Open Collections

UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches : A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950 to 2010 Palomares, Maria Lourdes D.; Pauly, D. (Daniel) 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-Palomares_M_et_al_Philippine_marine_fisheries.pdf [ 4.77MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0354317.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0354317-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0354317-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0354317-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0354317-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0354317-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0354317-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0354317-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0354317.ris

Full Text

   ISSN 1198-6727  Fisheries Centre Research Reports   2014 Volume 22 Number 1      Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950 to 2010      Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada   Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches:  A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950 to 2010     edited by Maria Lourdes D. Palomares and Daniel Pauly                    Fisheries Centre Research Reports 22(1) 171 pages © published 2014 by  The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia  2202 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4       ISSN 1198-6727 Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950 to 2010. M.L.D. Palomares and D. Pauly (editors)  Fisheries Centre Research Reports 22(1) Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia   Table of Contents   Page 1. Preface iii 2. Philippine marine fisheries 101 ….. M.L.D. Palomares, V.A. Parducho, M. Bimbao, E. Ocampo and D. Pauly 1 3. Reconstructing Philippine marine fisheries catches: a rationale and a methodology ….. D. Pauly and M.L.D. Palomares 14 4. Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone A – northern Luzon (Regions I, II and III) ….. V.A. Parducho and M.L.D. Palomares 29 5. Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B – southern Luzon (Regions IV, V and NCR) ….. M.L.D. Palomares and V.A. Parducho 45 6. Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone C – Visayas (Regions VI, VII and VIII) ….. A.S. Cabanban, D.M. Teves-Maturan, V.A. Parducho, and M.L.D. Palomares 62 7. Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone D – Mindanao (Regions IX, X, XI, XII, XIII and ARMM) ….. V.A. Parducho and M.L.D. Palomares 77 8. The recreational marine sport fisheries catch of the Philippines, 1950-2010      J.C. Espedido, V.A. Parducho, M.A. Yap, and M.L.D. Palomares 92 9. A short history of gleaning in Negros and Panay Islands, Visayas, Philippines ….. A.S. Cabanban, I.J. Tajonera and M.L.D. Palomares 105 10. A short history of gleaning in Mabini, Batangas, Philippines (Region IV) ….. M.L.D. Palomares, V.A. Parducho, M.P. Saniano, P.M.S. Yap, J.C. Espedido and L.P. Urruquia 118 11. Reconstructed marine fisheries catches of the Philippines, 1950-2010 ….. M.L.D. Palomares and D. Pauly 129  Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, M.L.D., Pauly, D. (eds.) ii   Page 12. Appendix A: National statistics for industrial and artisanal marine capture fisheries by subzone and by region obtained from fisheries reports by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and by the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. 139 13. Appendix B: National statistics for number of fishers by subzone, by region and by sector obtained from Census of Fisheries, Census of Population and Housing reports of the National Statistics Office. 140 14. Appendix C: Reconstructed total catches by subzone and by sector obtained from results of artisanal and subsistence fisheries reconstructions discussed in Chapters 4-9 and the industrial fisheries reconstruction discussed in Chapter 10. 142 15. Appendix D: Results of percentage species composition by decade obtained from national statistics for industrial and artisanal marine capture fisheries reported by region and by species groups. 144                        A Research Report from the Fisheries Centre at UBC  171 pages © Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2010   FISHERIES CENTRE RESEARCH REPORTS ARE ABSTRACTED IN THE FAO AQUATIC SCIENCES AND FISHERIES ABSTRACTS (ASFA) ISSN 1198-6727  FISHERIES CENTRE RESEARCH REPORTS ARE FUNDED IN PART BY GRANT FUNDS FROM THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT. A LIST OF ALL FCRRS TO DATE APPEARS AS THE FINAL PAGES OF EACH REPORT. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.)  iii  Preface  The Sea Around Us and its worldwide network of collaborators have been involved from the mid-2000s to mid-2014 in a massive project of ‘catch reconstruction’, i.e., estimating the actual – as opposed to officially reported – catches of the marine fishes of all countries and territories of the world. These reconstructions, of which about 200 were completed, are usually 10-20 pages long - even for large countries. This is because, in most cases, we added to the official statistics components that we were missing from these statistics, e.g., discards and/or recreational and subsistence fishery catches. Not so for the Philippines, where the official statistics for industrial (‘commercial’) fisheries may be adequate once corrected for obvious problems, but artisanal (‘municipal’) fishery catches are not reliably estimated.  In this volume of the Fisheries Centre Research Reports, a methodology is therefore presented which allows an independent estimation of artisanal catches based on observed daily catches of artisanal fishers, multiplied by annual numbers of days fished and time-series of number of fishers, this procedure being applied separately in four different parts (‘subzones’) of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Philippines. Also, due emphasis was given to subsistence catches (i.e., catches primarily destined for household consumption), notably reef gleaning, and marine recreational fisheries, which are not covered at all by official statistics.  These studies, presented here in the form of separate chapters, are then pulled together in a synthesis chapter which presents our estimation of the total marine catches of the Philippines from 1950 to 2010. Overall, our estimate is 26% lower than the total reported by the Philippines to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). In this, the Philippines differs from other countries in Southeast Asia, and from developing countries in general, whose reconstructed catch is usually higher – often two times or more – than their officially reported catch. This should have consequences, and we elaborate on this on the final synthesis chapter of this report.  We hope that this report will be found useful everywhere, but particularly in the Philippines.    The Editors Los Baños, Philippines and Vancouver, Canada  Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 1 Philippine marine fisheries 1011  M.L.D. Palomares1, V.A. Parducho2, M. Bimbao2, E. Ocampo3 and D. Pauly1  1 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, V6T 1Z4; Email: m.palomares@fisheries.ubc.ca 2 FishBase Information and Research Group, Inc., Khush Hall, IRRI, Los Baños, Laguna 4301 Philippines 3 Municipal Fisheries Statistics Section, Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, Ben-lor Bldg., 1184 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines   Abstract  Fish being an important part of the Filipino protein intake makes fisheries equally an important activity of more than one million Filipinos living in coastal areas. The management of fisheries in the Philippines is, however, beset with chronic challenges, which is exacerbated by the rapidly declining environmental conditions of many of its coastal habitats. One major challenge is the lack of adequate catch data needed for the estimation of, e.g., catch per unit of effort and catch limits. We review some of the history leading to conditions and events that might have contributed to such challenges. We also identify a terminology for use in Philippine capture fisheries equivalent to that used in other parts of the world, and which will be used throughout this report.  Introduction  This introductory chapter was initially entitled as “The history and profile of Philippine marine fisheries”. However, numerons historical overviews of Philippine fisheries have been published (see e.g., Storer 1967; DNR 1976a; BFAR 1978; Smith and Pauly 1983; Poblete 1984; Spoehr 1984; Pauly 1986; Israel 1999; Barut et al. 2003; Cruz-Trinidad 2003; DA-BFAR 2004; Luna et al. 2004; Lachica-Alino et al. 2006; Briones 2007; Muallil et al. 2012; SEAFDEC 2012) and fisheries profiles are also published regularly, if not on an annual basis, in Philippine government websites (e.g., Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, BFAR)2, regional (Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, SEAFDEC)3 and international organizations (the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO)4. It would thus be redundant to write a history or profile. Thus, we content ourselves with mentioning the basic information that readers require to understand the intricacies and peculiarities of Philippine marine fisheries, i.e., similar to the content of an introductory first-year university course (‘101’), hence the title. This chapter will describe the important features of and current perceptions on Philippine marine fisheries, and identify the challenges which have plagued the sector over decades of management attempts.  The Philippines, with over 7,000 islands of various sizes, encompasses most of the Sulu-Celebes Sea Large Marine Ecosystem (LME), a world hotspot of marine biodiversity (Randall 1998; Carpenter and Springer 2005; Hoeksema 2007; Carpenter et al. 2011). These islands cover a land area of 300,000 km2,                                                      1 Cite as: Palomares, M.L.D., Parducho, V.A., Bimbao, M.A., Ocampo, E., Pauly, D. 2014. Philippine marine fisheries 101. In: Palomares, M.L.D., Pauly, D. (eds.), Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950 to 2010, p. 1-13. Fisheries Centre Research Report 22(1). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 2 http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages/AboutUs/maintabs/statistics_2010.html 3 http://www.seafdec.org/index.php/publications/viewcategory/10-fishery-statistics-and-information 4 http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_PH/en Philippine marine fisheries 101, Palomares, MLD et al. 2 while the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that might be claimed by the Philippines5 covers an area of over 2 million km2 (ADB 1993; Lugten and Andrew 2008), including parts of the heavily contested Spratly Island group, Scarborough Shoal, and Miangas Island (see also Fig. 1 of Barut et al. 1997; Bautista 2008). About 12 % of this sea area consists of productive continental shelf (to 200 m; ADB 1993; Barut et al. 1997)6 hosting coral reef (27,000 km2, to depths of <30 m; Rivera et al. 2002), mangrove and algal ecosystems. These ecosystems form the habitats of the large number of species supporting coastal marine fisheries.  Fisheries play an important role in the Philippine economic and social fiber. The Philippine islands are divided into 15 administrative regions with 81 provinces, of which 80 % are coastal (Rivera et al. 2002), themselves comprising1,514 municipalities, of which 65 % are coastal (ADB 1993). In 2009, the Philippines reported 4.1 million tonnes7 of total fish ‘production’ (i.e., including aquaculture), about 59 % of which were from marine fisheries (and 54 % were catches of mackerels, tunas, herrings, sardines, anchovies, jacks, mullets and sauries) valued at 2.65 billion USD (SEAFDEC 2012). Of the 10 Southeast Asian countries, the Philippines ranked second in terms of fish catches, next to Indonesia, accounting for 17 % of the total for the region (SEAFDEC 2012). In 2003, the Philippines ranked 11th worldwide (FAO 2004-2012).  In 2001, 55 % of the 76 million Filipinos lived in coastal municipalities (Costales and Garcia 2009), which increased to 85 % in 2005 (WB 2005). If we take the average of the 2001 and 2005 estimates of the ratio of coastal area inhabitants to the total population (70 %)8 and apply that to the 2010 population (over 92 million), we obtain a value of over 64 million people inhabiting Philippine coastal areas. Though not all of these people are directly involved in fishing activities, such a high coastal population is undoubtedly the origin of relatively high exogenous impacts on the relatively shallow water area (Barut et al. 1997), and will generate “an enormous pressure on the fisheries” (Salayo et al. 2008, p. 693). Such impacts may be exacerbated by the high incidence of poverty among these mostly rural coastal populations, i.e., 34 % of the about 77 million Filipinos in 2000 (NSO 2012) lived below the poverty line, and of this, over 72 % are from rural areas (SEAFDEC 2012). The high population growth in the Philippines (one of the highest in Asia) also implies a bleak future, both in terms of the economic status of these rural populations, and in their use of coastal resources. Fishing and/or gleaning are activities which can be performed without or with very little capital, and is often the easiest food provision option of poor coastal families (Israel and Roque 1999). In the 1990s, over 66% of Filipinos’ animal protein consumption was based on fish (Israel and Banzon 2000), with an average per capita fish consumption of                                                      5 This tortuous wording is based on the fact that the Philippines’ claim is based not on UNCLOS, as might be expected, but on the 1898 Treaty of Paris, which formalized the transfer of colonial territories from Spain to the United States (Bautista 2008). 