ARTICLE IN PRESS

Marine Policy 32 (2008) 898–904 www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Dive tourism, fishing and marine protected areas in the Calamianes Islands, Philippines Michael Fabinyi Resource Management in Asia–Pacific Program, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Coombs Building, Fellows Road, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia Received 19 November 2007; received in revised form 11 January 2008; accepted 11 January 2008

Abstract Many conservationists and local governments in the Philippines (and other tropical countries) have attempted to link marine protected areas (MPAs) with dive tourism, arguing that the user fees generated by dive tourism can potentially generate satisfactory outcomes for all stakeholders. In this paper, an account of the relationship between MPAs, dive tourism and small-scale fisheries in the Calamianes Islands, Philippines, is presented. It is argued that although the assumed harmonious relationship between marine conservation and dive tourism may work in theory, in practice different understandings of MPAs can create conflict. r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Marine protected areas; Dive tourism; Philippines; Integrated coastal management; Fishing

1. Introduction This article examines the social and political processes underlying the development of a series of community-based marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Calamianes Islands in the Philippines. These MPAs were established by several organisations and institutions over several years in particular SCUBA diving sites, with a system of user fees. They were designed to link conservation and fisheries benefits with the financial benefits of dive tourism. Here, the relationships between these different interest groups are considered, exploring some of the tensions and conflicts that arose following the establishment of MPAs. Understanding the reasons and causes behind such tensions is important if management practices are to improve. The article begins with a background about efforts in coastal regulation and the development of MPAs in the Philippines, focusing on the potential role dive tourism user fees can play in support. Some information about the Calamianes Islands and the methods used in the study is then provided. Following this, some details about the goals Tel.: +61 2 6125 4953; fax: +61 2 6125 1635.

E-mail address: [email protected] 0308-597X/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008.01.004

of MPAs in the Calamianes are presented before the perspectives of fishers and dive operators are analysed. 2. Integrated coastal management and MPAs in the Philippines Efforts at regulating the local fisheries of the Calamianes must firstly be viewed within the context of many problems and issues affecting the fisheries and marine habitats of the Philippines. Studies have highlighted both the extraordinary level of marine biodiversity in the Philippines [1], and numerous problems contributing to significant degradation of marine regions [2]. Many conservationists and fisheries management experts have argued that solutions to the problems lie in the implementation of various actions that collectively fall under the encompassing term of ‘‘Integrated Coastal Management’’ (ICM) [3–5]. The primary goal of ICM is to improve coastal management, balancing conservation and development through the engagement with and participation of multiple stakeholders, including governments at multiple levels and communities [6]. Although the specific management tools ICM has adopted vary in different locations, MPAs form a significant component of any ICM regime.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Fabinyi / Marine Policy 32 (2008) 898–904

The scientific purpose of MPAs is fairly simple. By restricting fishing access to one particular area, the goal is that fish will be able to reproduce and thrive peacefully. From this protected area, it is hoped that what is known as the ‘spillover effect’ will occur [7]. Here, the fish that are born within the protected area spill over into the waters surrounding the MPA, therefore increasing the number of fish available for fishers to catch. In theory then, MPAs are widely seen as things that can satisfy various stakeholders. For conservationists and SCUBA divers, the MPA provides a pristine, untouched habitat where divers can admire the fish and reefs. For those more interested in more general fisheries management, and for the fishers themselves, the MPAs offer an increase in the fish stock outside the MPA through the spillover effect. The hope with MPAs then is that while different stakeholders such as local governments, conservationists, dive operators, and fishers may have different motivations for creating MPAs, their end goal should be the same and so the interests of all stakeholders will be satisfied [8]. There are some significant concerns with the spillover theory however. As Sale has pointed out, the science showing that protection works within MPAs is actually much stronger than the science showing that fish stocks increase in the area outside the MPA [9]. He argues that there is ‘‘no evidence that MPAs serve to enhance fishery yields in the region surrounding them to a degree that fully compensates for the loss of fishery access to the area they enclose’’. Hilborn et al. [10] have also pointed out some of the limitations of MPAs, noting that they will not work for many more mobile species, and that the evidence of any positive effects for fisheries more broadly is scarce. However, as MPAs ‘‘can provide conservation benefits irrespective of any fishery management benefit they offer’’ [8], the construction of many MPAs indicates a tendency for the interests of conservation to be prioritised over those of fisheries management. This is a key point because proponents of MPAs often assert that the benefits of MPAs will be spread among all stakeholders. Yet, this does not always occur, as the case study in this article demonstrates. Versions of ICM and the establishment of MPAs have been well established in the Philippines for several decades now, with supportive legislation and much international interest [11]. The Local Government Code of 1991 decentralised coastal resource management power to municipalities, and the Fisheries Code of 1998 encouraged the development of MPAs and other aspects of ICM. One survey in the Philippines located approximately 439 MPAs throughout the country by 1999 [11]. Of these, however, only 44 MPAs were fully enforced [11]. A lack of financial support for the cost of managing MPAs is frequently cited as the central factor behind the failure of many MPAs globally [12]. The growing market of dive tourism in areas where MPAs are located has been identified as one way in which MPAs may be financed. Studies investigating the relationship between dive tourism and MPAs have identified the

