Pidsdps 9901

Philippine Institute for Development Studies
Toward the Sustainable Development

of the Fisheries Sector: An Analysis
of the Philippine Fisheries Code and Agriculture
and Fisheries Modernization Act
Danilo C. Israel and Ruchel Marie Grace R. Roque
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 99-01
The PIDS Discussion Paper Series

constitutes studies that are preliminary and
subject to further revisions. They are be-
ing circulated in a limited number of cop-
ies only for purposes of soliciting com-
ments and suggestions for further refine-
ments. The studies under the Series are
unedited and unreviewed.
The views and opinions expressed
are those of the author(s) and do not neces-
sarily reflect those of the Institute.
Not for quotation without permission
from the author(s) and the Institute.
January 1999
For comments, suggestions or further inquiries please contact:
The Research Information Staff, Philippine Institute for Development Studies
3rd Floor, NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, Philippines
Tel Nos: 8924059 and 8935705; Fax No: 8939589; E-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our website at http://www.pids.gov.ph
Towards the Sustainable Development of the Fisheries Sector: An
Analysis of the Philippine Fisheries Code and Agriculture and
Fisheries Modernization Act
by
Danilo C. Israel
and
Ruchel Marie Grace R. Roque*
I. Introduction
The fisheries sector hosts some of the worst environmental problems of the
Philippines. Because of this, it is a critical arena in the effort to attain a more
sustainable form of development in the country.
The search for solutions to the environmental problems in the fisheries sector
has been going on for years. Amidst the current economic crisis engulfing much of
Asia, however, this task may have been relegated to some degree as national attention
focuses on more pressing economic issues and resources are allocated to meeting
immediate needs.
Notwithstanding the state of the economy, the sustainable development of the
fisheries sector should remain a top priority. If the necessary measures to address this
end are postponed, the environmental situation in the sector will further deteriorate,
endangering not only the interests of its constituents but also the long-run prospects of
the economy to recover from the crisis and eventually grow.
Recently, an important law, the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (R.A.
8550), was enacted to develop, manage and conserve the fisheries and aquatic
resources of the country (Congress of the Philippines 1998). Another law, the
*
Ph.D. in Natural Resource Economics/Research fellow and research assistant, respectively, of the
Philippine Institute for Development Studies, NEDA sa Makati Bldg., 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi
Village, Makati City.
Towards the Sustainable Development of the Fisheries Sector… Page 2 of 92
Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 (R.A. 8435) or AFMA, was
passed to revive, modernize and develop the agriculture and fisheries sectors
(Congress of the Philippines 1997). These two laws are significant to sustainable
development because they explicitly recognize the conservation, protection and
sustained management of resources as a major objective in the fisheries sector.
Initial hopes were high that the Fisheries Code and AFMA will finally provide
many of the answers to the sustainable development problems in the fisheries sector.
Of late, however, the budget cuts spun by the economic crisis dampened some of the
enthusiasm. It is feared that the reductions in government spending will lead to
significant underfunding of the environmentally-related provisions and programs
initiated by the two laws, which could eventually result to the underachievement of
their intended objectives.
II. Objectives and Organization
The task of this paper is to study the Fisheries Code in relation to the
objectives of sustainable development in fisheries. In particular, the paper will
analyze the important environmentally-related provisions in the law and propose
courses of actions which can already be undertaken to pursue them. In addition, the
paper will identify gaps and problems which have been overlooked by the law and
propose specific measures to address them. It is hoped that by doing so, the paper
will help contribute to the more effective implementation of the Fisheries Code and,
subsequently, the attainment of its sustainable development objectives.
Whenever appropriate, this paper will also look into the AFMA in relation to
the Fisheries Code and the objective of sustainable development in the fisheries
sector. Relevant provisions in the AFMA will be analyzed in light of their
significance in addressing environmental problems in fisheries.
The paper is organized as follows. The third section reviews the
performance and administration of the fisheries sector and discusses its various
development problems. The fourth section discusses the environmentally-related
provisions in the Fisheries Code, as well as AFMA, identifies important gaps and
concerns, and proposes possible courses of actions. The last section of the paper
provides the conclusions.
III. Review of The Philippine Fisheries Sector
Natural Resources
The Philippines has a total water area of about 220.84 million hectares of
which 99.62 percent is marine and only 0.38 percent is inland (Table 1). Of the total
territorial marine water area, 26.60 million hectares or 12 percent are coastal and
193.40 million or 88 percent hectares are oceanic. The country has a total shelf area
of about 18.46 hectares, a coral reef area of 27,000 square kilometers and a coastline
of 17,460 kilometers.
The inland water resources of the country are composed of 338,393 hectares
(40 percent) of swamplands, 253,854 hectares (30 percent) of fishponds, and 250,000
hectares (30 percent) of other inland resources. Of the swamplands, 106,328 hectares
(31 percent) are freshwater and 232,065 hectares (69 percent) are brackishwater. Of
the fishponds, 14,531 hectares (6 percent) are freshwater and 239,323 hectares (94
percent) are brackishwater. Lakes dominate the other inland resources comprising
200,000 hectares (80 percent) of the total while rivers and reservoirs comprised
31,000 hectares (12 percent) and 19,000 hectares (8 percent), respectively.

Human Resources
The fisheries sector has been a major source of employment and livelihood for
a large section of the population, especially those residing in the rural coastal areas.
As of 1996, it was estimated that the country has about a million fishermen and fish-
farmers (Table 2). Of these number, 68.19 percent were in municipal fisheries, 26.09
percent were in aquaculture and 5.72 percent were in commercial fisheries. In
addition, approximately 12 percent of the general population derive their livelihood
from fisheries-related activities (Trinidad et al. 1993). This large and diverse
constituency makes fisheries a politically important sector of the economy.
Production Performance
The overall fisheries sector has performed poorly in recent years (Tables 3 and
4). For the period 1987 to 1997, annual production growth rates were low,
particularly volume wise. Moreover, growth rates were generally higher in the earlier
years than in the latter years. Growth rates were positive but generally declining from
1991 to 1995, then turned negative thereafter. Value wise, the sector registered better
growth rates due to the high prices of fish products.
Of the three subsectors, municipal fisheries performed the worst. Production
in terms of volume fell since 1992 and meekly recovered only in 1997. The average
annual growth rate for the 1987 to1997 period was likewise negative. The subsector
was the most dominant producer in 1987 in both volume and value but was only
second to aquaculture by 1997. In value, municipal fisheries has the lowest growth
rates among the subsectors . In addition, it registered negative growth rates in 1993
and 1996.
The commercial fisheries performed a little better than municipal fisheries but,
volume wise, its annual growth rates have been generally declining since 1990. Its
average annual growth rate for the 1987 to 1997 period was only a little higher than
that of municipal fisheries. In terms of value, however, the subsector has the highest
average annual growth rate which, in some years, reached the two digit mark.
Aquaculture performed the best among the subsectors, registering higher
annual growth rates and the highest average rate for the 1987 to 1997 period. From
being the lowest producer in 1987, it became the highest producer in 1996.
Aquaculture, however, showed negative growth rates in value since 1995, indicating
that it is not free of problems. Furthermore, it registered a negative growth rate in
volume in 1997.
The weak production performance of the fisheries sector is glaring when
compared to GNP and crop agriculture (Tables 5 and 6). In general, both GNP and
crop agriculture production grew faster than fisheries production during the 1987 to
1997 period. As a result, the share of fisheries production to GNP was getting
smaller. Furthermore, from 1995 to 1997, the ratio of fisheries production to crop
agriculture production went down. By 1997, fisheries production comprised only 3.2
percent of GNP, from a high of 5.61 percent in 1987. Likewise, fisheries production
was only 29.17 percent of crop agriculture output, from a high of 40.23 percent in
1994.
The poor performance of the fisheries sector extends into the area of
international trade. In the 1987 to 1997 period, imports of fishery products exceeded
exports, in volume, which resulted to trade deficits (Tables 7 and 8). Due to high
international prices for fish products, however, the value of exports exceeded that of
imports during the same period resulting in trade surpluses. It is important to note
also that in both volume and value terms, net exports registered negative growth rates
in some years.
A comparison of the growth performance of Philippine fisheries to those of
other member economies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
shows that the country has been among the underperformers (Table 9). The average
annual growth rate of production for the period 1988 to 1995 of local fisheries was
only about 1.7 percent. In contrast, Indonesia and Malaysia averaged 4.41 percent
and 4.12 percent, respectively, which are more than twice the local average rate.
Even Thailand had a higher average growth rate of 2.36 percent, which was about
twice the local rate.
The poor production performance of the fisheries sector is critical since fish is
important to human health and nutrition, being the source of about 75 percent of the
national animal protein requirement. This factor, and the growing population, insure
that fish will continue to have high demand in the future. In recent years, the national
fish requirement has expanded more than supply causing growing deficits over time
(Table 10). Importation was intensified to meet the demand but, at best, this was
partially effective only as the per capita availability of fish remains way below the
requirement.
Fisheries Administration
A summary of the history of the administration of the Philippine fisheries
sector is provided in Table 11. Formal administration dated back to the early part of
the 20th century. Currently, the commercial fisheries and aquaculture subsectors are
governed nationally through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)
which falls under the Department of Agriculture (DA). The management of

municipal fisheries has been traditionally assigned to the local government units
(LGUs) since the start of formal governance (Table 12). Even before the Fisheries
Code, several important fishery laws were already passed. It should be noted that
laws were already consolidated once before in 1975, through the Fisheries Decree or
P.D. No. 704.
The BFAR, which used to be a staff bureau, was transformed into a line
bureau with expanded duties and responsibilities through the Fisheries Code. A noted
feature of the organizational setup of the current bureau is the existence of regional
and provincial offices, which is in accordance with its role as a line agency (Figures 1
and 2). The regional and provincial agencies are bases for the research, extension,
monitoring and other activities of the bureau at the local levels.
Development Problems
The poor production performance of the fisheries sector has been attributed to
numerous and interrelated problems, summarized as follow (see Guerrero 1997,
PCAMRD 1996b, BAR 1991):
a) Resource depletion in coastal waters
The fish stocks of the country, particular in coastal waters, are already
seriously depleted due to effort overfishing and destructive fishing or the use of illegal
fishing gears and techniques. The overall impact of effort overfishing on overall
marine fishery stocks as well as on certain groups of species are empirically
documented in numerous research literature (e.g., Barut et al. 1997, Israel and Banzon
1996, Pauly et al. 1989, Silvestre et al. 1986). It has been shown that marine stocks,
particularly demersals and small pelagics, are already biologically and economically
overfished and that drastic reduction in fishing effort is needed to bring the rate of
harvesting back to more sustainable levels.
In contrast to effort overfishing, there is little available empirical research on
the use of illegal gears and techniques and their actual impact on marine fish stocks.
A major reason for this is the scarcity of reliable secondary data on illegal fishing
activities. The broadcast and print media, however, have documented from time to
time the extent and magnitude of the impact of destructive fishing on fish stocks and
ecosystems in particular problem marine areas, and found these to be serious.
b) Environmental damage in marine waters
The environment of a large portion of marine waters is already seriously
damaged, as manifested by the destruction of coral reefs and mangroves, and the
pollution of marine waters. Based on past surveys, only 30 percent of the total reefs
of the country remain in excellent or good condition while the rest are in fair and poor
condition (Gomez 1991). The major causes of the destruction of reefs are
sedimentation and siltation as a result of land-based development activities as well as
effort overfishing and destructive fishing (Gomez et al. 1994).
In the case of mangroves, it was pointed out that back in 1965, the total
mangrove areas of the country covered about 4,500 square kilometers (Barut et al.).
Ten years later, approximately 2,500 square kilometers were left. By 1981, the
number fell even further to 2,500 square kilometers. The main cause of destruction is
mangrove conversion to fishponds which accounts for an estimated 60 percent of total
destruction (Primavera 1991). Other causes are mangrove harvesting for firewood
and other uses, mangrove area conversion for residential, commercial, and general
development purposes, such as the construction of coastal roads, dikes and bridges.
The pollution of marine waters is not yet evident at a national scale. However,
in some bays located close to population centers, it has become a major problem.
The most polluted body of marine water in the country is Manila Bay, which serves as
the final drainage of the numerous towns and cities of Metro Manila. In 1990, it was
estimated that at least 3,600 tons of refuse and 11 million gallons of industrial wastes
annually already flow into the bay (Leonardo 1990). The continuous inflow of large
volume of wastes over the years has made the bay unfit for swimming and related
recreational purposes. It also rendered fishery catches from the bay questionable for
human consumption, destroyed its valuable marine ecosystems, and harmed its overall
aesthetic value.
c) Environmental damage in inland waters
The environmental damage in inland waters takes the form of dried-up and
highly-polluted rivers and lakes. Although largely undocumented by scientific
research, it can be seen by ocular inspection that many rivers in some watersheds are
already either fully or partially waterless, especially in the summer months, because
of deforestation in the uplands. This environmental problem has resulted in
significant economic costs to the affected population, including decreased catch from
inland fishing activities and decreased availability of water for irrigation. In addition,
many of the rivers in the country which have flowing water all year round are polluted
by wastes coming from upstream industrial, agricultural and other human activities.
The pollution has not only damaged fish ecosystems and reduced catch but has
limited the viability of rivers for washing, swimming and other uses.
Like many rivers, some lakes in the country are also highly polluted. A
particular example is Laguna de Bay which has received significant attention in the
research literature. The lake has been the receiver of all sorts of wastes from
industries, households and agricultural activities from a major portion of Metro
Manila and back flows from the Pasig River (Orbeta and Indab 1994, Zaparalla 1994).
As a result, the lake is currently polluted by an overdose of wastes, including those
which are toxic and hazardous, which endanger the lives of residents in the
surrounding communities. The pollution also jeopardizes the inland municipal
fishery and aquaculture activities in the area by affecting output levels and rendering
the fitness of lake produced fish questionable for human consumption .
d) Poverty among municipal fishermen
The sad economic plight of municipal fishermen who practice mainly artisanal
fishing is well known. In 1994, it was estimated that at least 270,000 fishing
households along coastal villages are among the poorest of the poor, with per capita
incomes not even reaching one third of the poverty line (Saeger 1994). With the
current economic crisis, municipal fishermen are expected to get even poorer as
rising prices brought about by currency depreciation depress their effective incomes
even further. Worse, the number of poor municipal fishermen could swell as some of
the laid-off workers from the other sectors of the economy end up among their ranks
and exacerbate further the already intense competition for fishery resources.
e) Low productivity of aquaculture
The aquaculture subsector has been saddled with numerous problems which
hindered it from attaining higher productivity. These problems include scarcity of fry
in milkfish culture, high cost of production inputs and diseases in prawn culture, and
the red tide problem in mussel and oyster culture. In addition, it was reported that of
the 261,402 hectares of brackishwater ponds in the country, 160,208 hectares (61
percent) are not utilized at all (BFAR 1996a). It was cited further that despite the
achievements of brackishwater aquaculture research, the fishpond productivity per