6 see also http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/608.aspx 7 1 metric ton = 1,000 kg, denoted as ‘t’ hereon after. 8 Over 60 % in the late 1990s (La Vina 1999).  Figure 1. Map of the Philippines showing the 200 nm EEZ that it may claim. Shaded area indicates parts of the EEZ being disputed by other countries (redrawn by Mr. Mike Yap from a composite of several open source maps). Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 3 36 kg∙person∙year-1 (Barut et al. 2003). This reportedly increased to 53.4 kg∙person∙year-1 in 2009 (SEAFDEC 2011).  The fisheries sector employed over 807,000 fishers in 1990, 46 % of whom worked in the small-scale, 44 % in the industrial, and 9 % in the aquaculture sectors (Costales and Garcia 2009). Given the annual population growth rates estimated by NSO (2012) between 1.9 % (2000) to 2.3 % (1990), or an average of 2.1 %, we can estimate about 1 million fishers9 recently employed by all three sectors. This is almost 20 % more than the number of fishers employed by these sectors in 1975, i.e., over 844,000 fishers, 68 % of whom were employed by the small-scale sector (so called ‘traditional’ fishers), reported to contribute 55 % of the 1.3 million t of fish domestic output (BFAR 1978). Note, however, that there was an almost 35 % decrease in the number of small-scale fishers over these two decades, which may be indicative of an evolution that is directly tied to overexploitation of shallow coastal resources, resulting in a move towards industrial fisheries, targeting higher-value species like tuna and small pelagic fishes usually caught in offshore areas. Spoehr (1984, p. 34) recounts the evolution of fishing since the Second World War from a coastal to an offshore activity as boats became motorized with an “increase in fishing range and endurance [which] has resulted in a movement of the fishing pattern offshore with the exploitation of new grounds. However, this has not reduced fishing pressure on inshore and traditional grounds; in fact, the opposite has occurred”.  The 1960s and 1970s saw the rapid expansion of the commercial fleet as small-scale fisheries evolved towards motorized (though small) commercial operations (Cruz-Trinidad 2003, p. 553). This industrialization further led to a productivity-oriented thrust, the consequences of which were felt as early as the 1980s, when “overfishing led to lower returns per unit effort, squeezing dry the profitability of fishing as a livelihood. Moreover, conflicts of resource access and use were heightened by the inducement for large-scale exploitation of aquatic resources” (Briones 2007, p. 29).  In addition, the government’s attempts to “cope with modal shifts [in the fisheries sector] brought about by socio-ecological factors in the last decades” (Lopez 2006, p. 79) led to conflicting policies that may have contributed to inefficiency with regards to managing the sector (Shannon 2002; Lugten and Andrew 2008; Salayo et al. 2008). The industrialization boost of the 1970s was fueled largely via the “Integrated Fisheries Development Plan which sets as its goal the attainment of self-sufficiency in fish supply through expanded production and development of import substitutes and promoting exportation of fishery products” (BFAR 1978, p. 10). Foreign aid via several organizations of the United Nations (e.g., UNDP, FAO) and the regional body, SEAFDEC, assisted the government in implementing its expanded fish production program and in “exploratory fishing for schooling fishes such as tuna” (BFAR 1978, p. 10). Government subsidies in terms of loans meant primarily for artisanal fishers to motorize their fishing operations (Green et al. 2003) ranged from 2.7 million pesos in 1987 to 10.6 million pesos in 199710 (Israel and Roque 1999, Table 24, p. 87) with loan to output ratios of 7.4 in 1987 to 13.9 in 1992 (Israel and Roque 1999, Table 23, p. 86). These were in addition to earlier government loans obtained through the World Bank for the National Fisheries Development Project “channelled only to commercial fishermen” (WB 1991, p. 1). The concerted effort to obtain self-sufficiency in fish since the 1970s (Anon 1979) culminating with the “1997 Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act [which] is production-oriented [… and thus] encourage excess capacity [conflicts with] the 1998 Fisheries Code [which] advocates resource conservation” (Salayo et al. 2008, p. 698) have not alleviated the chronic problems that have beset the post-war Philippine fisheries industry. In fact, the “social conflicts which have developed between the small-scale fisheries and the commercial fisheries over the years […] in effect exacerbated excessive fishing efforts, particularly in municipal waters” (Delmendo 1992, p. 35).                                                      9 This might be an underestimate as Briones (2007) reported 1.5 million people with fisheries as their main livelihood in 2004. However, this figure included fishers also employed in the aquaculture sector. 10 In 1987, 1USD=20.6PHP. In 1997, 1USD=29.5PHP (see http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/etc/USDpages.pdf). Philippine marine fisheries 101, Palomares, MLD et al. 4  We enumerate further below the major challenges that this particular history and culture of Philippine fisheries has created and we pay particular attention to the facets of Philippine fisheries that are important to one of the major objectives of this report, i.e., the reconstruction of fisheries catches.  Some indispensable definitions  The Philippine Fisheries Act of 1932 classified the sectors of marine fisheries …  “… according to their government and disposition: national, municipal and reserve fisheries. Falling under national fisheries are: 1) deepsea or offshore fishing; 2) marine mollusca fisheries; 3) sponge fisheries; 4) hawksbill turtle fisheries; and 5) inland fisheries. Under municipal fisheries Section 6 defined the extent thereof which is three nautical miles at most from the shoreline of the municipality, while Section 7 dealt on the authority of the municipal council to grant the exclusive fishery privileges of erecting fish corrals, operating fishponds, or taking or catching of bangus fry (kawag-kawag) or fry of other species. For the reserve fisheries, Sections 73 to 73-B provided for the establishment thereof in any of the Philippine waters by presidential proclamation for the exclusive use of the government or of the inhabitants, for the culture of fish and other aquatic animals, for educational and scientific purposes, while communal fisheries may be established by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in any municipal waters” (BFAR 2012c).  Presidential Decree No. 704 of July 14 1975 superseded this earlier Fisheries Act and became the basis of all fisheries regulations and rules defining thus:  (i) ‘commercial’ fisheries as operations “for commercial purposes in waters more than seven (7) fathoms deep with the use of fishing boats more than three (3) gross tons […] within a distance of seven (7) kilometers (3.78 nautical miles) from the shoreline”; (ii) ‘municipal’ fisheries as operations “utilizing fishing boats of three gross tons or less, or using gear not requiring the use of boats”; and (iii) ‘municipal’ marine waters as “marine waters included between two lines drawn perpendicular to the general coastline from points where the boundary lines of the municipality touch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the general coastline and three (3) nautical miles from such coastline.”11  This decree gave provisions for the: (a) creation of the Fishery Industry Development Council in Chapter III; (b) regulating the use and exploitation of fishery/aquatic resources in Chapter IV; (c) reserve fisheries and fish sanctuaries in Chapter V; (d) prohibitions (including illegal fishing and gears) and penalties in Chapter VI; and (e) fisheries subsidies and loans in Chapter VII. However, it lacks any mention of subsistence fisheries. In fact, Chapter IV-C Section 29b requires the municipal or city council to issue licenses to all fishing operators, except when it is beyond “… the power of the municipal or city council to impose a license for the privilege of gathering marine mollusca or the shells thereof, for pearling boats and pearl divers, or for prospecting, collecting, or gathering sponges or other aquatic products, or for the culture of fishery/aquatic products”.  Thus, the gleaning of invertebrates is effectively the only form of subsistence fishing considered. The catching of fish, even in small quantities for direct consumption by fishers as stipulated in (ii) above, is considered ‘municipal’ fishing.                                                       11 Presidential Decree No. 704 http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages/Legislation/presdecree704.html [accessed 23/10/2012] Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 5 Sea Around Us currently engaged in catch reconstructions for all maritime countries of the world has elaborated a set of definitions which will be used throughout this report, and which are compatible with the definitions of fisheries used in most of the English-speaking world. These definitions, however, differ sharply from those used in the Philippines, but which, we fear, mask rather than identify major differences between different fishery types in the Philippines (Table 1).  ‘Commercial’ fisheries  The ‘commercial fleet’, which we call ‘industrial’ (see Palomares and Pauly, this vol.), is directly under the jurisdiction of the national government, i.e., the Fish and Game Administration (Department of Agriculture and Commerce) in the 1930s, Division of Fisheries in the 1940s, post-WWII Bureau of Fisheries, and the current Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under the Department of Agriculture (BFAR 2012a). The national government decides on licenses, taxes and levies and the collection of fisheries data via monthly reports from registered (licensed) vessels as promulgated in the Presidential Decree No. 704 and by the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (Delmendo 1992). The Fisheries Code also redefined ‘commercial’ fisheries in three categories, i.e., small-scale (3.1-20 GT), medium-scale (20.1-150 GT), and large-scale ‘commercial’ vessels (>150 GT), respectively.  The average number of ‘commercial’ vessels in the 1960s was about 2,100, peaking at 2,544 in 1966 with an estimated 31,000 fishers in 1967 in both powered and non-powered boats (PFC 1969). The number of ‘commercial’ vessels tripled in 2007 to 6,400 vessels with an estimated 16,500 fishers in 2002 (BFAR 2009). The ‘commercial fleet’ employs trawls12 for demersal species and bagnets13, purse seines14, ringnets15, longlines16 with fish aggregating devices (FAD or ‘payao’) for pelagic species (Barut et al. 1997; Schoppe et al. 1998). Bagnets include muro-ami, an extremely destructive gear/fishing method introduced to the Philippines in the 1930s from Okinawa, and which uses a large bagnet held open by the current, with two detachable wings that guide fish (e.g., reef-associated species such as groupers), which are herded to the net by swimmers using scare lines. An operation may have as many as 7,000 swimmers, grouped in 200-300 individuals led by a master fisher and 4-5 assistant master fishers ferried by ~9 m long non-motorized bancas hosted in one or two ~47 m mothership of ~400 GT, i.e., with a capacity of about 180 t of fish in an operation that may last 2-3 months per trip (Corpuz et al. 1983). Major muro-ami fishing grounds included the Sulu-Celebes Sea and as far as the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Fisheries Administrative Order No. 163 amended Sections 4 and 7 of Presidential Decree No. 704 to ban the use of muro-ami and its local versions in 1986.17 However, BFAR permitted the use of muro-ami “… under the guise of a new name and a somewhat re-redesigned, experimental technology that supposedly avoided the traditional muro-ami’s well-known damage to coral reefs. The legality of this permit extended only to three months, but for unknown reasons the “new” muro-ami has continued to be defiantly practiced up to the present day” (Olofson et al. 2000, p. 224-225).  In 1969, these vessels were reported to have landed 0.4 million t, 80 % of which are spread over 11 species topped by round scads (of the genus Decapterus spp, 30 %), sardines (Sardinella spp, 9%) and slipmouths (Leiognathus spp, 8 %), with ‘miscellaneous species’ making up 2 % of the total reported landings (PFC 1969). This fleet’s reported landings increased 2.5 fold in 2007, 79 % of which are spread                                                      12 In the late 1950s, the otter trawl fishery of Manila Bay was assessed to have reached its maximum capacity and thus, bagnets and twin engine in larger trawlers were introduced to exploit the pelagic stocks outside of the Bay (Ronquillo et al. 1960). 13 Most common gear employed in the 1950s and 1960s (Storer 1967). 14 Gear developed via technical assistance and training from the FAO in the early 1960s because it had the potential to increase the catch of ‘basnigan’ (bagnet) from 3.5 to 35-100 t per trip (Storer 1967). 15 Also used in the ‘municipal’ fisheries to catch tunas and oceanic pelagic species (Olaño et al. 2009). 16 May also be used to catch some demersal species, i.e., lethrinids, polynemids, priacanthids and nemipterids (Jeremias and Ganaden 1983). 