at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management 55 (2012) 27e35

Contents lists available

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

Emerging fisheries co-management arrangement in Panay Gulf, SouthernIloilo, Philippines

Liberty N. Espectato a,*, Genna D. Serofia a, Rodelio F. Subade a, Carlos C. Baylon b

a Institute of Fisheries Policy and Development Studies, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo 5083, Philippinesb Institute of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo 5083, Philippines

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 27 August 2011

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: lnespectato@gmail.com (L.N. Espe

0964-5691/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.08.007

a b s t r a c t

This paper reviews and analyzes the experience of Southern Iloilo Coastal Management Council, Inc.(SICRMC) as an emerging fisheries co-management arrangement in Southern Iloilo, Philippines. SICRMC isan inter-local government unit alliance of five coastal municipalities to address their common concerns(e.g. rampant illegal fishing activities, habitat degradation) associatedwith themanagement of PanayGulf.

SICRMC is evaluated based on the presence of the identified eight (8) key conditions for successfulfisheries co-management using the scale low, medium, and high. It is rated high on the enabling policiescondition and medium on defined boundaries, leadership, conflict management, and integrated planningconditions. On the other hand, it is low on participation, local government unit support, and presence ofexternal agents.

The paper also presents the evolving role of the academe as an external agent in the arena of fisheriesco-management. In the SICRMC experience, University of the Philippines Visayas (UP Visayas) served asa neutral catalyst in a politically-charged environment by unifying opposing municipalities through theircommon concern which is coastal resource management.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The passage of the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act7160), decentralizing government functions to local governmentunits, has served as the impetus for the emergence of different co-management arrangements in the Philippines. Coastal resourcemanagement, one of the basic services of the Code, has beendevolved to the local government units (LGUs). The presence of thisenabling law has provided for an optimal institutional setting forfisheries co-management (Sunderlin and Gorospe, 1997) since itpromotes partnership or alliance-building initiatives wherebyauthority and responsibility for fisheries management is beingshared (Pomeroy and Pido, 1995). Specifically, Section 33 of theCode provides that, “local government units (LGUs) may groupthemselves, consolidate and coordinate their efforts, services andresources for purposes commonly beneficial to them.”

Co-management covers various partnership arrangements anddegrees of power sharing (Pomeroy and Williams, 1994). There isa hierarchy of co-management arrangements, from those in which

ctato).

All rights reserved.

fishers are merely consulted to those in which the fishers them-selves design and implement the regulations with assistance fromthe government (Berkes, 1994). The emerging approach of co-management arrangement in the country today, specifically inareas where there is a shared or common resource, is usually multi-sectoral in nature with inter-LGU partnership (e.g. alliances, inte-grated councils) and different resource-sharing schemes (Adan,2004; Baylon, 2004; Napilan, 2004). Complex problems in coastalareas transcend jurisdictional boundaries and can be bestaddressed through collaborative management (Christie and White,1997). There is a need to expand the management process and theinter-LGU governance structure beyond the municipal waterboundaries into a broader partnership at the ecosystem scalebecause what one municipality does will eventually affect theadjoining municipality sharing with the resource (Pomeroy et al.,2009; Eisma-Osorio et al., 2009).

It is on this premise that inter-LGU alliances are organized.Success stories of this kind of initiative are already well docu-mented, such as in the case of the San Miguel Bay ManagementCouncil (Sunderlin and Gorospe, 1997; Pomeroy and Pido, 1995);the Banate Bay Resource Management Council, Inc. (NEDA, 2005;DILG-LGA et al., 2002); and the Southeast Cebu Coastal ResourceManagement Council (Eisma-Osorio et al., 2009).

L.N. Espectato et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 55 (2012) 27e3528

Through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), member-LGUsagree to share with the responsibility of managing and devel-oping their fishing ground and commit their resources (i.e. cost-sharing) for the operation of the alliance. The role of the LGU isvery vital because it provides for the mechanism for the setting upof a partnership arrangement. The inability or unwillingness ofLGUs to engage in a cooperative initiative or a multi-jurisdictionalmanagement is a significant drawback to effective coastalresource development and management (DENR et al., 2001).

In Southern Iloilo, Philippines, there is an existing fisheries co-management arrangement called Southern Iloilo Coastal ResourceManagement Council (referred as SICRMC or Council in the paper).The Council is an alliance of five coastal municipalities namely:Oton, Tigbauan, Guimbal, Miagao, and San Joaquin. It was organizedthrough the initiative of the University of the Philippines Visayas(referred as UP Visayas or academe in the text) with initial fundingfrom the UP Visayas Foundation, Inc.

While SICRMC has already emerged and UP Visayas’s role in thecreation and nurturing of the said alliance has been recognized,there remains an absence of analytical documentation of theprocess. This paper was drawn to address such gap of information.Specifically, this paper aims to review and analyze the SICRMCexperience in the hope that other fisheries co-managementarrangements may be able to learn from it. The paper also aimsto present the new role of the academe as an external agent in thearena of fisheries co-management.

This paper relied primarily on secondary sources of data whichincluded reports, minutes of meeting of the Council, and the MOA.Additional information was gathered through key informantinterviews, participant observation, and interactions of the authorswith the stakeholders in the area. The authors have firsthandknowledge of SICRMC and its operation because of their involve-ment with the Council in various capacities. One of the authorsserved as the first Executive Director of SICRMC and two of theauthors act as the Secretariat of the Council from its establishmentin 2002 up to the present.

2. Framework of analysis

2.1. What is co-management?

Co-management is a concept dating back to nearly 20 yearswhen Svein Jentoft first coined the term (Yandle, 2008). It can bebroadly defined as the sharing of responsibility and authoritybetween the government and local fishers/community to managea fishery or other natural resources (Pomeroy and Williams, 1994).It facilitates deliberation among stakeholders and user groups tocome upwith “right” social values andmorals (e.g. equity and socialjustice) in terms of fisheries management (Jentoft, 2006).