unit in the country remain low (Saeger 1994). Compared to the average production of
4.0 tons per hectare per year of neighboring countries, the local average production of
brackishwater ponds is low at 1.26 tons per hectare per year.
f) Underutilization of offshore and exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
Although the country has vast EEZ water areas (see Table 1), these have not
been exploited to the fullest but remain largely underutilized by local fishermen. A
major cause of this is the limitation in local capital investment among commercial
fishermen, particularly in fishing equipment and technology (Thomas 1998). Many
boats in the current commercial fishing fleet fall within the small and medium
category and are not suitable for fishing in far flung areas.
Aside from the EEZ, commercial fishing is also weak in other deep sea areas,
such as in the Pacific side of the country. This low local presence encouraged
poaching by foreign fishermen, a concern which has not been satisfactorily addressed
due to the poor vessel facilities and equipment of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG).
The Pacific ocean is also within the typhoon belt which makes commercial fishermen
hesitant to fish in its deep waters. There have been reports that to some degree, off
shore and deep sea areas are already overfished, but by international poachers (e.g.,
Barut et al. 1997). The challenge facing the local fisheries sector then is how to
control poaching by foreigners and come up with the appropriate fishing equipment
and technology to allow it to exploit these areas.
g) High post-harvest losses
High post-harvest losses are an important problem in fisheries because of its
sheer magnitude. It was estimated that post-harvest losses amount to about 20 percent
to 40 percent of total output (BFAR 1996b). The identified causes are improper
handling and processing practices, and poor harvest facilities. For improper handling
alone, the economic costs are already tremendous. It was estimated that in 1993, at
least 15 percent of all fish landings was subjected to spoilage resulting to total
monetary losses of about P11.7 billion (Saeger 1994).
IV. The Philippine Fisheries Code, AFMA and Sustainable Development
The above listing of problems in the fisheries sector can actually be
summarized into three important and intertwined development concerns: poor
production, increasing resource depletion and environmental degradation and
worsening poverty. In short, the challenge faced by the sector today is not just to
raise output but to do it in a more sustainable and equitable way.
In this section, attention is focused on the Fisheries Code and AFMA and their
provisions which are relevant to the objective of sustainable development in the
fisheries sector. While the issue of equity is related to sustainable development, it is
not addressed here so that attention is focused directly on environmental related
issues and concerns. The section starts by presenting a background of the fisheries
Code and the AFMA. Then it looks into the relevant provisions in both laws,
identifying potential gaps and problems and then recommending actions to address
said gaps and problems.
Background of The Fisheries Code and AFMA
The Philippine Fisheries Code was passed by the Senate and the House of
Representatives on February 9, 1998 to consolidate previous laws in fisheries. The
process of legislating the code took about 11 years, from the beginning of the term of
President Corazon Aquino in 1987 until the end of the administration of President
Fidel Ramos in 1998 (Thomas 1998). As the most recent law in the sector, the
Fisheries Code repeals or modifies all past related laws, decrees, executive orders, and
rules and regulations which are inconsistent to it. It is now the binding law in the
fisheries sector for all the areas that it covers.
The AFMA, on the other hand, was passed by the Senate on December 15,
1997 and the House of Representatives the following day. The main purpose of the
law is to prescribe urgent measures for the modernization of the agriculture and
fisheries sectors for profitability and in preparation for the challenges of the current
international economic trend of globalization and liberalization. Like the Fisheries
Code, the AFMA also repeals or modifies all laws, decrees, executive orders, and
rules and regulations which are inconsistent to it.
As earlier mentioned, the Fisheries Code and AFMA are significant
milestones because they explicitly recognize sustainable development as an important
objective of Philippine society. Specifically, the Fisheries Code declared that the
sustainable development, management and conservation of fishery and aquatic
resources are both a policy and objective of the state (Congress of the Philippines
1998, pp 2-3). For its part, the AFMA pronounced that the state shall ensure the
development of the agriculture and fisheries sectors in accordance with the principle
of sustainable development (Congress of the Philippines 1997, p. 2). On the basis of
these general pronouncements, the two laws already contributed so much by putting
on equal footing sustainable development with the other objectives in fisheries. This
is an important departure from previous laws which generally emphasized only on
increased production as the overriding sectoral goal and placed secondary importance
to sustainable development and other concerns.

Specific Provisions and Sustainable Development
An appropriate way to evaluate in detail the significance of the Fisheries
Code and AFMA to sustainable development in the fisheries sector is to analyze their
contributions to particular of environmental management. The areas to be considered
below are natural resource pricing, delineation of property rights, monitoring and
enforcement, use of command-and-control instruments and utilization of market-
based instruments. Specific provisions in the laws which tend to strengthen the legal
side of environmental management along these areas could significantly contribute to
improved management and, thus, are steps in the right direction.
Natural Resource Pricing
The correct pricing of fisheries resources by the national government is a
useful tool for attaining a more sustainable form of development in fisheries. This is
because correct resource pricing, largely done through the imposition of accurate fees
that reflect resource rents, or above normal profits, will force users to be more
efficient in their activities. The end result will be a leaner and more competitive
industry which produce higher outputs at lower effort levels, thereby reducing
overfishing without sacrificing production. In addition to the economic and
environmental gains of correct pricing, there are generated revenues from the
extraction of rents from users, funds which the national government badly need in this
time of crisis.
The commercial fisheries and aquaculture are the two subsectors where
resource rents are potentially high and where correct resource pricing should be
exercised. At present, however, the efforts of the national government to impose this
management tool is lame. The current license fee rates in the commercial fisheries
are very low and were set many years ago (Tables 13 and 13a). For a 250 gross ton
motorized boat, for instance, the annual boat license is only P1,000 which was set
way back in 1983. In addition, the annual application fee is minimal at P400 or
P2,000 which was determined back in 1993. The cash bond and the annual license
fees for fishermen are likewise a pittance. All in all, the total cost to commercial
operators for getting government approval to fish in commercial waters, for all types
of boats, is negligible especially given the current prices.
In the aquaculture subsector, the situation is similar. The rental rates for using
government-owned fishponds are minimal and were set several years ago (Table 14).
The annual rental fee per hectare of fishponds is only P50 since 1979 while the annual
application fee is P1,000 since 1993. The cash bond is also low at P50 per hectare.
Again, the total cost to the user of leasing a government-owned fishpond per year is
minimal, given current prices.
In the municipal fisheries subsector, where many fishing activities are
artisanal, resource rents are expectedly low, if any. Therefore, extracting these from
the fishermen may not be desirable and fair action. Currently, although no actual data
can be presented here, the license fees imposed by LGUs on municipal fisheries are,
on the average, reasonably low. In the future, if municipal resources are better
managed and returns from municipal fishing increase, there may be a need to raise
license fees in the subsector, both as a means of controlling fishing effort and
generating much needed funds for the government.
It is encouraging to note that the Fisheries Code recognized the current
underpricing of the rights to exploit commercial and aquaculture resources. The law
alloted two important sections on the issue (Table 15). Section 6 stipulated that the
rentals for government-owned fishponds and licenses for commercial fishing boats
should reflect resource rents. In addition, Section 7 required that the number of
licenses and permits for the conduct of fishery activities be based on Maximum
Sustainable Yield (MSY) and that preference be given to users residing in the local
communities. In the case of the municipal fisheries, Section 6, however, simply
required that LGUs impose the appropriate license fees.
The abovementioned provisions of the Fisheries Code are novel in that they
explicitly embraced correct resource pricing as an important tool of fisheries
management. The job at hand now is for the BFAR to immediately implement correct
resource pricing in commercial fisheries and aquaculture. As an initial activity, the
agency should determine the estimated resource rents and MSY levels in the two
subsectors. The first phase of the Fisheries Sector Program (FSP) conducted studies
to evaluate these parameters and the results should be put to good use by the agency.
In addition, a substantial number of other studies are already done and these should be
used as references for the purpose (Israel and Banzon 1996, PIDS 1995, Schatz 1991,
Pauly et al. 1989, Silvestre et al. 1986).
Once the correct license fees in the commercial fisheries and rental rates in
aquaculture are estimated, the next step is for the BFAR to firmly implement these
rates with strong political will. A new Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) may be
needed to achieve this task after consultations are done with the various actors in the
two subsectors and the general public.
Three things may have to be seriously considered in the application of new
rates. Following the advice of Schatz (1991), the new rates can be increased on a
staggered basis to soften opposition and allow adjustment by those who are affected.
Periodic reestimation and adjustment of the rates, probably every two years, should be
done to respond to the time factor and dynamism in the fisheries sector and economy.
The new rates will have to be imposed as soon as possible not only to help effect
sustainable development goals but also to help the revenue generation efforts of the
government caught in crisis. Additional funds generated through correct resource
pricing will allow the government to operate more normally even in these tight times.
For fairness sake, it may be desirable to have funds generated through higher
fee rates in the fisheries sector reinjected back to its sources through the conduct of
sustainable development-related projects and programs in commercial fisheries and
aquaculture. The present system of budget management that requires revenues from
fees be forwarded to the national government, however, may make this type of
earmarking difficult. In the future, a way to allow earmarking must be seriously
studied by pertinent authorities as this may help soften the opposition to increased
fees among fisheries resource users.
Delineation of Property Rights
The proper delineation of property rights, specially in the municipal fisheries,
is important to sustainable development because when the long-term rights of
fishermen and other users to marine resources are well defined and secure, they will
tend to exploit them in a more sustainable manner. This will happen since fishermen
are assured that the ultimate benefits of their practices and activities will accrue to
them.
Traditionally, the municipal fisheries has been an open access subsector.
Practically anyone can be a fisherman and fish as much as he wants with little
government interference. The result of this free-for-all regime is the overexploitation
of coastal fisheries which is not just ongoing in particular areas but even at the
national scale.
The Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 recognized the problem of
overexploitation due to open access and started the process of legislating the proper
management of municipal fisheries resources. It mandated LGUs to safeguard and
conserve resources within their jurisdictions and devolved to them considerable
management powers to do so (Congress of the Philippines 1991, Tabunda and Galang
1992). The Fisheries Code went further by also providing nongovernment
organizations (NGOs) and other local organizations with powers to manage coastal
resources. In particular, Sections 20 and 22 of the Fisheries Code provided for the
granting to municipal folks, organizations and cooperatives of demarcated fishery
areas for fish capture, mariculture and fish farming (Table 15). Furthermore, Sections
17 and 21 mandated that resident fisherfolks, organizations and cooperatives have the
priority in the granting of fishery rights by the LGUs and in the exploitation of
demarcated fishery areas of their respective communities.
As a whole, the provisions in the Fisheries Code granting fishery rights to
local organizations have provided a general basis for a clearer delineation of property
rights in the municipal level and are then welcome. The ball is now in the hands of
the LGUs to appropriate these rights to fishermen and users in a socially equitable and
environmentally sustainable manner. In the distribution of rights, LGUs must put
utmost importance to the ability of organizations to sustainably manage municipal
fisheries resources. To do this, LGUs must require proposals from organizations
wanting to manage resources to include an environmental impact analysis which will
serve as an important basis in the granting of fishery rights. This requirement must
be implemented across all proposed projects with expected significant environmental
impact.
While the Fisheries Code has clear positive contributions to property rights
delineation, however, it also legislated a provision which is politically and socially
controversial. In Section 18, the law allowed for some small and medium scale
commercial fisheries operations in municipal waters within 10.1 to 15 kilometers
from the shoreline, provided some conditions are met. This provision run counter to
the LGC which provided that marine waters from the shoreline up to 15 kilometers
away are the sole domain of the municipal fishermen.
The granting of rights to commercial fishing in areas within 10.1 to 15
kilometers from the coastline has strong advocates from both sides. Those in favor
insist that it will allow the capture by commercial fishermen of fish in deeper waters
which otherwise cannot be caught by the limited gears and techniques of municipal
fishermen. Those who are against argue that it will merely exacerbate the
overexploitation of resources and the social injustice already prevailing in the
fisheries sector. They further insist that the area in contention serves as an important
component of the whole coastal fisheries ecosystem and its overexploitation will
surely damage and reduce municipal fisheries stocks.
Given the controversy created, the provision in the Fisheries Code granting
rights to commercial fisheries to fish in the farther portions of municipal waters
clearly deserves a second look. A study should be undertaken by BFAR to investigate
the scientific merits of the issue, particularly its impact on fish stocks and the
environment, among others. This study should provide a categorical answer and serve
as basis for amending the contested provision, if the need arises. It should be noted
that at present, the provision already sets a bad precedent in terms of legislative
inconsistency in that it reverses the position of the LGC which is itself also a recent
law.
At the level of the LGUs, care must be exercised by local executives in the
granting of rights to commercial fishermen to fish in their waters. Where the granting
of rights disregards environmental considerations and is based mainly on political
factors, local organizations and residents must exercise their moral duty to strongly
oppose this by all legally acceptable means.
Monitoring and Enforcement
Effective monitoring and enforcement are necessary for laws to have bite.
This is more so in the fisheries sector where the covered area and constituency are
large and widely distributed. It has been said many times that the Fisheries Sector
has adequate laws but that failure lies mainly in monitoring and enforcement. The
main reason posited for this is that fisheries agencies and law enforcement authorities
such as the PCG do not have the financial and manpower resources to effectively
monitor and enforce the laws given such enormous coverage.
Monitoring and enforcement is an area also covered by the Fisheries Code.
The law mandated that monitoring and enforcement be a common responsibility of
the national government, LGUs and the citizenry (Table15). For monitoring, in
particular, Section 14 stipulated that the DA create a monitoring, control and
surveillance system in coordination with the LGUs, other government agencies and
the private sector to ensure fisheries management on a sustainable basis. Section 38
requires commercial vessels to gather catch data and other relevant information and
submit them to the DA. Furthermore, Section 67 mandated the strengthening of the
Fisheries Inspection and Quarantine Service for purposes of monitoring and
regulating the importation and exportation of fishery resources.

