01_device

Negotiating Stakeholder Agreements for Conservation

47Science Diliman (January-June 2007) 19:1, 47-63

*Corresponding author

Negotiating Stakeholder Agreements for Conservation:
The Case of Tubbataha Reefs, Philippines

Edgardo Tongson
Vice-President - Programmes, WWF-Philippines

4F, JBD Plaza, Mindanao Ave., Quezon City 1105
Tel.+632-920-7923/7926

Fax: +632-426-3927
etongson@wwf.org.ph

Raoul Cola
Consultant, WWF-Philippines

Many conservation projects fail because local stakeholders share a disproportionate burden of the cost
arising from a no-take zone compared to benefits accruing to global and national stakeholders and more
powerful groups. Conflicts arising from the establishment of marine protected areas are usually caused
by outside interests colliding with local interests and priorities. Ensuring fishers who will lose access to
fishing grounds will be able to negotiate and obtain benefits in return for their losses is key to gaining
their support to no-take provisions of a marine protected area. The case of establishing an offshore
marine protected area in the Tubbataha Reefs, in the center of the Sulu Sea, Philippines, offers a
practitioners' perspective in reconciling competing interests based on the sharing of costs and benefits
that all stakeholders consider satisfactory and equitable. User fees from diver groups and grant payments
from outside donors that supported local livelihoods and park operations offer lessons in cost and benefit
sharing. The experience highlights the importance of generating stakeholders' agreements based on cost
and benefit-sharing as a platform for conservation actions.

Keywords: marine protected areas, stakeholders, Tubbataha, coral reefs, marine biodiversity, conservation

ABSTRACT

Tongson, Edgardo

INTRODUCTION

Stakeholders are individuals, groups or institutions
sharing common or conflicting concerns, values or
interests in a park and who depend on it for some given
reason, whether economic, political, social, ecological
or even aesthetic. The stakeholder community is a site
of both solidarity and conflict, shifting alliances and
power structures. People have various interests based
on their status and sources of income, and logically,
people will look after their own interests.

At the onset of any conservation project, the
overlapping and differing stakeholder interests will
have to be negotiated to arrive at an arrangement
beneficial to all stakeholders. Negotiation is oftentimes
embedded in the participatory processes and used with
other terms such as social dialogue, consensus-
building, mediated agreements, conflict resolution and
the like.

Most people would agree that the sustainable use and
management of natural resources requires collaboration
between different stakeholders. However, collaboration
does not develop by people merely agreeing to it. There
are barriers to consensus -building among multiple
stakeholders that need to be overcome. There are also
considerable differences in interests and power
amongst those using or dealing with natural resources.
Power is not neutral within any given community.
There will always be those who possess more influence,
higher authority, more knowledge or material wealth,
which affect their social, economic and political power.
These dynamics strongly influence public decisions
including the establishment of conservation areas.

These aspects of natural resource management are often
weakly dealt by government departments, local
institutions and development agencies that are used to
centralized top-down approaches to conservation. In
some cases, inappropriately designed development
projects impede the creation of social capital and the
mobilization of internal capital - both vital ingredients
to developing and sustaining institutions for managing
common pool resources. Social capital is measured by
the quality of social relations, degree of cooperation
and trust and willingness to sacrifice one's own self-

interest for the collective good. Internal or local capital
comprises the skills, financial or in-kind resources that
the community can mobilize collectively to achieve a
common good. The role of social capital as an important
pre-condition to promoting sustainable use of common
pool resources has been extensively discussed in the
commons literature (Ostrom 1990, Wade 1994, Baland
& Platteau 1996, Agrawal 2002).

The experience of integrating conservation and
development in the last two decades show that there
are few win-win solutions and that there are winners
and losers (Brandon & Wells 1992, Larsen et al 1998,
McShane & Wells 2004). The lessons point to the role
of agreements and win-win platforms as a necessary
part of the design, planning and implementation of
conservation projects. Trade-offs exists between
different interests and priorities, most often sharply
divided between economic development, social welfare
and environmental goals. A large part of the literature
is beginning to detail the tradeoffs between sections of
society and biodiversity conservation, often suggesting
the rich people benefiting from conservation while the
poor bear the brunt of the costs (Wells 1992, Ghimire
& Pimbert 1997, Cartwright 1991, Hulme & Infield
2001, Adams & Infield, 2001).

Lately, conservation agents with their huge financial
backing and political connections, have been criticized
for imposing their preservationist agendas to the
detriment of the majority of poorer, fragmented and
more powerless groups particularly indigenous peoples
who have less access and voice in decisions affecting
their lives (Chapin 2004). Conservation areas
established under these conditions face an uncertain
future as displaced user groups resent and may even
undermine the continued operation of the conservation
area. To avoid conflict, local communities' economic
losses should be compensated for in the form of cash
payments, goods or services (Brandon & Wells 1992,
Abbot & Thomas, 2001). Ensuring fishers who will
lose access to fishing grounds will be able to negotiate
and obtain benefits in return for their losses is key to
gaining their support to no-take provisions of a marine
protected area.

The history of conservation projects offers important
lessons to the achievement of negotiated solutions as a

Negotiating Stakeholder Agreements for Conservation

platform for a conservation strategy. The conservation
literature views negotiation as an essential part of the
participatory process leading to a common vision of a
conservation area. It is the part of a process in forging
win-win outcomes as a platform for developing a
shared vision (Allen at al 2000; Borrini-Feyerband
2000, Babbit et al 1994).

In protected areas settings, the conservation literature
cautions on the likely existence of unequal power
relationships among stakeholders and potential pitfalls
of limiting participation to the rural elite who tend to
capture most of the benefits (Allen at al 2000, Borrini-
Feyerabend et al 2004). They caution against
disenfranchising the poor and marginal groups in the
participatory process and encourage practitioners to be
more inclusive in their methodologies.

In their attempt to be more inclusive, development
practitioners developed parallel streams of
consultations to reach out to inaccessible groups
particularly women, indigenous peoples and other
"invisible" groups. In these parallel meetings, the
collective aspirations, strategies, expected outcomes
are processed and distilled through facilitated exercises.
The group elects a representative to articulate their
interests and negotiate in their behalf in the bigger
multi-stakeholder settings. This way, the plurality of
interests and stakes are considered in the visioning and
planning exercise. Negotiations based on more
pluralistic platforms tend to be more credible and
respected by stakeholders (Borrini-Feyerabend 2000).

The consultation process applied in Tubbataha National
Marine Park (TRNMP) takes cue from the need to
include the fishers and stakeholders of Cagayancillo
in the park planning process. This attempt departs from
the centralized approaches of national government
agencies in establishing protected areas without the
participation of affected communities. Oftentimes,
parks established this way were met with resistance
and rejection, as in the case of the Mangyan and
Tagabanua tribes when they rejected attempts in
establishing parks in Mindoro and Coron Island,
Palawan, respectively (NIPAP 2003).

