Philippine Institute for Development Studies

Analysis of Fishing Ports in the Philippines

Danilo C. Israel and Ruchel Marie Grace R. Roque
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2000-04

The PIDS Discussion Paper Series constitutes studies that are preliminary and subject to further revisions. They are being circulated in a limited number of copies only for purposes of soliciting comments and suggestions for further refinements. The studies under the Series are unedited and unreviewed. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute. Not for quotation without permission from the author(s) and the Institute.

January 2000
For comments, suggestions or further inquiries please contact:
The Research Information Staff, Philippine Institute for Development Studies 3rd Floor, NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, Philippines Tel Nos: 8924059 and 8935705; Fax No: 8939589; E-mail: publications@pidsnet.pids.gov.ph Or visit our website at http://www.pids.gov.ph

Abstract This paper investigated fishing port development in the Philippines in light of the perceived problems of port underutilization, marine resource depletion and other issues. It found that most of the existing regional ports were underutilized and the existing municipal ports were grossly inadequate to serve the coastal communities. The paper suggested specific measures to address these and other problems related to fishing port development.

Analysis of Fishing Ports in the Philippines

by Danilo C. Israel and Ruchel Marie Grace R. Roque*

I.

Introduction The adequate provision of fishing ports and post-harvest facilities is

critical to the full development of the Philippine fisheries sector. The widely dispersed fishing areas of the archipelago require strategically-sited landing points where catch can be immediately sold, stored, processed or shipped to markets. Furthermore, the highly perishable nature of fish necessitates the provision of enough facilities so that post-harvest losses, estimated at about 20 to 40 percent of total output, can be significantly reduced (Mendoza 1996). Although fishing ports are highly needed, there are concerns about the construction of more of them in the country. Among these is the issue of underutilization of existing ports. Specifically, it has been argued that some regional fishing ports have significant excess capacity at present and the building of new ones may only exacerbate the problem (Davila 1996). Another important concern is marine resource depletion. It has been feared that putting up more fishing ports can encourage stock overfishing which is already going on at a very rapid and alarming rate (e.g. Israel and Banzon 1998).

Ph.D. in Natural Resource Economics/Research fellow and former research assistant, respectively, of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, NEDA sa Makati Bldg., 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City.

While the above-mentioned concerns may be valid, the demand for additional fishing ports and post-harvest facilities remains today. For many coastal towns and regions which do not have ports, provision is viewed as indispensable to full economic development. Other than this, like other public infrastructure projects in the country, the acquisition of new ports is seen as a reflection of the political clout and ability of local and regional leaders to deliver to their constituents. It is no wonder that the interest in fishing port

development has been intense not only in fishing communities but also among policy-makers and politicians.

II.

Objective, Data and Organization Few studies have looked into the development of fishing ports and

post-harvest facilities in the Philippines.

Furthermore, the available works

have been cursory in nature (Mendoza 1996, Davila 1996). A detailed study which looks into fishing port development vis--vis its problems has yet to be conducted. The objective of this paper is to investigate fishing port development in light of the perceived problems of port underutilization, marine resource depletion and related issues. This effort intends to contribute to existing

knowledge about fishing ports and post-harvest facilities and suggest specific courses or actions which can be implemented for their future development. The paper uses secondary data from the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (PFDA), Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS), National Statistics and Coordination Board (NSCB), Project Management Office (PMO) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and

other institutional sources. To augment the secondary information, primary data were also gathered from key informants from said institutions. In

addition, a brief survey done through mailed questionnaire was conducted covering coastal municipalities with operating ports to generate data and information on municipal ports. The paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews the

administrative and legislative aspects of fishing ports. A profiling of ports in general and regional and municipal fishing ports in particular follows. This section is then succeeded by a the analysis of the different problems associated to fishing port development. The penultimate section presents

suggestions for future port development while the last section provides the conclusions.

III.

Laws and Institutions Governing Port Development The coordinated thrust to develop fishing ports and post-harvest

facilities in the country commenced in 1976 with the passing of Presidential Decree No. 977 (Table 1). This law created the Philippine Fish Marketing Authority (PFMA) which was tasked to address fish marketing problems due to inadequate fish marketing infrastructure, poor fish handling practices, chaotic system of distribution and limited post harvest processing technology. The agency was originally placed under the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). In 1981, the PFMA was transferred to the National Food Authority (NFA) whose functions and powers encompassed all basic food commodities, including fish. Then, one year later, Executive Order No. 772 amended

Table 1. National fisheries postharvest agencies and related legislation in the Philippines, 1976-1998 Agency Philippine Fish Marketing Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources Philippine Fisheries Development Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources Philippine Fisheries Development Authority, Department of Agriculture Year 1976 Relevant Legislation P.D. No. 977 Description created the Philippine Fish Marketing Authority amended Presidential Decree No. 977

1982

E.O. No. 772

1984 to present

E.O. No. 965

renamed the PFMA to PFDA and placed it under the jurisdiction of the DA

Note: PD means Presidential Decree and EO means Executive Order Source: PFDA (1998)

P.D. No. 977 and moved the PFMA

back to the MNR to implement the was

Integrated Fisheries Development Plan (IFDP). In 1984, the PFMA

renamed the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (PFDA) through E.O. No. 965 and placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA). The PFDA, which remains to this day, has been mandated to

strengthen the governments thrust in balancing production ventures with adequate post-harvest support facilities through the establishment and administration of fish ports, fish markets and other infrastructure. This specific role is first and foremost among the objectives of the agency (List 1). The organizational structure of the PFDA is illustrated in Figure 1. The corporate powers are exercised by the Board of Directors which is composed of the Secretary of the DA as Chairman, Administrator of the NFA as ViceChairman, Secretaries of the DPWH, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as members and two representatives from the fisheries private sector. The everyday

affairs of the PFDA is managed by the General Manager who is supported by the Assistant General Manager. At present, the PFDA manages only the regional fishing ports although in the past, some municipal fishing ports were also run by its Operation Management Department under the Municipal Fishing Port Development Project. With the implementation of the Local Government Code (LGC), the control over all the municipal ports, including those which used to be managed by the PFDA, has been devolved to the Local Government Units (LGUs).

List 1. Objectives of the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority a. establish fish ports, markets, ice plants and cold storages, and other supportive facilities necessary for the efficient handling and distribution of fish and fishery products; b. provide essential fisheries-related post-harvest services that would improve the quality of fish products that could complete in the global market; c. encourage the development of new products and provide an environment that is conducive to the growth of private business enterprises; d. open avenues for additional employment opportunities as new fishery infrastructure and related industries are established; e. sustain promotional activities for exportation of traditional and non-traditional fishery products to traditional and non-traditional export markets; and f. help improve the income of small fishermen, fishfarmers and fishworkers through the provision of services and facilities which add to the value of their produce.

Source: PFDA (1998)

Figure 1. Philippine Fisheries Development Authority Organizational Chart

Office of the Board of Directors Office of the Board Secretary Office of the General Manager Office of the Asst. Gen. Manager Commission On Audit

Public Information Staff

Legal Staff

Corporate Management Staff

Management Information Division

Admin. Services Department Human Resources Div. Procurement and Prop. Mgt. Div. General Services Division Finance Department Accounting Division Budget Divisiom Cash Division Planning and Devt. Department Corporate Planning Division Economic and Statistical Res. Div. Project Planning Division Project Evaluation Division Technical Services Department Engineering Division Construction Mgt. Division Facilities Mgt. Division Operation Mgt. Department Ancillary Facilities Division Fishing Port Division Ice Plant and Cold Storage Division

System Review And Control Division

Northern Palawan Fisheries Devet Proj. Planning and Management Staff Municipal Fisheries Division Transport and Marketing Division Materials and Property Control Div. On-Shore Complex Management Div. Finance Division

Navotas Fishing Port Complex Office of the Port Manager

Iloilo Fishing Port Complex Office of the Port Manager

Administrative Division Ice Plant and Cold Storage Division Harbor Operations Division

Finance Division Market Operations Division Engineering and Maintenance Div. Administrative Division Market and Harbor Operations Divsion

Finance Division

Engineering and Maintenance Division

Ice Plant Operations Division

Police and Security Division

Other Fishing Port Complexes Office of the Port Manager

Finance and Admin. Division (or separate)

Market and Harbor Operations Division (or separate)

Engineering and Ice Plant Operations Division (or separate)

Source: PFDA

The management of a typical municipal fishing port can be explained by using the coastal municipality of Orani, Bataan, as example (Figure 2). The mayor of the town, through the municipal administrator and the municipal secretary, runs all public economic enterprises, including the fishing port. As in many other coastal municipalities, the Orani government hires a supervisor who actually runs the fishing port (Figure 3). This person manages a staff who are tasked to undertake different activities, including the checking and inspection of the unloading of fish, issuance of bills and receipts, collection of fees, gathering and compiling of fishery statistics and other important functions.

IV. 4.1

Profile of Ports and Post-Harvest Facilities All ports Ports in the Philippines are classified as fishing ports, feeder ports or

commercial ports. Fishing ports, which are either municipal or regional, are those which primarily serve the fishing industry and function as the main collection and distribution center of fish. Feeder ports are ports constructed primarily to provide linkages among neighboring small islands and nearby urban centers and generally cater to small passenger and fishing vessels. Commercial ports are either private, which serve the needs of their owners, or public which are owned and operated by the government and cater to the general public and vessels with weight of more than 30 tons.

