Three working groups were formed to deliberate and propose recommendations on the use of socio-economic and demographic information on coastal fisherfolk in coastal and fisheries development and management. The Philippine contingent was divided into two groups, one of which constituted participants from LGUs and provincial planning bodies. The third group was composed mainly of participants from the other South and Southeast Asian countries, namely Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar and Viet Nam. The working groups were guided by the following terms of reference:
A. Extraction of socio-economic and demographic data from other sources and surveys (secondary data collection): Which types of data suggested by Ms L. Villareal can be extracted and which cannot be extracted?
Can the data be obtained from the sources suggested or not?
In case they cannot be collected from the suggested sources, can they be collected from other sources? If yes, which ones?
Who would extract the data and how often/frequently?
Who should cover the cost of data extraction? Is qualified staff available to extract data or is there a need for training?
If there is a need for training, who should conduct training and who should fund it?
B. Primary data collection
Which of the data suggested in Ms Villareals paper should/could be collected and which not?
Who should collect the data?
Is there qualified staff available or can work be subcontracted?
Are funds available for primary data collection/survey?
Are the methodologies for data collection suggested in Ms Villareals paper appropriate?
C. Use of data
Which institutions and organizations should review and use the data collected through secondary and primary collection methods?
How should the institutions/organizations identified cooperate in the review and use of data and who should take the lead?
Feedback between data collectors, users and coastal fishing communities: What arrangement/mechanism for feedback is proposed?
Technical assistance needs and support from FAO and other specification of what further support is needed for the implementation of a regular programme of collection and use of socio-economic and demographic information on fishing communities.
The working groups were also encouraged to come up with specific proposals specifying objectives, activities, expected outcomes and results and expected assistance from donors. The recommendations of the working groups as adopted in the plenary session are shown below:
Working Group 1 (Philippine group)
Mr Alex Valenciano, NEDA Region VI
Ms Lolita V. Villareal, FAO Consultant
Dr Ida Siason, Chancellor, UPV
Dr Crispino Saclauso, UPV
Mr Nygiel Armada, UPV
Mr Michael Garcia, UPV
Mr Alan Moscoso, UPV
Mr Jerome Cabansag, UPV
Ms Didi Baticados, SEAFDEC
Ms Magdalena Abellera, POPCOM Region VI
Dr Nimfa Pelea, Dean, Bicol University
Ms Visa Dimerin, BFAR Region XII
Ms Gloria Diaz, BFAR Manila
Ms Elymi Ar-j Subang, BFAR Manila
Mr Alejandro Olandez Jr, PCAMRD
Dr Boris Fabres, ICLARM
The working group fully realizes and recognizes the need for socio-economic and demographic information for coastal resource management, particularly community-based coastal resource management. In this regard, it subscribes to the framework discussed in Ms Villareals paper and endorses all the core indicators identified/arising from the framework as being equally important and needing to be gathered/extracted through secondary and primary data collection methods. The group believes that the information to be collected can be used for new and ongoing projects as well as for comprehensive local level planning processes.
Secondary data collection
The working group believes that for data available at the province level, data can be obtained from the sources identified and specified by Ms Villareals paper. For further disaggregation to municipal and barangay levels, however, data can be obtained at the first point of consolidation, i.e. Barangay Health Stations, Barangay Health Workers (BHWs), Barangay Service Point Officers (BSPOs), Rural Health Midwife (for nutrition, health and family planning information) and local civil registries. If they are not available from these sources, there might be a need to collect primary data.
At the local level, the LGUs, particularly the Municipal Planning and Development Officers (MPDOs), will have primary responsibility for extracting the data from the specified sources. LGUs can bear the cost of data extraction from their development funds. Training on data collection, processing and particularly data analysis will need to be provided for the local staff and this can be sourced through foreign assistance.
Primary Data Collection
The working group recognizes the importance of securing accurate information at the lowest area/domain whenever possible. This becomes even more critical when planning community-based coastal resource management interventions and measures. Thus, critical variables pertaining to migration, intergenerational and occupational mobility, alternative livelihood and identification of gender roles that are not generally available through secondary sources may need to be collected at the community level through primary data collection methods. In this connection, the primary project proponents and users may have to gather the data themselves, using sampling procedures appropriate to project requirements. Educational and research institutions can also be contracted for this purpose. At this level, training on data analysis and interpretation and on participatory appraisal methods needs to be provided.