This paper describes the process, results and lessons
generated from establishing the Tubbataha Reefs

National Marine Park (TRNMP), an offshore marine
protected area in the Sulu Sea, Philippines.

1.1 Site Description

The Philippines, together with Malaysia and the
Indonesia, form part of the Sulu-Sulwesi ecoregion that
encompass the "coral triangle" which is known as the
global epicenter for coral diversity. The Cagayan ridge
in the Sulu Sea is home to extensive coral reefs,
underwater sea mounts and a high biodiversity of
species and habitat types. Located at the center of the
Sulu Sea (N 8°50'677" E 119°55'734"), the Tubbataha
Reefs National Marine Park (TRNMP) is the largest
coral atoll in the Philippines and the country's only
national marine park. The park covers an area of 33,200
hectares and is located about 160 kilometers southeast
of Puerto Princesa City and 80 kilometers southwest
of Cagayancillo municipality. (Fig.1). Biologists,
oceanographers, ornithologists, fishery and coral
experts as well as fishing operators, environmental
NGOs, scuba divers, dive boat operators and
government agencies have taken interest in Tubbataha's
rich marine life and abundant fishery. Lately, the
discovery of commercial quantities of natural gas has
fuelled a gold rush among energy producers to stake
their claims in untapped offshore gas fields in the Sulu
Sea off the coast of Eastern Palawan.

Puerto
Princesa

Cagayancillo

Tubbataha
Reefs

Sulu Sea

Pacific Ocean

South China Sea

Fig. 1. Map of Tubbataha Reef Natural Marine Park

Tongson, Edgardo

The TRNMP reef complex consists of two coral atolls
separated by a channel eight kilometers wide. The
larger north reef is about 16 kilometers long and 4.5
kilometers wide. The south reef is about 5 kilometers
long and 3 kilometers wide. Since 1982, biologists,
oceanographers and geologists have been fascinated
by the manner of reef formation and the high diversity
in terms of species numbers and habitat types (Alcala
1993, Dollar & Alcala 1993, Dollar1999). The complex
harbors 6 species of sharks, 79 algae species and 7
species of seagrass (White & Arquiza, 1999). The south
islet has a lighthouse and serves as nesting ground for
2 species of turtles and 5 out of 12 species of seabirds
(Manamtam, 1996). For divers, the more interesting
places are the fringing reefs, walls and drop-offs that
provide home to 396 species of coral and 463 species
of fish (WWF 2004). The United Nations Education,
Science and Cultural Office (UNESCO) declared
Tubbataha Reefs a World Heritage Site in 1993.

The Tubbataha Reef is believed to provide the Sulu
seas and eastern coastline of Palawan with fish and
invertebrate larvae (Alcala, 1993). Biologists believe
the water current disperses these larvae and enriches
the coral reefs and fishing grounds around the Sulu
Sea. Studies show the beneficial effects of MPAs to
surrounding fishing grounds (Alcala 1999, Alcala &
Russ 1990, Ballantine, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998;
Bohnsack, 1994; PDT, 1990; Russ and Alcala, 1989,
1996).

1.2 Legal Basis

On 11 August 1988, President Corazon Aquino signed
Presidential Proclamation 306, creating the Tubbataha
Reef National Marine Park (TRNMP), making it the
first marine protected area (MPA) in the country. This
proclamation also transferred Tubbataha's management
jurisdiction from the Municipal Government of
Cagayancillo to the national government through the
DENR.

By the 1990s, the unique and outstanding natural
characteristics of Tubbataha have earned enough
renown to command international attention. The United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) declared it a World Heritage

Site on 11 December 1993. It is the only marine World
Heritage Site in Southeast Asia. On 19 November 1999
Tubbataha was inscribed in the List of Wetlands of
International Importance, also known as the Ramsar
List.

1.3 Issues and Threats

Since the early 1980s, Tubbataha has been a prime
destination for scuba divers from the Philippines and
other countries. At the same time, Tubbataha has been
the prime fishing ground for commercial fishing vessels
plying the Sulu Sea and for fishers from Cagayancillo
municipality that has jurisdiction over the area. A
commercial seaweed farm operated within the reef
before it was aborted due to opposition from
environmental groups. In 1989, the near pristine
condition of the reefs deteriorated due to illegal fishing,
including use of explosives, indiscriminate dropping
of anchors and unscrupulous collection of wildlife.
Fishers from China and Taiwan encroach into the Sulu
Sea to catch turtles, live fish and sharks using
destructive gears. The living coral cover on the outer
reefs had decreased by 24 percent (White et al, 2003).
In 1992, the condition of the reefs improved but the El
Niño event in 1998 coincided with the hottest year in
recorded history and the worldwide increase in sea
surface temperatures affected the reefs. Tubbataha lost
more than 20% living hard coral since 1998 due to
warm water bleaching (White et al, 2003).

1.4 Management History

A timeline of management events up to the present
follows:

1988 Park declared by Presidential Decree
1989 Seaweed farm established but stopped in 1990.

First draft of park management plan based on
limited information

1990 Sporadic patrols started to stop illegal and
destructive fishing

1991 Illegal seaweed farm removed from the Park
1992 Research expeditions by Silliman University

to collect baseline data on the coral reef
1993 Park management plan re-drafted; illegal

activities increase

Negotiating Stakeholder Agreements for Conservation

1993 UNESCO World Heritage status declared
1995 Japan International Cooperation Agency

(JICA), Marine Parks Center of Japan,
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and Haribon Foundation
conduct marine and bird studies; Presidential
Task Force set up to implement management
plan and provide funds; Philippine Navy
assigned to guard park

1996 Management plan refined with support from
JICA, DENR, Palawan Council for Sustainable
Development (PCSD), World Wide Fund for
Nature (WWF) and stakeholders in Palawan
and Cagayancillo

1998 Protected Area Management Board (PAMB)
formed; management plans endorsed in a
workshop with all stakeholders with support
from PCSD, DENR, WWF, Sulu Fund; coral
bleaching event kills more than 20% of living
coral cover

1999 PAMB becomes operational with a park
manager appointed and supported by WWF;
Global Environment Facility (GEF) approves
5-year funding through United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) and WWF to
implement park management plan; Park ranger
station constructed

2000 Management plan fully endorsed by the PAMB
for implementation and user fees based on
willingness-to-pay study of WWF established;
Tubbataha Management Office (TMO)
organized. Coastal Resources Management
Project (CRMP) and the Sulu Fund jointly
implement reef monitoring; PAMB & WWF
implements ecosystem research & monitoring
plan

2001 LGU of Cagayancillo establishes five marine
protected areas (MPA). WWF launches credit
and livelihood program in Cagayancillo
municipality.

2005 End of GEF-UNDP funded WWF project.
Participatory stakeholder evaluation
conducted.

1.5 Stakeholders

The stakeholders of Tubbataha, as well as in many other
protected areas, reflect heterogeneity across

stakeholder groups and changing power relationships.
Table 1 presents the stakeholder organizations,
mandates, interests and scale of operation as they relate
to the TRNMP.