Figure 2. Organizational Chart of the Municipality of Orani, Bataan

MUNICIPAL MAYOR

SANGGUNIANG BAYAN VICE MAYOR

DILG

PNP

Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer

ADMINISTRATOR MUNICIPAL SECRETARY

SANGGUNIANG BAYAN

HEADS OF OFFICE

Sangguniang Bayan (SB) Members

President of the Association of Brgy. Captains

Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)

Municipal Planning and Devt. Coordinator

Engineeri ng Office

Accounti ng Office

Assessors Office

Municipal Budget Office

Administration Division

Municipal Health Office

Municipal Civil Registrar

Economic Enterprise

Treasury

Agriculture Division

Social Welfare

Human Resource Mgt.

ABC President SK President

Source: Orani, Bataan Municipal Files

29 BARANGAYS

Public Market

Fish Port

Slaughterhouse

Figure 3. Organizational Chart of the Fish Port Management of the Municipality of Orani, Bataan

FISH PORT SUPERVISOR

CASH CLERK/ REVENUE COLLECTION CLERK I

CASH CLERK/ REVENUE COLLECTION CLERK I

REVENUE COLLECTION CLERK I

REVENUE COLLECTION CLERK I

REVENUE COLLECTION CLERK I

REVENUE COLLECTION CLERK I

REVENUE COLLECTION CLERK I

TICKET CHECKER

TICKET CHECKER/ UTILITY

TICKET CHECKER

TICKET CHECKER/ UTILITY

UTILITY

UTILITY

Source: Orani, Bataan Municipal Files

As of 1997, there were a total of 1,494 ports in the country (Table 2). Of this number, 447 or 29.9 percent were fishing ports, 214 or 14.3 percent were feeder ports and 833 or 55.8 percent were commercial ports. Fishing ports, therefore, were only a small component of the total number of ports. Of the 833 commercial ports, 502 or 60.3 percent were private while 331 or 39.7 percent were public. A majority of all ports, 1,403 or 93.9 percent, were operating while a minority, 91 or 6.1 percent, were not operating (Table 3). Regions IV, X, VII

and VI had the most number of ports while Regions II, XII, I and the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) had the least. Expectedly, more ports were in regions which have longer coastlines while less were in those which have shorter coastlines or were almost landlocked. Although the National Capital Region (NCR) has the largest regional population in the country, it was among those with less ports due to its very short Manila Bay coastline. 4.2 All fishing ports Of the 447 fishing ports in the country in 1997, seven were regional ports and 440 were municipal ports (Table 4). All the regional ports and 405 or 92 percent of the municipal ports were operating. Regions IV, V, VI and VII had the most number of fishing ports while NCR and Regions XII, III, and XI had the least. As expected, the regions which have larger fishing sectors and populations had relatively more fishing ports. Although it had the least

number of fishing ports of all the regions, the NCR has the largest regional fishing port in the country, the Navotas Fishing Port Complex located in the Municipality of Navotas.

11

Table 2. Inventory of ports in the Philippines, by region and type, 1997 Type Region Total Fishing Ports Feeder Ports Private 502 64 8 4 27 52 18 67 60 42 21 52 60 21 6 Commercial Public 331 4 11 4 10 69 24 24 42 36 28 41 21 7 10 Total 833 68 19 8 37 121 42 91 102 78 49 93 81 28 16

PHILIPPINES NCR Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI Region VII Region VIII Region IX Region X Region XI Region XII ARMM

1,494 71 43 33 52 258 115 149 160 141 76 202 109 38 47

447 3 18 19 12 82 66 47 42 37 23 53 19 10 16

214 0 6 6 3 55 7 11 16 26 4 56 9 0 15

Note: The CARAGA region was still part of Region X in this classification. Source: NSCB (1998)

12

Table 3. Inventory of ports in the Philippines, by region and status, 1997 Status Region PHILIPPINES NCR Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI Region VII Region VIII Region IX Region X Region XI Region XII ARMM Source: NSCB (1998) Total 1,494 71 43 33 52 258 115 149 160 141 76 202 109 38 47 Operational 1,403 66 38 29 45 240 105 149 146 131 73 190 108 36 47 % to Total 93.9 93.0 88.4 87.9 86.5 93.0 91.3 100.0 91.3 92.9 96.1 94.1 99.1 94.7 100.0 NonOperational 91 5 5 4 7 18 10 0 14 10 3 12 1 2 0 % to Total 6.1 7.0 11.6 12.1 13.5 7.0 8.7 0.0 8.8 7.1 3.9 5.9 0.9 5.3 0.0

13

Table 4. Distribution of fishing ports in the Philippines, by region and status, 1997 Region/Province Total Regional (all operational) 7 1 1 Total 440 2 17 19 12 1 1 1 81 65 46 42 37 1 22 21 1 15 10 16 35 Municipal Operational Non-Operational 405 2 15 17 11 75 60 46 37 33 21 16 15 8 16 33 2 2 5 4 1 5 35 0 2 2 1 6 5

PHILIPPINES NCR Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI Region VII Region VIII Region IX Region X Region XI Region XII ARMM CARAGA Source: NSCB (various years)

447 3 18 19 12 82 66 47 42 37 23 21 16 10 16 35

14

4.3

Regional fishing ports In 1997, the seven existing regional ports were the Navotas Fishing

Port Complex; Iloilo Fishing Port Complex in Barangay Tanza, Iloilo City, Iloilo in Region VI; Zamboanga Fishing Port Complex in Barangay Sangali, Zamboanga City in Region IX; Camaligan Fishing Port Complex in Barangay Dugcal, Camaligan, Camarines Sur in Region V; Lucena Fishing Port Complex in Barangay Dalahican, Lucena City in Region IV; Sual Fishing Port Complex in Barangay Poblacion, Sual, Pangasinan in Region I; and the Davao Fishing Port Complex in Barangay Daliao, Toril District, Davao City in Region XI. In 1998, another regional fishing port, the General Santos Fishing Port Complex in Barangay Tambler, General Santos City in Region XI started operating bringing to eight the current total number of regional fishing ports. The Navotas Fishing Port Complex was the first regional fishing port built (Table 5). Its construction started in 1973 and was financed by a loan and technical assistance from the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The port was completed in 1976 and started operating a year after. After the Navotas port, other regional fishing ports were constructed using funds from the government and loans from the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF). The construction of the Iloilo, Zamboanga, Camaligan, Lucena and Sual fishing ports under the Fishing Port Package I (FPP I) started in 1982. In the same year, construction of these fishing ports were suspended due to cost-cutting measures and revisions. The suspension was lifted soon after

15

Table 5. Year of construction, suspension, lifting of suspension, completion and operation of regional fishing ports in the Philippines Fishing Ports Complex Construction Suspension Lifting of Suspension Completion Operation

Navotas Iloilo Zamboanga Camaligan Lucena Sual Davao General Santos

1973 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1993 1994

n.a. 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 n.a. n.a.

n.a. 1982 1982 1985 1985 1985 n.a. n.a.

1976 1985 1985 1990 1991 1990 1994 on-going

1977 1985 1986 1991 1992 1992 1995 1998

Note: n.a. means not applicable Sources: PMO Fishing Ports-DPWH, PFDA Files

16

for the Iloilo and Zamboanga ports and in 1985 for the Lucena, Camaligan, and Sual ports. The Iloilo port was completed and started operating in 1985. The other ports were completed in the years thereafter and all were in operation by 1992. The regional fishing ports in Davao and General Santos were built under the Fishing Port Package II (FPP II). The construction of the Davao port started in 1993 and was completed in 1994. operation the year after. The port commenced

The establishment of the General Santos port

started in 1994 and is still continuing at present even as operations are ongoing. Available data on the construction costs of the regional fishing ports are limited but they show that of those constructed under the FPP I, the most expensive are the Iloilo and Zamboanga ports while the least expensive are the Camaligan and Sual ports (Table 6). By area, the Navotas port is the largest, followed by the Iloilo, Zamboanga and General Santos ports. The smallest ports are the Camaligan, Sual and Davao ports. On a per hectare basis and irrespective of the years they were built, the costliest ports are the Camaligan, Davao and Sual ports while the least expensive are the Iloilo, Lucena and Zamboanga ports. Available data for 1999 show that the Navotas port contributes the most to employment in terms of number of people employed, followed by the Iloilo and Zamboanga ports (Table 7). The Sual, Camaligan and Davao ports add the least to employment. This information indicates that in general, the regional ports contribute modestly to employment directly. Nevertheless,

17

Table 6. Construction costs of the regional fishing ports in the Philippines Fishing Port Complex Cost (P) Area (Ha) Cost/Ha (P)

Navotas Fishing Port Complex Iloilo Fishing Port Complex Zamboanga Fishing Port Complex Camaligan Fishing Port Complex Lucena Fishing Port Complex Sual Fishing Port Complex Davao Fishing Port Complex General Santos Fishing Port Complex

n.d. 597,945,898 477,245,668 137,325,726 283,976,020 219,340,989 354,450,703 n.a.

