Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Medium-Term Plan 2016-2020

��������� �� ���� �� � ����������� ��� � �� �� ��� ������������ C M Y CM MY CY CMY K CNFIDP FINAL FINAL COVER (inside).pdf 1 1/25/16 5:42 AM i CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 Message Secretary of the Department of Agriculture iiComprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan Message Undersecretary for Fisheries, Department of Agriculture National Director of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources iii CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 Table of Contents ivComprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan List of Tables List of Figures v CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 Acronyms and Abbreviations viComprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan Acronyms and Abbreviations viiComprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan Executive Summary Background Process The CNFIDP Medium-term Plan 2016-2020 viii CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 Overall sectoral targets: Implementation and monitoring Institutional strengthening ���� �� ���� ���� � 2 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 1. Overview 2. Recent developments and pervading issues necessitating an updated CNFIDP Medium-term Plan 2016-2020 A. The CNFIDP 3Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan TABLE 1. Problems and corresponding objectives identified in the CNFIDP 4 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 B. STATE OF THE FISHERIES AND FISHERIES INDUSTRY IN THE PHILIPPINES 1. Developments from 2006 to 2015 2006-2010 5Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan 2011-2015 1.1 Gained recognition as a responsible flag/coastal/port/market/state against IUU fishing from the European Commission 6 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 Amendment of the Fisheries Code Management of long-distance fishing vessels Structural and capability reforms FIGURE 3. Anti-IUU Fishing efforts in the Philippines 7Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan 1.2 Management interventions on important fishing grounds abated resource depletion and reduced habitat destruction including occurence of fish kills, through LGU- and stakeholders-supported management policies and programs Closed Seasons coincide with increase in fish stock in Zamboanga Peninsula, Visayan Sea, and Davao Gulf Export ban on protected corals and elvers open the market for other exportation of species resulting to increase export earnings 8 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 Dismantling of illegal fish cages in Taal Lake results in a 16-fold decrease in fish kill and increased production from 9.3 MT/cage in 2011 to 11 MT/cage in 2014 Invasive species, Knifefish, containment in Laguna Lake allowed for a 20T ton increase in endemic species production in 4 years 1.3 Increased logistics and development of unified and inter-relational monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) and other information 9Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan systems result in intensified law enforcement, fisheries management, and regulatory mandates 1.4 Completed municipal fisherfolk registry ensure provision of preferential rights to artisanal fisherfolk, availment of government benefits, including livelihoods to alleviate poverty and promote inclusive growth 1.5 Strengthened Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) portend to further developments in succeeding years 10 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 C. PROCESS OF PREPARING THE CNFIDP 2016 2020. Planning and development process 1.1 Development framework 1.2 Participatory process 11Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan FIGURE 4 1.3 Consensus-building Workshop 1: CNFIDP development framework 12 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 Workshop 2: Fisherfolk representatives actively participate in the exchange of ideas during plenary discussions. 13Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan Workshop 3: BFAR National Director Atty. Asis Perez leading the consultation during the second workshop. Each workshop group employed SWOT Analysis to help determine strategies that each fisheries subsector must implement to reach its specific targets. 14 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 FIGURE 5. The CNFIDP consultative process 15Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan Post-workshop TWG ���� �� ��� �� � �� �������� ��� ��������� 17 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 A. Overall targets FIGURE 6. Overall sectoral targets 18Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan 19 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 FIGURE 7 20Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan FIGURE 8 TABLE 2. Compliance and certifications of fishery establishments 21 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 FIGURE 9 22Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan 1. Capture fisheries 23 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 TABLE 3. Capture fisheries strategies 24Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan 25 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 2. Aquaculture fisheries 26Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan TABLE 4. Aquaculture fisheries sector strategies 27 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 3. Post-harvest fisheries 28Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan TABLE 5. Post-harvest fisheries strategies 29 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 4. Trade and marketing FIGURE 10. Supply chain of any fishery commodity from aquaculture fisheries FIGURE 11. Supply chain of any fishery commodity from capture fisheries 30Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan 31 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 TABLE 6. Trade and marketing sector strategies 32 CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM UPDATE 2016 - 2020 5. Crosscutting themes 33Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan 6. Moving forward 34Comprehensive National Fisheries Development Plan TABLE 7. Crosscutting themes strategies �������� ��� �� � ���� �� �������� �� �� � �� � ���� �� �������� ��� ������� � ���� �� �������� ���� ��� ����� �� �������� ���� � �������� ���� ���� ��� �� ����� � �� ��� ���� � ������� �� � ���� ���� ��� �� ����� � �� ��� ���� � �������� ������� �� ���� ��� �� ����� � �� ��� ���� � ������ ���� ��� �������������� ��� ����� �� ����� � �� ���� 1"of"8 WORKSHOP 2 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating (1a) Inventory and mapping of fishing grounds 20,000 30,000 30,000 80,000 BFAR/ NFRDI NAMRIA, DENR-BMB, LGUs, FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Insitututions, NGOs, DFA, DND, PCG (1b) Identify potential fishing grounds including women- managed areas 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 BFAR/ NFRDI NAMRIA, LGUs, FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Insitututions, NGOs, NAPC AFSC By BFAR In collaboration with the private sectors (1c) Review status of stocks and habitat 2,000 5,000 5,000 12,000 BFAR/ NFRDI academe and research institutions, NGOs, fishing companies By BFAR In collaboration with the private sectors and other partners (1d) Develop and introduce management plan for fishing grounds 3,000 3,000 6,000 BFAR LGUs, FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Insitututions, NGOs (1e) Set harvest control rules (1f) Identify appropriate gears and boats/vessels (1g) Introduce and implement programs - BFAR and LGUs FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups CBRCM IRM 1,500 1,000 1,000 3,500 EEZ 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 DISTANT WATERS 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 EAFM 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 (1h) Identify potential fishers - BFAR and LGUs FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups (1i) Negotiate agreements where applicable 2,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 9,000 BFAR DFA, Fishing Companies/ Associations (1j) Formulate regulations/ ordinances where applicable 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 BFAR and LGUs FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups (1k) Issue License/ Permits including orientation of fishers 1,200 1,200 1,200 3,600 BFAR and LGUs (1l) Fishing operations 30,000 30,000 30,000 90,000 Fishers (1m) Report fish catch and fishing efforts 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 Fishers BFAR, LGUs (1n) Monitor catch and fishing effort 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 BFAR and LGUs fARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups (1o) Procurement of patrol boats and aircrafts/ drones 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 BFAR, PCG, PN, LGUs, PAF, PNP MARITIME Group **by agency (1p) Conduct visibility patrol 75,000 125,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 725,000 BFAR PCG, PN, LGUs, PAF, PNP MARITIME Group (1q) Provide security escorts for fishing vessels 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000 PCG BFAR, PN, National Coast Watch Council (NCWC) Sub-total 104,000 776,000 913,700 369,200 369,200 2,532,100 Capture Fisheries Sectoral Workplan 1. Identify, develop and/or negotiate potential areas from inland and marine waters through partnership between government and private sector and strengthen security for fishing operations especially in the West Philippine Sea. Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization/ EntitiesAgreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Ma.Vic Relayson 2"of"8 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Capture Fisheries Sectoral Workplan Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization/ EntitiesAgreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) (2a) Coordinate with LGUs and FARMCs and conduct proper consultations 500 500 Phil. Tropical fish Exporters/ Ornamental Fishers FARMCs, POs, women's groups, LGUs, (2b) Identify potential fishing grounds including women- managed areas 500 500 LGUs FARMCs, POs, women's groups, Phil. Tropical fish Exporters/ Ornamental Fishers (2c) Review status of stocks and habitat 1,000 1,000 BFAR/ NFRDI LGUs, Academe, FARMCs, Private Sector (2d) Develop and introduce management plan for fishing grounds 1,000 1,000 LGUs BFAR, Academe, FARMCs, Private Sector (2e) Conduct training on sustainable means of harvesting to include proper transport methods 3,000 3,000 Private Sector LGUs, Academe, FARMCs, Private Sector, Pos, Women's Group, BFAR (2f) Formulate regulations/ ordinances where applicable 1,000 1,000 LGUs BFAR, Academe, FARMCs, Private Sector (2g) Issue Permits including orientation of fishers 200 250 250 250 250 1,200 LGUs (2h) Fishing operations 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 Fishers Private Sector (2i) Report fish catch and fishing efforts 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 Fishers LGUs, Private Sector (2j) Monitor catch and fishing effort 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 9,000 LGUs Fishers, Private sector, BFAR, FARMCs Sub-total 8,950 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 20,950 (3a) Identify stocks that needs rehabilitation 1,000 2,000 3,000 (3b) Identify potential measures and available technology 2,000 3,000 5,000 (3c) Conduct studies on natural productivity 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 20,000 (3d) Conduct studies including food-based approach to open water species 7,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 47,000 (3e) Draft FAO 2,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 11,000 BFAR and NFARMC (3f) Implement rule 65.2 of RA 10654 (Consultation Process) 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 12,000 (3g) Promulgate and implement FAO 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 (3h) Monitor for compliance 720 720 720 2,160 (3i) Conduct stock enhancement and/or implement measures 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 23,000 BFAR and LGUs Sub-total 17,000 34,000 30,720 30,720 30,720 143,160 (4a) Conduct orientation on the new provisions of RA 10654 4,000 4,000 600 600 600 9,800 DILG/BFAR LGU, FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups (4b) Harmonize MFO with RA 10654 8,000 8,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 25,000 LGU/BFAR FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups (4c) Conduct inventory of licensed fishing boats/ vessels and gears 5,000 5,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 13,000 BFAR and LGU MARINA, FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups (4d) Sustain BoatR/ FishR Programs 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 45,000 LGU (4e) identiy and map areas with rampant illegal fishing activities/ hotspots 100 100 LGU FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups BFAR/ NFRDI BFAR BFAR, FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups 2. Work with LGUs to open/re-open fishing grounds for ornamental fishes harvesting using sustainable equitable and legal means 3. Implement science based measures to rehabilitate domestic stocks 4. Strengthen Anti Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUUF) Measures 3"of"8 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Capture Fisheries Sectoral Workplan Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization/ EntitiesAgreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) (4f) Organize enforcement teams Bantay Dagat, Bantay Lawa, QRT, etc. 15,000 15,000 LGU and BFAR (4g) Train and deputize enfrocement teams including FLEMOP 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 LGU and BFAR (4h) Identify/ provide legal support teams/ services 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 7,200 LGU and BFAR DOJ, FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, Environment Legal NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups (4i) Identify/ provide fish examiners and laboratory services per province including cyanide detection 200,000 200,000 200,000 100,000 700,000 BFAR LGUs, FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups (4j) Conduct patrol 75,000 125,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 725,000 BFAR and LGU PCG, FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups (4k) Conduct specialized trainings for Law enforcement teams, prosecutors and judges 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 BFAR and LGU CIDG, NBI, PNP, PCG, FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups (4l) Apprehend, prosecute and penalize violators 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Enforcement Teams PCG, FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups (4m) Maintain database on law enforcement 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 BFAR and LGU PCG, PNP- MARITIME Group, NALECC/ RLECC, FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups (4n) Implement Fishery Law Enforcement Management Information System (FLEMIS) 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 6,000 BFAR LGUs (4o) Implement Vessel Monitoring Measures (VMM) 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 10,000 BFAR and LGU (4p) Procure bigger, multi- long range vessels for enforcement 350,000 350,000 350,000 1,050,000 BFAR DBM (4q) Procure appropriate and low- maintenance enforcement vessels and gears for LGU 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 600,000 LGUs FARMC (4r) Coordinate with LGUs regarding provisions of RA 10654 and impose sanctions for negligence of LGUs and other concerned agencies 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 DILG FARMC, BFAR, POs, DILG, (4s)Collect evidence and file case to the ombudsman - FARMC Enforcement Teams, POs, Ombudsman (4t) Provide insurance, incentives and recognition for law enforcement teams 13,500 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 121,500 LGU PCIC, Philheatlth, DSWD SSS (4u) Convene adjudication committee/ board 500 500 DA BFAR, NFARMC (4v) Formulate FAO and/or LGU Ordinance banning the use of compressor and trammel net in fishing 3,000 3,000 6,000 DA and LGUs BFAR, FARMCs (4w) Continue linkages with RFMOs, neighboring countries, interpol for global/ regional cooperations to address IUUF 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 BFAR DFA, NCWC (4x) Implement catch documentation 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 BFAR and LGU FARMCs, Fishers (4y) Conduct mandatory training on detection of fish caught with explosives for fish dealers, exporters 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 11,250 BFAR FARMCS, LGUs, PNP, Exporter's association, DOST FARMCs, POs, Fishing Companies/ Associations, Research Institutions, Academe, NGOs, Women's Organizations/ groups 4. Strengthen Anti Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUUF) Measures 4"of"8 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Capture Fisheries Sectoral Workplan Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization/ EntitiesAgreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) (4z) Publish semi- annually enforcement efforts and accomplishments per region 200 200 200 200 200 1,000 BFAR LGUs, FARMCs, RLECC (4za) Issue ID cards for registered fisherolks and fishworkers 320 320 320 320 320 1,600 LGU and BFAR Regional Offices FARMCs (4zb) Implement Programs/ Policies/ Regulations to ensure continuous compliance with all the Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) 100,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 700,000 BFAR Fishing Companies/ Associations, LGUs, Fishers, FARMCs, NCWC, DENR Sub-total 271,010 1,071,910 1,109,510 1,106,510 656,510 4,215,450 (5a) Identify target audience and specific themes/ issues including climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction BFAR-IPRG (5b) Develop IEC materials including use of local dialects 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 BFAR-IPRG (5c) Publish newsletters, brochures and other advocacy materials 200 200 200 200 800 BFAR-IPRG (5d) Disseminate IEC materials using tri- media 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 BFAR-IPRG LGUs, NAPC, NCWC, PIA, SUCs (5e) Work with DepEd for curriculum integration fisheries conservation 100 100 100 100 100 500 NFARMC BFAR, DEPED, CHED (5f) Conduct IEC Caravans nationwide 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 8,000 BFAR-IPRG BFAR RFOs, FARMCs (5g) Create IEC teams at LGU /FARMC level as needed 100 100 LGU and FARMC BFAR RFOs, FARMCs, LGU MAOs (5h) Conduct fora with local fisherfolks 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 22,500 BFAR-PFOs LGU, FARMCs Sub-total 6,200 8,300 8,300 8,300 8,300 39,400 (6a) Procure "whiteships" 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 1,750,000 NCWC PCG, BFAR (6b) Hire/Train staff complement 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 PCG and BFAR (6c) Deploy "whiteships" and Navy Boats where needed 100,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 300,000 1,000,000 NCWC DND, PCG, BFAR, PN (6d) Document incident of harrasments 200 200 200 200 200 1,000 PCG BFAR, DFA, NCWC, Fishing Companies (6e) Recommend actions and possible policies 100 100 100 100 100 500 DFA BFAR, PCG, NCWC, Fishing Companies (6f) File diplomatic protests where applicable 100 100 100 100 100 500 DFA BFAR, PCG, NCWC, Fishing Companies (6g )High seas boarding and inspection under the requirement of RFMOs 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 BFAR DFA, Fishing Companies Sub-total 450,900 451,900 551,900 651,900 651,900 2,758,500 (7a) Identify alien species which can be invasive 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 BFAR/NIFTC/ NFRDI worldfish, SUCs, NGOs, Research Institutions, DENR, DOST-PCAARRRD, FARMCs (7b) Conduct surveillance of transport pathways to prevent entry 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 10,000 BFAR especially 4A (7c) Identify areas and IAS to prevent translocation in other areas 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,500 BFAR/NIFTC/ NFRDI worldfish, SUCs, NGOs, Research Institutions, DENR, DOST-PCAARRRD, FARMCs (7d) Apprehend, prosecute and penalize violators on FAO 221, Wildlife Conservation Act 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,500 BFAR-QRT Wilflife Enforcement Officers, Local enforcement teams (7e) Conduct studies on measures to protect our waters and species from discharge of ballast waters from foreign vessels 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 20,000 MARINA BFAR, DENR, PCG, NCWC, DOH, DOST, DOST PCAARRD, SUCs, PPA, PFDA Sub-total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 (8a) Conduct participatory and rapid resource assessment of critical fishery habitats and inland bodies of water 9,000 9,000 18,000 BFAR/NFRDI NAPC, SUCs, FARMCs, (8b) Establish sanctuaries and conserve wetlands 500 meters from the lakeshore 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 27,000 DENR LGU, FARMCs, BFAR (8c) Expand Philippine National Aquasilvi Culture Program (PNAP) for mangrove rehabilitation/ reforestation in coastal and inland areas 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 BFAR LGUs, DENR, FARMCs, SUCs LGUs, NCWC, PIA, SUCs 6. Protect Philippine vessels in distant waters through presence of "whiteship" (PCG and BFAR), research vessels and navy boats where applicable and documentation of harassments 7. Prevent introduction/ containment of invasive/alien species (IAS) 8. Restore fishery habitats (mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs, wetlands and inland bodies of water) through protection and rehabilitation including pollution control 4. Strengthen Anti Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUUF) Measures 5. Intensify Information, Education and Communication (IEC) Activities on resource conservation measures and compliance of fishery laws 5"of"8 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Capture Fisheries Sectoral Workplan Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization/ EntitiesAgreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) (8d) Identify and expand areas for mangrove reforestation 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 DENR LGUs, BFAR, FARMCs, SUCs (8e) Establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and fish sanctuaries in coastal municipalities and inland bodies of water 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 LGUs FARMCs, BFAR, DENR, SUCs, NGOs (8f) Rehabilitate coral reefs through coral gardening and Artificial reefs (ARs) and fish breeding sanctuaries in inland bodies of water 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 10,000 BFAR and LGUs FARMCs, DOST, DENR, SUCs, NGOs (8g) Review and harmonize overlapping laws and policies (i.e. NIPAS and LGU ordinances in Tanon Strait, Batanes, and other NIPAS areas overllaping with municipal waters and LLDA and LGUs) 300 300 600 LGUs DENR/PAMB, DILG, BFAR, Fishers, Fishing Associations (8h) Revert or award to fisherfolks stewardship contracts over abandoned, unutilized and underdeveloped fish ponds and rehabilitate as mangrove area 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 BFAR DENR, LGUs, FARMCs, NAPC, POs (8i) Award stewardship contract for the protection, maintenance and management of mangrove- planted areas to fisherfolk where appropriate 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 20,000 BFAR DENR, LGUs, FARMCs, NAPC, POs (8j) Protect mangroves and associated species to restore habitats and promote tourism 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 20,000 LGUs DENR, BFAR, FARMCs, SUCs, POs, Law enforcement agencies (8k) Conduct regular coastal clean-up and implement proper waste disposal 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 LGUs DENR, BFAR, FARMCs, SUCs, POs, Law enforcement agencies (8l) Craft ordinances to reject proposed reclamation projects that destroy mangroves and other fishery habitats i.e. Manila Bay Reclamation Project 500 500 1,000 NAPC FARMC, POs, NGOs, SUCs, DILG, LGUs (8m) Protect coastal areas from destructive development of resorts i.e. Rip-rap, seawalls, etc 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 LGUs FARMC, POs, DENR, NGOs (8n) Harmonize agricultural practices in uplands to reduce siltation 300 300 300 300 300 1,500 DA LGUs, FARMC, LGU-MAOs, DENR, Farmers (8o) Enforce ban on the collection of trumphet shells 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 BFAR LGUs, BOC, DENR, law enforcement agencies (8p) Remove crown of thorns 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 150,000 LGUs LGUs, BOC, DENR, law enforcement agencies (8q) Develop technology for the captive breeding/propagation and establish hatcheries of trumphet shells and other vulnerable/ endangered species 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 BFAR/NFRDI SUCs, DOST, Private sector, SEAFDEC/AQD (8r) Regularly allocate in the LGUs budget/ annual investment plan for the management of fish sanctuaries M/CFARMC LGUs-C/MDC, POs, (8s) Regularly allocate in the LGUs budget/ annual investment plan for FARMCs - M/CFARMC LGUs-C/MDC, POs, (8t) Apprehend, prosecute and penalize mangrove cutters 720 720 720 720 720 3,600 DENR DOJ, LGUs, law Enforcement agencies/ teams (8u) Monitor factories, industries and power plants discharging harmful/polluting substances that destroy fisheries habitats and enforce establishment of waste water treatment facilities and prosecute for aquatic pollution 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 DENR-EMB LGUs, LLDA, MFARMCs (8v) Plant water resistant trees in riparian areas 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 150,000 LGUs DENR- CENRO, BFAR (8w) Prevent encroachment and promote proper waste disposal in riparian and coastal areas 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,500 DENR LGUs, FARMC (8x) Implement market denial measures 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,500 DENR law enfrocement agencies/ teams Sub-total 250,720 250,720 242,920 242,920 242,920 1,230,200 (9a) Coordinate wiht LGUs, NAMRIA and other agencies 250 250 500 DA LGUs, NAMRIA, BFAR (9b) Identify actual water and land use 300 300 600 LGUs (9c) Zoning of water and incorporate in the CLUP 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 300,000 LGUs (9d) Mapping of CLUP 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 120,000 LGUs (9e) Formulate zoning ordinances 500 500 500 500 2,000 LGUs (9f) Implement and monitor compliance to formulated ordinance 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 90,000 LGUs FARMCs, BFAR, BSWM 8. Restore fishery habitats (mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs, wetlands and inland bodies of water) through protection and rehabilitation including pollution control 9. Delineate and zone coastal land and water uses to resolve conflicting uses consistent with Comprehensive Land Use Plan 6"of"8 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Capture Fisheries Sectoral Workplan Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization/ EntitiesAgreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) (9g) Develop and implement fisherfolk resettlement area 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,200,000 LGUs FARMCs, NHA, BFAR, HLURB, DSWD. DILG, DAR, Social Housing Finance Corp., DENR Sub-total 550 428,550 428,000 428,000 428,000 1,713,100 (10a) Compile and review available relevant information for species (stocks) and environment 1,000 1,000 BFAR/ NFRDI BFAR, SUCs, Research Institutions, NGOs (10a.1) Identify priority stocks/fisheries/fishing grounds/fishery management areas (10a.2) Profile of fisheries (10a.3) Identify gaps (10b) Conduct worskhops to evaluate candidate reference points and harvest control rules of various fisheries/fishing grounds/fishery management areas 1,000 1,000 BFAR/NFRDI BFAR, (10c) Draft FAO 500 500 BFAR/ Legal NFARMC 10d) Implement rule 65.2 of RA 10654 (Consultation Process) 3,000 3,000 BFAR FARMCs, LGUs, Fishers, NGOs (10e) Promulgate and implement FAO 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 DA BFAR, FARMCs, LGUs, Fishers, NGOs (10f) Monitor for compliance 3,600 3,600 3,600 10,800 BFAR FARMCs, LGUs, Fishers, NGOs (10g) Continue/sustain stock assessment activities including monitoring for catch & effort (NSAP) 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 980,000 BFAR/NFRDI BFAR, SUCs, Research Institutions, NGOs (10h) Conduct review and institute adaptive measures as may be necessary 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 12,000 BFAR BFAR/NFRDI, SUCs, Research Institutions, NGOs, LGUs Sub-total 182,500 211,000 211,600 211,600 211,600 1,028,300 (11a) Consultation with FARMCs and stakeholders 3,000 3,000 Fishing companies/ associations BFAR, LGUs, FARMC (11b) Review stock status 1,500 1,500 3,000 BFAR/NFRDI BFAR, SUCs, Research Institutions, NGOs, LGUs (11c) delineation vertically (depth: fathom) and horizontally (distance from shore:km) according to law 100,000 100,000 200,000 NAMRIA LGUs (11d) Draft ordinance 100 100 200 LGU FARMC (11e) Conduct public hearing showing the map where small and medium commercial vessels and gears to be used 1,500 1,500 3,000 LGU FARMC, fishers, NGOs (11f) Pass and publish ordinance 200 200 400 LGU (11g) Establish markers 30,000 30,000 60,000 LGU (11h) Issue license and permits 100 100 100 100 400 LGU (11i) Fishing operations 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 6,000 fishers (11j) Catch reporting and documentation 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 8,000 fishers (11k) Monitor compliance 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 6,000 LGUs BFAR, FARMC, POs, fishers, NGOs Sub-total 104,500 138,400 36,900 5,100 5,100 290,000 (12a) Review of available information on bathymetry and topgraphy (by Fishing ground/ Fishery Management Area (FMA) 5,000 5,000 10,000 BFAR/NFRDI (12b) Conduct surveys to address gaps if necessary ex. Hydrography 5,000 5,000 10,000 BFAR/NFRDI (12c) Present information to consult with stakeholders and LGUs 1,800 1,800 1,800 5,400 BFAR/NFRDI 12d) Decide on basis for revised delineation (fixed by Fishery Management Area (FMA) or by region, etc. 500 500 500 1,500 LGUs and BFAR FARMC, Fishers (12e) Determine extent of proposed delineation 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 LGUs and BFAR FARMC, Fishers (12f) Determine how delineated boundaries can be marked 300 300 NAMRIA LGUs, BFAR, FARMC, Fishers (12g) Propose amendments to law 300 300 NFARMC Congress, BFAR, DILG, LGUs, MARINA, NAMRIA, SUCs, Research Institutions, NGOs, Fishers BFAR, LGUs, MARINA, NAMRIA, SUCs, Research Institutions, NGOs, Fishing Companies FARMC, POs, fishers, NGOs 11. Work for the passage of ordinances for the implementation of 10.1-15 km by small and medium scale commercial access subject to existing laws 12. Revisit and review the 15Km distance to include the study of bathymetry and topography 9. Delineate and zone coastal land and water uses to resolve conflicting uses consistent with Comprehensive Land Use Plan 10. Set Reference Points/Harvest Control Rules 7"of"8 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Capture Fisheries Sectoral Workplan Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization/ EntitiesAgreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) (12h) Amend the law/s 300 300 600 Congress BFAR, LGUs, MARINA, NAMRIA, SUCs, Research Institutions, NGOs, Fishers (12i) Deploy/ install markers if possible 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 LGUs (12j) Implement 30,000 30,000 LGUs (12k) Monitor and evaluate implemented measures 500 500 LGUs Sub-total 5,000 13,600 18,900 13,600 40,500 91,600 (13a) Conduct consultation/workshop identify/determine potential appropriate fishing technologies and boats/vessels 1,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 BFAR/NFRDI (13b) Conduct evaluations/studies/researches as maybe necessary 5,000 5,000 10,000 BFAR/NFRDI (13c) Prepare and present reports/outputs and recommend use of identified appropriate fishing technologies and boats/gears 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 BFAR/NFRDI (13d) Draft programs/policies as maybe necessary 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 BFAR (13e) Conduct consultations on proposed policy 1,500 1,500 1,500 4,500 BFAR (13f) Implement programs/policies 180,000 220,000 260,000 300,000 300,000 1,260,000 BFAR (13g) Promote/ Disseminate upgraded designs of fishing boats/ vessels from wood to fiberglass 30,000 45,000 54,000 64,800 77,760 271,560 (13h) Conduct trainings on design and constrcution of new designs of fishing boats/ vessels 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 19,000 Sub-total 213,000 275,000 329,500 373,300 385,260 1,576,060 (14a) Conduct scientifc researches on spawning grounds, seasons, reproductive biology and oceanographic studies 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 450,000 BFAR/NFRDI (14b) Draft FAO on spatial and temporal closures 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 BFAR (14c) Implement rule 65.2 of IRR- RA 10654 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 12,000 BFAR (14d) Promulgate and implement FAO 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 BFAR (14e) Monitor compliance 3,000 3,000 5,000 5,000 16,000 BFAR (14f) Implement closed seasons 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 40,000 BFAR (14g) Establish fish ladder to provide access to spawning grounds for migrating species 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 120,000 BFAR FARMC, BFAR, LGUs, SUCs, Research Institutions, NGOs, Fishers, DA, NIA, and Napocor Sub-total 90,000 142,000 142,000 144,000 144,000 662,000 (15a) Deploy Fishery LIvelihood and Development Technicians (FLDTs) 270,000 BFAR LGUs (15b) Establish list of registered fisherfolk organizations, copperatives and associations - BFAR-FLDT LGUs, FARMC, Pos (15c) Sustain entrepneurship and financial literacy, and other capacity building programs - BFAR CDA, DOLE, TESDA, DTI, LGUs (15d) Work with government agencies i.e. BIR, CDA, etc. and financial institutions to simplify requirements and processes 200 200 400 BFAR CDA, BIR, LGUs, SEC, DOLE (15e) Organize fisherfolks in coastal and barangays with inland waters to prioritize poorest of the poor beneficiaries 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 BFAR-FLDT LGUs, FARMC, Pos, NGOs, DSWD (15f) Provide technical assistance in registration procedures - LGUs FARMC, Pos (15g) Facilitate accreditation of organization to participate in planning and decision-making - LGUs FARMC, Pos Sub-total - 1,200 1,200 1,000 - 273,400 (16a) Launch Fisheries Electronic Licensing and information System (FELIS) 3,000 3,000 BFAR LGUs, MARINA, Fishers (16b) Implement Fisheries Electronic Licensing and information System (FELIS) 1,000 1,200 1,440 1,728 2,074 7,442 BFAR LGUs, MARINA, Fishers (16c) Continue Municipal Fisherfolk Registration (FishR) and Municipal Fishing Boat registration (BoatR) 600 500 300 200 200 1,800 LGUs BFAR, FLDTs, FARMCs, Fishers, MARINA (16d) Continue joint mobile registration (JMR) and licensing 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,500 MARINA and PCG FARMC, BFAR, LGUs, SUCs, Research Institutions, NGOs, Fishers FARMC, BFAR, LGUs, SUCs, Research Institutions, NGOs, Fishers BFAR, LGUs, SUCs, Research Institutions, NGOs, Fishers BFAR, MARINA, NAMRIA, SUCs, Research Institutions, NGOs, Fishers 12. Revisit and review the 15Km distance to include the study of bathymetry and topography 13. Promote use of appropriate fishing gears and boats/vessels 14. Protect spawning grounds and spawning cycles based on research and using a participatory process 15. Strengthen/ Facilitate/ Capacitate organization of registered fisherfolk multi-purpose cooperatives and associations to enhance access to financial services and livelihood opportunities and other purposes especially for municipal fisherfolks 16. Improve boat/ vessel and gear licensing including compliance to catch documentation