of place as an attribute of wellbeing (Potschin and
Haines-Young, 2012; Milcu et al., 2013). This study will shed light on
cultural heritage as non-market goods (MEA, 2005) and their significant
role in people’s life.
The following section reviews the literature on sense of place and explores
its contribution to understanding fishing communities.

Background
Fishing heritage and the traditional waterfront
Fishing involves certain human adaptations and behaviors, which
necessitates the development of certain cultural characteristics
(McGoodwin, 2001). These adaptations require exploiting particular marine
ecosystems with whatever technologies a group of people have access to
or can develop at a particular time (FAO, 2013). These technologies, the
use of the land and sea, and human behavior inevitably create cultural
material (Fisheries heritage website; Ome, 2007–8; Malpas, 2008; Crist,
2004; Robertson et al., 2005).
Although fish are often considered as the primary source of livelihood,
multiple ecologic-socio-cultural-economic components of this way of life
create value out of such factors as sense of place (ICSF, 2011; Acott and
Urquhart, 2014), identity, and pride (Felt, 1995; Pollnac, 1988Brookfield et
al., 2005; Van Ginkel, 2001; Nuttall, 2000; Tango-Lowy and Robertson,
1999; Claesson et al., 2005). Several studies on fishermen in the coastal
areas have demonstrated that tangible and intangible cultural values
associated with fishing are of high value for fishermen (Van Ginkel, 2001;
Nuttall, 2000; Pinder, 2003; Chan et al., 2012; Acott and Urquhart, 2014;
Bradley et al., 2009; EH, 2007). The previous studies showed that there is
major public interest in conserving fishing cultural heritage, and fishing
communities can and do benefit socially and economically from their
cultural heritage (Claesson et al., 2005).
Sense of place and place attachment
In the field of social science, many studies have been conducted on how
places are socially constructed, the role of place in identity and how people
become attached to place (Low and Altman, 1992; Relph, 1976; Creswell,
2004; Gieseking, 2014). Sense of place covers a range of ideas including
place attachment, place identity, place dependence and place meanings
(Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1977; Proshansky et al., 1983; Low and Altman, 1992;
Creswell, 2004; Farnum et al., 2005; Lawrence, 1990; Kaltenborn, 1998).
Place attachment is concerned with the emotional attachments that people
form with places (Hernandez et al., 2007). Place identity is associated with
the meanings that people attribute to places through their experiences,
memories and beliefs about a place (Nora, 1984–1992; Tuan, 1974;
Harvey, 1993; Anderson, 2015; Harvey, 1996; Nora, 1984–1992;
Halbwachs and Coser, 1992). Place dependence is associated with how
well a place is suited to the needs or activity of an individual group
(Hunziker et al., 2007). Sense of place attachment depends on the strength
of emotional meanings that groups of people and individuals associate with
a place and a particular setting (Relph, 1976; Gieseking, 2014; Hummon,
1992; Stedman, 2003). Places are defined by physical and natural
environment, and material reality (Casakin and Bernardo, 2012; Stedman,
2003) combined with the meanings that people associate with them.
(Jorgensen and Stedman, 2001; Stedman, 2003).
Place attachment is also associated with well-being. Evaluation of the
sociocultural significance of these places is a way to market the vernacular,
simulate the authentic, and invent or preserve heritage and tradition
(Harvey, 1993).
Attributes of sense of place for investigating the role of fishing
heritage in communities’ place attachment
Previous studies regarding sense of place (Connerton, 1989; Shackel,
2006), recommend some attributes in regards to the values of fishing
material culture and cultural entities regarding place attachment, place
identity and sociocultural memory. In the discussion that follows, these
attributes are assessed in relation to the cultural material and physical
entities existing in fishing communities in Brunswick County in order to
evaluate the non-market values of fishing heritage in these
communities. Table 1 shows these attributes, which have been used in the
present research for shaping the interview questions in order to evaluate
the significance of material culture in the mentioned fishing communities.
Table 1. Attributes of fishing cultural heritage values.
Non- Attributes Sub-attributes
market
benefit

Sense of Place Connection with the sea

place attachment
Connection with the environment

Place Fishing as a way of life

identity Contribution of fishing in shaping
community identity

Fishing influences place character

through special materials, tools,
symbols, decoration, buildings, etc.

Place Memory of the past fishing

memory activities

Memory of the past traditional

fishing places

Commercial fishing communities in Eastern North Carolina

For over 200 years, North Carolina’s coast supported a successful
commercial fishing industry and communities of citizens who relied on the
industry for their livelihood (NC Grant, 2007). Brunswick County, which was
formed in 1764, has a long history of fishing in the ocean, bays, sounds,
rivers, and lakes (Provincial Archives of Brunswick website). It was named
for the colonial port of Brunswick Town (now in ruins). The European
merchants who settled here traded fish, among other commodities, and
participated in other activities related to fishing, such as ship-building (Lee,
1980; Special staff of writers, 1919).
Brunswick County still has a large number of fishing communities. Fishing
activities are linked to material culture such as boats, fish houses, ship
yards, crafts, as well as rituals, cuisine, and traditions related to fishing and
seafaring. These remains are a part of ongoing life tradition and are
considered as cultural resources. However, due to the changes in the use
of resources and land/sea-use regulation and policies, development and
climate change, many of these sites are endangered. This suggests that
some management of these resources may be necessary.

Archival and literature review, followed by site observation, showed that

there are still several fishing communities and towns in Brunswick County,
among which four have been selected here for closer analysis:
Varnamtown, Shallotte, Southport and Holden Beach [Fig. 1].

1. Download high-res image (174KB)

2. Download full-size image
Fig. 1. The location of the four fishing communities in Brunswick County.
Case studies
In order to understand the way that fishing cultural heritage influences
fishing communities in North Carolina, a case study approach was adopted
to explore the social wellbeing variables in a range of different fishing
communities with different amount and state of cultural heritage in the
southeastern counties of NC. Case studies are not meant to be
representative of wider sociocultural phenomena but can instruct us about
relationships among cultural heritage and specific human behaviors,
perceptions, and activities. They are not, that is, surveys, censuses, or
other types of inquiry that strive to represent larger populations, but trade
quantitative representativeness for qualitative depth.

In the four areas, after site observation and based on their different
socioeconomic conditions, four fishing, shrimping, and oystering
communities were selected. Varnamtown has been chosen as the most
vivid and active community and due to its reputation for fishing. However,
a decline in commercial fishing can be noticed in the area. Holden beach
also was chosen due to the fact that there is an ongoing fishing community
and the community is trying to preserve commercial fishing. Southport was
chosen due to its importance as a former fishing community which is now
more of a tourist destination with remnants of commercial fishing
remaining around its single fish house. Shallotte was chosen because it
was known as a fishing community with two fish houses still active, but in
decline.

Methodology
The study benefited from interviews with fishermen in different
communities with different levels of fishing cultural heritage presence and
preservation. The interviews included open-ended and closed questions.
Open-ended questions are those questions that solicit additional
information from the inquirer. By definition, they are broad and require
more than one or two word responses, or a series of choices. Close
questions are those that can be answered by either “yes” or “no”, a
number on a scale, or some other simple response. The units of analyses
are the fishing communities. The responses were analyzed with qualitative
and quantitative methods.

