Examining the assumptions of integrated coastal management: Stakeholder agendas and elite cooption in Babuyan Islands, Philippines

Abstract

In the Philippines, Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) represents the dominant response to narratives of ecosystem decline. However, there are persistent challenges to implementation, manifested in continued resource degradation, questioning of the exercise of stakeholder involvement and rising resource conflicts. This paper examines the implementation process and how the assumptions embodied in the ICM regime meet the local reality in one group of islands in the Philippine archipelago. The evidence shows how the transformation towards a supposed equilibrium state of coastal ecosystems is undermined in the face of diverging stakeholder agendas. Expected actors are disempowered by the incoherence between the policy owners' worldview and reality, paving the way for unethical influence from elite alliances. This is coupled with a deepening of the dominance of state, international development banks, foreign aid agencies, and NGOs in promoting their respective interests. In localities such as the Babuyan Islands, when assumptions of ICM collapse it has destructive consequences for fisherfolk and the coastal environment. We conclude that if ICM is to foster an effective and equitable correction of current unsustainable exploitation patterns, then there is a need to institute improved accountability mechanisms in the devolved governance system as well as taking seriously the espoused commitment to stakeholder involvement in determining the goals and assumptions of ICM.Key words: Coastal management, policy, Philippines, ecosystem, devolution, stakeholder. Philippines Integrated Coastal Management (ICM)The national response in the Philippines to narratives of coastal ecosystem decline and degradation has been the institutionalisation of the Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) paradigm [1,2]. Building on former coastal resource management (CRM) programs, ICM aims to reverse ecological degradation through rehabilitation, reforestation and restocking in coastal zones. The ICM policy regime espouses a procedural shift towards increased stakeholder participation and balanced employment of coercive and non-coercive policy instruments [3,4,5]. This ambition mirrors the global trend in environmental governance and management towards exploring a more diverse set of policy instruments, comprising mixtures of regulation, voluntary measures and economic instruments [e.g. 6]. The 2006 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, in the chapter on marine and coastal ecosystems, recommends both ICM and stakeholder participation in decision making as one of the response options for policy makers to current resource degradation [7].The establishment and promotion of the ICM regime and co-management is located in a regional South East Asian government trend towards decentralisation and devolution in resource management. The Philippine Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 (Republic Act 7160) is featured as the most ambitious and complex system of law and programme of devolution of government authority in the country [3]. It devolves management...

Integrated land-sea management: recommendations for planning, implementation and management

“…fishing communities); however, less well-organized stakeholders should also be engaged (Lebel 2012). Examples where stakeholder engagement may have been biased are discussed in Fortwangler (2007) and Larsen et al (2011). Political and social theories can be used to increase understanding of why some stakeholders might engage differently than other (e.g.…”

“…The case studies suggest that simply involving a community in programming does not guarantee that the involvement will have the intended outcomes (e.g. Examples where stakeholder engagement may have been biased are discussed in Fortwangler (2007) and Larsen et al (2011). This is especially true if some stakeholders hold more power than others (Lebel 2012).…”

Harnessing the climate mitigation, conservation and poverty alleviation potential of seagrasses: prospects for developing blue carbon initiatives and payment for ecosystem service programmes

“…In order to deliver these, programs need to be based on a platform of transparency, accountability and inclusivity (Lockwood et al, 2010;Larsen et al, 2011;Ingram et al, 2014). These aspects function as enabling properties, and the evidence clearly indicates that a lack of transparency and accountability can seriously impair institutional capacity and effectiveness (Somorin et al, 2014), whilst also undermining social capital (Rudd et al, 2003;Shiferaw et al, 2008).…”

Reinventing rural development in Vietnam: Discursive constructions of grassroots democracy during the renovation reform

“…Arguably, there is a risk that such discourses lead to ‘domestication’ of grassroots participation in the political reform process (e.g. Wakeford and Singh, 2008; Larsen et al ., 2010). Indeed, the recasting of roles and mandates under an evolving market socialism means that stakes are high for the individual citizen, government and the Communist Party – and for external partners who have bilateral bonds through trade and international politics.…”