Use of Data
All stakeholders - LGUs, POs, NGOs, project proponents, FARMCs, research institutions, the academe and other GOs involved in coastal resource management and development, can use the data collected. A feedback mechanism through meetings, assemblies and consultations of all those involved should be conducted whenever appropriate. At the municipal level, the Municipal Development Councils can be channels for such consultations. At the community level, Barangay FARMCs can be utilized as lead organizations, as around 50 percent of total barangays in the country have already been organized into BFARMCs.
Technical assistance needs and proposals
The working group proposed two pilot projects requiring technical assistance:
1. Piloting the Development of a Community-based Information System for CRM for LGUs
To standardize and institutionalise the collection, processing and analysis of socioeconomic and demographic information for CRM
Expected assistance from donor:
2. Short-term COAST-HAVEN Baywide Management Council Plan for Anini-y, San Jose, Tobias Fornier, Hamtic (in Antique province, Panay Island, Philippines)
To demonstrate the use of POPDEV indicators for CRM planning
To establish monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to measure the effect/impact of programmes/projects relative to identified POPDEV indicators
To determine the influence of such capability building measures in institutional sustainability
POPDEV concerns incorporated in the plan document
Effect/impact of intervention schemes relative to POPDEV indicators measured Adoption and internalization of planning process
Expected assistance from donors:
Funding and technical assistance in data gathering, analysis, plan formulation and monitoring and evaluation
Working Group 2 (Philippine LGU group)
Mr Alexander Benedicto, PPDO, Zamboanga Sibugay
Ms Luzviminda Muego, Provincial Population Officer, Pangasinan
Ms Evelyn Ame, BFAR Region II
Dr Ignacio Arat, POPCOM, Region IX
Dr Evelyn Belleza, UPV
Ms Elsa Cabuhay, Provincial Population Officer, Capiz
Mr Robert Espinosa, BFAR Region VI
Dr Purwito Martosubroto, FAO Rome
Dr Enrico Villoso, UPV
There was consensus in the working group that almost all the data can be generated/sourced at the LGU level - provincial, municipal/city or barangay. However, the reliability of the data from these sources is a major concern because of the following factors:
a. data come from different sources - there are many offices at the local level that collect data as part of their respective data banks for monitoring and evaluation purposes;
b. there are different methods of data collection which may affect the consistency of the data, e.g. comparing the same data gathered from two different surveys using different methodologies (such as the Contraceptive Prevalence Rate for Family Planning which has two different sources - the Multi-indicator Cluster Survey and the Demographic Health Survey); and
c. capability of the agency/person doing the data gathering.
Secondary data collection
The working group adopted all the types of data indicated in Ms Villareals paper and improved on some, specifically:
For the lowest area domain, indicators for mortality and migration need to be collected at the municipality and barangay levels.
Indicators for morbidity should be included in order to monitor health problems and leading causes of illnesses and deaths that may be related to the occupation of fisherfolk.
Additional agencies as sources of data were identified. These are the population, health, planning and local civil registrar offices.
One indicator that may be difficult to get at the municipal level was identified - life expectancy at birth.
Data on migration can be derived from National Statistics Office but, at the local level, primary data on push and pull factors can be relevant and may therefore need to be collected.
Population structure should be sex disaggregated and should also include womens reproductive age range of 15-49 years.
Whenever applicable, socio-economic indicators should be sex disaggregated.
Primary data collection
The collection of primary data is possible depending on the existing structure, human and financial resources of the LGU. For example, the presence of population, health and planning officers at these levels may facilitate the extraction of data. Subcontracting to appropriate institutions for data collection can also be financed out of LGU funds or through other donors.
Use of data
At the LGU level, the planning and population officers will be the lead officers in data consolidation and analysis. Feedback will be through consultations, workshop/meetings, utilizing existing mechanisms such as local development councils and other special bodies. As for technical assistance needs from FAO, the group identified the need for assistance in the setting-up of an information and management system specifically for community-based coastal resource management.