1.5.1 National Government Agencies

The National Government Agencies comprises the Dept
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and
the Office of the President. The DENR is mandated to
manage the protected areas system of the country under
the National Integrated Protected Areas Act. The former
President Fidel V. Ramos, being an avid diver himself,
has brought the powers of his office to trouble shoot
the park. The creation of the task force in 1995 by the
Office of the President was in line with the purpose of
establishing Tubbataha as a national park.

1.5.2 Local Government Units

The local government units of Cagayancillo comprising
the municipal and barangay governments have a stake
in the park as it used to be under their political
jurisdiction. The interest of the local government units
lies not only in the preservation of the park's resources
but also in the generation of funds to benefit the LGU,
and to finance social services particularly to its
constituency whose livelihood is affected by the
cessation of access to park resources. The municipal
and barangay government officials of Cagayancilllo
wanted to regain their management control over the
park. Their main reason was their exclusion from any
benefits derived from the park which was their
traditional fishing grounds. The barangay officials
wanted not just management control but also extraction
rights. These rights were not just limited to fisheries
but also to shells, birds and turtle eggs and the
establishment of seaweed farm within the park.

One reason behind the "aggressive" position of the
barangay leadership was that nobody had explained to
them and to their constituency the reason behind the
sudden ban on extraction activities in Tubbataha Reef.
The mayor, then a member of the Executive Committee
of Tubbataha Reef National Marine Parks Task Force
was understandably interested in the municipality's
share in the proceeds from tourism in Tubbataha Reefs.
Given these explicit aspirations, fixing the user fee

Tongson, Edgardo

Stakeholder Mandate Interests Level

GOVERNMENT
Office of the President Execute laws through Preservation of resources National

National agencies
Department of National Defense (DND) Defense and security Enforcement of existing National

regulations
Department of Environment and Conservation of Preservation of resources National

Natural Resources (DENR) Natural resources
Department of Tourism (DOT) Tourism promotion Preservation of resources National
Department of Budget Allocation of financial resources Preservation of resources National

Management (DBM)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS
Palawan Council for Sustainable Implementation of RA 7611 Preservation of resources; Provincial

Development (PCSD) jurisdiction under RA 7611
Provincial government of Palawan Governance Generation of funds for Provincial

park management and other
activities; jurisdiction under
RA 7611

Municipal government of Cagayancillo Governance Access to park’s resources, Local
generation of funds for local
governance, alternative
livelihood

Barangay government of Cagayancillo Governance Access to park’s resources Local
and generation of funds for
local governance

Private Sector
Diving tour operators Live-Aboard Dive business Preservation of resources Local

and safe park access
Cagayancillo fisherfolks Fishing Access to park’s resources Local
Palawan fishermen Fishing Access to park’s resources Local
Outside fishermen Fishing Access to park’s resources Local

NGOs
WWF Biodiversity Preservation of the resource Global

conservation while addressing concerns
of communities in Cagayancillo

SAGUDA Conservation Preservation of the resources Local
Research Institutions Research; applied research Preservation of the resources National/Local
Marine Science Institution (MSI),
Silliman University, Western Palawan
University

system and benefit-sharing arrangements were
definitely considered key to resolving the issue of
management control.

While the vice-mayor also lobbied for municipal
control of Tubbataha Reef, he admitted their lack of
knowledge and skills in environmental management
and their difficulty in stopping the use of destructive
fishing methods. He was considering alternative
livelihood projects for the residents of Cagayancillo
as part of the solution to the issue. It appeared that the
poverty level in the municipal and barangay level was

such that the leadership cannot overemphasize their
need to derive economic benefits from the project.
Surprisingly, the community members were not as
adamant as their leadership to regain management
control over Tubbataha Reef. They demanded more
intensely to have persons of authority explain to them
the reason for banning extractive activities in the park.
They also wanted clarification on their participation
in park management particularly in areas of decision-
making and rule enforcement and their share from
proceeds derived from the beneficial use of the park.
It was only in Brgy. Nusa that they raised the need to

Table 1. Tubbataha Reef Stakeholders, Mandates, Interests and Level of Involvement in Tubbataha

Negotiating Stakeholder Agreements for Conservation

revive their fishing rights in the park. Likewise, it was
only in Brgy. Magsaysay that the ban on the slaughter
of sea turtles for meat was raised. The generally open
position of the rest of the communities and their
eagerness to participate augured well for the existing
management arrangement.

1.5.3 PCSD

Between the divergence of interests of the national
agencies and those of the municipal and barangay
government units, was the provincial government in
the person of the Governor, who chairs the Palawan
Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD). The
PCSD is mandated to implement the Environmental
Critical Areas Network of the Strategic Environmental
Plan of Palawan passed under a Congressional Act (RA
7611). The PCSD had a stake in exercising its devolved
powers under RA 7611 over Tubbataha and to manage
it under their own terms.

1.5.4 Fishing Operators

The fishing operators in Tubbataha catch a range of
species from coral associated species such as napoleon
wrasses, groupers, lobsters, sharks (for their fins) and
sea cucumbers to pelagics and small pelagics. The
dominant fishing gears used are long lines, hook and
lines, purse seines and ring nets. There are occasional
reports of destructive and illegal fishing including the
use of dynamite and cyanide. Chinese poachers have
been reported to enter Tubbataha to catch turtles and
live fish. The resources extracted by these fishing
methods were not limited to fisheries. Sea turtle and
eggs of sea birds, giant clams and collector's shells were
also included (White & Palaganas, 1991).

The problem of resource extraction in Tubbataha Reefs
is a recent phenomenon resulting from a confluence of
factors: resource depletion of other traditional fishing
grounds, commercialization of fishing production,
modernization & improvement of fishing and sea
transport technology and increasing unavailability of
farmlands in out-migration areas in the Visayas. The
lack of effective enforcement allows illegal,
unregulated and unreported fishing to prosper in
Tubbataha.

1.5.5 Dive Tour operators

Simultaneous with intensified fishing in the Tubbataha
Reefs was the development of the diving industry in
the Philippines. The reef hosted the first diving
expedition in 1982 and from then on became one of
the world's top diving destinations. It is estimated that
during March to May of 2006, there are about 80 boat-
trips and about 1,500 guest-visits to Tubbataha's diving
spots. Total spending is estimated at US$ 1.9 Million
per year excluding foreign travel.

The presence of dive boats discourages illegal fishing
activities during the tourist season. Members of the
diving industry were the first to raise their voices
against the fishing operation in the area. Because of
the prohibitive cost of diving to Tubbataha, these divers
are mostly rich and influential people. Some of them
have cross-memberships with NGOs, research
institutions and government agencies.