899

potential of mutual benefits for various stakeholders [13,14]. In one exploratory study, Arin and Kramer [13] found that SCUBA divers in the Philippines would be willing to pay a user fee of US$4 in selected marine sanctuaries. They suggested that by implementing a system of user fees in areas of high dive tourism, potential annual revenue could reach up to US$1 million in particular diving areas. This revenue, they argued, could be used to support the maintenance of MPAs and to provide alternative livelihood opportunities for fishers impacted by the MPA. Depondt and Green [12] also point to the potential to raise income through user fees, noting the high level of dive tourism in Southeast Asia and the fact that many of these dives take place within MPAs. They argue that the ‘‘potential of diving user fees to address important funding problems of MPAs is present but not sufficiently exploited’’. However, they caution that ‘‘the importance of transparency in how the revenue is used is central’’ to the acceptance among dive operators of user fees, noting the high level of suspicion directed towards governments among many dive operators in Southeast Asia. Oracion et al. [15] point to a separate area of potential tension related to the creation of MPAs in areas of high dive tourism, and that is the impact on the livelihoods of fishers. They identify significant tensions between the fishery and tourism sectors in Mabini, an area of the Philippines where numerous MPAs have been set up to work with dive tourism. They attribute much of this tension to different perceptions of what the purpose of an MPA is, arguing that ‘‘unless a common understanding and interpretation of the significance of MPA is forged among multiple stakeholders its management will continue to be filled with tension and threaten community solidarity’’. They argue that the tourism and fishing sectors both were interested in MPAs, but that the livelihoods of the tourism sector ‘‘support aesthetic conservation and foster a tourism economy, while those of the [fishing sector] underwrite extractive conservation and a fishing economy’’. Ultimately, the tourism sector was able to control the MPA management. Majanen [16], working at the same location of the Philippines, found a similar set of tensions in her research. Fishers, according to Majanen, perceived that conservation efforts in the form of MPAs and user fees benefited the tourism sector while marginalising their livelihoods. The approach here is to focus on how such social and political factors came to affect the process of developing MPAs in one particular site of the Philippines, the Calamianes Islands. Livelihood-related claims of local fishers, and concerns from dive operators about user fees and conservation are focused on in particular. The article aims to demonstrate that different understandings of the purpose of MPAs, and different motivations for supporting them, led to outcomes that contradict the claims that MPAs are able to satisfy multiple stakeholders.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 900

M. Fabinyi / Marine Policy 32 (2008) 898–904

Fig. 1. The Calamianes Islands.

3. Methods

3.1. MPAs in the Calamianes Islands

The article takes an anthropological perspective to examine the issues surrounding MPA establishment. Research was conducted for 12 months between September 2005 and January 2007 in the Calamianes Islands. The author was based in two locations during this period: Esperanza, a small coastal community, and Coron town, the largest town in the Calamianes (see Fig. 1). Specific methods adopted for the study included observation at meetings, and numerous formal and informal interviews with a variety of different stakeholders. These included dive operators and divers, fishers of all ages and types, government officials, and non-government organisation workers. Interviews with fishers were conducted in Tagalog. In addition to the in-depth data gathered from Coron and Esperanza, the author frequently visited and interviewed residents at other locations of the Calamianes where MPAs were being established.