17 http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages/Legislation/FAO/fao163.html [accessed 24/10/2012]. Philippine marine fisheries 101, Palomares, MLD et al. 6 over 9 species topped by Indian sardines (genera Dussumieria and Thryssa, 21 %), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis, 16 %), and round scads (14 %), with miscellaneous species making up 17 % of the total reported landings (BFAR 2009). In addition, landings of tunas, i.e., yellowfin (Thunnus albacares), frigate (Auxis thazard), skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) and bonito (Auxis rochei), increased to almost 90 times from the 1960s figures. Also, previously important demersal species, such as lizard fishes (Synodontidae), shrimps (Decapoda) and croakers (Sciaenidae) considerably decreased in reported catches. These statistics (which we assume to be representative of the fleet, for now) help us to infer the following trends of the past 6-7 decades: (a) that there was a 4-fold decrease in the number of fishers per boat, which can be attributed to an increase in the efficiency of boats and gears, and thus loss of employment in many coastal communities; (b) that there was a 5-fold increase in the catch per ‘commercial’ fisher, likely due to the expansion of the fisheries to offshore areas; and (c) that the target species has shifted from predominantly demersal to mainly offshore pelagic, a result of the increasing focus on tuna and tuna-like species (see Morgan and Staples 2006, p. 16).  The increase in efficiency and capacity of motorized banca-type vessels (wooden outrigger boats, traditionally limited to fish in municipal waters) enabled them to reach offshore fishing areas. This was (and still is) facilitated by the government’s incentives in Article II Section 35 of the Fisheries Code of 1998 for ‘commercial’ fishing operators “… to fish farther in the EEZ and beyond, new incentives for improvement of fishing vessels and acquisition of fishing equipment shall be granted in addition to incentives already available from the Board of Investments (BOI)”.18  These incentives include long-term loans for vessel and equipment upgrades, tax-exemption on imported vessels, and duty and tax rebates on fuel consumption. Thus, artisanal operations turned industrial and expanded their operations to the outer edges of the Philippine EEZ and even to areas beyond Philippine jurisdiction and/or within disputed zones. However, as many of these 3 GT efficient vessels are allowed within municipal waters, they can also exploit near shore resources (Smith and Pauly 1983). Thus, the fine line that supposedly separated ‘commercial’ from ‘municipal’ became blurred (Delmendo 1992) and may be the origin either of an over-reporting of artisanal catch in offshore waters, e.g., “the attribution of all handline catches as municipal” Lewis (2004, p. 19), or of an under-reporting of ‘commercial’ catch in municipal waters. This issue is recalled in our synthesis chapter (Palomares and Pauly, this vol.)  ‘Municipal’ fisheries  The small-scale or artisanal fisheries, referred to as ‘municipal fisheries’ in Philippine parlance, is under the jurisdiction of the municipal government. The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act 7160) mandates “municipal governments to manage their municipal waters [that is within 15 kilometers of the shoreline and states that] Local government units (LFUs) shall share with the national government the responsibility in the management and maintenance of ecological balance within their territorial jurisdiction […]. LGUs were granted powers for effective governance [and] to enact municipal fisheries ordinances and enforce these as well” (Lopez 2006, p. 81-82).  ‘Municipal’ fishers traditionally fish from bancas, which may be as small as a one/two person paddle boat to as big as a 3 GT motorized vessel (but with engines of not more than 10 HP), according to conditions identified in item (ii) of the definitions above. The gears usually employed by municipal fishers range from cast/gill nets, hook and line, spear, traps and pots, barriers (Barut et al. 1997; CTI 2012). In the 1960s, “municipal or sustenance fishing [production] is the largest component […] accounting for 51 per cent of the total catch [… but represented …] a somewhat smaller share of value, 43 percent [… and employed] 65 per cent of those directly or indirectly engaged in the industry [260,000 of 400,000 then                                                      18 Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 3. Implementing rules and regulations pursuant to Republic Act No. 8550. The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 7 involved in Philippine fisheries, 3% of Philippine labor force …], but it is never in its individual or mass effect an efficient way of exploiting the resource or of providing a livelihood for its practitioners. […] The pressures upon these people to fish are tremendous and essentially add up to a complete lack of alternatives […]” (Storer 1967, p. 367). This condition, unfortunately, has not changed, and in many municipalities, has even deteriorated as evidenced by the various reports cited above.  The development of scaled-down industrial operations (‘baby trawlers’) led to intensive fishing in inshore waters and in waters less than 12.8 m deep, traditionally reserved for artisanal fisheries (Tapiador 1978; Pauly and Smith 1983; Cruz-Trinidad 1998). Thus, the highly heterogeneous municipal sector, which is clearly suffering from dwindling resources, as indicated by a minuscule and declining catch/day of individual fishers (Simpson 1979; Dalzell et al. 1987; Dickson 1987; Munoz 1991; Sunderlin 1994; Shannon 2002; Stobutzki et al. 2006; Muallil et al. 2012), and an ever increasing number of fishers, i.e., the ‘Malthusian overfishing’ of Pauly (2006), is linked to the ever-increasing industrial fleet, which obtains an increasing share of their ill-assessed catches from (mostly illegal) fishing in the waters of their neighbours, especially in Malaysia (Sabah) and Eastern Indonesia (Lewis 2004).  Subsistence or gleaning?  The term ‘subsistence’ was very recently redefined to categorize ‘municipal’ fishers whose livelihood is mainly “fishing and [whose] earnings fall below the food threshold; [who] uses the catch for a combination of purposes – family consumption, barter, and balik puhunan”, i.e., selling the fish caught to regain capital spent on fishing operations (CTI 2012). This amorphous use of the terms ‘municipal’ and ‘subsistence’ exacerbates the already difficult estimation of small-scale fisheries catches. In addition, this recent review by CTI (2012), suggested that ‘gleaning’, which was exempted from what was deemed as fishing in previous definitions by the 1975 Act and the 1998 Code, may be considered as ‘subsistence’ fishing.  Note, however, that in general, with the exception of some areas, such as the Visayas, where gathering shellfish is an established fishery (Floren 2003), or in the Sulu Sea, where sea cucumber fisheries are commercial operations (Subaldo 2011), most gleaned shellfish and invertebrates are either underestimated or not estimated at all. This is due, in part, to the misuse and resulting confusion of the terms ‘municipal’ and ‘subsistence’ (see Table 1) and possibly also because their catch is believed to be small  and/or consisting of species of low value. However, there are indications that gleaning provides for fishers affected by the recent decline in many of the municipal fishing operations (del Norte-Campos et al. 2005). Also, the “productivity of subsistence fishers in coral reef regions can be similar to the productivity of artisanal fisheries, although the latter has been considerably more studied” (Baran 2002-2012, p. 5).  Thus, for our purposes, we define subsistence fishing as a part of small-scale fisheries (see Table 1), and we will thus not discuss its separate estimation from that of the ‘municipal’ catch. However, we will consider ‘gleaning’ to be the gathering, for local consumption, of shellfish, invertebrates and shallow water or small fishes from the shoreline to the level of the receding tide, which may be performed with the use of implements or tools but without the use of boats.   Philippine marine fisheries 101, Palomares, MLD et al. 8    To collect statistics or not, is the question …  Due to the archipelagic nature of the Philippines, with monsoon seasons affecting a huge amount of marine biodiversity (over 3,200 fish species and about 10,000 invertebrates)19, no single (or small group of) species dominates its fisheries catches (Barut et al. 2003). In fact, even abundant taxa, such as ‘galunggong’ (i.e., ‘round scads’, of the genus Decapterus) consists of different species, and different populations, caught in different parts of bays, gulfs and seas, depending on the season (Alix 1976); none of these, even  if optimized in terms of increased biomass and lower fishing effort (and hence higher catches), would noticeably affect the total catch (Ronquillo 1975; Calvelo and Dalzell 1987).  The Philippines produces, publishes, and distributes annually immense amounts of extremely precise fisheries statistics (BFAR 2012b) that are readily cited by various non-government organizations (NGOs). However, the real catch of the marine fisheries is essentially unknown. Lack of funds and repeated reorganisations of the government divisions handling fisheries statistics prevented the establishment of a comprehensive fisheries data collection system dealing, to the same level of detail, with the catch of industrial, small-scale and subsistence fisheries (DNR 1976b; FIDC 1979). It took more than seven decades since the creation of the Division of Fisheries by the Philippine Commission under the Department of the Interior in 1901 (BFAR 2012a) before a structured fisheries statistics data collection system could be put in place (Chakraborty 1976). This was implemented after several training workshops for enumerators organized by the South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Programme in the mid-1970s (Chakraborty and Wheeland 1976). The first of a series of annual fisheries statistics accounting for all sectors was published by BFAR in 1977 (BFAR 2012a). Further changes in the governing institutions in the late 1980s transferred the responsibility of fisheries data collection from BFAR to the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics in 1988 (BFAR 2012a). Again, the continuous problems of funding, which has beset this sector in decades, prevented regular/consistent data collection until the 2000s with the support of foreign government aid (FAO-SEAFDEC 2005; Itano and Williams 2009).  ‘Commercial’ landing statistics were collected since 1954 by the Bureau of Fisheries (which later became the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources) for ten fishery districts (Simpson 1979), based on monthly catch reports of fishing operators. It was determined that these landings were “inadequate”, and they were summarily corrected by an expansion factor derived from monthly landings collected by enumerators from randomly sampled survey areas to estimate regional and national production values (DNR 1976b). Already then, the problem of obtaining reliable statistics of the catch and effort [… was] very real (Simpson 1979, p. 3). Storer (1967, p. 366) clearly describes one of the major problems besetting data collection in Philippine fisheries, which sadly is still happening today:  “Formidable difficulties also arise from the fact that most of the data are collected as an adjunct to the taxation system. All commercial fishery vessels are supposed to land their catch at one of the official landings. The boats tend, however, to arrive at about the same time, between 0300 and 0400 hours, in order to take advantage of the early morning retail market. The great number of vessels, most of them small, and the rapidity with which the catch is disposed of, make checking by the few wardens a haphazard affair.                                                       19 Based on the August 2012 versions of FishBase (www.fishbase.org) and SeaLifeBase (www.sealifebase.org). Though these two online biodiversity information systems probably have the most recent checklists of species for the Philippines, they are by no means complete as work on recent expeditions, e.g., by the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris, France) and the California Academy of Science (San Francisco, California, USA), will add new species descriptions to this list. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 9  Table 1. Types of capture fisheries considered in this study compared with terminology employed in the Philippines and some definitions regarding these. Type of capture fisheries considered in this study Terminology used in the Philippines Remarks Small-scale Municipal The term ‘municipal’ is associated with ‘municipality’, i.e., the local government authority. Recreational Rarely mentioned Spear fishing (considered a destructive form of fishing along with dynamiting and is prohibited) in conjunction with water sports (snorkeling and diving) is practiced mainly by tourists (especially from Japan and Korea) though not monitored by local authorities. Hook and line fishing from yachts privately operated by individuals or through tourism (may also be associated with diving tourism) also occur occasionally, though again not monitored by local authorities (see Espedido et al. this volume). Subsistence Rarely identified; Usually referred to as ‘sustenance’ Traditionally refer to the catching of fish either with or without the use of outrigger boats and/or canoes. True ‘subsistence fishing’ occurs in the Philippines in the form of reef gleaning (mostly for invertebrates), which is discussed at length in Palomares et al. and Cabanban et al. this volume. Artisanal Small-scale or municipal Artisanal fishers are small-scale fishers who sell the bulk of their catch; see below Large-scale/Industrial Commercial The term ‘commercial’ is associated with selling the landed catch, which is conceptually confusing, because artisanal fishers also sell theirs. ≈ 3 gross tons Municipal/small-scale commercial Motorized vessels of 3 gross tons and less have capability to fish offshore, but are also allowed to fish inshore (in municipal waters). > 3 gross tons Small-scale commercial Before the 1980s, only two categories were used in reporting the catches, i.e., boats >3 gross tons were considered commercial. Recent re-categorizations provide for a gradation of operations, as presented here. > 20 gross tons Medium-scale commercial Recent categorization. >150 gross tons Large-scale commercial Recent categorization.  