1.5.6 NGOs

The environmental NGOs (WWF-Philippines, Sulu
Fund, Palawan NGO Network Inc. & SAGUDA) in
Palawan have always supported the preservation of the
Tubbataha Reef, as evidenced by their involvement in
a number of conservation activities benefiting the reef.
Their involvement has mainly been in information,
education and communication campaigns, research and
monitoring, community organizing in Cagayancillo,
policy advocacy, installation of mooring buoys and
participation in policy- making bodies. But the
remoteness of the Tubbataha Reefs (the reason for its
relatively pristine condition) and their limited resources
constrain their participation in on-site activities. Later,
the Environmental Legal Assistance Center (ELAC)
provided the legal services to help the Park on its
enforcement work.

1.5.7 Research Institutions

Research institutions were occasionally present in
Tubbataha Reef. Their presence was dictated by
research interest and fund availability. Silliman
University conducted earlier researches in Tubbataha
in the 1990's and published their findings in 1993 and

Tongson, Edgardo

1999 (Alcala 1993, Dollar & Alcala 1993, Dollar1999).
The CCEF and EarthWatch volunteer group undertook
survey expeditions to monitor reef health in Tubbataha
Reefs in the early 2000's and published their findings.
The Western Palawan University and University of the
Philippines Visayas conducted various studies in 2004.
These research institutions wanted to preserve
Tubbataha Reefs as a living laboratory for their
scientific and educational use.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This section describes the process used to ensure
participation of the more marginalized stakeholders,
reconcile the different interests of stakeholders and
generate the agreements that serve as basis in managing
and sustaining the park. The process initiated in 1998
involves five steps: (1) conduct of stakeholders'
analysis, (2) community workshops with Cagayancillo'
s small-scale fishers to prepare for their participation
in the stakeholders' meeting, (3) small meetings
between small-scale fishers and their local government
officials to consolidate their positions for the
stakeholders meetings, (4) small meetings between
personnel of environmental NGOs and government
agencies to consolidate their positions for the
stakeholders meetings; (5) conduct of the stakeholders'
meeting where the agreements together with vision,
issues and action plan were generated and (6)
monitoring and evaluation.

Stakeholders Analysis

The stakeholders' analysis was conducted to identify
the stakeholders, characterize their interests and
determine their capability and potential contribution
to manage the park. Knowing their capability was
important because they would prepare and implement
the management plan and the capability of a
stakeholder would define its role in the implementation.
Through the stakeholders' analysis and the extent of
their involvement in preparatory meetings and small
group workshops, the management measures to be
implemented could also be designed to be within their
capacity.

Figure 2 depicts the flow of activities completing the
full cycle of project management beginning from an

analysis of stakeholder interests to the formulation,
implementation and monitoring of the management
plan. The cycle culminated with the presentation of
the project outcomes, participatory evaluation,
generation of lessons and recommendations from a
stakeholder workshop in 2005.

RESULTS

3.1 Conduct of Stakeholders' Analysis

The stakeholders were characterized as to mandate,
interest, level of involvement in Tubbataha (Table 1).
The detailed explanation of each stakeholder group is
presented in the preceding section.

The stakeholders in Tubbataha Reefs vary with respect
to their interests and to degree of power they hold. We
classified stakeholder groups by their interests, namely:
pro-preservation, pro-extraction, fund generation,
alternative livelihoods and national security .

The following agencies comprise the "preservationist"
category: Office of the President, Department of
National Defense (DND), Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of
Tourism (DOT), Department of Budget and
Management (DBM), Palawan Council for Sustainable
Development (PCSD), Silliman University, Marine

Stakeholder
Analysis

Preparatory
meetings

Negotiated
Agreements

Plan
formulation

Baseline
information &
trends

Implementation

Cagayancillo
workshops

Stakeholder
Validation

Monitoring &
Evaluation

Fig. 2. Stakeholder Process in the Formulation and Implementation of the Management Plan

Negotiating Stakeholder Agreements for Conservation

Science Institute, Saguda NGO, SPCP, dive operations
and divers, World Wide Fund for Nature - Philippines.
The "pro-extraction" group consists of the Municipal
and barangay local government units of Cagayancillo,
Cagayancillo fisherfolks, Palawan fishers and outside
fishers. A large sub-group of fishing operators are
usually in the area for 6-7 months in a year coming not
only from Cagayancillo and Palawan but from Luzon
and Visayas and even from China and Taiwan. Local
residents of Cagayancillo, known as Cagayanen,
enjoyed the privilege of fishing on the coral reefs and
in the offshore waters by virtue of their residence.
Outsiders were required to get a fishing permit from
the municipal mayor's office in the town center. The
coverage of the fishing permit included the Tubbataha
Reefs.

The Cagayanen are no longer considered a stakeholder
by themselves, i.e., separate from the islands' fishing
operators or from the constituency represented by its
local government. This is because migration from the
Visayas and the resulting acculturation and
intermarriage has made it difficult to differentiate the
Cagayanen from the new settlers who are engaged in
fishing.

The municipal LGU, WWF and other NGOs
constituted another group that promoted alternative
livelihoods for affected fishers. Those expecting cash
benefits from park user fees are the provincial
government and Cagancillo LGUs.

The DND through the Philippine Navy has a
continuous presence in the park. The area is important
for safeguarding national security during the terrorist
threats emanating from the southern Philippines. The
diving tour and fishing operators are seasonally
physically present although the latter's activities are
heavily curtailed by the presence of the Philippine
Navy.

In the case of Tubbataha, the stakeholders' interests
follow the typical conservation-development divide.
Interests are sharply contrasted between those pushing
for more preservationist approaches such as banning
fishing within the park and those claiming their rights
to extract resources in the park. These interests also
differ across scales. Interests of the provincial, national

and global stakeholders collide with those directly
dependent on the park for livelihoods and government
allotments. Not only are interests sharply divided,
power imbalances exist across stakeholders and also
within a stakeholder group.

For example, the category of "preservationist"
stakeholders has large political and financial backing.
This category consists of the dive boat operators,
international conservation NGOs, donor agencies,
provincial and municipal officials and national
government agencies. This block lobbied to declare
the entire 33,000 park as a no-take zone for fishing.
Only recreational diving and research were proposed
as allowable activities.

Within the "extractive" group, power differs as the
commercial fishing operators have more money and
flexibility to fish elsewhere within the Sulu Sea. They
are also more vocal during meetings and are able to
articulate their concerns. In contrast, the smaller fishers
from Cagayancillo are fragmented, marginalized and
have little voice to influence policies that may affect
their condition. They fish in Tubbataha for livelihood
and capture sea turtles for ritual food.

In the middle are the local government units and the
some NGO members who may be open to limited and
regulated use of the reef's area fisheries subject to limits
with respect to its sustainable yield and carrying
capacity. Although this option was discussed, the cost
of monitoring sustainable catches and the viability of
launching fishing expeditions to Tubbataha given
prescribed limits to catches rendered this option
unfeasible.