requirement 8"of"8 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Capture Fisheries Sectoral Workplan Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization/ EntitiesAgreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) (16e) Harmonize BFAR, MARINA and other concerned agencies regarding polices and requirements for small scale and medium commercial to create unified standards when possible 200 200 400 BFAR (16f) Review and update harmonized policies for small scale and medium commercial to create unified standards when possible 500 500 500 1,500 BFAR (16g) Issue certificate of registration to BoatR registrants 1,500 1,000 750 500 500 4,250 LGUs BFAR (16h) Create standard template for fish catch monitoring and documentation 200 200 BFAR (16i) Train and deploy enumerators to consolidate reported data 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 BFAR Sub-total 9,000 5,400 5,490 5,428 5,774 31,092 (17a) Coordination with LGUs and other agencies 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 (17b) Consultation with stakeholders 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 9,000 (17c) Implementation of specific activities ex. JMRL) 1,000 2,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 15,000 Sub-total 3,000 5,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 29,000 (18a) Inventory of exisitng women-managed areas and identification of potential areas 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 Fishers & POs BFAR, LGUs (18b) Coordination and preparation of management plans 500 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 5,500 BFAR, LGUs Fishers & Pos (18c) Consultation 500 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 5,500 BFAR, LGUs Fishers & Pos (18d) Implementation 5,000 2,000 3,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 Fishers & POs BFAR, LGUs Sub-total 6,500 4,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 33,500 (19a) Inventory of exisitng ICRM and identification of potential ICRM areas 5,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 13,000 LGUs DENR, BFAR, Fishers, NGOs, POs (19b) Coordination and preparation of management plans 500 2,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 13,500 LGUs & BFAR DENR, Fishers, NGOs, POs (19c) Consultation 500 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 12,500 DENR & BFAR LGU, Fishers, NGOs, POs (19d) Implementation 1,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 18,000 LGUs DENR, BFAR, Fishers, NGOs, POs Sub-total 7,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 14,000 57,000 Grand Total 16,774,812 LGU and BFAR PCG, MARINA, Fishers LGUs, Fishers MARINA, PCG, Fishers 17. Sustain political will among implementing agencies through synchronized and 18. Identify and establish women -managed areas 19. Develop ICRM Plan (Inter LGU) based on PCRA 16. Improve boat/ vessel and gear licensing including compliance to catch documentation requirement 1"of"5 Aquaculture Fisheries Work Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating 1. Establish & Upgrade Propagation Facilities 20,240 1,065,950 436,300 356,656 467,688 2,346,834 BFAR, DOST SCUs, DSWD, Funding Institutions BFAR LGUs, SCUs, Small holders, R&D Institutions, Consolidators, Fisherfolk leaders, & Registered POs, DSWD ◘ Hatchery 12 36 35 35 31 149 120 132,500 55,500 55,500 106,000 349,620 X X > Establishment 5 4 4 3 16 85,000 8,000 8,000 6,000 107,000 X X > Upgrading 11 11 11 8 41 27,500 27,500 27,500 20,000 102,500 X X > Satellite 20 20 20 20 80 20,000 20,000 20,000 80,000 140,000 X X > Multi species 12 12 120 120 X X ◘ Broodstock multiplication center 1 80,000 20,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 X X ◘ Nursery 3 2 2 2 4 13 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 X X ◘ Strict implementation of National Shellfish Sanitation Program 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 10,000 Classification of shellfish growing areas Profiling of Existing/Potential Areas based on sanitary survey 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 X X Spatfall Monitoring X X Propagation facility for shellfish 3 100,000 X X Capability Building / Skilled Training (BFAR Personnel, farmer, SUC Personnel) 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 X X Procurement (Equipment) X X (1a) Suitability Assessment (Site Selection) 22 22 1,050 (1b) Feasibility Study and Engineering design 22 22 1,575 1,575 (1c) Evaluation and Approval 14 8 22 325 200 525 (1d) Procurement (1d.1) Facilities 13 8 21 315,000 80,000 395,000 (1d.2) Equipments 13 8 21 169,500 12,000 181,500 (1e) Construction 0 (1f) Operation and Management 13 8 21 65,000 80,850 84,893 89,137 319,880 (1f.1) Broodstock Development 9 3 12 45,000 110,250 115,763 121,551 392,564 (1f.2) Disease Management 0 (1g) Monitoring & Evaluation 14 8 22 3,500 2,000 5,500 Sub-total 20,240 1,065,950 436,300 356,656 467,688 2,346,834 1. Review, update & disseminate existing Philippine National Standard (PNS) & development of species- specific standards 1,000 24,200 3,500 1,838 1,929 32,467 DA-BAPS BAFS BFAR (1a) Prioritization of commodities 7 5,250 5,250 (1b) Formation of Technical Working Group (including stakeholders) 7 7,000 3,500 10,500 (1c) Conduct of Consultation (to include stakeholders) 1,838 1,929 3,767 (1d) Approval of PNS 7 3,500 3,500 (1e) Drafting & Approval of FAO 1 2 3 1,000 500 1,500 BFAR BFAR (1f) Publication 1007 1007 450 450 BFAR BFAR (1g) Dissemination 5 7,500 7,500 2. Review & Finalize GAqP Manual of Operation to include system for Registation & Certification 1 1 2,000 2,000 (2a) Prioritization of commodities (2b) Formation of Technical Working Group (including stakeholders) (2c) Conduct of Consultation (to include stakeholders) (2d) Approval of GAqP Manual of Operation (2e) Drafting & Approval of FAO (2f) Publication 1. Secure quality fry/seed supply through coordinated investments in propagation facilities (broodstock, hatcheries, nurseries, laboratories) 2. Institutionalize Good Aquaculture Practices (GAqP) for key commodities and promote sustainable aquaculture Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization 2"of"5 Aquaculture Fisheries Work Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization (2g) Dissemination 3. Training of Inspectors & Aqua farmers on Good Aquaculture Practices 30,000 43,330 51,729 58,161 92,746 275,966 BFAR BFAR SCUs (3a) Accreditation of BFAR Training Centers by TESDA 4 6 6 6 22 1,000 1,575 1,654 1,736 5,965 (3b) Training Needs Assessment 4 10 16 22 52 80 294 662 833 1,869 (3c) Preparation of Training Module 4 10 16 22 52 250 250 (3d) Conduct of Training 180 180 180 180 720 6,000 13,860 19,845 54,177 93,882 (3e) Laboratory Services 7 7 7 7 7 35 30,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 174,000 (3f) Technical Assistance via ICT 500 500 500 500 500 2500 4. Promote & Intensify Health Management Practices (Accreditation, Certification, Registration of Grow Out Farms) 8,100 11,960 12,153 12,356 12,568 57,137 BFAR SCUs (4a) Farm Inspection and Sampling 150 200 250 300 300 1200 260 273 287 301 1,121 (4b) Disease Monitoring, Surveillance & Reporting 6180 7180 8180 9180 9180 39900 3,600 3,780 3,969 4,167 15,516 (4c) Health Certification for transboundary movement (4d) Registration, Accreditation & Certification of 0 (4d.1) Aquafarmer 350 400 450 500 550 2250 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 40,000 (4d.2) Trained Inspector 20 20 20 20 20 100 100 100 100 100 100 500 5. Implementation of National Residue Control Program 1 1 1 1 1 17,000 34,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 102,000 (5a) Upgrading and revision of the manual of operation (5b) strengthening system for monitoring, inspection, sampling, and reporting (5c) risk analysis and categorization (5d) laboratory services conforming with international standards banned substances regulated drugs and chemicals heavy metals dyes 6. Strengthen Organic Farming 5,205 5,580 7,040 8,415 8,875 35,115 (6a) Strengthen National Center for Organic Aquaculture 0 (6a.1) Capacitate Manpower 15 15 20 20 25 95 255 255 340 340 425 1,615 BFAR BFAR LGU & SCUs (6a.2) Rehabilitation of Facilities 3 3 3 3 3 15 600 600 600 600 600 3,000 BFAR BFAR LGU & SCUs (6a.3)Upgrading of Equipment 12 12 12 12 12 60 600 600 600 600 600 3,000 BFAR BFAR LGU & SCUs (6b) Registration/Accreditation/Certification of Organic Farmers 10 15 20 25 30 100 750 1,125 1,500 1,875 2,250 7,500 BFAR BFAR Organic Farmer (6c) Formulation & Certification of Organic Feeds 3 3 4 5 5 20 3,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 BFAR X BFAR & Private LGU & SCUs Sub-total 63,305 119,070 91,422 97,770 133,118 504,685 1. Regulate the aquafeeds safety and quality (Implementation of Philippine National Standard for Aquaculture feeds) including Halal qualifications depending on target market (RA 10611, 10654) 2,500 1,500 - - - 4,000 (1a) Creation of Technical Working Group (including stakeholders) 1 1,000 1,000 (1b) Draft FAO on the Registration, certification & inspection of aquafeed mills (1c) Conduct of Consultation (to include stakeholders) (1d) Approval of FAO (1e) Publication (1f) Dissemination (1g) Development of Halal & Kosher Standards (on Aquaculture) 1 1 1 1 1,500 1,500 3,000 2. Institutionalize Good Aquaculture Practices (GAqP) for key commodities and promote sustainable aquaculture 3. Assure quality and traceability of aquaculture inputs and outputs 3"of"5 Aquaculture Fisheries Work Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization ◘ Consultation (Pre-Preparation) ◘ Consultation (Post Preparation) ◘ Hiring of Staff ◘ Computerization & Publication ◘ Mobilization & Communication ◘ Procurement 2. Registration and accreditation (product and management specific) of hatcheries & grow-out (according to standards co developed by industry and BFAR) including acquisition of broodstock from certified/guaranteed sources 55 57 59 61 232 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 (2a) Application (2b) Inspection (2c) Review & evaluate documents (2d) Approval (2e) Disease Monitoring 3. Regulate the use of drugs & chemicals in aquaculture 2,500 2,500 1,000 1,000 1,000 8,000 (3a) Formation of Technical Working Group (including stakeholders) 1 1 1 1,500 1,500 3,000 (3b) Review draft FAO on the use of drugs & chemicals in Aquaculture (3c) Conduct of Consultation (to include stakeholders) (3d) Approval of FAO (3e) Publication (3f) Dissemination (3g) Registration of Drugs Use in Aquaculture & Licensing of Establishment 5 5 5 5 5 25 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 Sub-total 6,000 5,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 17,000 1. Develop, Enhance & Refine Culture Technology for Emerging Species - 14,100 10,465 10,939 11,667 47,171 DA-BFAR DENR, DILG, LGU, Private sector (1a) Identification 6 2 2 2 12 300 105 110 116 631 (1b) Enhancementment of Technology for broodstock development, propagation, & grow out 6 2 2 2 12 6,000 2,100 2,205 2,315 12,620 (1c) Development of Feed 0 (1d) Broodstock Development 0 (1e) Dissemination 6 2 2 2 12 600 210 221 232 1,263 (1f) Capacitate Manpower 5 5 5 5 20 6,000 6,300 6,615 6,946 25,861 (1g) Commercialization 2 4 4 2 12 200 630 662 926 2,418 (1h) Inventory & Registration of Farms 0 (1i) Establishment of Baseline Info on Fish Diseases of Emerging species 2 4 4 10 (1j) Monitoring (Biological, Physico-chemical) 12 12 12 36 120 126 132 378 (1k) Technical cooperation program assistance (foreign/local experts) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000 Sub-total - 14,100 10,465 10,939 11,667 47,171 1. Profiling potential areas and validate existing mariculture parks using GIS mapping and operationalization of mariculture parks 8,850 8,950 8,750 8,700 8,700 43,950 (1a) Review and update existing mariculture policies guidelines and ordinances and formulate new local regulation assist in the formulation of local ordinances for new mariculture development 3 3 2 1 1 10 400 500 300 250 250 1,700 BFAR LGU/ Stakeholders (1b) Survey and profiling of potential MP for development 1 1 1 1 1 5 50 50 50 50 50 250 BFAR, LGU co-shared Stakeholders 3. Assure quality and traceability of aquaculture inputs and outputs 4. Invest on species with high commercial potential 5. Optimize operation of mariculture parks 4"of"5 Aquaculture Fisheries Work Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization (1c) Establishement of new area 1 1 1 1 1 5 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 BFAR,LGU Research Institutions, SCUs (1d) Continue environmental monitoring of existing MP to determine nutrient flow 43 43 43 43 43 43 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 BFAR Stakeholders (1e) Conduct of investment forum 12 12 12 12 12 60 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 12,000 BFAR, Landbank LGU and Stakeholder 2. Development of Integrated Multi Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) Technology (milkfish, sea cucumber, abalone, sea urchin, seaweeds and other potential species) 7,350 10,850 11,814 12,863 14,584 57,461 (2a) Identify potential site specific commodity species in MP areas. 43 43 43 43 43 43 300 2,800 4,238 5,261 6,956 19,555 BFAR Stakeholders (2b) Develop and demonstrate using combined species 43 43 43 43 43 43 6,000 6,500 6,263 6,276 6,289 31,328 BFAR under cooperators (2c) Improvement/Refinement of developed technologies and adoption of stakeholders 43 43 43 43 43 43 1,000 1,500 1,263 1,276 1,289 6,328 BFAR under cooperators (2d) Intensify promotion to stakeholders 43 43 43 43 43 43 50 50 50 50 50 250 BFAR 3. Cages for Livelihood 118,750 118,750 118,750 118,750 118,750 593,750 (3a) Establishment of Cages for Livelihood 475 475 475 475 475 2375 118,750 118,750 118,750 118,750 118,750 593,750 4. Review and strict implementation of existing policies on FLA to optimize the use of abandoned, underutilized, and unproductive FLA areas for lucrative nursery operations in support to grow-out operations under mariculture parks 1,500 4,500 2,500 2,500 - 11,000 (4a) Update FAO 197-1 (FLA Regulation) through sectoral and inter-Departmental consultation 3 2 1,500 1,000 2,500 (4b) Develop cost effective information and communcaiton technology (ICT) for FLA resources mapping and assessment 3,500 2,500 2,500 8,500 Sub-total 136,450 143,050 141,814 142,813 142,034 706,161 1. Conduct climate/disaster risk assessment in major aquaculture areas and recommend impact mitigation measures/interventions 1,902 3,102 3,102 2,220 2,220 12,546 (1a) Compile hazard maps and evaluate vulnerablity assessment tools relevant to aquaculture planning 1,902 1,902 (1b) Translate medium-long term results of reputable climate prediction models to local aquaculture potential impacts 30 30 30 30 (1c) Short-list low-risk areas suitable for aquaculture use 10 10 3,102 3,102 2,220 2,220 10,644 2. Pilot test (case-work) business continuity planning in selected commodity value chain 2,196 2,056 11,299 11,946 16,504 44,001 (2a) Survey and document indigenous climate/disaster resilient farmer practice specific to aquaculture commodities 20 2,196 2,196 (2b) Assess disaster preparedness of existing/documented aquaculture commodity value chain in vulnerable provinces/regions 10 1,628 1,628 (2c) Develop a business continuity guidebook for aquaculture SME 1 1 428 428 (2d) Conduct introductory orientation workshop on DRRM 5 10 10 2,603 5,206 5,206 13,014 (2e) Conduct training/workshop on business continuity planning for selected aquaculture SME value chain 5 10 10 2,603 5,206 5,206 13,014 (2f) Conduct workshops to integrate climate/disaster impact mitigation in local aquaculture development planning 9 9 4,558 4,558 9,116 (2g) Medium-term case work in business continuity planning in selected commodity value chain (tilapia and seaweeds) 3 3 3 1,535 1,535 1,535 4,606 6. Ensure climate/disaster resilient aquaculture sector 5. Optimize operation of mariculture parks Stakeholder Associations 5"of"5 Aquaculture Fisheries Work Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization 3. Evaluate and recommend effective early warning systems technologies/approach 1,000 5,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 111,000 (3a) Asess effectiveness of early-warning systems/technologies 500 (3b) Identify ICT based platforms for effective Early Warning System (EWS) and extension support services 500 (3c) Promote the utilization of PAGASA knowledge products customized for aquaculture applications (integrated in BCP/DRR trainings/workshops) (3d) Partner with LGUs, BFAR Centers and aquaculture producers association to set-up PAGASA calibrated automatic weather stations and local climate information centers 100 100 100 35,000 35,000 35,000 (3e) Develop and launch ICT-based tools for EWS and farm advisories 3 5,000 4. Develop and disseminate knowledge products such as: 14,000 14,000 (4a) Compiled hazard/vulnerability compilation maps of major aquaculture areas in the Philippines 500 2,250 (4b) Climate/Disaster-resilient aquaculture practices handbook 500 2,250 (4c) Handbook on Agro-meteorology for Aquaculture Extension Workers 500 2,250 (4d) Develop set of farming environment specific aquaculture farm Advisories and early warning messages 500 2,250 (4e) Best practices in business continuity guidebook for aquaculture SME 500 2,250 (4f) Business continuity guidebook for aquaculture SME 500 2,250 (4g) Posters, brochures and flyers 500 500 5. Conduct workshop to determine priority R & D themes for climate/disaster resiliency 1 1 1 1 1 1,750 1,750 1,750 505,250 (5a) Funds for immediate (short-term R & D projects) climate/disaster resiliency R & D themes to include the following: 1) strain development; 2) adaptive farming techniques (e.g. submersible and/or rope-framed cages etc.); 3) evaluation/pilot testing of technology alternatives (e.g. RAS, greenhouse, aquaponics, deep water seaweeds farming etc.); 4) recommendations for "climate/disaster proof aquaculture facilities", water harvesting technologies etc.; 5) socio-economic studies and other relevant themes (crop insurance etc) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 6. Carbon credits from massive seaweeds operations 1 1 1 188,297 (6a) "Identify benefits and access fund facilties from carbon credit programs" for seaweed operations 5,098 10,158 65,651 51,416 55,974 7. Support to adoption of climate/disaster resilient aquaculture technology practices/interventions/technologies tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 Sub-total 2,125,094 Grand Total 5,746,945 6. Ensure climate/disaster resilient aquaculture sector 1"of"4 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating 1. Assess post harvest losses including processing waste/by-products "Your waste can be my raw materials" x x x 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 P NFRDI BFAR, SCU, LGU (1a) Develop assessment instrument for: 1a.1 On-board fishing vessels 1a.2 Trading centers/fish landing center 1a.3 Aqua farm 1a.4 Processing plant 1a.5 Transport (1b) Field test (1c) Training of enumerators (1d) Site identification (1e) Coordination with the LGUs (1f) Actual assessment (1g) Data encoding and analysis (1h) Presentation of results to stakeholders (1i) Indentification of gaps (VCA) (1j) Formulation of strategies to address losses 2. Inventory, rehabilitate, improve, upgrade and establish regional and municipal including private fish ports and other existing facilities 269,000 3,030,000 3,010,000 1,900,000 - 8,209,000 P PFDA BFAR, Private Sector, LGU, DENR for Municipal fish port (2a) Infra assessment survey. (2b) Feasibility study (2c) Conduct detailed engineering study (2d) Procurement stage 1 7 9 17 37,000 140,000 160,000 337,000 (2e) Implementation (2f) Training and turn over to the LGUs for Regional fish port (2g) Feasibility study (2h) Conduct detailed engineering study (2i) Procurement stage 2 10 10 8 30 232,000 2,890,000 2,850,000 1,900,000 7,872,000 (2j) Implementation 3. Provide where appropriate: CFLC (271 units), fish stalls, air blast freezers, ice plants and cold storage facilities, refrigerated vans, solar driers /smokehouses, and warehouses 820,300 (3a) Social/technical preparations 271 Units 150/unit P BFAR LGU, Private Sector, NAPC, PFDA, DENR, PHILMECH (3b) Procurement (3c) Construction 3M/site 793.8M (CFLC) (3d) Turnover to the LGUs/ fisherfolk organizations 20.2 M (fish stalls) (3e) Operation 6.3 M (Live seafood stalls) 4. Conduct training on proper handling, GMP, HACCP, and maintenance of facilities (based on Codex and other appropriate standards) 192 192 192 192 192 960 11,520 11,520 11,520 11,520 11,520 57,600 P BFAR SCU, Private Schools, Private Sector, LGU, DOST and other government agencies (4a) Training needs assessment (4b) Development of training module (4c) Site identification (4d) Coordination with private sector, LGUs, Academes and other agencies (4e) Conduct of training (4f) Post training evaluation (monitoring if for livelihood) (4g) Partnership with TESDA for accreditation Sub-total 9,146,900 Post-Harvest Fisheries Work Plan 1. Improve fisheries post harvest and cold chain technology and facilities Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) 2"of"4 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Post-Harvest Fisheries Work Plan 1. Improve fisheries post harvest and cold chain technology and facilities Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) 1. Formulate policy on zero-rated VAT for all domestically grown and produced fishery products (to encourage production of value added fishery products) 60 60 60 60 440 P P BFAR Private Sector, BIR (1a) Policy review/study x (1b) Draft policy recommendation x (1c) Public consultations x 200 200 (1d) Lobby for approval x x 2. Assist MSMEs in developing & improving the quality / packaging & presentation/nutritional value / acceptability of value-added products (using traditional species, low volume high value species, etc.) to be globally competitive (to be world class) 240 P BFAR SCU, NFRDI, Private Sector, DOST, DTI, LGUand other government agencies (2a) Registration of MSMEs x 500/MSME (2b) Identification of target MSMEs 48 48 48 48 48 240 (2c) Initial assessment of current practices (2d) Provide interventions to registered MSMEs 60 60 60 60 240 60 60 60 60 240 (2e) Coordinate with other government agencies 3. Increase R&D efforts, use new fish processing technologies. 3600 5600 6600 8600 10600 35,000 P NFRDI SCU, DOST, DA-BAR, PhilMech, BFAR (3a) Identification of existing fishery processing technologies (3b) Assessment/ inventory of possible raw materials (low value, high volume, by-catch processing waste) and existing fishery products that need to be developed/improved 3 3 3 3 3 100 100 100 100 100 500 (3c) Technology verification and application 2 2 2 2 2 10 2,000 4,000 5,000 7,000 9,000 27,000 (3d) Publication of Philippine Journal of fisheries 2 2 2 2 2 10 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,500 Sub-total 35,680 1. Facilitate compliance of fish processing establishments with requirements for approval of these establishments for export 7,520 P BFAR Private sector (1a) Training on relevant/appropriate national & international regulations/requirements 7 7 7 7 28 1,680 1,680 1,680 1,680 6,720 (1b) Simplify processing of documents for export (one stop-shop under one roof) (1c) Seminar/dialogue/ consultation workshop on updated regulations and standards including compliance to third party certification 2 2 2 2 8 200 200 200 200 800 2. Monitor and assess the levels of chemicals and microbiological hazards in fish & fishery products (e.g. histamine, etc.) in different steps of supply chain 4 4 4 4 4 20 10,000 11,000 12,000 14,000 15,000 62,000 P NFRDI BFAR, SCU, DOST, Private Sector (2a) Inventory of the fishery product per specie (2b) Identify the available data (2c) Fill up the gaps (2d) Come up with data base related to chemical and microbiological contaminants in relation to national and international standards (2e) Government intervention on prevention and mitigation across industries (2f) Collaboration with the SUCs (2g) Continuous monitoring of chemical and microbiological hazards in areas with occurrence of contaminants (2h) Information dissemination 3. Increase capacity of existing testing laboratories to meet the industry requirements 500 104,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 136,500 P (3a) Inventory of existing laboratories and current industry needs X 4,000 4,000 BFAR Private Sector, DOST (3b) Facilitate the linkage between the industry and government recognized laboratories X X X X X 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 (3c) Procurement of additional equipment, if necessary 4 units LC 100,000 100,000 (3d) Operation and maintenance of laboratory with private sector X X X 10,000 10,000 10,000 30,000 Sub-total 206,020 3. Improve compliance of fish processing establishments to relevant national and international regulations 2. Increase production of value-added products from fish and fishery by products / processing wastes 3"of"4 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Post-Harvest Fisheries Work Plan 1. Improve fisheries post harvest and cold chain technology and facilities Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) 1. Provide appropriate training activities on post harvest fisheries (entrepreneurial skills, marketing, post harvest technologies) for sustainable livelihood 180 180 180 180 180 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 135,000 BFAR SCU, LGU, Private Sector, DTI, ATI, DOST, TESDA (1a) Training needs assessment P (1b) Development of training module (1c) Site identification (1d) Coordination with private sector, LGUs, Academes and other agencies (1e) Conduct of training (1f) Post training evaluation (monitoring if for livelihood)(1g) Partnership with TESDA for accreditation 2. Provide technical and other assistance to coastal communities on fisheries post harvest activities (i.e. compliance to food safety requirements, post harvest technologies). 32 32 48 48 48 208 1,600 1,600 2,400 2,400 2,400 10,400 P BFAR SCU, LGU, Private Sector, DTI, ATI, DOST, TESDA (2a) Identification of target organizations (2b) Initial assessment of current practices (2c) Provide interventions (i.e. product promotion) (2d) Coordinate with other government and private agencies/organizations (2e) Standardize package of assistance 3. Develop business plan models to be adopted by MSME’s 2 3 4 5 6 20 300 450 600 750 900 3,000 P BFAR DTI, DOST, TESDA, LGU, SCU, Private Sector (3a) Gather and document best practices technology per product. (3b) Create Technical Working Group (TWG) to develop business plan models (3c) Draft business plan models (plant lay-out, costing, equipment needed, food safety requirements, etc) for small scale and export (3d) Consultation with the industry (3e) Finalize and adopt 4. Recognize and support the role of fisherfolk as first responders in emergency situations (floods, calamities, etc.) 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 14,000 P BFAR DSWD, LGU, DILG, NDRRMC (4a) Coordinate with other government agencies (DILG, NDRRMC). x (4b) Develop concepts, terms of reference and implementing guidelines x (4c) Identify target fisherfolks (4d) Capability training for fisherfolks (province) 10 15 20 25 70 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 14,000 (4e) Provide equipment for rescue operations and incentives x x x x 500/day/ fisherfolk 20 L/day (fuel) for 5 days ◘ Communication radio 20/set Sub-total 162,400 4. Increase and strengthen fishery-based livelihood and entrepreneurial programs in the coastal communities 4"of"4 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Post-Harvest Fisheries Work Plan 1. Improve fisheries post harvest and cold chain technology and facilities Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) 1. Formulate policy on granting of incentives for domestics companies 200 200 Offer clear incentives to all investors (domestic first) Provide tax incentive for the construction of new and upgrading of existing processing plants / facilities. Full access to info on incentive application’s approvalsEase importation of equipment Invite private sectors to invest inside PFDA properties with very generous (and specific) incentives. Domestic companies to enjoy same incentives given to foreign companies (1a) BFAR to participate in BOI processes with the industry stakeholders x x x x x P BFAR BOI, BIR (1b) Policy review/study with DA, BOI x x (1c) Draft policy recommendation x (1d) Public consultations x 200 200 (1e) Lobby for approval x Sub-total 200 Grand Total 9,551,200 5. Formulate and implement consistent policies on granting of incentives and other support services to all domestic or national companies vis a vis grants to foreign companies 1"of"7 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating 1. Conduct of fish consumer and preference survey consumption 2,600 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 29,800 BFAR LGUs, DOH, BFAR, PSA, ACADEME, DTI (1a) Identify survey areas - profiling NCR, Cebu, CDO,Davao, GenSan ◘ national survey ◘ the survey will cater to all strategies identified ◘ development of survey forms ◘ include preferences of imported and local product in the form ◘ fish consumption and consumer preference survey ◘ include pricing 12 12 2,500 2,500 (1a.1) Project Proposal Preparation X 0 50 50 (1a.2) MOA with ACADEME/ SUCs X 0 50 50 1a.3) Conduct of Survey 1 1 1 1 4 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 (1a.4) Submission of report and Monitoring 1 1 1 1 4 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 4,800 ◘ data analysis (1a.5) Presentation of survey results to fora, meetings, consultations 1 1 1 1 4 (1a.6) Incorporation of results to ICT - regular updating 1 1 1 1 4 600 600 600 600 2,400 2. Conduct of industry fora and consultation meetings relevant to trade and marketing Industry forum 1 national; 1 per region consultation meeting 2 per province; 2 per region 14,120 14,120 14,120 14,120 56,480 BFAR LGU, DTI, DOST, traders, processors, fisherfolk, Academe, DA, NGO, media (2a) Activity Proposal preparation (2b) Coordination/Invitation of stakeholders (2c) Conduct of activity 1 national 1 1 1 1 1 5 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 4,800 1 per region 18 18 18 18 18 90 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 21,600 (2d) Uploading of report to ICT 19 19 19 19 19 95 250 250 250 250 1,000 (2e) Activity Proposal preparation (2f) Coordination/Invitation of stakeholders (2g) Conduct of activity 2 per province 162 162 162 162 162 810 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 6,480 2 per region 36 36 36 36 36 180 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 21,600 (2h) Uploading of report to ICT 198 198 198 198 198 990 250 250 250 250 1,000 3. Facilitation of market access of fishery-based individuals/ cooperatives/ assn/org to domestic and export markets 87,950 87,950 107,950 107,950 107,950 499,750 BFAR LGU, DTI, DOST, traders, processors, fisherfolk, Academe, DA, NGO, media A. Organize and/or participate in Trade fair, seafood show Domestic 2 per province; national -2 International - 4 (3a) Activity Proposal preparation (3b) Coordination/Invitation (3c) Conduct of activity Domestic/local 164 164 164 164 164 820 provincial 162 162 162 162 162 810 16,200 16,200 16,200 16,200 16,200 81,000 national 2 2 2 2 2 10 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 International 4 4 4 4 4 20 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 (3d) Assessment per event 0 (3e) Market reconnaissance/survey 0 (3f) Uploading of report to ICT 168 168 168 168 168 840 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 B. Business and trade missions (3g) Invite suppliers and buyers 0 1. Expand the market for sustainable fish and fishery products (domestic and export) Trade and Marketing Work Plan Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization 2"of"7 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating 1. Expand the market for sustainable fish and fishery products (domestic and export) Trade and Marketing Work Plan Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization (3h) Communication and coordination with agri/trade attache/gov't representative 0 (3i) Conduct business/trade mission 3 3 3 9 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 C. Business/market matching 1 per province 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 (3j) Activity Proposal preparation 0 (3k) Identification/Coordination/Invitation of buyers and suppliers 0 (3l) Conduct of activity 81 81 81 81 81 405 (3m) Monitoring of consummated transactions 0 (3n) Uploading of report to ICT 81 81 81 81 81 405 D. Marketing through E-commerce (3o) Identify available platforms 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 7,500 (3p) Identify/invite/coordinate with suppliers, buyers and traders 100 100 100 100 100 500 (3q) Register suppliers, buyers and traders 10 20 50 75 100 255 (3r) Monitoring 10 20 50 75 100 255 Sub-total 90,550 108,870 128,870 128,870 128,870 586,030 - - - 1.Conduct of market linkages & actions to ensure food security 12 12 5,000 5,000 10,000 (1a) Identification of food fish-deficient and foodfish sufficient areas (profiling/ mapping) - species, production volume, seasonality, consumer preference, demand, demographics, purchasing power of consumers (1b) literature research & baselining of foodfish deficient & - sufficient areas (1c) Needs analysis using baseline data (1d) Baseline data validation (ie. Sufficiency/deficiency level per region) (1e) Updating of mapping/ profiling of foodfish deficient & -sufficient areas to ICT (1f) Presentation of validated & updated foodfish deficiency/sufficiency data to stakeholders and uploading to ICT 2. Provision and management of infrastructure & institutional/ services (tradding centers/posts, CFLCs, cold chain facilities, road transport & communication networks) 12 12 12 3,000 3,000 3,000 9,000 (2a) Assessment/evaluation of existing infrastructure & institutional support and prevailing logistical system (including trading & transport system) (2b) Review available literature research/studies (2c) inventory, assessment/evaluation of available infrastructure & institutional support (2d) Needs analysis & recommendations based on assessment (2e) preparation of assessment/evaluation report (2f) Presentation of results of assessment to stakeholders and upload information in ICT 3. Strengthen inter-agency collaboration and public-private partnership to reduce distribution costs 12 12 12 2,500 2,500 2,500 7,500 (3a) Consultations / coordination with LGUs & industry players (3b) Preparation of invitation to public consultations on the outcomes of Activities 1a & 2a (3c) identify & invite participants to public consultations (3d) public consultation (4a) Project Proposal (PP) (4a.1) Preparation of project Proposal (PP) (4a.2) Public consultation & approval of proposed project 1. Expand the market for sustainable fish and fishery products (domestic and export) 2. Ensure the availability of sufficient supply in foodfish-deficient areas 3"of"7 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating 1. Expand the market for sustainable fish and fishery products (domestic and export) Trade and Marketing Work Plan Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization (5a) MOA Signing (project approval) (5a.1) Preparation of invitation to MOA signing (5a.2) Identify & invite attendees to MOA signing (5a.3) MOA signing (6a) Phase 1- Pilot Project Implementation (6a.1) Consultation with the implementing LGUs and cooperators (6a.2) Bidding & procurement of construction materials (Please refer to the Post-Harvest Work Plan) (6a.3) Construction of infra facilities (eg. trading posts, CFLCs, cold chain facilities, etc.)(Please refer to the Post-Harvest Work Plan) (6a.4) Pilot implementation (7a) Phase 1-Monitoring & Evaluation (7a.1) Develop/design monitoring and evaluation tools (7a.2) Conduct of monitoring and evaluation (8a) Phase 2- Projet Implementation in other areas with adjustments/ enhancements in consideration of peculiarities of specific areas (8a.1) Consultation with the implementing LGUs and cooperators (8a.2) Bidding & procurement of construction materials (Please refer to the Post-Harvest Work Plan) (8a.3) Construction of infra facilities (eg. trading posts, CFLCs, cold chain facilities, etc.)