Co-management covers various partnership arrangements anddegrees of power sharing. Berkes (1994) presented a hierarchy of co-management arrangements based on the roles played by thegovernment and the community. These arrangements vary froma government centralized management to self-governance by thecommunity; fromthose inwhich thecommunityaremerelyconsultedbythegovernmentbefore regulationsare introducedtothose inwhichthe community themselves design and implement the regulations.

Co-management is consistent with the aims of democratizationand empowerment since they both promote greater participationof fishers in the fisheries management process (Pomeroy andBerkes, 1997). Jentoft (2005) opined that empowerment is whatco-management is all about. Empowerment in the context offishing communities is to enable the resource poor and marginal-ized groups to enhance their capacities in order to undertakeeconomic and social development and ensure greater community

cohesion, among others (FAO-RAP, 2005). Fishing people areempowered when it becomes possible for them to sustainablymanage their fishery (Jentoft, 2005). The process of establishing co-management requires changes in the government organization andthe empowerment process is associated with symmetric dis-empowerment of government agencies, which formerly had fullcontrol (Viswanathan et al., 2003).

In the Philippines, decentralization in the form of devolution ofsome power and responsibility from the national government tothe local government units through the passage of the LocalGovernment Code of 1991 provided for the optimal institutionalsetting for the emergence of the fisheries co-management in thecountry. This development is supportive of the key premise offisheries co-management (Sunderlin and Gorospe, 1997) thatmanagement authority should be devolved from governmentagencies to the community of resource users. Experience hasshown that there was a widespread failure of government-ledefforts to manage coastal resources on their own before. Pomeroyand Pido (1995) claimed that the future success of fisheriesmanagement in the Philippines may lie in a form of co-management involving a partnership whereby authority andresponsibility for fisheries management is shared between variouslevels of government and the local fishing community.

Co-management is now widely accepted as a means ofmanaging natural resources (Yandle, 2008; Nielsen et al., 2004) anddeemed to be vital to the sustainability of resource managementregime (Christie et al., 2003). Evident of this are the numerous co-management projects being funded, assisted or implemented byinternational institutions worldwide. For one, WorldFish Centerand its partners worked in Bangladesh through the CommunityBasedManagement Project for the co-management of beel fisheries(Viswanathan et al., 2003). Most of the co-management arrange-ments in Africa (e.g. Zambia/Zimbabwe SADC Fisheries Project, LakeVictoria Fisheries Research Project, etc.) are also funded by externalorganizations such as the Norwegian Agency for DevelopmentCooperation (NORAD), Danish International Development Agency(DANIDA), European Development Fund, among others (Hara andNielsen, 2003). In the Philippines, examples of fisheries co-management projects include the Central Visayas RegionalProject which is supported by the World Bank, and the CoastalResource Management Project which is funded by the United StatesAgency for International Development (USAID).

2.2. Emerging conditions for successful co-management

There are emerging conditionswhich are vital to developing andsustaining successful co-management arrangements. When moreof these key conditions exist in a particular situation or system, thegreater will be the chance for successful co-management.

Pomeroy and Williams (1994) identified and described 11 keyconditions which were originally based from the study of Ostrom(1990, 1992) on key conditions for successful common poolresource institutions. These conditions are: 1) clearly definedboundaries; 2) membership is clearly defined; 3) group cohesion;4) existing organization; 5) benefits exceeds cost; 6) participationby those affected; 7) management rules enforced; 8) legal rights toorganize; 9) cooperation and leadership at the community level;10) decentralization and delegation of authority; and 11) coordi-nation between government and community.

In a research conducted by Pomeroy et al. (2001) on the condi-tions affecting the success of fisheries co-management based on theAsian experience, 18 key conditions were identified. These arefurther grouped into three categories: supra-community-level,community level, and individual and household level. Some of theconditions are already known or are derived from the previous list

L.N. Espectato et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 55 (2012) 27e35 29

while the others are new and innovative. Further, the study assertsthat these conditions reflect the distinct “Asian values” which isunique and different from those inWestern societies. An example ofa distinct condition that iswell-established in the Philippine contextis the high presence of community organizations which was madepossible bysupportiveprovisions of the country’s national lawssuchas the Local Government Code and the Fisheries Code.

The conditions are meant to serve as guide and the list is neitherabsolute nor complete. It will continue to evolve depending on thedistinct environment and processes where the arrangement exists.Some conditions may be well-established in the arrangement andsome may not be present at all. The same study of Pomeroy et al.(2001) claim that while there is a greater chance for a successfulco-management if more of the conditions are satisfied, there canstill be successful co-management without meeting all of theconditions.

From the above-mentioned list of key conditions, the authors ofthis paper identified eight (8) conditions which they deemed to beapplicable to the distinct socio-political setting of Southern Iloilo.These are used as the basis to evaluate SICRMC as a co-managementarrangement. These conditions are the following:

2.2.1. Enabling policies and legislationThis will include establishment of supportive legislation and

authority structures to provide legitimacy to the arrangement.

2.2.2. Clearly defined boundariesThe physical boundaries of the area to be managed are defined

to avoid possible conflicts related to resource utilization and LGUsjurisdictional boundaries.

2.2.3. Participation by those affectedResource users affected by the arrangement are given the

chance to participate in the initiative.

2.2.4. LeadershipLeadership in the Council is a critical factor in providing direc-

tion and energy to the group.

Academe (UP Visayas)

Community

Local Government Units (LGUs)

Fig. 1. Conceptua

2.2.5. Support from the member-LGUsThis will include LGUs commitment to the Council and their

sense of ownership of the co-management process.