Thus, the conflict is sharper between the "extractive"
and "preservationist" groups. The conflict seems to be
skewed in favor of the "preservationist" block since
the position had powerful backing from wealthier and
politically connected stakeholders. Those losing out
in the park are the Cagayanen and outside fishing
operators. In contrast to Cagayancillo fishers, outside
fishing operators can fish elsewhere given the no-take
policy. For Cagayancillo residents, the conflict remains
unresolved until the issue of livelihood is addressed.
Cagayancillo residents consider Tubbataha Reef as part
of their traditional food range and felt entitled to its

Tongson, Edgardo

use. This means that if other stakeholders are directly
and indirectly benefiting from Tubbataha Reef, they
should pay for their use. Ideally, the share of the local
residents from the proceeds must be enough to replace
their foregone benefits. Although they proposed a 7%
sharing scheme from user fees, the basis of this proposal
is unknown outside the Cagayancillo community.

3.2 Community Workshops and Small Meetings

It is recognized that negotiations based on stakeholders'
interests alone cannot start given the poor quality of
relationships between government agencies, NGOs and
fishers of Tubbataha. For example, relations between
the Palawan-based NGOs, Phil. Navy and and local
Cagayancillo fishers were strained over past
enforcement actions in Tubbataha. Their relationship
must improve for agreements to come out from the
process.

Recognizing the relational problems and disparities in
power, workshops and meetings were held before the
final multi-stakeholder planning workshop. The
community workshops were done to draw out the
common interest of Cagayancillo fishers in Tubbataha
Reef, identify areas of compromise and improve their
skills in expressing their interest and negotiating with
other groups. A Palawan-based NGO, known to be a
local advocate for fishers' rights, facilitated the focus
group discussions in five island barangays in
Cagayancillo.

Results from the Cagayancillo workshop show that
majority of its fishers wanted a share derived from user
fees, followed by management control, participation
in enforcement, fishing and extraction rights and access
to alternative livelihoods. One barangay wanted to
revive fishing rights to Tubbataha Reefs. The municipal
officials were briefed on the result of the workshops
and a common position was agreed upon which the
officials agreed to present in the stakeholder meeting.

3.3 Conduct of Stakeholders Workshop

Preparations

Based on a stakeholders list, a list of stakeholders who
would attend the workshop was made. WWF sent a

letter to each listed stakeholder requesting for an
interview. A set of guide questions was prepared for
the interview. The guide questions asked for the
stakeholders' interests, current use of the reefs
resources, potential contribution to its management and
role in managing it. The interview did not only draw
out information from the stakeholders. The process also
enabled the stakeholders to reflect on the current state
of Tubbataha, weigh its options for the future and
prepare their positions for the stakeholders' workshop.

Within two weeks before the workshop, the small
meetings between WWF and other stakeholders further
enhanced ground working activities. The Cagayancillo
workshops were part of this process. The stakeholders
include other NGO, provincial government, DENR,
Philippine Navy, dive shop operators and scientists who
have done work in the reef. The meetings validated
the positions of each stakeholder, hew their differences
to a common view and consolidate a common position
for the reef's closure to extractive activities. Within a
week before the workshop, WWF and the facilitating
NGO, Palawan Network of NGOs Inc. (PNNI), called
on the stakeholders to ensure their attendance to the
meeting.

Validation of Findings and Resolving Conflicts

The stakeholder validation workshop began with two
presentations: one is the physical and biological
characteristics of Tubbataha and another on its history
and results of the stakeholders' analysis and preparatory
consultations. The stakeholders validated the
information contained in the presentation afterward.
The differing positions of the pro-extraction and
preservationist groups were presented and validated.

The Cagayancillo group presented their request to be
granted fishing access to Tubbataha in one of zones
designated for the purpose. But the Tubbataha park
management was concerned with cost of conducting
fishery studies, estimating sustainable yields and
monitoring allowable catches for each fisher that
entered Tubbataha. This imposed a heavy burden on
park management. Besides, with catch limits, the
potential returns from the yield may not be enough to
cover for the cost of traveling all the way to Tubbataha.
In response, the Cagayancillo LGU proposed instead

Negotiating Stakeholder Agreements for Conservation

for technical assistance in coastal resources
management and enforcement against illegal fishing.
The LGU also asked for technical and credit support
for seaweed production (where most fishers are
engaged in one way or another). The LGU also asked
for a 7% share from future user fees since the idea of
charging entry was presented during the preparatory
meetings.

The bigger group agreed to have Cagayancillo LGU
to take on a greater role in management and
enforcement in Tubbataha through their membership
in the TPAMB but the group avoided making financial
commitments. At that time, WWF was accessing grant
support for park infrastructure and Cagayancillo
livelihoods from the Global Environment Facility
through the United Nations Development Program. In
return for this future support, WWF asked the bigger
group to support a user fee system that will be charged
among divers and boat operators for entry to the park.
The group acceded to this proposal and the benefit
sharing with Cagayancillo.

The purpose of the presentations was to draw out the
stakeholders from their view of Tubbataha as confined
by their current interest and enable them to see it in a
broader picture including its diversity of users. The
validation enabled the stakeholders to share similar
understanding of the condition of Tubbataha by
providing new information and rectifying
misinformation. This facilitated consensus to be arrived
on the proposals, counter-proposals and their
refinements. The facilitator ensured that consensus
was reached for each decision point reached. No
decision was reached using voting as the means to
resolve the issue.

After the stakeholders agreed on the access and
compensation issue, they put together their vision of
Tubbataha Reef. They subsequently worked as small
groups and identified the issues that must be addressed
to attain the vision. The small group output is
consolidated into plenary output. The consolidation
includes categorizing the issues. The categories include
enforcement, research, alternative livelihood and funds
among others.

Based on the validated issues, the participants again
worked in small groups and formulated the actions that
will be done on each category of issue. The actions are
presented in the plenary session. The break-though
agreements on the actions were negotiated during the
plenary session. The agreements were reached through
consensus and the facilitation process used prevented
a potential chaos from erupting. When the set of actions
is finalized, the stakeholders proceeded to match the
doers of the actions. A framework plan was derived
from the workshop output.

A management plan for the TRNMP was completed
based on the agreements reached among the
stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder workshop in 1998
and subsequently endorsed by the TPAMB. The plan
incorporated both conservation and development
aspects to reflect these tradeoffs. WWF helped find
donors to finance the plan and execute a project to
implement agreed actions. A proposal was designed
to set up park management systems, provide livelihoods
and help establish coastal management in Cagayancillo.