47.5 21.0 12.5 1.6 8.7 3.2 4.5 11.0

28,473,614 38,179,653 85,828,579 32,640,922 68,544,059 78,766,823 -

Note: n.a. means not applicable (no final data yet) n.d. means no data available Source: DPWH PMO-Fishing Ports Completion Reports (various years)

18

Table 7. Direct employment in the regional fishing ports in the Philippines, 1999 Port Complex Total Number of Employees %

Navotas Fishing Port Complex Iloilo Fishing Port Complex Zamboanga Fishing Port Complex Camaligan Fishing Port Complex Lucena Fishing Port Complex Sual Fishing Port Complex Davao Fishing Port Complex General Santos Fishing Port Complex Total Source: PFDA Files

254 88 84 38 61 21 39 61 646

39.32 13.62 13.00 5.88 9.44 3.25 6.04 9.44 100.00

19

their

overall employment significance should be great because of the

extensive backward and forward linkages which regional ports have with the rest of the local, regional and national economy. 4.4 Municipal fishing ports Of the 405 operating municipal fishing ports in 1997, more were in Regions IV, V and VI and less were in the NCR and Regions XII, III and XI (Table 8). The provinces with the most number of operating municipal ports were Surigao del Norte, Quezon and Negros Occidental while those with the least were Batanes, Zambales, Aurora, Camiguin and Davao del Sur which only had one fishing port.

V. 5.1

Problems in Fishing Port Development Underutilization of existing regional fishing ports A way of evaluating whether or not regional fishing ports are indeed

underutilized is by comparing port usage projections, when the ports were still planned, and the actual usage, when they were already operating. If the ratio of actual usage to projected usage is less than one, then underutilization occurs. A ratio of one indicates full utilization while more than one implies overutilization. Some data on the projected usage of most of the regional fishing ports were available although no projections can be had for the Navotas and General Santos ports (Table 9). Furthermore, the available projections were only for specific years. Of those with data, the Iloilo, Lucena and Davao

20

Table 8. Inventory of operating municipal fishing ports in the Philippines, by province, 1997 Region/Province No. of Operating Fishing Ports 405 2 15 2 3 10 17 1 14 2 11 8 2 1 75 9 4 7 5 4 9 20 3 1 7 6 60 16 9 12 4 11 8 3.95 2.22 2.96 0.99 2.72 1.98 2.22 0.99 1.73 1.23 0.99 2.22 4.94 0.74 0.25 1.73 1.48 1.98 0.49 0.25 0.25 3.46 0.49 0.49 0.74 2.47 % of Provincial Total to National Total 100.00

PHILIPPINES NCR Region I Ilocus Sur La Union Pangasinan Region II Batanes Cagayan Isabela Region III Bataan Bulacan Zambales Region IV Batangas Cavite Marinduque Mindoro Occidental Mindoro Oriental Palawan Quezon Romblon Aurora Rizal Laguna Region V Albay Camarines Norte Camarines Sur Catanduanes Masbate Sorsogon

21

Table 8. Continued Region/Province No. of Operating Fishing Ports 46 4 3 13 6 20 37 16 17 2 2 33 7 5 3 3 3 12 21 3 13 5 16 9 6 1 15 1 5 5 2 2 0.25 1.23 1.23 0.49 0.49 2.22 1.48 0.25 0.74 3.21 1.23 1.73 1.23 0.74 0.74 0.74 2.96 3.95 4.20 0.49 0.49 0.99 0.74 3.21 1.48 4.94 % of Provincial Total to National Total

Region VI Aklan Capiz Iloilo Guimaras Negros Occidental Region VII Bohol Cebu Negros Oriental Siquijor Region VIII Leyte Eastern Samar Southern Leyte Northern Samar Western Samar Samar Region IX Zamboanga del Norte Zamboanga del Sur Basilan Region X Misamis Oriental Misamis Occidental Camiguin Region XI Davao del Sur Davao del Norte Davao Oriental South Cotabato Sarangani

21

Table 8. Continued Region/Province No. of Operating Fishing Ports 8 4 2 2 0.99 0.49 0.49 % of Provincial Total to National Total

Region XII Marawi Cotabato City Sultan Kudarat

ARMM Maguindanao Tawi-Tawi Sulu CARAGA Agusan del Norte Agusan del Sur Surigao del Norte Surigao del Sur Source: NSCB Files

16 5 3 8 33 6 2 22 3 1.48 0.49 5.43 0.74 1.23 0.74 1.98

21

Table 9. Projected port usage of regional fishing ports in the Philippines, 1983, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 Fishing Port Complex 1983 60,500 5,747 8,946 29,417 4,960 n.p. Projected Port Usage (MT) 1990 1995 2000 86,300 5,759 11,150 33,158 7,892 n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. 15,250 89,300 5,775 12,870 33,911 9,347 19,550 2005 n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. n.p. 22,200

Iloilo Fishing Port Complex Zamboanga Fishing Port Complex Camaligan Fishing Port Complex Lucena Fishing Port Complex Sual Fishing Port Complex Davao Fishing Port Complex Note: n.p. means projections were not available Source: DPWH PMO-Fishing Ports Files

24

ports were planned to service the largest volumes of fish on an annual basis while the Zamboanga, Zual and Camaligan ports were projected to handle the least load. For actual port usage, data on the volume of unloadings for all the regional fishing ports were available beginning 1989 and for the specific years they have been in operatiion (Table 10). The Navotas port had the largest reported annual unloading on average followed by the Iloilo and Zamboanga ports. The Sual, Camaligan and Davao ports had the smallest annual

unloading. The computed ratios of actual port unloading to the projected port usage are shown in Table 11. The years 1990 and 1995 were selected as time reference because projected usage and unloading figures for these years were either directly available or could be estimated. In particular, the 1995 data for projected usage for all the ports except the Davao port were computed as the average of the 1990 and 2000 projections since data for this year were not directly available. The results show that overutilization occurred only in one port, the Zamboanga port, while underutilization happened in 5 regional ports. The

underutilization was worst in the Sual, Davao and Camaligan ports. These results support the contention that there is excess capacity in most regional fishing ports. Furthermore, the findings suggest that ports which were the

least utilized were those which were the most expensive to build per unit hectare as well (see also Table 6).

25

Table 10. Volume of unloadings in regional fishing ports in the Philippines (in MT), 1989-1998 Year/ Ports 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Average Source: PFDA Files Navotas 225,319 237,456 266,108 261,952 260,327 262,966 309,439 264,457 235,881 239,243 256,315 Iloilo 14,851 18,690 21,966 25,906 27,172 24,473 24,944 24,624 26,415 26,409 23,545 Zamboanga 6,548 6,596 11,356 12,967 14,186 17,203 19,972 23,911 16,660 16,085 14,548 Camaligan Lucena Sual Davao Gen. Santos

542 3,336 2,681 2,208 2,528 2,220 13 0 1,691

9,276 13,511 11,865 11,163 11,830 14,933 13,919 12,357

199 558 586 431 788 984 740 612

1,716 2,692 1,982 5,312 2,926

12,541 12,541

26

Table 11. Actual usage, projected usage and ratio of actual to projected usage in regional fishing ports in the Philippines, 1990 and 1995 Fishing Port Complex Actual 18,690 6,596 n.o. n.o. n.o. n.o. 1990 Projected 86,300 5,759 11,150 33,158 7,892 n.o. Ratio 0.22 1.15 Actual 24,944 19,972 2,528 11,163 431 1,716 1995 Projected 87,800 5,767 12,010 33,535 8,620 15,250 * * * * * Ratio 0.28 3.46 0.21 0.33 0.05 0.11

Iloilo Fishing Port Complex Zamboanga Fishing Port Complex Camaligan Fishing Port Complex Lucena Fishing Port Complex Sual Fishing Port Complex Davao Fishing Port Complex Notes: *Average of 1990 and 2000 projections n.o. means not yet operating Sources: Tables 9 and 10

27

One probable reason for the underutilization of regional fishing ports which comes to mind are limited post-harvest facilities. It is possible that the ports were underutilized because some of their programmed equipment were still not available in the first place. The data indicate that in general, the ports were not equipped with the same facilities (Table 12). The newer ports like the General Santos and Davao ports still did not have some of the important facilities like boat landings, ice storage, and freezers. Of the earlier ports, the Camaligan and Sual ports were the least equipped, particularly in freezers and fuel oil supply. Overall, however, the ports were generally well equipped according to plan, a fact which was confirmed by key informants at the PFDA. Hence, the underutilization in these ports could not have been due to limited post-harvest facilities Another potential reason for the underutilization of the regional ports is declining fish catch. This problem is serious because if it is indeed true,

certainly there will be less fish to land and process in the ports resulting to underutilization. Furthermore, when the volume of fish catch goes down at the regional level, there will be less economic rationale to build additional regional ports. It is helpful to look into the type of catch landed into the regional ports by fisheries subsector to investigate the potential relationship between declining catch and port underutilization. In general, it can be assumed that the fish usually landed into regional ports come from the commercial fisheries. In addition to this, some harvest coming from aquaculture may find their way into regional ports. On the other hand, the catch from the municipal fisheries

