South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012

1

Success and Failure of Marine Protected Area Management
Affecting the Fish Catch by Adjacent Fishermen in
Sarangani Bay, Mindanao, Philippines
RAZON Brando Cabigas1, 2, LIAO Lawrence Manzano3 and NAKAGOSHI Nobukazu1

1: Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima
University, Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8529 Japan
2: Sarangani Police Provincial Office, Kawas, Alabel, Sarangani Province, Philippines
3: Graduate School of Biosphere Science, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima,739-8529 Japan
E-mail: brandorazon@yahoo.com

Abstract
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are widely advocated as one of the most important tools forconservation and fishery management. Four MPAs were studied: Glan Padidu, Kapatan, Kamanga andTuka. The status of these MPAs was assessed based on MPA management, ecological health of the coral
reef and the productivity of fishermen. Status of MPA management was determined by interviews with the
MPA managers and actual validation of the information through actual visit of the areas. Interviews withthe fishermen living adjacent to the MPAs were conducted to determine their productivity before and after
the MPA establishment based on the catch per unit effort (CPUE). The CPUE of the fishermen increased
after five years of well managed MPAs. However, failure in MPA management in two MPAs, followedby the cessation of protection of the areas in 2009, has decreased the CPUE. On the other hand the noninvolvement of the local fisher folks in management of Kamanga MPA created some misunderstanding andunfavorable perception of the fishermen. For them this MPA did not help increase their CPUE as they areallegedly prohibited to fish around the protected areas. Tuka MPA which is relatively well managed among
the three MPAs shows an increase in the CPUE of the fishermen.
Keywords: coral reef, marine resources, MPA

Introduction
Background of the study
The intensity of human pressure on marine systems has led to a push for stronger
marine conservation efforts. Recently, marine reserves have become one highly
Received: 25 November, 2011
Accepted: 3 April, 2012

2

South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012advocated form of marine conservation. Reserves will be essential for conservation
efforts because they can provide unique protection for critical areas, provide a spatial
escape for intensely exploited species, and potentially act as buffers against somemanagement miscalculations and unforeseen or unusual conditions (ALLISON et al.
1998). The number of marine reserves or marine protected areas (MPAs) establishedand/or planned worldwide has grown dramatically in recent years (GUIDETTI 2006). The
Philippines, which was the site of some of the earliest marine reserves, has followed
this pattern with a current estimate of more than 300 MPAs, most with some no-takecomponent. These have been legally established since the humble beginning of marine
conservation and fishery management efforts starting in 1970 in Sumilon and Apo
Islands in the central Philippines (ALCALA and RUSS 2006) and constitute the country’s
primary tool for coastal resource management (HIND et al. 2010).
In addition, MPAs have been claimed and are widely advocated as one of themost important tools for the protection and management of coastal, marine and fisheryresources (POLLNAC et al. 2001, PIETRI et al. 2009, HIND et al. 2010) including coral
reef management (R OBERTS and P OLUNIN 1991, A LLISON et al. 1998, B OHNSACK
1998). Marine reserves, as defined by ALCALA (2001) are areas of marine environment
protected from various forms of human or extractive exploitation. Activities likefishing or the collection of any organism in the area are completely banned. The marine
areas outside the MPAs are referred to as non-reserves or fished areas, where fishers areallowed to fish using traditional, non-destructive fishing gear that is species-selective.
As an effective tool for the protection and management of coastal, marine andfishery resources, marine reserves and marine parks had been established for theprotection of fish and other marine organisms, increasing fishery yields and reducing
conflicts between groups of fishery stakeholders (ALCALA 2001). The potential use ofmarine reserves in the management of coral reef fisheries, for example, includes theprotection of a critical stock biomass to ensure recruitment supply via larval dispersal
to areas that are fished and to maintain enhanced fish yields to areas adjacent toreserves through the movement of adult fish (RUSS and ALCALA 1996). By restricting
fishing access to one particular area, the goal is to allow fish to reproduce and thrive
peacefully. The “spill over” effect of the fish population born within the protected area
into the water surrounding the MPA is expected to occur, increasing the number of fish
available for fishers to catch (RUSS and ALCALA 2004).
MPA establishment is one of the common strategic interventions in coastal
resource management (CRM) in the Philippines with a huge range of potentialfunctions. However, they may also have limitations as to how much they can actuallysatisfy specific management objectives. Fishery resources are very important indeveloping countries like the Philippines where large numbers of coastal people are
dependent on them both for their income and as their main protein source. BEGER etal. (2005) stated that many coastal communities rely on the sea for income and food,commonly at subsistence level, and, therefore, declining resources combined withpopulation growth lead to increased poverty. The resulting urgent need for resource

RAZON et al.: Marine Protected Area Management in Sarangani Bay, Mindanao

3

management has been recognized by many institutions and local communities that haveinitiated marine resource management projects.
The Philippines lies close to the center of tropical marine biodiversity and is home
to some of the most complex and diverse ecosystems known (DEVANTIER et al. 2004).
This biodiversity and associated rich ecosystems are natural renewable resources that
also support millions of people. Despite the productivity and richness of the natural
resources of the Philippines, they are under substantial pressure from a rapidly growing
human population (2.4% per annum growth rate) and widespread poverty (WHITE etal. 2002). Thus, the productive marine habitats of the country are being degraded, andposes a threat to the food security of the people.
Laws governing the protection of wildlife species and their habitats in thePhilippines have been formulated and the most important one is the Republic Act
7586, otherwise known as the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS)
Act which was enacted in June 1992. This law provides for the establishment andmanagement of protected areas in the Philippines. The Act serves as the legal basis forthe “In Situ” conservation of biological diversity through the appropriate managementof ecologically important areas for conservation and sustainable development.
The coastal region of Sarangani Province and General Santos City has seen
rapid changes in recent years through industrial, urban and infrastructure growth.
Meanwhile, the coastal region is home to a high proportion of the human population ofSarangani Province and General Santos City, many of whom are dependent on fishing.
The coastal area provides invaluable benefits reaching millions of pesos annually from
activities such as fishing, aquaculture, tourism and coastal transport of produce (DEJESUS et al. 2001). There is already serious concern that the environmental degradationof coral reefs and mangroves has seriously destroyed fish habitats and reduced nearshore fish stocks.
Sarangani Bay lies within the area of Sarangani Province with General Santos
City on its northern side. It was declared as a protected seascape by virtue of the
NIPAS Presidential Proclamation No. 756 dated 05 March 1996. The protected area
falls under the general administration of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources and the management delegated to multi-sectoral groups, academe, nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and peoples organizations (POs), as stipulated in theabove-mentioned Republic Act No. 7586, or the NIPAS Act of 1992.
At present, there are eight established MPAs within Sarangani Bay based on
the record of the Regional Office 12 of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. There are stories of success and failure in the MPA management of these
protected areas, however there is no study conducted to verify the effect of the MPA
establishment on the productivity of the fishermen living adjacent to these protectedareas. Therefore, a socio-economic assessment of the status of the MPAs is necessary
to find out the level of its implementation and its benefits to the fisher folks dependent
on marine resources for their survival.