3.4 Stakeholder Agreements

A summary of the stakeholder agreements resulting
from the workshop were as follows:

Cagayancillo fishers to respect no-take zone
Commercial & Palawan fishers to respect no-take zone
Divers and dive operators to pay user fees
7% share from user fees allocated for Cagayancillo
Livelihood and CRM support for Cagayancillo
PCSD to draft bill and authorize pilot collection of user

fees
PAMB to establish Tubbataha Management Office
Phil Navy & coast guard to establish and staff ranger

station

The response from the commercial operators to the no-
take policy was unexpected. One would expect
opposition from the bigger fishing boat operators but
this did not materialize when they realized Tubbataha's
ecological importance in the Sulu Sea. The theory
posited by Alcala (1993) that Tubbataha is a larval
source for Palawan fishery and would need protection

Tongson, Edgardo

efforts if fishers were to benefit from spillover to
adjacent fishing grounds caused a turnaround among
the commercial fishers. The realization on the
importance of Tubbataha to the Sulu Sea and to their
fishery operations was enough for them to give up their
access rights to the park.

DISCUSSION

4.1 Outcomes - Five Years After

With funding from GEF through the UNDP and co-
financing from Packard Foundation and WWF-US, a
5-year project implemented activities under seven
components - biological research and monitoring,
information and education, enforcement, sustainable
financing, visitor management and coastal management
and livelihood development for Cagayancillo
municipality. The resources leveraged internal
resources from other stakeholders. The results and
outcomes are summarized below.

After 5 years, Tubbataha reefs is now operated by the
Tubbataha Management Office which is staffed with
eight rangers providing year-round enforcement and
monitoring support using modern equipment including
radar technology. The Philippine Navy and Coast
Guard provide the manpower and the bi-monthly
relieving trips to the ranger station. Since 1999 when
enforcement campaign was launched, there were fewer
reported illegal fishing violations coming from
Cagayancilo and Palawan-based fishing boats. Most
infractions to the park came from ships who failed to
notify the rangers about their passage through the park
while on their way to fish aggregating devices outside
the park boundaries. In 2001-2003, Taiwanese and
Chinese vessels were found poaching in the park and
were jailed in Puerto Princesa. Also, some dive boat
operators were suspended for various violations.

Visitor arrivals and user fee collections are on the
uptrend since user fees were started in 2000. Park
collections have reached P18 million since 1998 with
2006 collections approximating 80% of the core costs
to run the park. Approximately 6 million pesos is
needed annually to run the park, about half of which

are provided through in-kind support by the Philippine
Navy and Coast Guard.

While it is acknowledged that no single group or
institution can provide all the required resources to run
the park, a multi-stakeholder management model
allows for cost and benefit-sharing which was not
possible under centralized command-and-control
models. Few parks in the Philippines can boast of full
park staffing and a mechanism for sustainable financing
through user fees. Compared to other parks, the
TRNMP is well funded with financing sources ranging
from user fee systems and grants from foreign donors.

Returns from investments in protection showed
improvements in biological health. Reef health, fish
biomass and densities have improved or have
stabilized. Live coral cover stabilized at 40% from
1999-2003 before reaching 50% in 2004 (WWF 2004).
For 2004, commercial fish biomass are at its highest at
60 mt/sq-km (WWF 2004) and is twice that reported
by Alcala (2001) for a healthy reef at 30 mt/sq-km.
Total biomass and density averaged 166 mt/sq-km and
60 individuals/100 sq-m respectively, the highest since
1998 (WWF 2004). Visitor satisfaction is high with
most boat operators claiming more sightings of mega
fauna species (i.e. manta rays, turtles, whalesharks,
etc.).

The Cagayancillo municipality is a model in
"bootstrap" development. Illegal fishing has been
contained due to large part to strong leadership
supported by an active citizenry. On their own initiative,
local officials established five MPAs as part of their
coastal resources management program. Live coral
cover and fish biomass in these MPA are at their highest
levels (WWF 2004). Perceived fish catches outside
the MPAs by fishers during the focus group discussion
reportedly increased from 10 kg/day to 15-20 kg/day
for the period 1999-2004 (Todd & Nunez 2004).

In 2004, the LGU of Cagayancillo finally collected on
their 7% annual share accumulating to PhP 435,000.
The money was used to build a section of a farm-to-
market road which improved access of farm products.
A micro-credit program provides the needed financial

Negotiating Stakeholder Agreements for Conservation

services that support a broad number of families and
their livelihoods. The micro-credit facility released PhP
680,000 in loans to 175 borrowers for their livelihood,
education and health needs and enjoys a healthy
repayment rate of 90%.

The participatory evaluation in 2005 was attended by
Cagayancillo LGU officials led by the mayor, and
fisherfolk representatives. The delegation affirmed the
positive outcomes of the project. Interestingly, the
Cagayanen participants in the participatory evaluation
did not raise the issue of reviving their fishing rights

Indicator 2000 2004
(NSO) (Subade)

Households who owned lots 82% 86%
Households who owned houses 85% 95%
Houses with GI roof 58% 72%
Households using kerosene for

lighting 65% 50%
Households using LPG as cooking

fuel 11% 10%
Houses with water-sealed toilets 46% 56%
Houses with television 5% 6%
Houses with refrigerator 5% 7%

Table 2. Data on Selected Living Standard Indicators in
Cagayancillo: 2000 and 2004

to Tubbataha. It seems the recovery of fish stocks in
Cagayancillo due to enforcement of fishing laws are
providing benefits on its own.

The level of biodiversity conservation attained in
TRNMP has not sacrificed socio-economic
development and living standards. They are in fact the
twin fruits of integrated conservation and development.

To measure changes in living standard, selected data
from NSO census in 2000 and WWF-sponsored study
in 2004 (Subade 2004) are compared.The living
standard shows positive change in the eight indicators
used. Lot ownership increases from 82 percent in 2000
to 86 percent in 2004 (Table 2). The difference is 4
percent. The increase is even greater in house
ownership jumping from 85 percent in 2000 to 95
percent in 2004. The difference is 10 percent. The
quality of houses has improved in even larger scale as

seen in the type of roof. In 2000, only 58 of the houses
have galvanized iron (GI). This percentage rises to 72
percent or 14 percent increase from the 2000.
The utilities that the households enjoy have also
improved for many. The users of kerosene lamp for
lighting are reduced from 65 percent in 2000 to 50
percent 2004. It means that 15 percent more households
benefit from electricity in 2004 than in 2000. The
percentage of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) users as
cooking fuel is about the same (11% versus 10%). But
toilet ownership dramatically rises from 46 to 56
percent. The ownership of appliance has not changed
much. Households with television is about the same
(5% versus 6%) but slight increase in noted in
refrigerator (5% versus 7%)..

Although no quantitative data exists, the fishing benefit
derived by Cagyancillo from Tubbataha seems to have
been offset by the higher fish catch in the fishing
grounds around their islands. The small fishers using
hook and line, spear and net gears are the main
beneficiaries. Sources of income have diversified partly
through the rising membership in livelihood
cooperative. The loan that the members obtained serves
as capital for general merchandise (sari-sari) stores,
poultry, livestock, seaweed production and fishing.