28

Table 12. Major facilities of regional fishing ports in the Philippines, 1998 Facilities Port Facilities Breakwater Reclamation Com. Boat Landing Mun. Boat Landing Pier Navigation Aid Slipway Building Shed Wholesale Market Admin. Office Frabrication Shop Refrigeration Ice Plant Daily Ice Storage Ice Storage Contact Freezer Air Blast Freezer Brine Freezer Cold Storage (-5C) Cold Storage (-35C) Utilities Fresh Water Supply Seawater Supply Drainage Sewerage Power Supply Fuel Oil Supply Waste Water Treatment Plant Note: o means facility available x means not available Source: DOTC Report (1998) Navotas Iloilo Zamboanga Camaligan Lucena Sual Davao Gen. Santos

o o o x o o x

o o o o x o o

x o o o o o o

x o x x o o x

o o o o o o o

x o x o o o o

o o o x x o x

x o x x x o x

x o o x

o o o o

x o o o

x o o x

x o o o

x o x o

x o o x

x o x x

o x o x o x o o

o o o o o x o o

o o o o o o o o

o x o o x x o o

o o o o x x o o

o o o o x x o o

o x o o x x x o

o x o o x x o o

o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o

o o o o o x x

o o o o o x x

o o o o o o o

o o o o o x x

o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o

29

are likely landed in the municipal ports and only a small and negligible portion ends up in the regional ports. Hence, the commercial and fisheries

production are the relevant sources of fish landed in the regional fishing ports. The annual volumes and growth rates of the production of commercial fisheries and aquaculture in the regions with regional fishing ports for the 1989-1998 period are shown in Tables 13 and 14. Region IX has the largest average annual catch and has a high annual growth rate for commercial fisheries production. aquaculture included. It also has the largest annual total production with This production performance may explain the

overutilization of the Zamboanga port which is located in the region.

Region

I, on the other hand, has a very low average annual catch and a negative annual average growth rate for commercial fisheries. Furthermore, it has the lowest average annual output even with aquaculture production added. In a similar vein, this performance may explain the high level of underutilization of the Sual port which is in the region. While Region XI has a high average annual growth rate, its average total yearly output from both commercial fisheries and aquaculture is low and this may have caused the underutilization of the Davao port. Added to this, the presence of the General Santos port in the same region could have significantly aggravated the underutilization of the Davao port. Overall, catch, in terms of volume and growth has a positive relationship to the utilization of the regional ports. This evidence supports the argument that declining production of commercial fisheries and aquaculture has resulted to low landings and consequently excess capacity in the regional ports.

30

Table 13. Annual commercial fisheries and aquaculture production of regions with regional ports in the Philippines (MT), 1989-1998 Region NCR Commercial Aquaculture Region I Commercial Aquaculture Region IV Commercial Aquaculture Region V Commercial Aquaculture Region VI Commercial Aquaculture Region IX Commercial Aquaculture Region XI Commercial Aquaculture Fishing Port Navotas Fishing Port Complex Sual Fishing Port Complex Lucena Fishing Port Complex Camaligan Fishing Port Complex Iloilo Fishing Port Complex Zamboanga Fishing Port Complex Davao and Gen. Santos Fishing Port Complexes 1989 203,046 195,814 7,232 40,247 3,592 36,655 124,535 61,330 63,205 57,259 44,978 12,281 217,546 128,725 88,821 342,106 82,514 259,592 54,685 45,148 9,537 1990 215,637 208,494 7,143 42,771 4,028 38,743 112,118 46,510 65,608 33,177 20,088 13,089 224,385 131,228 93,157 382,279 99,373 282,906 62,398 52,141 10,257 1991 241,211 234,256 6,955 46,702 5,247 41,455 139,640 68,806 70,834 32,039 17,489 14,550 204,321 98,125 106,196 386,696 107,723 278,973 71,986 60,542 11,444 1992 228,243 223,489 4,754 34,797 3,610 31,187 153,620 68,228 85,392 34,445 18,651 15,794 236,976 150,081 86,895 468,623 143,109 325,514 68,942 51,446 17,496 1993 242,685 233,699 8,986 28,871 2,444 26,427 178,896 80,215 98,681 37,809 21,035 16,774 259,891 160,453 99,438 172,741 138,490 34,251 67,942 44,503 23,439 1994 252,778 243,432 9,346 21,161 2,534 18,627 257,179 99,821 157,358 43,401 25,383 18,018 233,286 145,220 88,066 206,215 134,833 71,382 55,710 37,604 18,106 1995 284,749 276,888 7,861 29,549 1,366 28,183 245,367 99,979 145,388 46,813 19,668 27,145 211,061 121,590 89,471 270,530 170,154 100,376 65,624 47,343 18,281 1996 243,936 239,004 4,932 27,791 1,923 25,868 319,349 103,456 215,893 43,365 21,013 22,352 206,928 119,922 87,006 279,805 173,382 106,423 87,832 68,589 19,243 1997 211,585 207,337 4,248 22,497 1,899 20,598 319,636 109,723 209,913 45,979 25,708 20,271 184,425 121,984 62,441 285,932 183,775 102,157 84,802 68,272 16,530 1998 221,541 216,461 5,080 20,339 1,963 18,376 332,871 118,526 214,345 40,259 23,883 16,376 181,556 112,824 68,732 305,304 188,289 117,015 115,499 99,999 15,500 Average 234,541 227,887 6,654 31,473 2,861 28,612 218,321 85,659 132,662 41,455 23,790 17,665 216,038 129,015 87,022 310,023 142,164 167,859 73,542 57,559 15,983

Note: 1998 figures are preliminary Source: BAS (Various Years)

31

Table 14. Annual growth rates of commercial fisheries and aquaculture production of regions with regional ports in the Philippines, 1990-1998 (Percent) Region NCR Commercial Aquaculture Region I Commercial Aquaculture Region IV Commercial Aquaculture Region V Commercial Aquaculture Region VI Commercial Aquaculture Region IX Commercial Aquaculture Region XI Commercial Aquaculture Fishing Port Navotas Fishing Port Complex Sual Fishing Port Complex Lucena Fishing Port Complex Camaligan Fishing Port Complex Iloilo Fishing Port Complex Zamboanga Fishing Port Complex Davao and Gen. Santos Fishing Port Complexes 1990 6.20 6.48 (1.23) 6.27 12.14 5.70 (9.97) (24.16) 3.80 (42.06) (55.34) 6.58 3.14 1.94 4.88 11.74 20.43 8.98 14.10 15.49 7.55 1991 11.86 12.36 (2.63) 9.19 30.26 7.00 24.55 47.94 7.97 (3.43) (12.94) 11.16 (8.94) (25.23) 14.00 1.16 8.40 (1.39) 15.37 16.11 11.57 1992 (5.38) (4.60) (31.65) (25.49) (31.20) (24.77) 10.01 (0.84) 20.55 7.51 6.64 8.55 15.98 52.95 (18.17) 21.19 32.85 16.68 (4.23) (15.02) 52.88 1993 6.33 4.57 89.02 (17.03) (32.30) (15.26) 16.45 17.57 15.56 9.77 12.78 6.20 9.67 6.91 14.43 (63.14) (3.23) (89.48) (1.45) (13.50) 33.97 1994 4.16 4.16 4.01 (26.70) 3.68 (29.52) 43.76 24.44 59.46 14.79 20.67 7.42 (10.24) (9.49) (11.44) 19.38 (2.64) 108.41 (18.00) (15.50) (22.75) 1995 12.65 13.74 (15.89) 39.64 (46.09) 51.30 (4.59) 0.16 (7.61) 7.86 (22.52) 50.65 (9.53) (16.27) 1.60 31.19 26.20 40.62 17.80 25.90 0.97 1996 (14.33) (13.68) (37.26) (5.95) 40.78 (8.21) 30.15 3.48 48.49 (7.37) 6.84 (17.66) (1.96) (1.37) (2.76) 3.43 1.90 6.02 33.84 44.88 5.26 1997 (13.26) (13.25) (13.87) (19.05) (1.25) (20.37) 0.09 6.06 (2.77) 6.03 22.34 (9.31) (10.87) 1.72 (28.23) 2.19 5.99 (4.01) (3.45) (0.46) (14.10) 1998 4.71 4.40 19.59 (9.59) 3.37 (10.79) 4.14 8.02 2.11 (12.44) (7.10) (19.21) (1.56) (7.51) 10.08 6.78 2.46 14.54 36.20 46.47 (6.23) Average 1.44 1.58 1.12 (5.41) (2.29) (4.99) 12.73 9.18 16.40 (2.15) (3.18) 4.93 (1.59) 0.41 (1.74) 3.77 10.26 11.15 10.02 11.60 7.68