4South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012

Objectives of the study
This study evaluates the present status of the marine protected areas in Sarangani Bay,
Mindanao, Philippines in terms of the dynamics of MPA management, coral reef based oncoral cover and diversity and productivity based on the catch per unit effort (CPUE).
Specifically, this study assesses the present status and condition of four MPAs of
Sarangani Bay, Mindanao, Philippines in terms of compliance to basic features of afunctioning MPA and the perception of the local people in establishing such MPAs in
their area. It also determines the productivity of fishermen working near the MPAs interms of CPUE.

Methodology
Study site
This study was conducted in Sarangani Bay, southeastern Mindanao, Philippines
located at 5° 33' 25" - 6° 6' 15" N and 124° 22' 45" - 125° 19' 45" E beginning fromthe second week of November until the end of December 2010 in four different marine
protected areas (MPAs). The province has a coastline of 226.4 km including a portion
that belonged to the area of General Santos City (DE JESUS et al. 2001). Figure 1 shows
the map of the study sites. The four MPAs belonged to three coastal municipalities
under the province of Sarangani as follows:1）Glan Padidu Marine Sanctuary, Glan, Sarangani Province;
2）Kapatan Marine Reserve, Glan, Sarangani Province;
3）Kamanga Marine Ecotourism Park and Sanctuary, Maasim, Sarangani Province;
4）Tuka Marine Park, Kiamba, Sarangani Province.

Fig. 1. Map of Sarangani Bay showing the study sites.

RAZON et al.: Marine Protected Area Management in Sarangani Bay, Mindanao

5

Glan Padidu Marine Sanctuary was established on December 05, 2000 by virtue ofGlan Municipal Ordinance Number 2000-04. It is located on the east side of Sarangani
Bay with an area of ten hectares that belonged to the area of Barangay Glan Padidu
in the municipality of Glan, Sarangani Province. This MPA was managed by MuslimChristian Fisherfolks Multi-Purpose Cooperative in coordination with the Barangay
Council of Glan Padidu.
Kapatan Marine Reserve was also established on 05 Dec. 2000 by virtue ofGlan Municipal Ordinance Number 2000-04 in the same time Glan Padidu MPA
was established. It is located in the east side of Sarangani Bay but it is about eight
kilometers north of Glan Padidu MPA. It has an area of 12 hectares in barangay
Kapatan in the municipality of Glan, Sarangani Province. Kapatan MPA was managed
by the Cabug Fishermen and Farmers Cooperative (CAFIFAMCO) in coordination
with the barangay council of Kapatan.
Kamanga Marine Ecotourism Park and Sanctuary was established on 04 May
2006 by virtue of Maasim municipal ordinance No. 06-020. It has an area of 140.49
hectares located in the west side of Sarangani Bay, in the municipality of Maasim,
Sarangani Province. It is managed by local government and the local people with theparticipation of a private resort situated just about 200 meters away from the protectedarea.
Tuka MPA on the other hand, Tuka Marine Park, has an area of 53.31 hectares
located in Barangay Tuka, Municipality of Kiamba, Sarangani Province. It wasestablished on 16 Jan. 2001 by virtue of Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 01-007. It
is located in the west side of Sarangani bay 40 kilometers away from Kamanga MPA.
The three municipalities of Glan, Maasim and Kiamba where the MPAs in thisstudy belonged have the longest coastlines among the six coastal municipalities inSarangani Province and General Santos City (Fig. 2).

Alabel-11.3km
5%Glan-65.54km
29%

Maasim-42.94km
19%

Malapatan15.82km
7%

Maitum-24.86km
11%
Gen Santos City27.12km
12%Kiamba-38.42km
17%

Fig. 2. Percent of coastline per coastal municipalities/city compared to that of the area profile.

6

South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012

Fishermen in all MPAs were using the “hook and line” as their fishing gear. Thisis the allowed non-destructive fishing gear for small scale fishermen fishing around the
MPA area and commercial fishing is completely banned.
All MPAs are abundant in commercially important fish species which are target
for fishermen. Based on the fish census conducted by Sarangani Environmental
Conservation and Protection Center in 2009, Glan Padidu and Kapatan MPA which
are both located in the same municipality have the following commercially-important
species: Acanthuridae (17 species), Lutjanidae (10 species) and Scaridae (10 species).
The major target species in Kamanga MPA are Acanthuridae (17 species), Labridae (11species) and Holocentridae (7 species). Tuka MPA on the other hand has Acanthuridae(16 species), Mullidae (10 species) and Balistidae (8 species).
Assessment of MPA management
Documents related to the legal basis in the establishment of the MPA weregathered from different municipalities where the MPA is under its jurisdiction.
Permission from the municipal mayors was first obtained before proceeding to thespecific office concerned on MPA management. Structured interviews were conductedwith the persons in charge of the four MPAs. The questionnaire contained questions
to determine the presence of the following items: the legal basis for establishmentof the MPA (local government ordinance); presence of MPA management plan; abudget from the local government to support the MPA; and information, educationand communication conducted in the local community regarding MPA matters. The
presence of violations such as fishing inside the protected area and/or fishing aroundthe protected area using destructive fishing gear was also determined. The samequestion on the presence of fishing violation was also asked during the interview ofthe fishermen to validate the information. Establishment and maintenance of the setof features inherent to a functioning marine protected area such as the presence ofmarker buoys, community signboards, monitoring program and a guard house werealso determined during the interview and were validated through actual visits to thedifferent protected areas. The questionnaire was first checked and validated by anexpert in Hiroshima University. Perceptions of the local residents whether they arefavorable or not in the establishment of an MPA in their respective area were gathered.
Open ended questions were part of the questionnaire where respondents can say
more and express more of their opinions. The interview was administered using the
Cebuano dialect because the majority of the respondents are using the language and all
respondents can understand and speak Cebuano.
Productivity of the fishermenInterviews were conducted with the small scale fishermen living adjacent to the
MPAs and who are fishing in the area before the establishment of the MPA, five years
after the MPA was established, and up to the present. The questionnaire was checked
and was validated by a juror in Hiroshima University. Questions were designed toRAZON et al.: Marine Protected Area Management in Sarangani Bay, Mindanao