(Please refer to the Post-Harvest Work Plan) (8a.4) Implementation (9a) Phase 2 - Monitoring & Evaluation (9a.1) Review and updating of monitoring tools (9a.2) Conduct of monitoring and evaluation (10a) Post Evaluation upon project completion (10a.1) Conduct of consultations 4. Include the investors/business located in/targeting in foodfish-deficient areas in the investment priority plan 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 (4a) Public-private consultations/dialogues 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 (4b) Project feasibility study for the development of investment priority plan (4c) Development of investment priority plan (IPP) (4d) Proposal & approval of IPP (4e) IPP implementation (4f) Monitoring & Evaluation (4g) Review & Updating/Adjustment Sub-total 5,000 10,500 7,500 7,500 2,000 32,500 1. Conduct of capacity-building/ training (on credit, entrepreneurship, and marketing) and participation in trade fairs/for a/meetings and business and trade missions 15,423 14,556 13,056 13,056 - 56,091 (1a) Conduct profiling of fishery-based MSMEs in the Philippines (1a.1) conduct consultation-meetings for the development and formulation of survey tools 3 3 576 576 (1a.2) orientation of enumerators 2 2 320 320 (1a.3) actual survey/profiling 0 255 255 (1a.4) Consolidation and analysis of survey data 3 3 216 216 (1b) Conduct assesment/identification of training needs of the industry (TNA) 0 (1b.1) Assessment thru conduct of survey on trainings needed 0 (1c) Develop and prepare training modules 2 3 5 1,000 1,500 2,500 (1d) Conduct trainings for: 0 2. Ensure the availability of sufficient supply in foodfish-deficient areas 3: Increase in the number of capacitated/competitive fishery-based MSMEs that can enter the market 4"of"7 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating 1. Expand the market for sustainable fish and fishery products (domestic and export) Trade and Marketing Work Plan Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization (1d.1) Credit access: preparation of business plans, credit worthiness training for fisherfolk borrowers, financial management, leadership training, cooperativism 34 34 34 34 136 6,528 6,528 6,528 6,528 26,112 (1d.2) Market access: product packaging, labelling/branding, product promotional strategies, marketing ads/commercials, development of marketing plan, marketing thru social media, technology use 34 34 34 34 136 6,528 6,528 6,528 6,528 26,112 (1e) Participation/exposure to seafood trade fairs and expos (1e.1) Identification of local and internationl seafood trade fairs and expos to participate (1e.2) Identification of participating MSMEs (1e.3) Identification of seafood trade fairs and expos to participate (1e.4) Consultation-meetings re: participation details (1e.5) Participation in the actual event (1f) Participation/exposure to business/trade missions (outbound) (1f.1) Identification of target markets (local and international) (1f.2) Identification of participating MSMEs (1f.3) Consultation-meetings with trade attaches and participants (1f.4) Participation in the actual event (1f.5)Feedbacking/ Re echoing 2. Facilitation of access to financial/credit support (equipment, infrastructure, capital) 7,080 7,980 7,980 7,980 7,980 39,000 (2a) Orientation on available credit windows of financing institutions (Fis) (2b) Conduct of investment forum (invite GFIs to present various financing windows and schemes) 17 17 17 17 17 85 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 30,000 (2c) Conduct monitoring on the status of credit facilitated c.1 development of monitoring forms 5 5 5 5 20 900 900 900 900 3,600 (2d) Provision of other necessary technical assistance to enable access to credit 6 6 6 6 6 30 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,080 5,400 Sub-total 22,503 22,536 21,036 21,036 7,980 95,091 1. Implementation of a comprehensive market research program that will address the trade concerns of the primary and emerging markets in both domestic and foreign sectors. 1,540 6,420 6,420 6,420 6,420 27,220 NFRDI/BFAR-FIDSD BFAR Regional Offices, LGU, SUC's, DTI (1a) Creation of a task force to develop a national baseline data that will address the marketing needs of the fishery sector (activity) 1 1 100 100 (1a.1) Identify the composition of the task force (include all stakeholders) ◘ formulate functions, duties and responsibilities, scope of work, etc (1a.2) Issuance of Official Orders from OP to concerned agencies on the creation of task force (1a.3) Conduct of Meetings - carry out official functions 3 3 3 3 3 15 150 150 150 150 150 750 (1a.4) Institutionalize the task force within the appropriate agency (1b) Establishment of Comprehensive National Fisheries database 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 ◘ Production volume and value, location, prices ◘ Stakeholders's profile (suppliers, producers, traders, fisherfolk others) ◘ Fishery policies, laws and regulations ◘ Regulatory services (testing, inspection, certification, others) 3: Increase in the number of capacitated/competitive fishery-based MSMEs that can enter the market 4. Establish a comprehensive market information system 5"of"7 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating 1. Expand the market for sustainable fish and fishery products (domestic and export) Trade and Marketing Work Plan Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization ◘ Registered/accredited fisheries establihsments/facilities ◘ Fish consumption (sufficiency, consumer preferences, others) ◘ Extension services ◘ Reports ◘ Events (1c) Conduct of market mapping of specific fishery products by region and province in terms of volume and value of production, prices, product demand, consumer preferences, imports and exports with emphasis on surplus and deficit areas; market research relative to trading system for the establishment of market (activity) (1c.1). Conduct VCA (per region, per commodity) i.. Identify priority commodities for value chain analysis ii.. Identify additional commodities for market mapping iii. Conduct training on value chain analysis for regions identified as producers of priority commodities 3 1 1 1 1 7 300 100 100 100 100 700 iv. Data collection, Consolidation, Encoding and Analysis based on Designed Templates 4 4 4 4 4 20 400 400 400 400 400 2,000 e. Evaluation of regional value chain analysis results 3 3 3 3 3 15 120 120 120 120 120 600 v. Finalization of Regional value chain analysis 1 1 1 1 1 5 30 30 30 30 30 150 vi. Updating of value chain analysis 1 1 1 1 4 180 180 180 180 720 (1d) National Consolidation (1d.1) Compilation and analysis of regional value chain analysis 4 4 4 4 4 20 320 320 320 320 320 1,600 (1d.2) Presentation of VCA results to corresponding sectoral groups 1 1 1 1 1 5 100 100 100 100 100 500 (1d.3) Identification of Data for Inclusion to IEC/ICT 1 1 1 1 1 5 20 20 20 20 20 100 2. Development of Information, Education and Communication (IEC) Program for market information and marketing of fishery products (tri-media, social media and digital) 3,200 2,250 2,250 2,250 2,250 12,200 BFAR BAS-PSA,DTI, Private Sector (2a) Develop a marketing webpage found in the Bureau's official website in cooperation with Fisheries Information Management Center (BFAR-FIMC) (2a.1) Conduct consultation meetings with FIMC 4 4 250 250 (2a.2) Planning of webpage design and layout 4 4 350 350 (2a.3). Planning of market information for webpage inclusion 4 4 (2a.4) Webpage development 500 500 (2a.5) Conduct of pilot testing of webpage 1 1 100 100 (2a.6) Launching of fully developed webpage 250 250 (2a.7) Regular updating of webpage 1 1 1 1 4 500 500 500 500 2,000 (2b) Develop a promotional AVP of Philippine Seafood Products in collaboration with Information and Public Relations Group (BFAR-IPRG) 750 750 750 750 750 3,750 (2b.1) Project proposal preparation 1 1 (2b.2). Conduct consultation meetings with IPRG 2 2 (2b.3) Identify participating markets, LGUs and stakeholders 2 2 (2b.4) Conduct consultation meetings with participating Market Masters, LGUs and stakeholders 3 3 (2b.5) Conduct of photo and video documentation of Ph seafood products 4 4 (2b.6) AVP development and polishing 2 2 (2c) Develop product promotional and service information IEC materials (brochures, posters and flyers) 1 1 1 1 1 5 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 4. Establish a comprehensive market information system 6"of"7 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating 1. Expand the market for sustainable fish and fishery products (domestic and export) Trade and Marketing Work Plan Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization 3. Development and establishment of ICT in Fisheries 1,200 10,750 20,900 32,740 4,900 70,490 BFAR DOST-ICTO, DOST PAGASA, DTI, PSA, private sector (i.e. IGAT), CSOs (i.e. Bayang Pinoy), NDRRMC, CCC, DILG, SCUs (3a) Study of Different Country ICT 2 2 600 600 (3b) Preliminary Concept Study 2 2 600 600 (3c) Development of a specialized platform for e commerce of fishery product (3c.1) Develop Schedule of Activities 3 3 1,980 1,980 (3c.2) Consultations with the stakeholders on the user interface 3 3 1,980 1,980 (3c.3) Software Development of Concept 3 3 2,250 2,250 (3c.4) Platform Study (open web, FLS space, mobile, etc) 1 1 480 480 (3c.5) Software concept upgrade 1 1 480 480 (3c.6) Development Inclusions 2 2 1,080 1,080 (3c.7) Software Development (specialized platform for fishery product) 10 10 18,400 18,400 (3c.8) Pilot Test Software 2 2 5,520 5,520 (3c.9) Verify Stability and Security 4 4 5,760 5,760 (3c.10) Test software to different sectors (farmer, fisherfolk producers, suppliers, traders, BFAR, DTI, associations, etc) 2 2 5,520 5,520 (3c.11) Launch Fully Developed Sovftware/Roll Out 3 3 5,520 5,520 Improve and Update Software 3 3 5,520 5,520 (3d) Data Analysis 12 12 12 12 48 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 10,000 (3e) System Maintenance 12 12 24 2,400 2,400 4,800 Subtotal 5,940 19,420 29,570 41,410 13,570 109,910 1. Review and analysis of existing national and international laws/policies relevant to trade and marketing (to address gaps and needs of the market 8,600 - - - - 8,600 BFAR DTI, BFAR, BAFPS, FDA, BOC, Private Sector, DILG (1a) Creation of Technical Working Group (TWG) (1a.1) Conduct consultation and meetings 1 1 7,000 7,000 (1a.2) Draft MOA on duties and responsibilities for each agency 1 1 (1a.3) 'Review and approval of MOA 1 1 (1b) Scoping of policies, laws and regulations for domestic market 0 Review of domestic market policies 16 16 1,600 1,600 (1c) Scoping of policies, laws and regulations for export market 0 (1c.1)Review of existing market policies with trading partner 10 10 (1c.2) 'Update/Ammend/Issue/Legislate laws and policies to make it relevent for marketing needs 0 (1c.3) Implementation 10 10 (1c.4) Coordinate with DTI Phil National Trade Repository Secretariat for updating of trade related policies 0 (1c.5) Review of the process mapping or system audit of inspection/regulatory protocols 0 (1c.6) Conduct field validations/visits 16 16 16 16 16 80 (1c.7) Streamline and harmonize audit processes 0 (1c.8) Conduct National Forum on 3rd party audit/certification 0 2. Forging of public-private partnerships (PPPs) towards more effective , transparent, accountable regulatory schemes (self-regulation, anti-smuggling) 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 10,000 4. Establish a comprehensive market information system 5. Strengthen enforcement of laws, policies and regulations related to trade and marketing 7"of"7 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating 1. Expand the market for sustainable fish and fishery products (domestic and export) Trade and Marketing Work Plan Agreed Consolidated Actions Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source Responsible Agency/ Organization (2a) Creation of a task force to forge public-private partnerships (PPPs) towards more effective , transparent, accountable regulatory schemes (self regulation, anti-smuggling) 0 (2a.1) Identify the composition of the task force (include all stakeholders) 0 ◘ Formulate functions, duties and responsibilities, scope of work, etc 0 ◘ Develop model for private public partnership 0 (2a.2) Issuance of Official Orders from OP to concerned agencies on the creation of task force 0 (2a.3) Conduct of Meetings - carry out official functions 0 (2a.4) Institutionalize the task force within the appropriate agency 0 (2b) Forge partnership between public and private sector 0 Sub-total 10,600 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 18,600 1. Assessment and evaluation of manpower competency of fishery institutions 2,850 1,400 - - - 4,250 BFAR DTI, Academe, Private Sector (1a) Development of survey/evaluation form 1 1 250 250 (1a.1) Hiring of consultant 1 1 100 100 (1a.2) Creation of TWG 1 1 100 100 (1a.3) Pre-testing of survey/evaluation form 0 150 150 (1a.4) Finalization of survey/evaluation form 0 150 150 (1b) Conduct of evaluation 19 19 200 200 (1b.1) Identification of focal persons (Region/National) 0 150 150 (1b.2) Identification of target respondents/key informants 0 150 150 (1b.3) Floating of survey/evaluation form 0 250 250 (1b.4) Collection/Validation of survey/evaluation form 0 1,200 1,200 2,400 (1c) Preparation, presentation and submission of report to concerned institutions 1 1 150 150 (1c.1) Analysis of accomplished survey/evaluation form 0 200 200 2. Development of training programs/modules to capacitate the industry and government personnel (LGUs/NGAs) 1,200 6,500 5,900 6,100 6,100 25,800 BFAR/DTI Academe, Private Sector (2a) Development of training programs specific to fisheries trading/marketing 5 5 1,200 250 250 250 250 2,200 (2a.1) Hiring of consultant 2 2 (2a.2) Creation of TWG 1 1 (2b) Conduct of trainors training (national) 2 2 600 600 (2c) Conduct of regional trainings 38 38 38 38 152 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 (2d) Post-evaluation on the effectivity of trainings conducted on the competency of fisheries 1 1 1 1 4 500 500 500 500 2,000 (2d.1) Conduct of survey (internal) 0 200 200 400 (2d.2) Third-party evaluation on the competency of fishery institutions/personnel involved in marketing 0 (2e) Enhancement of training programs 5 5 150 150 150 150 600 Sub-total 4,050 7,900 5,900 6,100 6,100 30,050 Grand Total 138,643 171,226 194,876 206,916 160,520 872,181 5. Strengthen enforcement of laws, policies and regulations related to trade and marketing 6. Enhance capacity/competency of fishery institutions, manpower and professionals (LGUs, NGAs, academe and other industry players), specific to marketing 1"of"3 Crosscutting Themes Work Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Review financing programs and explore alternatives ACPC GFIs, BFAR, DTI, CDA, private sector, CSOs Develop a borrower-friendly financing program/scheme specific for small fisherfolk and MSMEs Increase provision of guarantee funds to FIs for the availment by small fisherfolk and MSMEs Conduct orientation and investment forum on available credit windows of financing institutions (FIs). Provision of other necessary technical assistance to enable access to credit Conduct monitoring on the status of credit facilitated e.1 development of monitoring forms Fishery products Review existing programs PCIC PhilHealth, BFAR, CDA, private sector, CSOs Fisherfolk Conduct orientation and consultations Facilities Provide technical assistance Development of tax incentive system Create a TWG to review, update, formulate/develop policies on relevant tax and other incentive programs, to include among others: DTI BOI BFAR, DOF, BIR, private sector, BOC, Tariff Commission, PEZA Review of list of equipment and aquaculture inputs submitted to the Bureau of Customs a. List of equipment and aquaculture inputs Review of import taxes levied on imported raw materials for feeds b. Import taxes levied on imported raw materials for feeds Integrate BFAR livelihood/ entrepreneurial programs with other NGA/GOCC interventions (e.g. Four Ps of DSWD and subsidized insurance programs under PCIC (note: to consolidate inputs from other sectors) Identify agencies with fisheries-related livelihood/etrepreneurial programs 1,000 BFAR DSWD, DTI, DOLE, DA-NCI, TESDA, NCIP, DILG, CSOs, private sector, NAPC Create an interagency committee to review, update, formulate/develop programs on livelihood/ entrepreneurship 3,000 3,000 Conduct consulation and orientation 3,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Implement fisheries-related livelihood programs 500,000 550,000 605,000 665,500 732,050 Responsible Agency/ Organization 2. Develop insurance programs for fisheries Agreed Consolidated Crosscutting Themes Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source 1. Facilitate access to credit 3. Provide tax and other incentives 4. Enhance convergence of livelihood/ entrepreneurial programs 2"of"3 Crosscutting Themes Work Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Responsible Agency/ Organization Agreed Consolidated Crosscutting Themes Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source 1. Facilitate access to credit Data collection (fishery/aquaculture) 1. Create interagency working committee to identify ICT needs/requirements, policies and implementing guidelines (note: see MDG on ICT) BFAR DOST-ICTO, DOST-PAGASA, DTI, PSA, private sector (i.e. IGAT), CSOs (i.e. Bayang Pinoy), NDRRMC, CCC, DILG, SCUs a. Identify the composition of the IWC (include all stakeholders) b. Issuance of Official Orders from OP to concerned agencies c. Conduct of Meetings - carry out official functions d. Institutionalize the task force within the appropriate agency 2. Develop ICT software/systems in Fisheries a. Develop platforms for fisheries database b. Develop Schedule of Activities c. Consultations with the stakeholders on the user interface d. Software Development of Concept e. Platform Study (open web, FLS space, mobile, etc) f. Software concept upgrade g. Development Inclusions h. Software Development (specialized platform for fishery product) i. Pilot Test Software j. Verify Stability and Security k. Test software to different sectors (farmer, fisherfolk producers, suppliers, traders, BFAR, DTI, associations, etc) l. Launch Fully Developed Sovftware/Roll Out m. Improve and Update Software 3. Data collection, to include among others: production volume and value, location, prices stakeholders's profile (suppliers, producers, traders, fisherfolk others) fishery policies, laws and regulations regulatory services (testing, inspection, certification, others) registered/accedited fisheries establihsments/facilities fish consumption (sufficiency, consumer preferences, others) extension services reports, weather, new technologies,inventory of IECs events 4. Data analysis 5. System maintenance 5. Develop/ Strengthen/ Harmonize Information & Communication Technologies (ICT) in Fisheries 3"of"3 Crosscutting Themes Work Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total NGA LGU Private Sector Others* Lead Participating Responsible Agency/ Organization Agreed Consolidated Crosscutting Themes Activities Target Budget (PhP '000) Funding Source 1. Facilitate access to credit 1. Create interagency working committee to identify power needs/requirements, policies and implementing guidelines 1,000 2,000 DOST BFAR, DOE-Commission on Renewable Energy, CSO, private sector, SCUs, DTI BOI a. Identify the composition of the IWC (include all stakeholders) 500 2,000 b. Issuance of Official Orders from OP to concerned agencies 500 1,000 c. Conduct of Meetings - carry out official functions 1,000 3,000 3,000 d. Institutionalize the IWC within the appropriate agency 1,000 2,000 2,000 2. Identify available alternative sources of energy 1,000 2,000 3,000 3. Pilot testing of appropriate technologies 1,000 3,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 4. Source funds for project implementation 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5. Implement projects 10,000 20,000 30,000 30,000 Curriculum review 1. Provide technical assistance (including the development of technical reference materials) CHED TESDA, DepEd, DA-ATI, BFAR, SCUs, CSOs, private sector Support of fisheries high schools 2. Provide avenues for OJT and industry immersion Faculty development Conduct of trainers’ training / on-the-job trainings Education system for agri/fishery – fisheries scholarship program Expansion of the fisheries scholarship program 1. Review and update fisheries scholaship program (at all levels) BFAR DOST, CHED, DepEd, SCUs, NEDA, private sector, CSOs, TESDA. DILG 2. Conduct tracer study of graduates 3. Conduct needs assessment 4. Expand scholarship program to include graduate studies 5. Increase when appropriate the number of scholars and financial benefits 8. Expand fisheries scholarship program 6. Provide alternative/ affordable source of energy for fisheries applications (to include electrification for areas without) 7. Collaborate with concerned agencies to enhance fisheries education STATE OF CAPTURE FISHERIES IN THE PHILIPPINES Wilfredo L. Campos (UPV CAS OceanBio Lab) Donna M. Guarte (UPV CAS OceanBio Lab) Rafael Ramiscal (BFAR Central Office) December 2015 State%of%capture%fisheries%in%the%Philippines!! Wilfredo!L.!Campos!&!Donna!M.!Guarte!(UPV!CAS!!OceanBio!Lab)! Rafael!Ramiscal!(BFAR!Central!Office)! ! This!paper!presents!a!synthesis!of!current!available!information!on!the!status!of!capture!fisheries!in! the!country.! !These! include!temporal! trends!and!geographical! (regional)!distribution!of! landings!of! major! fisheries!resources,!such!as!tuna!and!tunaLlike! fishes,!sardines!and!other!small!pelagics,!and! softLbottom! fish! and! invertebrates! like! squid! and! swimming! blue! crabs.! ! Available! information! relating! catch! and! fishing! effort! are! summarized! to! present! trends! in! exploitation! status! and! in! simple!catch!rates!for!various!fishing!grounds!around!the!country.!! Historical!trends!in!marine!capture!fisheries!production! Marine! capture! fisheries! production! from! 1950! to! 2014! is! presented! by! sector! in! Figure! 1.! ! On! a! nationwide! scale,! the!development!of! fisheries! showed! rapid! growth! from! the!1960’s! to! the!midL 1970s.! !This!was!followed!by!about!a!decade!of!near!stagnation!in!production!in!both!sectors!until! the! midL1980s! (Silvestre! et! al.,! 1989).! ! ! This! slowdown!has!been!interpreted!as!the!period! when!the!major!fishing!grounds!of!the!country! reached! their! respective! maximum! sustainable!yields!(Dalzell!and!Ganaden,!1987;! Armada,!2004).!The!further!increase!from!the! late! 1980s! to! 2010,! particularly! for! the! commercial! sector! may! be! due! to! expansion! to! fishing!grounds! further!offshore!as!well! as! to! technological! advances! in! navigation,! locating! fish! aggregations,! and! efficiency! in! fishing!operations.!The!increasing!trend!is!less! consistent! for! the!municipal! sector.! ! Figure! 2! shows! the! average! percent! (%)! change! in! annual! landings! by! 10! year! periods! for! each! sector.! ! The! reduction! in! annual! growth! in! municipal! fisheries! production! was! consistent!for!at!least!30!years,!from! the! 1970s! to! 2000,! while! commercial! landings! remained! low! but! changed! little! during! the! same! period.!!Annual!production!has!been! decreasing! in! both! sectors! since! 2010! (Fig.!1).! ! In!2013,! total!marine! capture! fisheries! production! amounted!to!2.13M!mt.!!! While! trends! in! production! may! provide!some! information,! the!truly!useful! information!on!the!performance!of! the! industry!should! be!of!the!rate!of!fisheries!production,!in!terms!of!fishing!effort,!or!some!parameter!that!is!indicative! of!it.!!This!will!be!examined!in!a!later!section.! Geographical!distribution!of!fisheries!production! Figures!3a!and!b!show!the!distribution!of!mean!annual!landings!(in!10 3 !mt)!by!region.!!Most!of!the! catches! from! the! commercial! fisheries! are! landed! in! ports! along! the!western! part! of! the! country,! 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Fi sh er ie s' Pr od uc tio n' in 'M ill io ns 'o f'm t Total Mun2Prod Comm2Prod L5! 0! 5! 10! 15! 1960! 1970! 1980! 1990! 2000! 2010! 2014! A n n u a l! ch a n g e !i n !L a n d in g s! (% )! comm! mun! particularly! in!East!Sulu!Sea,!Moro!Gulf,!Manila!Bay!and! in!Southern!Luzon! (Fig.!3a).! !Much!of! the! municipal!production,!however,!is!landed!in!the!central!part!of!the!country,!namely!the!Visayan!Sea,! Bicol,! North! and! Southeast! Sulu! Sea! (Fig.! 3b).!! While!municipal! catches! are! typically! landed!within! the! same! locality! or! fishing! ground,! the! same! cannot! be! assumed! for! commercial! catches.! Hence,! Fig.! 3! does! not! necessarily! reflect! the! main! fishing!grounds!of!the!commercial!sector.! The!typical!composition!of!catches!from!both!sectors,!based!on!annual!mean!landings!from!2002!to! 2014,! are! summarized! in! Figs.! 4a! and! b.! Commercial! fisheries! landings! are!made! up! primarily! of! pelagic!fishes,!with!small!pelagics!(scads),!sardines!and!small!mackerels!making!up!about!48%,!and! tuna! and! other! large! pelagics! making! up! another! 30%! or! so.! In! contrast,! over! 50%! of! municipal! catches! consist! of! other! species! of! pelagic! and! soft/hard! bottom! demersals,! including! many! invertebrates.!! ! The!geographical!distribution!of!landings!of!major!resource!groups!caught!by!each!sector!are!shown! below! in!Figs.!5L13.! !The!trend! in!annual!production!for! the!13yr!period!2002L14! is!also!presented! alongside!for!each!resource!group.!!! For! the!major! tuna! species! (skipjack! and! yellow! fin),! as!well! as! for! the! other! tuna! (Bullet/Frigate,! Eastern! little! &! Bigeye),! the! commercial! landings! are! located!mostly! in! the! East/South! Sulu! Sea! L! Moro!Gulf!–!Celebes!Sea!areas,!while!the!main!municipal!landing!area!is!in!Southern!Luzon!(Figs.!5L 7).!!These!also!correspond!somewhat!to!the!major!fishing!grounds!for!the!respective!sectors.! For!sardines!(Fig.!8),!highest!commercial!landings!are!concentrated!off!Zamboanga,!while!municipal! catches!are! landed!mostly! in!ports!along! the!western!part! fo! the!country,! including!Lingayen!Gulf,! Visayan!Sea!and!Moro!Gulf.! ! ! For!other! small!pelagics,!particularly! the!Round!and!Bigeye!scads,! the!main! landing!areas!are!very! similar!for!both!sectors!(Fig.!9),!except!for!Manila!Bay!and!southern!Luzon!which!are!major!landing! areas! for! commercial! vessels.! ! This! similarity! suggests! that! the!main! fishing! grounds! for! scads! are! also!located!within!the!vicinity!of!these!landing!areas.!Overall!production!of!small!mackerels!(Indian! and! IndoLPacific!mackerel)! is! about! 1/10! the! production! of! scads! (Fig.! 10),! but! the! catches! of! the! different!sectors!are!landed!in!different!areas.!!This!suggests!differences!in!the!species!composition! of!their!catches!for!this!resource!group.! ! On! the! whole,! pelagic! fish! make! up! 2/3! of! the! country’s! mean! annual! marine! capture! fisheries! production.! ! These! include! transboundary! stocks! (e.g.,! tunas)! and! those! that! are!more! limited! to! within!the!country’s!archipelagic!waters,!but!likely!move!across!various!fishing!grounds.! !These!are! also! typically! schooling! which! are! likely! to! be! more! vulnerable! to! fishing! gear! that! are! able! to! encompass! large!areas,!and!to!those!that!use!attracting!accessories!such!as! lights!and!aggregating! devices.! !For!all!pelagic!categories!examined!above,!annual!catches!by!the!commercial!sector!were! much!higher!than!those!from!the!municipal.! ! In! contrast,! municipal! catches! exceed! from! 2! to! over! 10X! the! commercial! catches! for! demersal! resources,!which!are!limited!to!relatively!shallow!shelf!areas,!most!of!which!are!within!10L15km,!or! nearer,! from! the! shore.! ! The! major! landing! areas! for! demersal! resources! are! within! Central! Philippines,! between! south! Luzon! and! north! Mindanao! (Fig.s! 11L13).! The! bulk! of! commercial! demersal! catches! are! likely! to! be! from! trawls! and!modified! Danish! seines! (hulbotLhulbot),! which! have!been!banned!since!late!2013.!!! ! Cephalopods!are!a!promising!resource,!particularly!squid,!because!of!their!fast!growth!and!relatively! high!value.!!In!overexploited!shallow!demersal!fishing!grounds,!the!decline!in!the!abundance!of!large! predators! is! believed! to! be! the! cause! for! the! high! abundance! of! squid.! ! The! reduced! predation! pressure!allows!squid! to!multiply! rapidly,!and!because! they!continue! to! remain!abundant! in!many! fishing!grounds! (see!Fig.! 12),! they! seem! to!be! less! vulnerable! to!heavy! fishing!pressure! than! their! vertebrate!counterparts! (i.e.,! fish).! ! Little! is!known!about!cephalopod!stocks! in! the!country.! In! the! case! of! octopus,! which! is! now! appearing! is! the! list! of!major!marine! fisheries! commodities! in! the! country,!we!have!no!reliable!catch!and!effort!statistics!anywhere.!!!!! ! For! swimming!blue! crabs,! the! fishery!has!declined! rapidly! since! the! late!2000s.! ! The!major! fishing! ground! is! presently! along! the! northern! and! eastern! coasts! of! Panay! in! the! Visayan! Sea,! although! there! is! substantial! production! also! in!Bicol! and! Leyte! (Fig.! 13).!Details! on! the! status!of! blue! crab! stocks!in!the!Visayan!Sea!are!provided!by!Ingles!(2004).! ! Status%of%resources% ! Commercial*fisheries* ! While!annual!production!trends!may!give!the!impression!of!a!growing!sector,!they!mask!the!status!of! true!resource!abundance,!especially!when!fishing!grounds!are!typically!under!heavy!fishing!pressure,! as! most! have! been! since! the! 1970s.!! Equally! important! as! the! landings! is! the! amount! of! fishing! effort! that! was! spent! to!catch!what!is!landed.!! ! !Relating! production! (catch)! and! fishing! effort! allows! us! valuable! insight! on! the! status!of!the!stock.!!Dalzell!and!Ganaden! (1989)! and! Silvestre! and! Pauly! (1986)! report! their! findings! on!MSY! (maximum! sustainable! yield)! of! small! pelagic! and! soft! bottom! demersal! resources,! respectively,! in! the! country! as! a! whole,! based! on! data! derived! and/or! gathered! from!the!1940/50s!to!the!1980s.!!In!both! reports,!MSY!in!most!fishing!grounds!at!the!time!was!reached!in!the!late!1970s,!with!fishing!effort! continuing!to!increase!for!another!5L10y!at!the!time!the!studies!were!done.! ! For! small! pelagics,! the! MSY!model!estimated!that! commercial! fishing! effort! levels! in! 1987! had! to! be! reduced! by! 50%! to! allow! the! country’s! fishing! grounds! to! regain! their! natural! productive! capacities! (Fig.! 14).! ! That! was!30!years!ago.!!!! ! For! soft! bottom! demersals,! the! model! showed! that! the! commercial! fishing! fleet! in! 1984! was! catching! (producing)!only!as!much!as!they!did!in!the!1970s,!but! with! 40%!more! fishing! effort! (Fig.! 15).!Again,! this!was! 30!years!ago,!and!it!is!hence!very!likely!that!the!level!of! excess! (wasted)! fishing! effort! for! both! resources! is! much!more!today,!30!years!hence.! ! This! decline! in! natural! productivity! of! our! fishing! grounds!becomes!more!obvious!when!we!compare!the! trend!in!annual!production!(mt)!of!commercial!ring!net! catches! (blue! dots)! from! 1978! L! 87! (Barut,! 2004)!with! the! same! data! converted! to! annual! catch! rates! (catch! per! vesselLHP)! (red! crosses)!over! the! same!period! (Fig!! 16).! ! The! annual! production! increases! during! the! said! period,! but! only! because! of! the! parallel! increase!in!fishing!effort.!!The!trend!in!catch!rates!(=!catch!per!effort),!however,!shows!the!opposite! trend.! Hence,! overall! catches! increase! from! year! to! year,! just! as! in! Fig.! 1,! but! this! may! be! due! entirely!to!more!and!more!people!or!vessels!fishing!year!after!year,!and!not!to!the!unlikely!increase! in!abundance!of!the!resource.!An!analogy!would!be!equating!the!resource!in!the!fishing!ground!as!a! pie!of! constant! size! (=! similar! yearLtoLyear! abundance)! and!as!more!and!more!people! take!a! slice! from! the! pie,! the! slices! get! smaller.! The! trend! in! catch! rates! is! thus! more! realistic,! showing! a! decrease!in!each!vessel’s/fisher’s!share!as!fishing!effort!increases.!! ! This!relationship!becomes!even!more!instructive!when!catch!rates!are!plotted!against!fishing!effort.! Figure!17! shows! the!overall!decreasing! trend! in!mean!annual! catch! rates!of! commercial! ring!nets,! purse! seines! and! bagnets! as! fishing! effort! increases.! ! The! data! are! from! Barut! (2004)! and! cover! the! period! 1978! to! 1987.! ! This! is! a! clear! indication! that! catch! rates! of! various! gear! types! decrease! as! more! and! more! vessels! are! fishing.!! This!is!truly!what!eventually!happens!in!any!fishery! in! the! world,! and! the! task! at! hand! is! to! manage! fishing! effort! at! the! right! time! and! in! the! appropriate! manner! so! that! catch! rates! can! be! maintained! at! reasonable! levels.! ! This! task! becomes!less!achievable!the!longer!overfishing!has! been!taking!place.!! ! Unfortunately,!there!is!little!information!on!fishing! effort! that! corresponds! with! our! much! longer! timeLseries! of! production! (landings)! data.! ! While! MSY! models! provide! more! insights! to! policy! formulation,!simpler! trends! in!catch!per!effort! (=!catch!rates)!could!have!been!more!convincing!of! resource!depletion!early!on!because!they!truly!reflect!resource!abundance!and!are!useful!indices!of! productive! capacity! of! fishing! grounds.! ! An! overLreliance! on! trends! in! production! (landings)! has! contributed!to!the!continued!decline!in!our!fisheries!resources.!!A!fundamental!difference!between! natural!resources!in!land!and!water!is!that!in!the!former!we!can!see!and!we!can!then!appraise.!!In! the!latter,!we!do!not!see!(under!the!sea!surface),!so!we!can!only!“guess”!at!best!if!we!are!not!willing! to!investigate!(i.e.!!systematically!assess).!!! ! Biomass*of*demersal*resources* ! FisheriesLindependent!trawl!surveys!have!been!conducted!in!various!bays!and!coastal!areas!around! the! country! since! the! late! 1940s! to! systematically! determine! resource! abundance! in! these! fishing! grounds.!!The!most!extensive!effort!to!date!was!done!in!the!late!1940s!to!early!1950s,!covering!24! coastal! areas! around! the! country! (Warfel! and!Manacop,! 1952).! ! For! some! of! these! areas,! similar! trawl! surveys! were! conducted! at! different! times! and! these! provide! us! with! a! picture! of! how! demersal!resource!biomass!(abundance)!has!changed!as!fishing!effort!has!increased!with!time.!!! ! Figure! 18! shows! annual! production! (harvest)! of! demersal! resources! from! the! country’s! trawling! grounds! from! 1946! to! 1987! (blue! line)! and! fishery! independent! estimates! of! demersal! biomass! (abundance)! at! various! depth! strata! in! various! fishing! grounds! around! the! country! from! the! late! 1940’s!to!1993!(Armada,!2004).!!Mean!annual!harvest!has!stagnated!since!the!1970s,!while!demersal! resource! biomass! in! various! grounds! continued! to! decline.! ! Demersal! biomass! levels! in! the! early! 2000s! were! estimated! to! be! only! 10%! of! their! levels! in! the! late! 1940s! (i.e.,! considered! as! virgin! biomass!levels!because!of!cessation!of!all!fishing!during!WWII).!!!Figures!19a!and!b!show!changes!in!! demersal!biomass!in!Sorsogon!Bay!(Hilomen!et!al.,!2002)!and!Manila!Bay!(Armada,!1998!and!Green! et!al.,!2003).! ! ! ! Municipal*fisheries* ! The! only! estimate! of! MSY! for! a! resource! that! is! primarily! exploited! by! the!municipal! fisheries! is! provided!for!the!swimming!blue!crab,!Portunus!pelagicus.! ! ! In!the!1980s,!the!main!fishing!grounds! for! swimming!crabs! included!Ragay!Gulf!and! the!Visayan!Sea,!but!catch!and!effort!data!were!only! available!for!the!latter!area.! ! !Using!catch!and!effort!data!for!the!1990s,! Ingles!