For enforcement, on the other hand, Section 65 mandated the BFAR to
enforce all laws, formulate and enforce all rules and regulations governing the
conservation and management of fishery resources, except municipal waters.
Furthermore, Sections 16, 73 and 77 required the LGUs and the municipal, city, and
integrated fisheries and aquatic resources management councils (MFARMCs,
CFARMCs, ICFARMCs) to conduct and assist law enforcement in municipal waters.
In general, the Fisheries Code has provided many of the legal requirements for
an effective implementation of monitoring and enforcement. It can be noted, though,
that the problem of limited wherewithal to undertake monitoring and enforcement has
not been explicitly addressed by the law. Chapter VII, which stipulates the allotment
of public funds to specific concerns, did not include any provision for monitoring and
enforcement. It appears that The Code intends to address the problem of funds by
sharing the burden of monitoring and enforcement with the LGUs many of which
have financial problems of their own. Furthermore, involving the private sector in the
effort is a rather new approach that has yet to be tested. While its participation could
cut direct public costs, wholehearted private involvement requires incentives,
something that may impose indirect, but also real, costs to the government
Without additional financial commitment, the task of monitoring and
enforcement of the EEZ and other offshore areas, which fall outside of the reach of
the LGUs and private organizations, will remain a particularly difficult task for the
national law enforcement agencies. The government, therefore, should start to
aggressively look for other less financially demanding options to effectively guard its
offshore fisheries resources. A potentially attractive approach is to raise the issue of
fisheries monitoring and enforcement at the international level, such as in the
ASEAN, and see if a cooperative monitoring and enforcement system among

neighboring countries can be established. Given that other countries may have
monitoring and enforcement problems of their own, a common effort that will
distribute costs and raise effectiveness could be an attractive option for many of
them.
Command and Control Instruments
The use of command and control instruments has been the prevalent approach
in the environmental management of not only the fisheries sector but the entire
country as well. Over the years, several FAOs have been executed to implement such
instruments. The Fisheries Code consolidated these by allotting entire chapters and
numerous sections on environmentally sensitive command and control instruments
(Table 15). Chapter IV, which included Sections 80 and 81, stipulated that fishery
reserves and sanctuary areas may be established by the government where
commercial fishing will not be allowed. Chapter VI, which covered Sections 86 to
107, imposed violations on different sorts of infractions, including the use of illegal
gears, exploitation of sensitive resources like corrals, illegal fishing in reserves,
sanctuaries and other prohibited areas, and even aquatic pollution. Individual sections
in other chapters also set rules on catch ceilings, closed seasons, foreign species,
endangered species. Two important sections set certain requirements related to the
operation of fisheries projects. Section 12 required the submission by the proponents
of all environmentally sensitive fisheries projects to the DENR of an environmental
impact statements (EIS). Section 13 required an environmental compliance
certificates (ECC) from the same agency before a fisheries project which may have
environmental impact can be undertaken.

For its part, the AFMA also contained a particular command and control
provision which is advantageous to the fisheries environment. Section 12 of the law
stipulated the preservation, at all times, of important watersheds, a move which
should help lower the inflow of wastes from upland sources into coastal marine areas
and improve the viability of rivers, lakes and other inland water bodies.
As an integration of past laws, the large number of command and control
instruments in the Fisheries Code is expected. Sections 12 and 13 are another novelty
and should contribute a lot to improved fisheries management by way of allowing the
general application of the requirements of an EIS and ECC that were sparingly and
selectively applied only in the past. These important provisions should go a long way
towards helping attain the goal of a more sustainable form of development in the
sector. Along this line, the DENR must work closely with the BFAR in immediately
implementing Sections 12 and 13 among projects in the commercial fisheries and
aquaculture subsectors. While not explicitly stated, it is clear that the provisions also
cover the municipal fisheries and, hence, the DENR should likewise extend assistance
to the LGUs in the implementation of the EIS and ECC requirements.
It is observed that the monetary rates for penalties mentioned in Chapter VI of
the Fisheries Code for various infractions appear sufficient at present but these should
be periodically reviewed by the BFAR so rates can be adjusted to reflect changes over
time and other factors. Rates should be continuously adjusted to make them real
deterrents to potential violators.

Market-Based Instruments
Other than command and control instruments, the goal of sustainable
development in the fisheries sector can be pursued through the use of market-based
instruments. The theoretical arguments supporting the use of market-based
instruments are abundant in the literature (e.g., Pearce and Turner 1991) .
Empirically, they have been found to work in particular countries, especially when
combined with command and control instruments.
It is another important novelty that the Fisheries Code recognized the
importance of market-based instruments as a tool in environmental management.
Section 48 of the law stipulated that the DA should formulate incentives and
disincentives, such as effluent fees, user fees, negotiable permits and other market-
based instruments to encourage compliance to environmental standards and promote
sustainable management practices in aquaculture. It is a wonder, however, why the
commercial fisheries subsector is not covered by this provision. This is one area
which may need reconsideration and amending.
The task at hand is for the BFAR to start working on the development of the
appropriate market based instruments for the aquaculture subsector. For the
environment, in general, several studies have already been done and these sources
should be utilized by the agency in forming some instruments specific for fisheries
(e.g., ADB 1997a, 1997b). Although the Fisheries Code did not mandate LGUs to
implement market-based instruments in their areas, it goes without saying that the
potential of such as a tool for management at the local level must be seriously
explored.
Other Sustainable Development Related Issues
Aside from the areas which have direct bearings on environmental
management considered above, there are other important issues which are also
critical to the sustainable development efforts in fisheries and need looking into.
These are as follows:
Institutional issues
Over the years, the administration of the fisheries sector at the national level
has been moved from one department to another (Table 11). Since 1987,
administration has been assigned to the DA through the BFAR, an arrangement
reconfirmed by Section 64 of the Fisheries Code (Table 16). This classification of
fisheries as under agriculture creates a potentially critical problem in terms of the
environmental management of marine resources. It has been argued by some sectors
that since the DA has a predominantly food production mandate, placing national
fisheries administration fully under its wings may relegate the status of the sector as a
critical natural resource and environment base.
The pronouncement of the current national administration to give priority to
government streamlining in the near future in order to make governance more
efficient provides a chance for this institutional question in fisheries management to
be addressed once and for all. Little else can be said at this point except that a serious
study must be undertaken that will look into the different possibilities for
administering the fisheries sector. As a result, this study should provide the most
feasible streamlining approach for the administration of the fisheries sector, given the
different criteria agreed by all concerned parties.

Another environmentally important institutional issue brought about by the
Fisheries Code is its creation of the national fisheries and aquatic resources
management councils (NFARMCs), IFARMCs, CFARMCs, MFARMCs and
barangay fisheries and aquatic resources management councils (BFARMCs) by virtue
of Sections 70 to 79. Some sectors noted that the composition of these councils is
highly skewed in favor of development over conservation. It can be seen, for
instance, that only one representative from an NGO is allowed to sit in each of these
councils. Moreover, the law did not specifically state that only environmentally-
oriented NGOs should serve, allowing the possibility that the environmental lobby
will not be represented at all.
On one hand, the above institutional issue may be considered contentious as it
requires the assumption that the other non-NGO representatives to the councils are
purely development-oriented, a premise that is open to debate. On the other hand, the
dreaded situation can certainly happen. Thus, an amendment of the Fisheries Code
may be necessary to ensure that the environmental lobby will be reasonably
represented in the councils. A numerically clear voice that pursues environmental
goals is needed in such councils with so much important management functions.
Similarly, at the level of the LGUs which have the right to form the BFARMCs, local
executives should make it a point that environmentally-oriented NGOs are well
represented.
Research and development issues
Research and development (R&D) in fisheries has been beset with numerous
problems which contribute to its poor performance as an engine of sectoral
development (Israel 1998). Among the most important problems of fisheries R&D is
the low funding from the national government (Table 17). The share of fisheries
R&D to the total national government expenditure of 0.03 percent is way below
acceptable levels. Moreover, it is relatively too small in comparison to what has been
afforded agriculture and natural resources (ANR) R&D budget as a whole.
Aside from budget, in terms of sustainable development, fisheries R&D has
been biased against environmental research in favor of production-oriented activities
as well (Table 18). For instance, resource economics and management studies
comprised no more than 7 percent of the total socioeconomic and policy studies
conducted so far in the fisheries sector.
To address the funding problems in fisheries R&D, Section 112 of the
Fisheries Code legislated the creation of a P100 million fund for environmentally-
sound, local resource-based and labor-intensive technology development (Table 16).
For its part, Section 83 of the AFMA stipulated that R&D allocations for fisheries
and agriculture be raised to at least one percent of the gross value added (GVA) by
year 2001 although it is silent on the sharing of funds between the two sections.
While some funding commitments were done by the two laws, the current economic
crisis and government funding cutbacks puts into question the actual materialization
of these commitments to fisheries R&D. Again, little can be said except to hope that
the government should try its best to find funds not only to finance fisheries R & D
but also the most important programs of the Fisheries Code and AFMA.
The problem of low attention to environmental and sustainable development
issues by fisheries R & D could have been partly addressed by the Fisheries Code
through Section 82 which created the National Fisheries Research and Development
Institute (NFRDI) under the BFAR (Table 16). The objectives of the institute stated
in Section 84, however, appear to be mostly development and socially oriented and,
queerly, do not specifically include the conduct of research related to the environment
and sustainable development. Therefore, a lot still needs to be done to promote
environmental research in fisheries. A potential way of achieving this is for the
BFAR to specifically mandate, through an FAO, all research agencies under it to
provide equal attention to sustainable development as a research concern. The
Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development (PCAMRD)
which plans, monitors and evaluates fisheries R&D and other research agencies,
should, through their own channels, do the same thing.
Education issues
Formal fisheries education in the Philippines dates back at least four decades
ago (Fernandez 1996). Yet, like R&D, it has been an ineffective tool of sectoral
development. At present, there appears to be no dearth of fisheries schools in the
country, as manifested, for instance, by the larger ratio of fisheries technical schools
to their total number (Table 19). The problem, however, is that the schools have an
inadequate number of teachers which are also generally poorly trained. Coupled with
this are the inadequacy in facilities and other problems which have their roots in poor
funding. Fisheries technical and vocational schools, for instance, only has not more
than 15 percent of the total funding for all technical and vocational schools (Table
20). The ultimate end result is the production of many poorly trained and half-baked
graduates, a sad consequence which may be true also for Philippine education in
general.
In terms of sustainable development, the problem in fisheries education
worsens since not only are the graduates poorly trained, their training has a mostly
production biased-orientation. The curricula of fisheries courses of institutions

supervised by the Commission for Higher Education (CHED), for example, are
generally short on environmentally-related courses (Tables 21 and 21a). Of the
numerous courses offered, only about three touch on the environment and not one
deals on fisheries environmental economics, an important course in the determination
of optimal resource exploitation. This shortcoming is partly caused by the lack of
qualified people to teach environment related courses and the traditionally production
orientation of fisheries school administrators.
Both the Fisheries Code and AFMA alloted substantial sections to deal with
the numerous problems in fisheries education. Section 115 of the former and Section
75 of the latter provided for the professionalization of fisheries graduates by requiring
them to pass a board examination before they can practice their trade. Section 116 of
the Fisheries Code also stipulated the upgrading of fisheries schools and colleges.
Furthermore, Section 117 of the Fisheries Code and Section 67 of the AFMA
stipulated the inclusion of fisheries conservation subjects in the curricula at the
elementary and secondary levels. The problem of lack of sustainable development
related courses at the technical and vocation as well as tertiary levels, however, has
not been considered in both laws.
It is difficult to comment on a problem in fisheries that may simply be a
microcosm of a bigger problem facing society. The professionalization of fisheries
graduates is a step in the right direction although this will make fisheries education a
lot more expensive to parents of fisheries students, many of whom belong to the lower
economic brackets. To alleviate this additional economic pressure on the poor, the
government must come up with a financial assistance system that will make the
process of fisheries board examinations less economically taxing on parents.

Requiring elementary and secondary students to take fisheries conservation
subjects may be too much since not all these people will join the fisheries industry
someday. It would have been better if elementary and secondary students are just
required to take general environmental conservation courses, not specific but
including fisheries. At any rate, this part of the Fisheries Code may be amended to
require the taking of more fisheries conservation subjects, specifically fisheries
environmental economics and other relevant courses not currently offered, among
technical, vocational and tertiary students taking fisheries related degrees.
Statistics and information issues
The availability of useful and comprehensive secondary data and information
for use in R & D is a necessity for sustainable development. In Philippine fisheries,
however, the data gathered by pertinent agencies like the Bureau of Agricultural
Statistics (BAS) are mostly, if not all, production-oriented (Table 22). Statistics
measuring environmentally relevant variables, even on a periodic basis, are generally
not collected.
It is unfortunate that the Fisheries Code did not touch on the need to upgrade
the quality of data and information gathered by government agencies. Sections 121
and 122 of the law merely addressed the issues of protection of sensitive technical
information and assistance in collecting information. In comparison, the AFMA is
more sensitive on the issue. Its Section 41 required the creation of a National
Information Network (NIN) which, among others, shall provide fisheries information
including resource accounting data.
The Department of Agriculture should make the gathering of secondary
fisheries statistics and information more inclusive of environmental concerns, even if