7

determine what fishing gear is used, how many hours a fisherman spent fishing in thesea, how many persons were fishing together in one boat and how many kilogramsof fish were caught in one fishing activity. The productivity of fisherman is expressedin term of catch per unit effort (CPUE) which was determined by dividing the total
fish catch in kilograms by the number of hours spent and the result is further divided
by the number of persons fishing together using one boat. Thus, CPUE refers to thekilogram of fish caught per hour per person. Awareness of the fishermen regarding theimportance of the MPA and their perception of the effect of MPA establishment werealso determined.
Table 1 shows the number of respondents in every MPA. All local fishermen who
are doing fishing activity around the MPA were interviewed. Since there is no dataof the number of small scale fishermen available from the office of the barangay, theresearcher did a house to house interview on the villages around the MPAs. Table 1
further shows that not all households were interviewed because some residents were
not in their house during the interview time. Only small scale fishermen who werefishing around the MPA are interviewed.
Table 1. MPAs and the number of respective respondents.
Number of valid respondents

Estimated number household
near MPA

Household%

Glan Padidu MPA
Kapatan MPA

44
51

33
41

75
81

Kamanga MPA
Tuka MPA

36
53

28
36

78
68

MPA

Data
This study is descriptive. Frequency distribution and means were the main
statistical calculations used. Data on the fish catch were analyzed in SPSS software
using two-way ANOVA to determine the difference among MPA locations and different
management periods. The result of ANOVA was further analyzed using Tukey’s HSD
test.

Results and Discussion
Assessment of MPA management
Glan Padidu MPA
Protection of Glan Padidu MPA was done soon after its establishment in theyear 2000. This MPA was managed by Muslim-Christian Fisherfolks Multi-Purpose
Cooperative (MCFMC) and Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management
Committee (BFARMC) in coordination with the Barangay council of Glan Padidu.

8South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012

Protection of the area was successful at the start because there were volunteers doing
the patrolling activity even during night time.
Approximately after five years of protection, there was already a noticeable
increase in the fish population of the protected area as stated by the MPA manager
which was confirmed by the local residents. However, in the year 2009 management
failed and protection was not sustained (Table 2) because of some reasons mentioned
by both the MPA management and the residents in the village adjacent to Glan Padidu
MPA. According to the MPA manager in charge, the municipal government can
allocate funds as honorarium of the “bantay dagat” or fish warden. However, this was
not realized. As a result, protection was not sustained because there was a gradualwithdrawal of fish wardens from their duty that eventually resulted in a gradualincrease of violations such as fishing inside the protected area. One of the lessons
learned in the study of RUSS and ALCALA (1996) is that surveillance is important, as
intruders who violate the reserve can seriously damage the recovery process of fish
populations.
Table 2. MPAs with respective dates of establishment and management status at the time
this research was conducted.
MPA

Date establishedManagement status

Glan Padidu

05 Dec. 2000

MPA protection failed in 2009

Kapatan

05 Dec. 2000

MPA protection failed in 2009

Kamanga

04 May 2006

Continues to dateTuka

16 Jan. 2001

Continues to date

Respondents said that since wardens were not compensated, they were discretely
catching fish while doing patrols in the protected area to at least compensate theirefforts. During the ocular observation, only a sign board and guard house remained andthe MPA is no longer protected hence, open to fishing activities.
Non-compliance with marine protected area regulations is a problem worldwide,
and this is being addressed through community programs (MCLANAHAN et al. 2005).
Community-based coastal resource management has been widely applied within thePhilippines. However, small-scale community-based reserves are often inefficient
owing to management inadequacies arising because of a lack of local support,
enforcement or poor design (BEGER et al. 2005). It was also stated by RIVERA and
NEWKIRK (1997) and ALCALA (1998) that many projects related to the establishment of
an MPA such as resource assessment and scientific monitoring, community preparationand organizing, capacity building, provision of alternative livelihoods, and conservation
education were not sustainable when external intervention and funding ceases. This
indicates the importance of the acceptance of MPA establishment by the locals andsupport from the local government in MPA establishment. This is true in Glan Padidu
MPA where there is no financial support from the local government. MPAs have been

RAZON et al.: Marine Protected Area Management in Sarangani Bay, Mindanao

9created as a favored conservation strategy. However, in many countries, insufficient
government funds for enforcement and management of MPAs and poor support
from local communities have limited the effectiveness of many reserves (A LCALA
1998, WHITE et al. 2002, MORA et al. 2006, SAMOILYS et al. 2007).
Table 3 shows that Glan Padidu MPA has only complied two out of seven items
or features inherent to a functioning MPA such as the presence of guard house andsignboards. However, five features such as marker buoys, monitoring program, budget
from the municipal government allocated for maintenance of MPA structure and tocarry out activities related to protection and management of said MPA were absent.
There was also no management plan.
The results of the interviews reveal that 79% of the respondents of Glan Padidu
MPA were in favor of the establishment of an MPA in their area, 15% were not in favor
and 9% were neutral which means that they were not affected by the establishmentof an MPA (Fig. 3). Most people were in favor because they enjoyed the benefits ofincreasing their fish catch while the MPA was still protected. They did not need to go
to far away areas because they can do it productively around the MPA adjacent to theirresidence, thus saving time, effort and money by cutting down fuel consumption. On
the other hand, 15% of the respondents were not in favor of the MPA as they perceived
it as a cause of reducing their fishing area and banning other income-generating
activities like collecting sea shells, or collecting “bangus” (milk fish) fries. They addedthat violations were also done by the fish wardens themselves because they had theaccess to directly roam around the protected area. Six percent (6%) or 2 out of 33
respondents had a neutral view of the MPA. They said that the existence of MPA did
not provide any benefits for them.

Table 3. Establishment and maintenance of the features inherent to a functioning marine protected area.
Features
1.MPA management plan
2.Budget/support from local
government
3.Information, education andcommunication
4.Marker bouys

Glan
PadiduX

Kapatan

Kamanga

Tuka

X

X

On going

X

X

X

Not
sustainedNot
sustainedXX(2 anchor bouys Replacement is onpresent)
going

5.Community signboards
6.Guard house

X

7.Surveillance

X

X

8.Monitoring programs
Compliance

X
2

X
1

X

X

X
3

X
4

10

South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012

100%

100%
90%
80%

94%
81%

79%

70%
60%

In favor

50%

Not favor

40%

Neutral

30%
20%
10%
0%

15%

16%

9%

3%

0% 0%
Glan Padidu

Kapatan

Kamanga

0%

6%

Tuka

Fig. 3. Perception of the respondent on the establishment of MPA in their area.