Note: 1998 figures are preliminary Source of data: Table 13

32

In the literature, the problem of declining fish catch from marine fisheries is already well investigated and has been attributed to a significant extent to overfishing, particularly in traditional fishing areas closer to the coasts. Aside from Israel and Banzon (1998), other works show that the

overexploitation of marine fisheries resources has already resulted to the significant and rapid decline in fisheries stocks and, in consequence, the productivity of the entire fisheries sector (e.g. Schatz 1991, Silvestre et al. 1986). The poor catch of commercial fisheries is exacerbated by another limitation besides overfishing in traditional fishing areas. This is the inability of the local commercial fishing fleet to fish in far-flung, deep sea areas within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) which are under-fished by Filipinos but actively poached on by foreigners. The poor state of the local commercial fishing fleet was reviewed by Thomas (1998) who argued that not only was the fleet ill-equipped to cover farther areas, many of the boats were also not operating. As of 1997, for instance, between 10 to 50 percent of the

commercial fishing boats were inactive, including those in regions where regional ports exist (Table 15). This displacement of many commercial boats and their inability to cover areas far out into the ocean contribute to the low output of commercial fisheries. 5.2 Inadequate number of municipal fishing ports and facilities In addition to regional fishing port underutilization, another important issue in port development is the inadequate number of municipal fishing ports. In 1997, there were 815 coastal municipalities in the country (Table 16). Since there were 405 operating municipal fishing ports in that year, the

33

Table 15. Summary of fishing boat displacements in the Philippines, as of 1997 Area & Homeports BFAR-Registered Not Operating

Under Fishery Region I Principal Fish Landings: Lingayen, Damortis & some coastal towns Under Fishery Region II Principal Fish Port: Aparri Under Fishery Region III Fihs Ports: Bataan, Masinloc, Iba Under Fishery Region IV Fish Ports: Cavite, Batangas, Quezon, Mindoro, Palawan Under Fishery Region V Fish Ports: Bicol Region, Masbate, Catanduanes Under Fishery Region VI Fish Ports: Iloilo, Capiz, Antique, Bacolod, Cadiz Under Fishery Region VII Fish Ports: Cebu, Bohol Under Fishery Region VIII Fish Ports: Leyte, Samar Under Fishery Region IX Fish Ports: Zamboanga, Basilan, Sulu Under Fishery Region X Fish Ports: Misamis, Surigao (Cagayan de Oro) Under Fishery Region XI Fish Ports: Davao, Gen. Santos Under Fishery Region XII Fish Ports: Zamboanga del Sur National Capital Region Totals Source: Thomas (1998)

69

50%

109

10%

298

20%

382

50%

145

30%

759

35%

116

n.a.

260

n.a.

296

50%

49

n.a.

602

10%

n.a.

842

50%

34

Table 16. Operating municipal fishing ports to number of coastal municipalities ratio in the Philippines, by region, 1997 Region Coastal Municipalities 815 3 52 18 35 110 83 82 102 110 52 41 38 14 30 45 No. of Operating Fishing Ports 405 2 15 17 11 75 60 46 37 33 21 16 15 8 16 33 Operating Ports : Coastal municipalities 0.50 0.67 0.29 0.94 0.31 0.68 0.72 0.56 0.36 0.30 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.57 0.53 0.73

PHILIPPINES NCR Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V Region VI Region VII Region VIII Region IX Region X Region XI Region XII ARMM CARAGA

Source: NSCB (various years) and BAS Files

35

national ratio of municipal ports to coastal municipalities was only 50 percent. Furthermore, given that a few municipalities have more than one port, actually more than half of coastal towns had no fishing port to service municipal fishing. If the number of fishing ports do not change over time, the problem worsens as new coastal municipalities are created due to the rising population. It should be noted that many of the regions which had a relatively low port to municipality ratio were also those without a regional port, such as Regions III, VII, VIII and X. In contrast, many of those regions which had a

regional port also had a relatively high ratio, such as Regions IV, V, VI, and IX. These figures suggest that, in general, the provision of both the regional

and municipal fishing ports was biased in favor or certain regions at the expense of others. The results of the brief survey of municipal fishing ports further show that a majority of the municipal fishing ports did not have the needed postharvest facilities for the proper unloading, selling and processing of fish catch (Table 17). Although most ports had landing keys and market halls, there were a few which did not have these facilities which are supposed to be basic in a port. Many of the ports as well did not have warehouses and ice plants which are important in the proper storage and processing of fish. As a result, most of the fish landed in the ports were sold fresh and only a small portion was either frozen or processed (Table 18). The lack of ice plants is

disappointing since a significant number of the municipal ports had electricity and freshwater provisions which are requisites for the operation of such postharvest facilities (Tables 19 and 20).

36

Table 17. Inventory of facilities of operating municipal fishing ports in the Philippines, 1999 Facilities Landing Key/Quay Market Hall Warehouse Ice Plant Access Road Parking Area Others With 19 22 7 2 17 17 14 Without 4 3 18 23 4 7 10 No data 2 0 0 0 4 1 1

Note: Others include pump house, food stall, water supply system, electric system, Admin Bldg., canteen, public toilet and guard house Source: PIDS Survey (1999)

37

Table 18. Mode of disposal of fish landed at municipal fishing ports in the Philippines, 1999 Distribution % to Total Fish Landed

Sold Fresh Frozen Processed

87.86 6.90 5.24

Note: The percentages are averages of responses provided by 21 respondents Source: PIDS Survey (1999)

38

Table 19. Number of operating municipal fishing ports with electricity in the Philippines, 1999 Response With electricity Without electricity Total Source: PIDS Survey (1999) Number 21 2 23 Percentage 91.3 8.7 100.0

39

Table 20. Number of operating municipal fishing ports with fresh water supply in the Philippines, 1999 Response With fresh water supply Without fresh water supply Total Source: PIDS Survey (1999) Number 20 4 24 Percentage 83.3 16.7 100.0

40

The limited post-harvest facilities in many municipal ports must have contributed to the level of post-harvest losses in the fisheries sector. Key informants reported that most losses actually do not involve the physical loss of caught fish. Significant losses happen when landed fresh fish are

processed into low value products, such as dried fish, fish sauce and salted fish, simply because there are no facilities to store or process them to retain their original high value. In a significant way, therefore, post-harvest losses in the fisheries sector are more in the form of economic rather than physical losses. 5.3 Poor environmental management practices in fishing ports Another problem in fishing port development is the inadequate level of environmental management both regional and municipal ports. In the case of regional ports, Table 12 earlier showed that all had drainage and sewage systems that can systematically handle the discharge of solid and liquid wastes produced as by-products of operations. This is a welcome sign that regional ports were designed to properly handle environmentally-related problems. A downside, however, is that only three of the regional ports had wastewater treatment plants which can process and clean used water before they were discharged into the natural marine environment. The rest had no provisions for cleaning wastewater which means that marine pollution and the subsequent problems its causes are environmental and health risks in the ports. For the municipal ports, survey data indicate that proper

environmental management has not been practice also. A substantial number of the ports had no sewage systems which can handle liquid wastes

41

adequately (Table 21). Furthermore, a majority had no environmental officer designated to undertake environmental management in the port. These poor environmental practices are critical since many of the ports are located in coves, rivers and bays where, due to hydrological and other physical conditions, water pollution from the ports are likely to have significant direct impact on the marine environment and the population living close by (Table 22).

VI. 6.1

Recommendations For regional fishing ports Based on the foregoing discussions, the improvement of the utilization

of existing regional ports should be an immediate objective in fishing port development. Increasing usage will help raise the earnings of the national

government from the ports and make them more useful to the local, regional and national economy. The following recommendations are put forward to achieve this: a. The underutilized facilities of existing regional ports must be

considered by the PFDA for use in the processing of other agricultural products such as vegetables, livestock and poultry. Turning the ports into integrated fisheries-agriculture processing centers will improve their economic viability. At present, the PFDA is in fact contemplating on the possible lease of some of the underutilized facilities in regional ports to the private sector. When implemented, these leases should cover agricultural processing activities and be done on a short-term basis initially to accommodate a possible increase in fish landings over the medium or long-term.

42

Table 21. Number of operating municipal fishing ports with sewage system and environment officer in the Philippines, 1999 With Without

Sewage System Environment officer

11 2

7 13

Source: PIDS Survey (1999)

43

Table 22. Location of operating municipal fishing ports in the Philippines, 1999 Location Cove, River or Bay Open sea Reclaimed area Total Source: PIDS Survey (1999) No. of respondents 8 7 9 24

44

b.