only on a periodic, say five year, basis. This may be done through a Department
Administrative Order (DAO) requiring the BAS, in coordination with other agencies,
to do so. The BAS should be able to gather such statistics and information by
including environmental parameters among those they regularly monitor in the field
and by also looking into the data and statistics gathered by several NGOs conducting
environmentally-related projects in the country.
Extension issues
As part of its program to transfer service delivery functions, the LGC
devolved the responsibility of fisheries extension at the local level to the LGUs
(Congress of the Philippines 1991, Tabunda and Galang 1992). This, however,
created some problems as many LGUs do not have the resources to effectively
perform the job of extension. In order to address this constraint, Sections 120 of the
Fisheries Code and Title 3, Chapter 2 of the AFMA made the job of fisheries
extension a shared responsibility of the national government and the LGUs.
Section 65 of the Fisheries Code also mandated the BFAR to assist LGUs in
developing their technical capability to develop, manage, regulate, conserve and
protect fisheries resources. This section take cognizance of the fact that fisheries
extension over the years may have concentrated only in the propagation of
production-oriented technologies and has disregarded sustainable resource use as an
extension goal. This is another positive development which should be welcome to the
environmental community.
The mere return of the involvement of the national government in fisheries
extension does not mean that extension will now proceed smoothly and effective. The
extension program in fisheries and agriculture in the country has been plagued by
numerous problems over the years, foremost of which are the lack of funding support
and inadequacy in trained staff and facilities (e.g. Legaspi 1996). The budget of the
BFAR should be increased so that its personnel and facilities, especially those in the
regional and provincial offices, can be improved for the purpose of conducting
effective extension together with the LGUs. If enough additional budget from the
national government for extension will not be forthcoming, then the BFAR should
devise means to generate budget for the purpose and this is where earnings coming
from increased fees imposed on commercial and aquaculture resource users may be
useful, if earmarking can be made possible in the future. Another option is for the
BFAR to promote cooperation and streamlining of the extension activities of all
government agencies and even the NGOs involved in the fisheries sector so that costs
can be shared between all those involved.
Credit issues
Credit is critical in fisheries where many of the entrepreneurs may not have
enough personal capital to venture into production operations on their own. Over the
years, loans have been granted in fisheries but at a lower scale compared to
agriculture. In general, the loan to output ratios of specific agricultural crops and of
agriculture as a whole are greater than that of fisheries (Table 23). Livestock and
poultry has a lower loan to output ratio than fisheries but forestry has a much higher
one. A note of comfort is that the average growth rate of fisheries loans for the period
1987 to 1997 is greater than that for total agricultural loans (Table 24).
The Fisheries Code recognized the need for additional credit in the fisheries
sector through Sections 109, 110, 111, 112 and 114 (Table 16). These sections
mandated that funds be made available for credit to the municipal, commercial and
aquaculture subsectors. For its part, the AFMA, dedicated Chapter 3 on the issue of
credit in agriculture and fisheries and established funds for the purpose. These
promised monies, if indeed made available to their intended beneficiaries, should help
address the problem of low credit for the fisheries sector.
There are numerous other reasons why fisheries credit is laggard and
recommendations on how to address them are equally abundant (e.g., Caneda 1996).
Suffice it to say that the national government and those involved in running the credit
program in the country should take seriously the recommendations and act
immediately on those which can be feasibly implemented now. Regarding credit and
sustainable development, the implementors of the credit program should see to it that
Sections 12 and 13 of the Fisheries Code are followed in the granting of credit, that is,
implement the EIS and ECC requirements among borrowers. While these
requirements may discourage some borrowers and hinder credit access in the short-
run, the long-term gains to society in terms of sustainable development of the fisheries
sector are clearly superior and must be desired.
Infrastructure issues
For the fisheries sector to fully develop, additional port and post-harvest
facilities will be necessary. As earlier mentioned, the post-harvest losses in fisheries
are substantial and lowering these to a minimum will do a lot to improve productivity.
The available data on fisheries facilities indicate that the country has a large
number of ports and most of these are operating (Table 25). However, it has been
pointed out that several coastal regions do not have regional ports and that many
coastal municipalities do not have ports (Davila 1996). In addition, ice plants,
freezers and cold storages are lacking in many areas. In some places where facilities
are available, these are underutilized because of the reduced landed harvest by the
fishermen due to stock depletion.
The Fisheries Code acknowledged the problem of lack of infrastructure
support in fisheries through Section 119 which stipulated the provision of additional
infrastructure facilities which include not only ports and post-harvest facilities but
also markets and farm to market roads. The law, though, is silent on how the
provision of these additional infrastructure will be financed. Similarly, Chapter 6 of
the AFMA mandated the provision of additional infrastructure facilities for
agriculture and fisheries. It also mentioned in Section 111 that 10 percent of the
initial annual allocation of the AFMA be allocated for the provision of such facilities.
Hopefully, if the AFMA funds for infrastructure development are forthcoming,
fisheries facilities may indeed be improved. Those regions and municipalities which
are wanting in facilities should be afforded first priority, but subject to their capability
to sufficiently produce and other selection criteria.
In terms of sustainable development, Section 119 of the Fisheries Code
specified that the feasibility of providing additional facilities will also be analyzed
based on their environmental impacts, which means that the EIS and ECC
requirements will be imposed. To add to this, it is suggested that the DENR or the
LGUs should require those managing all fisheries facilities which may have
significant environmental impacts to hire pollution officers to take care of proper
environmental management in these facilities.

Public awareness issues
Finally, there is no question that an enlightened populace can help a lot in the
promotion of sustainable development in fisheries. This is because the environmental
problems in the sector are not only caused by fisheries resource users but also by
participants from other sectors and the general public as well. As mentioned, a lot of
the marine pollution are caused by land-based industrial, commercial and household
activities which are far related to the fisheries sector. To attain a more sustainable
type of development in fisheries, there, it is necessary to make other sectors and the
general public aware of the consequences of their actions on the environment and
ways to mitigate said actions.
The Fisheries Code addressed the issue of public awareness through Section
118 which required the DA, CHED and the Department of Education, Culture and
Sports (DECS), and the Philippine Information Agency (PIA) to undertake a
nationwide educational campaign to promote, among others, the conservation and
proper use of the environment. This is well said although the funds needed for the
purpose is not specified in the law. Without additional funds, the agencies tasked to
do this campaign have no recourse but to involve the private sector and to streamline
their activities related to public education and awareness so that maximum effect at
the least cost can be achieved.
V. Conclusions
In retrospect, the above review of the Fisheries Code and AFMA shows that
the laws has made substantial contributions to the goal of sustainable development in
the fisheries sector. It also demonstrates that even in the middle of the current
economic crisis and the subsequent public deficits it has spawned, there are a lot of
things which can already be done based on the laws to promote a better and much
improved environmental management in the sector.
Among others, the provisions of the Fisheries Code which require the
imposition of correct resource pricing in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, the
submission and approval EIS and ECC for all projects, and the implementation of
market-based instruments should be immediately implemented by the authorities. In
addition, other provisions in the law relating to specific concerns related to fisheries
sustainable development should be vigorously pursued. The benefits from the
pursuance of these provisions will certainly go a long way towards improving
environmental management in the sector.
While already helpful in its present form, The Fisheries Code has some
contentious provisions which need to be reconsidered in light of the goal of
sustainable development in the fisheries sector. In particular, the provision granting
some access to commercial fishermen in municipal water needs to be seriously
restudied and changed if found socially and environmentally disadvantageous. In
some instances, the law also mandated the provision of certain public services which
are environmentally desirable and yet provided little indication on how said activities
will be funded. This limitation of the law cultivates the fear that it may eventually
end up among the list of numerous outputs of the legislative system which cannot be
effectively implemented due to gross underfunding.
To end, a categorical judgement of the contribution of the Fisheries Code to
the goal of sustainable development cannot be done here. The final word on the law
depends a lot on how it will be pursued by the agencies who will implement it and
whether or not it will be wholeheartedly accepted by the constituency it aims to
govern.
References
Asian Development Bank (1997a). Potential uses of market-based instruments for

environmental management in the Philippines. Environment Division, Office
of Environment and Social Development. 114 p.
________________ (1997b). Potential uses of market-based instruments for

environmental management in the Philippines, the essentials. Environment
Division, Office of Environment and Social Development. 26 p.
Barut, N. C., M. D. Santos and L. R. Garces. (1997). Overview of Philippine marine

fisheries, p. 62-71. In G. Silvestre and D. Pauly (eds.). Status and
management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 53,
208 p. ICLARM, Makati City.
Bureau of Agricultural Research (1991). National fisheries research program 1990-

1994. Department of Agriculture, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City. 113
p.
Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (1997a). Fisheries statistics of the Philippines 1992-

1996. Department of Agriculture, Quezon City. 77 p.
________________ (1997b). 1996 Philippine fisheries profile. Department of

Agriculture, Quezon City. 48 p.
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (1996a). Main report on the Second
National Workshop on Policy Planning and Industry Development. Quezon
City. 278 p.
________________ (1996b). Fisheries sector development project report. Paper

submitted to the Asian Development Bank and Department of Agriculture.
________________ (1989). A compilation of fisheries administrative orders.

Department of Agriculture, Quezon City.
________________ (1995). Fisheries administrative orders (a compilation).

Department of Agriculture, Quezon City. 190 p.
Caneda, L. (1996). Strategic/implementation plan and project ideas for fisheries

credit, pp. 135-56. In Main report of the second national fisheries workshop
on policy planning and industry development. Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources.
Congress of the Philippines (1998). The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998. Republic
Act No. 8550. 59 p.
________________ (1997). The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of

1997. Republic Act No. 8435. 39 p.
________________ (1991). The Local Government Code of 1991. Republic Act No.
7160. 270 p.
Davila, N. M. (1996). Strategic plan physical infrastructure for fisheries and

aquaculture, pp. 90-4. In Main report of the second national fisheries
workshop on policy planning and industry development. Bureau of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources.
de Jesus, C. C., L. G. Bondoc and A.G. Maghirang (1997). Policy research in the
fisheries sector: Status, Direction and Priorities. Philippine Council for
Aquatic and Marine Research and Development, Los Banos, Laguna.
Fernandez, P. M. (1996). Strategic/implementation plan and project ideas for

fisheries education in the Philippines, pp. 166-76. In Main report of the
second national fisheries workshop on policy planning and industry
development. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
Gomez, E. D. (1991). Coral reef ecosystems and resources in the Philippines.

Canopy Int., 16 (5), pp. 1-12.
Gomez, E. D., P. M. Alino, H. T. Yap and W. Y. Licuanan (1994). A review of the

status of Philippine reefs. In Mar. Polut. Bull., 29 (1-3), pp. 62-68.
Guerrero, R. D., III (1997). The sustainable development of Philippine fisheries

resources. Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and
Development, Los Banos, Laguna. 10 p.
Israel, D. C. (1998). Research and development in the Philippine Fisheries Sector.

Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Draft Report.
Israel, D. C. and C. P. Banzon (1998). Overfishing in the Philippine marine fisheries

sector. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA)
Research Report Series. 32 p.
Legaspi, A. S. (1996). Strategic/implementation plan and project ideas on fisheries

training and extension, pp. 157-65. In Main report of the second national
fisheries workshop on policy planning and industry development. Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
Leonardo, L. (1990). Pollution in Metro Manila. In Philippine Development, Vol.

XVII, No. 4, pp. 18-21.
National Statistical Coordination Board (1997). Philippine statistical yearbook.
________________ (1998). Inventory of ports.
Orbeta, E.V. and A.L. Indab (1994). Estimation of pollution loads and cost of
preventing future water quality deterioration in Laguna Lake. Technical
Report No. 2 of the MEIP Laguna de Bay Economic Valuation Study. 21 p.
Pauly, D., G. Silvestre and I. R. Smith. (1989). On development, fisheries and

dynamite: brief review of tropical fisheries management. In Natural Resource
Modelling, 3 (3), pp. 307-329.
Pearce, D. W. and R. K. Turner (1991). Economics of natural resources and the

environment. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, U.S.A.
Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development (1996a). An
analysis of the R & D investment in the fisheries sector. Los Baños, Laguna.. 43
p.
_________________ (1996b). National marine science research and development

program. 27 p.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies (1995). Philippine mangrove resource

valuation project. Fisheries Sector Program, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources, Bureau of Agriculture. 82 p.
Primavera, J.H. (1991). Intensive prawn farming in the Philippines: ecological, sound
and economic implications. In Ambio, 20, pp. 28-31.
Republic of the Philippines (Various Years). General Appropriations Act. 1990,

1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996.
Silvestre, G., R. Regalado and D. Pauly (1986). Status of Philippine demersal stocks-
inferences From underutilized catch rate data, pp.47-96. In D. Pauly et al.
(eds). Resources, management and socio-economics of Philippine marine
fisheries. Tech. Rep. Dep. Mar. Fish. Tech. Rep. 10: 217 p.
Saeger, J. (1994). Overview of Philippine fisheries: problems and potentials. 69 p.
Schatz, R. (1991). Economic rent study for the Philippine fisheries sector. Final
Report.
Tabunda, M. s. and M. M. Galang. A guide to the Local Government Code of 1991.

Mary Jo Educational Supply, Manila, Philippines.
Thomas, F. (1998). Advocacy paper on increasing competitiveness in the Philippine

commercial fisheries industry. Paper presented at the Shangri-La's EDSA
Plaza Hotel, Mandaluyong City. 26 p.
Trinidad, A. C., R. S. Pomeroy, P. V. Cruz and M. Aquero (1993). Bioeconomics of

the Philippine small pelagics fishery. ICLARM Technical Report No. 38.
Makati, Metro Manila.
Yap, Wilfredo (1997). Can the Philippines produce enough fish for the multitude?.
In Aquaculture Asia, Vol. II No. 3, pp. 32-38.
Zafaralla, M.T. (1994). The dwindling fish productivity of Laguna de Bay: its
relationship with water quality and primary productivity. Technical Report
No.3 of the MEIP Laguna de Bay Economic Valuation Study. 17 p.
Table 1. Total aquatic resources of the Philippines, 1996

Resources Length/ Area % to Total
A. Marine Resources
Total Territorial Marine Water Area 220,000,000 ha 99.62
(including the EEZ)
a. Coastal 26,600,000 ha
b. Oceanic 193,400,000 ha
Shelf Area 18,460,000 ha

(Depth 200 m)
Coral Reef Area 27,000 sq. km.
Coastline 17,460 km.
B. Inland Resources
Total Inland Water Area 842,247 ha 0.38
1. Swamplands 338,393 ha
a. Freshwater 106,328 ha
b. Brackishwater 232,065 ha
2. Existing Fishpond 253,854 ha

a. Freshwater 14,531 ha
b. Brackishwater 239,323 ha
3. Other Inland Resources 250,000 ha

a. Lakes 200,000 ha
b. Rivers 31,000 ha
c. Reservoirs 19,000 ha
Total Water Area 220,842,247 ha 100.00
Source: BAS (1997a)

Table 2. Estimated employment in fisheries, 1996
Sector Number of Persons %
Aquaculture 258,480 26.09
Municipal 675,677 68.19
Commercial 56,715 5.72
Total 990,872 100.00
Source: BAS (1997b)

Table 3. Philippine fish production, by subsector, 1987-1997
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Quantity ( Thousand Metric Tons)
All sectors 2,213.0 2,299.7 2,371.1 2,503.4 2,599.0 2,625.7 2,632.0 2,721.0 2,784.2 2,769.2 2,766.5
Commercial 591.2 600.0 637.0 700.6 759.8 804.9 824.4 859.3 893.2 879.1 884.6
Municipal 1,060.9 1,068.5 1,104.6 1,131.9 1,146.8 1,084.4 1,014.0 992.6 972.0 909.2 924.5
Aquaculture 560.9 599.5 629.3 671.1 692.4 736.4 793.6 869.1 919.0 980.9 957.4
Value (Million Pesos)
All sectors 37,349.4 42,118.2 45,093.7 52,177.2 60,033.3 65,443.5 70,215.8 80,192.1 83,056.5 83,139.1 80,745.2
Commercial 9,820.7 10,270.0 11,033.4 12,410.6 15,244.6 16,800.6 18,021.2 20,714.5 23,065.4 24,555.3 25,935.3
Municipal 16,107.5 16,633.1 18,387.7 19,300.1 22,132.6 22,656.4 22,031.4 24,474.9 26,463.8 25,373.2 27,392.9
Aquaculture 11,421.2 15,213.0 15,672.6 20,466.5 22,656.1 25,986.5 30,163.2 35,002.7 33,527.3 33,210.6 27,417.0
Source: BAS (various years)