The Calamianes Islands are a group of 160 islands off the northern tip of mainland Palawan in the Philippines, composed of four municipalities—Coron, Culion, Busuanga and Linapacan. They have a total land area of 194,700 ha, and a population of approximately 71,000 [17]. Because much of the land is unsuitable for agriculture, many communities rely heavily on fishing. Marine conservationists had reported back as long ago as 1998 that the Calamianes should be a primary target of biodiversity conservation activities in the Philippines [18]. The waters surrounding them are extremely rich and biologically diverse. However, the common use of destructive fishing practices such as dynamite and cyanide, as well as the presence of several commercial fisheries, has destroyed much of the reefs and significantly reduced the levels of fish stocks [17]. Fisheries management experts and conservationists had long considered there to be a great

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Fabinyi / Marine Policy 32 (2008) 898–904

need of better and more sustainable management measures in the Calamianes [17,19,20]. Since the early 1990s tourism in the region has centred around SCUBA diving on a group of Japanese World War II wrecks. There is also other diving on coral reefs surrounding the islands. In 2004, there was a large push by a Japanese-funded project of the provincial government to create a series of MPAs that would work with tourism [21]. The idea was that divers coming to dive on the wrecks and on other selected dive sites would pay user fees. These user fees would be used for two purposes. Firstly, for maintenance of the marine parks: payment for guards and wardens and their boat, marker buoys, signs and ropes. Secondly, the money was supposed to go into local municipal coffers for the purposes of supporting other marine management projects, and also to a local village development fund to assist those fishers who would be affected by the displacement of their fishing grounds. The project proposal was supported by most members of the municipal council in Coron town, who saw a chance to show off their conservationist credentials, which would hopefully attract publicity and more tourists, while at the same time bringing in extra revenue. After a series of public hearings throughout 2004 and 2005, the specific ordinances were enacted at the end of 2005. A user fee of 100 pesos (about 2USD) was to be paid by each person who dived in the marine parks, and responsibility for management was devolved to the local coastal communities. Other similar MPAs were developed by another internationally funded conservation project through 2005 and 2006 in different coral reef dive sites. The planners of the MPAs in the Japanese-funded project explicitly engaged with the work of Arin and Kramer. They saw dive tourism as having a potential role to play in protecting marine resources, and user fees as a key means to do so [21]. In meetings with community members in other MPA projects in the Calamianes, conservationists and fisheries management experts would represent MPAs to fishers as fulfilling fisheries objectives outside of the MPAs, as well as the conservation objectives within the MPA. MPAs here were seen as institutions with multiple tourism, conservation and fisheries objectives. 3.2. Fishers’ ideas and MPAs Small-scale fishers represented their patterns of fishing as possessing two key features: it was harmless to the environment, and it was closely tied to poverty. In contrast, tourists and tourist businesses were frequently objects of resentment, seen as making plenty of money out of the beautiful reefs of the Calamianes.1 From this perspective, any regulations to try and reduce problems of environ1 Many small-scale fishers also argued that any regulation should focus on the actions of those who used destructive fishing methods such as cyanide and dynamite. This is a complicated issue addressed elsewhere; in this article perceptions about tourism are focused on.

901

mental degradation should not impact on the small-time fishers, who could not afford it. Any regulation that interfered with the activities of small-scale fishers, such as MPAs, would have to be accompanied by financial benefits of tourism. These perceptions meant that some [particularly younger] fishers were sometimes opposed to the creation of MPAs if they were not seen as benefiting local communities, and indeed felt justified in still fishing within them [22]. Fishers would only tend to support MPAs if they did not impact significantly on their fishing practices, focusing instead on taxing tourists. One example of this perspective could be seen through the planning process of an MPA at a village called San Andres, a neighbouring village to the one the author was based in most of the time, Esperanza. What was notable about these planning meetings was the ways in which residents from both San Andres and Esperanza refused to allow the MPA to have any impact on their particular patterns of marine resource use. During the planning processes for example, the core or ‘no-take’ zone was changed from the original location drawn up by the marine scientists in the conservation project to account for the presence of several fish corrals owned by San Andres residents. And, in the buffer zone, or the zone where some limited forms of fishing could be conducted, San Andres residents agreed that a wide variety of techniques were to be allowed within this zone, including hook and line fishing, crab-pots, seahorse fishing, net fishing for the marine ornamental trade, and a specific type of spear fishing. One of the very few techniques that would become illegal in this buffer zone was the use of ‘3-ply’, a form of net fishing used almost exclusively by residents of Esperanza, and not by residents of San Andres. News of this reached the residents of Esperanza who subsequently then went to San Andres to make impassioned speeches, requesting that 3-ply fishing be allowed as well in this buffer zone. Both groups were clearly acting in their own interests, and neither was serious about regulating their own practices. For the San Andres residents, the MPA seemed to them to offer a way of legitimating their own practices of marine resource use, and excluding the practices of all other fishers. Esperanza fishers resented the way in which San Andres residents had attempted to construct an artificial form of marine tenure for their village. For all of the fishers, the MPA was viewed as something to support the community; something that was solely about assisting and protecting their livelihoods. Another key aspect of this planning process could be seen in the desire among fishers to obtain greater benefits out of the tourism industry in the form of user fees, which were demanded by participants as an essential component of the MPA. For many coastal residents in the Calamianes, the socio-economic differences between foreign tourists and themselves were stark and inescapable. Foreign tourists were classically emblematic of the ‘rich foreigner’. Their very presence in a place like the Calamianes,