Philippine marine fisheries 101, Palomares, MLD et al. 10  Operators of such vessels are also required to provide a monthly tally of the catch and to pay on the basis of this, 2 pesos per ton to the Fisheries Commission. In addition, on the basis of the same catch data, they are supposed to pay the Bureau of Internal Revenue a tax of 7 per cent of the value of the catch (ex-vessel price). The pressure of these two tax measures tends to distort the reporting of the data; the underreporting of the volume of the catch and a downgrading of the species of fish caught in order to provide, for the record, a lower value of fish landed. The estimates of the extent of this downward bias vary but they have run as high as 50 per cent on the volume and even higher on the value.  A further problem in obtaining reliable statistics is that the jurisdiction of the fisheries is divided between the federal government and municipalities. (The provincial governments have no authority in this instance.) The federal government licenses all boats of over 3 gross tons […]. On the other hand, the largest proportion of the total volume of catch is ascribed to the category of municipal or sustenance fishing. Over this fishery there is no effective control or statistical reporting. A tremendous degree of “guesstimating” enters into the statistical development of this component.”  Small-scale fisheries catches were estimated from only six municipal reports since 1951, which was discontinued later on (FIDC 1979). Since the 1960s, the catch of municipal fisheries has been estimated from the same fixed ratio for the relationship between small-scale and industrial catches (FIDC 1979). This ratio most likely originated from the projected increase of fisheries catches to respond to domestic demand, i.e., 6-7 %, needed for self-sufficiency in fish by 1976, and thus, for surplus production by 1977 (DNR 1976b).  Thus, it appears that even before the conjugal dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda-she-of-the-shoes-Marcos, the fisheries statistics generated showed regular catch increases, a distortion which has not been addressed since democracy was somehow restored in 1986.  MSY, CPUE, and what we actually know about catch trends  Numerous assessments of the status of fisheries in the Philippines were conducted, especially in the 1980s, when the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), then based in the Philippines, was very active. These analyses can be grouped into three categories:  i) Surplus-yield models pertaining to the demersal and/or pelagic fish of a local fishing ground; ii) Single- or multispecies yield-per-recruit analyses pertaining to a given fishing ground; iii) Philippine-wide analyses based either on data such as used in (i), (ii), or other approaches.  Though they tend to provide over-optimistic results (Pauly 1986), simple surplus-yield models (Schaefer 1954; Fox 1970) can be, and were used extensively in the Philippines, to assess the status of multispecies stocks and the demersal or pelagic fisheries exploiting them (Dalzell et al. 1987; Culasing 1988; Silvestre and Pauly 1997). These models, in the aggregate, suggested that the majority of fishing grounds in the Philippines, which were extremely productive in the 1950s and 1960s (Butcher 2004), were overfished by the late 1970s and/or 1980s.  This is confirmed by yield-per-recruit analyses, i.e., analyses of the ‘yield’ (or catch in weight) that could be obtained by letting individual fish grow to their optimum size, i.e., by regulating not only fishing intensity, but also mesh sizes, which determines size at first capture (Beverton and Holt 1957; see Figures 17 and 19). Analyses of this sort can be performed without detailed catch time series, given that the size composition of the catch is available (length-frequency data; Pauly 1998a). In fact, methods to analyze length-frequency data were developed throughout the 1980s by ICLARM (Pauly and Morgan 1985, 1987), and were applied to a vast number of stocks (see e.g., Floyd and Pauly 1984). Jointly, these Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 11 analyses confirm that from the 1980s onwards, Philippine marine fishes were massively ‘growth overfished’ throughout the country.  Conclusions  Considering the above assessment of the fisheries statistics of the Philippines, the report of which this contribution is a part, we will attempt to re-estimate catch statistics which may better approximate the catch that was actually realized. The methodology applied for this is detailed in the next contribution, by Palomares and Pauly (this vol.) and its applications to 4 groups of regions, each representing about a quarter of the Philippine EEZ (‘subzones’), of different fisheries types (small-scale, industrial and gleaning) in the subsequent contributions. A final contribution by Palomares and Pauly (this vol.) then combines these regional catch estimates into a new reconstruction of the total marine catch of the Philippines, and discusses some of its implications.  Acknowledgements  We wish to thank Marco Heras for formatting Philippine vessel data and Marianne P. Saniano for integrating the Philippine fisheries database with the FishBase and SeaLifeBase taxonomic structure. This is a contribution of Sea Around Us, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and the Pew Charitable Trusts.  References  ADB (1993) Fisheries Sector Profile of the Philippines. Agriculture Department, Division 1, Asian Development Bank, Manila , Philippines.  Alix JC (1976) Survey of fish catch landed and unloaded at the Navotas fish landing and market authority in Navotas, Metro Manila. Fisheries Research Journal of the Philippines 1(2): 50-61. Anonymous. 1979. Fisheries: self-sufficiency soon. MNR Quarterly 1(1): 28-30. Barut NC, Santos MD, Mijares LL, Subade R, Armada NB and Garces LR (2003) Philippine coastal fisheries situation. In: Silvestre G, Garces LR, Stobutzki I, Ahmed M, Valmonte-Santos RA, Luna C, Lachica-Aliño L, Munro P, Christensen V and Pauly D (eds.), Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries, p. 885-914. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines. Bautista LB (2008) The historical context and legal basis of the Philippine treaty limits. Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 10: 1-31. BFAR (1978) Fisheries development and management in Southeast Asia. Spotlight on the Philippines. ICLARM Newsletter (July 1978): 8-10. BFAR (2009) Philippine fisheries profile 2009. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Quezon City, Philippines. 37 p. p.  BFAR (2012a) History of the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Quezon City, Philippines BFAR (2012b) Philippine Fisheries Profile 2009. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Quezon City, Philippines. Available at: http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages/AboutUs/maintabs/publications/publications_09May2012.html. BFAR (2012c) Philippine fishery legislations. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Quezon City, Philippines; http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages/Legislation/philfisheryleg.html accessed 23/10/2012. Briones RM (2007) Eating for a lifetime: filling the policy gaps in Philippine fisheries. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development 4(1): 25-39. Calvelo R and Dalzell P (1987) A review of the recent status of exploited stocks of roundscads in the Philippines. Symposium on the Exploitation and Management of Marine Fishery Resources in Southeast Asia, 16-19 Feb 1987, Darwin (Australia). 257-268 p. Carpenter KE, Barber PH, Crandall ED, Ablan-Lagman MCA, Ambariyanto, Mahardika GN, Manjaji-Matsumoto BM, Juinio-Meñez MA, Santos MD, Starger CJ and Toha AHA (2011) Comparative phylogeography of the Coral Triangle and implications for marine management. Journal of Marine Biology. Volume 2011, Article ID 396982, 14 pages, doi:10.1155/2011/396982. Hindawi Publishing Corp. Carpenter KE and Springer VG (2005) The center of the center of marine shore fish biodiversity: the Philippine islands. Environmental Biology of Fishes 72: 467-480. Chakraborty D (1976) Fisheries statistics in the Philippines. A plan for a new and expanded data collection programme. South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Programmes, Manila, Philippines.  Philippine marine fisheries 101, Palomares, MLD et al. 12 Chakraborty D and Wheeland HA (1976) Report on the training workshop for field enumerators of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. South China Sea Development and Coordinating Programme, Manila, Philippines.  Cruz-Trinidad A (2003) Socioeconomic and bioeconomic performance of Philippine fisheries in the recent decades. In: Silvestre G, Garces LR, Stobutzki I, Ahmed M, Valmonte-Santos RA, Luna C, Lachica-Aliño L, Munro P, Christensen V and Pauly D (eds.), Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries, p. 543-576. WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. CTI (2012) Improving fish catch statistics collection in the Philippines with focus on subsistence fisheries. Regional Cooperation on Knowledge Management, Policy and Institutional Support to the Coral Triangle [www.coraltriangleinitiative.net]. DA-BFAR (2004) In Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries. Coastal Resources Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p. DANR-PFC (1969) Fisheries statistics of the Philippines 1969. Philippine Fisheries Commission. Fisheries Information Division, Manila, Philippines. 106 p. + appendices p.  del Norte-Campos AGC, Campos WL and Villarta KA (2005) A survey of macro-invertebrate gleaning in the Banate Bay intertidal area, Eastern Panay Island. Science Diliman 17(2): 11-20. Delmendo MN (1992) Socioeconomic considerations of territorial use rights in fisheries. In: Garcia MPJ (ed.) Policies and Issues on Philippine Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, p. 35-42. Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development, Department of Science and Technology, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. Dickson, JO (1987) Panguil Bay, Philippines: the cause of its over-exploitation and suggestion for its rehabilitation. In: Symposium on the Exploitation and Management of Marine Fishery Resources in Southeast Asia held in conjunction with the Twenty-second session of the Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission, Darwin, Australia, 16-26 February 1987, p. 218-234. RAPA/REPORT: 1987/10. Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission. DNR (1976) Fisheries and Aquatic Resources: Inventory of Natural Resources. Technical Report, Philippine Department of Natural Resources, Quezon City, Philippines.  FAO (2004-2012) Fishery and aquaculture country profiles. Philippines. Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_PH/en. FIDC (1979) Philippine Fisheries: Major Developments in the 1970s and Directions for the 1980's. Fishery Industry Development Council, Quezon City, Philippines. 72 + p. Floren, A.S. (2003) The Philippine shell industry with special focus on Mactan, Cebu. Report of the Coastal Resource Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to the United States Agency for International Development. 50 p. Floyd, J., Pauly, D. (1984) Smaller size tuna around the Philippines - can fish aggregating devices be blamed? Infofish Marketing Digest 5/84: 25-27. Green SJ, White AT, Flores JO, Carreon MFI and Sia AE (2003) Philippine fisheries in crisis: a framework for management. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.  Hoeksema BW (2007) Delineation of the Indo-Malayan centre of maximum marine biodiversity: the Coral Triangle. In Renema W (ed.), Biogeography, Time, and Place: Distributions, Barriers and Islands, p. 117-178. Springer. Israel DC (1999) Research and development in the Philippine fisheries sector. Discussion Paper Series, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Makati City, Philippines. 64 p.  Israel DC and Banzon CP (2000) Overfishing in the Philippine marine fisheries sector. IDRC Research Report, IDRC Regional Office for Southeast and East Asia, Singapore. Available at: http://www.eepsea.net/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=281:overfishing-in-the-philippine-marine-fisheries-sector&Itemid=192. Israel DC and Roque RMGR (1999) Toward the sustaniable development of the fisheries sector: an analysis of the Philippine Fisheries Code and Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act 12. Philippine Institution for Development Studies Discussion Paper, Philippine Institution for Development Studies, Makati City, Philippines.  Itano DG and Williams PG (2009) Review of bigeye and yellowfin tuna catches landed in Palawan, Philippines. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.  