To gain an understanding of the contribution of fishing to sense of place,

an inventory was made regarding the physical characteristics and activities
associated with fishing that contributed to a sense of place. Elements such
as commercial fishing boats in the harbor, building type, presence of
fishing gear and facilities in each community were recorded. The cultural
values of these elements were assessed based on the criteria mentioned in
National Registered Criteria (“How to Request and Submit a Study List
Application”, 2016). In addition, according to North Carolina Division of
Cultural Resources, individual buildings, sites, areas or objects which are
studied by the Preservation Commission and judged to have historical,
architectural, archaeological, or cultural value, and that the community
believes the property deserves recognition and protection can be
designated as Local District or Local Landmark, depending on their cultural,
historical, architectural and archaeological values (“A Comparison of the
National Register with Local Historic Designations”, 2016). This information
was used, together with the data collected from the interviews, to explore
the significance of fishing material cultural and built heritage in place
attachment, place identity and place memory in shaping sense of place
among fishermen.
In the design of interview questions the attributes of sense of place
from Table 1were used to inquire if and how different fishing material
cultures and build heritage contribute to different sub-attributes of place
attachment, place identity and place memory. In addition the questions
were designed to direct the interviewees to talk about their level of
satisfaction with their job, their interest in keeping fishing as their main
occupation, and the future generation’s occupation choices. Previous
studies showed that one constraint on the survival of fishing communities
is the reluctance of the new generation to pursue fishing as their main
occupation (Piriz, 2000). The answers to these questions helped further to
analyze the correlation between the amount and state of existing material
culture and the state of fishing in these communities. Since fishing as a
traditional activity helps shape fishing heritage and the cultural landscape,
in addition to livelihood (Nuttall, 2000), the interviewees were asked to
state what types of material culture or/and heritage sites and buildings are
important to them as items that depict fishing communities and sense of
place, fishing activities and fishing characteristics, and fishermen’s
memories. These statements were gathered through a combination of in-
depth interview and photo elicitation. By applying content analysis, these
data were analyzed to identify the items of cultural heritage significance for
the fishing communities. In addition, the values associated to the cultural
heritage items were categorized based on different heritage values for the
fishing communities’ members. Also, the correlation between the quantity
of fishing heritage site and fishermen willingness to stay in their present
location regardless of their occupation was investigated.
For the purpose of assessing place attachment and place memory in the
member of local communities, I handed out cameras to residents to take
photographs of places they deemed important to their sense of identity and
place, a method known widely as ‘resident-employed photography’
(Stedman et al., 2004)or ‘photovoice’ (Wang and Burris, 1997). To
interpret the photographs, in-depth interviews are critical because they
allow both researchers and participants to “better elucidate the content of
the photo and the degree to which it represents sociocultural and
ecological phenomena, and how these combine in potentially unique ways”
(Stedman et al., 2004, p. 586). Visual approaches to data collection are
beginning to gain traction in both tourism (Kerstetter and Bricker, 2009)
and outdoor recreation context (Dorwart et al., 2010). The photos and
interview text are analyzed using a process known as categorical
aggregation, a series of techniques using labels, codes, and categories to
organize qualitative data (Dewalt and Dewalt, 2002; Henderson, 1991;
Mascarenhas and Scarce, 2004; Spradley, 1980).
The first step of analysis is to determine places of importance. The second
step is to determine the meanings and experiences behind each of these
place categories, using interviews as descriptive guides. Important
meanings and experiences from photos and interviews should be indicated
by the photographer. This method of inquiry allows participants to identify
places that hold values and meaning for them and to explain that meaning
in present fishermen life rather than responding to researcher’s prompts
about place (Amsden et al., 2010).
A spatial analysis also was conducted in order to identify variables that can
define the level of importance of fish houses based on their location,
function, and access. Some results from interviews, in addition to direct
observation of these locations were applied for this analysis.

The preliminary locations of the fishing harbors and fish houses were
selected based on the literature and existing data from North Carolina Sea
Grant reports (Jepson et al., 2005). The key informants were selected
based on pre-studies and knowledge about the locations of the fish houses
and fishing harbors. First each known fish house was visited in the case
study areas. The fish house owners were interviewed. The rest of sampling
was done using the snowball method, where participants recommended
other potential informants (Babbie, 2010).
Results
Results from interviews
Forty three available members of fishing communities in four areas
including Varnamtown, Shallotte, Holden Beach and Southport participated
in the interview. They are engaged in seafood sales, boat repair and
construction, fishing (fishing, oystering and shrimping), processing and
packing, and a net shop. Except for a few, most of them have always been
engaged in the fishing business since they were very young, as part of a
family business. Many of them have finished high school and a few have
had some college.

There are three active fish houses in Varnamtown, two in Shallotte (one
specifically is an oyster house), only one fish/ice house in Southport, and
three fish houses and one seafood market in Holden beach. Varnamtown
also has a few places where people sell seafood directly from their homes.
This is an evidence of the population’s attachment to marine resources.
The fish houses in Varnamtown, Shallotte and Holden beach have market
places adjacent to them which are in regular contact with public, and some
of them also send out of state. But the fish house in Southport is a
wholesale fish house that buys from local fishermen who land at its dock
and sells both locally and nationally. Some seafood markets in Holden
Beach and Oak Island buy from the fish house in Southport too. Other
buildings around the current fish house in Southport were originally fish
houses, but they have been transformed into seafood restaurants.
Surprisingly, these restaurants do not get their seafood from the local fish
house.

In Varnamtown and Shallotte, their main catch is shrimp and oyster, while
in Southport and Holden Beach different types of fish in addition to shrimp
and oyster are caught. They usually work with two to five crew on a boat.
Some work with family members, and some not.

Fishermen are quite satisfied with fishing and some in Southport claim that
during last year (since 2014) there have been more fish, and one should
know where to fish. They describe fishing a hard and risky work with long
hours at sea and far from family. However, they like it and enjoy doing it,
because of excitement, anticipation and surprise; being out on the ocean
and the connection with water; and independence. Some have no other
skills to do other jobs.

Some fishermen mentioned that they changed their gears and/or adapted
their boats for new fishing conditions, or switched to catch other types of
fish due to the changes in regulations, and seasonal and natural factors.
Some sell their catch locally at a certain fish house, but some go further
from Pamlico Sound to the Gulf of Mexico. One person from Shallotte, who
is very successful in his business, stated that he has always looked at the
market and condition and tried to change and adapt to the situation.