The capability of the Zamboanga port to handle overutilization should

be enhanced by investing in and building additional post-harvest facilities in it. This is necessary to reduce potential post-harvest losses due to over supply of fish in the port. Another option which can be considered is the transfer of movable post-harvest facilities from the underutilized ports to the Zamboanga port, assuming this is technically and economically possible. This transfer

should be done only if it will not undermine the operation of the underutilized ports. On the issue of whether or not new regional fishing ports should be built and where they will be located, a general rule has to be followed. It is argued that new ports may be established in any region as long as the decision to do so is based on sound technical, financial, economic, environmental and other important considerations and not purely on political reasons. Ports have to be income-generating enough to be able to at least meet amortization requirements particularly if funding comes not from grants but from foreign or domestic loans. Below are specific suggestions on the construction of new ports. a. A major basis for the construction of new regional ports should be the

levels of commercial and aquaculture production expected in the region. Secondary data on the production performance of regions without regional fishing ports from the BAS are provided in Tables 23 and 24. These and related information must be put to good use in making projections and siterelated decisions for new ports. Of course, all eggs should not be placed in one basket as these secondary data are far from foolproof. What is simply

45

Table 23. Commercial fisheries and aquaculture production of regions without regional ports in the Philippines (MT), 1989-1998 Region CAR Commercial Aquaculture Region II Commercial Aquaculture Region III Commercial Aquaculture Region VII Commercial Aquaculture Region VIII Commercial Aquaculture Region X Commercial Aquaculture Region XII Commercial Aquaculture ARMM Commercial Aquaculture CARAGA Commercial Aquaculture Note: 1998 figures are preliminary Source: BAS (Various Years) 1989 434 0 434 8,736 6,142 2,594 112,661 9,717 102,944 60,445 35,342 25,103 27,065 13,958 13,107 10,014 6,322 3,692 4,220 72 4,148 2,625 2,625 n.d 859 859 n.d 1990 433 0 433 6,936 4,022 2,914 118,028 10,321 107,707 97,039 70,448 26,591 50,065 35,760 14,305 7,441 3,520 3,921 4,340 4,340 9,743 9,743 n.d 4,888 4,888 n.d 1991 501 0 501 8,896 5,570 3,326 115,641 8,270 107,371 135,332 107,900 27,432 51,445 37,312 14,133 8,843 4,461 4,382 4,849 4,849 2,854 2,854 n.d 1,260 1,260 n.d 1992 610 0 610 8,607 5,536 3,071 103,906 6,031 97,875 109,342 71,433 37,909 55,212 39,265 15,947 10,945 5,934 5,011 7,593 3,767 3,826 9,897 9,897 n.d 4,389 4,389 n.d 1993 2,034 0 2,034 6,676 3,914 2,762 101,171 5,573 95,598 151,712 63,578 88,134 45,414 31,583 13,831 9,858 7,974 1,884 10,630 6,870 3,760 293,067 20,585 272,482 8,579 3,440 5,139 1994 1,773 0 1,773 4,619 2,659 1,960 119,529 9,228 110,301 129,267 64,000 65,267 43,945 36,175 7,770 18,752 16,619 2,133 8,935 4,843 4,092 324,844 33,849 290,995 7,017 3,128 3,889 1995 1,338 0 1,338 6,000 4,164 1,836 114,543 8,159 106,384 85,721 53,949 31,772 32,957 27,502 5,455 23,719 21,661 2,058 11,453 4,916 6,537 375,480 31,181 344,299 8,118 4,692 3,426 1996 824 0 824 7,511 5,643 1,868 110,366 8,291 102,075 99,390 58,817 40,573 32,845 28,476 4,369 19,981 17,729 2,252 11,873 4,483 7,390 360,811 24,760 336,051 7,295 3,585 3,710 1997 1,163 0 1,163 9,276 6,920 2,356 111,005 9,432 101,573 103,108 60,599 42,509 33,560 29,465 4,095 21,167 19,189 1,978 17,031 9,506 7,525 383,500 26,717 356,783 7,375 4,125 3,250 1998 887 0 887 10,382 8,413 1,969 101,091 10,383 90,708 94,233 62,446 31,787 33,032 28,733 4,299 21,740 19,590 2,150 17,607 9,637 7,970 367,833 6,717 361,116 7,840 4,669 3,171 Average 1,000 0 1,000 7,764 5,298 2,466 110,794 8,541 102,254 106,559 64,851 41,708 40,554 30,823 9,731 15,246 12,300 2,946 9,853 4,409 5,444 213,065 16,893 326,954 5,762 3,504 3,764

46

Table 24. Growth rates of commercial fisheries and aquaculture production of regions without regional ports, 1990-1998 (Percent) Region 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Average

CAR Aquaculture Region II Commercial Aquaculture Region III Commercial Aquaculture Region VII Commercial Aquaculture Region VIII Commercial Aquaculture Region X Commercial Aquaculture Region XII Commercial Aquaculture ARMM Commercial Aquaculture CARAGA Commercial Aquaculture Note: 1998 figures are preliminary Source of data: Table 23

(0.23) (0.23) (20.60) (34.52) 12.34 4.76 6.22 4.63 60.54 99.33 5.93 84.98 156.20 9.14 (25.69) (44.32) 6.20 2.84 (100.00) 4.63 271.16 271.16 469.03 469.03 -

15.70 15.70 28.26 38.49 14.14 (2.02) (19.87) (0.31) 39.46 53.16 3.16 2.76 4.34 (1.20) 18.84 26.73 11.76 11.73 11.73 (70.71) (70.71) (74.22) (74.22) -

21.76 21.76 (3.25) (0.61) (7.67) (10.15) (27.07) (8.84) (19.20) (33.80) 38.19 7.32 5.23 12.84 23.77 33.02 14.35 56.59 (21.10) 246.78 246.78 248.33 248.33 -

233.44 233.44 (22.44) (29.30) (10.06) (2.63) (7.59) (2.33) 38.75 (11.00) 132.49 (17.75) (19.56) (13.27) (9.93) 34.38 (62.40) 40.00 82.37 (1.73) 2,861.17 107.99 95.47 (21.62) -

(12.83) (12.83) (30.81) (32.06) (29.04) 18.15 65.58 15.38 (14.79) 0.66 (25.95) (3.23) 14.54 (43.82) 90.22 108.41 13.22 (15.95) (29.51) 8.83 10.84 64.44 6.79 (18.21) (9.07) (24.32)

(24.53) (24.53) 29.90 56.60 (6.33) (4.17) (11.58) (3.55) (33.69) (15.70) (51.32) (25.00) (23.98) (29.79) 26.49 30.34 (3.52) 28.18 1.51 59.75 15.59 (7.88) 18.32 15.69 50.00 (11.91)

(38.42) (38.42) 25.18 35.52 1.74 (3.65) 1.62 (4.05) 15.95 9.02 27.70 (0.34) 3.54 (19.91) (15.76) (18.15) 9.43 3.67 (8.81) 13.05 (3.91) (20.59) (2.40) (10.14) (23.59) 8.29

41.14 41.14 23.50 22.63 26.12 0.58 13.76 (0.49) 3.74 3.03 4.77 2.18 3.47 (6.27) 5.94 8.24 (12.17) 43.44 112.05 1.83 6.29 7.90 6.17 1.10 15.06 (12.40)

(23.73) (23.73) 11.92 21.58 (16.43) (8.93) 10.08 (10.70) (8.61) 3.05 (25.22) (1.57) (2.48) 4.98 2.71 2.09 8.70 3.38 1.38 5.91 (4.09) (74.86) 1.21 6.31 13.19 (2.43)

23.59 23.59 4.63 8.70 (1.69) (0.90) 3.46 (1.14) 9.13 11.97 12.19 5.48 15.70 (9.70) 12.95 20.08 (1.60) 19.32 9.21 370.35 58.25 81.48 74.12 -

47

proposed is that cross-section data from surveys and other data gathered by port proponents for making production projections should be counterchecked using the time-series data from the BAS and caution must be exercised in case large discrepancies exist. Decision-makers should be wary of fantastic

growth rate projections of landings which cannot be supported by solid evidence but are likely used only to justify the construction of large and expensive ports. b. Another important basis for choosing sites for new regional ports

should be their potential for inter-regional usage. A regional port which is accessible to adjacent regions will have a higher usage than one which has a single region coverage. c. The conversion or expansion of a municipal port into a regional port

should be contemplated first before building an entirely new port. This option can potentially help reduce the costs of the construction of the new port and the transportation networks and other infrastructure necessary to make the port viable. d. Building incrementally by constructing smaller regional ports at the start

may be a better approach rather than directly building bigger ports and should be considered. This approach will help reduce the probability of

underutilization due to errors in the estimates of port usage and allow more flexibility in construction.. e. The construction of new ports should be accompanied by the

aggressive upgrading and improvement of the commercial fishing fleet. As the poor state of the fleet is a constraining factor to the full use of regional ports, it must be addressed hand simultaneously port development.

48

Incentives and credit assistance may be contemplated for commercial fishermen to upgrade their boats and gears so they can fish in the EEZ and other in far-flung areas. The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act

(AFMA) and the Philippine Fisheries Code are have important provisions for the development of the commercial fishing fleet of the country. It is now the duty of the pertinent national agencies to actually put these provisions into actions. f. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System should be forcefully

applied in the building of new municipal ports. In particular, an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) should be secured before new ports are built. It also goes without saying that the environmental management in the existing regional ports must be improved by conducting environmental impact assessment studies and putting up the environmental facilities needed for these ports. g. The problem of overfishing in coastal waters must be a significant Other things the same,

factor to consider in building new regional ports.

ports should be built if they encourage commercial fishing in the EEZ waters and other distant areas. New ports should not be built if they will just

exacerbate stock overfishing and the competition between the municipal and commercial fishermen for the rapidly dwindling coastal fisheries resources. Currently, the PFDA is considering the construction of new regional fishing ports in different areas (Table 25). Without arguing on the merits of these choices, some questions are relevant for initial discussion. In terms of regional fairness and equity, why should a new regional port be put up in Cadiz City when Region VI has an underutilized port in Iloilo City? Will the

49

Table 25. Proposed regional ports under Fishing Port Package II, Phase II Region Province Municipality/City

Region VI Region VI Region VIII CARAGA Source: PFDA Files

Negros Oriental Negros Occidental Leyte Surigao del Norte

Bayawan Cadiz City Tacloban City Surigao City

50

regional catch and growth rates in the CARAGA region, Region VII and Region VIII (see Tables 23 and 24) justify the building of new regional ports in Surigao City, Tacloban City and Bayawan? What are the potential impacts of these new ports on overfishing and the competition between the commercial and municipal fisheries in their regions? 6.2 For municipal fishing ports Based on the earlier discussions on municipal fishing ports, a major concern in port development should be the upgrading of existing ports so they can contribute better to the growth of the communities they are in. For this effort, the following suggestions are put forward: a. Investment in more post-harvest facilities, especially in ice-plants, The AFMA and Fisheries Code have

should be done in municipal ports.

certain provisions related to the provision of additional post-harvest facilities in fisheries. The actual implementation of the provisions should make the

private sector active partners in the development of municipal fishing ports, together with the national government and the LGUs. b. The LGUs must improve the environmental management of municipal

ports. Necessary facilities, particularly wastewater treatment plants and solid waste disposal sites, must be put up and personnel hired to lessen the pollution that the ports cause. Proper environmental management is necessary to help prevent the ports from becoming the breeding areas of diseases and other problems. Lat but not least, earlier discussions also point to the need to have new new municipal ports built, especially in localities where there are no existing ports yet. Below are the suggestions for this purpose:

51

a.