Kapatan MPA
Kapatan MPA also had a good start as in Glan Padidu MPA. The area wasmanaged by Cabug Fishermen and Farmers Cooperative (CAFIFAMCO) in partnershipwith the government of Barangay Kapatan. There was no budget for the honorariumof the fish warden from the municipal government, however, CAFIFAMCO allocatedan amount for this purpose. Local people were actively participating in the protectionof the area as all respondents appreciated of the importance of establishing the MPA
to their daily living. More effort on protection was done when one non-governmentalorganization (NGO) gave support on alternative livelihood to the members of
CAFIFAMCO to compensate the reduction of the fishing area as a result of MPA
establishment. The results of the interviews reveal that after five years of MPA
establishment, fishermen had noticed an increase in the fish population as manifestedby the increase in their fish catch for the same length of time they spent fishing aroundthe protected area as compared to the time before the MPA was established. As aresult, this MPA gained full support of the local people as the respondents were awareof the beneficial functions of the MPA. They said that this will give continuous andsustainable fish supply without destroying the source.
In later years, there seemed to have a gradual weakening of support from the local
government of Kamanga for some political reasons. There was a sort of conflict in MPA
management between the barangay council and CAFIFAMCO. One Barangay officials
alleged that CAFIFAMCO was receiving financial assistance from an NGO and thebarangay council of Kapatan was not anymore consulted by their activities. Anothermember of the Barangay Council protested that officers of CAFIFAMCO ignored
them when it comes to financial matters but consulted them when they encounteredproblems such as fishing violations inside the MPA. Misunderstanding became worse

RAZON et al.: Marine Protected Area Management in Sarangani Bay, Mindanao

11

which resulted in the weakening of the collaboration between the Barangay council and
CAFIFAMCO.
The officials of CAFIFAMCO also expressed their side that they exerted much
effort to sustain the protection of Kapatan MPA by using the organization’s fund forthe honorarium of fish wardens but there were many times that they were disappointed
when no proper imposition of penalty to the arrested fishing violators by the Barangay
council. They felt that their efforts were just in vain. This resulted in repeated violationsin the established MPA. In addition, the official of CAFIMFACO also encounteredserious problem on the entry of commercial fishing boats around the protected area.
They learned that these violators were armed and this would endanger their lives ifthey pursued to stop them. They added further that when they referred this problem
to the barangay government, they got no support. These were among the reasons why
the fish wardens became lax in patrolling and protecting the area which resulted in
the abandonment of the protected area making it open for public use. Surveillanceis important as intruders who violate the reserve can seriously damage the recovery
process of fish populations (RUSS and ALCALA 1996).
The protected area was not anymore protected from the latter part of the year
2009. Illegal fishing was observed by 100% of the local people interviewed. Violators
are usually people from the neighboring villages doing activity that damages thecoral reef like diving in the coral reef area using a “compressor” (diving with the useof supply of air) to scare the reef fish and driving them towards fishing net. Peopleinterviewed also observed a few members of the barangay council doing fishingactivity inside the former protected area.
WHITE and VOGT (2000) stated that in developing countries, a lack of effectivenesscan occur because of limited acceptance and support by adjacent communities that arealways required for the establishment of a sustainable MPA. But in the case of Kapatan
MPA, it was the people who favored and supported the MPA. These people blamed
the non-supportive attitude of the local government that caused the collapsed of MPA
protection. Lack of local government support will lead to MPA collapse as in the caseof Sumilon marine reserve which MPA management collapsed and was opened to the
public by the local leader (ALCALA 2001).
Based on the assessment of the features inherent in the functioning MPA,
Kapatan MPA has no management plan; no budget or financial support from the local
government, no guard house and no monitoring program. The information, educationand communication previously conducted were not sustained; marker buoys theypreviously put up were gone and were not replaced, only community signboard
remained (Table 3). The respondents were expecting and longing for the immediate
revival of the protection of the former protected area because they had experienced
and enjoyed the economic beneFits specifically in the increase in their fish catch.
This finding is shown in Fig. 3, that 100% of the respondents were in favor of theestablishment of the MPA in their area.

12South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012

Kamanga MPA
Kamanga MPA has another story different from the two previously discussed
MPAs. Based on the assessment of the features inherent in the functioning MPA (Table 3),
there was no management plan, no budget or financial support from the municipal
government and no monitoring program. A community signboard was observed in thearea and there were only two marker buoys observed in the area. There was no guard
house in the MPA itself but surveillance was done by a policeman stationed in the
nearby checkpoint along the highway about 400 meters away from the MPA.
One private resort is operating in the area very near to this MPA. Guests can dosnorkeling and fund diving in this protected area using Self-Contained Underwater
Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA). This resort is directly overseeing the area andcoordinating with the nearby policemen in case there are fishing violations. The
resort showed full support to the establishment of this MPA, in fact they offered acertain amount of funding every month for the maintenance of this protected area as
mentioned by the MPA in charge of the municipal government of Maasim. However,it was not realized because of some technical problems on the process of transferring
the fund from this private resort to the municipal government. Before the establishmentof this MPA, there was consultation and planning with the local people. The ownerof the resort offered some sort of alternative livelihood program for the local people/
fishermen who were affected by reduction of their fishing area while waiting for the“spill-over” effect which will take some years. Local people will also benefit from theguests out of the fees they are supposed to receive as dive guide and from the rentals of
their boats. However, these things were not also realized which made the local people
disappointed. The introduction of alternative livelihood schemes is vital to reducepoverty generally and to compensate for the loss of fishing grounds that are included
in no-take zones (RIVERA and NEWKIRK 1997, POLLNAC et al. 2001), but this was notrealized in Kamanga MPA.
The local people show no support for the establishment of this MPA as revealedin Fig. 2, and only 16% of the respondents were in favor of the establishment of the
MPA while the higher 81% were not in favor. The other 3% were neutral or they were
not positively or negatively affected by the establishment of Kamanga MPA. Thissituation may not favor successful long term MPA management because according to
UYCHIAOCO et al. (2000), POMEROY and CARLOS (1997) and DONE and REICHELT (1998)
all stakeholders and community groups should participate in the decision-making
process, including reserve design and management for a successful MPA. Experiencehas demonstrated that the success of marine protected areas (MPAs) as a management
tool improves when the local stakeholders participate in planning and decision-making
activities together with the government (HARVEY et al. 2001, POLLNAC et al. 2001,
JAMESON et al. 2002).
The resort has diving facilities and the guests can use these for a fee if they want
to do SCUBA diving or snorkeling in the area. This time, the guests need not rent aboat or hire a diving guide from the local people because the resort provides for thisRAZON et al.: Marine Protected Area Management in Sarangani Bay, Mindanao