Table 4. Annual growth rates of Philippine fish production, by sector, 1988 -1997
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
Quantity (%)
All sectors 3.92 3.10 5.58 3.82 1.03 0.24 3.38 2.33 -0.54 -0.10 2.28
Commercial 1.49 6.17 9.98 8.45 5.94 2.42 4.24 3.95 -1.59 0.63 4.17
Municipal 0.72 3.38 2.47 1.32 -5.44 -6.49 -2.11 -2.07 -6.46 1.68 -1.30
Aquaculture 6.88 4.97 6.64 3.17 6.35 7.77 9.51 5.75 6.73 -2.40 5.54
Value (%)
All sectors 12.77 7.06 15.71 15.06 9.01 7.29 14.21 3.57 0.10 -2.88 8.19
Commercial 4.58 7.43 12.48 22.84 10.21 7.26 14.94 21.00 -2.03 5.62 10.43
Municipal 3.26 10.55 4.96 14.68 2.37 -2.76 11.09 8.13 -4.12 7.96 5.61
Aquaculture 33.20 3.02 30.59 10.70 14.70 16.06 16.12 -4.27 -0.94 -17.45 10.17
Source: Table 3
Table 5. Gross national product, crop agriculture production and fisheries production in the Philippines, 1987-1997
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
GNP 665,443 782,069 905,459 1,071,433 1,254,562 1,374,838 1,500,287 1,736,382 1,958,932 2,261,339 2,526,891
Crop Agriculture 107,473 125,313 144,407 153,925 164,312 172,710 177,472 199,327 230,396 270,015 276,826
Fisheries 37,349 42,118 45,094 52,177 60,033 65,444 70,216 80,192 83,057 83,139 80,745
Ratios (%)
Fisheries / GNP 5.61 5.39 4.98 4.87 4.79 4.76 4.68 4.62 4.24 3.68 3.20
Fisheries / Crop Agriculture 34.75 33.61 31.23 33.90 36.54 37.89 39.56 40.23 36.05 30.79 29.17
Sources: NSCB (1997), BAS (various years)

Table 6. Annual growth rate of gross national product, crop agriculture and fisheries production in the Philippines, 1988-1997
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
Value (%)
GNP 17.53 15.78 18.33 17.09 9.59 9.12 15.74 12.82 15.44 11.74 14.32
Crop Agriculture 16.60 15.24 6.59 6.75 5.11 2.76 12.31 15.59 17.20 2.52 10.07
Fisheries 12.77 7.06 15.71 15.06 9.01 7.29 14.21 3.57 0.10 -2.88 8.19
Ratio (%)
Fisheries / GNP Ratio -4.05 -7.53 -2.22 -1.74 -0.52 -1.68 -1.32 -8.19 -13.29 -13.09 -5.36
Fisheries / Crop Agriculture Ratio -3.29 -7.09 8.55 7.78 3.71 4.41 1.69 -10.39 -14.59 -5.27 -1.45
Source: Table 5
Table 7. Philippine exports, imports and net exports of fishery products, 1987-1997
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Quantity (Metric Tons MP)
Exports 111,830 120,903 145,099 143,038 144,939 131,915 163,745 172,080 169,746 164,673 173,888
Imports 104,936 164,375 197,963 196,115 193,635 221,545 208,895 241,194 270,213 262,587 295,016
Net Exports 6,894 -43,472 -52,864 -53,077 -48,696 -89,630 -45,150 -69,114 -100,467 -97,914 -121,128
Exports 6,442 9,599 10,248 11,529 14,049 11,090 14,074 15,027 15,657 15,110 16,337
Imports 637 1,312 1,424 1,834 2,323 2,496 2,249 2,505 2,923 3,178 4,020
Net Exports 5,805 8,287 8,824 9,695 11,726 8,594 11,825 12,522 12,734 11,932 12,317
Source: BAS (various years)

Table 8. Annual growth rates of Philippine exports, imports and net exports of fishery products, 1988-1997
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
Quantity (%)
Exports 8.11 0.20 -1.42 1.33 -8.99 24.13 5.09 -1.36 -2.99 5.60 2.97
Imports 56.64 0.20 -0.93 -1.26 14.41 -5.71 15.46 12.03 -2.82 12.35 10.04
Net Exports -730.58 0.22 0.40 -8.25 84.06 49.63 -53.08 -45.36 2.54 23.71 -67.67
Value (%)
Exports 49.01 0.07 12.50 21.86 -21.06 26.90 6.77 4.19 -3.49 8.12 10.49
Imports 105.97 0.09 28.79 26.66 7.45 -9.90 11.39 16.69 8.71 26.49 22.23
Net Exports 42.76 0.06 9.87 20.95 -26.71 -37.60 -5.89 -1.69 6.29 3.23 1.13
Source: Table 7
Table 9. Annual growth rates of ASEAN fish production, 1988-1995

Countries 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Average
Brunei Darusalam -47.85 13.52 1.38 -29.70 3.03 3.23 0.00 0.00 -7.05
Indonesia 8.18 5.48 3.25 6.82 5.84 5.70 0.00 0.00 4.41
Malaysia -3.57 7.22 7.28 -2.65 12.96 4.49 2.36 4.91 4.12
Philippines 1.09 4.40 5.28 4.84 -1.92 -0.36 0.55 -0.31 1.70
Singapore -9.81 -17.16 5.66 -1.87 -11.82 0.89 17.22 0.48 -2.05
Thailand -4.77 2.01 3.19 6.51 9.17 2.80 0.00 0.00 2.36
Notes: Rates for the Philippines are different from those in Table 4 due to difference in data sources.
Source of basic data: FAO database
Table 10. Philippine fish requirement based on 36 kg per capita assumption, net supply, and shortfall, 1985-1994
Year Requirement Supply Deficit Imports Per capita supply (kg)

('000 mt) ('000 mt) ('000 mt) ('000 mt) W/O imports With imports
1985 1,979 1,676 303 6 30.5 30.6

1986 2,019 1,755 263 33 31.3 31.9
1987 2,059 1,775 284 68 31.0 32.2
1988 2,100 1,790 310 117 30.7 32.7
1989 2,142 1,873 269 141 31.5 33.8
1990 2,185 1,937 248 131 31.9 34.1
1991 2,263 2,037 226 145 32.4 34.7
1992 2,313 2,013 300 145 31.3 33.6
1993 2,363 1,983 380 119 30.2 32.0
1994 2,413 1,966 447 124 29.3 31.2
Source: Yap (1997)

Table 11. National fisheries administration in the Philippines, 1907-1998

Agency Year Relevant Legislation
Fishery Section, 1907

Bureau of Government Laboratories
Division of Fisheries,
Bureau of Science
Fish and Game Administration, 1933 GM Order No.4

Department of Agriculture and Commerce
Fish and Game Administration, 1934

Bureau of Science
Division of Fisheries, 1939 GA Order No. 15

Department of Agriculture and Commerce
Bureau of Forestry and Fishery early years

of WW II
Bureau of Fisheries latter years

(independent office) of WW II
Bureau of Fisheries 1947 RA No. 177
Bureau of Fisheries 1957 EO No. 216

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Philippine Fisheries Commission 1963 RA No. 3512

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Bureau of Fisheries 1972 Integrated Reorganization Plan
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) 1974 PD No. 461

Ministry of Natural Resources
BFAR (staff bureau) 1984 EO No. 967

Ministry of Agriculture and Food
BFAR (staff function fully implemented) 1987 EO No. 116

Department of Agriculture
BFAR (line bureau) 1998 RA No. 8550

Department of Agriculture Fisheries Code
Note: GM means General Memorandum, GA, General Administrative, RA, Republic Act, EO, Executive Order
and PD, Presidential Decree
Source: BFAR Files
Table 12. Important legislation related to fisheries prior to the Philippine Fisheries Code
Legislation Year Important Provisions
CA Nos. 2657 and 2711 1917 and Gave the municipal councils the authority over the
1934 municipal fishing activities
Renders precise the dual authority of the national
and municipal governments to govern the fisheries
Defined municipal waters as that water area
3 nautical miles from the shoreline
CA No. 4003 or 1932 Specified that no powered vessels of more than 3

Fisheries Act gross ton (GT) are allowed to fish in territorial
waters without a permit or license issued by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce
Philippine Constitution 1935 Gave the Filipino citizens exclusive right to exploit
Article XII the marine resources of the country
PD No. 704 or 1975 Revised and consolidated all previous laws and
Fisheries Decree decrees affecting the fisheries sector
PD No. 1599 1978 Declared the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)

extending Philippine territorial waters 200 nautical
miles from the baseline from which territorial sea is
measured
RA No. 7160 or the 1991 Devolved government powers to Local

Local Government Code Government Units (LGUs)
Defined municipal waters as the distance of 15 km
from the shoreline
Authorized LGUs to allow regulated commercial
activities after a 10-km distance from the shoreline
Specified that the municipalities have the exclusive
authority to grant fishery privileges and impose
fees
Indicated that marginal fishermen are given
preferential right in the granting of fishery
privileges
Note: CA means Commonwealth Act; PD, Presidential Decree; RA ,Republic Act

Sources: BFAR Files
Figure 1. Organizational structure of BFAR as a staff bureau
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
SOCIAL REFORM AGENDA
AQUA FISHERIES POLICY FISHERY EEZ FISHERIES INTERNATIONAL POST HARVEST FISHERIES FISHERIES FISHING
CULTURE RESEARCH & RESOURCES ALLIED SERVICES LICENSE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT & RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY
DIVISION ECONOMICS ADMINISTARTION DIVISION DIVISION DIVISION SUPPORT RESEARCH DIVISION
DIVISION DIVISION SERVICES DIV. DIVISION
Freshwater Policy and Project Research & Monitoring Licensing Fish Handling Fisheries Pelagic Municipal
Fisheries Development Advisory Section Surveillance Section Section Manpower Vertebrate Fisheries
Section Section Section Services Resources Section
Section Section
Brackishwater Policy and Program Fishery Laws Coastal Fisheries Fishpond Product
Fisheries Evaluation Section and Regulation Management Leasing Standardization Fisheries Demersal Commercial
Section Section Section Section Section Extension Vertebrate Fisheries
Development & Resources Section
Advisory Section
Mariculture Fishery Economics Fishery Rights Offshore Export Product Section
Section Section Adjudication Fisheries Documentation Development
Management Invertebrate
Section Section Section
Resources
Section Fisheries
Section
Institutional
Fish Health Philippine Fisheries Fishpond Lease Quarantine Chemical & Assistance
Section Information System Agreement & Section Microbiological
Section Seaweeds-
(PHILFIS) Section Section
Seagrass
Fisheries Resources
Fishing Boat Fish Inspection Information Section
Licensing & Section Publication
Section Section Oceanography
Resources
Section
National Freshwater National Inland National Fishery National Brackishwater National Marine National Integrated Mindanao Freshwater National Seaweeds
Fisheries Technology Fisheries Technology Biological Center Fisheries Technology Fisheries Development Fisheries Technology Fisheries Technology Technology Development
Center Center Center Center Center Center Center
Source: BFAR Files

Figure 2. Organizational structure of BFAR as a line bureau
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
National Fisherfolk Operations Staff
Asst. Director for Administration Asst. Director for Technical Services
LEGAL ADMINISTRATIVE FINANCE FISHERIES FISHERIES FISHERIES FISHING FISHERIES FISHERIES INLAND FISHERY
DIV. DIV. DIV. RESOURCES REGULATORY & RESOURCE TECH. POST INDUSTRY FISHERIES & POLICY &
MGT. DIV. QUARANTINE EVAL.& ENV’T DIV. HARVEST DEV’T. AQUACULT. ECON. DIV.
DIV. SERVICES DIV. TECH. DIV. SUPPORT DIV. DIV.
Research Personnel Budget
And Section Section Coastal Res. Fishpond Pelagic Municipal Fish Training & Freshwater Policy
Advisory Mgt. Section Lease Vertebrate Fishing Handling Extension Fish. Sec. &Program
Section Section Resources Sec. Technology Section Section Evaluation
Records Accounting Section Section
Section Unit MCS Brackish.
Fishery Control Fisheries Demersal Aquatic Fisheries Fish. Sec.
Laws & Quarantine Vertebrate Products Marketing & Policy &
Operations Commercial
Regulation Section Section Resources Sec. Utilization Business Program
Property Fishing
Section Section Advisory Sec. Mariculture Dev’t.
Section Technology Section
Section Section
Conserv’n & Foreign Invertebrate
Fisheries Environ’tal Trade & Resources Fish Fisherfolk
Rights & General Inspection Organization/ Fisheries
Educ. Misc. Permit Section Fish Health
Adjudication Services Section Section Section Cooperative Econ.
High Seas & Diag.
Section Section Section Section
Technology Section
Seaweeds &
Offshore Fishing Section Fishery
Seagrass Res.
Prosecution Medical Resources Vessel Products Fisheries
Section Env’tal Mgt.
and Trial Clinic Mgt. Section Licensing Testing Lab. Comm. & Pub. PHILFIS
Section Unit Section Section Relations Sec. Section
Marine
Environment
Cashier Fish Proc’ng BFAR Library Aquaculture
Section
Unit Section Unit Eng’g Sec.
National Brackishwater National Freshwater National Inland National Marine National Integrated National Seaweeds Fisheries Mindanao Freshwater
Fisheries Technology Technology Center Fisheries Tech. Center Fisheries Development Fisheries Technology & Technology & Biological Center Fish. Tech. Center
Center Center Dev’t. Center Development Center
Regional Fisheries Office Nos 1 to 13 and CAR
Provincial Fisheries Offices
Source: BFAR Files

Table 13. Existing fees in the commercial fisheries

Year/Legislation Commercial Fishing Boat License(CFBL) Fisherman's License Cash Bond Clearance Fee
1983 Annual license fee is set based on the i) motorized boat more than 3 GT-
FAO No. 144 tonnage of the boat ( see Table 13a) P50.00
ii)motorized boat more than 3 GT
to 50 GT - P 150.00
iii)motorized boat more than 50 GT
to 200 GT - P300.00
iv)motorized boat over 200 GT -
P500.00
1993 The annual application fee for CFBL is Annual fees: Clearance fee:
FAO NO. 187 P400.00 and for a special CFBL, the rate i) application - P20.00 P50.00 per trip
is P2,000.00 ii) new license - P20.00
iii)renewal - P20.00
Note: In the past, a fee for fish catch was collected. According to BFAR, no fish catch fee is collected at the present.
Sources : BFAR (1989), BFAR (1995)
Table 13a. Annual license fee rates based on boat classification