Jeremias ZC and Ganaden SR (1983) The status of Tayabas Bay fisheries in the 1980s. PCAMRD Book Series, Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. 26-27 p.  Lachica-Alino L, Wolff M and David LT (2006) Past and future fisheries modeling approaches in the Philippines. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 16(2): 201-212. Lewis AD (2004) Review of the tuna fisheries and the tuna fishery statistical system in the Philippines. 1st Meeting of the Scientific Committee, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia.  Lopez NA (2006) Governance and institutional changes in fisheries in the Philippines. In: Siar, SV, Ahmed, M, Kanagaratnam, U and Muir, J (eds.), Governance and institutional changes in fisheries: issues and priorities for research, p. 79-97. WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. Lugten G and Andrew N (2008) Maximum sustainable yield of marine capture fisheries in developing archipelagic states - balancing law, science, polities and practice. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 23: 1-37. Luna CZ, Silvestre G, Carreon MFI, White AT and Green SJ (2004) Profiling the status of Philippine marine fisheries: a general introduction and overview. Coastal Resource Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 13 Morgan GR and Staples DJ (2006) The history of industrial marine fisheries in Southeast Asia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand. 28 p.  Munoz JC (1991) Manila Bay: status of its fisheries and management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 23: 4. NSO (2012) Population and annual growth rates for the Philippines and its regions, provinces, and highly urbanized cities based on 1990, 2000, and 2010 censuses. National Statistics Office of the Philippines [http://www.census.gov.ph/content/2010-census-population-and-housing-reveals-philippine-population-9234-million; accessed 10/10/2012]. Olaño VL, Vergara MB and Gonzales FL (2009) Assessment of the fisheries of Lagonoy Gulf (Region V). BFAR-NFRDI Technical Paper Series 12, BFAR-NFRDI. 31 p. Olofson H, Cañizares B and de Jose F (2000) A people in travail I: labor relations history of veteran muro-ami fisherfolk in the Central Philippines. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 28: 224-262. Pauly D (1986) A brief historical review of living marine resources research in the Philippines, p. 3-18. In: D. Pauly, J. Saeger and G. Silvestre (eds.). Resources management and socioeconomics of Philippine marine fisheries. Technical Reports of the Department of Marine Fisheries, University of the Philippines in the Visayas, College of Fisheries, Iloilo, Philippines.  Pauly D (2006) Major trends in small-scale marine fisheries, with emphasis on developing countries, and some implications for the social sciences. Maritime Studies (MAST) 4(2): 7-22. PDNR (1976) Inventory of Natural Resources: Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Technical Report, Philippine Department of Natural Resources, Manila, Philippines.  Randall JE (1998) Zoogeography of shore fishes of the Indo-Pacific region. Zoological Studies 37(4): 227-268. Rivera R, Turcotte D, Alexander B-H, Pangilinan J and Santos R (2002) Aquatic resources in the Philippines and the extent of poverty in the sector., STREAM, Bangkok, Thailand. 135 p.  Ronquillo IA (1975) A review of the roundscad fishery in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Fisheries 2(1-2): 86-126. Ronquillo IA, Caces-Borja P and Mines AN (1960) Preliminary observations on the otter trawl fishery of Manila Bay. Philippine Journal of Fisheries 8(1): 47-56. Salayo N, Garces LR, Pido M, Viswanathan K, Pomeroy RS, Ahmed M, Siason I, Seng K and Masae A (2008) Managing excess capacity in small-scale fisheries: perspectivies from stakeholders in three Southeast Asian countries. Marine Policy 32: 692-700. Schoppe S, Seronay RA and Milan PP (1998) Floating fish aggregating devices (FADs) around Cuatro Islas, Leyte, Philippines: Their impact on fisheries. 475-488 p. SEAFDEC (2011) Fishery Statistical Bulletin of Southeast Asia 2009. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, Bangkok, Thailand. 149 p.  SEAFDEC (2012) The Southeast Asian State of Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012., Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, Bangkok, Thailand. 130 p. Shannon D (2002) The future of municipal fisheries in the Philippines: does the Philippine Fisheries Code do enough? Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 11(3): 717-743. Silvestre, G and Pauly, D (Editors) (1997) Status and Management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 53, 208 p  Simpson AC (1979) Report of the BFAR/SCSP Workshop on the Fishery Resources of the North and Western Coasts of Luzon, 18-20 April 1979, Manila, Philippines. South China Sea fisheries development and coordinating programme., Rome.  Spoehr A (1984) Change in Philippine capture fisheries: an historical overview. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 12(1): 25-56. Stobutzki IC, Silvestre GT, Abu Talib A, Krongprom A, Supongpan M, Khemakorn P, Armada N and Garces LR (2006) Decline of demersal coastal fisheries resources in three developing Asian countries. Fisheries Research 78: 130-142. Storer JA (1967) Aspects of fisheries in the developing Philippine economy. Studies in Tropical Oceanography 5: 363-374. Subaldo MC (2011) Gleaning, drying and marketing practices of sea cucumber in Davao del Sur, Philippines. JPAIR Multicisplinary Journal 6: 117-126. Sunderlin WD (1994) Resource decline and adaptation through time: fishers in San Miguel Bay, Philippines, 1980-1993. Ocean and Coastal Management 25: 217-232. Tapiador, DD (1978) Fisheries extension and technology generation and transfer in some Asian countries. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center Extension Bulletin, Taiwan (113):10. WB (1991) Project completion report. Philippines. National Fisheries Development Project (Loan 2156-PH). 25 p.  WB (2005) Philippines Environment Monitor 2005: Coastal and Marine Resource Management. World Bank Philippines Country Office, Pasig City, Philippines.  Reconstructing Philippine marine fisheries catches, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D 14 Reconstructing Philippine marine fisheries catches: a rationale and a methodology20  M.L.D. Palomares and D. Pauly  Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, V6T 1Z4; Email: m.palomares@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.ca   Abstract  The standard methods developed by Sea Around Us for catch reconstructions are presented and adapted to Philippine conditions. Artisanal catches were reconstructed using independent (from national statistics) estimates of annual catch per fisher and national fisheries census estimates of number of fishers. Subsistence fishing was equated with gleaning and annual catch per gleaner estimates were combined with the number of subsistence fishers (assumed to be women and children aged 10-14 in rural coastal communities) to obtain subsistence catches. Industrial catches were obtained from national statistics estimates with a top up of 20-40 %, assuming that, on average, 30-50 % of the total industrial catches are unreported. It was assumed that discards, where they are reported, are small and usually made up of incidental catches of whales, dolphins, sea turtles and sea snakes, and thus can be largely ignored from this analysis.  Rationale  The world’s fisheries are in crisis – everybody knows that. This crisis is frequently reported in terms of the fate of individual species or groups – bluefin tuna turned into sushi, or sharks used for shark fin soup. Actually it is the demise of marine ecosystems that we are facing, i.e., of the systems in which these and other fishes are embedded, and which enable them to maintain themselves. And marine ecosystems, throughout the world, do much more than support emblematic food species; notably they produce the prey of marine mammals and seabirds, and last but not least, support thousands of fishers who contribute to the food security of over 1 billion people, besides providing jobs – directly or indirectly – to hundreds of millions.  But what do we know about global fisheries? Essentially, all we know is what member countries choose to report to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) – and that is not much. Contrary to the situation prevailing with other major food commodities (e.g., rice), for which numerous databases exist (FAO, Rome; U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington DC; International Centre for Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines), there is only one global database for fish captures, that of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).  Research conducted in the last 10 years by Sea Around Us of the University of British Columbia shows that the FAO database of fisheries catches is deficient (Watson and Pauly 2001), not in regards to quibbles one could have with this or that country’s estimate being imprecise, but profoundly, such that policy decisions based on its numbers are fundamentally misleading (Zeller and Pauly 2005; Zeller et al. 2007; Jacquet et al. 2008; Jacquet et al. 2010; Varkey et al. 2010; Le Manach et al. 2012). This also applies to the Philippines, whose catch statistics, notably because their collection is closely associated                                                      20 Cite as: Palomares, M.L.D., Pauly, D. (2014) Reconstructing Philippine marine fisheries catches: a rationale and a methodology. In: Palomares, M.L.D., Pauly, D. (eds.), Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950 to 2010, p. 14-28. Fisheries Centre Research Report 22(1). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 15 with the collection of taxes (see Palomares et al. this vol.), are widely seen as inaccurate. The contributions in this report will provide the basis for a hopefully more accurate ‘reconstructed’ marine catch time series for the Philippines.  Methodology  Fisheries catch statistics are the basic blocks in the management of fisheries resources. Thus, we cannot but reiterate the importance of reliable statistics in structuring viable resource management strategies, notably in the setting of catch limits, in the implementation of fishing restrictions, and in predicting the capacity of the fisheries resources to supply fish demand within and outside of a country. Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and total allowable catch (TAC) were identified by the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (Chapter I Section 2d; Chapter II Section 7)21 as limiting factors to the development of the fisheries. Unfortunately, even in cases where data are available, the use of MSY is not “extensively applied in practice” because of the lack of baselines and the associated scientific training and understanding needed to establish these baselines (Lugten and Andrew 2008, p. 30). Furthermore, the amorphous definitions applied to the different fisheries sectors highlighted in Palomares et al. (this vol.) make it difficult to separate the catches of these sectors, notably by trawlers of 3GT, which are considered small-scale (i.e., ‘municipal’ in the Philippines), operating outside and within the municipal water boundaries. We thus cannot take the statistics presented by the FAO for the Philippines at face value because we know that there are inherent problems associated with their assembly.  The reconstruction process we employed for the Philippines applies a specific terminology used in the different sectors of the marine capture fisheries of all maritime countries (Table 1). This terminology is used throughout this report to avoid the confusion caused by the local usages. The reconstruction methodology described in Pauly (1998) and laid out in Zeller and Pauly (2007) was modified to account for the bias created by the inadequacies inherent in the national marine capture fisheries data collection scheme, following the steps below:  1. National and FAO catch statistics were assembled for the Philippines and the transfer of official data from the Philippines to FAO was assessed by comparing these two data sets; 2. The national statistics assembled in (1) were separated for each region, lumped into 4 subzones (see Figure 1) and categorized as industrial and artisanal fisheries; any recorded or observed discards were added to industrial fisheries (see Appendix A); 3. Number of fishers by sector were obtained from Census of Fisheries reports by the National Statistics Office of the Philippines (NSO) and from the Census of Population and Housing reports of the NSO (see Appendix B); 4. Estimates of daily and annual artisanal catch per fisher (c/f) per subzone were assembled from the literature and used to define temporal trends of c/f; 5. Artisanal catches in (2) were replaced by the product of the predicted number of fishers from (3) and the predicted catch per fisher from (4) for the 1950-2010 period; 6. Subsistence and gleaning catches missing from (1 and 2) were estimated independently, as were recreational catches; Catches obtained in (2), (5) and (6) were summed up by region to obtain the Philippine total catch time series from 1950-2010 (see Appendix C); 7. Catches in (6) were disaggregated by major species groups exploited by the Philippine marine fisheries fleets using average percent species composition of the reported catch by decade (see Appendix D); the species composition of the nearest decade was employed in cases where no data is available, e.g., the 1960s species composition was assumed similar to, and thus used for the 1950s.                                                       21 http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages/Legislation/fisheriescodera8550.html Reconstructing Philippine marine fisheries catches, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D 16 Note that the national data collection scheme for industrial fisheries represents a longer time series and is based on monthly fish catch reports of registered operators in major ports or landing centers (which was later extended to minor ports; see also Palomares et al. this vol.). The compiled and consolidated statistics were raised to a factor of 3 (during the experimental stage of data compilation by the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics in 1988); this correction factor was increased to 4 (in the 1990s) to account for the underreporting of catches (E. Ocampo, Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, Municipal Fisheries Statistics Section pers. comm.). Given this information, and some indications of the extent of underreporting from published sources, we assumed that the national statistics for the industrial sector can be accepted, with corrections as noted in (2) above.  