Working Group 3 (Participants from other
Mr G. Piyasena, Director-General, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Sri Lanka
Dr U. Tietze, Fishery Industry Officer, FAO Rome
Dr Thai Tanh Duong, Director, Fisheries Information Centre, Ministry of Fisheries, Viet Nam
Dr Somying Piumsombun, Senior Fisheries Economics Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand
Mr Ohn Maung, Assistant Director, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, Myanmar
Dr Glenn Aguilar, Vice Chancellor for Planning and Development, UPV
Ms Jessica Muñoz, Fisheries Resource Management Programme, BFAR
Dr Filippina Sotto, Department of Biology, University of San Carlos
Collection and Use of Demographic Indicators in Fisheries and Coastal Management and Planning
The working group fully endorses article 10.2.4 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which stipulates that States in accordance with their capacities should establish systems to monitor the coastal environment as part of their coastal management process, using among other things economic and social parameters.
The working group also endorses the FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries on the integration of fisheries in coastal area management, which further explains that economic and social parameters include population density, employment and unemployment, income levels, regional GDP, barriers to entry and exit of human occupations, resource allocation systems, occurrence of social conflict and levels of subsidy.
The working group further expresses appreciation of the work undertaken by FAO in preparation for this workshop to further specify and operationalise the above-mentioned economic and social indicators with the view to assist Governments in their application and use.
The working group reviewed the specified and operationalised socio-economic and demographic indicators contained in the paper prepared and presented in the workshop by Ms Lolita V. Villareal. The working group endorsed all indicators as important and very important and suggested that the information should either be extracted from existing databases (i.e. population censuses and demographic and health services), or collected by surveys to be organized by the Department of Fisheries or obtained by asking other agencies to include questions relevant to fisherfolk in their questionnaires and survey schedules.
The demographic and socio-economic information should then be used to guide and orient fisheries and coastal development programmes by focusing government and civil service assistance and support on vulnerable groups in coastal areas. Demographic and socioeconomic indicators should further be used to measure the impact of fisheries and coastal management and development programmes and activities on the socio-economic and demographic status of coastal and fishing communities.
In addition to its use by fisheries administrations, the information should also be used to guide the programmes and activities of other government agencies and authorities concerned with the wellbeing, health, education, employment and infrastructure of fishing and other coastal communities as well as by stakeholder organizations and NGOs.
With reference to pages 19-32 of Ms Villareals paper, the following indicators were endorsed:
IMPORTANT: fertility and mortality indicators such as crude birth rate, age specific fertility rate, total fertility rate, crude death rate, life expectancy at birth, infant mortality rate, maternal mortality rate.
VERY IMPORTANT: geographic mobility and population indicators such as in-migration rate/out-migration rate, population growth rate, sex ratio, percentage of households by sex of head of household, percentage of population aged under 15 years, 15-64 years and 65 years and over, household size, population density, population growth rate.
VERY IMPORTANT: labour, employment and income indicators such as labour force participation rate, unemployment rate, average family income, per capita income; education and literacy indicators such as percentage of men and women by schooling completed, functional literacy rate.
IMPORTANT: health and sanitation indicators such as percentage of households which availed of health care services, percentage of households with sanitary toilet facilities, percentage of households with safe main source of drinking water; housing/household convenience indicators such as percentage of households with owned/rented or shared house or lot, percentage of households with house made of durable materials, percentage of households with electricity connection, percentage of households with radio/television/computer; family planning indicators such as percentage of households with access to family planning services and contraceptive prevalence rate.
Follow-up activities and technical assistance needs and proposals
The working group observed that in the case of Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam a considerable amount of socio-economic data has already been collected in the course of fisheries censuses and socio-economic surveys, which has not yet been properly analysed. These data need to be complemented by other socio-economic and demographic data that can be obtained from other government and research institutions. There is a need for an in-depth analysis of these data and for the presentation of the findings in a manner that is useful for fisheries and coastal area management, planning and development.