13

purpose. The local people were complaining that they cannot get their share from thefinancial benefits out of the resort goers. This is contrary to what has been previously
agreed upon during the planning stage of establishing this MPA. One of the respondents
protested that “this MPA did not give benefits for us it is only the resort owner who ismaking money out of it”.
Kamanga MPA is well guarded by the police with a nearby police checkpoint; itis hard for the violators to encroach and do illegal fishing activity inside the protected
area. The local people were also complaining about the lack of marker buoys for the
MPA. This resulted in the conflict between the fishermen and the police because it was
not clear for them the boundary of the protected area and until where they are allowed
to fish. The fishermen were afraid that the previous incident when the police shot one
fisherman who was allegedly fishing within the established MPA will happen again, so
they resorted to do fishing in other areas far from the MPA. Local people said that this
MPA has a high fish population as they observed even at the start of its establishment.
They assumed that the fish population has already increased this time and they
wished to enjoy the benefit of the spill-over effect. This situation is very crucial forthe long term MPA management because the long-term sustainability of communitybased MPAs depends largely on local people believing that the reserve is effective inenhancing fish populations (SUMAN et al. 1999, WALMSLEY and WHITE 2003).
This eventually made the local people very cautious in their fishing activity andthey are even afraid of fishing around the buffer zone of this protected area. Local
people do fishing in far areas for fear of being suspected in fishing within the MPA. It
is also hard for them to exactly identify the protected area because there were only twomarker buoys present.
Despite of the non-compliance of some of the inherent features and lessparticipation of the local people, unique from others, Kamanga MPA is ecologicallywell protected. However, it must be realized that the establishment of the MPA is forsustainable fisheries for the fisher folks aside from conservation purposes. PAJARO etal. (1999) as quoted by WHITE et al. (2002) suggested that a clear definition intended
to protect and conserve commercially valuable marine organisms and enhance fishinggrounds be made to exclude those areas whose values are more cultural or tourism
related. Most MPAs being declared in the country are for biodiversity, habitat, andfisheries management with a secondary benefit being that of tourism in well-managed
areas. Kamanga MPA was also established for the purpose of biodiversity, habitat, andfisheries management. The benefit enjoyed by the private resort out of tourism is justthe secondary purpose.
The growth of MPAs in the Philippines is partly explained by the support andinterest of the multilateral and bilateral donor agencies and development organizations,and the openness of the government to this assistance. Between 1984 and 1994, atleast 25 foreign development agencies and eight donor countries (Australia, Canada,
Denmark, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States)
supported various community-based coastal resource management projects in the14South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012

country including the establishment of fish sanctuaries and marine reserves (POMEROY
and CARLOS 1997). MPAs are also being initiated by a variety of NGOs as part of abroader effort to conserve coral reefs and manage fisheries. The key lesson according
to WHITE et al. (2002) is that without the full endorsement of local communities andgovernments to take on the long-term responsibility of management, MPAs will not
succeed, a lesson which Kamanga MPA managers should consider.
Tuka MPA
This MPA is managed by the municipal government of Kiamba. Based on theassessment of the features inherent to a functioning MPA, there is a compliance offour items out of eight listed in Table 2. A community signboard was present but there
was no guard house. There was no monitoring program for this MPA at the time thisresearch was conducted. Formulation of the Management Plan is going on and is nearcompletion. Information, education and communication were also conducted. Tukamarine sanctuary was marked with buoys in 1998, however there were no marker
buoys observed during the ocular observation in December 2010. The person in chargeof the MPA said that procurement of new buoys was on-going and replacement will bedone soon. Although the ordinance declaring this area as MPA was passed in the year
2001, the sanctuary was practically enforced since 1997 (DE JESUS et al. 2001).
The municipal government allocated budget for the activities and maintenance of
this MPA is meager, but it is better than nothing, the person in-charge said. They havefish wardens who were doing surveillance around the MPA to avoid fishing violations.
These fish wardens received a honorarium from the municipal government. Protectionof this MPA continues and is going well and there was no fishing violation observed.
Local people show positive support for the establishment of this MPA, and as shown in
Fig. 3 94% of the respondents were in favor of the establishment of the MPA in theirarea. While there was no one who said that he is not in favor, 6% were neutral or they
were not positively or negatively affected by the establishment of this MPA. An opinion
shared by these neutral people that they will just follow what the government does.
This result points to a need for patience in expecting change in resource users’
perceptions, adopting an approach in which there is more communication between
fishers and managers, so that both are more aware of MPA functions, particularly
closed areas and the indirect benefits.
Productivity of the fishermen
The different status of MPA management of four different protected areas has
different effects on the productivity of the fishermen. Table 4 shows the data of thefishermen’s fish catch as expressed in catch per unit effort (CPUE) in three different
periods: (1) fish catch before the marine protected area was established; (2) fish catchafter 5 years MPA was established; and (3) fish catch when this research was conductedin December 2010. The dates MPAs were established vary from each protected area
to another and they are also indicated to give an idea when the MPA was on its fifthRAZON et al.: Marine Protected Area Management in Sarangani Bay, Mindanao

15

Table 4. Productivity of fishermen in different MPAs expressed in catch per unit effort (CPUE).
Year
establishedCPU

Catch per unit effort (CPUE)
After 5 years

Before MPA

2010(Kg/person-hr)(Kg/person-hr)(%)(Kg/person-hr)

(%)
-12

Glan Padidu

2000

0.92

2.19

138

0.81*

Kapatan

2000

0.88

2.20

150

0.80*

-9

Kamanga
Tuka

2006
2001

0.94
0.91

2.14

135

1.20
2.20

28
142

* CPUE after MPA management collapsed (protection stopped in 2009).

year. MPA management in two protected areas in Kamanga and Tuka continues while
the other two in Glan Padidu and Kapatan failed in the year 2009 which resulted to the
opening of these protected areas to the public. The data of the fish catch after the MPA
management collapsed was also determined.
The data in Table 4 further shows that there is an increase of the CPUE offishermen in all marine protected areas after five years when the MPA was established.
When the breeding place is not subjected to disturbance from the entry of fishermen,
it means that fish can breed successfully without stress and small fish can grow to
maximum maturity. This is followed by the increase of fish population which conforms
with the “spill-over effect” of ALCALA (2001). Similar studies conducted by RUSS and
ALCALA (2004) revealed that after a considerable period of protection, there was anincrease in fish population in the protected areas which will result to the increase offish population available to the fishermen and an increase of fish catch. In addition,
as protected stocks build-up, reserves are predicted to supply local fisheries throughdensity-dependent spillover of juveniles and adults into fishing grounds. Because
reserves contain more and larger fish, protected populations can potentially produce
many times more offspring than exploited populations can (ROBERTS et al. 2001).
2.5
C
P
U
E

2.20

2.19

2.14 2.20

2
1.5
1

1.20
0.92

0.81 0.88

0.80

Before MPA
0.91

5 years afterYear 2010

0.5
0

0.94

no
data

Glan Padidu

Kapatan

Kamanga

Tuka

MPA
Fig. 4. CPUE of the fishermen in three different periods.