(2004)!showed!that! 1946 1966 1977 1993Year 0 50 100 200 300 400 A nn ua l/h ar ve st /( in /0 00 /to ns ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 D em er sa lb io m as s/ (t on s/ km 2 ) Annual/demersal/harvest 0'10(m( 10'20(m( 20'50(m( 50'100(m( Demersal/biomass/ 0 3 6 9 12 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year D e m er s al S ta n d in g S to ck (m t/k m 2 ) MSY! for! the!western! Visayan! Sea!was! reached! around! 1993! (Fig.! 20),! and! that! a! further! increase! of! 40%! in! fishing!effort!over!the!next!6!years!did! not! increase!overall! landings! from! the! fishery.! ! A! plot! of! mean! daily! catch! rates! (catch! per! trip)! from! 1992! to! 1998! (Fig.! 21)! clearly! shows! a! decreasing! trend,! with! catch! rates! in! 1998!being!about!50%!of!catche! rates! in!1992.!! Other! available! information! on! catch! rates! for! the!! municipal! fisheries! are! from! various! fishing! grounds! and!cover!different!periods.!!The!long!term!information! is!from!interviews!from!different!sources.! !Figures!20a! and!b!show!indicative!catch!rates!(kg/fisher/day)!from! various! gear! types! based! on! interviews! of! fishers!! representing! a! wide! range! of! ages! in! Honda! Bay,! Palawan! (Fig.! 20a)! and! Olango,! Cebu! and! Tukuran,! ZamboangaLSibugey! (Fig.! 20b).! ! Though! they! cover! different! periods,! they! show! parallel! trends! of! decreasing! catch! rates! (kg./fisher/day)! over!a!few!to!several!decades.!!!For!coral! reef! fisheries,! historical! catch! rate! information! based! on! interviews! are! summarized! by! Alino! et! al.! (2004)! (Fig.! 21).! Based! on! indicative! information,! they!estimate! that! catch! rates! from! reef! fisheries! have! decreased! by! at! least! fivefold!since!the!1950s.!!This!situation!is! similar! to! municipal! fishers! targeting! small! pelagics.! ! Derived! catch! rates! (mt/HP/yr)! from! several! fishing! grounds! 0 10 20 30 40 50 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 C a tc h R a te (k g /f is h e r/ tr ip ) Honda&Bay,&Palawan 1980s&2 2000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEARS C P U E ( kg /d ay ) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 C P U E ( kg /d a y; fi sh c o rr al s o n ly ) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEARS C P U E ( kg /d ay ) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 C P U E ( kg /d a y; fi sh c o rr al s o n ly ) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Ca tc h/ tr ip /d ay 2(k g) Figure!20.!MSY!of!blue!swimming!crab!in!Western! Visayan!Sea!(ngles,!2004)!! Figure%21.!!Trend!in!catch!rates!(catch/trip)! of!blue!swimming!crab!in!the!1990s.! Figure%22.!!Catch!rates!of!various!municipal!gear!types!based!on!interviews!in!various!sites!around!the! country.!! Figure%23.!Compilation!of!historical!information!on! catch!rates!from!reef!fisheries!based!on!interviews!in! a!range!of!reef!sites.! combined,!over!the!period!1948L85,!also!show!a!fivefold!decrease!from!the!1950s!to!the!1980s!(Fig.! 24).! ! Over! shorter! time! intervals,! the! FSP/FRMP! Resource! and! Ecological! Assessments! (REAs)! in! the! 1990s! and! 2000s!show!changes!in!catch!rates!that! are! consistent! over! a! wide! range! of! fishing!gear.!!Figure!25!compares!!catch! rates! (kg/fisher/day)! of! seven! (7)! gear! types! in! Lingayen! Gulf! for! the! period! 1985L88! with! those! 12L15! years! later! (Hilomen! et! al.,! 2002).! ! Catch! rates! decreased! in! all! gear! types,!with! traps! showing! the! smallest! change.!! Associated! with! this! is! an! increase! of! about!30%! in! the!population!of! fishers! 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1985(88 2000(01 11000 13000 15000 17000 trawl baby1trawl danish seine gillnet hook1&1Line Fish1Corral fish1traps no.1of1fishersC a tc h R a te s (k g /f is h er /d ay ) N o . f is h e rs Lingayen( Gulf 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 BSGN CN DGN DiGN FT HL J MHL Sp Tr BchSn Gl LN Fishing Gear CP UE (kg /m nh r) 1993-94 2001-02 Figure%24.!Historical!trend!in!catch!rates!(mt/HP)!of!small! pelagics!in!the!municipal!fisheries!of!several!fishing!grounds! from!1948!to!1988.!!! Figure%25.!!Comparison!of!catch!rates!(kg/fisher/day)!of!various!gear!types!in!(a)!Lingayen!Gulf!(above)! between!1985/88!and!2000/01.!!The!increase!in!number!of!fishers!in!the!Gulf!is!also!shown;!and!(b)! Sogod!Bay,!Southern!Leyte!between!1993/94!and!2001/02.! in!the!Gulf!during!the!same!period.!!Hilomen!et!al.!(2002)!also!documented!a!corresponding!increase! in!the!duration!of!fishing!operations!during!the!same!period.!!The!latter!simply!means!that!in!spite!of! fishing!longer!(more!hours)!on!average,!fishers!in!the!Gulf!still!caught!less!than!they!did!in!the!mid! 1980s.! ! This! clearly! indicates! a! decrease! in! the! abundance! of! the! resources,! and! its! close! correspondence!with!the! increase! in!number!of! fishers!during!the!same!period!strongly!suggests!a! negative!relationship!between!fishing!pressure!and!catch!rates.!!! ! A!similar!situation!was!observed!in!the!other!side!of!the!country!(Sogod!Bay)!in!the!southern!part!of! Eastern!Visayas.!!Figure!25b!shows!an!average!reduction!of!30%!!in!catch!rates!of!10!out!of!13!fishing! gear! types! used! in! the! Bay! between! 1993/4! (Silliman! University,! 1995)! and! 2001/2! (BFARLFRMP,! 2003).!!Catch!monitoring!in!all!FSP/FRMP!REAs!followed!a!standard!protocol!of!regular!monitoring!at! several!municipal!fish!landing!sites!every!other!day!over!a!period!of!12!months.!Hence,!results!from! these!estimates!cannot!be!dismissed!as!merely!incidental.! !! Figure!26a!shows!mean!daily!catch!rates!over!a!period!of!1!year!for!fish!corrals!in!relation!to!relative! fisher!density!(fishers/km!of!coastline)!in!nine!(9)!different!fishing!grounds!around!the!country.!!!The! fitted! regression! shows! that! daily! catch! rates! from! fish! corrals! decrease! by! 0.1kg! with! every! additional!1!fisher/km!coastline.! ! Similarly,!drift!gillnet!catch!rates!also!decreased!as!fisher!densities!(fishers/km2)!increased!(Fig.!26b)! in! eight! (8)! fishing! grounds.! ! This! decrease! translates! to! about! 0.5kg/fisher/trip! for! every! additional! 1! fisher/km2! of! area! fished! (SUPFA,!2006).! ! !The! overall! mean! daily! catch! rates! in! reef! fisheries! also! decreases! as! fisher! density! (fishers/km2)! increases! (Fig.! 27).! ! This! is! based!on!data!compiled! from!seven! (7)! reef! areas! in! various! parts! around! the! country! (Campos!et!al.,!2004).! ! Figure! 28! shows! the! location! of! sites! or! fishing! grounds! in! the! country! where! decreasing! municipal! or! smallLscale! catch! 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Fisher Density (no./km coast) Fi sh C or ra l C at ch ra te 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Fisher density (no./km2) O ve ra ll ca tc h r a te (k g /f is h e r/ d a y) Reef$fisheries$ Figure%27.!!Overall!relationship!between!mean!catch!rates! of!various!gear!types!and!fisher!density!(fishers/km2)!in! various!reef!sites!in!the!country! Figure%26.!!Mean!daly!catch!rates!of!(a)!fish!corrals!in!9!fishing!grounds,!and!(b)!mean!catch!rates!of! drift!gillnets!covered!by!the!FSP/FRMP!REAs.! 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 Fisher density (no./km2) Dr ift G ill Ne t C atc h R ate rates! have! been! documented! based! on! actual! onLsite! monitoring! efforts.! ! It! is! clear! from! the! wide! geographical! distribution! of! the! points,! that! fishing! grounds! with! depleted! resources! are! not! “isolated”! cases,! but! they! represent! the! typical!or!usual!conditions!around!the!country.!!! ! Geographical*distribution*of*fishing*effort* ! In! the! 1980s,! around! the! time! that! the! small! pelagic! and! demersal! fisheries! around! the! country! reached! their! MSY! levels,! the!distribution!of! fishing!effort! in! terms!of!number!of! fishers! per! km! of! coastline,! already! showed! high! concentrations! (>! 70! fishers/km)! in! several! areas! including! Lingayen!Gulf,!Verde!Island!Pass!(VIP),!NE!Panay,!Tanon!Strait,! Danajon! Bank,! Samar! Sea,! Iligan! Bay,! Iliana! Bay! and! parts! of! Davao! Gulf! (TandogL Edralin,!1987).!! ! Most! coastal! waters! were! already! assessed! as! heavilyLexploited!at!the!time,!with!only!a!few!areas! considered! as! lightly! exploited,! where! fisheries! could! still! sustain! further! growth.! ! The! latter! included! waters! around! Palawan! (except! the! Calamianes!island!group),!the!Cuyo!Island!Group! and! atolls! within! Sulu! Sea,! and! waters! off! Aurora,!Isabela!and!Batanes!along!the!country’s! Eastern!Seaboard!(Fig.!29)! !! An! update! of! this! map! is! provided! in! Fig.! 30,! using! fisher! population! estimates! per! municipality! from! the! fisher! registration! program! (FishR)! spearheaded! by! the! BFAR! in! coordination! with! LGUs! nationwide,! which! was! initiated! in! 2014.! ! Lengths! of! the! coastlines! of! each! municipality! were! Figure%28.!!Geographical! distribution!of!fishing!grounds! where!reports!of!decreasing! resource!abundance!have!been! documented.! 2"25 26"50 51"100 101"200 201"566 Figure%29.!!Distribution!of!fishing!effort!based! on!data!from!the!1980s!(TandogLEdralin,! 1987)! Figure%30.!Distribution!of!fishing!effort!based!on!data! from!the!FishR!(2014/15).!!! estimated!using!Google!Earth!and!barangay!boundaries!from!the!PhilCore!Project.!!Just!to!facilitate! comparison,!only!interisland!waters!between!the!south!Luzon!and!northern!Mindanao!are!shown!in! Fig.!30.!It!appears!that!the!available!estimates!from!FishR!are!not!yet!complete,!since!the!process!is! still!onLgoing.!!The!fisher!densities!derived!nevertheless!provide!us!with!a!snapshot!of!fishing!effort! distribution!about!30!years!after!TandogLEdralin’s!work.!!The!areas!with!highest!fishing!pressure!as! of!2014/15!include!the!VIP,!Ticao!Pass!between!Sorsogon!and!Masbate,!Northern!Panay!&!northern! Negros,!Guimaras!Strait,!Danajon!Bank,!Iligan!Bay!and!Sindangan!Bay!in!northern!Zamboanga.!!These! waters!have!fisher!densities!>!100!and!up!to!500!fishers/km!coastline,!which!represents!a!possible!2L 5!fold!increase!in!fisher!density!during!the!30!year!interval.! ! Figure!30!will!be!more!representative!of!municipal!fishing!effort,!since!commercial!vessel!operations! are!not!restricted!to!local!waters.! ! Sardine*fishery*and*closed*seasons* ! Mean! daily! catch! rates! (catch! per! vessel! per! trip)! by! month! of! ringnet! operations! in! northern! Zambonaga!from!late!2008!to!Dec!2014,!were!computed!from!records!of!a!single!buyer!of!catches! bought! from! several! vessels! each!day.! !Daily! records! ranged! from!1! to!5,!with! at! least! 20!days!of! records! each! month.! ! Again,! these! data! cannot! be! dismissed! as! incidental,! or! isolated,! or! nonL representative.! ! Daily! catch! rates! declined! from! 2009! to! 2011.! ! After! imposing! a! 3Lmonth! closed! season! (Dec! to! March)! starting! in! 2011,! catch! rates! increased! in! 2012! and! 2013,! most! likely! resulting! from! the! closed!season.!!The!drop!in!catch!rates!in!2014,!however,!may!be!due!to!some!other!factors.!!Field! observations!showed!generally!smaller!fish!that!year,!and!this!may!have!contributed!to!the!decine!in! catch! rates! for! that! year.! ! Clearly,!while! the! closed! season! appears! to! have! had! a! positive! effect,! other! factors!may!mask! this! apparent! effect.! ! !We! need! to! continue!monitoring! such! fisheries! to! know!what!these!factors!are.! ! Overall!Summary! ! Figure%31.!!Trend!in!mean!daily!catch!rates!(catch!per!vessel!per!trip)!of!ringnet!operations!in!Northern! Zamboanga!presented!by!month!based!on!logbooks!of!a!single!buyer!(Campos!et!al.,!2014).! 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Se p) 08 D ec )0 8 M ar )0 9 Ju n) 09 Se p) 09 D ec )0 9 M ar )1 0 Ju n) 10 Se p) 10 D ec )1 0 M ar )1 1 Ju n) 11 Se p) 11 D ec )1 1 M ar )1 2 Ju n) 12 Se p) 12 D ec )1 2 M ar )1 3 Ju n) 13 Se p) 13 D ec )1 3 M ar )1 4 Ju n) 14 Se p) 14 D ec )1 4 Daily&catch&rate/month&(sardines) There!is!sufficient!information!showing!that!most,!if!not!all,!interisland!fishing!grounds!in!the!country! are!already!overfished.!!Many!have!been!so!for!over!20!years.!!As!such!the!nature!of!the!resources!in! these! fishing! grounds! have! already! changed! in! terms! of! species! composition! and! in! terms! of! productive!capacity.!!Using!MSY!as!a!reference!point!is!no!longer!practical!because!of!the!critical!lack! of!catch!and!effort!data!covering!the!early!part!of!the!fisheries.!!Instead,!there!are!other!measures! that!can!be!used!to!regulate!exploitation.!! ! !While! the!primary!need! to! reduce! the!number!of! fishers! (i.e.,! fishing!pressure)! is!not!a! realizable! possibility!in!the!near!future,!there!is!a!need!for!a!combination!of!measures!to!reduce!the!worsening! conditions!of!our! fisheries!resources.! !A! five!or!even!ten!year!plan!will!not!solve!this!problem,!but! may!“buy!us!time”!to!build!on!longer!term!solutions!to!the!problem!of!excessive!fishing.!!Clearly,!the! task! of! providing! other! livelihoods! for! future! generations! will! require! investments! from! sectors! outside!of!fishing!itself.!!What!the!fisheries!sector!can!do!is!to!regulate!use!of!the!resource,!maintain! habitat!health!and!ensure!resources!are!able!to!reproduce!and!complete!their!life!cycle.! ! Recommendations! ! • Prioritize!management!&!conservation!of!resources!for!local%food%security! • !Integrate!mandates!of!concerned!agencies!of!the!Nationa!Gov’t,!the!DENR!(for!habitats)!&! BFAR!(!for!fisheries!resources)!! • !Strengthen!regional!capabilities!of!the!BFAR!to!assist!Province!&!LGUs!in!fisheries!Mgt! • Increase!engagement!of!the!academe!and!research!institutions!to!assist!in!fisheries! mgt!capacity!building! • Formalize!and!strengthen!partnerships!of!all!institutions!involved!in!capacity!building! for!fisheries!mgt! • !Strengthen! the! role!of! the!Province! for! integrating!&!coordinating! LGU!mgt!efforts!within! common!fishing!grounds! • Require!LGUs!to!formulate!and!implement!Fisheries!Mgt!Plans!! • Partner!conservation/protection!efforts!with!Fisheries!Mgt! • Establish!Fisheries%Mgt%Areas%(FMAs)! • Determine!FMA!harvest%control%rules%(HCRs)!&!reference!points!! − !!based!on!stock%status%&%distribution! − !!Fishery9dependent%&%9independent%investigations! − !!Regular%monitoring%of!fishery!independent!parameters! − !!Periodic%review%of%HCRs%to!allow!adjustments! − !!Partnerships%between!BFAR,!Academe/Research!Institutions!&!NGOs! • Reference!points!for!Highly%migratory%sp/straddling%stocks%from!WCPFC!! • Licensing%system%specific!to!FMAs!&!based!on!reference!points!of!FMA! • Science%Advisory%Group%(SAG)!to!provide!guidance!on!data!collection,!std!! ! methodologies!&!policy!recommendations! ! STATE OF AQUACULTURE FISHERIES IN THE PHILIPPINES Crispino A. Saclauso Farisal U. Bagsit Richard A. Rafio December 2015 AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 1 OVERVIEW Fish provides protein to more than 2.9 billion people at 20% of intake and 4.3 billion at 15% per capita animal protein intake (FAO, 2014). With the growing world population, demand for fish is expected to expand enhanced by the increasing per capita income in the developing world, rising production of crustaceans and mollusks and the relative decline in their prices. This is reflected in the world apparent per capita consumption of fish which increased from 9.9 kg in 1960s to 17 kg, 18.9 kg, and 19.9 kg in 2000, 2010, and 2012, respectively (FAO, 2014). Aquaculture remains one of the fastest growing food production sectors in the world but has declined from the highest annual increase of 10.8% in the 1980s (1980-1990) to 6.2% for the period 2000-2012 with average annual growth of 8.6% in the last three decades (Figure 1.; FAO, 2014). With no prospects for increased harvests from the sea in the long term, the shortfalls in the supply of fishery products must have to be sourced out from aquaculture whose increasing role in food security is most tangible in Asia (Figure 2). It accounts for 49% of fishery products used for human consumption in 2012 from 5% in 1962 and 37% in 2002. Figure 1. Share of aquaculture in total fisheries production Figure 2. World fisheries and aquaculture production For aquaculture to continue however, it has to produce more fish than it consumes. There is an indication that the utilization of fish for fishmeal and fish oil production (Figures 3 and 4) may not be as voluminous as previously projected (Figure 5) because of the increasing trend on the use of fish by- products in the manufacture of compound feed. Fed-aquaculture may also need to look for other sources of protein to partially or completely replace fishmeal in formulated diets. Recent studies have shown that this is feasible although this might be difficult to achieve in the case of fish oil for which, there is as yet, no known effective replacement. The importance of the search for novel sources of fishfood is best illustrated in Figures 6 and 7. This dictates a re-examination on the use of feed conversion ratio (FCR) in measuring aquaculture efficiency. It also suggests that fish conversion efficiency (FCE) may become a better measure in relating impacts of fed-aquaculture to open-water fishery. (FAO, 2014) AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 2 Total Volume=620 Million Tons Farmed Species Share in Consumption (%) Poultry 38 Pigs 32 Cattle 24 AQUACULTURE* 3 (18.6 Million Tons) *the smallest sector for major farmed animal feeds but the largest consumer of the two common ingredients in many animal feeds: fishmeal and fish oil (provide an excellent source of animal protein, essential amino acids, omega 3 fatty acids, vitamins and minerals and energy (Hertrampf & Piedad-Pascual, 2000). Moved beyond feed supplements to become the major components of aquaculture feeds. Sector Fishmeal (%) Fish Oil (%) Aquaculture 46 81 Poultry 25 Pork 25 Industrial uses and human consumption nearly 20 (Pike, 2005) From 1994 to 2003: fishmeal expanded from 963,000 to 2,936,000 tons fish oil increased from 234,000 to 803,000 tons Marine species represent about 25% of global aquaculture production yet consumes 75% of fishmeal and fish oil used in aquaculture Figure 3. Feed production for major farmed animals (Gill, 2005) Figure 4. Consumption of fishmeal and fish oil (IFFO, 2006) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2000 2010 2025 P ro du ct io n (M M T) Year Global Aquaculture Food and Feed Production Aquaculture Food Production Aquaculture Feed Production FAO, 2004 Figure 5. Projected Aquaculture Feed Requirement by 2025 (FAO, 2004) Figure 6. Conversion of wild fish to farmed fish. ((Notes: Data for Figures 5 and 6 were obtained from: Boyd et al. 2005 (catfish FCR=2); Robinson et al. 2001 (fishmeal (3%) and fish oil inclusion (1%); Tacon, 2005 (salmon FCR=1.3, fish (35%) and fish oil inclusion (25%); FIN, 2006 (marine finfish FCR=2.2, fishmeal (50%) and fish oil inclusion (15%). Yields from reduction fisheries at 24% fishmeal and 5% fish oil (FAO, 1986; Hardy and Tacon, 2002; Pike, 2005; and IFFO, 2006). AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 3 1000 kg Wild Fish 5000 kg Catfish feed (1% FO inclusion) 200 kg Salmon feed (25% FO inclusion) 333 kg Marine fish feed (15% FO inclusion) 2500 kg Catfish FCRHarvest FCE 154 kg Salmon 151 kg Marine fish 2.0 1.3 0.4 6.5 2.2 6.6 Feed Conversion Ratio or Fish Conversion Efficiency? Figure 7. Measures of aquaculture efficiency. As with the world trend, Philippine aquaculture production has dramatically increased in the last three decades. It declined and registered negative growths however, in 2012 (-2.54 %) and in 2013 (-6.63%) and continued until 2014, attributable to the decline in the production of most commodities with significant reduction in the production of seaweeds for the period 2012 and 2013 (Figure. 8). Share of different species in aquaculture production is shown in Figure 9. The outlook for foodfish production is bullish especially for major commodity like milkfish and tilapia which peaked in 2008, then declined in subsequent years. It showed a certain level of recovery starting 2011 but declined slightly in 2014 caused by both natural disasters and perhaps, stricter implementation of regulations like the reduction of culture structures (Taal Lake) or complete cessation of culture operations in some areas (e.g., Magat Dam). Figure 8. Total Philippine Fisheries Production (2004-2013) 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 2 0 1 42 0 1 32 0 1 22 0 1 12 0 1 02 0 0 92 0 0 82 0 0 72 0 0 62 0 0 5 Aquaculture Municipal Commercial AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 4 Shrimps hove around 50,000 MT while oyster and mussels for a long time, had not breached half that volume. High value finfish species did not show any significant contribution either. Production of grouper and siganids had been oscillating below the 30,000 MT mark. These are indicative of the challenges faced in the sustainable production of these species in marine aquaculture. Figure 9. Philippine aquaculture production (FAO FishStat Database, 2014) The shift to the coastal marine environment for aquaculture expansion is the most viable option in the foreseeable future. About 67 mariculture parks (MPs) had been established by BFAR in collaboration with LGUs but only an estimated 2.58% is operational. MPs are potential areas for expansion but had to be revalidated and profiled to ascertain their suitability and viability vis-a-vis the lukewarm adoption and seeming failures in certain sites. It can replace production from the brackishwater ponds where productivity increases may not be realized because of expensive inputs and infrastructures required for intensification. Unless high value species (e.g., seabass, grouper, and siganids) are used, intensification is a lost proposition. The ban on further expansion in the mangrove areas (Fisheries Code of 1998) and the growing environmental lobby on the reversion of abandoned and unproductive ponds to mangroves also restrict production increases from the existing brackishwater fishponds. With climate change, new systems, resilient and adaptive species must also be developed to arrest decline in production and reduce reliance of fed-aquaculture on reduction fisheries. The increasing contribution of marine cages to the total milkfish supply might drive conversion of grow-out milkfish ponds to nursery systems to support the requirements of the milkfish cage industry. It is almost imperative for a cage operation to have land-based nurseries as it is difficult to grow small fish in the marine environment where conditions can be hostile. The need to grow natural food for nursery operations is another consideration that makes the ponds a convenient alternative. The positive consequence of this shift is the reduction in the area requirement and less invasive and destructive farming practices thereby relieving some of the pressures from the mangrove ecosystem. Since it is difficult to initiate change with regard to private properties, perhaps it can begin with government fishponds (Fishpond Lease Agreement or FLAs) estimated at 59,556.09 has (Ferrer, et al., 2012). It is therefore imperative that the reported 40% abandoned and unproductive FLAs be validated so their reversion to mangroves or continued use as fishponds can be decided, once and for AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 5 all. Depending on their status and locations, some of these FLAs can serve as nursery system for farming of marine finfishes in the nearshore environment. A sizeable portion of this unproductive area after long years of neglect may already be hosting secondary growth of mangroves hence, their continued use as fishponds may no longer be tenable because of legislative prohibitions. Many issues confront the local aquaculture industry ranging from apathy (as indicated in the CNFIDP draft report of 2005) to intrinsic and extrinsic factors. It would appear that the failure of the industry in meeting the desired targets have a lot to do with enforcement and compliance to policies and regulations that are either conveniently ignored, or treated with impunity. Effective governance however, requires not only attitudinal change (managers and resource users) but as well as policies and regulations anchored on sound science. Accurate and timely information is also imperative in responding appropriately to the changing market forces and environment and in reliably projecting and casting the future of the industry. Post-harvest losses are not expected to be sizeable in aquaculture but improvement for some farm practices that diminish quality and value needs to be done. Trading and marketing are also paramount in promoting fishery products both in domestic and foreign markets. Impetus for the improvement of some fishery products in both value and volume can be provided by better accessibility, storage and value addition. It will incentivize production increases especially for fish commodities which are of low value but essential in addressing food security concerns of the country. Increase in aquaculture production involves the whole gamut of breeding, nursing and growing fish. For long term sustainability, aquaculture must aim for precision and reliability. This dictates complete control of aquaculture production systems and processes through persistent innovations, modernization and reduction of human errors. Empirical evidence points to human engagement as the key factor affecting sustainability and profitability of aquaculture operations. The way forward is automation and mechanization that should diminish uncertainties caused by human frailties. CURRENT STATUS OF THE AQUACULTURE AND MARICULTURE INDUSTRY IN THE PHILIPPINES A. Major Culture Species Trends for the last 10 years (2005-2014, BFAR Philippine Fisheries Profile) show that seaweeds dominate aquaculture production by volume (Figures 10 and 11). In terms of value, milkfish contributed significantly higher revenues (Figure 12). Production of milkfish largely comes from brackishwater fishponds with contribution from marine cages and freshwater pens. Tilapia is supplied primarily from freshwater fishponds and fish cages with minor contribution from freshwater fishpens. Seaweeds is produced from mariculture areas in Mindanao, MIMAROPA, Central Visayas and Bicol Region (Figure 11). While there are other fish species of commercial importance, these are not produced in sizeable quantities indicative of their value to the diet of Filipinos, accessibility and availability of markets, profitability and sustainability of produce as affected by supply of seedstocks and availability of technology. AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 6 Figure 10. Aquaculture production (2005-2014), by Commodity and Volume (in MT) Figure 11. Volume of selected fish commodities and their production areas 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 Milkfish Tilapia Siganid Shrimp/Prawn Oyster Mussel Mudcrab Grouper Catfish Carp Seaweeds AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 7 Milkfish for instance has been cultured for hundreds of years and myriad studies and product development efforts helped in the advancement of its culture and acceptability to the local consumers although it still has to make significant inroads in foreign markets. Tilapia although fairly recent, also gained wide acceptance through constant R & D and promotion. Unlike milkfish however, tilapia is popular and more acceptable in many parts of the world. Seaweeds on the other hand are important export commodity and its farming provides livelihood opportunities to hundreds of thousands of people in marginalized coastal communities. Production areas and value of these three prime commodities are presented in Figure 12. Figure 12. Value of selected fish commodities and their production areas in the Philippines. AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 8 B. Location and Scale of Aquaculture Data (unofficial) show that majority of the accredited aquaculture farm operators (~345) in the Philippines (Figure 13) is located in Region 1 (21%); this is followed by Regions 5 (15%) and 6 (13%). Figure 13. Accredited Aquaculture Farm Operators in the Philippines, by Region (BFAR Unp. data) In terms of productive area, Region 6 ranked first with 1,012 ha, followed by Region 5 and 9 with 855 ha and 651 ha, respectively (Figure 14). Figures 14. Accredited Aquaculture Farms in the Philippines, by Region and Productive Area (in has). 73 17 16 25 1 53 46 29 3 27 10 7 9 29 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 R1 R2 R3 R4-A R4-B R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 No.of operators 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 R1 R2 R3 R4-A R4-B R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 Milkfish Tilapia P. monodon L. vannamei Milkfish, P.monodon Milkfish, L. vannamei Milkfish, Tilapia Milkfish, Crabs P. monodon, L. vannamei P. monodon, Crabs L. vannamei, Tilapia Others AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 9 In terms of productive area per commodity, milkfish monoculture constitutes the largest area, followed by farms that are into polyculture of milkfish and tiger prawn. Farms growing 3 or more aquatic species are lumped into the Others category (Figure 15). Figure 15. Accredited Aquaculture Farms in the Philippines by Total Productive Area (in ha) and by Commodity (BFAR, Unp. Data). C. Profile of Operators It is estimated that the aquaculture sub-sector in 2002 has 226,195 operators (Fisheries Profile, 2013) which seems to reflect only those engaged with the fishpond industry. The Philippine Statistics Authority (2003) reported a higher figure of 500,000 which seems likely reflecting also those employed with the seaweeds industry that number in hundreds of thousands. i. Operators / Producers / Farm Owners / Investors / Financiers People that directly produce, manage, market and supply aquaculture products to the society or community. They are the ones that belong either to the high income families, corporation, companies or even low income family that directly purchase goods and services to meet production needs. These people employ manpower and skilled labor for production and operation. ii. Feed millers / Feed Manufacturers People who have a big influence on the operation of aquaculture business since feeds and feed stuff are the primary food source of any aquaculture business. Feed millers are usually a corporation or a company owned by high income families. iii. Skilled Manpower / Labor People directly engaged in the production, management and marketing of aquaculture products (feeders, harvesters, sellers, boat operators, divers, etc.). They are the driving 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 10 force of production and usually belong to a lower income bracket in the society. iv. Fabricators and Suppliers People who supply necessary materials and equipment to aquaculture operators, feed millers, fish brokers, and retailers. Fabricators are usually corporations or families which belong to the middle or high income group. vi. Fish brokers, Viajeros and Retailers People who are engaged in actual selling and marketing of aquaculture products in fish ports, wet markets, and supermarkets. Fish brokers and supermarket owners usually belong to the high income families while wet market and fish retailers usually belong to the middle or lower income families. D. Production Trends The production areas and the value of aquaculture products (Figures 16-21) tell of many stories and possibilities. They show influence of environment (availability and suitability), culture and traditions to which production systems must have to adapt to. The preponderance and acceptability of freshwater species in landlocked areas and where freshwater resources abound is a classic example. The maps also readily reveal where interventions and expansion plans can be carried out to further improve productivity and acceptability of aquaculture products. Figure 16. Milkfish (left) and tilapia (right) production volumes and areas. Dark shades indicate higher production in specific regions in the Philippines. AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 11 Figure 17. Carp (left) and catfish (right) production volumes and areas. Dark shades indicate higher production in specific regions in the Philippines. Figure 18. Grouper (left) and mudcrab (right) production volumes and areas. Dark shades indicate higher production in specific regions in the Philippines. AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 12 Figure 19. Mussel (left) and oyster (right) production volumes and areas. Dark shades indicate higher production in specific regions in the Philippines. Figure 20. Shrimp/prawn (left) and siganid (right) production volumes and areas. Dark shades indicate higher production in specific regions in the Philippines. AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 13 Figure 21. Seaweed production volumes and areas. Dark shades indicate higher production in specific regions in the Philippines. E. Current Status, Trends, Opportunities and Threats and Prospects for the Next 5 Years Philippine Supply & Demand on selected fish commodities This section deals in details with major fisheries commodities that have direct consequences on food consumption patterns of Filipinos. Milkfish and tilapia being the major aquaculture species consumed in the Philippines, are given particular attention while others although not totally ignored, are not discussed at length because they are either more important as export commodities, or data are not as readily available making analysis a bit difficult. Production and population growths are based on the patterns from 2005 until 2014 (PSA, 2015; BFAR Fisheries Profile, 2015 (advance copy)). Projections for the food demand from 2015 until 2020 were based on the 2013 report on per capita utilization of fish in the country (FNRI-DOST, 2013). Figure 22 illustrates the possible wastage in Philippine fisheries including some important aquaculture commodities while per capita utilization of most preferred species, is presented in Figure 23. AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 14 Percentage was computed from FSIS 1990-2009. Figure 22. Percent (%) wastage in Fisheries, per Commodity, from 1990-2009 (PSA-FSIS). Figure 23. Per Capita Consumption (kg/yr of Fish and Fishery Products) (FNRI-DOST, 2013). 1.6 2.9 1.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Crabs Tuna Mussel Round scad Tilapia Milkfish Oyster Shrimps and Prawns 2.1 4.7 4.7 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.7 4.6 0.8 0.5 0.2 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 4.1 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.2 AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 15 MILKFISH From 2005 until 2012, milkfish has been supplying more food than what was consumed by Filipinos (Figure 24). Supply deficits however, has been recorded since 2013 with per capita consumption almost doubling at 4.7 kg. Based on industry growth of 3.0% from 2005-2014, milkfish production will continue to be insufficient for the requirements of Filipino population estimated to increase from 101.47 M in 2015 to 111.48 M by 2020. Even with projected growth target set by the industry at 4.0 %, deficits will continue (Figure25). To attain self sufficiency, an alternative growth target of 6% is being proposed. At this level, surplus production is expected starting 2019 (Figure 26). Additional milkfish production can be sourced out from five (5) Mariculture Parks which will be operational in the next five years and improvement of production from brackishwater fishponds to at least 1.5 tons/ha/yr. At present, pond productivity is low, estimated at 1.2 tons/ha/yr while out of the 67 designated Mariculture Parks in the country, only 2.58% is operational. This is slightly higher than the earlier reported utilization of only 0.54% (Salayo et al., 2012) of the earmarked 50,150 has for MPs indicating a tremendous potential for expansion. The low utilization however is also indicative of the nebulous problems that undermine adoption of this strategy in achieving increased sustainable production from milkfish aquaculture. Increasing production of milkfish is two-pronged: improved productivity of both land-based and water-based production systems; and expansion of water-based culture facilities. The downside in increasing the volume of milkfish products is the possible slump in prices. Without a parallel decrease in the cost of inputs, it may not be attractive for milkfish growers especially those who are land-based to improve productivity level which is easily attainable, but cost-prohibitive. Figure 24. Population growth, milkfish production and utilization in the Philippines (2005-2020). 