The same, however, cannot be assumed for the artisanal catches because this sector has not been properly monitored for the reasons mentioned in the above rationale and given in Palomares et al. (this vol.). A data collection system analogous to that of the industrial statistics data collection scheme for the artisanal sector was implemented only after 1976. However, the sampling design only required the monthly data collection from 6 major ports and 3 minor ports out of the almost 2,000 municipal landing sites (E. Ocampo pers. comm.). Ports for sampling are selected using a table of random numbers. Sampling did not come from the monthly catch reports of registered operators, but from results of interviews conducted by data enumerators with individual fishers landing their catch at the selected sites (E. Ocampo pers. comm.). We consider this method inadequate, which justifies our step (3) above.  This data collection method also renders difficult the collection of catch from subsistence fishing and even less likely the catch from gleaning. To obtain reliable data on this sector, separate studies were conducted, specifically on gleaning in 3 regions complemented with scattered data available from studies in other regions. The number of gleaners (i.e., women and children in coastal villages) was obtained from national census reports, where available. This enabled estimation of the ratio of the artisanal fishing population that is composed of women and children (aged 10-14 years) by region. Regional estimates of the number of women and children were then multiplied with the set of Philippine-wide average of annual catch per gleaner obtained from the regional studies.  Illegal, unreported and unregistered (IUU) fishing is discussed in some reports outside of government monitoring schemes (see Philippine report in Ganapathiraju et al. 2008). Storer (1967) noted that in the 1960s, unreported catches may have been as high as 50 %, though it varied according to the value of the target species. Davies et al. (2009) estimated a 31.2 % bycatch of juvenile fishes of the total landed catch by the marine fisheries in 2000-2003 caught by the illegal (as per Fisheries Administrative Order No. 237) small-meshed nets used by the bottom trawl fleet. An informant, who has worked most of his adult life within the fishing industry, observes that, as far as he can remember, in areas where offshore (handline, longline and purse seine) fisheries are predominant, the common practice is to report only 70 % of the catch, most probably leaving out bycatch of large pelagics, like marlins and billfishes, protected under the CITES, e.g., 14 % of the non-tuna catch of Philippine handliners (Gillett 2011). Thus, our sources appear to agree that the level of IUU catches may be around 30 %. The raising factor (average of 10.5 %; see Appendix A for calculations of differences between FAO and national statistics) applied by the national government to adjust landings reported by the industrial fisheries, where illegal fishing (e.g., muro-ami or juvenile tuna caught with fish aggregating devices, see Bailey et al. 2012), is most likely to have an impact, may already correct for this. Thus, by accepting this raising factor, our estimate of illegal fishing will be that fraction of the catch added by the raising factor applied to industrial catches, plus an additional 20 %, which accounts for the estimated 30 % underreporting.  Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 17 Table 1. A guide to terms employed in this report and caveats on their use. Term Definition Remarks Production 1) The elaboration of biomass through anabolic processes (e.g., primary production; fish growth); 2) The sum of fisheries and aquaculture yields. ‘Production’ should not be used for fisheries catch, as fishing doesn’t produce fish; aquaculture may be viewed as ‘producing’ fish. Catch(es) The fish killed by a fishing gear, whether this fish are eventually landed or not. ‘Catch’ is often used instead of ‘landings’, but this omits fish that were discarded. Bycatch Fish that are caught by a gear without being targeted. Bycatch may be landed or discarded. The term ‘bycatch’ should not be used when discards are meant, and vice-versa. Discards Fish that are discarded, i.e., that are caught, but not landed. Discards are not equivalent to ‘bycatch’. In fact, some of the targeted fish may be eventually discarded, i.e., at ‘high-grading’. IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (fishing or catch). IUU should not be used as a shorthand formula for ‘illegal’ fishing. In fact, it is probably unreported fishing that generates the highest IUU catches. Fishing conducted using ‘prohibited’ gear, e.g., dynamite, cyanide, spear fishing, small-meshed nets, etc. maybe reported as ‘illegal’ within the artisanal sector. Fish obtained by muro-ami fishing maybe reported as ‘illegal’ within the industrial sector. Landings The fraction of the catch that is brought to landing places and recorded. Usually, in reports and databases (including FAO’s ‘catch’ database), it is ‘landings’ that reported on, not catches. Fishes Usually members of the vertebrate class ‘Pisces’ when fisheries are discussed. ‘Fish’ can also include aquatic invertebrates such as shrimps and cephalopods but not plants and marine mammals, though these might also be included in the FAO database. Artisanal Small-scale fishing conducted in view of selling the catch; fishing effected within municipal waters, i.e., inshore, with gears used typically by the artisanal fleet.  Also referred to as ‘municipal’. The definition of artisanal fishing in the Philippines is of the fleet of boats weighing 3 gross tonnes and less. This definition does not account for the fact that boats of 3 t can deploy gears (such as bottom trawls) similar to those deployed by industrial vessels.  Industrial Fishing by large vessels, whose catch is landed in fishing ports.  Also referred to as ‘commercial’. This is here considered to also include boats of 3 t deploying dragged gears such as trawls either within or outside of municipal waters. Recreational Fishing conducted mainly for enjoyment (Cisneros-Montemayo and Sumaila 2010) Includes fish caught by spear (with and without SCUBA) and line fishers (in and out of tournaments). Subsistence Fishing effected within municipal waters, and where the bulk of the catch is used for household consumption. Fishing for fish with or without the use of motored and/or non-motored boats. If the catch is sold at a landing center, e.g., to cover the cost of fishing, is considered artisanal. Gleaning Picking of invertebrates for consumption. Usually, picked invertebrates are consumed and not sold. However, existing fisheries for the shell and sea cucumber industries are considered industrial. Municipal waters Within 15 km of the shoreline and/or in waters not more than 13 m deep. Waters deeper than 13 m, irrespective of their distance from the shoreline are trawlable and may be exempted from this municipal definition; the lifting of this limit is decided on by the governing municipal authority.  Reconstructing Philippine marine fisheries catches, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D 18  Figure 1. The UNCLOS mandated Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Philippines,  showing the four ‘subzones’ (A-D)  to which we have allocated the 15 administrative regions and  84 maritime provinces reporting marine landings to the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (redrawn by Mr. Mike Yap from a composite of several open source maps).   There are in the Philippines very few instances where discarding is practiced (Kelleher 2009). Matsuoka (2008) estimated the discards in the Philippines to have made up 0.1% of the national catch in 2005. Selorio et al. (2008) estimated a 3% discard rate for the stationary lift net fishery in Panay Gulf, which targets sergestid shrimps, sardines and anchovies (notably juvenile fishes; see also Pauly 1996). Anon (1993) reported an average of 1.76% bycatch, with an average of 1.05% tuna discards and 0.38% other Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 19 species discards (albacore, blue marlin, kawakawa, mackerel, rainbow runner) by the tuna purse seine fleets for the period 1975-1991. However, most fish bycatch by both artisanal and industrial sectors is used (Anon 2006), either for fish meal production or dried fish processing, fermented fish products (Owens and Mendoza 1985), convenience food (Marfori et al. 1991) or, in some offshore industrial fishing operations, given to fishers as their take home in-kind remuneration in addition to their salaries when the catch is a particularly good one (Mr. Pablo Mendoza, an octogenarian and retired fisher from Mabini, Batangas pers. comm.). Thus, it is safe to say that there are practically no discards in Philippine marine capture fisheries, and if there are, they would be composed of non-fish bycatch, i.e., sea turtles (Bagarinao 2011), whales and dolphins (Dolar 1994).  Materials  FAO marine capture fisheries statistics pertaining to the Philippines were downloaded from the FAO website. National statistics were obtained from annual reports issued by the different government agencies, mainly the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), which handled the collection of fisheries statistics in the Philippines. Table 2 presents these data sources and indicates the period and sector each data source covered.   Table 2. Sources of official and national statistics on total annual Philippine marine capture fisheries used in this analysis (see Appendix A for detailed national statistics). Year/Period Reporting agency Remarks 1950-2010 Food and Agriculture Organization (UN) Total marine landings 1951-1979 Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Marine artisanal and industrial fisheries landings 1980-2011 Bureau of Agricultural Statistics Marine artisanal and industrial fisheries landings   Using regional statistics for the reconstruction of artisanal fisheries catches  In order to reduce the bias created by the (non-) random sampling design mentioned above for artisanal fisheries, and to establish the behavior of and trends in the fisheries of each region, the catch statistics specific to the 15 Philippine regions were grouped into the four subzones of Figure 1, as shown in Table 3. These subzones basically represent northern Luzon (A), southern Luzon including Palawan and its associated islands (B), the Visayas group of islands (C) and Mindanao, including the small island group of Tawi-Tawi (D). The fisheries of each subzone vary according to the resources and the topography of the coast. Thus, descriptions of the regions included in each subzone form parts of the four chapters dealing with the artisanal catch reconstructions. This is complemented by 2 chapters dealing with gleaning and one devoted to recreational fishing, which are followed by a synthesis chapter which also discusses the industrial fisheries.  Using independent estimates of annual catch per fisher  Pauly (2000), based on data in Censo de las Islas Filipinas (1905), calculated that in 1900, the average annual catch per fisher (c/f) was 4.2 t, given a countrywide catch of 500,000 t, and a number of fishers estimated at 119,000. This 1900 estimate was used as the baseline for the annual c/f for the Philippines as a whole, for artisanal fisheries.  Estimates of annual catch and number of fishers were obtained from the scientific literature, e.g., of distinct fisheries (Pauly 1982; Campos et al. 1994). Annual catch per unit effort from different studies, Reconstructing Philippine marine fisheries catches, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D 20 when available, were used to estimate c/f. These were averaged if multiple studies were available for a year, or in blocks of 3-5 years. These estimates were obtained using one of the following steps:   Stable estimates of catch per day were obtained and multiplied with the number of days fished by artisanal fishers per year;  Total annual municipal catch in a given area (without the number of fishers) was obtained and divided by the number of fishers in that small area;  Gross income of small-scale fishers in a given area was divided by the average ex-vessel price of fish, to infer the average c/f.   