Boat Classification License Fee
Nonpowered fishing boat P50.00 + P2.00 per gross ton or

of more than 3GT fraction thereof
Powered Basnig/Bagnet of P100.00 + P2.00 per gross ton or

more than 3 to 25 GT fraction thereof
Sapiao, kubkub,talakop and/ P100.00 + P2.00 per gross ton

or other fishing gear more and fraction thereof regardless
than 3 to 25 GT of fishing gear used
For powered vessel used for P125.00 + P2.00 per gross ton
trawl/towing boats of more and fraction thereof
than 3 to 25 GT
For powered vessel more P150.00 + P2.00 per gross ton

than 25 to 50 GT and fraction thereof
For motorized boat of more P200.00 + P2.00 per gross ton

than 50 but not more than and fraction thereof
75 GT



than 250 GT and fraction thereof
Source: BFAR (1995)

Table 14. Existing fees for government-owned fishponds in aquaculture

Year/Legislation Fees Bond
1979 Annual rental: Cash bond deposit for

FAO No. 125 P50.00 per hectare converted FLAs and 25-yr
and fraction thereof Fishpond Lease Agreements
(FLAs) issued prior to the
conversion is P50.00 per
hectare and fraction thereof
and may be waived entirely if
after 5 yrs improvements have
been introduced and lessee
has satisfactorily complied
with the terms and conditions
of the lease
1993 Annual application fee:

FAO No. 187 Fishpond - P1,000
Sources : BFAR (1989), BFAR (1995)

Table 15. Important environmentally-related provisions of the Philippine Fisheries Code

Section Title Content
A. Correct Resource Pricing
6 Fees and other fishery charges The rentals for fishpond areas covered by the fishpond lease agreement (FLA) and license
fees for commercial fishing boat license (CFBL) shall be set at levels that reflect resource rent
from the utilization of resources and shall be determined by the Department: Provided…
7 Access to fishery resources The Department shall issue such number of licenses and permits for the conduct of fishery
activities subject to the limits of the MSY of the resource as determined by scientific studies
or best available evidence. Preference shall be given to resource users in the local
communities adjacent or nearest to the municipal waters.
B. Proper Delineation of Property Rights
17 Grant of fishing privileges in The duly registered fisherfolk organizations/ cooperatives shall have preference in the
municipal waters granting of fishery rights by the municipal/city council pursuant to Section 149 of the Local
Government Code: Provided…
18 Users of municipal waters All fishery related activities in municipal waters, as defined in this Code, shall be utilized by
organizations who are listed in the registry of municipal fisherfolk.
The municipal or city government, however, may, through its local chief executive and acting
pursuant to an appropriate ordinance, authorize or permit small and medium commercial
fishing vessels to operate within the ten point one (10.1) to fifteen (15) kilometers from the
shoreline in municipal waters, as defined herein, provided…
19 Registry of municipal fisherfolk The LGU shall maintain a registry of municipal fisherfolk who are fishing or may desire to
fish in the municipal waters for the purpose of determining priorities among them, of limiting
entry into the municipal waters, and of monitoring fishing activities and/or other related
purposes: Provided…
Table 15. Continued…

20 Fisherfolk organizations and/ or Fisherfolk organizations/cooperatives whose members are listed in the registry of municipal
cooperatives fisherfolk, may be granted use of demarcated fishery areas to engage in fish capture,
mariculture and/or farming: Provided…
21 Priority of resident municipal Resident municipal fisherfolk of the municipality concerned and their organizations/
fisherfolk cooperatives shall have priority to exploit municipal and demarcated fishery areas of the said
municipality.
22 Demarcated fishery right The LGU concerned shall grant demarcated fishery rights to fishery organizations/
cooperatives for mariculture operation in specific areas identified by the Department.
C. Monitoring and Enforcement
14 Monitoring, control and surveillance A monitoring, control and surveillance system shall be established by the Department in
of Philippine waters coordination with the LGUs, FARMCs, the private sector and other agencies concerned to
ensure that the fisheries and aquatic resources in Philippine waters are judiciously and wisely
utilized and managed on a sustainable basis and conserved for the benefit and enjoyment
exclusively of Filipino citizens.
16 Jurisdiction of municipal/city The municipal/city government shall have jurisdiction over municipal waters as defined in
governments this Code. The municipal/city government…
The LGUs shall also enforce all fishery laws, rules and regulations as well as valid fishery
ordinances enacted by the municipal/city council.
:
.

38 Reportorial requirements Each commercial fishing vessel shall keep a daily record of fish catch and spoilage, landing
points, and quantity and value of fish caught, and off-loaded for transshipment, sale and/or
other disposal. Detailed…
65 Functions of the Bureau of Fisheries As a line bureau, the BFAR shall have the following functions:
and Aquatic Resources :.
n. Enforce all laws, formulate and enforce all rules and regulations
governing the conservation and management of fishery resources,
except in municipal waters, and to settle conflicts of resource use and
allocation in consultation with the NFARMC, LGUs and local
FARMCs;
:.
67 Fisheries Inspection and Quarantine For purposes of monitoring and regulating the importation and exportation of fish and
Service fishery/aquatic resources, the Fisheries Inspection and Quarantine Service in th BFAR is
hereby strengthened and shall have the following functions:
:
.
74 Functions of the M/CFARMCs The M/CFARMCs shall exercise the following functions:
:.
c. Assist in the enforcement of fishery laws, rules and regulations in
municipal waters;
:.
77 Functions of the IFARMCs The IFARMC shall have the following functions:
:.
c. Assist in the enforcement of fishery laws, rules and regulations in
concerned municipal waters;
:.

D. Command and Control Instruments
12 Environmental impact statement All government agencies as well as private corporations, firms and entities who intend to
(EIS) undertake activities or projects which will affect the quality of environment shall be required
to prepare a detailed environmental impact assessment (EIS) prior to undertake such
development activity. The preparation…
13 Environmental compliance All environmental impact statements (EIS) shall be submitted to the Department of
certificate (ECC) Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for review and evaluation. No person, natural
or juridical, shall undertake any development project without first securing an environmental
compliance certificate (ECC) from the Secretary of the DENR.
46 Lease of fishponds Fishpond leased to qualified persons and fisherfolk organizations/cooperatives shall be
subject to the following conditons:
:
.
h. The lessee shall provide facilities that will minimize environmental pollution, i.e., settling
ponds, resorvoirs, etc. : Provided…
:
.
54 Insurance for fishponds, fish Inland fishponds, fish cages and fish pens shall be covered under the insurance program of the
cages and fish pens Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation for losses caused by force majeure and fortuitous
events.
80 Fishing areas reserved for The Department may designate area or areas in Philippine waters beyond fifteen (15)
exclusive use of government kilometers from the shoreline as fishery reservation for the exclusive use of the government
or any of its political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, for propagation, educational,
research and scientific purposes: Provided…
81 Fish refuge and sanctuaries The Department may establish fish refuge and sanctuaries to be administered in the manner
to be prescribed by the BFAR at least twenty-five percent (25%) but not more than forty
percent (40%) of bays, foreshorelands, continental shelf or any fishing ground shall be set
aside for the cultivation of mangroves to strengthen the habitat and the spawning grounds of
fish. Within…

86 Unauthorized fishing or engaging No person shall exploit, occupy, produce, breed, culture, capture or gather fish or fingerlings
in other unauthorized fisheries of any fishery species or fishery products, or engage in any fishery activity in Philippine
activities waters without license, lease or permit.
:
.
87 Poaching in Philippine waters It shall be unlawful or any foreign person, corporation or entity to fish or operate any fishing
vessel in Philippine waters.
:.
88 Fishing through explosives, 1) It shall be unlawful for any person to catch, take or gather or cause to caught, taken or
noxious or poisonous substances gathered fish or any fishery species in Philippine waters with the use of electricity,
and/or electricity noxious or poisonous substances such as sodium cyanide in the Philippine fishery areas
which will kill, stupefy, disable or render unconscious fish or fishery species: Provided…
89 Use of fine mesh net It shall be unlawful to engage in fishing using nets with mesh smaller than that with which
may be fixed by the Department: Provided…
90 Use of active gear in the municipal It shall be unlawful to engage in fishing in municipal waters and in all bays as well as other
waters and bays and other fishery fishery management areas using fishing gears as defined in this Code.
management areas
91 Ban on coral exploitation and It shall be unlawful for any person or corporation to gather, possess, sell, or export ordinary,
exportation precious and semi-precious corals whether raw or in processed form, except for scientific
or research purposes.
92 Ban on "muro-ami" and other It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to fish with gear method that destroy
methods and gears destructive to coral reefs, seagrass beds and other fishery marine life habitat as may be determined by the
coral reefs and other marine habitat Department. "Muro-ami" and any of its variations and such familiar gear and methods that
require diving, other physical or mechanical acts to pound on the coral reefs and other habitat
to entrap, gather or catch fish and other fishery species are also prohibited.
:
.

93 Illegal use of superlights It shall be unlawful to engage in fishing with the use of superlights in municipal waters or in
violation of the rules and regulations which may be promulgated by the Department on the
use of superlights outside municipal waters.
:
.
94 Conversion of mangroves It shall be unlawful for any person to convert mangroves into fishponds or for any other purpose.
:.
95 Fishing in overfished area and It shall be unlawful to fish in overfished area and during closed season.
during closed season :
.
96 Fishing in fishery reserves, refuge It shall be unlawful to fish in fishery areas declared by the Department as fishery reserves,
and sanctuaries refuge and sanctuaries.
:
.
97 Fishing or taking of rare, threatened It shall be unlawful to fish or take rare, threatened or endangered species as listed in the
or endangered species CITES and as determined by the Department.
:.
98 Capture of sabalo and other It shall be unlawful for any person to catch, gather, capture or possess mature milkfish or
breeders/ spawners "sabalo" and such other breeders or spawners of fishery species as may be determined by the
Department: Provided…
:
.
99 Exportation of breeders, spawners, Exportation of breeders, spawners, eggs or fry as prohibited in this Code shall be punished…
eggs or fry
100 Importation or exportation of fish Any importation or exportation of fish species in violation of this Code shall be punished…
or fishery species

101 Violation of ceiling catch It shall be unlawful for any person to fish in violation of catch ceilings as determined by the
Department. Violation…
102 Aquatic pollution Aquatic pollution as defined in this Code shall be unlawful. Violation…
103 Other violations Other fishing activities considered as violation to the Code include:
a) failure to comly with minimum safety standards …
:
.
104 Commercial fishing vessel operators The owner/operator of a commercial fishing vessel employing unlicensed fisherfolk or
employing unlicensed fisherfolk fishworker shall be fined…
or fishworker or crew
105 Obstruction of defined migration Obstruction of any defined migration path of anadromous, catadromous and other migratory
paths species in areas including, but not limited to, river mouths and estuaries within a distance
determined by the concerned FARMCs shall be punished…
106 Obstruction of fishery law The boat owner, master or operator or any person acting on behalf of any fishing vessel who
enforcement officer evades, obstructs or hinder any fishery law enforcement officer of the Department to
perform his duty shall be fined…
107 Promulgation of administrative For purpose of fishery regulation or other fishery adjustments, the Department in
orders consultation with the LGUs and local FARMCs, shall issue fishery administrative orders or
regulations for the conservation, preservation, management and sustainable development of
fishery and aquatic resources.
E. Market-based Instruments
48 Incentives and disincentives for The Department shall formulate incentives and disincentives such as, but not limited to,
sustainable aquaculture practices effluent charges, user fees and negotiable permits, to encourage compliance with the
environmental standards and to promote sustainable management practices.
Source: Congress of the Philippines (1998)

Table 16. Other important provisions of the Philippine Fisheries Code
Subject Section Title Content
Institutional 64 Reconstitution of The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources is hereby reconstituted
Issues BFAR as a line bureau under the Department of Agriculture.
70 Creation and composition There is hereby created a National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
of the National Fisheries Management Council, referred to as NFARMC, as an advisory/
and Aquatic Resources recommendatory body to the Department. The NFARMC shall be
Management Council composed of fifteen (15 members) consisting of: …
71 Terms of office The members of the NFARMC, except the Undersecretary of

Agriculture and the Undersecretary of the Interior and Local
Government, shall serve for a term of three (3) years without
reappointment.
72 Functions of the The NFARMC shall have the following functions:

NFARMC a. Assist in the formulation of national policies for the protection,
sustainabe development ans management of fishery and aquatic
resources for the approval of the Secretary;
:
.
73 The Municipal/City The M/CFARMCs shall be created in each of the municipalities and
Fisheries and Aquatic cities abutting municipal waters. However, the LGU may create the
Resources Management Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils
Councils (M/CFARMCs) (BFARMCs) and the Lakewide Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
Management Councils (LFARMCs) whenever necessary. Such
BFARMCs and LFARMCs shall serve in an advisory capacity to the
LGUs.
74 Functions of the The M/CFARMCs shall exercise the following functions:

M/CFARMCs a. Assist in the preparation of the municipal fishery development plan
and submit to the Municipal Development Council;
:
.
75 Composition of the The regular members of the M/CFARMCs shall be composed of:
M/CFARMC :.
d. Representative from the accredited non-government organization;
:
.
76 The Integrated Fisheries The IFARMCs shall be created in bays, gulfs, lakes and rivers and dams
and Aquatic Resources bounded by two (2) or more municipalities/cities.
Management Councils
(IFARMCs)
77 Functions of the The IFARMCs shall have the following functions:

IFARMCs a. Assist in the preparation of the integrated fishery development plan
and submit to the concerned municipal development councils;
:
.
78 Composition of the The regular members of the IFARMCs shall be composed of the
IFARMCs following:
:
.
d. One (1) representative from NGO;
:.
79 Source of funds of the A separate fund for the NFARMC, IFARMCs and M/CFARMCs shall
FARMCs M/CFARMCs shall be established and administered by the Department
from the regular annual budgetary appropriations.
Research and 82 Creation of the National In recognition of the important role of fisheries research in the
Development Fisheries Research and development, management, conservation and protection of the country's
Development Institute fisheries and aquatic resources, there is hereby created a National
(NFRDI) Fisheries Research and Development Institute (NFRDI).
:
.
84 Research and development Researches to be done by the NFRDI are expected to result in the
objectives following:
a. To raise the income of the fisherfolk and to elevate the Philippines
among the top five (5) in the world ranking in fish production;
b. To make the country's fishing industry in the high seas competitive;
c. To conduct social research on fisherfolk families better understanding
of their conditions and needs; and
d. To coordinate with the fisheries schools, LGUs private sectors
regarding the maximum utilization of available technology, including
the transfer of such technology to the industry particularly the
fisherfolk.
112 Special Fisheries Science The Department shall provide subsidy for full technical and financial
and Approfishtech Fund support to the development of appropriate technology, both in fishery
and ancillary industries that are ecologically sound locally source-based
and labor intensive, based on the requirement and needs of the
FARMCs…
Education 115 Professionalization of There is hereby created a Fisheries Board of Examiners in the
fisheries graduates Professional Regulation Commission to upgrade the fisheries profession:
Provided…
117 Inclusion of fisheries Fisheries conservation subjects shall be incorporated in the curricula of
conservation subjects in elementary and secondary schools both private and public.
school curriculum
118 Educational campaign The Department, the CHED, the DECS and the Philippine Information
at all levels Agency shall launch and pursue a nationwide educational campaign to -
:
.
b. Promote the development, management, conservation and proper use
of the environment;
:
.
Statistics and 121 Protection of sensitive The Department shall take such measures as may be necessary in order
Information technical information to protect trade, industrial and policy information of Filipino fisherfolk,
fisheries owners/operators, entrepreneurs, manufacturers and researchers,
when disclosure of such information will injure the competitiveness or
viability of domestic fisheries.
122 Assistance in collecting The Department, in coordination with other government entities
information concerned, may require Filipino representatives abroad and foreign-based
personnel to assist in the collection of fisheries data and information.
Extension 65 Functions of the Bureau As a line bureau, the BFAR shall have the following functions:
of Fisheries and Aquatic :
Resources q. Assist the LGUs in developing their technical capability in the
development, management, regulation, conservation, and protection
of the fishery resources;
:
.
120 Extension services The Department shall develop cost-effective, practical and efficient
extension services on a sustained basis in addition to those provided by
state educational institutions, especially to municipal fisherfolk in
undeveloped areas, utilizing practicable and indigenous resources and
government agencies available, and based upon a system of self-reliance
and self-help.
Credit 109 Municipal fisheries For the development, management and conservation of the municipal
grant fund resources, there is hereby created a Fishery Grant Fund to finance
fishery projects of the municipal fisherfolk. The amount…
For this purpose, the Department, may seek financial assistance from
any source and may receive any donations therefor.
110 Fishery loan and Pursuant to Section 7, Article XIII of the Constitution, there is hereby
guarantee fund created a Fishery Loan and Guarantee Fund with an initial of one
hundred million pesos (P100,000,000) which shall be administered by
the Land Bank of the Philippines. The fund…
111 Fishing vessels There is hereby created a Fishing Vessels Development Fund to enhance
development fund the building and/or acquisition of fishing vessels. This shall be a…
112 Special Fisheries Science The Department shall provide subsidy for full technical and financial
and Approfishtech Fund support to the development of appropriate technology, both in fishery
and ancillary industries that are ecologically sound locally source-based
and labor intensive, based on the requirement and needs of the
FARMCs…
114 Other fisheries In addition to fisheries credit guarantee, grant and other similar facilities
financing facilities granted under this Code, qualified Filipino fisherfolk and fisheries
enterprises shall enjoy each such other facilities granted them under
existing and/or new laws/ specially as to rural credit, with preference
being given to fisheries cooperatives.
Infrastructure 119 Infrastructure support The Department in cooperation with the concerned agencies shall-
a. Prepare and implement a nationwide plan for the development of
municipal fishing ports and markets;
:
.
Public 118 Educational campaign The Department, the CHED, the DECS and the Philippine Information
Awareness at all levels Agency shall launch and pursue a nationwide educational campaign…
Source: Congress of the Philippines (1998)

Table 17. Total national government expenditures, government expenditure in ANR R&D, and R&D expenditures in the fisheries
sector of the Philippines for 1982-1995 (In million pesos)
Total National Government Expenditure % of Total National Government Expenditure
Year Government
Expenditure R&D for ANR R&D for Fisheries R&D for ANR R&D for Fisheries
1982 57,029 905.11 14.52 1.59 0.030

1983 61,838 852.36 14.67 1.38 0.024
1984 53,450 780.73 10.14 1.46 0.019
1985 58,329 888.91 15.82 1.52 0.027
1986 67,409 1,035.49 22.02 1.54 0.033
1987 79,321 318.47 18.07 0.40 0.023
1988 85,539 1,099.54 33.40 1.29 0.039
1989 117,012 1,033.93 37.03 0.88 0.032
1990 156,668 1,070.27 76.33 0.68 0.049
1991 166,158 1,180.18 67.74 0.71 0.041
1992 194,778 1,276.83 109.98 0.66 0.056
1993 309,437 2,404.52 119.49 0.78 0.039
1994 322,695 2,463.25 38.34 0.76 0.012
1995 387,398 2,649.59 63.89 0.68 0.016
Average 151,223 1,283.00 45.82 1.02 0.03

Ave. Growth Rate 17.09 23.57 23.67 0.07 0.05
Note: ANR means Agriculture and Natural Resources

Source of Table: PCAMRD (1996a).
Table 18. Socioeconomic and policy studies in the fisheries sector by type/discipline and year, Philippines
Period of Study
Type of study 1974 and 1975 to 1981 to 1987 to 1993 to
Total %
below 1980 1986 1992 date
Socioeconomics (General) 2 52 40 53 25 172 13.64

Production Economics/ Management 8 39 90 46 19 202 16.02
Resource Economics/ Management 0 7 13 41 25 86 6.82
Sociological/ Sociocultural 3 4 7 25 19 58 4.60
M arketing/ Trade and Prices 11 63 78 46 20 218 17.29
Policy Studies 4 27 62 89 50 232 18.40
Industry Studies 0 9 17 7 5 38 3.01
Institutional
a. Credit 0 2 9 3 2 16 1.27
b. Cooperatives 0 1 1 10 6 18 1.43
c. Legal 0 2 0 1 1 4 0.32
d. Agencies/NGO/Community 0 0 0 5 3 8 0.63
e. Education/M a n p o w e r S & D 0 0 4 1 2 7 0.56
f. Extension/Training/Technology Adoption 0 3 5 2 2 12 0.95
g. Tenurial/Territorial use rights 0 2 4 9 1 16 1.27
Bio-economics 0 0 0 2 1 3 0.24
Consumption/Demand 2 1 2 0 0 5 0.40
Others
a. Feasibility/Investment Studies 8 27 37 26 17 115 9.12
b. Impact/Effect Studies 1 2 1 3 0 7 0.56
c. Processing 4 8 9 5 0 26 2.06
d. Gender (Role of Women) 0 0 2 3 4 9 0.71
e. Others (e.g. livelihood opportunities) 0 1 0 1 7 9 0.71
Total 43 250 381 378 209 1261 100.00

Average 3.41 19.83 30.21 29.98 16.57 100
Source: de Jesus et al. (1997)

Table 19. Number of technical and vocational education schools

in the Philippines, 1998
Type Number %
Fisheries Schools 50 23
All Schools 221 100
Source: General Appropriations Act (1996)

Table 20. Appropriations for the programs and activities of fisheries technical-vocational/higher education institutions, 1991-1996
Insitution 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Fisheries Technical-Vocational/ Higher Education Insitutions
Region I Bangui School of Fisheries 2,279,000 2,522,000 2,574,000 2,421,000 2,457,000 4,231,000
Region I Bolinao School of Fisheries 2,040,000 2,421,000 2,440,000 2,395,000 2,429,000 4,083,000
Region I Pangasinan College of Fisheries 2,933,000 3,714,000 3,741,000 3,763,000 3,818,000 6,369,000
Region I Ilocos Norte Regional School of Fisheries 2,112,000 2,218,000 2,213,000 2,109,000 2,139,000 3,596,000
Region II Sabtang National School of Fisheries 1,771,000 2,430,000 2,398,000 2,054,000 2,109,000 3,531,000
Region II Abulug School of Fisheries 1,613,000 2,165,000 2,203,000 1,884,000 1,926,000 3,960,000
Region II Pamplona National School of Fisheries 1,757,000 2,469,000 2,404,000 2,208,000 2,259,000 3,672,000
Region II Solana Freshwater and Fisheries School 2,408,000 3,271,000 3,257,000 3,048,000 3,109,000 5,035,000
Region II Isabela School of Fisheries 2,075,000 2,811,000 2,696,000 2,494,000 2,560,000 4,213,000
Region III Bataan School of Fisheries 5,128,000 4,351,000 4,367,000 4,359,000 4,521,000 7,327,000
Region III Malolos Marine Fishery School and Laboratory 3,179,000 3,616,000 3,593,000 3,544,000 3,700,000 6,391,000
Region III Obando School of Fisheries 3,300,000 926,000 1,387,000 1,368,000 1,529,000 2,746,000
Region III Candelaria School of Fisheries 4,033,000 4,207,000 4,360,000 4,297,000 4,465,000 7,286,000
Region IV Aurora National Fishery School 2,283,000 1,864,000 1,872,000 1,985,000 2,028,000 3,763,000
Region IV Apolinario R. Apacible School of Fisheries 5,610,000 7,373,000 7,228,000 8,064,000 8,095,000 13,249,000
Region IV Cavite College of Fisheries 3,856,000 4,804,000 4,270,000 4,542,000 5,109,000 8,325,000
Region IV Los Baños College of Fisheries 8,124,000 7,022,000 6,941,000 7,070,000 7,635,000 12,448,000
Region IV Tanauan School of Fisheries 3,875,000 4,234,000 4,225,000 5,004,000 4,996,000 8,751,000
Region IV Looc National School of Fisheries 2,738,000 1,572,000 1,555,000 1,336,000 1,346,000 2,643,000
Region IV Bongabong School of Fisheries 2,767,000 3,453,000 3,453,000 4,385,000 4,406,000 7,434,000
Region IV Coron School of Fisheries 3,322,000 3,383,000 3,349,000 3,738,000 3,759,000 6,593,000
Region IV Lamon Bay School of Fisheries 2,559,000 1,951,000 1,942,000 1,993,000 2,378,000 4,165,000
Region IV Judge Guillermo Eleazar Memorial School of Fisheries 3,584,000 3,881,000 3,728,000 4,248,000 4,914,000 8,114,000
Region V Masbate School of Fisheries 5,493,000 3,812,000 3,652,000 3,633,000 3,743,000 6,280,000
Region V Magallanes School of Fisheries 2,833,000 3,861,000 2,794,000 2,808,000 713,000 1,212,000
Region V Gov. Mariano Fuentebella Memorial School of Fisheries 2,097,000 2,294,000 2,250,000 2,483,000 2,561,000 4,242,000
Region V Barcelonita Fishery Schol 3,755,000 4,755,000 2,208,000 2,349,000 4,817,000 4,426,000
Region V Bikal Fisheries School 1,031,000 1,254,000 1,232,000 1,262,000 1,324,000 2,477,000
Region V San Jose Fisheries School 1,290,000 1,540,000 1,439,000 1,651,000 1,719,000 2,976,000
Region VI Numancia National School of Fisheries 3,093,000 2,557,000 2,535,000 2,368,000 2,464,000 4,578,000
Region VI San Joaquin School of Fisheries 3,373,000 2,773,000 2,747,000 2,607,000 2,772,000 4,846,000
Region VI Aklan National College of Fisheries 7,885,000 6,313,000 6,340,000 6,251,000 7,579,000 10,991,000
Region VI Negros Occidental School of Fisheries 6,862,000 5,656,000 5,246,000 7,685,000 5,842,000 8,712,000
Insitution 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Region VI Tario Lim Memorial School of Fisheries 3,502,000 4,528,000 4,412,000 4,351,000 4,985,000 7,515,000
Region VII Bohol School of Fisheries 3,927,000 4,556,000 4,671,000 6,102,000 5,156,000 7,668,000
Region VII Calape National School of Fisheries 1,871,000 2,260,000 1,992,000 2,101,000 2,105,000 3,553,000
Region VII Clarin School of Fisheries 2,753,000 3,323,000 3,354,000 3,430,000 3,409,000 5,366,000
Region VIII Naval School of Fisheries 4,279,000 2,152,000 2,232,000 2,078,000 2,078,000 3,385,000
Region VIII Matarinao School of Fisheries 1,743,000 2,013,000 1,997,000 1,836,000 1,836,000 3,200,000
Region VIII Bato School of Fisheries 3,573,000 3,771,000 3,744,000 3,940,000 3,945,000 6,297,000
Region VIII Carigara School of Fisheries 3,186,000 3,647,000 3,597,000 3,884,000 3,888,000 5,958,000
Region VIII Eladio T. Balite Memorial School of Fisheries (Bobon) 2,381,000 2,713,000 2,651,000 2,617,000 2,622,000 4,524,000
Region VIII San Vicente School of Fisheries 2,447,000 965,000 911,000 858,000 858,000 1,404,000
Region VIII Clarencio Calagos Memorial School of Fisheries 2,083,000 1,844,000 1,929,000 1,975,000 1,974,000 3,124,000
Region VIII Samar Regional School of Fisheries 6,835,000 7,314,000 7,527,000 7,902,000 7,985,000 10,544,000
Region VIII Rafael Lentejas Memorial School of Fisheries 3,996,000 2,437,000 2,793,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 3,735,000
Region IX Dipolog School of Fisheries 3,287,000 4,332,000 4,440,000 4,478,000 4,488,000 8,444,000
Region X Baliangao School of Fisheries 2,171,000 3,056,000 3,969,000 2,699,000 2,699,000 4,758,000
Region X Northern Mindanao School of Fisheries 3,353,000 4,153,000 4,389,000 3,626,000 5,635,000 6,019,000
Region X Dinagat School of Fisheries 2,910,000 2,989,000 3,143,000 2,674,000 2,676,000 4,480,000
Region X Malimono School of Fisheries 2,657,000 3,035,000 3,186,000 2,608,000 2,612,000 4,225,000
Region XI Lupon School of Fisheries 5,200,000 4,311,000 4,135,000 3,631,000 3,696,000 5,982,000
Region XI Davao del Sur School of Fisheries 3,388,000 3,315,000 4,159,000 3,868,000 3,958,000 6,604,000
Region XI Bula National School of Fisheries 2,853,000 2,552,000 2,829,000 2,891,000 2,897,000 4,683,000
Region XII Iligan City National School of Fisheries 2,788,000 3,587,000 3,652,000 3,595,000 3,657,000 5,735,000
Total for Fisheries Technical-Vocational and Higher Education Institutions 182,241,000 184,326,000 182,351,000 185,150,000 190,980,000 305,868,000
Total for All Technical/Vocational and Higher Education Institutions 1,336,582,000 1,423,029,000 1,277,114,000 7,238,381,000 1,971,636,000 2,183,501,000
% to Total for All Technical/Vocational and Higher Education Institutions 14.27 12.95 13.64 2.56 9.69 14.01
Institutions included in the table are those which appears in the GAA from 1989 to 1996.
Source: General Appropriations Act (1990-1995)
Table 21. Standard courses offered by CHED-supervised institutions for Bachelor of Science in Fisheries
Major (No. of units)
Course
Aquaculture Marine Fisheries Fish Processing
I. General Education 87 87 87
Language and Literature

English 12 12 12
Filipino 6 6 6
Mathematics 12 12 12
Natural Science 25 25 25
Humanities 9 9 9
Social Science 12 12 12
Other Courses
The Life and Works of Jose Rizal 3 3 3
(PI 100)
Physical Education (PE) 8 8 8
II. Common Fisheries Courses 26 26 26
General Fisheries and Laws 3 3 3

Fisheries Ext. Ed. I 3 3 3
Fisheries Ext. Ed. II 3 3 3
Fisheries Business 3 3 3
Fisheries Management 3 3 3
Research Methods 3 3 3
Aquatic Bilogy I 5 5 5
Cooperative Principles and Practices 3 3 3
III. Core Courses 53 - 55 49 50
A. Major in Aquaculture
Aquaculture Engeineering 3
Aquaculture I 3
Aquaculture II 5
Aquatic Biology II 3
Biochemistry 4
Biology of Fishes 3
Fish Breeding 3
Fish Genetics 3
Fish Health 3
Fish Nutrition and Feeding Mgt. 5
Fish Physiology 4
Hatchery Management 3
Seminar 1
Special Problem 3
Water Quality and Biological
Productivity 4
Electives 3-5
Table 21. Continued….