They consider fishing as their way of life, continuos family vocation and a
tradition that should be preserved. For most of them it is important to
continue fishing as their main occupation. All people who were interviewed
in Varnamtown stated that it is a strong fishing community where
everybody in it is connected to fishing in one way or another. This fact,
about Varnamtown, has also been confirmed by fishermen from other
locations as well. The majority of interviews from Shallotte said that the
fishing community is not as strong as it was before and it is a vanishing
community. In Southport, fishermen have a great sense of attachment
toward Southport. For many, the old waterfront is a highly valued memory.
For example Kenneth Fex says:

“This place holds the tradition. The whole waterfront: the maritime
museum, the Old American Fish Company, the name of Frying Pan, the
tower in the sea, all show history and I have memories from my childhood
and youth here.”
Another interviewee (Trey X) says:

“The waterfront here holds memories of fishermen and their families. The
dock here reminds me of my youth and my memories of that time.”
In Varnamtown they stated that although outsiders might not completely
understand the hardship of commercial fishing, they interact with the wider
community on a regular basis and they believe that they usually receive
the respect and attention that they deserve. In Shallotte, they believe that
they are connected with the wider community who are not in fishing, but
outsiders do not have a complete understanding of their job and its
hardships. In Southport fishermen are not socializing with the newcomers
to the area. In Holden Beach fishermen have a good relationship with
outsiders and consider them important for their business.

In Varnamtown, the Oyster Festival is a social activity held every year. This
activity brings many different people together, which is a good opportunity
to learn about marine resources, commercial fishing, fishermen and their
tradition as well (“PEOPLE AND PLACES: Coastwatch”, 2016). In addition,
fishermen in Varnamtown, usually, gather at the three fish houses at the
dock and there is one picnic area and Garlands Seafood where many said
they gather. They stated that fishermen are well connected through
phones and radios, and they enjoy a sense of solidarity that exists among
them.
In Shallotte the opinions were different. Fishermen at Larry Holden’s stated
that there is no network among them and they would not share
information about the location of fish and good catch. By contrast, the
fishermen at Lloyd’s Oyster House and the Inlet View Restaurant feel there
is a good network among them, and that they share information about the
fish and their catch. Their usual gathering locations are the restaurant, net
shop, or Lloyd’s oyster house.

According to the interviews, commercial fishing contributes strongly to the

character of Varnamtown. It is obvious from the fish houses, fishing boats
at the dock, the fishing gears laying around, as well as decoration motifs at
houses in the town. People believe that, with the loss of fishing in
Varnamtown, developers will take over and the area will lose its identity as
a fishing community. For them, and also most other interviewees in other
fishing communities, the existence of fish house is not only a symbolic sign,
but also a material manifestation of their fishing community. The boat rail
in Varnamtown and Gordon net shop in Shallotte are the last of their kind
in Brunswick County. Most interviewees, in all four communities, believe
that the fish houses and some structures associated with fishing should be
preserved as historical landmarks or areas, and become part museums,
even if the fishing stops completely. This is important because these
waterfronts show parts of the history of this area and its people1.
In Shallotte, members of fishing community had different views about the
character of the area. Some stated that fishing played a great role in
shaping the character of the area before, but now is gone. On the
contrary, the fishermen around the oyster house believe that the character
still exists and can be seen in fish houses, docks, boats, and the net shop.
As in Varnumtown, they believe that if fishing stops, people would leave
and development would take over. One reason that they consider caused
decline in fishing in Shallotte is that the river in Shallot is no longerdeep
enough for the bigger boats to get to the two fish houses there. Some of
the fishermen stated that even the inlet is not suitable to pass through.

In Holden Beach, fishermen’s memories of traditional fishing related mostly

to Southport. For them Southport has been the representation of a perfect
fishing town. In addition to Southport, Old Ferry Fish House and the
Holden Beach waterfront also convey strong memories related to
commercial fishing.

Most people prefer to keep fishing as their primary occupation, even

though some combine it with other work and some stated that they are not
willing to switch to other jobs, even if they found it more profitable. But
mainly they see no future in fishing and there are different points of view
in encouraging younger generation to get into fishing. Those who
encourage future generation to be engaged in commercial fishing, see the
profession not as the primary way of livelihood. They would like to see that
the legacy of commercial fishing will be transferred to future generation,
but they feel that it will not be enough to make a living.

Some think that tourism can bring some benefit to them, and are willing to
consider the options of getting involved in tourism. Some are willing to
explain their work to visitors, some stated that they can arrange for short
trips, showing visitors how commercial fishing is done. But several
fishermen were against the idea of getting involved in tourism and they see
tourists as disruption to their work.

The results of interviews are summarized in the following charts. Figs. 2–

6 show the items of fishing character, fishing memory, items representing
sense of place, significance of fishing for the communities, and existing
sense of community among the members of fishing communities. In
general, the interviewees stated that fish houses and fishing maritime
landscape including boats and docks are the most significant aspects of
build environment for them. Enjoyment was stated as one of the main
reasons that the fishermen continue fishing. Fig. 7demonstrate how many
of older members of fishing communities encourage new generation to
engage in commercial fishing as their main occupation for future. It is
noticeable that in different communities, the level of encouragement
varies. In Varnamtown and Holden Beach majority of interviewees
indicated that they would encourage the new generation to pick fishing as
their main career or side-career, but in Southport and Shallotte it was the
opposite.

The Philippines government has recently launched a major investment

programme to improve agricultural and fisheries production as part of long
term plans to increase rural incomes and boost social development in the
country’s poorest regions.

In addition to targeting low income communities, the investment

programme will help with infrastructure reconstruction costs to support the
rebuilding of fishing and farming communities affected by Typhoon Haiyan
Yolanda that struck the Philippines central Visayas region on 8 November
2013, causing widespread destruction of fishing ports, fishing boats, farms
and local communities.

Financial support for the investment scheme includes a US$500 million loan
from the World Bank and other international credits. Apart from loans to
small scale fishermen to buy fishing boats, nets and other equipment, the
government is funding infrastructure construction to support fisheries and
agricultural development.

Facilities being built include fish landing centres and all-weather roads in
rural areas to enable fishery products and agricultural goods to be
transported to local markets.

Landing centres
Among new initiatives the Department of Agriculture Bureau of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) recently has announced plans to build 252
community fish landing centres in strategic locations across the country to
improve socio-economic conditions in low income fishing communities.
Launching the project in Tanza, Cavite, Philippines Agriculture Secretary
Proceso Alcala explained that building the new fish landing centres is aimed
at reducing post-harvest fisheries losses from 25% to 18% or lower
through providing suitable modern facilities where fish can be landed and
sold.

“The construction of the fish landing centres is part of the government’s

commitment to deliver precise interventions and promote inclusive growth
in the fishery sector,” Mr Alcala said.

Costing PNP 2.85 million (US$62,000) each to construct, the community

fish landing centres will house post-harvest equipment and facilities to
keep fish and fishery products in good condition. This should enable
fishermen to sell their catch for a higher price than is possible at traditional
fish landing stations that many fishermen now use.

Local consumers will benefit from the fish landing centres, Mr Alcala noted,
as they will have better access to safe fishery products.

In addition to their main function, the new fish landing centres will be used
by BFAR as venues to provide fishery skills training and for other purposes
such as monitoring fish catches and for fish stock assessments.

BFAR has selected sites across the country to build new fish landing
centres assisted by the government’s National Anti-Poverty Commission.

Potential sites have been assessed based on poverty incidence in the

surrounding area, municipal population density, fisheries production, the
number of registered fishermen in the area, and the number of existing
fish ports and fish landing areas.

Once built, the fish landing centres initially will be operated by local
government units and later transferred to local fishermen’s cooperatives to
run.