16South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012

Figure 4 shows the data of fish caught in three different periods. The two protectedareas of Glan Padidu MPA and Kapatan MPA whose management collapsed have asimilar trend of increase and then decrease of the fish catch. The CPUE of fishermenin Glan Padidu MPA before the establishment of the protected area was 0.92 kg/manhour. After five years, it increased to 2.19 kg/man-hour or an increase of 138% of theprevious fish catch. After the MPA management collapsed, CPUE decreased to 0.81 kg/
man-hour, 12% even lower than the fish catch before MPA. The same trend is true forthe Kapatan MPA. There was an increase of 150% fish catch from 0.88 kg/man-hour
before the MPA to 2.20 kg/man-hour after five years. And a decrease of 0.80 kg/manhour or 0.09% lower than the fish catch before the MPA was established. The decline
in fish caught at these unsuccessful MPAs may be attributed to the depletion of the
fish supply because the protected areas are now open for public use and the breeding
places are already disturbed and destroyed the coral reef as indicated in the presenceof rubble and dead coral in the these areas during the ocular observation. The studies
of RUSS and ALCALA (1989) and RUSS and ALCALA (1996) revealed that fishers who
fish illegally or despite voluntary agreements will substantially reduce the efficacy of areserve and a resumption of fishing quickly decreases fish populations. This depletionof fishery resources in these two MPAs may be further attributed to the increase of the
population of the fishermen as stated by some of the respondents although there was noavailable data from the local government office on the population of the village before
the establishment of the MPA and the population after the time the MPA management
collapsed.
This increase and decrease of the fish catch is the usual trend as a result of MPA
management failure. Sumilon Island Reserve provides some of the best evidence todate for the efficacy of protective management. Prior to the collapse of protection in
1984, the overall density of fish in the reserve parts of the island remained unchanged.
When the protection of the marine reserve in Sumilon Island, Philippines, collapsed,
after 9.5 years of restrictions on fishing, it was reopened to fishing and led to significant
declines in reef fishing yields in areas adjacent to the reserve which suggest that thereserve had previously supported fisheries (RUSS and ALCALA 1999).
Kamanga and Tuka MPAs show the increase in the CPUE after five years.
Protection of Kamanga MPA was started in the year 2006 and it was about to turn toits fifth year when this research was conducted in December 2010. Data in Table 4
show an increase of 28% from 0.94 kg/man-hours before the MPA to 1.20 kg/manhours after five years. This MPA has shown low increase of CPUE compared to others
which increased more than 100%. This may be explained by the fact that the fishermen
were not fishing around the MPA because of some management problems previously
discussed. In other words, the CPUE data of this MPA is not a measure of the spill-overeffect of the increased fish population. People must see some results of their efforts tocontinue a management program aiming to improve their marine resources (POMEROY
and CARLOS 1997, WHITE and VOGT 2000) which is not true in Kamanga MPA. Thiscase may indicate effective conservation but it does not meet the other purpose of theRAZON et al.: Marine Protected Area Management in Sarangani Bay, Mindanao

17

MPA in sustainable fisheries for the local people.
Tuka MPA shows a sustainable fishery as indicated in the increased CPUE from
0.91 kg/man-hours to 2.14 kg/man-hours or 135% increase after five years. A further
increase of 2.20 CPUE when this research was conducted in December 2010 was noted,
showing a total of 142%. Continuous protection will lead to a consistent build-up offish in the reserve which was shown by an increase in local fish yields as a result ofcontinuous protection of Apo Island, Philippines, from 1982 to 1993 (RUSS and ALCALA
1999). ROBERTS et al. (2001) also reported that the marine reserves in Soufriere Marine
Management Area in Sta. Lucia had a rapid impact on reef fish populations. Visual
censuses of reserves and adjacent fishing areas revealed that combined biomass of fivecommercially important fish families tripled in reserves in three years. HARPEN and
WARNER (2002) also stated that successful marine protected areas, including no-takereserves, can help restore degraded coral reefs and improve the livelihoods of coastal
communities by increasing fish size and abundance in adjacent areas.
One of the basic premises of MPAs is that by protecting the coral reef fromhuman intrusion and extraction, coral cover and fish abundance inside the MPA can be
maintained or increased, which leads to an increase in fish abundance outside the MPA
and thus higher catches for fishermen. In this manner, MPAs are used both for habitat
protection and as a fishery management tool (GJERTSEN 2004).
Statistical analysis using two-way ANOVA revealed that there is significant
difference on the CPUE of the fishermen in three different MPAs P-value <0.01. It isshown that Glan Padidu and Kapatan MPAs have no significant difference from eachother with P-value = 0.930. These two MPAs have significantly lower CPUE than
the rest of the MPAs. The CPUEs increased after five years of MPA establishment,
and significant decline was observed after MPA management collapsed and MPA
protection ceased, resulting in the opening of the protected areas to the public. This
increase and subsequent decrease of fish catch is the usual trend as a result of MPA
management failure. Sumilon Island Reserve provided some of the best evidence todate for the efficacy of protective management. Prior to the collapse of protection in
1984, the overall density of fish in the reserve parts of the island remained unchanged.
When the protection of the marine reserve in Sumilon Island collapsed after 9.5 yearsof restrictions on fishing, its opening to fishing led to a significant decline in reef
fisheries yields in areas adjacent to the reserve, which suggested that the reserve had
previously supported fisheries in the surrounding areas (RUSS and ALCALA 1999).
Kamanga MPA has a CPUE significantly higher than the Glan Padidu and Kapatan
MPA (P-value <0.01). There was an increase in CPUE in December 2010 when thisresearch was conducted. However, this figure is not a measure of the effect of MPA
establishment because fishermen were fishing in far areas and not in the area adjacentto the established MPA because of a management problem.
Tuka had CPUE significantly higher than Kamanga MPA (P-value <0.01). This
MPA has CPUE significantly higher than the other MPAs. This is attributed to thecontinuous protection of the area from the time of MPA establishment. When the

18

South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012breeding place is not subject to disturbance from the entry of fishermen, it means thatfish can breed successfully without stress and small fishes can grow to their maximum
maturity. This was followed by the increase of the fish population which conformed
with the “spill-over effect” of ALCALA (2001). Similar studies conducted by RUSS and
ALCALA (2004) revealed that after a considerable period of protection, there was anincrease in the fish population in the protected areas which will result in the increase of
the fish population available to the fishermen and an increase of fish catch. In addition,
as protected stocks build-up, reserves are predicted to supply local fisheries throughthe density-dependent spillover of juveniles and adults into fishing grounds. Because
reserves contain more and larger fish, protected populations can potentially produce
many times more offspring than exploited populations (ROBERTS et al. 2001).
Tukey’s test (Table 5) revealed that there was a significant difference among
the CPUE of the fishermen in three different management periods. The fish catchsignificantly increased after five years of MPA establishment. However, in December
2010, CPUE significantly declined because of the management failure of Glan Padidu
and Kapatan MPA (P-value <0.01). The significant decline supports the idea that
protection increased the CPUE of the adjacent fishermen, thus MPA establishment isbeneficial to them.
Table 5. The output obtained from Tukey’s (HSD) test for different management periods.
Management
periods