In terms of priority, the national government should support the

construction of new ports n coastal towns where there are no ports yet. This should reduce the disparity between municipalities in the provision of municipal ports. Likewise, new ports should be constructed in regions with lower port to coastal municipality ratios. This will lower the disparity between regions. b. The level of municipal fisheries and total fisheries production must be

an important factor in the decision to build a new port. Other things the same, localities with higher levels of production should be afforded priority compared to other towns. c. The inter-municipality use of a new fishing port should be another

factor considered in the building of a new port. A port which can service more than one town should have priority over other ports. d. The provision of more municipal ports in provinces with very high production rates must be contemplated. The production

fisheries

performance of these provinces are shown in Tables 26 and 27. Municipalities in Palawan and Sulu, in particular, which are remote provinces which may have benefited less from help coming from the national government, deserve a special look in the decision to build more ports. Targeting these provinces for port development also augurs well with the peace and reconciliation drive of the government with muslim rebels and other separatists.

52

Table 26. Fisheries production (MT) of major producing provinces, 1987-1998 Region/Province Palawan Commercial Marine Municipal Freshwater Municipal Aquaculture Sulu Commercial Marine Municipal Freshwater Municipal Aquaculture Tawi-Tawi Commercial Marine Municipal Freshwater Municipal Aquaculture Quezon Commercial Marine Mun Freshwater Mun Aquaculture Iloilo Commercial Marine Mun Freshwater Aquaculture Rizal Commercial Marine Municipal Freshwater Municipal Aquaculture Negros Occidental Commercial Marine Municipal Freshwater Municipal Aquaculture 1987 68,594 23,068 45,411 115 n.d. 21,751 1,440 20,251 60 n.d. 14,845 640 14,174 31 n.d. 56,416 18,043 38,201 172 n.d. 95,051 45,864 48,505 682 n.d. 150,193 0 0 150,193 n.d. 126,972 60,127 66,073 772 n.d. 1988 69,196 23,852 45,237 107 n.d. 19,019 1,497 17,458 64 n.d. 10,646 666 9,947 33 n.d. 70,412 18,391 51,861 160 n.d. 111,557 49,533 61,274 750 n.d. 133,007 0 0 133,007 n.d. 110,973 57,873 52,251 849 n.d. 1989 74,025 27,047 46,887 91 n.d. 19,325 1,525 17,709 91 n.d. 11,036 678 10,323 35 n.d. 74,055 20,999 52,898 158 n.d. 109,749 46,470 62,499 780 n.d. 124,433 0 0 124,433 n.d. 121,699 64,362 56,454 883 n.d. 1990 74,905 16,957 57,791 157 n.d. 21,778 5,137 16,569 72 n.d. 12,503 4,206 8,257 40 n.d. 51,888 14,459 37,224 205 n.d. 126,787 65,953 60,039 795 n.d. 150,557 0 0 150,557 n.d. 121,658 34,637 85,940 1,081 n.d. 1991 79,030 17,555 61,353 122 n.d. 15,566 975 14,499 92 n.d. 8,105 937 7,121 47 n.d. 74,221 29,814 44,199 208 n.d. 89,561 27,986 60,682 893 n.d. 148,486 0 0 148,486 n.d. 153,411 60,272 92,085 1,054 n.d. 1992 68,884 12,817 55,947 120 n.d. 24,977 8,639 16,248 90 n.d. 7,367 0 7,321 46 n.d. 86,038 46,131 39,702 205 n.d. 152,237 90,276 61,082 879 n.d. 146,215 0 0 146,215 n.d. 134,997 47,691 86,268 1,038 n.d. 1993 100,222 21,188 56,757 0 22,277 201,791 18,244 15,019 0 168,528 111,151 0 7,284 0 103,867 111,264 48,647 48,438 67 14,112 161,408 88,251 54,909 73 18,175 157,989 0 0 131,431 26,558 193,108 50,017 79,847 2,963 60,281 1994 159,856 20,063 61,297 0 78,496 208,968 30,839 10,846 0 167,283 129,909 0 6,862 0 123,047 124,960 64,497 50,228 354 9,881 145,607 74,039 55,848 138 15,582 171,709 0 0 133,776 37,933 193,522 57,046 77,958 3,999 54,519 1995 171,984 17,149 62,150 0 92,685 221,507 29,186 13,325 0 178,996 170,794 0 6,041 0 164,753 119,225 68,378 42,351 771 7,725 135,636 65,113 53,305 70 17,148 134,543 0 0 114,471 20,072 163,529 43,230 72,185 3,261 44,853 1996 241,913 17,408 61,047 0 163,458 206,967 22,453 15,654 0 168,860 173,356 0 7,156 0 166,200 116,401 69,031 36,032 758 10,580 130,734 62,624 51,497 66 16,547 124,861 0 0 108,222 16,639 142,332 40,172 64,935 2,707 34,518 1997 232,236 21,735 68,109 0 142,392 212,761 23,987 15,045 0 173,729 191,533 0 10,198 0 181,335 116,896 70,065 36,096 540 10,195 124,563 60,413 51,256 41 12,853 113,771 0 0 93,363 20,408 124,705 41,351 58,728 2,230 22,396 1998 231,298 21,963 68,004 0 141,331 192,402 3,187 15,992 0 173,223 197,673 0 11,380 0 186,293 133,312 78,076 38,911 102 16,223 122,783 60,817 50,407 16 11,543 108,431 0 0 86,285 22,146 106,099 33,579 52,229 1,046 19,245 Average 131,012 20,067 57,499 119 106,773 113,901 12,259 15,718 78 171,770 86,577 1,425 8,839 39 154,249 94,591 45,544 43,012 308 11,453 125,473 61,445 55,942 432 15,308 138,683 0 0 126,703 23,959 141,084 49,196 70,413 1,824 39,302

53

Table 26. Continued Region/Province Zamboanga del Sur Commercial Marine Mun Freshwater Mun Aquaculture South Cotobato Commercial Marine Mun Freswater Mun Aquaculture Cebu Commercial Marine Municipal Freshwater Municipal Aquaculture 1987 120,133 60,864 58,302 967 n.d. 45,390 36,789 8,294 307 n.d. 34,783 24,080 10,692 11 n.d. 1988 94,716 61,937 31,756 1,023 n.d. 49,459 40,171 9,013 275 n.d. 30,106 19,819 10,275 12 n.d. 1989 101,085 63,029 37,001 1,055 n.d. 52,451 42,531 9,644 276 n.d. 36,293 24,651 11,629 13 n.d. 1990 160,398 78,741 80,306 1,351 n.d. 42,485 34,510 7,768 207 n.d. 58,379 47,796 10,569 14 n.d. 1991 158,584 103,790 53,279 1,515 n.d. 63,255 56,008 6,973 274 n.d. 101,191 89,936 11,239 16 n.d. 1992 212,664 137,585 73,586 1,493 n.d. 51,206 41,503 9,433 270 n.d. 70,737 53,929 16,791 17 n.d. 1993 124,229 37,851 70,496 343 15,539 57,461 39,380 10,697 647 6,737 95,522 45,233 13,188 17 37,084 1994 97,741 32,307 43,850 266 21,318 36,854 32,646 907 445 2,856 84,997 43,801 14,064 37 27,095 1995 89,903 27,884 42,252 573 19,194 47,406 40,816 2,065 870 3,655 72,608 41,156 16,203 28 15,221 1996 86,964 28,259 38,975 501 19,229 70,450 61,995 3,576 862 4,017 83,770 45,951 16,689 28 21,102 1997 100,021 40,909 41,307 256 17,549 65,287 57,935 3,607 916 2,829 89,740 46,736 18,373 45 24,586 1998 98,820 46,171 36,325 186 16,138 93,962 88,023 3,305 325 2,309 83,581 49,654 17,993 22 15,912 Average 120,438 59,944 50,620 794 18,161 56,306 47,692 6,274 473 3,734 70,142 44,395 13,975 22 23,500