ARTICLE IN PRESS 902

M. Fabinyi / Marine Policy 32 (2008) 898–904

pursuing nothing but leisure activities, was proof to locals that they had incredible amounts of money to burn. Versions of refrains such as ‘‘You foreigners throw money away like it is rubbish’’ were commonly stated assumptions. In contrast, the Philippines was understood to be the most poverty-stricken place on Earth. The development of MPAs in the Calamianes can be seen as stimulating a sense of territoriality over the protected areas. In effect, they produced an artificial form of marine tenure among coastal communities. The rationale behind fishers’ support for these MPAs had less to do with conservation or even fisheries management per se, but more to do with an expression of class-based social claims. Fishers viewed MPAs as a way in which they could address some of the massive inequalities between themselves and those involved in the tourism sector. The claims of fishers were based not on a logic of environmental management, rather on a belief that their poverty ought to be the focus of any external environmental intervention. For fishers, no purely technical, scientific management of MPAs would be fair or legitimate without taking into account their claims. Generally, these claims favoured the development of particular types of MPAs that had minimal restrictions on local fishers, were loosely enforced when it came to fishers, and involved user fees for tourists. Attitudes towards MPAs among local government officials were generally supportive of the MPAs. The claims of fishers found supportive listeners in their local government in this instance. Showing pity to fishers who break the rules is a way to gain political capital in the Philippines, where political support is usually obtained through the development of elaborate networks of patronage. Indeed, the expectation in the Philippines is that rather than enforcing an abstract set of state regulations, state officials will ‘‘use their resources to support their [fishers’] economic interests in return for voter support’’ [23], see also [24]. These practices significantly reduce the incentives for strong enforcement of MPAs. Section 3.3 turns to a brief discussion of how dive operators received these claims, and countered them with claims of their own. 3.3. Perceptions of dive operators There were three diving operators in Coron town during 2006, and more than half a dozen others based on isolated resorts in different locations of the Calamianes. All of the owners and all of the dive instructors were foreigners from Western countries. The most commonly articulated complaint by dive operators in Coron was that the MPAs were quite simply not about conservation at all, but about getting money for the local communities and the local government. Essentially, MPAs legitimated what they viewed as a quest among local communities for ‘easy money’. They cited other examples from the region where local communities had been given control over the management of natural resources, such as when the local indigenous

community had been granted Ancestral Domain [a form of native title] over the nearby Coron Island. There, they alleged, rubbish had accumulated on the various beaches tourists frequented, and the facilities at these beaches and other tourist destinations on the island such as the renowned Kayangan Lake had fallen into disrepair through lack of care and maintenance. Their complaint was that a similar situation would occur when the communities were given control of the dive sites and MPAs. Disillusioned by the patterns of environmental degradation many of them had witnessed as residents over the last decade, dive operators felt that fishers would be unable to manage the environment in a responsible manner. Dive operators voiced their frustration to the author whenever they saw local fishers fishing in the core zones of the MPAs while waiting for the dive boats to turn up. As soon as the dive boats arrived, the fishers would then allegedly request user fees from the boatload of tourists. Dive operators argued that if the only motivation for having these protected areas was for money, there was little incentive to actually protect the areas, and that the conservationist ‘‘spin’’ that had been placed on these projects was nothing more than a sham hiding the desire on the part of the local government and local communities to make money out of the dive industry. Supporting the findings of Depondt and Green [12], it was found that many dive instructors were not against the notion of user fees per se, instead that any money that was raised needed to be directed towards conservation. The opposition of the dive operators tapped into broader feelings among many of them that they were simply resources that local government officials and local fishers would exploit any way they could. Indeed the personal histories of many of the dive operators forms a context for this perception. Many resented the ways in which they felt they were targeted by Filipino local governments and businesses for resources. Constantly under intense social pressure to redistribute their relative wealth among Filipino family members, government departments and community members, the MPAs and the imposition of user fees tapped into a feeling held among many dive operators that they were simply being used yet again. 4. Discussion MPAs are often viewed as an excellent tool by both conservationists and those focused more on fisheries management. This is because MPAs have, in theory, both the strict protection zone so favoured by conservationists who wish to protect biodiversity, and also the spillover effect, which appeals to those who wish to increase the level of fish stocks outside of the MPA. They therefore aim to satisfy all stakeholders, including the tourism industry and fishers. Much of the literature on MPAs has emphasised the ways in which dive tourism, fisheries and MPAs could potentially work together. The findings in this article demonstrate that the perspectives of both fishers and dive