Management
periods

Mean
differenceStd. error

P-value

Before MPA

After 5 years
December 2010

-1.2643*-.3401*.04203.03976

<0.01
<0.01

After 5 years

Before MPA

1.2643*.04203<0.01

December 2010

.9242*.04053<0.01

Before MPA
After 5 years.3401*-.9242*.03976.04053

<0.01
<0.01

December 2010

Non-compliance with marine protected area regulations is a problem worldwide,
and this is being addressed through community programs (MCLANAHAN et al. 2005).
Community-based coastal resource management programs have been widely applied
within the Philippines. However, small-scale community-based reserves are often
inefficient owing to management inadequacies arising from a lack of local support
or enforcement or poor design (BEGER et al. 2005). It was also stated by RIVERA and
NEWKIRK (1997) and ALCALA (1998) that many projects related to the establishmentof MPAs such as resource assessment and scientific monitoring, community
preparation and organizing, capacity building, provision of alternative livelihoods, andconservation education were not sustainable especially when external intervention andfunding cease. This indicates the importance of the acceptance of MPA establishment
by the locals and strong support from the local government in MPA establishment.
This is true in Glan Padidu MPA where there was no financial support from the local
government. MPAs have been created as a favored conservation strategy. However, inRAZON et al.: Marine Protected Area Management in Sarangani Bay, Mindanao

19

many countries insufficient government funds for the enforcement and management of
MPAs and poor support from local communities have limited the effectiveness of many
reserves (ALCALA 1998, WHITE et al. 2002, MORA et al. 2006, SAMOILYS et al. 2007).
In developing countries, a lack of effectiveness can occur because of limited
acceptance and support by adjacent communities that are always required for theestablishment of sustainable MPAs (W HITE and V OGT 2000). The acceptance of
MPA establishment by the locals as an important factor in MPA success (ALCALA
1998, YASUE et al. 2010) had no strong influence in the case of Glan Padidu andKapatan MPA. The survey on the perception of the adjacent residents regarding theestablishment of these MPAs revealed that 79% (26 out 33 respondents) in Glan Padidu
and 100% (41 respondents) in Kapatan MPAs were in favor of the establishment of aprotected area. However, it was found out that management of these MPAs collapsed
in 2009, hence the area is not protected anymore and now open to fishing activities.
Reasons of the collapsed were the lack of support from the local government, as statedby the people during the interview.
The majority of the local residents adjacent to Kamanga were not satisfied withthe establishment of the MPA in their locality as 81% (22 out of 28 respondents) were
not in favor of Kamanga MPA. This was the result of the perception of the local people
that only the private resort adjacent to the MPA benefitted and made money out of
their guests. People had less participation in the management. However, it was foundout that Kamanga MPA is well protected. The increase in the CPUE of the fishermencannot be a measure of the positive effect of the MPA because fishermen were fishingin other places and not adjacent to the MPA.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
1. Successful marine protected areas, including no-take reserves, can help restore
degraded coral reefs and improve the livelihoods of coastal communities by increasing
fish abundance in adjacent areas which will eventually result in an increase in the fish
catch.
2. Government support to the marine protected areas particularly the financial
aspect is very necessary to continue the protection effort. In the case of Glan Padidu
MPA, the absence of a government budget for the fish wardens was one factor
mentioned by the MPA manager that caused the withdrawal of the fish warden fromdoing the surveillance activity. Wardens need to be compensated for the time they
devoted for this activity since this disrupts their economic activities for their families.
3. Cooperation by all stakeholders is necessary for the success of the MPA
protection. In the case of Kapatan MPA, local people showed strong support for theestablishment of the MPA, however, non-support of the Barangay government in theimposition of a penalty on fishing violations resulted in the collapse of the protection

20South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012

effort. In the case of Kamanga MPA, the area was well protected, however, noninvolvement of the local people in the MPA management created a negative perceptionof the local people towards MPA establishment. Conflict between the stakeholders
may arise sooner or later and this situation will not favor successful long term MPA
management.
4. Tuka MPA is relatively well-managed among the four MPAs studied and thegovernment support was an important factor to this, such as the allocation of a budget
for the surveillance of the protected area and maintenance of the physical features ofthe MPA, e.g., maintenance of mooring buoys to identify boundaries by the adjacent
fishermen and the cooperation of the local people.
Recommendations
1. Marine resources protection, conservation and fishery management with theactive participation of the local communities has been the core concept of establishing
marine protected areas throughout the Philippines. Establishing a MPA does not end
in the approval of the ordinance. The local government concerned should implement
the laws pertaining to marine resource protection and fishery management for thesustainable supply of fishery resources. According to CHRISTIE and WHITE (1997) an
essential ingredient in the effective management of coral reefs involving the various
groups is the active and committed participation and stewardship of the resource users,
the fishermen, resort owners, coastal residents, scuba divers and others.
2. Any coastal management project needs to consider linkages among all potential
participants - fishermen associations, community leaders, town mayor and council,
Barangay Chairman and council, law enforcement officers, private business with local
interests, the academe, NGOs, provincial and national government organizations likethe Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Department of Tourism.
3. Agreements made between the community and the authorities should be legalized,
respected and fulfilled.

Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Global Environmental Leaders (GELs) programof Hiroshima University. The support of Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA) through Japan International Cooperation Center (JICE) is greatly appreciated.
Thanks to Mayor Victor James Yap, Sr. of Glan, Mayor Zamoro of Maasim and Mayor
Raul C. Martinez of Kiamba for giving us permission to conduct this research intheir areas. Special thanks to Mrs Virgie Musa, Mrs. Arlene Holero and Mr. Venancio
Banquil for their kind assistance during the conduct of this research. The local peopleof Glan Padidu, Kapatan, Kamanga and Tuka are greatly appreciated for their kindparticipations.