Table 3. Philippine administrative regions and the size of their constituencies measured in the number of provinces, cities, municipalities and inhabitants. These 15 regions represent 80 provinces, 140 cities and 1494 municipalities. Note the importance of subzones B and C (with large ‘inland seas’) in terms of number of municipalities, and thus number of potential fishers. Data from the National Statistical Coordination Board (www.nscb.gov.ph), with population data for 1 May 2010. Region Name Zone Provinces Cities Municipalities Population (millions) I Ilocos A 4 9 116 4.75 II Cagayan Valley A 5 3 90 3.23 III Central Luzon A 7 13 117 10.1 IV-A CALABARZON B 5 16 126 12.6 IB-B MIMAROPA B 5 2 71 2.74 V Bicol B 6 7 107 5.42 NCR National Capital Region B 0 16 1 11.9 VI Western Visayas C 6 16 117 7.10 VII Central Visayas C 4 16 116 6.80 VIII Eastern Visayas C 6 7 136 4.10 IX Zamboanga Peninsula D 3 5 67 3.41 X Northern Mindanao D 5 9 84 4.30 XI Davao D 4 6 43 4.47 XII Soccsksargen D 4 5 45 4.11 XIII Caraga D 5 6 67 2.43 ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao D 5 2 116 3.26   Linear regression analyses of c/f versus year were performed in cases where at least 10 independent c/f estimates were available per area. In cases where the c/f estimates varied widely, a line was drawn which linked the geometric mean of the available, more recent estimates and the 1900 base value. The resulting empirical equations were used to predict annual c/f values for 1950-2010, the period equivalent to available FAO and national statistics data. In cases where only 2-3 c/f estimates were available, interpolations between available estimates were obtained using the slope of two values, i.e., Catchyear2 – Catchyear1 / Year2-Year1, in order to fill in gaps within the 1950-2010 period.  In cases where estimates of annual c/f were not available for a given area, values between adjacent subzones within a group were interpolated. However, this rule was not followed for c/f estimates between the four subzones because the fleet and target species between non-adjacent areas are assumed to differ. Thus, it was imperative that at least one region in each subzone had a good c/f estimate, representative of, or typical of, the fishery in that region.  This methodology was also applied to subsistence catch, with Palomares et al. (this vol.) and Cabanban et al. (this vol.) included, for their respective subzones, as independent estimates of catch per gleaner. The Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 21 estimate of 5.2 kg·gleaner-1·day-1 obtained by Palomares et al. (this vol.) was used as the baseline, i.e., the highest catch (made up of a variety of fish and invertebrates) estimated for Subzone B for 1950, for subsistence catch.  Using demographics data to estimate annual number of artisanal and subsistence fishers  Provincial population and household reports published by the National Statistics Office (NSO) of the Philippines for 1970, 1980, and 1995 were used to obtain fisher population estimates. The number of urban and rural fishers were disaggregated into fishers (both female and male) 10-14 years of age, female >=15 years old and male >=15 years old. In addition, Census of Agriculture and Fisheries (CAF22) reports from the NSO for 1970 and 1980 were consulted to obtain the number of fishing operators and their household members by region. The CAF reports identified fishers according to the sector, age group and gender, and amount of time spent fishing. In 2012, the National Statistics Office launched the Registry System in Basic Sectors in Agriculture (RSBSA), a system that “aims to list and register farmers, farm labourers and fisherfolk nationwide and gather basic information on them”23. The NSO via Mrs. Carmelita N. Ericta (Administrator) kindly provided us with the 2012 RSBSA results of the number of registered fishers for a preliminary batch of 20 provinces (see Appendix B). Finally, independent estimates of the total number of fishers in the Philippines by the FAO (Villareal et al. 2004) and SEAFDEC (2012) permitted comparison with those obtained from the NSO reports.  These data sets were assembled (Appendix B) and used to estimate the average proportion of artisanal and industrial fishers as well as the average proportion of women and children in fisher communities per region. Several assumptions were made, viz.:   Children 10-14 years of age were most likely gleaning with their mothers; thus, unless explicitly categorized, e.g., children employed in muro-ami operations, both groups were included in the subsistence fishers group;  Male rural fishers ages >15 years, if not explicitly categorized in a sector, were included in the artisanal fishers group; fishers employed in major urban areas were assumed to be employed by the industrial fishing sector; this classification was applied to number of fishers data from the Census of Population and Housing reports of the NSO;  Full-time (or permanent) fishers were assumed to work all-year round in the fishery and thus given a weight of 1; part-time fishers were assumed to work only half of the year and thus given a weight of 0.5; occasional (or peak season) fishers are assumed to be employed only during the peak periods (about 3 months of the year) and thus given a weight of 0.25; this weighting system was applied to number of fishers data from the Census of Fisheries reports of the NSO;  The crew of vessels <3 gross tons (GT), non-motorized vessels or those fishing without vessels and selling their catch were classified as artisanal fishers, while those who report that they fish for their own consumption were classified as subsistence fishers;  The crew of vessels =3GT were divided into 2, one half was added to the number of artisanal fishers and the other half to the number of industrial fishers, because these fishers do not board industrial fishing vessels the whole year and tend to join the artisanal fishing fleet when small industrial vessels are grounded during the monsoon season. Note, however, that the catch of such vessels (e.g., ‘baby trawlers’) are considered only as industrial catch;  The crew of vessels >=3GT were classified as industrial fishers; the vessel crew classification system was applied to number of fishers data from the Census of Fisheries reports of the NSO.                                                       22 See http://www.census.gov.ph/content/census-agriculture-and-fisheries-caf for more details on this census. 23 See http://www.pia.gov.ph/news/index.php?article=2261347935359 for more details on this system. Reconstructing Philippine marine fisheries catches, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D 22 The resulting annual number of fishers/sector/zone (Table 4) were analyzed to obtain the various estimates. The rate of change in the total number of fishers extracted from NSO reports for 1970 and 1995 (Nfishers1995-Nfishers1970 / 1995-1970) was used to back-calculate to 1950, interpolate between 1970 and 1995 and forward calculate to 2010. The rate of change of the proportions of artisanal, subsistence and industrial fishers in the total fishing population from the NSO reports estimated for 1970 and 2012 were used to interpolate between 1970 and 2012 and to extrapolate to 1950. Finally, the numbers of fishers obtained from the previous interpolations were multiplied with the interpolated proportions to obtain the number of artisanal, subsistence and industrial fishers.   Table 4. Annual number of fishers/sector/zone estimated from data extracted from reports of the National Statistics Office (details in Appendix B) and total number of fishers in the Philippines from different sources with proportion of artisanal, subsistence and industrial fishers in % of total. Subzone Year Total (103) Artisanal (%) Subsistence (%) Industrial (%) A 1970 50.2a 66.3 5.99 27.8  1980 125.8a 53.5 44.8 1.63  1995 101.4a – – –  2012 21.7b 47.7 52.1 0.196 B 1970 130.9a 61.3 4.44 34.2  1980 152.9a 38.2 53.2 8.53  1995 291.9a – – –  2012 114.1b 42.6 26.6 30.8 C 1970 162.0a 71.4 6.63 22.0  1980 189.0a 46.4 49.2 4.34  1995 297.9a – – –  2012 109.9b 36.6 36.3 27.1 D 1970 109.7a 68.1 9.48 22.4  1980 168.5a 40.0 55.9 4.14  1995 254.5a – – –  2012 129.1b 49.4 17.4 33.3 Philippines 1970 452.7a 67.1 6.61 26.3  1970 399.9c – – –  1977 671.9d – – –  1978 427.1d – – –  1980 636.1a 44.2 51.1 4.76  1980 431.4d  – – –  1980 904.0c – – –  1983 638.3d – – –  1984 628.8d – – –  1985 615.8d – – –  1986 638.0d – – –  1990 958.2c – – –  1995 945.6a – – –  2012 374.8b 43.5 27.8 28.8 aEstimates from reports of the National Statistics Office. bEstimates from RSBSA, represent only 25% of the coastal provinces and were thus not used in the interpolation process for annual number of fishers. cEstimates of total number of municipal fishers from Villareal et al. (2004). dEstimates of total number of fishers from SEAFDEC (2012).   Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 23 Figure 2 summarizes the results of this analysis, which were in turn used as multiplier to the predicted c/f/year/subzone obtained from individual estimates of c/f as discussed above, to reconstruct annual catches per subzone. Subzone A (covering the northern half of the island of Luzon) shows the least number of fishers (average of 14% of the total) in the Philippines among the four zones. Zones B-D represent, at an average, 28, 32 and 26%, respectively. These results are concurrent with population estimates of coastal municipalities for 1995 and 2000 from Rivera et al. (2002), summarized in Table 5.   Table 5. Percent distribution of Philippine coastal municipality populations summarized from Appendix 6 of Rivera et al. (2002, p. 110-125). Region Subzone 1995 2000 1 A 7.90 6.93 2 A 0.27 NA 3 A 4.64 3.84 Subtotal  12.8 10.8 4 B 17.7 19.0 5 B 11.9 11.2 NCR B 0.99 1.03 Subtotal  30.6 31.3 6 C 9.74 11.0 7 C 12.0 14.1 8 C 10.1 5.99 Subtotal  31.9 31.0 9 D 6.05 5.28 10 D 3.14 3.58 11 D 5.24 6.01 12 D 2.47 2.72 13 D 3.40 3.83 ARMM D 4.46 5.45 Subtotal  24.8 26.8 Total number of fishers  23,205,458 22,327,156   Disaggregating total annual catches to species groups  The annual catches resulting from the reconstruction process were disaggregated taxonomically; therein, we assumed that the catch composition of the original national statistics data applies. Thus, our reconstructed catch composition reflects the changes made in the taxonomic detail according to the national statistics collection scheme, which tended to change every decade. However, to standardize the taxonomic groups across collection schemes, we categorized earlier taxonomic groupings to fit current ISCAAP groups through their English common names. Percent catch composition values were averaged by decade and used to disaggregate the annual total catches.  Exceptions to the rules  Annual catch per fisher estimates from studies conducted in marine protected areas (MPA) are not included in the artisanal catch. However, annual estimates of catch per fisher before the creation of an MPA were used and added to the total catch of the region where the MPA is located.  Reconstructing Philippine marine fisheries catches, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D 24 Aquarium fisheries are completely excluded from this analysis though their catch might be mentioned in the text of the various contributions in this report. Finally, marine mammals, reptiles and marine plants were excluded from the analysis.   01002003004005006007001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Number of fishers (FTE; 103)SubsistenceArtisanalIndustrialA 01002003004005006007001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Number of fishers (FTE; 103)SubsistenceArtisanalIndustrialB 01002003004005006007001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Number of fishers (FTE; 103)SubsistenceArtisanalIndustrialC 01002003004005006007001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Number of fishers (FTE; 103)SubsistenceArtisanalIndustrialD  Figure 2. Number of artisanal, subsistence and industrial fishers in the four Philippine fishing subzones defined in this study. Note the importance of number of fishers in subzones B-D, which are characterized by small island clusters forming inner seas and proximity to the large pelagic fisheries of the Sulu-Celebes Sea. Left panel graph shows the sources of demographic data used to obtain the mean trend for this study; official reports from the National Statistics Office (NSO) and independent estimates from the FAO and the South East Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC).    Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 25 Summary  Given that catch statistics for the Philippine artisanal marine capture fisheries are considered defficient, alternative data sets were reconstructed based on two types of data, i.e., (i) empirical trends of estimates of annual catch/fisher for the different fisheries within a subzone, and which are independent of government mandated statistics; and (ii) the number of fishers/sector/subzone from national demographic censuses. The national statistics for the industrial marine capture fisheries sector was accepted as baseline estimates, topped up by 30% for the period 1950-1960 and by 20% for the period 1970-2010 to account for unreported catches. Disaggregation to target species or groups of species followed ISCAAP groupings, expressed as average proportions of these species/groups in the total landings by decade, i.e., 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. The catch composition obtained for 1960 was used for the 1950s.  Acknowledgements  We wish to thank Dr. Mary Ann Bimbao of the FishBase Information and Research Group (FIN) for facilitating the data exchange between FIN, the Philippine Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) and the Philippine National Statistics Office (NSO). We gratefully acknowledge the encoding work done by Ms. Vina A. Parducho (SeaLifeBase), Mr. Raphael Anday, Mr. Raymart Maat, and Mr. Samuel Dale Castro (student volunteers from the Colegio de Los Baños,  Laguna, Philippines), of the large numbers of fisheries and demographics reports made available to us by the BAS and the NSO. We also wish to thank Ms. Rachel Atanacio and Mr. Michael Yap for drafting our figures, and our various informants from both the fishing industry and the coastal communities, who wished to stay anonymous and could not properly be cited in this contribution, and last but certainly not the least, our collaborator, Dr Annadel Cabanban for the enlightening discussions. This is a contribution of Sea Around Us, a scientific collaboration with The Pew Charitable Trusts.  