2.2.6. Conflict management mechanismThe Council can serve as a venue for arbitration and resolution of

conflicts among its member-LGUs specially those involvingresource use and enforcement of management rules.

2.2.7. Integrated CRM planningThe Council should have a doable CRM plan to manage the

coastal resource of Southern Iloilo, integrating the concerns andpriorities of its member-LGUs.

2.2.8. External agentsParticipation of other sectors/agents is needed to serve as

a catalyst in the development process or to facilitate the estab-lishment of the co-management arrangement.

2.3. Role of the academe as an external agent

This paper will also present the evolving role of the academe asan external agent. Fig. 1 shows howUP Visayas brokered and servedas a catalyst for the LGUs and the community in Southern Iloilo tocooperate and enter into a formal co-management arrangementwhich is the SICRMC. There are eight (8) key conditions which areidentified and deemed vital to the success or failure of the Council.SICRMC can consciously pursue and enhance these key conditions.If more of these conditions are present and are strongly establishedin the area, the likelihood of success for sustainable coastal resourcemanagement for Southern Iloilo is greater.

3. The Southern Iloilo Coastal Resource Management Council

3.1. How SICRMC started

Prior to the birth of the Southern Iloilo Coastal ResourceManagement Council (SICRMC), the Congresswoman of the First

Sustainable coastal resource

management

Key Conditions1. Enabling policies and legislation 2. External agents 3. Clearly defined boundaries 4. Participation by those affected 5. Leadership 6. Support from the member-LGUs 7. Conflict management mechanism 8. Integrated CRM planning

Southern Iloilo Coastal Resource

Mgt Council (SICRMC)

l framework.

L.N. Espectato et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 55 (2012) 27e3530

Congressional District of Iloilo Province in 1998 initiated a specialprogram called Panay Gulf Development Program. This Programaimed to rehabilitate and protect Panay Gulf. The target benefi-ciaries of the said initiative are the fishers of the five coastalmunicipalities of Southern Iloilo bordering the gulf area namely:Oton, Tigbauan, Guimbal, Miagao, and San Joaquin (Fig. 2). Table 1presents the respective fisheries profile of the five coastal munici-palities based on Western Visayas Fisheries Profile 2006 ofDepartment of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources Region 6 and the records of concerned LGUs. The tableshows that Southern Iloilo has about 65.4 km of coastline spanningthe 70 coastal barangays (village) of the five (5) municipalities. Thetotal coastal population in the area is about 100,898.

The Panay Gulf Development Program did not flourish becauseof political animosity among the five Municipal Mayors during thattime. The University of the Philippines Visayas, being a “neutral”institution, drafted a proposal to link with the Panay Gulf Devel-opment Program with an initial funding of PhP120,000 (roughlyequivalent to US$2700) from the UP Visayas Foundation Inc., to beused for preliminary activities.

After more than a year of preparatory activities, a Memorandumof Agreement (MOA) was finally signed by the five Mayors onFebruary 8, 2002. The alliance is registered with the Securities andExchange Commission as a non-stock, non-profit organizationwiththe official name of Southern Iloilo Coastal Resource ManagementCouncil, Inc. or SICRMC.

The organizational structure of the Council is headed by theBoard of Trustees (BOT) which is composed of the MunicipalMayors of the member-LGUs, the Sangguniang Bayan Members(Municipal Councilors) in-charge of the Fisheries and AgricultureCommittee, the Municipal Planning and Development Officers(MPDOs), the Municipal Agriculture Officers (MAOs), and theExecutive Director of the Council. The BOT is the policy-makingbody of the Council and led by the Chairman. The ExecutiveDirector who is appointed by the BOT is the next in rank in thestructure. He is in-charge of the overall operation of SICRMC.Assisting the Executive Director in the activities and operations ofthe Council are the Technical Working Group members.

3.2. Activities conducted

To be able to achieve its objectives and address the concerns ofthe member-LGUs in the management of the coastal waters inSouthern Iloilo, the Council came up with a Coastal Resource

Fig. 2. Map of Southern, Iloilo, Philippines.

Management (CRM) Plan. The plan has five components namely: 1)law enforcement; 2) institutional development; 3) coastal resourcemanagement; 4) livelihood projects; and 5) research and databanking.

Table 2 shows the major activities of the Council in line with thecomponents of the CRM Plan with the respective beneficiaries andoutput for each activity. On the activities conducted, the Councilplayed two main roles; either as the organizer of the activity or asa facilitator. As an organizer, it uses the pooled fund from the LGUcontributions to organize activities or projects beneficial to allmembers (e.g. improving the efficiency of fisheries law enforce-ment in Southern Iloilo). As a facilitator, SICRMC served asa medium for member-LGUs to be recipient of projects (e.g. liveli-hood projects) which was granted or channeled through SICRMC asan institution. It also provided support to some personnel of itsmember-LGUs for attendance to various capability-building activ-ities related to CRM being organized by other institutions.

It can be noted that most of the Council’s activities were gearedtoward fisheries law enforcement. This is one component themember-LGUs have agreed to prioritize, being a major concern inthe area. Data show that there was a considerable increase in thenumber of cases of apprehensions during the period when theCouncil collaborated with the Philippine National Police (PNP)-Maritime Group to conduct surveillance in the waters of SouthernIloilo. However, the activity was only done for two consecutiveyears (2004e2005) since the cost of the operation with the PNP-Maritime Group was becoming a financial burden on the Council.Instead, the resources were focused on strengthening the respec-tive Bantay Dagat (Seawatch Patrol; a volunteer group of fishers)teams of the LGUs by providing logistic support for their operation.

One significant output of the Council was facilitating thesettlement of the longstanding municipal water boundary conflictbetween the municipalities of Oton and Tigbauan. The SICRMC,through its Chairman of the Board of Trustees, wrote a request tothe National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAM-RIA) to provide technical assistance to clear the matter. In response,NAMRIA sent a technical person who, together with the represen-tatives of the two concerned LGUs, identified and marked theboundary.