Source: BAS Files

53

Table 27. Growth rates of fisheries production (MT) of major producing provinces without regional ports, 1987-1998 Province Palawan Commercial Marine Municipal Freshwater Municipal Aquaculture Sulu Commercial Marine Municipal Freshwater Municipal Aquaculture Tawi-Tawi Commercial Marine Municipal Freshwater Municipal Aquaculture Quezon Commercial Marine Mun Freshwater Mun Aquaculture Iloilo Commercial Marine Mun Freshwater Mun Aquaculture Rizal Commercial Marine Municipal Freshwater Municipal Aquaculture 1988 0.88 3.40 (0.38) (6.96) (12.56) 3.96 (13.79) 6.67 (28.29) 4.06 (29.82) 6.45 24.81 1.93 35.76 (6.98) 17.37 8.00 26.33 9.97 (11.44) 0.00 0.00 (11.44) 1989 6.98 13.40 3.65 (14.95) 1.61 1.87 1.44 42.19 3.66 1.80 3.78 6.06 5.17 14.18 2.00 (1.25) (1.62) (6.18) 2.00 4.00 (6.45) 0.00 0.00 (6.45) 1990 1.19 (37.31) 23.26 72.53 12.69 236.85 (6.44) (20.88) 13.29 520.35 (20.01) 14.29 (29.93) (31.14) (29.63) 29.75 15.52 41.93 (3.94) 1.92 20.99 0.00 0.00 20.99 1991 5.51 3.53 6.16 (22.29) (28.52) (81.02) (12.49) 27.78 (35.18) (77.72) (13.76) 17.50 43.04 106.20 18.74 1.46 (29.36) (57.57) 1.07 12.33 (1.38) 0.00 0.00 (1.38) 1992 (12.84) (26.99) (8.81) (1.64) 60.46 786.05 12.06 (2.17) (9.11) (100.00) 2.81 (2.13) 15.92 54.73 (10.17) (1.44) 69.98 222.58 0.66 (1.57) (1.53) 0.00 0.00 (1.53) 1993 45.49 65.31 1.45 (100.00) 707.91 111.18 (7.56) (100.00) 1408.77 0.00 (0.51) (100.00) 29.32 5.45 22.00 (67.32) 6.02 (2.24) (10.11) (91.70) 8.05 0.00 0.00 (10.11) 1994 59.50 (5.31) 8.00 0.00 252.36 3.56 69.04 (27.78) 0.00 (0.74) 16.88 0.00 (5.79) 0.00 18.47 12.31 32.58 3.70 428.36 (29.98) (9.79) (16.10) 1.71 89.04 (14.27) 8.68 0.00 0.00 1.78 42.83 1995 7.59 (14.52) 1.39 0.00 18.08 6.00 (5.36) 22.86 0.00 7.00 31.47 0.00 (11.96) 0.00 33.89 (4.59) 6.02 (15.68) 117.80 (21.82) (6.85) (12.06) (4.55) (49.28) 10.05 (21.64) 0.00 0.00 (14.43) (47.09) 1996 40.66 1.51 (1.77) 0.00 76.36 (6.56) (23.07) 17.48 (5.66) 1.50 0.00 18.46 0.88 (2.37) 0.95 (14.92) (1.69) 36.96 (3.61) (3.82) (3.39) (5.71) (3.50) (7.20) 0.00 0.00 (5.46) (17.10) 9.11 0.43 1.50 0.18 (28.76) (3.64) (4.72) (3.53) (0.47) (37.88) (22.32) (8.88) 0.00 0.00 (13.73) 22.65 1997 (4.00) 24.86 11.57 (12.89) 2.80 6.83 (3.89) 2.88 10.49 0.00 42.51 2.73 14.04 11.43 7.80 (81.11) 59.13 (1.43) 0.67 (1.66) (60.98) (10.19) (4.69) 0.00 0.00 (7.58) 8.52 1998 (0.40) 1.05 (0.15) (0.75) (9.57) (86.71) 6.29 (0.29) 3.21 0.00 11.59 Average 13.69 2.63 4.03 (8.15) 66.63 67.07 92.69 (1.08) (5.80) 0.64 128.79 31.68 (0.25) (7.23) 13.02 9.83 18.53 1.80 35.35 8.13 4.68 15.61 0.70 (11.80) (8.05) (2.32) 0.00 0.00 (4.48) 1.96

55

Table 27. Continued Province Negros Occidental Commercial Marine Municipal Freshwater Municipal Aquaculture Zamboanga del Sur Commercial Marine Mun Freshwater Mun Aquaculture South Cotabato Commercial Marine Mun Freshwater Mun Aquaculture Cebu Commercial Marine Municipal Freshwater Municipal Aquaculture Source: BAS Files 1988 (12.60) (3.75) (20.92) 9.97 (21.16) 1.76 (45.53) 5.79 8.96 9.19 8.67 (10.42) (13.45) (17.70) (3.90) 9.09 1989 9.67 11.21 8.04 4.00 6.72 1.76 16.52 3.13 6.05 5.87 7.00 0.36 20.55 24.38 13.18 8.33 1990 (0.03) (46.18) 52.23 22.42 58.68 24.93 117.04 28.06 (19.00) (18.86) (19.45) (25.00) 60.85 93.89 (9.12) 7.69 1991 26.10 74.01 7.15 (2.50) (1.13) 31.81 (33.66) 12.14 48.89 62.29 (10.23) 32.37 73.33 88.17 6.34 14.29 1992 (12.00) (20.87) (6.32) (1.52) 34.10 32.56 38.11 (1.45) (19.05) (25.90) 35.28 (1.46) (30.10) (40.04) 49.40 6.25 1993 43.05 4.88 (7.44) 185.45 (41.58) (72.49) (4.20) (77.03) 12.22 (5.12) 13.40 139.63 35.04 (16.12) (21.46) 0.00 1994 0.21 14.05 (2.37) 34.96 (9.56) (21.32) (14.65) (37.80) (22.45) 37.19 (35.86) (17.10) (91.52) (31.22) (57.61) (11.02) (3.17) 6.64 117.65 (26.94) 1995 (15.50) (24.22) (7.41) (18.45) (17.73) (8.02) (13.69) (3.64) 115.41 (9.96) 28.63 25.03 127.67 95.51 27.98 (14.58) (6.04) 15.21 (24.32) (43.82) 1996 (12.96) (7.07) (10.04) (16.99) (23.04) (3.27) 1.34 (7.76) (12.57) 0.18 48.61 51.89 73.17 (0.92) 9.90 15.37 11.65 3.00 0.00 38.64 1997 (12.38) 2.93 (9.56) (17.62) (35.12) 15.01 44.76 5.98 (48.90) (8.74) (7.33) (6.55) 0.87 6.26 (29.57) 7.13 1.71 10.09 60.71 16.51 1998 (14.92) (18.80) (11.07) (53.09) (14.07) (1.20) 12.86 (12.06) (27.34) (8.04) 43.92 51.93 (8.37) (64.52) (18.38) (6.86) 6.24 (2.07) (51.11) (35.28) Average (0.13) (1.26) (0.70) 13.33 (19.90) 1.53 4.63 3.00 (2.29) 2.13 10.55 12.06 12.41 12.78 (13.54) 12.39 13.00 6.12 13.51 (10.18)

55

e.

As in the case of regional ports, The Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) System should be applied in the building of new municipal ports. An Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) should be required for new ports to be constructed.

VII.

Conclusions In restrospect, this paper looks into the issue of fishing port

development and concludes that it is an effort that should be aggressively pursued by the government. Port development has strong forward and

backward linkages to the coastal municipalities, regions and the national economy. Port development, however, should also be approached with

caution since an arbitrary and indiscriminate form of development can be irretrievably costly to the entire nation. By way of proper planning and

implementation, port development should help lower the significant postharvest losses in fisheries and result to a better utilization of marine fisheries resources.

57

References

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (Various Years). Philippines.

Fisheries statistics of the

Davila, N, M. (1996). Strategic plan physical infrastructure for fisheries and aquaculture, pp. 90-5. In Main report of the second national fisheries workshop on policy planning and industry development. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Development. Israel, D. C. and C. P. Banzon (1998). Overfishing in the Philippine marine fisheries sector. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia. Research Report Series. 32 p. Mendoza, L. (1996). Strategic plan for fish post harvest, marketing and infrastructure, pp. 75-89. In Main report of the second national fisheries workshop on policy planning and industry development. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Development. National Statistical Coordination Board (1998). Sea port count in the Philippines. Factsheet, November, 1998. Philippine Fisheries Development Authority Development Authority. Primer. 9 p. (1998). Philippine Fisheries

Schatz, R. (1991). Economic rent study of the Philippine fisheries sector. Final Report. Silvestre, G., R. Regalado and D. Pauly (1986). Status of Philippine demersal stocks-inferences from underutilized catch rate data, pp. 47-96. In D. Pauly et al. (eds.). Resources, management and socio-economics of Philippine marine fisheries. Tech. Rep. Dep. Mar. Fish. 10: 217 p. Thomas, F. (1998). Advocacy paper on increasing competitiveness in the Philippine commercial fisheries industry. Paper presented at the Shangri-Las EDSA Plaza Hotel, Mandaluyong City. 26 p.

58