he editorial of
the Metro Post for August 10-16, 2008 on the need to regulate the use of
motorcycles modified to carry passengers (habal-habal) in areas without roads is
timely because of the risks to the riders of this kind of public conveyance. The
response of the provinces of Negros Oriental and Iloilo has been to ask Congress
to pass a national law regulating the operations of these vehicles as a means of
public transport, according to a news item in the same newspaper issue. Some may
ask whether this is necessary.
Without passing judgment on the solution offered by the two
provinces, let me draw a parallel from developments in my own area of concern
relating to the conservation and management of marine resources, particularly
fishery resources.
Prior to the early 1990s, only national law governing the use
and management of marine ecosystems and marine resources existed. In fact, the
Fisheries Act of 1932 mandated that fisheries management be under the central
government. The oldest protected area with a marine component, the Hundred
Islands Park in Pangasinan, was legislated way back in 1940. Fisheries and the
marine environment gradually became graded despite these national legislations.
This was the situation 40 years later, when the national government through the
National Resources management Center attempted to establish marine protected
areas in the 1980s. This attempt proved unsuccessful. These examples tend to
show that it takes more than national legislation to protect and manage marine
ecosystems and marine resources.
Congress passed the Local Government Code in 1991, the NIPAS
law in 1992, and the Fishery Code in 1998. The Local Government Code especially
had the mandate to empower local government and local communities to take a hand
in the protection and management of marine resources. These developments were
complemented by earlier protection and management initiatives from local
governments, NGOs and some academic institutions in the 1980s and 1990s. The
overall result was the setting up of no-take marine protected areas mostly
co-managed by partnerships of local government units and local community
organizations. Most of these protected areas (now estimated to number more than
500) were set up under the framework of the Local Government Code and Fisheries
Code. This explains the proliferation of small no-take marine reserves in the
country, and I think, for the reason that local initiatives allow for
self-regulation with little or no dictation from the national government thus
providing an alternative to the NIPAS law, which many people consider
cumbersome.
One implication of the establishment of no-take marine
reserves in fishery management is that fishery resources are no longer a common
resource open to all, which is acknowledged to be one reason for fisheries
depletion. These resources are now open only to those coastal communities that
protect and manage them in a sustainable manner.
It should be pointed out that no judgment is being made here
in regard to which law has been more successful in the establishment of marine
protected areas, as shown by such indicators as sustained management, increase
of fish stocks, enhancement of fish catch, conservation of marine biodiversity,
etc. This is a subject for investigation.
What is being pointed out is that for marine resources, our experience has
been that empowerment of local primary stakeholders and giving them
responsibilities for self-regulation can work to achieve the desired objectives
without much dependence from top national government agencies.