Table 2 shows that participants or target beneficiaries of theactivities conducted were equitably distributed among themember-LGUs. This can be attributed to the conscious effort on thepart of the Council to distribute or allocate benefits fairly among itsmembers to avoid negative feedback that may hinder the LGUs’active participation in SICRMC.

3.3. Evaluating SICRMC using key conditions

SICRMC is evaluated using a semi-qualitative method based onidentified indicators for each key condition (Table 3). Details on theindicators and how the ratings were come up are found in Annex 1.The following ratings are used in the evaluation:

� None - the key condition does not exist in the area;� Low - indicator is present but at a minimal level;� Medium - indicator is present but not well-established; and� High - indicator is manifested and is strongly established.

The use of these ratings has been done in related studies onfisheries co-management arrangements in similar sites in thePhilippines by Baylon (2004), Napilan (2004) and Fernandez et al.(2000). In this case, the rating for the key condition is based onthe degree of indicators’ presence (see Annex 1) which were ob-tained from secondary data, key informant interview, participant

Table 1Fisheries profile of the five member-municipalities.

Oton Municipality Tigbauan Guimbal Miagao San Joaquin

Length of coastline 8.0 km 8.0 km 8.4 km 16.0 km 25.0 kmCoastal population 23,326 19,671 13,713 26,267 17,921No. of coastal household 1096 3777 2724 5581 3638No. of coastal barangaysa 6 10 13 22 19No. of municipal fishermen 395 445 315 1200 784No. of commercial fishworkers None 16 166 150 120

a Barangay or village is the smallest political unit in the Philippines.

L.N. Espectato et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 55 (2012) 27e35 31

observation and interactions of the authors with the stakeholdersin the area through regular Council meetings.

3.3.1. Enabling policies and legislationSICRMC is rated “high” for this condition considering that its

establishment is backed by supportive agreements among themember-LGUs (MOU and MOA). Being a SEC-registered organiza-tion, it has a legal identity that can make arrangements related toits needs. The authority structure is also well-defined in its orga-nizational set-up.

3.3.2. Clearly defined boundariesWhile it is understood that the scope of the management area of

the Council is part of the Panay Gulf bounded by the five member-municipalities, each of the municipalities has jurisdiction over itsmunicipal waters. All of the five LGUs have delineated theirmunicipal waters but only the municipalities of Miagao and SanJoaquin have been certified based on the records of NAMRIA. Forthis key condition, SICRMC is rated “medium.”

3.3.3. Participation by those affectedSICRMC is “low” on fisher’s participation. Although the activities

and projects of the Council were aimed to filter down and benefitthe fishers of Southern Iloilo, these were usually done and imple-mented at the municipal level. Direct participation of the fishers, asthe main stakeholder, in the decision-making of SICRMC is stilllimited.

Table 2Major activities conducted by SICRMC.

Activity Participants/Beneficiaries

Improved fishery law enforcementby collaborating actively with thePNP-Maritime Group

All of the 5 member-LGUs

Studied the feasibility of a unified MunicipalFishery Ordinance (MFO) for Southern Iloilo

All of the 5 member-LGUsrepresentedby their TWG

Strengthening of Bantay Dagat All of the 5 member-LGUs

Settlement of municipal water boundaryconflict between Oton and Tigbauan

LGUs of Oton and Tigbaua

Conducted Training on Water Search and Rescuewith the aim of creating a water-borne disasterQuick Response Team for the Southern Iloilo

52 participants from the5 member LGUs

Participation in different trainings andcapability-building activities organized by UP Visayas

Participants from member

Selected barangays (village) of member-LGUs servedas pilot sites of an FAO-funded study

11 pilot barangays were idfrom the member-LGUs

Simultaneous coastal clean-up All of the 5 member-LGUs

Establishment of livelihood projects One barangay per municip

SICRMC logo and postermaking contest Student-participants frommember-LGUs

Compilation of fisheries profile and MunicipalFishery Ordinances of the 5 member municipalities

Municipal fishery officers

3.3.4. LeadershipThe rating for this key condition is “medium.” SICRMC devised

a system to fairly share the authority and responsibility ofmanaging the Panay Gulf resources through the rotation of theleadership position among its member-LGUs.

3.3.5. Support from the member-LGUsSICRMC is “low” on this condition. To share the cost of operation,

the member-LGUs decided to contribute Php20,000 (approxi-mately US$450) annually to the trust fund. This fund will be usedfor the activities and projects the Council will implement. However,therewere problems on delayed remittances of the annual financialcontribution. There are also problems on low attendance duringmeetings that hinders implementation of some activities andpolicies of the Council due to lack of quorum.

3.3.6. Conflict management mechanismSICRMC is rated “medium” on this condition. The Council facil-

itated to settle the longstanding municipal water boundary conflictbetween the municipalities of Oton and Tigbauan. On variousoccasions, it also served as a venue to discuss conflicting interest ofthe municipal and commercial fishers.

3.3.7. Integrated CRM planningWhile each LGU have their own set of CRM plan addressing the

specific needs of their municipality, the Council’s CRM plan isideally aimed to serve as an integrating strategy on addressing

Output

The Maritime Group in coordination with the local PNP andBantay Dagat (Seawatch Patrol) conducted 12 cases of apprehensionsduring the period JanuaryeMay 2004 and apprehensions of 4 fishingvessels during the period JanuaryeMay 2005Some provisions of the MFOs of the five municipalitieswere harmonized

Bantay Dagat teams of the respective LGUs weregiven additional logistic support by their mayors

n Municipal water boundary was established

The participants were organized as a group with the nameCoastal Premier Responder or CPR. A Municipal Coordinatorwas assigned for each municipality.