Information collection
Government plans to support development of small scale fishing
communities require more information to be collected about fishermen,
fishing boats, fishing equipment and aquaculture facilities so that progress
can be monitored and the right assistance provided.

To improve information collection, BFAR has launched a smart phone

application in cooperation with Philippines mobile phone operator, Smart
Communications Inc, to fast track the bureau’s national programme to
register municipal or small scale fishing boats and their fishing gear.

Municipal fisheries and agriculture officers are being provided with mobile
tablet facilities to access the application and enter data.

BFAR also has launched a national programme to register municipal or

small scale fishermen as part of wider measures to monitor the fishing
industry in different localities and promote sustainable fisheries
development.

As an incentive to encourage municipalities to collect and file their data

promptly, the Bureau is offering grants worth PNP 2 million each to the first
100 municipalities to complete and file their fishermen database entries to
invest in local fishery-related development schemes.

Employment
Fisheries are an important sector in the Philippines economy, employing
about 1.6 million people, according to government figures. Municipal
fisheries employ 1.37 million people while the aquaculture sector employs a
further 226,000 people.

In addition, 16,500 fishermen are employed in commercial fishing on large

vessels that operate in the Philippines waters and areas of the Pacific
catching tuna and other species.

According to the latest government figures, total fisheries production in

2013 (including seaweed) reached 4.7 million metric tons (mt) worth PNP
244.6 billion.

In tonnage terms, total production fell 3.3% or 200,000 mt, down from 4.9
million mt in 2012. Part of the reason for the drop in fisheries output in
2013 was the serious impact of Typhoon Haiyan Yolanda on the
aquaculture and municipal fisheries sectors in the central Visayas region
after the storm struck in November that year.

Damage caused by the storm continues to affect fisheries and agricultural

production in affected areas as work continues to repair the damage and
support rebuilding of affected rural communities.

Aquaculture is the Philippines largest fisheries sector with production

reaching 2.37 million mt in 2013, down 6.6% from 2.54 million mt the
previous year.

Municipal fisheries consisting of small scale and artisanal fishermen is the

second largest fisheries sector with total production of 1.26 million mt in
2013, down 1.3% compared with the previous year.

Commercial fisheries, meanwhile, was less affected by the typhoon

damage and recorded a 2.4% increase in production in 2013, registering a
total catch of 1.07 million mt, up from 1.04 million mt the previous year.

Government plans to boost marine fisheries development as part of

measures to increase family incomes in poor coastal fishing communities
are expected to benefit artisanal fishermen along with larger commercial
fishing and fisheries processing companies, many of which export their
products.

IUU fishing
With important global fisheries markets such as the European Union
insisting that fish exporting countries take effective measures to eliminate
IUU fishing, seafood exporters in the Philippines are relying on the
government to crack down on illegal fishing to protect small scale
fishermen and ensure fisheries exporters enjoy continued access to key
international markets.

Efforts to tackle IUU fishing have been stepped up following prompting by

the EU. In June 2014, after more than two years of talks concerning the
previous lack of effective measures to control IUU fishing, the EU
announced it was giving the Philippines six months to clamp down on
illegal fishing or face tough sanctions including selective fishery export
bans to member countries.
Prospects for the future development of the Philippines fisheries industry,
in fact, have brightened recently as the government boosts efforts to tackle
IUU fishing by using its new fisheries law enforcement training programme
to build a national team of fisheries officers charged with eliminating illegal
fishing activities.

BFAR recently announced that a third batch of fishery officers have

completed IUU fishing law enforcement training bringing the number of
IUU law enforcement officers to have completed the three month training
programme to almost 200 since the training scheme was launched in
October 2014.

At the time of writing a fourth batch of fishery officers were due to

complete their training programme at the end of October as part of
government plans to deploy 700 trained IUU fishing law enforcement
officials throughout the country.

The Philippines is a large archipelago formed by 7,107 islands which poses

many challenges for the government in its efforts to prevent and eliminate
IUU fishing.

Most IUU fishing in the Philippines involves large commercial fishing vessels
fishing in waters within 15km of the coastline which are reserved for local
fishermen.

In addition, some artisanal fishermen continue to use illegal fishing

methods such as cyanide and dynamite which destroy coral reefs and the
surrounding ecosystems.

The government’s determination to strengthen its anti-IUU fishing

programme recently has received international recognition following the
European Commission’s decision to remove the Philippines from its list of
countries charged with implementing effective measures to tackle illegal
fishing activities.

The commission’s announcement in April recognised the Philippines

government’s efforts to improve monitoring, control and surveillance of
IUU fishing over the past year and is expected to secure the future of
thousands of jobs in the nation’s fishing and fishery processing sectors that
are reliant on exports to the European Union and other major markets.

Exports
Fishery exports from the Philippines to EU countries are worth about
US$230 million a year, according to BFAR figures, and account for about
15% of the nation’s annual total fishery exports, including 40% of all tuna
exports.

Total fishery exports in 2013 were worth $1.38 billion while fishery imports
were worth $300 million, resulting in a net fishery export surplus of $1.4
billion.

Seafood exports doubled in tonnage terms in 2013 with some 333,465 mt

exported during the year, up 101.7% from 165,324 mt in 2012, according
to BFAR.

Tuna, shrimp/prawn and seaweed, the three major export categories,

combined accounted for 69% of the total export volume and 69% of the
total export value as well in 2013, being 231,130 mt and $967 million
respectively.

Tuna is the largest single fishery export category and accounted for most
of the Philippines fisheries export growth in 2013 with some 165,757 mt of
products worth $681 million being exported during the year, representing a
near threefold increase in export volume and a 65% increase in value.

Canned tuna accounts for the bulk of tuna exports while the major markets
include the USA, Japan and the United Kingdom.

GSP+ programme
Convincing the EU of its seriousness in tackling IUU fishing is of key
importance to the Philippines government which plans to boost exports of
fishery products and many other goods to Europe in future by joining the
EU’s Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) programme.

Joining the scheme would remove tariffs from thousands of products that
EU countries import from the Philippines including fishery products on
which the EU currently imposes a hefty 24% import tariff.
“The European Commission has revoked the warning yellow card issued to
the Philippines in June 2014 regarding measures to fight illegal fishing. The
EU acknowledges Philippines’ efforts to partner up with us in fighting
illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing,” the Commission said in
statement issued in April when announcing the revoking of its yellow card
warning.

BFAR and Department of Agriculture officials are pleased with the EU’s
quick response to efforts to tackle IUU fishing and emphasise the
government’s ongoing commitment to control and eliminate the problem.

“The Philippines government through the Department of Agriculture

welcomes the latest EU decision as formal recognition of the Aquino
Administration’s commitment to put an end to unsustainable fishing
practices which compromise not only the country’s marine resources but
also the long-term livelihood of around 1.8 million fishery stakeholders,”
said the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources in a statement on the
bureau’s website following the European Commission announcement.

Mr Alcala, also welcomed the Commission’s decision, pointing out that the
government’s initiatives to curb IUU fishing are aligned with the country’s
international agreements, Asian regional obligations and global market
requirements.

“The Department is pleased with this development as it formally recognises

the government’s serious efforts to prevent and eliminate all forms of
fisheries resource abuse,” Mr Alcala said.