100,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 400,000,000 500,000,000 600,000,000 05' 06' 07' 08' 09' 10' 11' 12' 13' 14' 15' 16' 17' 18' 19' 20' *Milkfish Supply and Demand Based on Industry growth of 3 % Production (kg/yr) Population Utilization (kg/cap/yr) *Projection from 2015 - 2020 is based on average Milkfish industry and Filipino population growth from 2005 - 2014. Year AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 16 Figure 25. Population growth, milkfish production and utilization in the Philippines (2005-2020). Figure 26.Population growth, alternative milkfish production and utilization in the Philippines (2005-2020). i. Current Status of Milkfish Cage Operation The mariculture area in the Philippines have been set with an area of 50,150 hectares (Salayo, et al., 2012), and most major production site such as the Sual Mariculture Zone in Pangasinan, are now being delineated. Most cage operators, especially corporations and large scale operators, engage in nursery operations due to the constant shortage of good sized and quality fingerlings. Adverse weather conditions, typhoons and location of cage structures, compel operators to invest on stronger materials. Cages are now made up of sturdy materials mostly of high density polyethylene (HDPE) and metal frames. Commercial feeds, with almost 90% of operators using pressure pelleted sinking feeds, are used. Only about 10% are using extruded floating feeds and slow-sinking feeds. However, no evaluation and monitoring on the amount of feed wastage and their effects to the environment are being done. 100,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 400,000,000 500,000,000 600,000,000 05' 06' 07' 08' 09' 10' 11' 12' 13' 14' 15' 16' 17' 18' 19' 20' *Milkfish Supply and Demand Based on Industry Target of 4% Production (kg/yr) Population Utilization (kg/cap/yr) *Projection from 2015 - 2020 is based on Milkfish industry target of 4% and average Filipino population growth from 2005 - 2014. Year 100,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 400,000,000 500,000,000 600,000,000 05' 06' 07' 08' 09' 10' 11' 12' 13' 14' 15' 16' 17' 18' 19' 20' *Milkfish Alternative Production Growth Target of 6% to Attain Self Sufficiency Production (kg/yr) Population Utilization (kg/cap/yr) *Projection from 2015 - 2020 is based on alternative growth target of 6% and average Filipino population growth from 2005 - 2014. Year AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 17 Production efficiency in cage farming is relatively low with feed conversion ratio (FCR) of 2.5 to 2.8. To produce a kilogram of good sized milkfish (ABW 500g to 650g), almost three kilograms of feeds are needed. This suggests some problems on commercial feed efficiency, production management, quality of milkfish fingerling, or water quality. These factors should be evaluated and analyzed. Production information on different culture systems is shown in Table 1. Recent studies on the culture of milkfish in marine cages showed that the problems on fish kills may have been due to the degradation of environmental quality caused by improper feed and feeding practices that result in feed wastage estimated at 10-30% (Saclauso et al., 2015). This could have been exacerbated by the crowding of cage structures and non-compliance to regulations with respect to location and distance between cages. In that report, it was also illustrated that cages need not be deeper than 6 meters since about 75% of fish stay at shallower depths. With shallower cages, water exchange and circulation in culture areas can improve. This in turn will improve water quality and growth of fish in cages. Production in cages (Table 2) improved with automation and mechanization (Saclauso et al., 2015). Fish are bigger and of fairly uniform sizes at harvest with lower FCR (from industry average of 2.5-2.8 to less than 2.0). This improvement including environmental protection, translates to reduced costs, increased profitability and sustainability. Automation and mechanization allow also culture of fish at higher densities because of improved access to food using mechanical devices (top and bottom feeders) and floating feeds. Table 1. Current production information of milkfish in the Philippines. Operation Commercial Density Milkfish Feeds (pcs/m3) Survival Output (kg/m3) Initial ABW(g) Harvest ABW(g) DOC Fishpond Floating 0.5 to 1 60% 0.2 to 0.3 1 300 120 Fish Pen Sinking / Floating 10 to 15 85% 3 to 5 10 400 180 Fish Cage Sinking / Floating 30 to 50 85% 10 to 12 15 500 210 Table 2. Cost analysis per kilogram of milkfish produce in cages. Milkfish Cage Cost Analysis per Kilo Cost Factor Amount (Php) % cost Rank Feeds 64.23 75.19% 1 Fry 3.66 4.28% 4 Harvest 5.61 6.57% 3 Broker 8.11 9.50% 2 Labor 2.09 2.45% 5 Rental / Permits / Depreciation Costs 1.72 2.01% 6 Total Cost / Kg 85.42 100% AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 18 ii. Current Status of Milkfish Pen Operation Fish pen production (Table 3) is mostly situated in brackishwater or freshwater areas with good protection from waves and adverse weather conditions. Milkfish pen frames in the Philippines are usually made up of light materials which include bamboo and nylon rope. Production efficiency is a little bit higher compared to cage farming with feed conversion of 2.0 to 2.5 for a good-sized harvest weight. Production is only at an average of one cycle per year with a culture period of six to seven months with an average body weight of 400 to 500 grams milkfish at harvest. The other months of the year is dedicated to structure repairs, nursery of fingerlings and avoidance of typhoon season. Mainly pressure pelleted sinking feeds are used in this segment. Use of extruded floating feeds is gaining popularity in fish pens situated in areas with minimal current. A unique operation of milkfish pens apart from other milkfish pen productions in the country is found in Laguna de Bay. The operation in this area uses minimal feed or feed stuffs or even without any commercial feeds at all. Food source for milkfish are natural food from the lake or in the form of uneaten or expired food products (chips, noodles, etc.). Production for one cycle could last for almost two years before harvest and there is no record on production efficiency and economics. Table 3. Cost analysis per kilogram of milkfish produce in fish pens. Milkfish Pen Cost Analysis per Kilo Cost Factor Amount % cost Rank Feeds 61.39 73.04% 1 Fry 4.37 5.19% 4 Harvest 8.37 9.96% 2 Broker 5.32 6.33% 3 Labor 2.18 2.59% 6 Rental 2.43 2.89% 5 Total 84.06 100% iii. Current Status of Milkfish Pond Operation Milkfish production in fish ponds (Table 4) might be the oldest form of aquaculture production in the Philippines. This segment can be divided into three production types: traditional, semi-intensive and the intensive production. For the traditional production, milkfish are cultured using only farm grown natural food called “Lab-lab” and “Lumot”. Harvest volume in the traditional type of production is usually low with small sized milkfish (200 - 300 grams). Culture period for traditional pond operations depends on the availability of natural food in the pond. For the semi-intensive pond production (Table 4), milkfish are initially fed with natural food and after the natural food have been consumed, additional food in the form of either commercial feeds or supplemental feeds (rice bran, cracked corn, self-mixed feeds) are given until the desired weight for harvest is achieved. The intensive culture of milkfish in ponds can be AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 19 easily differentiated from the traditional and semi-intensive production. In this production strategy, milkfish are reared in high density (>1 piece per square meter), using commercial feed diets (usually extruded floating feeds) during the culture period. Use of support systems in the form of aerators, blowers, etc. is resorted to when fish are cultured at even higher densities. Table 4. Cost analysis per kilogram of milkfish produce in fish ponds. Milkfish Ponds Cost Analysis per Kilo Cost Factor Amount % cost Rank Feeds 40.92 56.29% 1 Fry 1.98 2.72% 2 Harvest 7.90 10.87% 4 Broker 9.80 13.47% 3 Labor 7.06 9.71% 6 Rental 5.04 6.94% 5 Total 72.70 100% iv. Current Status of Milkfish Hatchery and Nursery Milkfish hatchery systems in the Philippines are still limited in terms of output and reliability of year-round supply. In 2002 an estimated 358 million milkfish fry were imported from Taiwan and Indonesia (BFAR-NIFTDC) suggesting that during those times when the Philippines was only producing 225,337 MT of milkfish (BAS, 2006), the country was already importing a large number of fry from other countries. Given the figures, it would be safe to assume that the amount of imported fry also increased by as much 72% as the increase in production in ten years from 2002 to 2012 was recorded at 386,728.92 MT (BAS, 2012). It is likely that hatchery operations in the Philippines are now following the satellite hatcheries system of Indonesia that somehow ensure constant and reliable supply of milkfish fry. Nursery operations in the Philippines are characterized by small ponds ranging from 0.5 hectare to 2 hectares. Milkfish fry are stocked at very high densities and grown to desired sizes (1 inch to 6 inches) depending on the demand of the buyers or farm requirements. Traditional milkfish pond protocol is usually employed with “lab-lab” as the main source of food for the fry. However, in some medium to large scale nurseries, high density (high nutrient) or booster feeds are used together with natural food for better fry foundation and increased fingerling survival. v. Major Concern and Issues Major concern in milkfish operations is the recurring massive “fish kill”. Mortalities of juvenile milkfish occur at an average daily rate of 5 - 10 pieces. Another constraint in production is the slow growth of milkfish during the late juvenile stage (ABW of 400- 500 grams / piece) which extends culture period of up to 8 months to harvest fish at ABW of 650 grams / piece. High turbidity caused by run-off during and after heavy rains or typhoons also results in loss of appetite or mass mortalities. AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 20 Increasing cost of inputs and the low farm gate prices are some of the other concerns that are discouraging farmers. Profitability of operations in cage and pen is now one of the top concerns and may very well be regarded as the major issue in the milkfish industry. Operators are now disheartened with constant increase in production inputs (commercial feeds, fertilizers, nets, ropes, cage materials, etc.), salary and incentives of skilled labor. Particularly prohibitive is feed costs that constitute about 70% - 75% of production costs in cage operation. The farmgate price (FGP) of milkfish is not increasing and highly volatile with prices changing daily (Table 5). Prices usually start high but stabilize at a lower level than the opening price. Table 5. September - October 2015 Milkfish price monitoring of different harvest weights in three major fish ports / markets in the Philippines Dagupan Market Size (g) Opening Price Price Drop Average Price 300.00 85.00 70.00 77.50 400.00 90.00 80.00 85.00 500.00 100.00 90.00 95.00 600.00 105.00 90.00 97.50 Malabon - Navotas Market Size (ABW) Opening Price Price Drop Average Price 300.00 85.00 65.00 75.00 400.00 90.00 80.00 85.00 500.00 105.00 90.00 97.50 600.00 110.00 90.00 100.00 Iloilo Market Size (ABW) Opening Price Price Drop Average Price 300.00 85.00 80.00 82.50 400.00 95.00 90.00 92.50 500.00 110.00 100.00 105.00 600.00 115.00 105.00 110.00 AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 21 vi. Production Trend Milkfish production in cages and pens will be gearing towards harvest of bigger sizes which command high market prices. Consequences of this strategy will be the extension of culture period, lower cycles per year, higher risk of experiencing “fish kill” and increased exposure to unpredictable adverse weather conditions. Fish pond operator will maintain semi intensive and traditional operations producing good sizes fish with lesser inputs but at lower volume or tonnage. The business of producing milkfish will soon become a domain for high income families or corporation given the cost of production and the relatively low farm gate prices. The strategy of people that will engage in milkfish operation will be towards backward integration, producing all necessary inputs from fry or fingerling to production of self-mixed and formulated feeds to reduce costs of inputs. All production strategy will likely be on a large scale basis to further reduce cost of inputs per unit of produce. A downward trend will be expected in terms of labor and employments since large operators will focus more in efficiently utilizing farm labor and will gear towards automated and mechanized operations. vii. Opportunities and Threats Opportunities The Philippines is an archipelago with vast coastline and numerous cove-like locations that are very conducive for mariculture operations. Considering that of the planned 50,150 hectares of water area for mariculture, only 273 hectares are utilized (Salayo et al., 2012) yielding low harvests estimated at 6 to 8 kilograms per cubic meter and at even lower volume of3 to 5 kilograms per cubic meter based on 2012 survey of the writer, the potential if fully utilized, is tremendous. The current supply and production of milkfish could be increased exponentially by implementing a production strategy with adequate density, support system and infrastructures (ice plants, processing plants, storage and packaging facilities, etc.). Efficiently utilizing MP’s and other coastal resources for milkfish production will also exponentially increase the demand for good quality milkfish fingerling. The opportunity in delivering quality fingerling at a cheap price will be a big challenge for pond operators but will enable them to achieve higher income versus current grow-out operation. Establishing “satellite nurseries” will be the next frontier in milkfish pond production that could increase overall output and profitability of pond operations. Support programs for satellite nurseries will be a viable project supplying adequate quantity and quality fry to cage farms. Threats Milkfish production in the Philippines focuses on fast income rather than long term profitability. Current practices in all segment of production may it be in pond, cage or pens, tend AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 22 to neglect proper management which will eventually lead to environmental degradation. Inappropriate farming practices such as overfeeding, inappropriate feed type (sinking), crowding of structures (Plates 1 and 2). All these promote high nutrient loading, pollution and blockage of water flow that at present, are not monitored and evaluated. Similar situations are happening to fish ponds which are operated without proper pond preparation and management. Also, with the current low supply of good quality fry and fingerling this leads to high mortality in production during the early stage of operation. Sustainability will be the challenge for this industry going towards increased production and supply. Unstable and low market prices that are controlled by fish broker, contract buyers and “viajeros” will always be problem to milkfish producers considering the stable and constant increase of farm inputs. Plate 1. Milkfish cages in Bolinao, Pangasinan (left), and Tilapia and milkfish cages in Taal Lake (with seismic activity shown in red dots, right), Philippines(Digitized from web-based images and actual 2012 field survey data using Quantum GIS software. In: Saclauso, et al., 2013 and 2015 unpublished Technical Reports) Plate 2. Cages in San Nicholas and Laurel, Taal Lake Batangas after demolition and realignment (2012) viii. Prospects for the Next Five Years Programs should be focused in increasing productivity at sustainable levels. These can be achieved through effective and efficient utilization of our mariculture resources and existing brackishwater fishponds. Reversion of abandoned ponds to mangroves and conversion of AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 23 unproductive ponds to nursery or satellite nurseries will reduce pressure on mangrove ecosystem. Milkfish ponds will become more sustainable and profitable given the high turn-over rate of fingerling production with less inputs and low environmental degradation. Three growth scenarios are presented (Table 6; see also Figures 24-26) to illustrate how the industry copes with the demands of the increasing Filipino population. It reveals the need for the industry to come up with innovative solutions to address the impending shortage of milkfish products. Sources and projections on additional productions of milkfish under certain assumptions are detailed in Tables 7, 8 and 9. Table 6. Projected supply and demand for milkfish under three growth scenarios Milkfish Industry Growth Scenarios vs Supply Sufficiency (Based on FNRI-DOST 2013 Report) YEAR Production Population Projected Production Deficit / Utilization (*3% growth )(kg/yr) (# of persons) Demand (kg/yr) Surplus (kg/yr) (Kg/cap) 2015 401,939,505.90 101,468,435.00 476,901,644.48 (74,962,138.58) 4.70 2016 413,997,691.08 103,396,335.26 485,962,775.73 (71,965,084.65) 4.70 2017 426,417,621.81 105,360,865.63 495,196,068.46 (68,778,446.65) 4.70 2018 439,210,150.46 107,362,722.08 504,604,793.76 (65,394,643.30) 4.70 2019 452,386,454.98 109,402,613.80 514,192,284.85 Detailed i(61,805,829.87) 4.70 2020 465,958,048.63 111,481,263.46 523,961,938.26 (58,003,889.63) 4.70 *Based on average growth from 2005 - 2014 YEAR Production Population Projected Production Deficit / Utilization (*4% growth) (kg/yr) Demand (kg/yr) Surplus (kg/yr) (Kg/cap) 2015 405,841,831.20 101,468,435.00 476,901,644.48 (71,059,813.28) 4.70 2016 422,075,504.45 103,396,335.26 485,962,775.73 (63,887,271.28) 4.70 2017 438,958,524.63 105,360,865.63 495,196,068.46 (56,237,543.84) 4.70 2018 456,516,865.61 107,362,722.08 504,604,793.76 (48,087,928.15) 4.70 2019 474,777,540.24 109,402,613.80 514,192,284.85 (39,414,744.61) 4.70 2020 493,768,641.84 111,481,263.46 523,961,938.26 (30,193,296.41) 4.70 *Based on industry target as per CNFIDP 2015 - 2020 YEAR Production Population Projected Production Deficit / Utilization (*6% growth) (kg/yr) Demand (kg/yr) Surplus (kg/yr) (Kg/cap) 2015 413,646,481.80 101,468,435.00 476,901,644.48 (63,255,162.68) 4.70 2016 438,465,270.71 103,396,335.26 485,962,775.73 (47,497,505.02) 4.70 2017 464,773,186.95 105,360,865.63 495,196,068.46 (30,422,881.51) 4.70 2018 492,659,578.17 107,362,722.08 504,604,793.76 (11,945,215.60) 4.70 2019 522,219,152.86 109,402,613.80 514,192,284.85 8,026,868.01 4.70 2020 553,552,302.03 111,481,263.46 523,961,938.26 29,590,363.77 4.70 *Alternative production target to attain self sufficiency AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 24 Table 7. 2016 - 2020 Projected MP usage with Milkfish output in MT using available and sustainable high density technology production of 24kg/m3. Year MP usage Projected Production Volume Output MP Output (ha) Growth Area (m2) Depth (m) (kg/m3) (MT) 2015 273.00 50% 10,000 5 24 327,600 2016 409.50 50% 10,000 5 24 491,400 2017 614.25 50% 10,000 5 24 737,100 2018 921.38 50% 10,000 5 24 1,105,650 2019 1,382.06 50% 10,000 5 24 1,658,475 2020 2,073.09 50% 10,000 5 24 2,487,712 Table 8. Increased output in milkfish pen operations with use of extruded floating pellets and good management practice. Year Production Volume Output (kg/m3) Output / Fish Pen (MT) Area (m2) Depth (m) 2015 10,000 2 4 80 2016 10,000 2 5 100 2017 10,000 2 6 120 2018 10,000 2 7 140 2019 10,000 2 8 160 2020 10,000 2 9 180 Table 9. Comparison of milkfish grow-out and nursery pond production output. Operatio n Production Volume Density (pcs/m3) ABW (g) Survival Output (kg) DOC Area (m2) Depth (m) Grow out 10,000 1 1 300 60% 1,800 120 Nursery 10,000 1 50 10 40% 2,000 60 AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 25 TILAPIA Similar to milkfish which has shown growths over the years notwithstanding fishkills and natural calamities, tilapia production has been oscillating but generally increasing (Figure 10). It is interesting to note that tilapia through the years has gained acceptance even better than milkfish, as shown by the increasing per capita tilapia utilization. There has been a surplus in the availability of tilapia for consumption since 2005 until 2013 given the present industry growth of 5.67% (Figure 27). Deficit has been experienced since 2014 and will continue until 2020 if industry growth remains constant. Even with industry target of 6%, deficit will continue until 2020 (Figure 28). Alternative growth target of 9% is being proposed to attain self sufficiency by 2020 (Figure 29). Prospects for tilapia which are also discussed in this paper may not be as good as that of milkfish because of limitations in expansion areas and the prohibition set forth by laws on the use of freshwater areas. Even intensification scenarios for tilapia culture may not be as optimistic as that of milkfish because of the intrinsic characteristics of the species. High density loads in milkfish cages does not result in low survival but commonplace in tilapia which unlike milkfish, show overt intra-specific aggression under crowded conditions that often results in high mortalities. For instance, personal interviews of the author with cage operators in Taal Lake revealed that regardless of stocking densities, survival of tilapia hovers under 50%. This is also the reason why operators tend to overstock to compensate for the low survival which does not really make any ecological sense, but seems to be providing better economic incentives. Figure 27. Supply and Demand for tilapia from 2005-2020 based on average industry growth. 100,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 400,000,000 500,000,000 600,000,000 05' 06' 07' 08' 09' 10' 11' 12' 13' 14' 15' 16' 17' 18' 19' 20' *Tilapia Supply and Demand based on industry growth of 5.67% Production (kg/yr) Population Utilization (kg/cap/yr) *Projection from 2015 - 2020 is based on average Tilapia industry and population growth from 2005 - 2014. Year AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 26 Figure 28. Supply and Demand for Tilapia based on industry target. Figure 29. Supply and Demand for Tilapia based on alternative target to attain self-sufficiency. i. Current Status of Tilapia Cage Operations Tilapia cage operations in the Philippines are mostly situated in freshwater lakes with structures made up of bamboo, nylon ropes and netting materials. The top productive lakes for Tilapia cage operations in the Philippines are Taal Lake, Seven Lakes in Laguna, Lake Bato and Lake Buhi in the Bicol regions. Operators from the top three producing provinces in the Philippines (Batangas, Laguna and Camarines Sur) often perceive investment in high cost materials for tilapia cages (HDPE and metal cages) would be costly for such a low value fish commodity. Management and maintenance including repair of cage frames are not 100,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 400,000,000 500,000,000 600,000,000 05' 06' 07' 08' 09' 10' 11' 12' 13' 14' 15' 16' 17' 18' 19' 20' *Tilapia Supply and Demand Based on Industry Target of 6% Productio n (kg/yr) Population Utilization (kg/cap/yr ) *Projection from 2015 - 2020 is based on average Tilapia industry and population growth from 2005 - 2014. Year 100,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 400,000,000 500,000,000 600,000,000 05' 06' 07' 08' 09' 10' 11' 12' 13' 14' 15' 16' 17' 18' 19' 20' *Tilapia Alternative Production Target of 9% to Attain Self Sufficiency Production (kg/yr) Population Utilization (kg/cap/yr) *Projection from 2015 - 2020 is based on average Tilapia industry and population growth from 2005 - 2014. Year AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 27 implemented until the cage structure is on the verge of collapse or already collapsing. The main nutrient for tilapia in cages are mainly commercial pressure pelleted sinking feeds with relatively low number of operators using extruded floating feeds. The efficiency of tilapia in production should be higher compared to bangus since tilapia can obtain significant nutrition from grazing on algae and biofilms, which results to lower feed costs versus other farmed fish. However, according to the data gathered by BFAR-NIFTDC in Taal, Batangas, milkfish is more efficient than tilapia with efficiency ratio of 2.14:1 and 2.22:1 respectively. Very high densities of up to 214 pieces per cubic meter (BFAR-NIFTDC EMMA report; Plate ) are stocked in cages in Taal, Batangas while other production areas like in Camarines Sur and Laguna (seven lakes) stocked at low density of only 10 - 50 pieces per cubic meter achieving very low conversion rates of up to 1:1. Tilapia is usually harvested if it reached the good market size ranging from 200 to 400 grams per piece in about 3.5 to 6 months. Plate 3. Overstocking of Tilapia in Taal Lake, Batangas. ii. Current Status of Tilapia Pen Operations Fish pen operations for tilapia is characterized by low density (10 - 30 pieces per cubic meter) production that uses both naturally occurring food in the water and the use of commercial feeds. Mostly pressure pelleted sinking feeds are used with minimal operators using extruded floating feeds. Production efficiency in this segment is relatively high with feed conversion ratio ranging only from 1.5:1 to 1:7:1. This production efficiency does not include operators in Laguna de Bay and Rizal area which only use very minimal commercial feeds and feed stuff. Fish pen structure like tilapia cages are made up of light materials such as bamboo, nylon ropes and netting. Fish pen productions are usually seasonal in nature with producers avoiding the rainy or typhoon season just like in the Ilocos regions. However, with fish pen in Rizal and Laguna de Bay, due to low production cost and minimal usage of commercial feeds, tilapia operations tend to be whole year round with culture period extending up to one year per cycle. tilapia fish pen operations in the Mindanao area (Sultan Kudarat, Davao, Maguindanao, etc.) are operated whole year round due to good weather throughout the year and no strong typhoons during the rainy season. Harvest sizes for fish pen operations varies in different provinces with AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 28 Rizal and Laguna de Bay harvesting bigger sizes of 400 - 600 grams, Fish pens in Bicol region and Mindanao area harvesting 300 grams and a more conservative harvest sizes of 180 to 250 grams could be seen in the Ilocos region. iii. Current Status of Tilapia Pond Operations Tilapia pond operation is characterized by ponds with depth of 0.8 meters up to 2 meters and an area of 500 square meters up to 10 hectares for a single pond. Density for this segment is still on the conservative side with an average density of only 3 to 5 pieces per square meters. Tilapia production in ponds is continuously increasing with the price stability and the low production cost in this segment. Even with a low farm gate price of Php 65.00 to 80.00 per kilo in Pampanga and Pangasinan, it is still the main fish pond producers of tilapia and operators are still looking at a stable industry. Availability of cheap but good quality fingerling in the area together with the use of low cost commercial feeds and natural food contributed to this business healthy production. Even with the recurring occurrence of massive fishkill and off flavor (“lasang gilik”), operators are still positive on the movement of tilapia products in the market. In the central and northern part of Luzon, the effects of massive fishkills due to high heat and constant weather changes coupled with low prices, are taking its toll on the producers. Tarlac and Nueva Ecija provinces are experiencing heavy losses due to small scale type of operations which is high in operating expense compared to its production output. Prices in Isabela, Cagayan provinces and Ilocos region are relatively high compared to other top tilapia pond production area with prices ranging from Php 90.00 to 110.00 per kilo. However, industry operators are experiencing very low margin in their harvest due to very high cost of inputs coming from central Luzon and Metro Manila. Northern provinces mentioned above have seasonal production which are set during before the typhoon season. The Visayas is the area considered to be eating mostly marine products or sea caught fish with only milkfish and shrimp as the preferred aquaculture product. However, with the viability of growing tilapia and the growing acceptability in the market, this product will likely be the focus of aquaculture production next to milkfish. Tilapia will likely replace most catfish farm in this region given its good market price, ease of operation and high market requirement. iv. Hatchery and Nursery The demand for a steady supply of good quality but cheap tilapia fry and fingerlings is continuously challenging hatchery and nursery operators in the Philippines. Tilapia hatchery have slowed down since the scarcity of good quality breeders and genetic modification programs did not progress. However, there is still a high number of good quality and fast growing strains available in the market (Table 10). On the other hand, tilapia nursery operation is gaining popularity among industry operators. Nursery strategy includes purchase of day old tilapia fry (“kawag”) from hatcheries which is very cheap and then transferred to existing ponds and grown to stocking sizes of 5 to 10 grams. With this strategy, nursery operators can select fast growing batches of fingerling and eliminate the rest or sell to other operators. AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 29 Table 10. List of good quality Tilapia strain available in the market Strain Name Information GIFT Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia Originally developed in the Philippines from eight farmed and wild strains collected from around the world. The breeding program continues under the auspices of the WorldFish Centre at Jitra, Malaysia. GST Genomar Supreme Tilapia The Genomar strain was developed by a partnership of biologists from Brazil and Norway. It also included a large hatchery project in China, the Trapia project in Malaysia and a hatchery in the Philippines. Chitralada Chitralada The Chitralada strain was developed in Thailand, and actually was started from the stocks of tilapia given to the King of Thailand who kept them in ponds at the Chitralada Palace. Breeders in Thailand continued to work with this strain and eventually developed the line that still bears the Chitralada name. It has also been used as an important line in some of the other breeding programs. TabTim Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia Developed in Thailand by the CP Group as their branded tilapia strain. The line is derived from several salt tolerant red tilapia lines, including some from Thailand, the Bahamas and the University of Arizona. Tab Tim has been successfully branded as a premium tilapia which receives an increased price and now is produced and marketed in Indonesia and Malaysia as well as Thailand. GIFT Excell GIFT Excellent Strain The GIFT Excell line is derived from some of the GIFT tilapia that were left behind in the Philippines, when the GIFT program proper was moved to Malaysia. Some of the original GIFT biologists have worked in the original location and have partnered with various hatcheries to improve the strain. v. Major Concerns / Issues The major concern of tilapia as an aquaculture fish aside from recurring fish kills is the occurrence of off flavor or “lasang gilik” especially those coming from either Pampanga or Rizal. These suggest that the environment is on the brink of collapse due to improper production practices. When this information is known to the market, prices are often marked down to the lowest price possible. The increasing costs of inputs and inflation rates with continuing low farm gate prices have pushed the profit margins of farmers into a break-even production. Feed millers and other companies that supply aquaculture inputs are constantly increasing their prices to maintain product quality and services. Another issue which is similar to the milkfish industry is the constant increase of farmed inputs with farm gate price not increasing at the same rate and excessive feeding (Plate 4). The latter reduces profitability and degrades water quality of the culture environment. AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 30 Plate 4. Excessive feeding in tilapia cages in Taal Lake, Batangas. v. Production Trend The increasing acceptability of tilapia in the Philippine market has made it the second most cultured fish in the Philippines, next to milkfish. Even though tilapia is an introduced species, it has worked its way as a locally available food fish for the Filipino community. The total production of tilapia for freshwater fish cage alone reached 85,160.84 MT in 2012 (BAS, 2012). Freshwater fish pens reached 21,379.50 MT in 2012, slightly lower by 3.99% versus the previous year (BAS, 2012). Freshwater pond is the highest contributor of tilapia producing 139,105.16 MT in 2012 (BAS, 2012).Production trends under different culture systems are presented in Table 11. Table 11. Current production Information of Tilapia in the Philippines. System Commercial Density Tiapia Feeds (pcs/m3) Survival Output (kg/m3) Initial ABW(g) Harvest ABW(g) DOC Pond Floating 3 to 5 85% 1 to 2 1 200 100 Pen Sinking/Floating 15 to 30 85% 5 to 10 5 250 120 Cage Sinking/Floating 30 to 60 60% 10 to 20 5 300 150 vi. Opportunities and Threats Adequate supply of good quality fry and fingerling is required to sustain grow-out production. Even with the numerous hatchery and nursery operators the industry still lacks the adequate supply of good quality tilapia fry and fingerlings. This offers opportunities for the expansion and improvement of hatchery systems but also become a threat to increasing grow-out production if not addressed. Continuous R & D to generate information and technology for the genetic improvement of tilapia will provide the necessary support for the production of climate resilient, good quality and fast growing strains. The occurrence of off-flavor on tilapia produced in some areas in the country, also provide AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 31 opportunity for research to improve culture management practices. This has to be addressed at the soonest to improve market prices and utilization. vii. Prospect for the Next Five Years Tilapia will continue to be the second most cultured fish in the Philippines. The deficit in local requirements and utilization (Table 12) should be addressed by reviving old freshwater dam, reservoirs and lakes for sustainable cage operation using high quality inputs. Improvement and usage of original parent line should be implemented in local hatcheries accompanied with accreditation. Strict implementation of proper production management and sustainability programs should be implemented in existing production areas (ex. Taal Lake and Lake Sebu). Saline tolerant tilapia is an alternative culture species for brackishwater (even to the point that this is a secondary species for polyculture with milkfish) if milkfish is not available or if the price of tilapia in the area commands a more profitable operation. It is recommended that a concrete data on the production output of brackishwater tilapia