-LGUs Selected participants from member-LGUs attended 2 trainingsand one public lecture organized by UP Visayas.

entified Project outputs (manual and POPDEV profiles of barangays)were turned-over to the concerned LGUsGarbage were removed from the coastal areasof the 5 member LGUs

ality One livelihood project per barangay for each municipalitywas established and involved fishers weregiven livelihood trainingsA logo was selected for the use of SICRMC

A database of fisheries profile and Municipal FisheryOrdinances of member-LGUs

Table 3Rating of the key conditions.

Key condition Indicators Rating for SICRMC

1. Enabling policies and legislation � Presence of supportive agreements� Clear authority structure/organizational set-up

High

2. Clearly defined boundaries � Management area is well-defined� Municipal water boundaries of member-LGUs are established

Medium

3. Participation by those affected � Participation of the fisherfolks in the Council’s policy-making process Low4. Leadership � Leader provides direction to the group

� Fair sharing of leadership authority among membersMedium

5. Support from the member-LGUs � Members commitment to the Council e.g. attendance to meetings participation in theCouncil’s activities

� Cost of operation is being shared

Low

6. Conflict management mechanism � Presence of mechanism for arbitration and resolution of conflicts Medium7. Integrated CRM planning � Presence of a doable CRM plan integrating the plans of the member-LGUs Medium8. External agents � Participation of other sectors/institutions/agents Low

L.N. Espectato et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 55 (2012) 27e3532

issues common to all member-LGUs associated with the manage-ment of Panay Gulf. However, it is not evident that the two plans(that of the Council and the LGU) are really linked. At present, thereare efforts to have a “unified” municipal fishery ordinance for thefive LGUs to facilitate effective fishery law enforcement in the area.The rating for this key condition is “medium.”

3.3.8. External agentsThe presence of external agents is rated “low.” Aside from UP

Visayas who served as a catalyst in its establishment, there is noother sector that is actively involved with the Council at present.

3.4. The academe as an external agent

Generally, academic institutions are vast sources of expertiseand have apolitical status. These qualities make them credibleagents of change in society. Such is the role played by UP Visayas inSICRMC.

When the Panay Gulf Development Program did not flourishbecause of political animosity, UP Visayas interceded and brokeredfor the formation of the alliance using its own funds. On March2000, an interdisciplinary team was created by the UP VisayasChancellor to develop a detailed strategy for the attainment of thefollowing specific project objectives: 1) to assist the LGUs of theFirst Congressional District of Iloilo in the establishment of baselinedata on the resources and users of their coastal environment; 2) tohelp and organize the Technical Working Group within the fiveLGUs in the 1st Congressional District; 3) to assist in the formationof a Resource Management Council to oversee the sustainabledevelopment of the coastal waters of Southern Iloilo; and 4) toprovide technical assistance in the formulation of a CoastalResource Management Plan for Southern Iloilo.

The UP Visayas team gathered secondary data and socio-economic profile of each participating municipality and conduct-ed focused group discussions (FGD) with selected groups of fishers.A Technical Working Group was then formed composed of theMunicipal Planning and Development Officer (MPDO) and Munic-ipal Agriculture Officer (MAO) of the five municipalities. A work-shop was organized to study the issues and concerns in the coastalareas of Southern Iloilo and to plan for the implementation of aninter-LGU collaboration among the five municipalities. Concurrentto these activities, the UP Visayas team members visited all of theMunicipal Mayors of the five municipalities to get their views onthe possibility of collaboration. It is noteworthy that those LocalChief Executives who were apprehensive to participate in theprogram before, expressed interest to join the partnership as longas the name of the program will be changed and should not beidentified with the former proponent. They also expressed trust in

the University believing that it is “neutral” and that the initiativewill not be used for any political agenda.

Since SICRMC was organized and up to the present, UP Visayascontinues to play an active role in the operation of the Council. Infact, the very first Executive Director of the Council and its presentSecretariat were fromUP Visayas. Themeetings of the Council werealso held in the University where members are more comfortableand an atmosphere of trust prevails. These conditions may not beobtained if the meetings were held in any of the member-municipalities.

4. Discussion

SICRMC was created to address the concerns (e.g. rampantillegal fishing activities, habitat degradation) of the five member-LGUs associated with the management of the coastal resource ofPanay Gulf. This recognition of common problem motivated theLGUs to enter into partnership and share the responsibility inaddressing the issue. This process pointed out that fisheries co-management does not come about automatically but requiresimpetus and oftentimes, it is the recognition of fisheries crisis(Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2007) or resource managementproblem that triggers co-management (Pomeroy and Berkes,1997).

SICRMC can be considered as a formal type of co-management.It has a legally-mandated set of institutional structures and activ-ities that coordinate the joint resource management efforts of itsmembers/partners. It has also an overarching decision-makingbody which is the Board of Trustees.

Based on the evaluation of SICRMC, using the defined keyconditions, it can be said that the Council has great prospects tosucceed as long as it will work on the seven (7) key conditionswhere it is rated “low” or “medium”. These are the challengesposed to the Council for it to be truly sustainable:

SICRMC needs to encourage the participation of other sectors inits management process. This can be done by linking or collabo-rating with other sectors such as people’s organizations and non-government organizations. Joint undertakings with other groupsor institutions has advantages in increasing financial, logistical, andtechnical resources necessary for the effective implementation ofCRM programs (Pomeroy and Carlos, 1997).

On the proposal to expand its membership to include the twoinland municipalities in the First District of Iloilo namely Igbarasand Tubungan, this should be carefully studied since it has impli-cations on the management scale and consequently, the structureof the Council. Discussing in the context of EBM and MPA but veryrelevant with the fisheries co-management system, Christie et al.(2009a, b) suggest that scaling-up (i.e. in the case of SICRMC

L.N. Espectato et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 55 (2012) 27e35 33

expanding to include more member-LGUs) should be within“governable scale” and should not exceed institutional capacity.