“The country’s effort against IUU fishing is anchored on its commitment as

member of the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which
adopted the International Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate
IUU fishing.

“In line with this commitment, after a series of consultations with

stakeholders, the Philippines formally adopted a National Plan of Action
through Executive Order No. 154 which was signed by President Benigno
Aquino III in 2013.”
Meanwhile, in addition to plans to deploy 700 trained IUU fishing law
enforcement officers, BFAR is beefing up its enforcement capability with
the planned procurement of specialist vessels for officers to carry out their
duties.

Plans include the purchase and deployment of 27 40ft Monitoring, Control

and Surveillance (MCS) vessels, 70 30ft multi-mission vessels and two 50m
vessels equipped with necessary special operations facilities and devices
including service fire arms, GPS devices, night vision goggles, scuba gear
and, rigid-hulled inflatable rubber boats.

Philippine government tightening fisheries regulations to promote

sustainability

An archipelago nation consisting of more than 7000 individual islands and

300,000 sq km of territory, the Philippines has by necessity developed a
strong maritime culture over its history. As such, the fisheries sector has
evolved from largely a subsistence practice in its early years – supplying
inhabitants with a crucial source of protein – to today’s diversified, modern
industry, which features a deep-sea fishing fleet, ocean-based mariculture,
inland aquaculture industries and near-shore pelagic fisheries.

The fisheries sector turned out P238.4bn ($5.04bn) worth of production in

2015, down slightly from P241.9bn ($5.12bn) the previous year and up
from P144.6bn ($3.06bn) in 2013, according to the Philippine Statistics
Authority.

Of the major species of fish pursued by the Philippine fishing fleet, output
of roundscad, skipjack, milkfish and tilapia fell in 2015, registering drops of
11.9%, 2.6%, 2.3% and 0.5%, respectively.

Restrictions
Some of these declines are the result of government-imposed fish stock
management practices designed to preserve the long-term viability of the
sector at the expense of some short-term gains. Although many local
fishermen, particularly those operating in small and medium-sized vessels,
voiced strong displeasure with such regulations, the positive results of
these early efforts have begun to win over the fleet. Timed closures have
been put in place in recent years in the Sulu Sea and the Basilan Strait, as
well as in the Visayan Sea and its surrounding waters.

Regulatory Overhaul
One of the more significant changes to affect the sector recently are the
amendments to the nation’s Fisheries Code, and the subsequent
implementing rules and regulations which were signed in September 2015.

The changes to the code, which were drawn up with minimal input from
the private sector, have resulted in a much more rigid enforcement system,
which has given rise to new challenges for the commercial fleets, in
particular.

The amended code has the potential to significantly restrict fishing

operations in the country if implemented to the letter, Augusto Natividad,
senior vice-president of Frabelle Fishing Corporation, told OBG. The
restrictions include strict delineation of municipal and commercial fisheries,
based on lineal distances, rather than on fish behaviour and habitat.

Other actions are designed to bolster enforcement, such as an expansion in

monitoring via mandatory vessel observation measures installed on every
fishing boat. These measures apply to all Philippine-flagged commercial
fishing vessels operating outside of the country’s waters, as well as to
commercial fishing vessels of 30 gross tonnes and above operating in
Philippine waters.

Municipal Waters
There is also a grey area in terms of how municipal water is defined, as the
country’s previous fishery laws classified municipal waters as extending 15
km from the mainland, while new laws from the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources now classify the zone as covering up
to 15 km out from the farthest island.
If the new classification is followed it will effectively make it illegal to fish
on vast expanses of commercial fishing grounds, rendering them largely
inoperative. With most of the smaller artisanal fishermen working closer in
and pelagic fisheries not extending out past 30 metres in depth, a
substantial area of productive fishing area may now be off-limits for larger
commercial vessels but too far from shore to be feasibly fished by smaller
operations.

The penalties for breaking these new laws will also be substantially more
severe, with the fines for some infractions spiking exponentially from
P10,000 ($212) per violation to over P1m ($21,200), with not only the
captain and crew subject to penalisation but the owner of the offending
vessel as well.

Request reuse or reprint of article

The Philippine marine protected area (MPA) database

Abstract
We present the Philippine Marine Protected Area (MPA) database. The
database contains 1,800 MPAs with vital information for coastal resource
management, particularly MPA size, location, management effectiveness,
and contact information. The database will be the source of up-to-date
information on MPAs in the Philippines. The MPA database is seen to be the
start of developing nationwide systems of biological databases where
academic, government, and non-government institutions work together as
integral parts of communities of practice.

The Philippine marine protected area... (PDF Download Available).

Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285240998_The_Philippine_mari
ne_protected_area_MPA_database [accessed Jun 01 2018].