An important component of the management plan
which was not fulfilled was the enactment of the
protected area bill for Tubbataha by Congress. As part
of the NIPAS process, the PCSD drafted a protected
area bill for Tubbataha and filed the bill with the office
of Cong. Mitra who became the bill sponsor. The bill
incorporates innovative elements to avoid problems
experienced by other protected areas such as devolving
chairmanship of the PAMB from DENR to the
provincial governor; localizing the collection,
management and accounting of protected area funds
and creating a special account for user fee collections,
fines and donations. Without this bill, the institutional
framework and legal mandate of the TPAMB and TMO,
to effect arrests at sea, are not secured by law.

Finally, the participatory evaluation conducted with the
stakeholders in 2005 validated these positive results.
The workshop concluded that: (1) agreements reached
in 1998 were complied with, (2) current bio-physical

Tongson, Edgardo

condition is closer to the vision through the evident
improvements in coral cover, fish biomass, higher
occurrences of mega-fauna species, and (4) general
improvement in the socio-economic condition of
Cagayancillo residents (although attribution to the
project needs to be ascertained).

The evaluation completes one cycle as the lessons and
recommendations from the workshop are carried into
the next cycle of planning and implementation. Rarely
have parks benefited from completing an entire project
life cycle.

4.2 Balancing Costs and Benefits of
Conservation

Central to the issue of compliance by stakeholders to
these agreements was the incentive systems created
resulting from the distribution of costs and benefits,
rights and responsibilities among stakeholders. Higher
levels of responsibility (costs) on the part of one
stakeholder without parallel increase in incentives have
proven unworkable in practice. On the other hand,
private operators benefiting from resource rents from
public goods are associated with low burdens of
responsibility (or costs).

In the case of Tubbataha, one camp comprising the
"preservationists" are those who directly benefited from
establishing the no-take zone, This group consists of
divers, dive operators, researchers, environmental
NGOs and national government agencies.

On the opposite camp was the "pro-extraction" group
such as the fishers and LGU officials from
Cagayancillo or those who depend on Tubbataha
resources for their livelihoods. With the imposition of
a park and a no-take zone policy, this group will directly
bear the cost by giving up their access rights and
political jurisdiction to Tubbataha. Although it can be
argued that the Cagayancillo and the commercial
fishers were to indirectly benefit from the park through
a "spillover" effect, their costs were short-term and
immediate.

In principle, by having the beneficiaries "pay" for the
costs borne by the fishers and service providers, each
will have a positive "return" from establishing a no-

take zone for Tubbataha. The objective is to create
residual incentives by netting out benefits and costs
arising from conservation actions.

To create the financing needed to "pay" the fishers and
services provided, , a user fee system for divers based
on their "willingness to pay" was introduced in 2000
(Tongson & Dygico 2004). The user fees contributed
to financing the cost of park management, and fulfill
the 7% share expected by the Cagayancillo LGU.

4.3 Win-Win Arrangement as Platform for
Stakeholder Compliance

The success of the TRNMP can be attributed to the
high degree of compliance by stakeholders to the
agreements reached in 1999 and corresponding actions
by the stakeholders themselves. Compliance is the fruit
of win-win arrangements designed from the beginning.
Except for infractions by a few dive boat operators at
the early part of the user fee system, majority of the
boats followed the park rules including mandatory
anchoring on mooring buoys, ban on visitors to set
foot on bird island and registration upon entry to the
park.

The fishers from Cagayancillo became busy tending
to their seaweed farms. Some island barangays set up
marine sanctuaries. The LGU allocated a budget to seed
50% of a livelihood fund, provided manpower
complement to manage the credit program and passed
ordinances setting up five barangay-managed MPAs.
The project introduced new technologies in seaweed
culture to prevent diseases ("ice-ice"), shortening the
harvesting cycle, organizing the farmers into
cooperatives and marketing support.

The Coast Guard and Navy fulfilled staffing and
provisioning commitments despite all year round
including voyages across bad sea conditions during the
off-season. On the part of the PCSD, they supported
drafting of a draft bill for Tubbataha and provided
secretariat support to every TPAMB meeting. Other
NGOs provided legal and technical support to the park
staff for their litigation and reef monitoring needs.

The stakeholder understanding of the reason for park
set-up, banning of extractive activities and need for

Negotiating Stakeholder Agreements for Conservation

cooperation is rooted on the collective vision of
restoring Tubbataha to its original state for the long-
term benefit of stakeholders including the fishers of
Cagayancillo. These stakeholders collectively
experienced the rise and fall of Tubbataha since the
early 90's. This shared experience enhanced social
capital that is benefiting the park.

The case affirms essence of social capital as a condition
to develop trust and mutually supportive relationships
and as pre-condition in achieving self-enforcing
agreements. According to game theory, trust is
developed through repetitive games among parties.
These games play out in every stakeholder meeting
where issues and decisions are deliberated and
accounted for. It also affirms stakeholder management
as an operational paradigm ensuring ownership and
sustainability of actions.

4.4 Creating a Sea Change - The bigger
challenge

The successes of Tubbataha are still dwarfed by the
wide spread destruction of marine resources in the Sulu
Sea. The disparity in economic yield between these
areas surrounding Tubbataha and the park itself attracts
poachers and violators to fish in Tubbataha especially
during the off-season. Basterra and Jesse Beazely
Reefs, for example, used to be highly productive reef
systems but are not part of the TRNMP park
boundaries. Reports indicate wide spread poaching and
destruction in these reefs which is indicative of the
fate of Tubbataha had interventions not materialized
in the park. There is need to embed these parks and
MPAs in broader Integrated Coastal Management
programmes to manage "push and pull factors" to
ensure sustainable development of the entire area. This
means zoning a larger area for commercial fishing,
municipal fishing, strict protection, oil exploration and
development, tourism and seasonal closures (in the case
of spawning aggreagations).

Sea change needs to happen at a larger scale. As the
range of stakeholders concerned with natural resource
management broadens, the complexity of the inter-
linkages between them increases. In such contexts,

the potential for conflicts is high and tools are needed
to examine and address these relationships. These tools
will help inform the allocation of costs and benefits
and elicit workable solutions from affected
stakeholders.

More work needs to be done in developing capacities
of park managers throughout our park system in using
participatory tools in designing win-win arrangements
and resolving conflicts through facilitation. As shown
by the Tubbataha case, a win-win arrangement in turn,
can transform "battlefield" natural resource use into
shared assets capable of meeting divergent needs and
aspirations. The greater challenge is bringing the
lessons and tools from these small successes to create
the sea change that is needed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank Ms. Marivel Dygico, WWF
Tubbataha Project Manager; Ms. Angelique Songco,
Tubbataha Park Superintendent, the Palawan Provincial
Government, the Municipal Government and
fisherfolks of Cagayancillo; and to the management
of WWF-Philippines for giving us the time and support
in completing this manuscript.

REFERENCES:

Abbot, J. & Thomas, D., 2001. Understanding the links
between conservation and development in the Bamenda
Highlands, Cameroon. World Development. 29(7):1115-
1136.