should be established to indicate the corresponding hatchery or pilot hatcheries/nurseries to be created. Quality fry will always be a product of quality broodstocks, therefore one of the main target for this hatchery strategy should be the acquisition or importation of pure strain for brackishwater or saline environment tilapia species (example, Tilapia zillii or red bellied tilapia) then cross-bred with our improved tilapia strain. Table 12. Projected supply and demand for Tilapia under three growth scenarios Tilapia Industry Growth Scenarios vs Supply Sufficiency (Based on NFRI-DOST 2013 Report) YEAR Production Population Projected Production Deficit / Utilization (*5.67% growth) (kg/yr) (# of persons) Demand (kg/yr) Surplus (kg/yr) (Kg/cap) 2015 331,146,532.60 101,468,435.00 466,754,800.98 (135,608,268.38) 4.60 2016 349,922,541.00 103,396,335.26 475,623,142.20 (125,700,601.20) 4.60 2017 369,763,149.07 105,360,865.63 484,659,981.90 (114,896,832.83) 4.60 2018 390,728,719.63 107,362,722.08 493,868,521.56 (103,139,801.93) 4.60 2019 412,883,038.03 109,402,613.80 503,252,023.47 (90,368,985.44) 4.60 2020 436,293,506.28 111,481,263.46 512,813,811.91 (76,520,305.63) 4.60 *Based on average growth from 2005 - 2014 YEAR Production Population Projected Production Deficit / Utilization (*6% growth) (kg/yr) (# of persons) Demand (kg/yr) Surplus (kg/yr) (Kg/cap) 2015 332,180,680 101,468,435 466,754,801 (134,574,121) 4.60 2016 352,111,521 103,396,335 475,623,142 (123,511,621) 4.60 2017 373,238,212 105,360,866 484,659,982 (111,421,770) 4.60 2018 395,632,505 107,362,722 493,868,522 (98,236,017) 4.60 2019 419,370,455 109,402,614 503,252,023 (83,881,568) 4.60 2020 444,532,682 111,481,263 512,813,812 (68,281,130) 4.60 *Based on industry target as per CNFIDP 2015 - 2020 YEAR Production Population Projected Production Deficit / Utilization (*9% growth) (kg/yr) (# of persons) Demand (kg/yr) Surplus (kg/yr) (Kg/cap) 2015 341,582,020.00 101,468,435.00 466,754,800.98 (125,172,780.98) 4.60 2016 372,324,401.80 103,396,335.26 475,623,142.20 (103,298,740.40) 4.60 2017 405,833,597.96 105,360,865.63 484,659,981.90 (78,826,383.94) 4.60 2018 442,358,621.78 107,362,722.08 493,868,521.56 (51,509,899.78) 4.60 2019 482,170,897.74 109,402,613.80 503,252,023.47 (21,081,125.73) 4.60 2020 525,566,278.54 111,481,263.46 512,813,811.91 12,752,466.62 4.60 *Alternative production target to attain self sufficiency AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 32 WHITE SHRIMP i. Current Status of Shrimp Pond Operations The graph below (Figure 30) represents mainly the intensive farms (those who are using feeds heavily), which comprise 80% of the market share. Unaccounted shrimp farms falls more on extensive operations. Figure 30. Production areas of L. vannamei in the Philippines (Private Company, Unp. data) ii. Hatchery Adequate supply of specific-pathogen free (SPF) and specific pathogen resistant (SPR) fry is essential to increase and sustain production. With culture systems not well secured from horizontal and vertical contamination, use of SPR may be a better strategy. After leaving the hatcheries, shrimp PL’s are very susceptible to the culture environment hence, their natural resistance to disease is a paramount concern to prevent outbreak during culture. Only a number of hatcheries in the Philippines produce SPF/SPR fry. Most hatcheries especially backyard producers are not certified and unregulated. iii. Major Concerns and Issues Disease prevention and outbreak containment is a common concern. Even with the advances of technology and research in shrimp production, the problem in preventing diseases and containing disease outbreaks is still one of the major challenges the industry faces. Aquaculture certification could be a way in meeting global competitiveness. It should impose compliance to regulations and issue only certification to those who are compliant. AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 33 With the intensification of shrimp production, prices are now decreasing due to increased supply which cannot be absorbed by the local market. The once luxurious high value shrimp products are becoming a common commodity with affordable prices in the export market. The Philippines could not compete with the top producers from other countries which offer cheaper shrimps due to their lower production costs. iv. Production Trend Production of shrimps is erratic and generally peak in August to September (Figure 31). Figure 31. Production of white shrimps in 2013-2014 (Private Company, Unp. Data). v. Opportunities and Threats Increasing per capita income in the country and rising production of crustaceans and the relative decline in their prices will encourage increase in per capita utilization. At present, local market offers better prices than in export market. With imminent ASEAN integration and the diminishing global trade barriers however, local shrimp producers must find ways to improve cost efficiency in their operations and combat the disease problems that offer clear and present danger to the industry. vi. Prospect for the Next Five Years The shrimp industry will continue to focus on producing L. vannamei as the main cultured species. The SPF and SPR fry will be in the forefront in preventing and minimizing disease occurrence thus, certification should be made compulsory and only certified hatcheries should be promoted to growers. AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 34 Intensification should be geared towards the use of polyethylene liners to decrease production maintenance and further increase density of up to 150 pcs/m3. The decrease in production costs will enable competitiveness in the global market. The demand for shrimp was highest in early 90’s then declined to lower levels in subsequent years. Increased utilization was again reported in 2013 when per capita utilization peaked at 0.80 kg/cap. For a long time, production was more than what was consumed but recent data show deficits starting 2013 and will continue to be so until 2020 if industry’s growth remains at 2.67 % (Figure 32). Even with industry target of 10%, the deficit will remain (Figure 33) and surplus will be realized and only in 2020 if alternative target of 32% is aimed (Figure 34). Figure 32. Population, production and demand for shrimps at 2.67% average growth. Figure 33. Population, production and demand for shrimps at 10% increase. 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 S H R I M P S U P P L Y - D EM A N D A T I N D U S T R Y A V ER A G E G R O W T H R A T E O F 2 . 6 7 % Shrimp Prodxn Filipino Pop Shrimp Utilization 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 S H R I M P S U P P L Y - D EM A N D A T I N D U S T R Y T A R G ET O F 1 0 % I N C R EA S E 10% Filipino Pop Shrimp Utilization AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 35 Figure 34. Population, production and demand for shrimps at 32% increase. Different growth scenarios are also presented in Table 13 showing projections starting 2015 until 2020 using different growth targets. Although the purchasing power of Filipinos has improved and the dampening of prices of crustaceans encourage increased utilization, the demand for shrimp in the lower social strata is not expected to significantly increase. Unlike milkfish and tilapia, shrimps are still considered a luxurious item thus its utilization cannot parallel the demand for the low value finfishes. In fact, the demand for shrimps will be at the high end markets here and abroad. The demand for shrimp in international market seems insatiable that increases in production volume will not really encounter marketing problems. Recent reports however indicate that the local shrimp industry is unable to compete with their foreign counterparts who sell shrimps at lower prices. This indicates that finding cheaper alternatives in producing shrimps is an important strategy for the expansion of the industry. With the disappearance of barriers through global market integration the competition will become even stiffer. What makes the industry expensive to sustain is its vulnerability to disease causing organisms and the requirements to combat them to increase survival. It is because of this that developing an SPR shrimp is better than producing an SPF which are vulnerable to pathogens when raised in open systems. 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 S H R I M P S U P P L Y - D E M A N D A T A L T ER N A T I V E T A R G ET O F 3 2 % I N C R E A S E T O A T T A I N S EL F - S U F F I C I EN C Y 32% Filipino Pop Shrimp Utilization AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 36 Table 13. Projected supply and demand for shrimps under three growth scenarios. Shrimp Industry Growth Scenarios vs Supply Sufficiency Based on FNRI-DOST 2013 Report Year Production Filipino Pop Projected Production Deficit/ Utilization *(2.67% growth/yr) (# of persons) Demand (kg/yr) Surplus (kg/yr) (kg/cap) 2015 60,825 101,798 81,438 -20,613 0.80 2016 62,446 103,528 82,823 -20,376 0.80 2017 64,111 105,288 84,231 -20,120 0.80 2018 65,820 107,078 85,662 -19,842 0.80 2019 67,575 108,898 87,119 -19,544 0.80 2020 69,376 110,750 88,600 -19,223 0.80 *Based on average growth from 2005-2014 Year Production Filipino Pop Projected Production Deficit/ Utilization *(10% growth/yr) (# of persons) Demand (kg/yr) Surplus (kg/yr) (kg/cap) 2015 60,825 101,798 81,438 -16,268 0.80 2016 62,446 103,528 82,823 -15,915 0.80 2017 64,111 105,288 84,231 -15,540 0.80 2018 65,820 107,078 85,662 -15,140 0.80 2019 67,575 108,898 87,119 -14,717 0.80 2020 69,376 110,750 88,600 -14,267 0.80 *Based on industry target as per CNFIDP 2015-2020 Year Production Filipino Pop Projected Production Deficit/ Utilization *(32% growth/yr) (# of persons) Demand (kg/yr) Surplus (kg/yr) (kg/cap) 2015 78,203 101,798 81,438 -3,234 0.80 2016 80,288 103,528 82,823 -2,534 0.80 2017 82,429 105,288 84,231 -1,801 0.80 2018 84,626 107,078 85,662 -1,036 0.80 2019 86,882 108,898 87,119 -236 0.80 2020 89,198 110,750 88,600 599 0.80 *Alternative production target to attain self-sufficiency AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 37 SEAWEEDS The seaweeds industry in the country is dominated by the cultivation of Eucheuma, particularly the spinosum and cottonii strains (BFAR Unp. data). Major production areas of seaweeds in the country include the ARMM, MIMAROPA and Zamboanga Peninsula (Figure 35). Figure 35. Seaweeds’ top producing regions in the Philippines. Continuous drop in the seaweeds production is observed from 2011 to 2014 (Figure 36), registering negative growth rates in 2012 (-11) and 2013 (-0.56). This trend can be attributed to some problems that beset the seaweed industry, namely: the infestation of ice-ice disease, unfavorable climate conditions, and damages caused by typhoons, marine turtles, and siganid frys. Figure 36. Seaweeds production in terms of Volume (in MT). 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 2,000,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Seaweeds Production by Volume (in MT) 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 AVERAGE PRODUCTIONS: 1. ARMM 626, 306 MT 2. MIMAROPA 412,763 MT 3. ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA 222, 061 MT AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 38 Seaweeds farming is done mainly by small farmers (~0.25 ha average farm size), while large scale seaweeds farms are family-run farming units managed by commercial investors in southern part of the country. Overall, the industry generates employment to more than 200,000 workers which include processors, exporters, traders, farmers and their families (Salayo et al., 2012; BFAR Unp. Data). The industry’s goal is to increase production by 25% in the next 5 years. However, with the challenges that confront this sector, there is a need to intensify R&D efforts to address those challenges, particularly in screening high quality seaweed cultivars. Further, the industry needs to establish nurseries to supply the requirement for planting materials otherwise, imports will gradually drain the seaweeds industry. HIGH VALUE AND EMERGING SPECIES Increased production of the high value and emerging species anchors heavily on availability of hatchery-produced seedstocks. In the interim, wild sources may suffice but long term sustainability dictates that production of seedstocks must be at will. Changes in environmental conditions do not provide safety nets that will ensure sustainability. For most species, hatchery technology is available except for eel which still rely on wild sources. The choice of species to develop either for food security reasons or livelihood and income, will have to be evaluated within the context of changing climate, shifting preferences and growth paradigms. An efficient surveillance and monitoring system will help for timely responses to both internal and external drivers of change. AQUACULTURE SUB-SECTOR 39 REFERENCES Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (Various years). Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Unp. Data. Accredited Aquaculture Farm Operators in the Philippines Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Unp. Data. Philippine Seaweeds Industry Roadmap for 2013-2016. Draft Report. Quezon City, Manila, 83p. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, 2005-2014. Philippine Fisheries Profile 2005-2014. Quezon City, Manila Boyd, C.A., McNevin, J. Clay and H. Johnson. 2005. Certification issues for some common aquaculture species. Reviews in Fisheries Science 13:231-279. Ferrer, A.J.G., Hopanda, J., Orquejo, M., Moscoso, A.D. 2012. Disused fishpond areas covered by Fishpond Lease Agreement in Western Visayas. Quezon City, Philippines: Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Fishmeal Information Network (FIN). 2006. Fishmeal and Fish oil facts and figures, May 2006 update. http://www.gafta.com/fin/finfacts.html. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1986. The production of fishmeal and oil. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 142, FAO Fisheries Department, Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2004. The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome. Gill, C. 2005. World feed panorama: disease takes toll, but feed output bounces back. Feed International. 26(1):4-9. Hardy, R.W. and A. Tacon. 2002. Fishmeal: historical uses, production trends and future outlook for supplies. Pages 311-325 in Responsible Marine Aquaculture, Stickney, R. and J. McVey, eds. CABI Publishing, New York. International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization (IFFO). 2006. Industry Overview webpage. http://www.iffo.net/default.asp?fname=1&sWebIdiomas=1&url=253. Mathe’, S., Rey-Valette, H., Brunel, O., Cle’ment, O., Rene’, F. and Blancheton, J.-P. 2011. Analysis of the standards and indicators for sustainable development of aquaculture. In GFCM, 2011. Indicators for the sustainable development of finfish Mediterranean aquaculture: highlights from the InDAM Project. Studies and Reviews. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. No. 90. Rome, FAO. 218 p. Philippines Statistics Authority. 2015. Selected Food Security Indicators. Philippines (1990-2013). 139 p. Philippine Statistics Authority-Food Security Information System (PSA-FSIS) Website, Accessed at http://philfsis.psa.gov.ph/, October 15, 2015. Pike, I. 2005. Ecoefficiency in aquaculture: global catch of wild fish used in aquaculture. International Aquafeed 8(1):38-40. Private Company Unp. Data on L. vannamei, 2013-2014. Republic Act 8550. Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998. Salayo, N.D., Perez, M.I. Garces, L.R., and Pido, M.D. 2012. Mariculture development and livelihood diversification in the Philippines. Marine Policy. 36(2012):867-881. Sustainable Marine Aquaculture: Fulfilling the promise; managing the risks. Report of the Marine Aquaculture Task Force. 128 p. Accessed at www.whoi.edu/sites/marineaquataskforce. 2007. Tacon, A.G.J. 2005. State of information on salmon aquaculture feed and the environment. Prepared for the WWF Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue. Accessed at http://www.worldwildlife.org/cci/dialogues/salmon.cfm. http://www.gafta.com/fin/finfacts.html http://www.iffo.net/default.asp?fname=1&sWebIdiomas=1&url=253 http://philfsis.psa.gov.ph/ http://www.whoi.edu/sites/marineaquataskforce.%202007 http://www.worldwildlife.org/cci/dialogues/salmon.cfm STATE OF POST-HARVEST FISHERIES IN THE PHILIPPINES Encarnacion Emilia S. Yap December 2015 Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 1 STATUS OF PHILIPPINE POST-HARVEST FISHERIES Encarnacion Emilia S. Yap Post Harvest Fisheries Specialist INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act 8550 (or RA 8550 - The Fisheries code of 1998), the Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan (CNFIDP) of 2006 was formulated to provide a strategic legal framework for the management of the fisheries resources in the Philippines and to give direction to the Philippine fisheries industry from 2006 to 2025. Chapter 2 (Overview of Philippine Fisheries) of the CNFIDP provides an in-depth assessment of the Philippine fisheries resources and the fisheries industry. Such assessment included an exhaustive report of the status and trends of the different sub-sectors of the industry (Chapter 2, section 2.5). This chapter also presents the interrelated problems that plague the entire Philippine fisheries industry, as shown in Figure 1. Clearly, this chapter critically explains that although the Philippines is endowed with rich fisheries and aquatic resources that supply a significant amount of animal food protein to most of the Filipinos, the sector has been confronted with the following problems: (1) depleted fishery resources; (2) degraded fishery habitats; (3) strong resource use competition; (4) unrealized full potential of aquaculture; (5) post harvest losses; (6) uncompetitive fish and fishery products in the local and global markets; (7) inadequate fishery rules and regulations; and (8) limited institutional capabilities and partnerships between the private and public sectors (CNFIDP, 2006). Two of the core problems of the industry, as shown in Figure 1, are related to post harvest fisheries – namely post harvest losses and uncompetitiveness of fish and fishery products. These two core problems are embodied in the discussion of the status and trends of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries in Chapter 2, section 2.5.5. As shown in Figure 2, the two core problems besetting the post harvest fisheries sub-sector are quite complicated. They are basically influenced by several factors, within the sub-sector itself and by those from other sub-sectors, namely municipal fisheries, commercial fisheries and aquaculture. Chapter 3 of the CNFIDP provides the Fisheries Sector Development Framework which presents the integrated objective tree for Philippine fisheries (Figure 3). This specifically mentions two post harvest fisheries related objectives: to promote competitiveness of fish and fishery products and to minimize post harvest losses. Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 2 Figure 1. Integrated problem tree of Philippine fisheries (CNFIDP, 2006) Chapter 4 of the CNFIDP of 2006 specifies the different mid-term priority plans and projects. Among other things, the post harvest component of the plan has specific projects on the following: x Strengthening of the fish inspection system in the Philippines x Development of National Quality Standards for fish and fishery products x Marketing and promotion of fish and other aquatic products x Development of new value added fishery products x Natural marine products x Reduction of post harvest losses x Model Villages for Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 3 Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 4 Figure 3. Integrated objective tree of Philippine fisheries (CNFIDP, 2006) RECENT STATUS AND TRENDS IN POST HARVEST PROCESSES IN THE PHILIPPINES Below is a critical assessment of the status and trends in post harvest fisheries in the country ten (10) years after the release of the Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan (CNFIDP) in 2006. Are the post harvest losses in Philippine fisheries industry minimized? Not all fish that is harvested or captured for human consumption actually reaches the consumers. Some of them are lost in the supply chain and these losses can aptly be categorized as follows: 1. actual physical or material losses, or those losses due to improper post harvest handling practices in fish landing and trading facilities or those discarded in fishing vessels; 2. nutritional losses, or those losses due to the decrease in the amount of nutrients a human body derives from eating fish that has lost its nutritional value as a result of inappropriate processing and preservation conditions ; and 3. losses in market value, due to spoilage of wet and processed fish, infestation, weight loss, inferior finished products, and rejection in the export market. In the Philippines, approximately 25% of the fish is lost in the entire supply chain of each commodity. As shown in Figure 4, the existing practices in each of the steps of any fishery supply chain both from capture fisheries and from aquaculture sub sectors can potentially contribute to losses. Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 5 Figure 4. Causes of fisheries post harvest losses in the supply chain From 2006 until now, there seems to be no significant reduction of post harvest losses in the country. Almost the same post harvest handling practices exist in different fish landing and trading facilities in the country. Causes of these losses in any supply chain, as shown in Figure 4, are still prevalent. For example, the practices in the country’s eight (8) regional fish ports (Figure 5) that are being managed by the Philippine Fisheries Development Authority still need improvement and constant monitoring. These ports remain functional, with the Navotas Fish Port Complex as the central fish hub in the country. However, the post harvest handling practices in most of these ports have to be given attention if we are to seriously reduce post harvest losses, with the exception of some of the fish ports that have been continuously housing several exporting fish processing establishments (e.g. Gen. Santos Fish Port Complex, Davao Fish Port Complex, etc.) and therefore have much improved practices. In addition to these regional fish ports, a total of eighty six (86) municipal fish ports are presently being managed by their respective local government units (Figure 6). These fish port need improvement not only in terms of post harvest practices but also in terms of their basic infrastructures and facilities. Other fish landing facilities that need intervention include those privately owned facilities and the unaccounted traditional (near shore) areas used by municipal fishers. Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 6 Figure 5. The names and location of the eight (8) Regional Fish Ports in the Philippines (PFDA, 2015) Despite the existence of these fish ports, majority of the fishers still have limited access even to simple ice making / plant facilities. For example, only 2 out of 23 (or 8.7%) government owned ice making facilities managed by LGUs still remain operational. Only 11 out of 27 (or 41%) government-owned ice making facilities managed by the government are operational, 9 of which have been on lease to some private individuals / groups while 2 are being managed by ARMM. For ice storage facilities, only 11 out of 43 (or 26%) facilities are owned by the government are operational and these are either managed by the LGUs or on-lease to private groups/individuals. Table 1 provides a summary of all refrigeration and ice plant facilities housed at the regional fish ports and their most recent status (PFDA, 2015) Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 7 Figure 6. The names and location of the LGU-managed municipal fish ports in the Philippines (PFDA, 2015) Has the competitiveness of fish and fishery products been increased? Although it is difficult to quantitatively assess the competitiveness of Philippine fish and fishery products both in the local and export markets, the following assessment tries to look at this competitiveness in terms of the trends of the degree of utilization of the top eight (8) commodities, the existence of traditional and value added products in the market, the evolution of products in terms of packaging materials and methods used, and the trends in the utilization of fish processing waste in the country. Most recent data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA, 2015) reveal the degree of utilization of milkfish, tilapia, shrimps, tuna, roundscad, crabs, mussels and oyster, in terms of distribution of the gross supplies of these commodities as the amounts utilized in processing, exports, feeds/waste, and net food disposable. These data are shown in Figures 7a-7h. Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 8 Table 1. Status of refrigeration and ice plant facilities housed at the regional fish ports, including their capacities (PFDA, 2015) Table 2 provides a summary of the average percent (%) distribution of the gross supply of the eight commodities from 2006 to 2014. Briefly, these data indicate the following: (a) mostly milkfish, roundscad and tuna which are processed as human foods; (b) tuna, shrimps, and crabs which are exported; (c) milkfish, tilapia, roundscad, oysters and mussels which are mostly consumed locally; and (d) feeds and waste only account to 1.45 – 3.00% of the gross supply of the 8 commodities. Interestingly, all other available information (including the Philippine Development Plan , PDP 2015) on the percent post harvest losses in the country give the value of 25%. Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 9 Figure 7 (a-h). Percent distribution of the gross supplies of eight (8) different commodities, from 2004 to 2014 (Data source: PSA, 2015) Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 10 Table 2. Average percent distribution of the gross supply of the eight commodities from 2005 to 2014. COMMODITIES Exports Feeds & Waste Processing Net Food Disposable Milkfish 0.65 3.00 31.99 64.37 Roundscad 0.20 3.00 31.97 64.83 Tilapia 0.30 3.00 0.00 97.73 Tuna 3.55 2.78 29.63 64.04 Crab 9.61 1.50 0.00 88.89 Shrimp 14.55 1.45 0.00 84.00 Mussel 0.11 1.49 0.00 98.40 Oyster 0.22 1.50 0.00 98.28 In terms of fishery products that are being produced in the Philippines, consumers have been witnessing an increasing number and variety of value added fishery products available in the market. However, there is still no comprehensive inventory of available traditional and value added fishery products available in the local market. For the export market, there is now a total of twenty (20) commodities (excluding aquatic plants), in around seventy (70) varied forms that are now being exported to other countries. However, the major fish and fishery product exports remain to be yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna, canned tuna, shrimps and crabs. Despite the presence of rules and regulations related to food safety in the country, some of our fish and fishery products have been experiencing export refusals and detentions (BFAR 2015). Interestingly, cases of refusal and detention of Philippine fishery products in the export market due to varied reasons have been decreasing recently (Table 3). Table 3. Most common reasons for export refusal/detention of Philippine fish and fishery products (Data from BFAR, 2015) YEAR REASONS # of cases % (dec/inc) 2011 1. Filthy/ Decomposed substance/adulteration 2. Salmonella 115 2012 1. Unsanitary manufacturing practices 2. Filthy/ Decomposed substance/ adulteration 123 6.96% 2013 1. Needs compliance to regulations of importing countries 2. Filthy/ Decomposed substance/ adulteration 75 -39.02 % 2014 1. Unsanitary manufacturing practices 2. Filthy/ Decomposed substance/ adulteration 3. Nitrofurans 59 -21.33 % 2015 1. Filthy/ Decomposed substance/ adulteration 25 -57.63% Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 11 In addition to the locally produced fishery products, Filipino consumers have recently been witnessing an influx of imported products from different countries all over the world. Although it is good for our consumers to get exposed to these products, there is now a very serious concern on the effect of the presence of these products to local manufacturers. Considering the existing strict rules and regulations in other countries for our export products and the limited control of the entry of imported products in the Philippine market, coupled with the incentives being given to these imported goods, the playing field is not at all balanced, for it puts the local players in a very disadvantageous position. In terms of packaging of Philippine fishery products, this area requires serious attention. Although some of our products are packaged and presented well, majority of these products need further improvement in terms of packaging and labelling so as to increase their competitiveness in the market. Another way of increasing the competiveness of Philippine fishery products is via the production of new and varied forms of product through utilization of processing waste. This does not only increase the variety of available products in the market, it is also beneficial to the manufacturers (i.e. increased income via zero waste approach), and to the environment as well (i.e. less solid and water waste disposal to the environ). Presently, there has been an increasing trend in the utilization of fishery by-products and processing wastes in the Philippine and elsewhere. The following products now exist in the market: (a) health promoting substances that include polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) that are found in fish livers, tuna heads and eyeballs, pond-cultured milkfish eyeballs, heads and livers, and surimi processing wastes; (b) dietary supplements that include calcium from the backbones, fins, and offals of several fish species; (c) fish protein concentrates that are extracted from different fish species and are used as dietary supplements in human and animal foods; (d) shrimp flavor concentrate from shrimp heads that are dried and processed and are used as base for the commercially available shrimp flavours sold either as cubes or bouillon or as powdered additive; and (e) human foods and supplements as a source of fats and protein (e.g. skin cracklings from tuna and tilapia skins), calcium source from dried marinated fish bones, and antioxidant source (e.g. fish sauce, fish paste). In summary, although there have been improvements in Philippine fish and fishery products, efforts must still be exerted to make majority of these products compete domestically and internationally. EXISTING POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR PHILIPPINE POST HARVEST FISHERIES National Regulations Table 4 presents a list of national regulations that present govern the post harvest fisheries sub sector of the Philippines, while Table 5 provides a list of Fisheries Administrative Orders issued by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 12 Table 4. List of Republic Acts (RA), Presidential Decrees (PD), Department of Agriculture Administrative Order (DA - AO), Department of Health Administrative Order (DOH-AO), BFAR Administrative Circular (BFAR-AC), related to Post Harvest Fisheries RA /PD /AC Year Title RA No. 8550 1998 Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 RA No. 7394 1991 The Consumers Act of the Philippines of 1991 RA No. 10611 2013 Food Safety Act of 2013 RA No. 10654 2015 An Act to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing PD No. 856 1946 Sanitation Code of the Philippines DA AO No. 23 2011 Mandatory Accreditation of Cold Storage Warehouses DOH AO No. 153 2004 Revised Guidelines on Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packing, Repacking or Holding Food BFAR AC No. 251 2014 Traceability System for Fish and Fishery Products Table 5. List of fisheries post harvest-related FISHERIES ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (FAO), pursuant to the provision of the Republic Act No. 8550 (or the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998). FAO No. Year of Implementation Title FAO No. 195 1999 Rules and Regulations Governing Importation of Fresh Chilled / Frozen Fish and Fishery Aquatic Products FAO No. 199 2000 Guidelines on Fish Transshipment FAO No. 209 2001 Guidelines on the Production, Harvesting, Handling, and Transp. of Shellfish for Implementation of the Local Government FAO No. 210 2001 Rules and Regulations on the Exportation of Fresh, Chilled, or Frozen Fish and Fishery/ Aquatic Products FAO No. 211 2001 Requirements for Pre-Processing and Processing Plants the SSOP thereof and the Processing and Quality Requirements for Shellfish FAO No. 212 2001 Guidelines on the Implementation of HACCP System FAO No. 213 2001 Establishment and Maintenance of BFAR’s Quality Control Laboratories and Collection of Fees and Charges for Examination Services FAO No. 227 2008 Rules and Regulations Governing the Export of Fish and Aquatic Products to European Union Member Countries FAO No. 228 2008 Rules Governing the Organization and Implementation of Official Controls on Fishery and Aquatic Products Intended for Export to the EU Market for Human Consumption Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 13 Accreditation and Certification of Post Harvest Fisheries Establishments Department of Agriculture (DA) Administrative Order (AO) No. 23, series of 2011, requires a mandatory accreditation of all cold storage warehouses for all agricultural and fisheries products in the Philippines. Pursuant to the AO, Table 6 shows the number of accredited cold storage establishments in the Philippines (as of 31 October 2015). The geographical distribution of these establishments is as follows: Luzon has 159 out of 239 (or 66.53%) accredited establishments; Visayas has 36 (or 15.06%); and Mindanao has 44 out of 239 (or 18.41%). It must be noted here that the said AO from DA came only in 2011 or five (5) years after the release of the CNFIDP of 2006. In terms of BFAR approved fishery establishments, Table 6 indicates that these established are geographically distributed as follows: Luzon has 45 out of 95 (or 47.36%) approved establishments; Visayas has 18 (or 18.95%); and Mindanao has 32 (or 33.68%). BFAR approval of these establishments started only recently. Table 6. Number of accredited/recognized cold storage / fishery establishments in the Philippines, per region (as of 31 October 2015) REGION Number of Accredited Cold Storage Establishments Number of BFAR Approved Establishments Number of GMP Recognized Establishments Number of EU Approved Establishments Number of Halal Approved Establishments 1 8 1 0 1 1 2 1 4 1 0 nd 3 22 0 3 1 2 4a 28 32 5 14 10 4b 2 7 11 1 nd 5 6 1 5 0 nd 6 8 7 2 0 0 7 22 10 3 2 2 8 6 1 2 0 nd 9 6 17 16 11 11 10 9 1 0 1 nd 11 12 3 0 0 nd 12 14 9 12 21 3 13 3 2 0 0 nd NCR 92 0 0 0 nd ARMM 0 0 0 0 nd CAR 0 0 0 0 nd TOTAL 239 95 60 52 29 Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 14 Reports on Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) recognized fishery establishments, as of 312 October 2015 (Table 6) indicate the geographical distribution of these establishments include the following: Luzon has 25 out of 60 (or 41.67%) recognized establishments; Visayas has 17 (or 11.67%); and Mindanao has 28 (or 46.67%). Recognition of fishery establishments all over the country on their adherence to GMP provisions started after the implementation of CNFIDP in 2006. For European Union (EU) approved establishments in the country, the total number reached 52 (Table 6), as of 31 October 2015, and these are geographically distributed in Luzon (17 out of 52 or 32.69% EU approved establishments), in Visayas (2 or 3.84%) and in Mindanao (33or 63.46%). The inspection and approval of fishery establishments for exportation to the EU started even before the CNFIDP of 2006. On the other hand, the total number of EU Approved Fishing/Freezer Vessels in the country is 78, as of 31 October 2015. For Halal approved establishments, the total number recently reached 29 (Table 6), as of 31 October 2015, and these are geographically distributed in Luzon (13 out of 29 or 44.83% Halal approved establishments), in Visayas (2 or 6.90%) and in Mindanao (14 or 48.28%). BFAR now has a total of 17 Fish Inspection Units located all over the country, with 1 ISO 17020 certified regional fish inspection unit (also called the Central FIU). Philippine National Standards Table 7 shows the existing Philippine National Standards (PNS) for fish and fishery products in the Philippines. Quite noticeable here is the significant increase in the number of PNS from 2006, with a single PNS on “Code of Hygienic Practice for the Sale of Fresh Agriculture and Fishery Products in Markets and Authorized Outlet” to a total of eighteen (18) PNS at present. Existing Testing Laboratories BFAR has existing testing laboratories in different parts of the country. As shown in Figure 8, these laboratories are found in the Manila South Harbor, Quezon City, Iloilo City, Cebu City, Zamboanga City, South Cotabato and 2 in General Santos City. These laboratories may not be enough to cater to the needs of the seafood processors of the country. Although other testing laboratories under the Department of Science and Technology and some private colleges and universities exist, their accessibility to some areas in the country might still pose a challenge. At present, despite the presence of these testing laboratories, other strategically located testing laboratories might have to be put up. However, careful planning must be done in order to make these laboratories at par with their counterparts in other countries. Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 15 Table 7. List of Philippine National Standards for Fish and Fishery Products, as of 31 October 2015 (Source: BAFPS 2015) PNS/BAFPS Number Description 1 PNS/BAFPS 46:2006 ICS 67.020 Code of Hygienic Practice for the Sale of Fresh Agriculture and Fishery Products in Markets and Authorized Outlet 2 PNS/BAFPS 66:2008 ICS 67.120.30 Frozen Milkfish 3 PNS/BAFPS 67:2008 ICS 67.120.30 Frozen Tilapia 4 PNS/BAFPS 68:2008 ICS 67.120.30 Dried Danggit 5 PNS/BAFPS 69:2008 ICS 67.120.30 Quick Frozen Raw Squid 6 PNS/BAFPS 70:2008 ICS 67.120.30 Quick Frozen Shrimp or Prawns 7 PNS/BAFPS 71:2008 ICS 67.120.30 Quick Frozen Finfish, Uneviscerated and Eviscerated 8 PNS/BAFPS 72:2009 ICS 67.120.30 Live, Chilled/Frozen Abalone 9 PNS/BAFPS 73:2009 ICS 67.120.30 Live, Chilled/Frozen Grouper 10 PNS/BAFPS 85:2012 ICS 67.120.30 Dried Raw Seaweed – Specification 11 PNS/BAFPS 89:2011 ICS 67.120.30 Live and Raw Bivalve Molluscs 12 PNS/BAFPS 90:2011 ICS 67.120.30 Quick Frozen Fish Fillets 13 PNS/BAFPS 91:2011 ICS 67.120.30 Quick Frozen Lobsters 14 PNS/BAFPS 101:2011 ICS 67.020 Halal Agriculture and Fishery Products 15 PNS/BAFPS 128:2013 ICS 67.120.30 Dried Sea Cucumber 16 PNS/BAFPS 136:2014 ICS 67.120.30 Fresh and Frozen Cephalopods 17 PNS/BAFPS 137:2014 ICS 67.120.30 Fresh-chilled and Fresh-frozen Tuna for Sashimi 18 PNS/BAFPS 138:2014 ICS 67.120.30 Fresh-chilled, Fresh-frozen and Treated Tuna Figure 8. Locations of the BFAR Testing Laboratories in the Philippines (as of 31 October 2015) Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 16 STATUS OF POST HARVEST FISHERIES RESEARCH An inventory of the different post harvest research activities was conducted in 2006 (Yap 2006). Aimed at determining the trends in post harvest fisheries research in the country, a total of 216 researches were inventoried from eleven (11) research and academic institutions in the country. These researchers surveyed included those conducted from 1975 until 2005 or over a span of thirty (30) years. Results of the survey show that ten (10) commodity groups are the main focus of researches during the period (Figure 9). The top five (5) commodities include milkfish (18%), tuna (16%), small pelagics (16%), shrimps (13%), and seaweeds (12%). The remaining commodity groups, namely mussel/oyster, tilapia, cephalopods, crabs, and carp, constitute the remaining 25% of the researches surveyed. In terms of post harvest methodologies, 36 out of the 216 researches (or 17%) deal with raw material characterization while 24 (or 11%) are on waste utilization. Other research topics include the use of the different post harvest handling and processing techniques, value addition, and marketing (Figure 10). The research period surveyed, when grouped into different time periods (1975 – 1979; 1980 – 1984; 1985 – 1989; 1990 – 1994; 1995 – 1999; and 2000 – 2006) indicate the increasing research activities that are related to raw material characterization, waste utilization and value addition (Figure 11). On the other hand, researches on traditional processing methodologies, such as drying, smoking, thermal processing, and marinading are on the decline. Figure 9. Researches on post harvest fisheries conducted from 1975 to 2006, using different fisheries commodities. Values expressed as percentages of the researches surveyed, n=216 (Yap, 2006) Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 17 Figure 10. Researches on different postharvest handling and processing methodologies conducted from 1975 to 2006. Values expressed as percentages of the researches surveyed, n=216 (Yap, 2006) Figure 11. Researches conducted from 1975 to 2006, using different fisheries commodities, based on different time ranges. Values expressed as numbers of the researches surveyed, n=216 (Yap, 2006) Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 18 TRAINING OF MANPOWER FOR PHILIPPINE FISHERIES The development of the entire Philippine fisheries industry is highly dependent on the changes and development in the fisheries educational system. The industry needs a steady supply of the necessary manpower to sustain its activities. But with the current changes in the education landscape in the Philippines, there is now a need to strategize and to critically assess the status of, and trends in, the Philippine fisheries education system vis-a-vis the development in the entire educational system and the fisheries industry of the country. There are two types of education in the Philippines (and elsewhere), the informal education which consists of short/long term skills training programs, demonstrations, seminars and workshops, and the formal education which includes the offering by higher education institutions (HEIs) of undergraduate and graduate degree programs. Informal Fisheries Education / Training The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Post Harvest Fisheries Division had been consistently helping in the informal education of the stakeholders in the fisheries industry of the country, via the conduct of relevant meetings, skills trainings and workshops (Table 8), as well as technology demonstration activities (Table 9). Likewise, most of the state universities and colleges all over the country have been continuously conducting the same types of activities to different stakeholders. Table 8. List of meetings, skills trainings and workshop that were conducted in 2014 by BFAR Post Harvest Fisheries Division (Source: BFAR-PHF Division, 2015) Date Topics Discussed Place # recipients (m/f) January 8 Global Seafood Expo Executive Rm., PCA Bldg. 58 (21m/37f) & January 29 40(17m/23f) February 13 Meeting with EU re: IUUF and Traces BFAR Conf. Room 12(8m/4f) February 18 Refresher Training Course Delegation on GMP and SSOP for Line Workers Pacific Isles, Montalban, Rizal 34 (16m/18f) March 23-29 HACCP and Food Safety Training Bula, Camarines Sur 43 FPHD staff April 21-22 National Workshop on Fisheries Post Harvest and Marketing Cluster 2 BFAR XI-Pinnacle Hotel, Davao CIty 35(5m/30f) May 12-16 National Workshop on Fisheries Post Harvest and Marketing Cluster 1 BFAR V-Eurotel, Naga City 50(14m/36f) June 17-20 Training on Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES) Marco Polo Plaza, Cebu City July 15 Training on Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES) with Stakeholders Ferzal Hotel 27(10m/27f) September 23-26 Workshop on the Revision of Quality Manual System on the Certification of Fishery /Aquaculture Products and Establishments Ferzal Hotel 30(15m/15f) October 14 Seminar on Food Safety and Quality Assurance BFAR Conf Rm. 55(12m/43f) Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 19 Table 9. List of technology demonstration activities conducted in 2014 by BFAR Post Harvest Fisheries Division (Source: BFAR-PHF Division, 2015) Date Topics Discussed Place No. of recipients (m/f) February Techno Demo on fish and seaweeds value added to On the-Job-Training (OJT) students of Bicol University Tabaco campus FPHD Lab./tour HACCP certified plants 16(11m/5f) February 10-11 Knifefish Value-Adding Central Bay, Rizal 55(35m/20f) Feb. 23-27 Capability Building Training on Fish Processing Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro 56(6m/50f) June 12 Techno-demo on post harvest fisheries 116 th Proclamation of Philippine Independence (Agri-Aqua Fair and Exhibits) Luneta Grounds, Manila 96 (60m/36f) September 10 Techno-demo on post harvest fisheries 207 th Tactical Helicopter Squadron –Philippine Air Force Pasay City 17 (14M/3F) September 25 Techno-demo on post harvest fisheries 2014 World Food Day Celebration DA 31 (12m/19f) October 11 Techno Demo on bottled milkfish for DA-AMA’s Agrilink Fair & Exhibit World Trade Center 63(14m/49f) Formal Fisheries Education In terms of formal education, the Philippines has been witnessing a tremendous increase in the number of higher education institutions (HEIs), both private and public, for the past several years (Table 10), with several of them offering degree programs in fisheries and other related fields. However, the enrolment in these courses has been quite problematic in the past few years. This can be attributed to the presence of relatively high paying jobs outside the country that has led to the gravitation of students to the following five most popular disciplines in higher education, which generally represent over 75% of all enrolments: business administration and related disciplines, education and teacher training, engineering and technology, mathematics and computer science, and medical and allied disciplines. As shown in Figure 12 and Table 11, enrolments in the HEIs under the agriculture-fisheries programs are relative low (only 2.47%) as compared to other degree programs. Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 20 Table 10. Number of higher education institutions in the Philippines, both public and private, as of AY 2013 2014 (Data Source: CHED 2015; from Yap, 2015) . Figure 12. Number of enrolees (in percentage) in different degree courses at the different HEIs in the Philippines, as of AY 2013-2014 (Data Source: CHED 2015; from Yap, 2015) Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 21 Table 11. Undergraduate Student Enrolment in different degree courses at the different HEIs in the Philippines, as of AY 2013-2014 (Data Source: CHED 2015; from Yap, 2015) Enrolment in the Bachelor of Science in Fisheries degree program has been quite problematic in the last several years. Flores (2008) conducted a survey of a select number of fisheries schools in the country to determine the enrolment trends in these schools, among others. As shown in Figure 13, there has been an alarming decline in the enrolment, most likely due to the preference of students in pursuing more popular programs that have potentially have pay outside the country, such as BS Information Technology, BS Hotel and Restaurant Management, BS Nursing, and others (Flores 2008), or the inability of the fisheries industry to absorb and offer high pay to fisheries graduates. However, more recent data reveal that the increasing number of enrolees in the BS Fish program at the College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas (UPV-CFOS), as shown in Figure 14 (Yap 2015). Accordingly, this can be attributed to effort of UPV CFOS in encouraging students to pursue a BS Fish course, in finding employment for their graduates, and in encouraging them to pursue graduate studies. As part of the quality assurance measures for the HEIs, accreditation and/or recognition of fisheries programs, among others, have been going on for the past several years. For example, in accordance with Section 66 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8435 otherwise known as the “Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) of 1997” that gives mandate to the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) in coordination with the Department of Agriculture (DA) and other government agencies to establish a National Agriculture and Fisheries Education System (NAFES), in 2009 onwards, CHED issued the names of the identified National Universities and Colleges of Agriculture and Fisheries (NUCAFs) and Provincial Institutes of Agriculture and Fisheries (PIAFs). These included fifteen (15) identified NUCFs and twenty seven (27) identified PIFs under NAFES (Table 12). Types of Programs # of Students Percent STEAM Programs 549,107 17.51% Science 30,673 0.98% Technology 105,318 3.36% Engineering 321,630 10.25% Agri-Fisheries 78,000 2.49% Mathematics 13,486 0.43% Non-STEAM Programs 2,587,217 82.49% Business Admin and related courses 949,545 30.28% Education Science and Teacher Training 597,745 19.06% Medical and Allied Courses 239,195 7.62% Others (Law, Arts and Humanities, Social Science courses, etc) 800,732 25.53% Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 22 Figure 13. Enrolment trends in ten (10) select universities and colleges in the Philippines offering BS Fisheries program, from 2003 to 2008 (Data Sources: Flores, 2008 and UPV-OUR, 2015; from Yap 2015) Figure 14. Enrolment in the BS Fisheries program at the University of the Philippines Visayas, from 2003 to 2014 (Data Sources: UPV-OUR, 2015; from Yap 2015) Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 23 Table 12. List of NAFES identified National Universities and Colleges of Fisheries (NUCFs) and Provincial Institutes of Fisheries (PIFs). (Data Source: CHED 2015) Region National Universities and Colleges of Fisheries (NUCFs) Provincial Institutes of Fisheries (PIFs). 1 Mariano Marcos State University Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University Ilocos Sur Polytechnic State University Pangasinan State University - Binmaley 2 Cagayan State University - Aparri Isabela State University – Roxas Nueva Viscaya State University 3 Central Luzon State University 4-A Cavite State University - Naic Laguna State Polytechnic College Southern Luzon State University 4-B Western Philippine University Mindoro State College of Agriculture and Technology Romblon State College 5 Bicol University - Tabaco Camarines Norte State College -Mercedes Partido State University - Sagnay Sorsogon State College 6 University of the Philippines Visayas Iloilo State College of Fisheries Aklan State University Capiz State University Carlos C. Hilado Memorial School of Fisheries Polytechnic State College of Antique 7 Cebu Polytechnic University Central Visayas State College of Agriculture, Forestry and Technology 8 Visayas State University - Tolosa Eastern Visayas State University - Carigara Naval Institute of Technology Samar State University – Mercedes Southern Leyte State University – Bontoc University of Eastern Philippines 9 Zamboanga State College of Marine Science and Technology 10 Mindanao State University - Naawan 11 Davao Del Norte State College Southern Philippines Agriculture, Business, Marine and Aquatic School of Technology 12 Mindanao State University – General Santos University of Southern Mindanao ARMM Mindanao State University – Tawi-tawi Mindanao State University - Marawi CARAGA Surigao Del Sur Polytechnic State College Surigao State College of Technology In terms of fisheries curricular programs in the different Philippine HEIs, it has been historically evolving due to the heavy influence of the changes in the fisheries industry of the country. The very first formal fisheries education that was introduced in 1927 at the UP College of Agriculture, and eventually, the Bachelor of Science in Fisheries in UP Manila in 1936 were both oriented toward fisheries management and Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 24 research and were highly influenced by US-educated scientists (see Juliano 2005 and references therein). However, when the need for increased fisheries production after World War 2 became apparent, fisheries education shifted to producing vocational, skilled manpower for the industry through the establishment in 1947 by the Bureau of Fisheries established the School of Fisheries in Navotas, Rizal which offered a two and a half year Certificate in Fisheries program with three majors – fish capture, fish culture and fish preservation. After which, other schools were established in different provinces, with the School of Fisheries in Navotas renamed as the Philippine Institute of Fisheries Technology (PIFT). Such shift to informal fisheries education necessitated the temporary freezing / suspension of the BS Fisheries program in UP in 1948 due to low enrolment. Years after, despite this focus on informal fisheries education, the PIFT in Navotas, Rizal was transferred to UP Diliman in 1957, and hereon served as the UP College of Fisheries (now UP Visayas College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences or UPV CFOS, located in Miagao, Iloilo) with a new BS Fisheries curricular program developed with four majors – Marine Fisheries, Inland Fisheries, Fish Processing Technology and Fisheries Education. The administration of the other PIFTs offering fisheries vocational high schools was transferred to the Department of Education. The focus on informal fisheries education in the different provinces persisted until 1978 when more fisheries schools were established and the existing fisheries high schools were elevated into state colleges, state universities or polytechnic colleges. This development could have been due to the need for higher level fisheries training, maybe because depletion of the fisheries resources of the country at that time became evident (Juliano 2005). Such strengthening of the fisheries curricular programs included the offering in 1980 of the then President Ferdinand E. Marcos Scholarship Program in Fisheries to deserving students from the different regions of the country and the institution of more post graduate degree programs in fisheries. In the early 2000, the UPV CFOS pioneered the shifting from a BS Fish program with majors (Marine Fisheries, Inland Fisheries, Fish Processing Technology and Fisheries Business Management) to the BS Fish without majors. This was based on the need of the industry at that time for more fisheries graduates who are generalists and also due to the focus on graduate programs that make students more specialists. This was followed by the issuance of CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 43, series of 2003 that requires all BS Fisheries programs to have generalist curricular programs. In the most recent years, directives from CHED to design all curricular programs using the Outcome Based Education (OBE) system necessitated the review of all fisheries curricular programs and their transformation into their respective OBDized version. Strengthening of the fisheries curricular program in the country became so important in view of the professionalization of fisheries graduate via a licensure examination. Since the first conduct of the said licensure examination in 2003, results have been quite discouraging. As shown in Table 13, except for the UPV CFOS, all other fisheries schools have an average passing percentage of less than 50%. Interestingly, in the 2015 licensure examination, three schools (with 20 or more examinees) obtained higher than 50% passing percentage (94.87% for UPV CFOS, 91.30% for Western Philippine University, and 56.00% for Central Luzon State University). Status of Philippine Post Harvest Fisheries Page 25 Table 13. Summary of results of the Fisheries Technologists Licensure Examination, from 2003 to 2010, of HEIs with total number of examinees of 50 graduates or more during the period. (Source: Juliano et al. 2011) REFERENCES: Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Products Standards (BAFPS), Department of Agriculture, Diliman, QC Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) – Post Harvest Fisheries Division, 2015. BFAR Central Office, PCA Building, Diliman, QC. Flores,. E. 2008. Fisheries Higher Education in the Philippines. Paper presented during the PhilFIN National Fisheries Workshop held on 8-9 October 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Published in “Towards a Sustainable Fisheries: Some Issues and Concern, volume 1 – a compilation of papers presented during the General Assemblies of the Philippine Fisheries Institutions Network (PhilFIN)”. 2010, PhilFIN, University of the Philippines Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo. Juliano, R. 2005. Is There a Crisis in the Philippine Fisheries Education? Paper presented during the PhilFIN Fisheries Symposium/Workshop held on 20-21 October 2005 in Quezon City, Philippines. Published in “Towards a Sustainable Fisheries: Some Issues and Concerns, volume 1 – a compilation of papers presented during the General Assemblies of the Philippine Fisheries Institutions Network (PhilFIN)”. 2010. PhilFIN, University of the Philippines Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo.93 pp. Juliano, R., C. Dela Cruz, and C. Pagdilao. 2011. Determinants of 2003-2010 Fisheries Technologist Licensure Examination Results and Issues that Emerge. In Proceedings of the 2011 PhilFIN Research Forum – A compilation of scientific papers and extended abstracts (Catedrilla, L. and Yap, E. eds). PhilFIN, University of the Philippines Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo, 153 pp. Office of the University Registrar (OUR) 2015. Student Enrolment Data. University of the Philippines Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo. Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (PFDA), Department of Agriculture, Diliman, Quezon City R.A. 8435. The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997. Republic of the Philippines R.A. 8550. The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998. Republic of the Philippines Yap, E. 2015. “Philippine Fisheries Education: Status and Prospects”. A Country Paper presented during the 2nd International Symposium on Aquaculture and Fisheries Education, 22-25 April 2015, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, China. Online Sources: http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph http://www.ched.gov.ph http://www.pfda.da.gov.ph http://prc.gov.ph Name of HEIs Number of Examinees Number of Passers Percent Passing University of the Philippines Visayas 164 150 91.46 Central Luzon State University 186 88 47.31 Bicol University 146 20 13.10 Cagayan State University 67 17 25.37 Pangasinan State University 50 14 28.00 http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/ http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/ http://www.ched.gov.ph/ http://www.pfda.da.gov.ph/ http://prc.gov.ph/ STATE OF FISHERIES TRADE AND MARKETING IN THE PHILIPPINES Encarnacion Emilia S. Yap Amor G. Diaz December 2015 Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 1 STATUS OF PHILIPPINE FISHERIES TRADE AND MARKETING Encarnacion Emilia S. Yap and Amor G. Diaz Post Harvest Specialists INTRODUCTION The Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan (CNFIDP) of 2006 provides an in depth assessment of the condition of the Philippine fisheries resources and the fisheries industry, with a comprehensive report of the status and trends of the different sub-sectors of the industry (Chapter 2, section 2.5), as well as the interrelated core problems that plague the entire industry. One of these core problems is the uncompetitiveness of fish and fishery products both in the domestic and global markets. Accordingly, such uncompetitiveness may be attributed, among others, to the weak marketing strategies for Philippine fish and fishery products. In Chapter 4 of the CNFIDP of 2006, the different mid-term priority plans and projects for the different sectors are specified. For the post harvest component of the plan, only one project is specifically focused on trade and marketing, i.e. the project on marketing and promotion of fish and other aquatic products. Ten (10) years after the release of the CNFIDP of 2006, it is interesting to come up with an assessment, specifically of the status and trends in fisheries trade and marketing in the country, in order to highlight its importance in enhancing the competitiveness of our fishery commodities both in the domestic and global markets. RECENT STATUS AND TRENDS IN FISHERIES TRADE AND MARKETING IN THE PHILIPPINES Trade and marketing play a critical role in the entire supply chain of all fishery commodities. These include all activities that lead to the sale of commodities at different stages – from the culture or capture of any commodity up to their sale either as raw material or as semi processed or processed goods. As shown in Figure 1, trading and marketing activities are done in almost all of the stages in any aquaculture supply chain, from the input supply to aquaculture facilities until the end processed products are distributed in the different markets, both domestically and globally. The same observation can be said with the supply chain for fishes captured from the wild (Figure 2). Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 2 Figure 1. Supply chain of any aquaculture commodity Figure 2. Supply chain of any fishery commodity from capture fisheries Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 3 Number of Fishery-based Establishments in the Philippines The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources maintains a database of micro, small and medium scale enterprises (MSMEs) in the country. As shown in Table 1, a total of 208 MSMEs exist, although it is quite apparent that this figure does not include the numerous MSMEs both in rural and even in urban areas that are unreported and therefore unregulated. These MSMEs, both reported and unreported, are basically involved in the trade and marketing of products in different forms (e.g. Table 2). Table 1. Number of fishery-based micro, small and medium scale enterprises (MSMEs) in the Philippines, per region (as of 31 October 2015) Table 3 provides the number of export-ready fishery based establishments in the country. As of 31 October 31, 2015, there is a total of 52 European Union (EU) approved establishments and a total of 95 BFAR approved fishery establishments or those which can export to other countries other than the EU countries. These establishments are geographically distributed all over the country. REGION # of MSMEs 1 2 6 3 5 4a 4b 18 5 22 6 14 7 15 8 35 9 10 29 11 12 45 13 4 ARMM 12 CAR 3 TOTAL 208 Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 4 Table 2. Product categories and the number of fishery-based micro, small and medium scale enterprises (MSMEs) in the Philippines, per region (as of 31 October 2015) Table 3. Number of BFAR approved (non-EU approved) and EU approved fishery based establishments in the Philippines, per region (as of 31 October 2015) REGIONS PRODUCT CATEGORY NO. OF FISHERY BASED ENTERPRISES CAR Fresh/chilled tuna (loins and whole) 23 1 Fresh frozen/chilled fish and fishery aquaculture products 20 2 Other fresh frozen fishery products 29 3 Value-added fish and fishery aquaculture products 17 4A Thermally-processed tuna, sardines and other species 11 4B Pasteurized Canned Crab Meat 5 Others 8 REGION Number of BFAR Approved Establishments Number of EU Approved Establishments 1 1 1 2 4 0 3 0 1 4a 32 14 4b 7 1 5 1 0 6 7 0 7 10 2 8 1 0 9 17 11 10 1 1 11 3 0 12 9 21 13 2 0 NCR 0 0 ARMM 0 0 CAR 0 0 TOTAL 95 52 Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 5 These export ready fishery based establishments are basically involved in the trade and marketing of products in different forms (Table 4). Table 4. Product categories and the number of export ready fishery-based establishments in the Philippines, per region (as of 31 October 2015) Export Trade The Philippines has been traditionally exporting different fish and fishery products all over the world. In 2014, the country’s exports represented 0.51% of world’s exports for fish, crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic invertebrates, giving the country a ranking of 41st among the world’s exporting countries (ITC, 2015). As shown in Figure 3, in terms of volume, Philippine fishery exports have been dominated by tuna (in different product forms, such as fresh/chilled, loins/whole tuna, and as canned tuna) for the last ten (10) years (from 2004 to 2014) and most likely in the years to come. Exports of seaweeds (as phycocolloids in different grades and as dried seaweeds) follow next. Shrimps/Prawns (in different product forms) showed good export figures from 2004 up to 2007 but it was followed by a big drop in the succeeding years. In 2013, there appears to be a noticeable increase in the export of crab/crab fats, but such increase was not sustained in 2014. On the same year, there has been an increase in the export volume of grouper and squid/cuttlefish. The volumes of exports of the different commodities are presented in details in Table 5. In terms of value, tuna exports have been consistently showing the highest figures from 2004 until 2014 (Figure 4). From 2004 until 2006, shrimps/prawns posted the second highest values, followed by seaweeds. But in 2007, the value of seaweeds exports had overtaken that of shrimps/prawns and the same trend was observed in the next couple of years. Interestingly, the values of crab/crab fat exports have been showing a steady increase from 2004 until 2012 when their values have already overtaken that of shrimps/prawns. Since then until 2014, crab/crab fats already ranked 3rd, in terms of value, among the country’s export products. Other promising commodities include grouper, octopus, and squid/cuttlefish. Details of the export values of these commodities are presented in Table 6. PRODUCT CATEGORY NO. OF FISHERY-BASED ENTERPRISES Fresh/chilled tuna (loins and whole) 23 Fresh frozen/chilled fish and fishery aquaculture products 20 Other fresh frozen fishery products 29 Value-added fish and fishery aquaculture products 17 Thermally-processed tuna, sardines and other species 11 Pasteurized Canned Crab Meat 5 Others 8 Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 6 Figure 3. Graph showing the volume of exports of the Top 10 fishery commodities from the Philippines, from 2004 to 2014 (Source: Philippine Fisheries Profile from 2004 to 2014, BFAR) Table 5. Amount of exports (in metric tons) of the Top 10 fishery commodities from the Philippines, from 2004 to 2014 (Source: Philippine Fisheries Profile from 2004 to 2014, BFAR) Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 7 Figure 4. Graph showing the value of exports of the Top 10 fishery commodities from the Philippines, from 2004 to 2014 (Source: Philippine Fisheries Profile from 2004 to 2014, BFAR) Table 6. Value of exports (in ‘000 PhP pesos) of the Top 10 fishery commodities from the Philippines, from 2004 to 2014 (Source: Philippine Fisheries Profile from 2004 to 2014, BFAR) Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 8 The Philippine fish and fishery products are exported worldwide (Figure 5), in almost all of the continents around the globe. Of all these countries, the top ten (10) major destinations of Philippine fishery exports (in terms of volume) are Japan, United States of America (USA), HongKong (China), China (Mainland), Taipei (China), South Korea, Italy, Singapore, Spain and Macao (China). As shown in Figure 6, in 2004 until 2005, the major destination of the country’s fishery exports was in the Japan, but in 2006 until 2012, highest volumes of these fishery exports went to the USA. Interestingly, there was a sudden tremendous increase in the export volume to Japan in 2013, but it was not sustained in 2014. On the same year, there was a sudden increase in the export volume of the country’s fishery products in China (Mainland), but again, it was not sustained in 2014. In terms of value, the same countries of destination dominate (Figure 7). From 2004 until 2014, Japan posted the highest export value, followed by the USA, except in 2007, 2011, and 2012, when USA gave relatively higher export values as compared to Japan. From 2004 onwards, HongKong (China) has been showing a steady increase in the country’s export, in terms of value. Quite interestingly, the values of the exports in the other countries have shown significant increase from 2010 onwards. Figure 5. Countries of destination for Philippine fishery exports Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 9 Figure 6. Graph showing the volume of Philippine exports in the Top 10 major destinations around the globe, from 2004 to 2014 (Source: www.intracen.org, International Trade Center) Figure 7. Graph showing the value of Philippine exports in the Top 10 major destinations around the globe, from 2004 to 2014 (Source: www.intracen.org, International Trade Center) http://www.intracen.org/ http://www.intracen.org/ Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 10 Import Trade The Philippines also imports from other countries, although as of 2014, Philippines’ imports represent only 0.23% of total world imports (ITC, 2015). This placed the country to its present ranking of 44th in the world in terms of importation (ITC, 2015). In particular, importations of the following products/commodities to the Philippines have been reported: fish meal, prawn feeds, tuna, mackerel, sardines and squid/cuttlefish. In 2004, fish meal comprised the largest import volume in the country, but the succeeding years showed a dramatic decline in fish meal imports in the country (Figure 8), most likely due to the use of locally available fish meal ingredients. The same trend can be observed with the importation of prawn meals. With these declines in the fish and prawn meal imports are the significant increases in the importations of mackerel and tuna, which have been dominating the Philippine importation figures since 2005 up to 2014. This trend is expected to persist for quite awhile most probably due to the dependence of domestic canneries on imports as a result of the continuous depletion of the country’s fishery resources. The details of the import volumes of the top six (6) products/commodities are shown in Table 7. In terms of import values, prawn and fish meals dominated the list in 2004, but this was followed by a steady decrease in the succeeding years (Figure 9). From 2006 until 2014, the values of tuna imports were the highest among the top fishery imports in the country. Mackerel imports were likewise high, consistently ranking 2nd next to tuna, during the same period. Quite interestingly, there has been a recent gradual but steady increase in the import values for squid and cuttlefish. Table 8 provides the detailed list of the import values of the top six (6) products/commodities from 2004 to 2014. Philippine imports originated from different countries all over the world, but mostly from the neighbouring Asian countries. Topping the list is China (Mainland) which has been consistently the largest and the most significant importer of fishery products to the Philippines since 2004 onwards (Figure 10). Other importing countries include Vietnam, Taipei (China), Papua New Guinea, Japan, United States of America, Norway, Chile, South Korea and Indonesia. One important observation here is the presence on the list of some importing countries such as Vietnam, Papua New Guinea, Norway, Chile and Indonesia that do not belong to the list of countries that receive most of the Philippine exports. Among these countries, Vietnam noticeably is becoming the largest source of imports in the country – from a very small import volume in 2004, the rise has been significant in the succeeding years until Vietnam became the second highest source of imports in the Philippines in 2014. This explains the increasing supply of frozen fillets of Pangasius sp from Vietnam in the domestic markets that offer relatively cheaper prices as compared to domestically produced commodities. In terms of import values, the same importing countries dominate the list from 2004 until 2014 (Figure 11). China has always been on top of the list, except in 2005, 2007, and 2008 when Papua New Guinea topped the list of the major importing countries to the Philippines. The import values of fishery products from Vietnam have been continuously increasing from relatively small amount in 2004 to a noticeable increase in 2011, until it gave the second highest import value in 2014. Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 11 Figure 8. Graph showing the volume of imports of the Top 10 fishery commodities from the Philippines, from 2004 to 2014 (Source: Philippine Fisheries Profile from 2004 to 2014, BFAR) Table 7. Amount of imports (in metric tons) of the Top 6 fishery products/commodities from the Philippines, from 2004 to 2014 (Source: Philippine Fisheries Profile from 2004 to 2014, BFAR) Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 12 Figure 9. Graph showing the value of imports of the Top 10 fishery commodities from the Philippines, from 2004 to 2014 (Source: Philippine Fisheries Profile from 2004 to 2014, BFAR) Table 8. Value of imports (in ‘000 PhP pesos) of the Top 6 fishery products/commodities from the Philippines, from 2004 to 2014 (Source: Philippine Fisheries Profile from 2004 to 2014, BFAR) Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 13 Figure 10. Graph showing the volume of Philippine imports in the Top 10 major destinations around the globe, from 2004 to 2014 (Source: www.intracen.org, International Trade Center) Figure 11. Graph showing the value of Philippine imports in the Top 10 major destinations around the globe, from 2004 to 2014 (Source: www.intracen.org, International Trade Center) http://www.intracen.org/ http://www.intracen.org/ Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 14 Balance of Trade Table 9 shows significant trade indicators, including the exported values (in USD thousand) in 2014 from the top ten (10) countries of destinations of Philippine fishery exports, as well as the respective trade balance (in USD thousand), per country, on the same year, the percent share of these countries from the total Philippine exports and the percentages (%) of exported growth in value, per annum, between 2010 2014 in these countries. Table 10 shows the same trade indicators for imported values, the computed trade balance, and the percent import share of the top ten (10) importing countries, including the percentages (%) of imported growth in value, per annum, between 2010-2014. Clearly, there is a trade surplus in almost all of the10 countries where Philippine fishery products are being exported, except for China where the country has a trade deficit of US$ 12,353,000 in 2014 (see also Table 10). On the other hand, six (6) out of the top ten (10) countries that supply fishery products in the Philippines show trade deficits in 2014. These countries include China, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Norway, Chile and Indonesia. In the case of China, this can be explained by the fact that only 10.3% of the total Philippine fishery exports (in terms of value) go to China (ranked 4th among the top ten countries of destination of the country’s exports), while 27.3% of Philippine imports (in terms of value) are from this country. In the case of Vietnam, it ranked 13th among the countries of destination of Philippine exports, but has been the source of a sizeable amount of Philippine imports (valued at UD$51,677,000), thus providing a trade deficit of US$ 46,379,000. PNG, Norway, Chile and Indonesia posted trade deficit in 2014 of US$18,520,000, US$10,691,000, US$8,873,000, and US$3,925,000, respectively. Clearly, these figures must be carefully evaluated so that to minimize said trade deficit in the years to come. Table 9. Top ten (10) countries of destination of Philippine fishery exports, including data on trade indicators for 2014 and the percentages (%) of exported growth in value, per annum, between 2010-2014 (Source: ITC 2015) COUNTRIES OF DESTINATION OF PHILIPPINE FISHERY EXPORTS Exported value 2014 (USD thousand) Trade balance 2014 (USD thousand) Share in Philippines's exports (%) Exported growth in value between 2010 2014 (%, p.a.) Japan 136,503 119,946 24.1 15 United States of America 103,509 87,014 18.3 12 Hong Kong, China 86,898 86,841 15.3 14 China 58,539 -12,353 10.3 59 Taipei, Chinese 40,148 9,382 7.1 23 Korea, Republic of 22,791 14,604 4.0 24 Italy 16,989 16,952 3.0 10 Singapore 13,593 11,902 2.4 16 Spain 13,079 12,805 2.3 -11 Macao, China 11,045 11,045 1.9 20 Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 15 Table 10. Top ten (10) countries as sources of imported fishery products in the Philippines, including data on trade indicators for 2014 and the percentages (%) of imported growth in value, per annum, between 2010-2014 (Source: ITC 2015) SOURCES OF IMPORTED FISHERY PRODUCTS Imported value 2014 (USD thousand) Trade balance 2014 (USD thousand) Share in Philippines's imports (%) Imported growth in value between 2010 2014 (%, p.a.) China 70,892 -12,353 27.3 23 Viet Nam 51,677 -46,379 19.9 33 Taipei, Chinese 30,766 9,382 11.9 6 Papua New Guinea 18,520 -18,520 7.1 7 Japan 16,557 119,946 6.4 7 United States of America 16,495 87,014 6.4 25 Norway 11,921 -10,691 4.6 35 Chile 8,873 -8,873 3.4 45 Korea, Republic of 8,187 14,604 3.2 1 Indonesia 4,422 -3,925 1.7 -4 In terms of fishery product categories (NB: this product categorization is the one being used in the reporting of data for international trade and slightly differs from the fishery product/commodity listing/categories, as reported in Figures 8 and 9 and Tables 7 and 8 above), the seven (7) fishery product categories in the Philippines posted a total exported value in 2014 of US$ 566,701,000, with crustaceans on top of the list (Table 11). Except for the Fish (frozen, whole) category that showed a trade deficit of US$ 75,279,000, all the other fishery exports posted trade surpluses. The same product category (fish, frozen, whole) and the mollusc group gave negative % annual growth, both in value and quantity between 2010 2014, with the rest experiencing positive % growth between the same period. The Live Fish group obtained the highest percentage (4.7%) in terms of its share in world export, placing this commodity on the 3rd place in ranking in world exports. Table 12 gives the details of the export and import values and the balance of trade in 2014 for each specific fishery product / product form, under each of the product categories. Problems and Constraints The domestic markets for fish and fishery products are facing the perennial problem of limited marketing networks to enable distribution of the products from highly productive areas to food-fish deficient areas. Limited infrastructure facilities for proper trade and marketing of these products are quite apparent and therefore need proper attention. In particular, most of the fish trading facilities in the country, including some of the regional fish ports, the municipal fish ports, and the wet markets need improvement, not only with their infrastructures, but with their facilities for proper post harvest handling and storage, prior to trading of any fishery commodities. Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 16 Table 11. Performance of seven (7) fishery product categories in the Philippines, in terms of the exported value and trade balance in 2014, % annual growth in value and quantity, % share in the world exports, and rankings in world exports (Source: ITC 2015) In the export market, problems and constraints are usually related to export rejection at the border of the importing countries and the existence of trade measures. Reported reasons for export rejection at the borders of importing countries include, but not limited to, the following: (a) food quality issue, such as presence of filth and substandard end products; (b) food safety issues such as the presence of microbial contaminants (e.g. Salmonella sp, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, etc.), and chemical contaminants (both naturally occurring or those acquired from the environment), such as heavy metals, industrial contaminants, histamine, ciguatera, etc.); and (c) non-compliance to regulatory requirements (e.g. non registration as Low Acid Canned Food or acidified manufacturer with USFDA (i.e., FCE pursuant to 21 CFR 108.25 (c)1, etc.). Table 13 provides the number of cases of border rejections by the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) of Philippine fishery products from 2012 until September 2015. Reported causes of these rejections are stipulated in Table 14. For Philippine fishery products exported to the European Union, cases that received EU-Rapid Alert System for Food and Feeds (EU-RASFF) notifications are reported in Table 15. Included in the trade measures are the following: (a) technical barriers to trade; (b) sanitary and phytosanitary measures; (c) trade related intellectual property rights issues law; (d) complicated export/import procedures; (e) stringent regulatory frameworks of importing/exporting countries; and (f) unstable market prices. PRODUCT CATEGORIES Exported value 2014 (USD ‘000) Trade balance 2014 (USD ‘000) Annual growth in value between 2010-2014 (%, p.a.) Annual growth in quantity between 2010-2014 (%, p.a.) Annual growth in value between 2013-2014 (%, p.a.) Annual growth of world imports between 2010-2014 (%, p.a.) Share in world exports (%) Ranking in world exports Crustaceans 159,276 140,629 21 33 -23 10 0.6 29 Fish fillets and pieces, fresh, chilled or frozen 115,740 76,891 53 29 10 5 0.5 33 Fish, frozen, whole 97,203 -75,279 -4 -8 19 2 0.4 44 Live fish 91,024 91,000 33 33 14 1 4.7 3 Molluscs 63,773 35,057 -4 -11 59 4 0.5 32 Fish, fresh, whole 21,476 21,476 25 28 -17 7 0.1 54 Fish, cured or smoked and fish meal fit for human consumption 18,209 17,518 11 5 2 3 0.3 37 Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 17 Table 12. List of Philippine fishery products under each of the product categories, their export and import values in 2014 (in US$ ‘000), and the trade balance in 2014 (in US$ ‘000) (Source: ITC calculations based on UN COMTRADE statistics, as reported by ITC, 2015) Product label Exported value 2014 (USD ‘000) Imported value 2014 (USD ‘000) Trade balance 2014 (USD ‘000) Fish, Crustaceans, Molluscs, Aquatic Invertebrates Molluscs 63,773 28,716 35,057 Snails,(excl sea snails) shelled or not, live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine 78 16 62 Scallops, including queen scallops, shelled or not, live, fresh or chilled 4 3 1 Scallops, including queen scallops, shelled or not, frozen, dried, salted or in brine 6,477 250 6,227 Oysters, shelled or not, live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted or in brine 1,669 2 1,667 Octopus, frozen, dried, salted or in brine 26,091 287 25,804 Mussels, shelled or not, live, fresh or chilled 9 9 Mussels, shelled or not, frozen, dried, salted or in brine 601 1,004 -403 Molluscs nes, shelled/not, and aquatic invertebrates nes, live, frozen/chilled 7,578 7,578 Molluscs nes, shelled or not & aquatic invertebrates nes, frozen, dried, salted or in brine 4,233 355 3,878 Cuttlefish and squid, shelled or not, frozen, dried, salted or in brine 16,539 26,800 -10,261 Cuttlefish and squid, shelled or not, live, fresh or chilled 495 495 Fish, cured or smoked and fish meal fit for human consumption 18,209 691 17,518 Salmon, Pacific, Atlantic and Danube, smoked including fillets 4,878 197 4,681 Livers and roes, dried, smoked, salted or in brine 7,126 29 7,097 Herrings smoked, including fillets 163 163 Fish nes, smoked including fillets 4,062 9 4,053 Fish nes, salted and in brine, but not dried or smoked 69 119 -50 Fish nes, dried, whether or not salted but not smoked 1,551 200 1,351 Fish meal fit for human consumption 0 104 -104 Fish fillets, dried, salted or in brine but not smoked 360 28 332 Cod, salted and in brine, but not dried or smoked 0 4 -4 Fish, frozen, whole 97,203 172,482 -75,279 Tunas, albacore or long finned, frozen, excl heading No 03.04,livers & roes 0 3 -3 Tunas, yellowfin, frozen excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 75,508 33,124 42,384 Tunas nes, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 1,674 3,889 -2,215 Trout, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 0 151 -151 Skipjack or stripe-bellied bonito, frozen excluding heading No 03.04,livers&roes 487 44,355 -43,868 Sea bass, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 0 398 -398 Sardines - Sardinella, brislg or sprats, frozen excluding heading No 03.04,livers&roes 0 13,171 -13,171 Salmonidae, nes, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 531 1,636 -1,105 Salmon Atlantic, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 0 8,869 -8,869 Mackerel, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 509 47,186 -46,677 Livers and roes, frozen 0 52 -52 Halibut, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 0 58 -58 Haddock, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 0 24 -24 Frozen Pacific salmon - Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, O. keta 366 13,673 -13,307 Frozen herrings - Clupea harengus, Clupea pallasii 0 257 -257 Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 18 Frozen bigeye tunas - Thunnus obesus 7 2,869 -2,862 Flatfish nes, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 0 465 -465 Fish nes, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 17,925 1,796 16,129 Eels, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 196 196 Dogfish and other sharks, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04,livers and roes 0 30 -30 Cod - Gadus morhua, Gadus ogac, Gadus macrocephalus 0 440 -440 Coalfish, frozen, excluding heading No 03.04, livers and roes 0 37 -37 Fish, fresh, whole 21,476 21,476 Tunas, yellowfin, fresh or chilled, excluding heading No 03.04,livers and roes 12,136 12,136 Tunas nes, fresh or chilled, excluding heading No 03.04,livers and roes 2 2 Skipjack o stripe-bellied bonito, frozen or chilled, excluding heading No 03.04,livers&roes 1 1 Sardines - Sardinella,brislg or sprats, frozen/chilled, excl. heading No 03.04,livers&roes 256 256 Salmon Pacific, Atlantic & Danube, frozen or chilled excl heading No 03.04,livers&roes 2 2 Mackerel, fresh or chilled, excluding heading No 03.04,livers and roes 496 496 Fresh or chilled bigeye tunas - Thunnus obesus 2 2 Flatfish nes, fresh or chilled excluding heading No 03.04,livers & roes 1 1 Fish nes, fresh or chilled excl heading No 03.04, livers and roes 8,581 8,581 Fish fillets and pieces, fresh, chilled or frozen 115,740 38,849 76,891 Frozen meat whether or not minced of toothfish - Dissostichus spp. 163 4,885 -4,722 Frozen meat whether or not minced of swordfish - Xiphias gladius 163 4,885 -4,722 Frozen fish meat whether or not minced (excl. swordfish, toothfish) 163 4,885 -4,722 Frozen fish fillets (excl. swordfish and toothfish) 36,112 7,928 28,184 Frozen fillets of toothfish - Dissostichus spp. 36,112 7,928 28,184 Frozen fillets of swordfish - Xiphias gladius 36,112 7,928 28,184 Fresh or chilled fillets and other meat whether or not minced of swordfish 1,920 8 1,912 Fresh or chilled fillets and other meat whether or not minced (excluding sword and toothfish) 1,920 8 1,912 Fresh or chilled fillets and other meat whether or not minced of toothfish 1,920 8 1,912 Crustaceans 159,276 18,647 140,629 Shrimps and prawns, frozen, in shell or not, including boiled in shell 63,053 16,236 46,817 Shrimps & prawns, not frozen, in shell or not, including boiled in shell 4,466 302 4,164 Rock lobster & other sea crawfish, frozen in shell/not, including boiled in shell 462 462 Rock lobster & other sea crawfish not frozen, in shell/not, including boiled in shell 67 49 18 Lobsters nes, not frozen, in shell or not, including boiled in shell 17,562 1 17,561 Lobsters nes, frozen, in shell or not, including boiled in shell 131 589 -458 Crustaceans nes, not frozen, in shell or not, including boiled in shell 1,296 173 1,123 Crustaceans nes, frozen, in shell or not including boiled in shell 474 908 -434 Crabs, not frozen, in shell or not, including boiled in shell 60,144 1 60,143 Crabs frozen, in shell or not, including boiled in shell 11,623 388 11,235 Live fish 91,024 24 91,000 Ornamental fish, live 5,962 1 5,961 Fish live, nes 50,049 23 50,026 Eels, live 35,013 35,013 Carp, live 1 1 nes = not elsewhere specified Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 19 Table 13. Number of cases of US border rejections by the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) of Philippine fishery products, from January 2012 until September 2015 (Source: USFDA Import Refusal Report 2015; http://www.accessdata.fda.gov) Table 14. Reported reason for rejection at the US borders by the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) of Philippine fishery products. (Source: USFDA Import Refusal Report 2015; http://www.accessdata.fda.gov) MONTH/YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 January 41 33 20 20 February 35 47 15 23 March 13 50 16 16 April 45 34 10 22 May 20 25 18 6 June 27 24 18 5 July 63 32 11 29 August 22 42 13 4 September 21 30 28 3 October 11 46 19 November 45 22 18 December 53 15 17 TOTAL 396 400 203 128 DATE PRODUCTS CAUSES FOR BORDER REFUSAL Feb 2013 Anchovy Filthy (adulteration) Mar 2013 Anchovy Filthy (adulteration) Sardines No FCE (not registered as low acid canned food or acidified manufacturer) Jan 2014 Shrimps/Prawns Nitrofuran, vetdrugres (adulteration ) Squid & other aquatic species Filthy (adulteration) Feb 2014 Tuna (albacore, yellowfin, bluefin) Filthy (adulteration) Milkfish Salmonella Sep 2014 Unsanitary manufacturing, processing & packing http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 20 Table 15. Number of cases for the Philippine fishery products exported to the European Union (EU) that received EU-Rapid Alert System for Food and Feeds (EU-RASFF) notifications STATUS OF WORLD SUPPLY, DEMAND AND TRADE OF FISH AND FISHERY PRODUCTS In coming up with marketing strategies for Philippine fish and fishery products, the following salient observations on the world supply, demand and trade must be carefully considered: 1. In the Philippine and elsewhere, aquaculture is perceived as the answer to problems on food security. Records show that if the recent production trend in aquaculture persists, together with the continued interest to look for more cultivable species, it is more likely that aquaculture would overtake wild capture fisheries by 2018. 2. China has been and will be continuously playing a big role in the trade and marketing of fish and fishery products in the world. It is presently the world’s biggest exporting country and the 3rd biggest importer of fishery products, with a per capita consumption that has currently reached 35.1kg and is still steadily increasing (FAO, 2104). 3. The United States of America (USA) and Japan remain as the largest single importers of fish and fishery products in the world (see FAO, 2104). In general, American and Japanese consumers are highly dependent on imports for fish consumption, with their imports posting about 60 % and 54 %, respectively, of their total fish supply from different countries all over the world (FAO, 2104). Quite interestingly, the per capita consumption of fish in the USA is presently at 24kg and has been steadily increasing in the last few years. Although Japan has per capita consumption of fish 57kg, it has been decreasing for the last few years. YEAR No. of Rapid Alert Notifications 2006 41 2007 13 2008 23 2009 7 2010 8 2011 12 2012 12 2013 5 (distribution) 2 (origin) 2014 8 TOTAL 131 Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 21 4. The European Union (Member Organization) is considered as the largest single market for imported fish and fishery products, posting an aggregate imports valued at US$47.0 billion in 2012 (see FAO, 2104). This represents 36% of total world imports. Incidentally, the EU28 is known as a first world market, with an expected long-term growth of fish markets, given a per capita consumption of 23kg and some import figures that show their increasing dependence on imports for the last several years. 5. Brazil, Mexico, the Russian Federation, and Egypt are the emerging countries in the world that are increasingly becoming important to the world’s exporters of fish and fishery products (FAO, 2104). 6. There has been an increasing strategic importance of cheap small pelagics as a food source in developing countries. 7. There has been an increasing share of developing countries in fisheries trade worldwide, with a corresponding decline in the share of the developed economies. In terms of fishery exports and imports from the Philippines, the bubble graphs, as shown in Figures 12 and 13, clearly indicate the performance of the different fishery product categories from the Philippines in the international markets (see also Table 11). Based on the growth figures of national supply and international demand for Philippine exports (Figure 12), those considered as “winners in growing sectors” (i.e. with annual growth rates of more than 5% between 2010-2014) are crustaceans and fish (fresh, whole) while those “winners in declining sector” (i.e. with annual growth rates of less than 5% between 2010-2014) include fish (cured or smoked) and fish meal for human consumption, as well as live fish. In between the 2 sectors is the product category of fish fillet and pieces (fresh, chilled or frozen), with an annual growth rate of 5% between 2010-2014. Those belonging to “losers in declining sector” are molluscs and fish (frozen, whole). Based on the growth figures of national demand and international supply for Philippine imports (Figure 13), the Philippines imports of crustaceans, molluscs, fish (frozen, whole), fish fillets and pieces (fresh, chilled or frozen), and fish (cured or smoked) and fish meal for human consumption have all increased more rapidly than world exports. On the other hand, the country’s imports of live fish have increased less rapidly as compared to world export. The same figure also indicates that the Philippines is a net importer of fish (frozen, whole), shown as a yellow bubble, and the country is a net exporter of the other fish product categories (namely crustaceans, molluscs, fish fillets and pieces (fresh, chilled or frozen), fish (fresh, whole), fish cured or smoked and fish meal for human consumption, and live fish (shown as blue bubbles). Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 22 Figure 12. Growth of national supply and international demand for products exported by the Philippines in 2014 (Source: ITC, 2015) Figure 13. Growth of national demand and international supply for products imported by the Philippines in 2014 (Source: ITC, 2015) Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 23 STATUS OF FISHERIES TRADE AND MARKETING RESEARCH The inventory of the different post harvest research activities that was conducted in 2006 (Yap 2006) revealed the following: (a) ten (10) commodity groups are the main focus of researches during the period , with the top five (5) commodities included milkfish (18%), tuna (16%), small pelagics (16%), shrimps (13%), and seaweeds (12%), with the remaining commodity groups, namely mussel/oyster, tilapia, cephalopods, crabs, and carp, constituting the remaining 25% of the researches surveyed; and (b) majority of the researchers dealt with raw material characterization, fermentation, value addition, and others with only 2 out of 216 researches (~1%) dealt with trade and marketing. As shown in Figure 14, when the researches surveyed were grouped into different time periods (1975 – 1979; 1980 – 1984; 1985 – 1989; 1990 – 1994; 1995 – 1999; and 2000 – 2006), a good number of research topics shows increasing trends while trade and marketing data appear to be neglected. Figure 14. Researches conducted from 1975 to 2006, using different fisheries commodities and different processing methodologies, based on different time ranges. Values expressed as numbers of the researches surveyed, n=216. Bars encircled with red are the researches on Fisheries Trade and Marketing (Yap, 2006) Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 24 GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES RELATED TO FISHERIES TRADE AND MARKETING The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources - Fisheries Industry Development Support Division had been consistently helping the different stakeholders in the fisheries industry of the country, via the conduct of the following activities: 9 Business/ Market-Matching 9 Trade Fairs/ Seafood Shows/ Exhibitions (Local & International) 9 Industry Business Forum 9 Capacity-Building 9 Technical Assistance 9 Market Research & Benchmarking 9 Market Access Expansion 9 Credit Facilitation (support services) 9 Infrastructure support (Community Fish Landing Centers) 9 Provision of post harvest facilities (ice making facilities, airblast freezers, fish stalls, fish stalls with live fish aquaria) In particular, the division had been busy helping the stakeholders get exposed to different product expositions, trade fairs and other activities, in the country and abroad. Some of these activities are enumerated in Table 16. Table 16. List of product expositions, exhibitions, trade fairs and other similar activities that were participated in by the different stakeholders, as organized and coordinated by BFAR Fisheries Industry Development Support Division (Source: BFAR-FIDS Division, 2015) 2014 2015 Seafood Expo Global April 2014, Brussels, Belgium Seafood Expo North America March 15-17, 2015, Boston, MA., USA Japan International Seafood & Technology Expo, August 2015, Tokyo, Japan Seafood Expo Global April 21-23, 2015, Brussels, Belgium Dubai Seafood Show September 2014, Dubai, UAE Japan International Seafood & Technology Expo, August 19-21, 2015, Tokyo, Japan Locally Held International Trade Fairs Seafood Expo Asia, September 8-10, 2015, Wanchai, Hong Kong SIAL Locally Held International Trade Fairs Agrilink/Foodlink/Aqualink October 2014, World Trade Center SIAL Local Trade Fairs Agrilink/Foodlink/Aqualink October 15-17, 2015, World Trade Center BFAR 67 th Anniversary Local Trade Fairs FishCon Week BFAR 68 th Anniversary Status of Philippine Fisheries Trade and Marketing Page 25 REFERENCES: Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) – Fisheries Industry Development Support Division, 2015. BFAR Central Office, PCA Building, Diliman, QC. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) – Post Harvest Fisheries Division, 2015. BFAR Central Office, PCA Building, Diliman, QC. Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan (CNFIDP), 2006. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). BFAR Central Office, PCA Building, Diliman, QC. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2014. State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture - SOFIA 2014, UN FAO, Rome, Italy. International Trade Center, 2015. TRADE MAP - Trade statistics for international business development. Rue de Montbrillant 54, 1202 Genève, Switzerland Philippine Fisheries Profile, 2004-2014, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). BFAR Central Office, PCA Building, Diliman, QC. United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), 2015. Import Refusal Report for 2015. Yap, E.S. 2006. “Status of Fisheries Post Harvest Research in the Philippines”, 2006 National Fisheries Research Symposium, Iloilo Grand Hotel, Iloilo City. 23-24 October 2006 Online Sources: http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph http://www.accessdata.fda.gov http://www.intracen.org http://www.trademap.org http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/ http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/ http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ http://www.intracen.org/ http://www.trademap.org/ LIST OF CNFIDP 2016-2020 PARTICIPANTS Private Sector A. Tung Chingco Manufacturing Corporation Alliance of High-Value Group Alliance of Philippine Fishing Federation Incorporated Anjo Farms Incorporated APL-Sentro Arko Foods Phils Incorporated BAFOR Incorporated, Cebu Barrio Fiesta Manufacturing Corporation Bonanza Fishing Bulacan HJR International Corporation Camarines Bigfin Seafoods Trading Celebes Canning Corporation CHL Fishing Citra Mina Group of Companies Coron Aqua D&L Seafoods ECA Cold Store Plus EMB Trading Feed Mill Corporation Feedmix Specialist Incorporated Finfish Hatcheries Frabelle Fishing Corporation Fresh Frozen Seafood Association of the Philippines FRI Seafood Trading Gems Food International Incorporated Gladery Fishing Incorporated Globest Feeds Philippines HJR Group of Company HocPo Feeds Integrated Growers and Traders IRMA Fishing ISDA Incorporated Jagnee Fishing Corporation Jam Seafoods Incorporated Jess Aquamarine Trader Incorporated JN Mercado Seafood Supply Jumbo Fishing Corporation Kai -Anya Food Incorporated Mega Sardines Meliomar Incorporated Millennium Ocean Star Corporation Mofels Food International Corporation NH Agro Industrial Corporation Nuevo Fresco Marine Trading Corporation Ocean Aquamarine Ocean Canning Corporation Orient Cold Storage Incorporated Oversea Feeds Corporation Ozean 8 Trading Corporation Palawan Aquaculture Corporation Philbest Canning Corporation Philippine Association of Crab Producer Incorporated Philippine Association of Fish Producers Incorporated Philippine Association of Fish Producers Incorporated Trident Philippine Milkfish Industry Group Philippine Tropical Fish Exporters Association Philippine Association of Crab Processors Incorporated Phil-Union Frozen Foods Incorporated Polar Bear Freezing and Storage Corporation RD Fishing Industry Incorporated Rell and Renn Fishing Roel Fishing Royal Pacific Rim Fishing Corporation Rugela Fishing Sagip Likas Yamang Dagat ng Bataan San Andres Aquaculture Corporation San Andres Fishing Industries Incorporated San Lorenzo Ruiz Fishing Santeh Aquaculture Science and Technology Foundation Santeh Fish Feeds Corporation SAS Shipyard Seaglory International Corporation Seaweeds Industry Association of the Philippines SOCCSKSARGEN Federation of Fishing and Allied Industry Sta. Cruz Seafoods Incorporated Starcki Venture Corporation Thunnidae Venture Corporation Trinity Homes Industrial Corporation Umbrella Fish Landing Association Vitarich Corporation Fisherfolk Representatives/Council/Association (Provincial) Abra Antique Artisanal Fisherfolk Sectoral Council – NAPC Banilan Pakil, Laguna Bohol, Bohol Bulacan Cagayan de Oro Cagayan Valley Cagayan Valley Fish Farmers MPC Calumpit, Laguna Cebu Central Luzon Registered Tilapia Hatchery Organization MPC Isabela City Kalinga Laguna de Bay Lanao del Sur Manobay, Southern Leyte Marawi City Marinduque Naic, Cavite National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council Navotas City North Cotabato Pantukan, Compostella Valley Philippine Councilors League Romblon Sarangani Province South Cotabato Sta. Cruz, Laguna Tacloban Fisherfolk Urban Association Tangos, Navotas City Tubigon, Bohol Tucdao Kawayan, Biliran Wawa Maliban, Biñan City, Laguna Zamboanga LGU - Provincial/Municipal Planning Development Office Aparri Balanga City Baler, Aurora Baliguian, Zamboanga del Norte Bani, Pangasinan Basilan Bataan Bongao, Tawi-Tawi Bukidnon Camiguin Catanduanes Cavite Claveria Concepcion, Iloilo Concepcion, Tarlac Dapa, Surigao del Norte Datu Odin Sinsuat, Maguindanao Davao del Norte Dolores, Eastern Samar Don Marcelino, Davao del Sur Ilocos Norte Iloilo City Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay Kabasalan, Zamboanga Sibugay Kalamansig, South Cotabato La Union Laguna Lanao del Norte Marawi City Masantol Matnog, Sorsogon Pampanga Parang Quezon Province Rizal Province Romblon San Jose, Occidental Mindoro San Luis, Aurora Santa Rita, Samar Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte Sual, Pangasinan Sulu Tubod, Lanao del Norte Tukuran, Zamboanga del Sur Zamboanga City Zamboanga del Norte NGOs/CSOs/Other Partners Bayang Pinoy Organization Incorporated Conservation International Ecosystems Improved for Sustainable Fisheries (ECOFISH) Project Greenpeace Integrated Rural Development Foundation LandBank of the Philippines Macajalar Bay Development Alliance MSC Philippines NGOs for Fisheries Reform OCEANA Philippines Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka Partners for Resilience Philippines Tambuyog Development Center Tanggol Kalikasan Incorporated World Wildlife Fund Philippines Zoological Society of London Research Institution Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development Philippine Institute for Development Studies Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center – Aquaculture Department Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture Worldfish Center Philippines State Colleges and Universities Bohol Island State University Cagayan State University-Aparri Campus Carlos Hilado Memorial State College Central Luzon State University Iloilo State University of Science and Technology - Main Campus Isabela State University Marinduque State College Mindanao State University - General Santos Campus Mindanao State University - Maguindanao Campus Mindanao State University - Naawan Campus Palawan State University Partido State University, Sagnay Campus Romblon State University - Santa Fe Campus Southern Luzon State University University of Antique – TLMC University of San Carlos University of the Philippines Los Baños University of the Philippines in the Visayas National Government Agencies and Councils BANGSAMORO Development Agency Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources BFAR-National Fisheries Research and Development Institute Climate Change Commission Commission on Higher Education DA-Agricultural Credit and Policy Council DA-Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Product Standards Department of Agriculture Department of Environment and Natural Resources Environmental Department of Foreign Affairs Department of Health Department of Interior and Local Government Department of Labor and Employment Department of National Defense – Office of the Civil Defense Department of Science and Technology Department of Social Welfare and Development Department of Trade and Industry Department of Trade and Industry – Export Marketing Bureau DFA-Maritime and Ocean Affairs Maritime Industry Authority National Anti-Poverty Commission National Coast Watch Council National Commission on Indigenous People National Council on Disability Affairs National Economic and Development Authority National Food Authority – Food Development Center National Mapping and Resource Information Authority Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Philippine Agriculture and Fisheries Council Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration Philippine Coast Guard Philippine Council for Agriculture and Natural Resources Research and Development Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation Philippine Fisheries Development Authority Philippine National Police – Maritime Group Philippine Reclamation Authority Philippine Statistics Authority – Bureau of Agricultural Statistics Professional Regulation Commission Senate Committee on Agriculture and Food Technical Education and Skills Development Authority Committee on Agriculture and Food Note: Our sincere gratitude to the more than 500 stakeholders and partners who had actively participated in the crafting of the Medium Term (2016-2020) CNFIDP. Efforts had been undertaken to ensure completeness of the names of organizations or affiliations represented and our apologies to those we had inadvertently missed out or who had failed to register their names.