The Philippine Marine Protected Area

(MPA) Database
Reniel B. Cabral*1,2,3, Porfirio M. Aliño*1,2, Adrian Chester M. Balingit2,3,
Christian M. Alis§3, Hazel O. Arceo1,2, Cleto L. Nañola Jr.1,4,
Rollan C. Geronimo1, and MSN Partners1
1Marine Protected Area Support Network (MSN)
2Marine Science Institute, College of Science, University of the Philippines
Diliman, 1101 Quezon
City, Philippines
3National Institute of Physics, College of Science, University of the
Philippines Diliman, 1101 Quezon
City, Philippines
4College of Science and Mathematics, University of the Philippines
Mindanao, Davao City, Philippines
§University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United
Kingdom
W
e present the Philippine Marine Protected
Area (MPA) database. The database contains
1,800 MPAs with vital information for
coastal resource management, particularly
MPA size, location, management effective-
ness, and contact information. The database will be the source of
up-to-date information on MPAs in the Philippines. The MPA
database is seen to be the start of developing nationwide systems
of biological databases where academic, government, and non-
government institutions work together as integral parts of com-
munities of practice.
INTRODUCTION
The Philippines is one of the world’s centers of marine bio-
diversity and multitaxa marine endemism (Roberts et al. 2002).
However, the marine resources of the Philippines are also ex-
periencing the highest level of anthropogenic and climatic
threats (Roberts et al. 2002, Burke et al. 2012). The anthropo-
genic threats include fishing overcapacity; overfishing and de-
structive fishing practices; increased domestic, agricultural, and
300 Vol. 7 | No. 2 | 2014
Philippine Science Letters
*Corresponding author
Email Address: reniel.cabral2013@gmail.com (R.B. Cabral)
alinoperry018@gmail.com (P.M. Aliño)
Submitted: May 30, 2014
Revised: July 12, 2014
Accepted: July 13, 2014
Published: September 8, 2014
Editor-in-charge: Eduardo R. Mendoza
industrial runoff from a burgeoning population; poor land use;
and increased sedimentation from forest deforestation and un-
regulated mining activities (Gomez et al. 1994, Coral Reef Infor-
mation Network in the Philippines (PhilReefs) 2003, 2005, 2008,
2010, Nañola Jr et al. 2011, Burke et al. 2012, Cabral et al. 2012,
2013, 2014, National CTI Coordinating Committee 2013, Cruz-
Trinidad et al. 2014, Geronimo and Cabral 2014).
One of the solutions being used to address the threats plagu-
ing marine resources is the establishment of marine protected
areas (MPAs). MPAs refer to “clearly defined geographical
spaces, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or
other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of
nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural val-
ues” (IUCN definition by Dudley 2008). This is one of the most
achievable modes of protection particularly in the Philippines in
relation to coastal resource management (CRM) (White et al.
2002, Aliño 2008). In the Philippines, MPAs can be categorized
into two governance levels: nationally established MPAs and
locally established MPAs. MPAs in general take four forms: 1)
Marine sanctuary or no-take marine reserve, where all forms of
extractive activities are prohibited; 2) Marine reserve, where
extractive and non-extractive activities are regulated; 3) Marine
parks, where uses are designated into zones; and 4) Protected
landscape and seascape, where protection may include non-
KEYWORDS
marine protected area, database, decision support system, coastal
resource management, community of practice, monitoring and
evaluation, communication tool
marine resources (Miclat and Ingles 2004, White et al. 2014).
The most common objectives for MPA establishment are biodi-
versity conservation, fisheries sustainability, and tourism and
recreation, among others.
MPAs reduce human interaction with resources, thereby
allowing the resources to replenish. Although MPAs cannot ad-
dress all problems in the marine resources, especially continued
perturbation beyond their boundaries (e.g., overexploitation,
destructive fishing activities, point and non-point pollution
sources from industrial, agricultural and domestic runoffs, etc.),
they help reduce some anthropogenic-related problems and may
enhance the resiliency of marine resources to various stressors
including climate impacts (Lubchenco et al. 2003). As such,
MPAs have increasingly become a popular tool for CRM in the
Philippines and around the globe.
Globally, there are 10,280 MPAs covering 2.3% of the
world’s ocean area; most of these MPAs are located in coastal
and near-shore areas (2012 World Database on Protected Areas,
Spalding et al. 2013). In the Philippines, 1,620 locally managed
MPAs have been established as of 2011 (National CTI Coordi-
nating Committee 2013). However, many MPAs in the Philip-
pines are small and not effectively managed (Arceo et al. 2008).
Although there is substantial information on MPAs in the
Philippines (e.g., Haribon Foundation 2005, Alcala et al. 2008,
Arceo et al. 2008), a centralized database that is accessible to
government and non-government institutions remains a chal-
lenge. Here, we present the Philippine MPA database which
aims to serve as a system where information can be accessible to
local governments and policy makers to enhance planning and
decision. Currently, there is no consistent MPA database in the
Philippines, or in any country within the Coral Triangle (White
et al. 2014). There have been previous attempts to consolidate
MPA information, but many of these have become archiving
systems with limited user interaction (Table 1). Over time, these
databases were no longer updated and became static. The devel-
301 Vol. 7 | No. 2 | 2014 Philippine Science Letters
opment of an online Philippine MPA database can support initia-
tives at the local, national, and regional (e.g., Coral Triangle
Initiative) levels. The database can also be a tool for monitoring
the progress of various MPA initiatives in the Philippines.
THE NEED FOR DEVELOPING A PHILIPPINE MPA
DATABASE
The Philippines is a signatory to the United Nations Con-
vention on Biological Diversity (CBD), of which one of the tar-
gets is to protect 10% of all marine and coastal habitats by 2020
(Table 2). This is in addition to various national, regional, and
global initiatives of the Philippine government to protect marine
resources, e.g., the United Nations Development Programme
Millennium Development Goals (UNDP 2013), the Coral Trian-
gle Initiative, and Philippine Development Plans (Table 2).
Aliño and colleagues showed that at the rate of increase in MPA
establishment and given that many of the MPAs are small (half
of the MPAs in the Philippines have sizes of less than 20 hec-
tares, Cabral et al. submitted), it would take the Philippines a
hundred years to fully protect 10% of its coral reef areas (Aliño
et al. 2004). With the added threat of climate-related distur-
bances, such as massive coral bleaching due to increased ocean
temperatures (Arceo et al. 2001, Peñaflor et al. 2009), or extreme
weather events, it became clear that the protection of marine
resources in the country would have to increase its pace signifi-
cantly.
The total protected area effectively managed is a common
metric used for international and even national biodiversity and
conservation goals (Table 2). Estimating the status of the Philip-
pines towards achieving these international conservation targets
has so far been only partially achieved. Many of the 1,620 MPAs
in the Philippines reported in 2011 are locally managed. There is
no national agency assigned to track or monitor the progress of
all these MPAs. Different organizations have attempted to estab-
lish the status of Philippine MPAs and MPA effectiveness, but
so far have covered only specific areas of the country (Alcala et
Number of MPA Entries Location Coordinates MPA Area Establishing
Ordinance MPA Evaluation
WorldFish ReefBase1,* 294 - Yes Yes Yes -
MPAtlas2 234 - Yes Yes - -
DENR ICRMP3 149 Yes - Yes Yes -
BMB ACCCoast4 139 Yes - Yes Yes Rating Only
CCEF Coast.ph 5 93 Yes - Yes Yes Rating Only**
Our Database 1800 Yes Yes Yes Yes Rating + Evaluation details
Table 1. Comparison of the online database features of different
organizations with Philippine MPA entries. Entries counted from
their respective websites, as of 12 July 2014.
1 WorldFish ReefBase – Global Database – Management: Protected Areas
(Philippines) (http://www.reefbase.org/global_database/default.aspx?
section=m2&region=32&country=PHL)
2 MPAtlas – Marine Protected Areas in Philippines
(http://www.mpatlas.org/region/nation/PHL/)
3 DENR Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project (ICRMP) –
ICRMP Marine Protected Areas (http://icrmp.denr.gov.ph/index.php/mpa-
status-database)
4 DENR-Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) Adaptation to Climate
Change in Coastal Areas (ACCCoast) – MPA Database
(http://acccoast.bmb.gov.ph/database/
mpa-database)
5 Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation (CCEF) Inc. Coast.ph –
MPA Database (http://coast.ph/our-work/mpadatabase)
* Contents based on NEP-WCMC World Database on Protected Areas,
linked with MPAGlobal: http://www.mpaglobal.org/home.html
** Using CCEF’s own MPA rating tool

RA 8550- Fishery code of 1998

An act providing for the development management and conservation of
fisheries and aquatic resources integrating all rules pertaining thereto.

8435- modernization of agri and fishery culture so as to enhance

profitability and to prepare the fishery sector for globalization

10654- An act ot deter, eliminate illegal, unreported, unregulated

Characteristics, structure and resources of the sector
Summary

Aquaculture in the Philippines has a long history and involves

many species and farming practices in diverse ecosystems. Most
of the production comes from the farming of seaweed, milkfish,
tilapia, shrimp, carp, oyster and mussel. Aquaculture contributes
significantly to the country's food security, employment and
foreign exchange earnings. Aquaculture is growing much faster
than capture fisheries. However, the global position of the
Philippines in aquaculture production has fallen steadily from
4th place in 1985 to 12th place today. The Philippines now
contributes only a little over one percent of global farmed fish
production compared to five percent previously.