RAZON et al.: Marine Protected Area Management in Sarangani Bay, Mindanao

21

References
A LCALA , A. C. 1998. Community-Based Coastal Resource Management in thePhilippines: A Case Study. Ocean and Coastal Management, 38: 179-186.
ALCALA, A. C. 2001. Marine Reserves in the Philippines: Historical Development,
Effects and Influence on Marine Conservation Policy, 115 pp., Bookmark, Makati
City, Philippines.
ALCALA, A. C. and RUSS G. R. 2006. No-Take Marine Reserves and Reef Fisheries
Management in the Philippines: A New People Power Revolution. Ambio, 35:
245-254.
ALLISON, G. W., LUBCHENCO, J. and CARR, M. H. 1998. Marine Reserves are Necessary
but not Sufficient for Marine Conservation. Ecological Applications, 8: S79-S92.
BEGER, M., HARBORNE, A. R., DACLES, T. P., SOLANDT, J. L. and LEDESMA, G. 2005. A
Framework of Lessons Learned from Community-Based Marine Reserves and Its
Effectiveness in Guiding a New Coastal Management Initiative in the Philippines.
Environmental Management, 34: 786-801.
BOHNSACK, J. A. 1998. Application of Marine Reserves to Reef Fishiries Management.
Australian Journal of Ecology, 23: 298-304.
C HRISTIE , P. and W HITE , A. T. 1997. Trends in Development of Coastal Area
Management in Tropical Countries: From Central to Community Orientation.
Coastal Management, 25: 155-181.
DE JESUS, E. A., DIAMANTE-FABUNAN, D. A. D., NAÑOLA, C. L., WHITE, A. T. and
CABANGON, H. J. 2001. Coastal Environmental Profile of the Sarangani Bay Area,
Mindanao, Philippines, 102 pp., Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu
City, Philippines.
DE VANTIER, L., ALCALA, A. C. and WILKINSON, C. 2004. The Sulu-Sulawesi Sea:
Environmental and Socioeconomic Status, Future Prognosis and Ameliorative
Policy Options. Ambio, 33: 88-97.
DONE, T. J. and REICHELT, R. E. 1998. Integrated Coastal Zone and Fisheries Ecosystem
Management: Generic Goals and Performance Indices. Ecological Applications, 8:
S110-S118.
GJERTSEN, H. 2004. Can Habitat Protection Lead to Improvements in Human WellBeing? Evidence from Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines. World
Development, 33: 199-217.
GUIDETTI, P. 2006. Marine Reserves Reestablished Lost Predatory Interactions andCause Community Changes in Rockey Reefs. Ecological Applications, 16: 963976.
HARPERN, B. S. and WARNER, R. R. 2002. Marine Reserves Have Rapid and Lasting
Effects. Ecology Letters, 5: 361-366.

22South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012

H ARVEY, N., C LARKE, B. D. and C ARVALHO, P. 2001. The Role of the Australian
Coastcare Program in Community-Based Coastal Management: A Case Study
from South Australia. Ocean and Coastal Management, 44: 161-181.
H IND , E. J., H IPONIA , M. C. and G RAY, T. S. 2010. From Community-Based toCentralised National Management―A Wrong Turning for the Governance of the
Marine Protected Area in Apo Island, Philippines? Marine Policy, 34: 54-62.
JAMESON, S. C., TUPPER, M. H. and RIDLEY, J. M. 2002. The Three Screen Doors: Can
Marine “Protected” Areas be Effective? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44: 1177-1183.
MC CLANAHAN, T., JAMIE, D. and MAINA, J. 2005. Factors Influencing Resource Users
and Managers’ Perception Towards Marine Protected Area Management in Kenya.
Environmental Conservation, 32: 42-49.
MORA, C., ANDRÉFOUËT, S., COSTELLO, M. J., KRANENBURG, C., ROLLO, A., VERON,J., GASTON, K. J. and MYERS, R. A. 2006. Coral Reefs and the Global Network ofMarine Protected Areas. Science, 312: 1750-1751.
P IETRI , D., C HRISTIE , P., P OLLNAC , R. B., D IAZ , R. and S ABONSOLIN , A. 2009.
Information and Diffusion in Two Marine Protected Area Networks in the Central
Visayas Region, Philippines. Coastal Management, 37: 331-348.
POLLNAC, R. B., CRAWFORD, B. R. and GOROSPE, M. L. 2001. Discovering Factors
That Influence the Success of Community-Based Marine Protected Areas in the
Visayas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management, 44: 683-710.
P OMEROY, R. S. and C ARLOS, M. B. 1997. Community-Based Coastal Resource
Management in the Philippines: A Review and Evaluation of Programs andProjects, 1984-1994. Marine Policy, 21: 445-464.
RIVERA, R. and NEWKIRK, G. F. 1997. Power from the People: A Documentation of
Non-Governmental Organizations’ Experience in Community-Based Coastal
Resource Management in the Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management, 36:
73-95.
ROBERTS, C. M., BOHNSCAK, J. A., GELL, F., HAWKINS, J. P. and GOODRIDGE, R. 2001.
Effects of Marine Reserves on Adjacent Fisheries. Science, 294: 1920-1923.
R OBERTS , C. M. and P OLUNIN , N. V. 1991. Are Marine Reserves Effective inManagement of Reef Fisheries? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 1: 65-91.
R USS, G. R. and A LCALA, A. C. 1989. Effects of Intense Fishing Pressure on an
Assemblage of Coral Reef Fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 56: 13-27.
RUSS, G. R. and ALCALA, A. C. 1996. Do Marine Reserves Export Adult Fish Biomass?
Evidence from Apo Island, Central Philippines. Marine Ecology Progress Series,
132: 1-9.
RUSS, G. R. and ALCALA, A. C. 1999. Management Histories of Sumilon and Apo
Marine Reserves, Philippines and Their Influence of the National Marine Resource
Policy. Coral Reefs, 18: 307-319.
RUSS, G. R. and ALCALA, A. C. 2004. Marine Reserves: Long Term Protection is
Required for Full Recovery of Predatory Fish Populations. Oecologia, 138: 622627.

RAZON et al.: Marine Protected Area Management in Sarangani Bay, Mindanao

23

SAMOILYS, M. A., MARTIN-SMITH, K. M., GILES, B. G., CABRERA, B., ANTICAMARA,J. A., BRUNIO, E. O. and VINCENT, A. C. J. 2007. Effectiveness of Five Small
Philippines’ Coral Reef Reserves for Fish Populations Depends on Site-Specific
Factors, Particularly Enforcement History. Biological Conservation, 136: 584-601.
SUMAN, D., SHIVLANI, M. and MILON, J. W. 1999. Perceptions and Attitudes Regarding
Marine Reserves: A Comparison of Stakeholder Groups in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean and Coastal Management, 42: 1019-1040.
UYCHIAOCO, A. J., ALIÑO, P. M. and DANTIS, A. L. 2000. Initiatives in Philippine
Coastal Management: An Overview. Coastal Management, 28: 55-63.
W ALMSLEY , S. and W HITE , A. T. 2003. Influence of Social, Management andEnforcement Factors on the Long Term Ecological Effects of Marine Sanctuaries.
Environmental Conservation, 30: 388-407.
W HITE , A. T., C OURTNEY , C. A. and S ALAMANCA , A. 2002. Experience with
Marine Protected Areas Planning and Management in the Philippines. Coastal
Management, 30: 1-26.
WHITE, A. T. and VOGT, H. P. 2000. Philippine Coral Reefs under Threat: Lessons
Learned after 25 Years of Community-Based Reef Conservation. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 40: 537-550.
YASUE, M., KAUFMAN, L. and VINCENT, A. C. J. 2010. Assessing Ecological Changes
in an around Marine Reserves Using Community Perceptions and Biological
Surveys. Aquatic Concervation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 20: 407-418.

24South Pacific Studies Vol.33, No.1, 2012