Value of Marine Protected Area Access
Attributes
Medium: Animals, Plants and/or Others
Country: Philippines
Analytical Framework(s): Economic Analysis
Study Date: 2002
Publication Date: 2003
Major Result(s)
| Resource/Environmental Good | PHP (2002) |
PHP (2014)1 |
USD (2014)2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| User fee per researcher3 | 200.00 | 317.90 | 7.11 |
| User fee per diver per visit4 | 300.00 | 476.86 | 10.66 |
| User fee per local diver5 | 1,250.00 | 1,986.90 | 44.42 |
| User fee per foreign diver6 | 2,500.00 | 3,973.80 | 88.85 |
| User fee per diver per visit (lower bound)7 | 75.00 | 119.21 | 2.67 |
| User fee per diver per visit (upper bound)8 | 100.00 | 158.95 | 3.55 |
About the Inflation Adjustment: Prices in Philippines (PHP) changed by 58.95% from 2002 to 2014 (aggregated from annual CPI data), so the study values were multiplied by 1.59 to express them in 2014 prices. The study values could be expressed in any desired year (for example, to 2025) by following the same inflation calculation and being sensitive to directional (forward/backward) aggregations using your own CPI/inflation data.
Study Note: Recognizing the need for more research on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), this study analyses how governing institutions affect the performance of MPAs, using selected biophysical, socioeconomic and institutional indicators. The establishment of an MPA can be an effective tool for conservation. This study rated performance of MPA using selected socioeconomic, biophysical, and institutional indicators. The biophysical indicators showed that coral cover and the number of fish caught have dwindled in all sites, largely due to the El Niño event in 1997. The presence of MPA has brought about faster recovery of most biological resources in the study areas. The socioeconomic indicators showed that household income has not significantly changed over the years but environmental consciousness has increased in the community, enabling greater participation in resource management. The provision of alternative livelihood, introduced to the fisherfolk was unsatisfactory. A stronger livelihood program is essential to increase the probability of success of an MPA. The institutional aspect showed that illegal fishing activities have decreased and management boards are key factors for this success. The illegal fishing activities are often committed by nearby island communities of the Protected Area (PA), and it is vital to link up with a network of adjacent MPAs to help enforcement and monitoring activities.
Study Details
Summary: This study investigates the effectiveness of different management regimes in the marine protected areas (MPAs) around the coast of the Philippines. It assesses how the MPAs are performing, from both an environmental and a social perspective, and finds out what constitute the key features of a successful management scheme. It finds that the type of institution in charge of an MPA makes little difference to its effectiveness. Instead, it finds that good leadership, adequate manpower & funds, and the provision of sustainable livelihoods are the key. The study suggests a number of ways in which community involvement in MPA management can be strengthened and highlights the need for community requirements to be taken fully into account in any MPA action plan.
Site Characteristics: In the Philippines, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Local Government units (LGU) with Nongovernment Organization (NGO) partnerships and Peoples' Organizations (POs) are the dominant institutions that manage MPAs. The MPA sites chosen have a mixture of varying levels of involvement of these institutions. They include the Batanes Islands Protected Landscape and Seascape (BIPLAS), Siargao Islands Protected Landscape and Seascape (SIPLAS), Apo Reef Marine Natural Park (ARMNP), Sagay Marine Reserve (SMR), Tubbataha Reef Marine National Park (TRMNP), Panggangan Island (PI), BiriLarosa Coastal Community (BLCC) and Apo Island Marine Sanctuary (AIMS). The study also inferred impacts of MPA by comparing before and after MPA situation based on key informants' account.
Comments: There are about 160 MPAs in the Philippines, divided into the following categories: national marine park (1), national marine reserve (1), marine turtle sanctuary (7), tourist zone and marine reserve (65), wilderness area (52), protected landscape/seascape (2), seashore park (1), and fish sanctuary (31). The scope of this study was initially limited to nine sites; with three study sites per institutional arrangement/governing institution. The Apo Reef Marine Natural Park (ARMNP), the Batanes Islands Protected Landscape and Seascape (BIPLAS) and the Siargao Islands Protected Landscape and Seascape (SIPLAS) represent the DENR/NGO managed MPAs. The Sagay Marine Reserve (SMR), the Sombrero Island (SI) and the Tubbataha Reef Marine National Park (TRMNP) represent the LGU/NGO run parks. The Sombrero Island was subsequently dropped as a study site due to the uncooperative attitude of the fisher folks. The Panggangan Island (PI), Biri Larosa Coastal Community (BLCC) and the Apo Island Marine Sanctuary (AIMS) are the community-based managed areas.With climatic conditions to consider, the time spent for onsite surveys was limited. Thus, the study's goal to get a larger number of respondents was not met; only an average number of 43 respondents per site were obtained.