The future growth of Philippine aquaculture may not be sustained

unless new markets are developed, market competitiveness is
strengthened and farming risks are reduced. In this age of
international trade and competition, the Philippine aquaculture
industry needs to plan and implement a development and
management programme with a global perspective. The
Philippine government and the private sector are in the process of
preparing a national fisheries development plan which includes
aquaculture.
History and general overview

Aquaculture in the Philippines has a long history and involves

many species and culture systems.

Vol. 7 | No. 2 | 2014 302 Philippine Science Letters

certain skills and appreciation that may not be well developed
among existing personnel within the relevant management units.
Frequent changes in the focal person responsible for these activi-
ties, as is the case for MPA management bodies and/or LGUs,
can also hamper the continuity of use of information. This is
particularly evident in local governments that spend substantial
resources to collect basic information for their CRM programs or
projects that have already been collected. An online MPA data-
base can give local governments and managers the status of their
MPAs in real time and allow them to timely respond to the
threats or trends.
Given the substantial amount of information available and
the challenges in initiating and sustaining proper documentation
and archiving, the need to establish a system for consolidating
these data that can be accessed by relevant users of such infor-
mation became evident. A national online database of Philippine
MPAs was developed to serve this purpose. The MPA database
aims to provide the platform for easy exchange and validation of
information, thus enhancing coastal resource monitoring in the
country and proper archiving and analysis of information. Fur-
thermore, the MPA database can promote continuity and connec-
tivity of efforts (e.g., sharing good practices among neighboring
towns and municipalities) as good governance requires a system
of interacting people.
al. 2008, Arceo et al. 2008, Maypa et al. 2012). A complete and
regularly updated MPA database can help the national govern-
ment to regularly track progress towards conservation targets.
The Philippines has a long history in MPA establishment
and management. No-take MPAs were introduced in the country
in the 1970s through the establishment of the first municipal
marine reserve in Sumilon Island, Cebu in 1974, and an increas-
ing number of MPAs have been established since then (Arceo et
al. 2013). Several reviews have been done to compile informa-
tion on MPAs in the country and evaluate their management
status (e.g., Pajaro et al. 1999. Aliño et al. 2002, Alcala et al.
2008, Arceo et al. 2008). However, data gained from these re-
views are not really readily available to the local government
unit (LGU), other concerned government agencies and institu-
tions, and other interested development organizations; many
more MPA data remain not well documented and archived, espe-
cially at the site level. Most MPA evaluations have been pro-
duced in print and only as unpublished reports with limited dis-
tribution and quantity. Oftentimes, these reports are misplaced or
lost and the local government and stakeholders have to start
anew with ‘baseline’ data collection. This slows down, or may
even reverse, MPA effectiveness.
The challenges in documenting and archiving information
are numerous and sometimes complex. These activities require
Agreements / Plans Conservation Targets
Convention on Biological Diversity (Aichi Biodiversity
Targets) (CBD 2011)
Strategic Goal C, Target 11:
By 2020, at least 17 percent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 percent
of coastal and marine
areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and
ecosystem services, are con-
served through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically
representative and well-connected
systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation
measures, and integrated
into the wider landscapes and seascapes
United Nations Development Programme Millennium
Development Goals (UNDP 2013)
Goal 7:
Ensuring environmental sustainability (one indicator on area of marine
environment under protec-
tion)
Coral Triangle Initiative (Republic of the Philippines
2009)
Goal 3:
MPAs established and effectively managed (percent or area of marine
habitats in some form of
protection; and, marine protected areas under “effective” management)
Philippine Development Plan (2011-2016) (NEDA 2011) Sector Outcome
10:
Natural resources conserved, protected, and rehabilitated
Increased percentage of terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine
areas important for biodi-
versity and ecosystem services effectively and equitably managed through
NIPAS and other
effective area-based conservation measures.
Target: 0.62% marine areas are effectively and equitably managed
through NIPAS.
Table 2. Conservation targets related to marine protected areas based on
international agreement and plans of the Philippine
government
Vol. 7 | No. 2 | 2014 303
Philippine Science Letters
rounding, the core zone where fishing activities and sea use are
regulated. MPAs under the NIPAS are identified by the multiple-
use and restricted areas. In certain cases, the coordinates that
define the location and boundaries of the MPA are shown; those
may also be provided for inclusion in the database. Contact per-
sons for the MPA are also available.
Figure 3. Marine Protected Area Effectiveness Assessment Tool
(MEAT) evaluation form for a particular MPA. The form provides
a checklist of evaluation measures, upload button for supporting
documents, and text box for remarks, as to be supplied by the
evaluator.
For MPAs whose management effectiveness have been assessed
using the MPA Effectiveness Assessment Tool (MEAT) (MPA
Support Network 2010), the database enables the users to submit
the results of the MPA MEAT evaluation online (Figure 3). Cur-
rently, MEAT forms are completed manually either on a printed
form combined with supporting documents, or by encoding di-
rectly into the dynamic PDF form. The database includes the
checklist and comment boxes from the MEAT form, and pro-
vides upload for submitting digital copies of the supporting
THE PHILIPPINE MPA DATABASE
The MPA database currently holds information for a total of
1,800 MPAs (as of 12 July 2014). Each MPA entry contains
information about its complete name, short name, the year estab-
lished, its size, and relevant legislation. The database classifies
the MPAs into two major types: locally managed MPAs
(LMPA), and nationally managed MPAs (i.e., MPAs that are
included in the National Integrated Protected Areas System
(NIPAS) as stipulated in Republic Act 7586 and which are man-
aged by the national government through the Department of En-
vironment and Natural Resources in partnership with local stake-
holders). LMPAs are further classified as a sanctuary (no-take
marine reserve), a reserve, or a combination of both.
Figure 1. Information page for an MPA (Baler Marine Protected
Area), displaying basic information, location, and contact details.
Figure 2. Form for adding/modifying MPA information, including
the location and contact persons for the MPA.
Geographic information about the MPAs includes location
data and MPA zone areas (Figures 1 and 2). MPA location is
identified to a particular province, municipality, and barangay.
Partial or multiple locations may be provided for MPAs that
span multiple barangays or an entire municipality. The total area
of an MPA can be broken down to regions specific to the type of
MPA. For LMPAs, the MPA total area is identified by the core
zone and buffer zone. A core zone is a strict no-take area where
all types of activities, except for monitoring and research, are
prohibited; a buffer zone is an area often adjacent to, or sur

The Philippine marine protected area... (PDF Download Available).

Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285240998_The_Philippine_mari
ne_protected_area_MPA_database [accessed Jun 01 2018].

ocuments. The system currently outputs an “MPA Report Card”

or a summary of MPA MEAT evaluation information about each
MPA (Figure 4).
The MPA list page (Figures 5 and 6) displays a paginated
list of all the MPAs available in the database, with location and
MEAT level and score summarized for each MPA. The page
also displays summary graphs that describe the year of establish-
ment of the MPAs, the size, and MPA ratings and levels (Figure
5). The MPAs, with the displayed summary, can be filtered
down to a particular locality, i.e. at the provincial, municipal,
and even the barangay level.
Maps are very effective communication tools. As shown in
Figure 1, the exact polygon of an MPA is mapped provided that
the MPA boundary coordinates are available. This spatial infor-
mation is critical for initiating other uses of the website and data-
base as decision support tools. Polygon and point representation
of the MPAs in the entire Philippines is shown on the main page
of the site (Figure 7). The MPA polygons/points can be filtered
down to a particular locality.
For database security, a user system is implemented for the
site. Although most of the data in the database are publicly ac-
cessible, user login is required to be able to add, modify, or de-
lete MPA information in the database. User privileges for adding
and modifying are therefore limited to officials who manage the
sites at a geographic (barangay, municipality, or provincial)
level. Only the site administrator who confirms the identity of
the user provides these privileges.
Instead of being the usual standalone application, the data-
base is hosted as a web application. Besides the immediate ad-
vantage of the data being publicly accessible, hosting the appli-
cation online enables the management of data over the Internet
using a web browser. For example, MEAT forms may be com-
pleted by the evaluator directly on the database site, without the
need for passing documents across institutions. Part of the proc-
ess of determining the functionalities, features, and access proto-
cols of the database has been done through several consultations
with the target audience of the database in various MPA Support
Network (MSN) meetings that have been attended by representa-
tives from non-government organizations (NGOs), local govern-
ment units, national government agencies, and the academe, and
by MSN members who are also part of various organizations.
The MPA database is now online. It is being hosted by the
Marine Science Institute of the University of the Philippines,
Diliman (http://www.mpa.msi.upd.edu.ph). Publicly hosting the
database follows and supports the open data initiative of the
Philippine government. Clearly, our MPA database has more
entries and features compared to other existing online databases
where Philippine MPAs are included (Table 1). Summary data of
all the MPAs and data per MPA are available online. However,
part of the protocol that has been agreed upon by the members of
the MSN is to require written requests, if the complete tabled
dataset is needed by partner institutions, or by national or inter-
national agencies. The request should specifically state their
306 Vol. 7 | No. 2 | 2014
Philippine Science Letters
purpose, for proper guidelines on the use of the data and proper
attribution.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
With access protocols currently being set up, the national
government agencies can co-manage the database in the future
and provide access to their different regional centers to improve
database content and user-friendly utility. Future plans include
the training of the target users, which should result in a system-
atic evaluation of the database application’s usability. The data-
base, as a decision support system (DSS), can be seen as a hub to
support the fisheries monitoring program of the Bureau of Fish-
eries and Aquatic Resources, including the CRM activities sup-
ported by the Biodiversity Management Bureau of the Depart-
ment of Environment and Natural Resources (BMB-DENR).
Based on the experience of previous organizations that at-
tempted to put together an MPA database for the country, a ma-
jor challenge for these types of information systems is keeping
them alive and up-to-date. As mentioned earlier, previous MPA
databases remained static and were no longer updated. They did
not have features to allow for user inputs or uploading of infor-
mation. User interaction and transforming the MPA database to
address the needs of the country and communities are key to
ensuring the sustainability of the database. Together with MSN
and its partners, the current initiative hopes to build a community
of practice using many of the communication tools and knowl-
edge products available, and the lessons learned through the
years.
The MPA database will be linked to various incentive sys-
tems for effectively managed MPAs, such as the biennial Para El
MAR (MPA Awards and Recognition) event that seeks to recog-
nize the best-performing MPAs in the country. This would en-
courage local governments to conduct management-performance
evaluations at least every other year. Since these performance
evaluations are self-assessments, the database can enhance trans-
parency and the data verification process, since supporting docu-
ments can be submitted and stored in the database.
The information available in the MPA database can already
be used as decision-support information such as monitoring
MPA sizes and locations at the municipal, provincial, and na-
tional levels. In fact, the information from the MPA database has
been used already to guide the Philippine National Police’s
‘Adopt-an-MPA’ program and for the selection of project sites
by one of MSN’s partner non-governmental organizations
(NGOs). The database will eventually feature a list of various
agencies, organizations, and institutions that can provide assis-
tance to local MPAs on various aspects of MPA management
(e.g., MPA design and planning, monitoring, enforcement, fi-
nancing, communications, etc.). This ‘Find support’ feature will
give MPA managers direct access to various organizations and to
information that could enhance the effectiveness of their MPAs.
Through partnerships and dialogue with the national and
local governments, the MPA database will eventually feature
other query systems relevant to their use (e.g., area of habitat

The Philippine marine protected area... (PDF Download Available).

Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285240998_The_Philippine_mari
ne_protected_area_MPA_database [accessed Jun 01 2018].

protected, analysis of trends for MPAs with multi-year manage-

ment evaluations, etc.). For it to be a tool to actively increase
MPA effectiveness, the MPA database will also be linked to
MPA support information through the MSN.
The MPA database will also eventually be integrated with
biophysical and socioeconomic information. This will transform
the database from measuring only management performance to
also include the other critical parameters that complete a holistic
assessment of MPA effectiveness. The system will track not only
outputs but also outcomes, such as improvements in benthic and
fish communities (e.g., fish biomass, fish abundance, species
richness, and quality of coral cover), as well as human well-
being indicators. A platform for analyzing raw monitoring data
of reef fish and reef benthos is actively being developed by the
MSN. The platform will be integrated with the MPA database in
the coming months. Consistencies in reef-fish and reef-benthos
monitoring data will be enhanced, as a standard and consistent
analysis and collection-method protocol will be promoted in the
database. Moreover, stakeholders can also archive basic fisheries
-monitoring information and coastal profiles through the MPA
database. The availability of information will allow LGUs to
access long-term information on their management progress.
Since the MPA information and the corresponding biophysical
and social information can be represented spatially, future DSS
applications will involve marine spatial planning and modeling.
The database is seen to be the basis for monitoring the pro-
gress of local, national, regional, and global targets with regards
to marine protected areas. Eventually, data interoperability at the
regional and global scales should be set up, provided that proper
attribution is exercised. Finally, information from the database
could be used to prioritize sites for management intervention.
For example, government and non-government institutions could
determine strengths and gaps in MPA management through the
MEAT results. The information on MPAs can be useful also in
developing networks of MPAs in the Philippines as part of the
scaling-up process (Ecogov Project 2011, Horigue et al. 2012).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Laurence Robles for enhancing the quality of the
MPA database entries. The MPA database receives continued
support from the Marine Science Institute of the University of
the Philippines and the Marine Environment and Resources
Foundation Inc. Initial versions of the database have been sup-
ported also by USAID-CTSP through Conservation International
- Philippines and the Biodiversity and Management Bureau -
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Entries in
the MPA database have come from various MSN partners and
directly from local governments of coastal municipalities. A
more comprehensive acknowledgement can be found in the web-
site mentioned above.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
There are no conflicts of interest.
Vol. 7 | No. 2 | 2014 307
Philippine Science Letters
REFERENCES
Alcala AC, Bucol AA, Nillos-Kleiven P. Directory of Marine
Reserves in the Visayas, Philippines. Foundation for the
Philippine Environment and Silliman University-Angelo
King Center for Research and Environmental Manage-
ment (SUAKCREM). Dumaguete City, Philippines. 2008.

The Philippine marine protected area... (PDF Download Available).

Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285240998_The_Philippine_mari
ne_protected_area_MPA_database [accessed Jun 01 2018].