Adams, W. and Infield, M., 2001. Park outreach and gorilla
conservation: Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Uganda, in
Hulme, D. and Murphee, M. (eds) African Wildlife and
Livelihoods, Oxford: James Currey, 131-147.

Alcala AC. 1988. Effects of Marine Reserves on Coral Fish
Abundances and Yields of Philippine Coral Reefs. Ambio
17(3): 194 - 199.

Alcala AC & Russ GR. 1990. A direct test of the effects of
protective management on abundance and yield of tropical
marine resources. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 47(1): 40-47.

Tongson, Edgardo

Alcala A, 1993. Ecological Importance of the Coral Reefs
in the Cagayan ridge, Sulu Sea, Philippines. Silliman Journal
36(2):1-3.

Agrawal A, 2002. Common Resources and Institutional
Sustainability. In The Drama of the Commons, eds Ostrom
E, Dietz T, Dolsak N, Stern P, Stonich S and Weber E. 2002.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook/

Allen, W., Bosch, O., Kilvington, M., Oliver, J. & Gilbert,
M. 2001. Benefits of collaborative learning for
environmental management: Applying the Integrated
Systems for Knowledge Management approach to support
animal pest control. Environmental Management 27:2 pp.
215-223.

Babbit, E., P. Gutlove and L. Jones. 1994. Handbook of
Basic Conflict Resolution Skills: Facilitation, Mediation and
Consensus Building, The Balkans Peace Project, Cambridge
(Massachussetts, USA).

Baland, J., & J. Platteau 1996. Halting Degradation of
Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities?
Oxford, Eng.: Clarendon Press.

Ballantine, B. 1994. The practicality and benefits of a marine
reserve network. In: Limiting Access to Marine Fisheries:
Keeping the focus on conservation. K.L. Gimel (ed.), pp.
205 -223. Center for Marine Conservation and World
Wildlife Fund US, Washington D.C., 1994. 316 pp.

Ballantine, B. 1995. Networks of "no-take" marine reserves
are practical and necessary. In: Marine Protected Areas and
Sustainable Fisheries, (13-20 pp) N.L. Shackell and J.H.M.
Willison (eds.), Science and Management of Protected Areas
Association, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. 300 pp.

Ballantine, B. 1997. Design principles for systems of 'no-
take' marine reserves. Workshop keynote address: The
Design and Monitoring of Marine Reserves, Fisheries
Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
February 1997.

Ballantine, B. 1998. Marine reserves: the time for a new
approach. Presented at the Department of Conservation,
Wellington, October, 1998. 10 pp.

Brandon, K. & Wells, M., 1992. Planning for people and
parks: Design dilemmas, World Development, 20( 4):557-
570.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Farvar, M. T., Nguinguiri, J. C. &
Ndangang, V. A. 2000. Co-management of Natural
Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning-by-
Doing. GTZ and IUCN, Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg
(Germany).

Bohnsack, J.A. 1994. Marine Reserves: they enhance
fisheries, reduce conflicts, and protect resources. NAGA,
the ICLARM Quarterly, July 1994: 4 - 7.

Borrini-Feyerabend G, Kothari A and Oviedo G. 2004.
Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas:
Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. IUCN. The
World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland.

Cartwright, J., 1991. 'Is there hope for conservation in
Africa?', Journal of Modern African Studies, 29(3):355-371.
Chapin M. 2004. A Challenge to Conservationists.
Worldwatch Institute. WorldWatch Magazine.

Dolar MLL. 1999. A survey of cetaceans and fishery
interactions in the northwestern Sulu Sea and Malampaya
Sound, Philippines. WWF-US Report. Unpublished.

Dolar MLL and Alcala AC. 1993. Notes on the
ichthyoplankton and marine mammals of the Sulu Sea,
Philippines. Silliman Journal. 35(2).

Ghimire K. B. and Pimbert M.P. (eds), 1997. Social Change
and Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of
Natural Parks and Protected Areas. London. Earthscan.

Hulme, D. and Infield, M., 2001. Community conservation,
reciprocity and park-people relationships: Lake Mburo
National Park, Uganda, in Hulme, D. and Murphee, M. (eds)
African Wildlife and Livelihoods, Oxford: James Currey,
106-130.

Larsen P. S., Freudenberg M & Wycoff-Baird B., 1998.
WWF Integrated Conservation and Development Projects:
Ten Lessons from the Field 1985-1996. World Wide Fund,
Washington. D.C.

Negotiating Stakeholder Agreements for Conservation

Manamtam A., 1996. Seabirds and threatened marine life
in the Sulu Sea, Philippines. Project Report submitted to
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources and Marine
Parks Center of Japan (unpublished).

Mcshane T. O. & Wells M. P., 2004. Getting Biodiversity
Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation
and Development. Columbia University Press. NY.

NIPAP (National Integrated Protected Areas Program).
2003. Project Terminal Report submitted to Protected Areas
and Wildlife Bureau, DENR. Visayas Ave, Quezon City.
NSO (National Statistics Office). 2000. Living Standards
Survey.

Ostrom E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution
of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, Eng.
Cambridge University Press.

Russ, G.R. and A.C. Alcala. 1989. Effects of intense fishing
pressure on an assemblage of coral reef fishes. Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser., 56: 13-27.

Russ, G.R. and A.C. Alcala. 1996. Marine reserves: rates
and patterns of recovery and decline of large predatory fish.
Ecological Applications, 6(3): 947-961.

Subade R and Ana Liza A. Subade. Undated. Socio-
economic Conditions of Households in Cagayancillo,
Palawan. Report Prepared for WWF-Philippines and GEF-
UNDP. Undated

Todd D & Nunez E., 2004. GEF M&E Unit Study of the
Naure and Rold of Local Benefits in GEF Program Areas:
The case of Tubbataha Reef National Marine Park, Sulu
Sea, Philippines.

Tongson E & Dygico M., 2004. User fee system for marine
ecotourism: The Tubbataha reef experience. Coastal
Management. 32:17-23.

Wells M., 1992. Biodiversity conservation, affluence and
poverty: Mismatched costs and benefits end efforts to
remedy them. Ambio 12 (3):237-243.

White A. & Arquiza Y., 1999. Tales from Tubbataha, natural
history, resource use, conservation of Tubbataha Reefs,
Palawan, Philippines (rev. ed.). Manila: Bookmark.

White A & Palaganas V., 1991. Philippines Tubbataha reef
National Park: status, management issues, and proposed
plan. Environ. Conserv. 18:148-157, 136.

White A, Ledesma M, Ovenden M., 2003. Tubbataha Reefs
National Marine Park, Palawan. In Coral Reef Information
Network of the Philippines (PhilReefs), Alino P (ed).
University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute,
Quezon City. pp 144-151.

WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature)., 2004. Sabater M. &
Ledesma M. eds. Project Monitoring report. World Wide
Fund for Nature Philippines (WWF). Quezon City
(unpublished).