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Fabinyi / Marine Policy 32 (2008) 898–904

operators in the Calamianes at least, made this relationship difficult. It has been shown in this article that the aims and motivations of fishers, dive operators and conservationists with regard to MPAs are very different. Fishers pulled the MPA in a direction focused more on livelihood support, while dive operators attempted to keep the MPAs as more about conservation. Similarly, Christie et al. [25] have argued that ‘‘stakeholder motives, and how distinct motives are managed within ICM, are linked to process sustainability’’. Where interests and motives clash, the potential for conflict may exist after the project or organisation implementing the MPA has left the site. In the meetings and discussions observed in the Calamianes, the aims of fishers with regard to the MPA were strongly directed towards what they saw as an opportunity to protect their patterns of exploitation and exclude those of other fishers. Fishers claimed that their activities had a negligible effect on the environment and that MPAs should be about taxing those resource users rich enough to afford it [the tourists], basing their arguments on a vision of social fairness and livelihood support. These perceptions influenced the process of implementing MPAs in several ways. Core or no-take zones were often minimised as much as possible and seen as a concession to conservationists; buffer zones were adapted to include the fishing techniques and gears of local fishers, and enforcement was rarely effective when it was conducted by locals.2 In contrast to the fishers, dive operators understood the role of MPAs as primarily about conservation. From this perspective, any revenue gained from user fees should go towards management and enforcement costs. Strongly affected by the transfer of management to communities and the imposition of user fees, their responses were extremely negative. They argued that the communities’ approach to MPAs were not about conservation at all; this was just a sham hiding the real desire among local government officials and communities to make money out of the dive industry. The dive operators framed their argument about the impacts of their actions in direct opposition to the arguments of fishers. They argued that in contrast to the fishers, who ‘‘steal fish from the ocean’’ and indulge in irresponsible environmental behaviour, diving activities had no negative environmental impact and so should be free of charge. They based their arguments on the logic of good environmental management, and their view of Filipino fishers as driven only by short-term financial goals made it difficult for the dive operators to consider working with them as partners for environmental management. The recent status of MPAs in the Calamianes could be seen as somewhat ambiguous—many were being created, 2

One significant exception to the trend of low enforcement was an MPA based very close to Coron town. This location was a significant factor in facilitating strong enforcement.

903

but most of them were marked by serious limitations. These limitations and ambiguities were a direct result of differing understandings among stakeholders about the purpose of MPAs. Whether the MPAs come to produce the kind of increase in fish stocks as desired by the conservationists remains very unclear because of these shortcomings. From this perspective, the proliferation of MPAs can be understood not so much as a victory for conservation or wise fisheries management, but as a way in which fishers and local government officials were able to successfully assert their territorial claims and advance their interests. It was found that in the Calamianes Islands, tensions over different understandings about the purpose of MPAs among stakeholders undermined their success. While the article presented only one case study, such issues raised here would inevitably be present in many other coastal regions of Southeast Asia, if not globally, given the high proportion of MPAs that are located in regions of both dive tourism and fishing communities. Thus, a key issue to consider is the importance of defining more clearly what the role and purpose of particular MPAs are, and of presenting a realistic scenario of the economic costs and benefits that fishers can expect over what timeframe. The data in this article indicate that, in practice, those implementing MPAs may find it difficult to obtain beneficial outcomes for all stakeholders. More attention may need to be paid to the need for compromise between the diverse and frequently opposing perspectives of MPA stakeholders. Acknowledgements This research was conducted while I was a Visiting Research Associate at the Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University, and was funded by an Australian Postgraduate Award from the Australian National University (ANU). I am grateful to both institutions for their support. Thanks to all those residents in the Calamianes who generously gave me their time throughout my fieldwork, and to Stuart Green in Manila. This article is based on a paper originally presented at the annual conference of the Australian Anthropological Society, held at the ANU at Canberra on 30 October–2 November 2007. Thanks to Simon Foale, Sarinda Singh, Colin Filer and Deirdre McKay for comments on earlier versions of this article. References [1] Carpenter KE, Springer VG. The center of the center of marine shore fish biodiversity: the Philippine islands. Environmental Biology of Fishes 2005;72:467–80. [2] Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Department of Agriculture (BFAR). In turbulent seas: the status of Philippine marine fisheries. Cebu City: Coastal Resource Management Project; 2004. [3] Christie P, Lowry K, White AT, Oracion EG, Sievanen L, Pomeroy RS, et al. Key findings from a multidisciplinary examination of