Major (No. of units)
Course
Aquaculture Marine Fisheries Fish Processing
B. Major in Marine Fisheries

Fishing Boat Design and
Construction 5
Fishing Gear Design and
Construction 5
Marine Ecology 3
Marine Instrumentation 3
Marine Machineries 3
Navigation and Seamanship I 3
Navigation and Seamanship II 5
Oceanology I 3
Oceanology II 2
Offshore and Coastal Fishing 5
Postharvest Handling 3
Seminar 1
Special Problem 3
Electives 5
C. Major in Fish Processing

Fish Biochemistry 4
Fish Chemistry 4
Fish Handling and Refrigeration 5
Fish Microbiology 5
Fish Processing I 5
Fish Processing II 5
Fish Processing III 3
Fish Analytical Chemistry 3
Plant Sanitation and Hygiene 3
Quality Assurance 5
Special Problem 3
Electives 6
Seminar 1
Practicum (non-credit) (240 hrs) (240 hrs) (160 hrs)
Total (units) 163-165 162 163
Source: CHED-Technical Panel for Agriculture Files

Table 21a. Description of standard courses offered by CHED-supervised institutions for

Bachelor of Science in Fisheries
Course Description
General Eduaction Courses

English (Communication Skills)
English I Skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing
English II Intermediate skills of listening, reading and

writing
English III Introduction to literature; The study of literary

types, fiction, poetry, drama, essay and
biography
English 10 Writing of scientific paper
Filipino
Filipino I Mga paraan sa pakikipagtalastasan o
Sining ng pagpapahayag, paglalarawan, pagsasalaysay,
Pakikipagtalastasan paglalahad at pangangatwiran
Filipino II Pagpapalawak ng kaalaman sa pagsasalita at

Mga Piling Katha ng mga pagbabasa sa pamamagitan ng pag-aaral ng mga
Manunulat na Pilipino piling katha ng manunulat na Pilipino
Mathematics
Math I Linear equations, quadratics, complex numbers,
College Algebra binomial theorem, progressions; theory of
equations
Math II
Plane Trigonometry Trigonometric functions, solutions of right and
oblique triangle; logarithms and application,
radian and inverse trigonometric functions and
complex numbers
Math III Indefinite integral and its applications; area

Calculus under the curve; definite integral
Table 21a. Continued…

Course Description
Statistics I Basic statistical concepts, frequency tables and

Elementary statistics distributions; sampling; average test of
significance; regression and correlation;
introduction to analysis of variance and
experimental designs
Natural Sciences
Zoology Biological principles as related to zoology;
general life history; morphological characteristics
and relationships of representative of the more
important animal phyla
Botany Structure, functions, adaptation and

phylogenetic relationships of plants
Chemistry I General principles theory and experimentation

General and Inorganic in Chemistry
Chemistry
Chemistry II Organic structural theory and introduction to

Organic Chemistry reaction mechanisms and structure of organic
compound
Physics I Inertia, motion, forces and energy properties

Mechanics and Heat and laws of solid and liquids; temperature
measurements and effects on properties and
material and heat flow
Physics II Sources, effects, measurement and uses of

Electricity and Magnetism electricity, magnetism; fundamentals of wave
motion applied in the study of sound and light
Common Fisheries Courses

(for all majors)
General Fisheries and Laws Survey of fisheries resources, their production,
utilization and conservation; current local,
national and international ordinances, laws and
agreements
Aquatic Biology I General morphology, anatomy and systematics

of aquatic organisms important to fisheries

Course Description
Fisheries Management The principles and methods of management

and conservation of aquatic resources in
relation to fisheries
Fisheries Extension Principles and methods of technology transfer

Education I and diffusion concept of organization; program
development, implementation and evaluation
Fisheries Extension Roots, methods and approaches to extension

Education II work and practice
Research Methods Design of research projects and data analysis

with emphasis on statistical techniques
Fisheries Business Principles and practices of managing small and

medium scale commercial fisheries enterprises
including fisheries cooperatives
Cooperative Principles Principles, practices and history of cooperatives

and Practices in the Philippines; the relationship of
cooperative to rural and national economic
development
Core Courses
Major in Aquaculture
Ecology of Fishes Environmental factors that affect the distribution
and adaptation of fishes
Aquatic Biology II Biology, taxonomy and distribution of

commercially important invertebrates, macro
and micro flora
Fish Physiology Functions of organs and organ systems of fishes

and selected aquatic organisms
Aquaculture I Principles, methods and developments in the

cultivation of commercially important aquatic
organisms
Aquaculture II Application of farming systems of selected

species, project and case studies, and aquaculture
planning and development

Course Description
Aquaculture Engineering Site selection and survey design and layout,

construction and installation and maintenance
of aquaculture facilities
Fish Health Study of occurrence and spread of fish diseases/

parasitic and their isolation and identification,
and prevention and control
Fish Nutrition and Principles of nutrition, nutrient requirements,

Feeding Management feeding formulation and preparation and
practical feeding
Water Quality Management The physics, chemistry and biology of inland

and Biological Productivity and coastal waters and their interrelationship;
sampling and analytical techniques
Biochemistry Intermediary metabolism of proteins, fats and

carbohydrates on relation to fisheries
Fish Genetics Theories and principles of genetics and its

application to fisheries
Hatchery Management Fundamentals and techniques of food

production, hatchery and nursery operations
and fish propagation
Fish Breeding Brood stock development and management;

application of qualitative genetics to fisheries
Major in Marine Fisheries

Fishing Boat Design and The principles and methods of fishing boat
Construction design and construction
Marine Ecology The influence or the physico-chemical and

biological properties of sea water on the
distribution of marine organisms
Marine Machineries Operation and maintenance of marine

machineries and equipment in fishing vessels
Marine Instrumentation Operation and maintenance of marine navigation

and fishing instruments on board fishing vessels

Course Description
Offshore and Coastal Operation and maintenance of small scale

Fishing and large scale fishing gear and devices
Fishing Gear Design and The principles and methods of fishing gear
Construction construction
Oceanology I Physical chemical and biological properties of

marine waters
Oceanology II Sampling and analytical techniques
Navigation and Seamanship I Principles, instruments and methods used in

coastal and celestial navigation
Navigation and Seamanship II Practice of coastal and high seas navigation,

application of marine rules and regulations of
the road and fishing boat management
Post Harvest Handling II Handling of fish catch on board fishing vessels;

icing and freezing
Major in Fish Processing

Fish Microbiology Bacteria, yeasts, molds and parasites associated
with fish; their characteristics and importance
Fish Handling and Principles and techniques of handling and

Refrigeration refrigeration of fish and other fisheries products
Fish Processing I Principles and methods of processing fisheries

products with emphasis on curing
Fish Processing II Canning of fish and fisheries products
Fish Processing III Utilization of seaweeds and minor fisheries

products
Fish Biochemistry An integrated application of the theories of

organic chemistry to the properties and
chemical activities of protein, fats and
carbohydrates

Course Description
Fish Chemistry Chemical components of fish and fisheries

products and their reactions postmorterm;
instrumental methods of analysis
Quality Assurance Methods for quality assessment of fish and

fisheries products, physico-chemical,
microbiological and sensory
Plant Sanitation and Principles of plant sanitation and personnel

Hygiene hygiene; good manufacturing practice
Fish Analytical Chemistry Quantitative analytical techniques for fish and

fisheries products
Source: CHED-Technical Panel for Agriculture Files
Table 22. Contents of the Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines

Title
Part I Fishery Resources and Consumption
Part II Fish Production by Sector
Part III Production by Type of Aquafarm
Part IV Production by Species
Part V Fish Prices
Part VI Costs and Returns of Selected Species
Part VII Foreign Trade
Source: BAS (1997a)

Table 23. Loan to output ratio, by commodity, 1987-1997

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Average
% Agricultural Production
Loans to Gross Value Added
in Agriculture 16.1 18.6 13.8 15.8 17.6 18.8 15.2 16.4 15.2 14.8 15.4 16.15
Agricultural Crops
Palay 8.9 10.6 10.3 13.6 19.9 22.1 10.4 14.1 13.2 11.5 13.2 13.44
Corn 4.7 4.0 4.1 3.3 6.6 5.5 2.5 3.9 4.2 4.9 5.4 4.46
Coconut 36.4 39.2 13.4 25.4 12.8 16.2 5.5 10.7 12.2 13.8 14.5 18.19
Sugar 136.8 106.4 105.6 91.4 70.5 130.0 70.6 85.4 93.9 83.6 117.3 99.23
Livestock and Poultry 8.6 10.9 11.6 35.5 17.3 11.9 8.9 11.6 11.7 12.1 12.7 13.89
Fisheries 7.4 12.3 9.5 11.1 13.3 13.9 10.1 13.3 13.3 12.3 13.5 11.82
Forestry 11.0 12.8 12.2 14.5 28.0 21.4 47.9 38.7 87.3 151.1 235.0 59.99
Source: ACPC Year-End Reports (various years)

Table 24. Agricultural production loans granted, by commodity, 1987-1997(In million pesos)
Total Agricultural Loans Granted to % Share to Total
Year
Loans Granted Fisheries Sector Agricultural Loans
1987 27,460.0 2,698.4 9.8

1988 35,290.0 4,576.5 13.0
1989 31,205.9 4,222.7 13.5
1990 41,292.0 5,685.4 13.8
1991 46,164.5 6,088.9 13.2
1992 56,057.9 7,063.3 12.6
1993 54,488.0 8,173.2 15.0
1994 56,382.8 8,852.1 15.7
1995 62,765.7 9,352.1 14.9
1996 69,666.6 9,405.0 13.5
1997 75,043.2 10,581.1 14.1
Average 50,528.8 6,972.6 13.6

Average Growth rate 11.3 16.2
Source: ACPC Files

Table 25. Inventory of ports, by region, 1997

Classification Status
Region Total Commercial
Fishing Ports Feeder Ports Operational Non-Operational
Private Public
1 43 18 6 8 11 38 5
2 33 19 6 4 4 29 4
3 52 12 3 27 10 45 7
4 258 82 55 52 69 240 18
5 115 66 7 18 24 105 10
6 149 47 11 67 24 149 0
7 160 42 16 60 42 146 14
8 141 37 26 42 36 131 10
9 76 23 4 21 28 73 3
10 202 53 56 52 41 190 12
11 109 19 9 60 21 108 1
12 38 10 - 21 7 36 2
ARMM 47 16 15 6 10 47 0
NCR 71 3 - 64 4 66 5
Total 1494 447 214 502 331 1403 91
Source: NSCB, 1998

Pidsdps 9901

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pidsdps 9901

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pidsdps 9901

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Institute for Development Studies

Toward the Sustainable Development

The PIDS Discussion Paper Series

Philippines. Because of this, it is a critical arena in the effort to attain a more

sustainable form of development in the country.

Notwithstanding the state of the economy, the sustainable development of the

the economy to recover from the crisis and eventually grow.

Recently, an important law, the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (R.A.

development because they explicitly recognize the conservation, protection and

sustained management of resources as a major objective in the fisheries sector.

enthusiasm. It is feared that the reductions in government spending will lead to

significant underfunding of the environmentally-related provisions and programs

their intended objectives.

II. Objectives and Organization

objectives of sustainable development in fisheries. In particular, the paper will

analyze the important environmentally-related provisions in the law and propose

subsequently, the attainment of its sustainable development objectives.

sector. Relevant provisions in the AFMA will be analyzed in light of their

significance in addressing environmental problems in fisheries.

The paper is organized as follows. The third section reviews the

development problems. The fourth section discusses the environmentally-related

provides the conclusions.

III. Review of The Philippine Fisheries Sector

31,000 hectares (12 percent) and 19,000 hectares (8 percent), respectively.

percent were in aquaculture and 5.72 percent were in commercial fisheries. In

addition, approximately 12 percent of the general population derive their livelihood

constituency makes fisheries a politically important sector of the economy.

growth rates due to the high prices of fish products.

Of the three subsectors, municipal fisheries performed the worst. Production

Aquaculture performed the best among the subsectors, registering higher

that it is not free of problems. Furthermore, it registered a negative growth rate in

The weak production performance of the fisheries sector is glaring when

A comparison of the growth performance of Philippine fisheries to those of

other member economies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

twice the local rate.

A summary of the history of the administration of the Philippine fisheries

which falls under the Department of Agriculture (DA). The management of

P.D. No. 704.

monitoring and other activities of the bureau at the local levels.

numerous and interrelated problems, summarized as follow (see Guerrero 1997,

PCAMRD 1996b, BAR 1991):

a) Resource depletion in coastal waters

marine fishery stocks as well as on certain groups of species are empirically

harvesting back to more sustainable levels.

In contrast to effort overfishing, there is little available empirical research on

ecosystems in particular problem marine areas, and found these to be serious.

b) Environmental damage in marine waters

The environment of a large portion of marine waters is already seriously

sedimentation and siltation as a result of land-based development activities as well as

effort overfishing and destructive fishing (Gomez et al. 1994).

mangrove conversion to fishponds which accounts for an estimated 60 percent of total

c) Environmental damage in inland waters

highly-polluted rivers and lakes. Although largely undocumented by scientific

of deforestation in the uplands. This environmental problem has resulted in

industries, households and agricultural activities from a major portion of Metro

As a result, the lake is currently polluted by an overdose of wastes, including those

surrounding communities. The pollution also jeopardizes the inland municipal

the fitness of lake produced fish questionable for human consumption .