Another challenge to SICRMC is having the community partici-pate actively in the Council either through representation in theBoard of Trustees or in the Technical Working Group. Although theactivities and projects of the Council were aimed to filter down andbenefit the fishers of Southern Iloilo, these were usually done andimplemented at the municipal level. Direct participation of thefishers in the decision-making of SICRMC is limited. It is said that ifstakeholders do not have a direct participation in the process, theyalso do not have a sense of ownership and commitment to theinitiative (Pomeroy et al., 2005; Pomeroy et al., 2001). For thisreason, SICRMC cannot be truly considered as a “community-based” resource management initiative since the government,through the LGUs, still plays the major role. In a set-up like this,community members like the fishers, should not just serve asbeneficiaries but rather as active participants in the process(Pomeroy and Carlos, 1997). People’s participation in the develop-ment process should be the focal point since being the direct usersthey are potentially the best resource managers (Rivera-Guieb,1999).

The experience of SICRMC has clearly shown how politics wasable to shape its inception and consequently influence its thrustsand direction. It is nowwidely acknowledged that co-managementis a political issue (Pomeroy and Williams, 1994) and resourcemanagement is a political process (Renard, 1991). The principlesand goals of the fisheries management process are matters ofpreference and choice, consequently resulting to political struggle(Jentoft, 2006). The cooperation of the local government and thepolitical elite is important to co-management (Pomeroy et al.,2001) as their political willingness to lend credence and to sharethe cost, responsibility and authority, is a big factor in determiningthe success or failure of the initiative/project (Jacinto, 1997).Evidently, in a decentralized set-up like the LGUs of the Philippines,local political health and political infighting have a great impact onlocal governance (Dressler et al., 2006; Trousdale, 1999). As bestexemplified in the case of SICRMC, mayors of the municipalitieswho belonged to a different political party refused, at first, to jointhe initiative because of the apprehension that the politician-proponent will just use it to advance her political agenda.However, with the intervention of an apolitical institution (UPVisayas) and with their concern for resource management asa unifying factor, the LGUs were able to transcend politics.

In linewith this, there is a need for a long-term support from thelocal government units involved in the partnership arrangement.The role of the LGU in SICRMC is very vital since they are the coremembers of the Council. LGUs provide the mechanism for thesetting up of a partnership arrangement. Their unwillingness toengage in cooperative, multi-jurisdictional management isa significant drawback to effective coastal resource management(DENR et al., 2001). Because of this, there is a need for politicalcommitment on the part of themember-LGUs of SICRMC to activelysupport and sustain the efforts of the Council regardless of changein administration during elections.

On the other hand, participation of the academe and researchinstitutions in coastal management in local government unit levelis usually limited in doing preliminary research and resourceassessment. Alcala (2008) stated that partnership of the academeand the LGUs have been used successfully to improve the socio-economic status of the coastal communities by providing scien-tific knowledge and assisting in accessing funds from other orga-nizations. By nature, academe is considered to be non-sectarian andnon-partisan. The experience of SICRMC highlighted the atypicalrole of an academic institution in resource management by servingas a neutral catalyst in a politically-charged environment. UP

Visayas has facilitated to expedite the co-management processamong the politically-opposing municipalities by trying to unifythem through their common concern which is coastal resourcemanagement.

However, SICRMC needs to address its dependence on UPVisayas. Undeniably, the University has played a major role inserving as a catalyst in the preliminary steps of organizing thealliance. When it was suggested that the full operation of theCouncil will be turned-over to the LGUs in-charge for the year andthe University will only play a minor role (e.g. acting as resourcepersons or as technical consultants), the members did not agree.They insisted that the Council should still be “based” in UP Visayasand the Secretariat should still come from the University. They alsocontended that they still need UPV as a neutral and apolitical base.

It is said that external agent should have a temporary relation-ship with the co-management process, serving their particularfunction and then phasing out by turning over the responsibilitiesto the stakeholders (Pomeroy et al., 2001; Pomeroy and Carlos,1997). With the alliance now well-established, it is time for UPVto play a diminishing role. The Council should now be “weaned” offand properly empowered to operate on its ownwith the help of themember-LGUs. Given that continuing advice from the implement-ing organization is important (Pollnac et al., 2001), UP Visayas canstill perform a minor part as an advisory body to the Council.Nevertheless, it may also have a flexible role by extending “active”assistance to the Council during a slackening period in leadership.With election of municipal mayors and other municipal officialsevery three years, this may affect the leadership and operation ofthe Council. It can be during this time that the academe may needto have an active role in SICRMC.

5. The way forward

SICRMC is a fisheries co-management arrangement in SouthernIloilo, Philippine which was initiated by UP Visayas. This paperevaluated the presence of the identified eight (8) key conditions forsuccessful fisheries co-management using the scale low, medium,and high. SICRMC is rated high on the enabling policies conditionand medium on defined boundaries, leadership, conflict manage-ment, and integrated planning conditions. On the other hand, it islow on participation, local government unit support, and presenceof external agents.

The paper also presents the evolving role of the academe as anexternal agent in the arena of fisheries co-management. In theSICRMC experience, UP Visayas served as a neutral catalyst ina politically-charged environment by unifying opposing munici-palities through their common concern which is coastal resourcemanagement. It is an insight of this paper that when there isa vacuum created by the “unwillingness” of the LGUs to cooperatein a fisheries co-management set-up, the academe as an apoliticalentity may fill the gap.

Looking back from its humble beginning to its present status,SICRMC can be considered successful on its own right. However,much still remains to be done for Panay Gulf and its stakeholders.The community and fishers should have representation in theCouncil. Local government units should be committed to the goalsof the Council for it to be sustained regardless of changes inadministration during elections. SICRMC needs to be empowered tooperate on its own and “weaned” off from the University.