ARTICLE IN PRESS 904

[4]

[5]

[6] [7]

[8] [9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

M. Fabinyi / Marine Policy 32 (2008) 898–904 integrated coastal management process sustainability. Ocean & Coastal Management 2005;48(3–6):468–83. Green SJ, White AT, Flores JO, Carreon III MF, Sia AE. Philippine fisheries in crisis: a framework for management. Cebu City: Coastal Resource Management Project, DENR, USAID; 2003. Pomeroy RS. Community-based and co-management institutions for sustainable coastal fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean & Coastal Management 1995;27(3):143–62. Christie P. Is integrated coastal management sustainable? Ocean & Coastal Management 2005;48(3–6):208–32. Russ GR. Yet another review of marine reserves as reef fishery management tools. In: Sale PF, editor. Coral reef fishes: dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2002. Roberts CM, Hawkins JP. Fully protected marine reserves: a guide. Washington, DC: WWF Endangered Seas Campaign; 2000. Sale P. The science we need to develop for more effective management. In: Sale P, editor. Coral reef fishes: dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem. Oxford and St. Louis: Academic Press; 2002. Hilborn R, Stokes K, Maguire J-J, Smith T, Botsford LW, Mangel M, et al. When can marine reserves improve fisheries management? Ocean & Coastal Management 2004;47:197–205. White AT, Courtney CA, Salamanca AM. Experience with marine protected area planning and management in the Philippines. Coastal Management 2002;30:1–26. Depondt F, Green E. Diving user fees and the financial sustainability of marine protected areas: opportunities and impediments. Ocean & Coastal Management 2006;49(3–4):188–202. Arin T, Kramer RA. Divers’ willingness to pay to visit marine sanctuaries: an exploratory study. Ocean & Coastal Management 2002;45(2–3):171–83. Green E, Donnelly R. Recreational scuba diving in Caribbean Marine protected areas: do the users pay? Ambio 2003;32(2):140–4.

[15] Oracion EG, Miller ML, Christie P. Marine protected areas for whom? Fisheries, tourism, and solidarity in a Philippine community. Ocean & Coastal Management 2005;48(3–6):393–410. [16] Majanen T. Resource use conflicts in Mabini and Tingloy, the Philippines. Marine Policy 2007;31:480–7. [17] Padilla JE, Mamauag S, Braganza G, Brucal N, Yu D, Morales A. Sustainability assessment of the live reef-fish for food industry in Palawan. Philippines: WWF-Philippines; 2003. [18] Werner TB, Allen GR. A rapid marine biodiversity assessment of the Calamianes Islands, Palawan province, Philippines. Washington, DC: Conservation International; 1998. [19] Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of the Live Reef Food Fish Trade in the Calamianes, Palawan, Philippines. Quezon City: Conservation International-Philippines; 2003. [20] Pomeroy RS, Pido MD, Pontillas JFA, Francisco BS, White AT, Ponce De Leon EMC, et al. Evaluation of policy options for the live reef food fish trade in the province of Palawan, Western Philippines. Marine Policy 2008;32(1):55–65. [21] Green SJ. Establishing a mechanism for the collection of user fees, administration and management of a marine parks in the municipality of Coron Sustainable Environmental Management Program– Northern Palawan [SEMP-NP]; 2004. [22] Fabinyi M. Illegal fishing and masculinity in the Philippines: a look at the Calamianes Islands in Palawan. Philippine Studies 2007;55(4):509–29. [23] Russell SD. Class identity, leadership style, and political culture in a Tagalog coastal community. Pilipinas 1997;28:79–95. [24] Olive S. The usefulness and limitations of common property concepts for understanding coastal resource management in the Philippines. In: Proceedings of the 5th international Philippine studies conference, Honolulu, 1996. [25] Christie P, White AT, Stockwell B, Jadloc RC. Links between environmental conditions and integrated coastal management sustainability. Silliman Journal 2003;44(1):285–323.