As a co-management arrangement, the Council should adjustand mature to changing conditions over time. The initiative needsto be sustained and the alliance should continue to evolve with thesocio-political setting of Southern Iloilo. It should also continue towork on improving and establishing the key conditions for it tohave a successful co-management arrangement.

Annex 1. Rating of key conditions and its indicators.

Key condition Rating Characteristics/Measurements

Low Medium High

1. Enabling policiesand legislation

- Presence of a signed MOA - Presence of a signed MOA- Presence of an authority structure

- Presence of a signed MOA- Presence of an authority structure- SEC-registered (has legal entity)

2. Clearly definedboundaries

- Defined municipal water boundary butnot certified

- Defined municipal water boundary withat least 2 of them certified by NAMRIA

- All of the municipal water boundariesare defined and certified by NAMRIA

3. Participation bythose affected

- Fishers have attended at most 20% of thetotal Council meetings

- Fishers have attended at most 50% of thetotal Council meetings

- Fishers have attended more than 50% ofthe total Council meetings

4. Leadership - Leadership is monopolized by 1 or 2municipalities

- The Chairmen do not exhibit strongleadership

- Leadership is fairly shared- 2 of the 4 Chairmen do not exhibit strong

leadership

- Leadership is fairly shared- All of the 4 Chairmen exhibit strong

leadership

5. Support from themember-LGUs

- Less than 50% attendance of the BOT andTWG members during Council meetings

- At least 3 of the 5 member LGUs paidtheir annual contribution late

- About 50% attendance of the BOT andTWG members during Council meetings

- At least 3 of the 5 member LGUs paidtheir annual contribution on time

- More than 50% attendance of the BOTand TWG members during Councilmeetings

- All member LGUs paid their annualcontribution on time

6. Conflict managementmechanism

- Concerns were brought to the attentionof the Council but were not resolved

- Concerns were brought to the attentionof the Council and most of it wereresolved

- All of the identified concerns werebrought to the attention of the Counciland were found solutions

7. Integrated CRMplanning

- Not all of the member LGUs have a CRMplan

- The Council has no integrated CRM plannor is there an effort to integrate

- Member-LGUs have their individualCRM plan

- The Council has an effort to integrate theplans

- Fully integrated individual CRM planwith the CRM plan of the Council

8. External agents - At most 25% of the identified sectorsa arerepresented in the Council

- More than 50% of the sectors are repre-sented in the Council

- Each of the identified sectors is repre-sented in the Council

The rating for None (non-existence of the indicator) is not included in the table to avoid redundancy.aIdentified sectors are the academe, national government agencies (NGAs), non-government organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs) and the industry/privatesector.

L.N. Espectato et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 55 (2012) 27e3534

In this on-going story of SICRMC, UP Visayas has shown that ithas lived to the challenge posed by former UP President, Dr. Jose V.Abueva, who urged the University to serve as an agent of socialtransformation. Academic institutions around the world are vastsources of expertise and with their generally apolitical status theycan be very credible brokers of change in any arena includingfisheries co-management. This is the emerging role of the academeoutside the classroom.

Ethical statementThis is to certify that our paper entitled “Emerging Fisheries

Co-Management Arrangement in Panay Gulf, Southern Iloilo, Phil-ippines” has not been published previously nor under consider-ation for publication elsewhere. Further, submission of this paperto Ocean & Coastal Management is approved by all authors and ifaccepted, will not be published elsewhere including electronicallyin the same form.

References

Adan, W.R., 2004. A local government alliance approach to integrated coastal zonemanagement: the Gingoog Bay Development Council experience. In: InTurbulent Seas: the Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries. Department ofAgriculture e Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, pp. 327e331. CoastalResource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.

Alcala, A. 2008. Environmental partnership and sustainability. Paper presented atchanging Asia: forging partnerships, building sustainability, an InternationalConference organized by the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation, 29e30August 2008: Manila.

Baylon, C.C. 2004. Evaluation of the Integrated Municipal Council as an Institutionfor Co-management in the Coastal Zone in Western Visayas, Philippines. Paperpresented at the International Workshop on Fisheries Co-management: Lessonsand Directions, October 3e5, 2004, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Berkes, F., 1994. Co-management: bridging the two solitudes. Northern Perspectives22 (2e3), 18e20.

Christie, P., White, A.T., 1997. Trends in the development of coastal area manage-ment in tropical countries: from central to community orientation. CoastalManagement 25, 155e181.

Christie, P., Buhat, D., Garces, L.R., White, A.T., 2003. The challenges and rewardsof community-based coastal resources management: San Salvador Island,Philippines. In: Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen, P.R., Fortwangler, C.L., West, P.C.

(Eds.), Contested Nature e promoting International Biodiversity Conservationwith Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century. SUNY Press,, Albany, NY,pp. 231e249.

Christie, P., Pollnac, R.B., Fluharty, D.L., Hixon, M.A., Lowry, G.K., Mahon, R., Pietri, D.,Tissot, B.N., White, A.T., Armada, N., Eisma-Osorio, R., 2009a. Tropical marineEBM feasibility: a synthesis of case studies and comparative analyses. CoastalManagement 37, 374e385.

Christie, P., Pollnac, R.B., Oracion, E.G., Sabonsolin, A., Diaz, R., Pietre, D., 2009b. Backto basics: an empirical study demonstrating the importance of local-leveldynamics for the success of tropical marine ecosystem-based management.Coastal Management 37, 349e373.

Chuenpagdee, R., Jentoft, S., 2007. Step zero for fisheries co-management: whatprecedes implementation. Marine Policy 31, 657e668.

Department of Agriculture e Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR)Region 6. 2006. (unpublished). Western Visayas Fisheries Profile 2006.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Agri-culture e Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR), Department ofInterior and Local Government (DILG), 2001. Philippine Coastal ManagementGuidebook No.1: Coastal Management Orientation and Overview. CoastalResource Management Project of the Department of Environment and NaturalResources, Cebu City, Philippines.

Department of Interior and Local Government e Local Government Academy (DILG-LGA), Galing Pook Foundation, Ford Foundation, United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2002. SavingBanate Bay: Province of Iloilo. In: Kaban Galing: The Philippine Case Bank onInnovation and Exemplary Practices on Good Governance. Managing theEnvironment, vol. 2, pp. 36e38.

Dressler, W.H., Kull, C.A., Meredith, T.C., 2006. The politics of decentralizing nationalparks management in the Philippines. Political Geography 25, 789e816.

Eisma-Osorio, R., Amolo, R.C., Maypa, A.P., White, A.T., Christie, P., 2009. Scaling uplocal government initiatives toward ecosystem-based fisheries management inSoutheast Cebu Island, Philippines. Coastal Management 37, 291e307.

Fernandez, P.R., Matsuda, R., Subade, R.F., 2000. Coastal area governance in thePhilippines. Journal of Environment and Development 9, 341e369.

Food and Agriculture Organization - Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (FAO-RAP), 2005. Report of the Regional Workshop on Mainstreaming Fisheries Co-management Held in Siem Reap, Cambodia from 9 to 12 August 2005. FAORegional Office for Asia and the Pacific. RAPPublication, Bangkok, 2005/23, 48 pp.

Hara, M., Nielsen, J.R., 2003. Experiences with fisheries co-management in Africa.In: Wilson, D.C., Nielsen, J.R., Degnbol, P. (Eds.), The Fisheries Co-ManagementExperience: Accomplishement, Challenges and Prospects. Kluwer AcademicPublishers, The Netherlands, pp. 81e95.

Jacinto, E., 1997. In: Community Legal and Institutional Studies. Tambuyog Devel-opment Center, Quezon City, Philippines.

Jentoft, S., 2005. Fisheries co-management as empowerment. Marine Policy 29, 1e7.Jentoft, S., 2006. Beyond fisheries management: the Phronetic dimension. Marine

Policy 30, 671e680.

L.N. Espectato et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 55 (2012) 27e35 35

Napilan, L.F., 2004. Co-management strategies in coastal resource managementcouncils (CRMCs) in Western Visayas. Danyag: UP Visayas Journal of Humanitiesand Social Sciences 8, 78e103.

National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), 2005. Success Stories inCoastal Resource Management, vol. X(29). DevPulse:NEDA DevelopmentAdvocacy Fact Sheet, pp. 1e2.

Nielsen, J.R., Degnbol, P., Viswanathan, K.K., Ahmed, M., Hara, M.,Abdullah, N.M.R., 2004. Fisheries co-management e an institutional Inno-vation? lessons learned from South East Asia and Southern Africa. MarinePolicy 28, 151e160.

Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons, the Evolution of Institutions forCollective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Ostrom, E., 1992. Crafting Institutions for Self-governing Irrigation Systems. Insti-tute for Contemporary Studies Press, San Francisco.

Pollnac, R.B., Crawford, B.R., Gorospe, M.L.G., 2001. Discovering factors that influ-ence the success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas,Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management 44, 683e710.

Pomeroy, R.S., Berkes, F., 1997. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 21, 465e480.

Pomeroy, R.S., Carlos, M.B., 1997. Community-based coastal resource managementin the Philippines: a review and evaluation of programs and projects1984e1994. Marine Policy 21, 445e464.

Pomeroy, R.S., Pido, M.D., 1995. Initiatives towards fisheries co-management in thePhilippines: the case of San Miguel Bay. Marine Policy 19, 213e226.

Pomeroy, R.S., Williams, M.J., 1994. Fisheries Co-management and Small-scaleFisheries: a Policy Brief. International Center for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement, Manila, 15 pp.

Pomeroy, R.S., Katon, B.M., Harkes, I., 2001. Conditions affecting the success offisheries co-management: lessons from Asia. Marine Policy 25, 197e208.

Pomeroy, R.S., Oracion, E.G., Pollnac, R.B., Caballes, D.A., 2005. Perceived economicfactors influencing the sustainability on integrated coastal managementprojects in the Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management 48, 360e377.

Pomeroy, R., Garces, L., Pido, M., Silvestre, G., 2009. Ecosystem-based fisheriesmanagement in small-scale tropical marine fisheries: emerging models ofgovernance arrangements in the Philippines. Marine Policy. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2009.07.008.

Renard, Y., 1991. Institutional challenges for community-based management in theCaribbean. Nature and Resources 27, 4e9.

Republic Act 7160. The Local Government Code of 1991.Rivera-Guieb, B., 1999. Reinventing power and politics in communities:

community-based coastal resource management in the Philippines. In: Power,Spaces, and Titles: Issues in Community-Based Coastal Resource Management.Tambuyog Development Center, Quezon City, Philippines.

Sunderlin, W.D., Gorospe, M.L.G., 1997. Fisher’s organizations and modes of co-management: the case of San Miguel Bay, Philippines. Human Organization56, 333e343.

Trousdale, W.J., 1999. Governance in context: Boracay Island, Philippines. Annals ofTourism Research 26, 840e867.

Viswanathan, K.K., Nielsen, J.R., Degnbol, P., Ahmed, M., Hara, M., RajaAbdullah, N.M., 2003. Fisheries co-management policy brief: findings froma Worldwide study. In: WorldFish Center Policy Brief, vol. 2 26p.

Yandle, T., 2008. The promise and perils of building a co-management regime: aninstitutional assessment of New Zealand fisheries management between 1999and 2005. Marine Policy 32, 132e141.