References  ADB (1993) Fisheries Sector Profile of the Philippines. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines.  Alix JC (1976) Survey of fish catch landed and unloaded at the Navotas fish landing and market authority in Navotas, Metro Manila. Fisheries Research Journal of the Philippines 1(2): 50-61. Anon (1993) Bycatch and discards in Western Pacific tuna fisheries: a reivew of SPC data holdings and literature. Working Paper, Tuna and Billfish Assessment Programme, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. var. p.  Bagarinao T (2011) The sea turtles captured by coastal fisheries in the northeastern Sulu Sea, Philippines: documentation, care, and release. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6(3): 353-363. Bailey M, Flores J, Pokajam S and Sumaila UR (2012) Towards better management of Coral Triangle tuna. Ocean and Coastal Management 63: 30-42. Barut NC, Santos MD, Mijares LL, Subade R, Armada NB and Garces LR (2003) Philippine coastal fisheries situation. In: Silvestre G, Garces LR, Stobutzki I, Ahmed M, Valmonte-Santos RA, Luna C, Lachica-Aliño L, Munro P, Christensen V and Pauly D (eds.), Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries, p. 885-914. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines. Bautista LB (2008) The historical context and legal basis of the Philippine treaty limits. Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal 10: 1-31. BFAR (2009) Philippine fisheries profile 2009. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Quezon City, Philippines. 37 p.  BFAR (2012b) Philippine Fisheries Profile 2009. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Quezon City, Philippines. Available at: http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages/AboutUs/maintabs/publications/publications_09May2012.html. Briones RM (2007) Eating for a lifetime: filling the policy gaps in Philippine fisheries. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development 4(1): 25-39. Calvelo R and Dalzell P (1987) A review of the recent status of exploited stocks of roundscads in the Philippines. Symposium on the Exploitation and Management of Marine Fishery Resources in Southeast Asia, 16-19 Feb 1987, Darwin (Australia). 257-268 p. Campos WL, del Norte-Campos AGC and McManus JW (1994) Yield estimates, catch, effort and fishery potential of the reef fish in Cape Bolinao. Journal of Applied Ichthyology - Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Ichthyologie 10(2-3): 82-95. Carpenter KE, Barber PH, Crandall ED, Ablan-Lagman MCA, Ambariyanto, Mahardika GN, Manjaji-Matsumoto BM, Juinio-Meñez MA, Santos MD, Starger CJ and Toha AHA (2011) Comparative phylogeography of the Coral Triangle and Reconstructing Philippine marine fisheries catches, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D 26 implications for marine management. Journal of Marine Biology. Volume 2011, Article ID 396982, 14 pages, doi:10.1155/2011/396982. Hindawi Publishing Corp. Carpenter KE and Springer VG (2005) The center of the center of marine shore fish biodiversity: the Philippine islands. Environmental Biology of Fishes 72: 467-480. Chakraborty D (1976) Fisheries statistics in the Philippines. A plan for a new and expanded data collection programme. South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Programmes, Manila, Philippines.  Chakraborty D and Wheeland HA (1976) Report on the training workshop for field enumerators of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. South China Sea Develpment and Coordinating Programme, Manila, Philippines.  Cisneros-Montemayor, AM and Sumaila, R (2010) A global estimate of benefits from ecosystem-based marine recreation: potential impacts and implications for management. Journal of Bioeconomics 12: 245-268. Cruz-Trinidad A (2003) Socioeconomic and bioeconomic performance of Philippine fisheries in the recent decades. In: Silvestre G, Garces LR, Stobutzki I, Ahmed M, Valmonte-Santos RA, Luna C, Lachica-Aliño L, Munro P, Christensen V and Pauly D (eds.), Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries, p. 543-576. WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. DA-BFAR (2004) In Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries. Coastal Resources Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p. Davies RWD, Cripps SJ, Nickson A and Porter G (2009) Defining and estimating global marine fisheries bycatch. Marine Policy 33: 661-672. del Norte-Campos AGC, Campos WL and Villarta KA (2005) A survey of macro-invertebrate gleaning in the Banate Bay intertidal area, Eastern Panay Island. Science Diliman 17(2): 11-20. Delmendo MN (1992) Socioeconomic considerations of territorial use rights in fisheries. In: Garcia MPJ (ed.) Policies and Issues on Philippine Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, p. 35-42. Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development, Department of Science and Technology, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. DNR (1976a) Fisheries and Aquatic Resources: Inventory of Natural Resources. Technical Report, Philippine Department of Natural Resources, Quezon City, Philippines.  DNR (1976b) Inventory of Natural Resources: Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Technical Report, Philippine Department of Natural Resources, Manila, Philippines.  Dolar MLL (1994) Incidental takes of small cetaceans in fisheries in Palawan, central Visayas and northern Mindanao in the Philippines. Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 15: 355-363. FAO-SEAFDEC (2005) Improvement of fishery data and information collection systems in Southeast Asia. Report of the workshop. In: FAO/SEAFDEC Regional Workshop on the Improvement of Fishery Data and Information Collection Systems, p. 38. FishCode- STF Project for Improving Information on Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries, Southeast Asia Fisheries Development Center, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bali, Indonesia. FAO (2004-2012) Fishery and aquaculture country profiles. Philippines. Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_PH/en. FIDC (1979) Philippine Fisheries: Major Developments in the 1970s and Directions for the 1980's. Fishery Industry Development Council, Quezon City, Philippines. 72 +p. Ganapathiraju P, Pitcher TJ, Pearce J and Agnew D (2008) Sources of information supporting estimates of unreported fishery catches (IUU) for 59 countries and the high seas. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Fisheries Centre, Vancouver, Canada. 242 p.  Gillett R (2011) Bycatch in small-scale tuna fisheries. A global study. Fisheries and AquacultureTechnical Paper 560, FAO, Rome. 115 p. Green SJ, White AT, Flores JO, Carreon MFI and Sia AE (2003) Philippine fisheries in crisis: a framework for management. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.  Hoeksema BW (2007) Delineation of the Indo-Malayan centre of maximum marine biodiversity: the Coral Triangle. In: Renema W (ed.) Biogeography, Time, and Place: Distributions, Barriers and Islands, p. 117-178. Springer. Israel DC (1999) Research and development in the Philippine fisheries sector. Discussion Paper Series, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Makati City, Philippines. 64 p.  Israel DC and Banzon CP (2000) Overfishing in the Philippine marine fisheries sector. IDRC Research Report, IDRC Regional Office for Southeast and East Asia, Singapore. Available at: http://www.eepsea.net/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=281:overfishing-in-the-philippine-marine-fisheries-sector&Itemid=192. Israel DC and Roque RMGR (1999) Toward the sustaniable development of the fisheries sector: an analysis of the Philippine Fisheries Code and Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act 12. Philippine Institution for Development Studies Discussion Paper, Philippine Institution for Development Studies, Makati City, Philippines.  Itano DG and Williams PG (2009) Review of bigeye and yellowfin tuna catches landed in Palawan, Philippines. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.  Jacquet J, Alava JJ, Pramod G, Henderson S and Zeller D (2008) In hot soup: sharks captured in Ecuador's waters. Environmental Sciences 5(4): 269-283. Jacquet J, Fox H, Motta H, Ngusaru A and Zeller D (2010) Few data but many fish: marine small-scale fisheries catches for Mozambique and Tanzania. African Journal of Marine Science 32(2): 197-206. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 27 Jeremias ZC and Ganaden SR (1983) The status of Tayabas Bay fisheries in the 1980s. PCAMRD Book Series, Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. 26-27 p.  Kelleher K (2009) Discards in the world's marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Papers 470, FAO, Rome. 152 p.  Lachica-Alino L, Wolff M and David LT (2006) Past and future fisheries modeling approaches in the Philippines. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 16(2): 201-212. Le Manach F, Gough C, Harris A, Humber F, Harper S and Zeller D (2012) Unreported fishing, hungry people and political turmoil: the recipe for a food security crisis in Madagascar? Marine Policy 36: 218-225. Lewis AD (2004) Review of the tuna fisheries and the tuna fishery statistical system in the Philippines. 1st Meeting of the Scientific Committee, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia.  Lopez NA (2006) Governance and institutional changes in fisheries in the Philippines. In: Siar SV, Ahmed M, Kanagaratnam U and Muir J (eds.), Governance and Institutional Changes in Fisheries: Issues and Priorities for Research, p. 79-97. WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. Lugten G and Andrew N (2008) Maximum sustainable yield of marine capture fisheries in developing archipelagic states - balancing law, science, polities and practice. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 23: 1-37. Luna CZ, Silvestre G, Carreon MFI, White AT and Green SJ (2004) Profiling the status of Philippine marine fisheries: a general introduction and overview. Coastal Resource Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p. Marfori EA, Borja NC and Guevarra G (1991) Utilization of low-value fish in the development of convenience foods. In: Hooi, KK, Miwa, K and Salim, MB (eds.), Proceedings of the Seminar on Advances in Fishery Postharvest Technology in Southeast Asia, SEAFDEC, Singapore. Matsuoka T (2008) A review of bycatch and discard issue toward solution. In: Tsukamoto, M, Kawamura, T, Takeuchi, T, Beard TD Jr and Kaiser, MJ (eds.), Fisheries for Global Welfare and Environment, p. 169-180. Proceedings of the 5th World Fisheries Congress. TERRAPUB, Tokyo, Japan. Morgan GR and Staples DJ (2006) The history of industrial marine fisheries in Southeast Asia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand. 28 p.  Munoz JC (1991) Manila Bay: status of its fisheries and management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 23: 4. Olaño VL, Vergara MB and Gonzales FL (2009) Assessment of the fisheries of Lagonoy Gulf (Region V). BFAR-NFRDI Technical Paper Series 12, BFAR-NFRDI. 31 p.  Olofson H, Cañizares B and de Jose F (2000) A people in travail I: labor relations history of veteran muro-ami fisherfolk in the Central Philippines. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 28: 224-262. Owens JD and Mendoza LS (1985) Enzymatically-hydrolised and bacterially-fermented fishery products. Journal of Food Technology 20: 273-293. Pauly D (1982) History and present status of the fisheries. Small-scale fisheries of San Miguel Bay Philippines: biology and stock assessment. In: Pauly D and Mines AN (eds.), Small-scale Fisheries of San Miguel Bay Philippines: Biology and Stock Assessment, p. 95-124. International Center for Living Aquatic Management, Manila, Philippines. Pauly D (1986) A brief historical review of living marine resources research in the Philippines, p. 3-18. In: D. Pauly, J. Saeger and G. Silvestre (eds.). Resources management and socioeconomics of Philippine marine fisheries. Technical Reports of the Department of Marine Fisheries, University of the Philippines in the Visayas, College of Fisheries, Iloilo, Philippines.  Pauly D (1996) Fleet-operational, economic, and cultural determinants of bycatch uses in Southeast Asia. In: Solving By-Catch: Considerations for Today and Tomorrow, p. 285-288. University of Alaska, Sea Grant College Program, Fairbanks. Pauly D (2006) Major trends in small-scale marine fisheries, with emphasis on developing countries, and some implications for the social sciences. Maritime Studies (MAST) 4(2): 7-22. PFC (1969) Fisheries statistics of the Philippines 1969. Philippine Fisheries Commission, Manila, Philippines. 106 p. + appendices.  Randall JE (1998) Zoogeography of shore fishes of the Indo-Pacific region. Zoological Studies 37(4): 227-268. Rivera R, Turcotte D, Alexander B-H, Pangilinan J and Santos R (2002) Aquatic resources in the Philippines and the extent of poverty in the sector., STREAM, Bangkok, Thailand. 135 p.  Ronquillo IA (1975) A review of the roundscad fishery in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Fisheries 2(1-2): 86-126. Ronquillo IA, Caces-Borja P and Mines AN (1960) Preliminary observations on the otter trawl fishery of Manila Bay. Philippine Journal of Fisheries 8(1): 47-56. Salayo N, Garces LR, Pido M, Viswanathan K, Pomeroy RS, Ahmed M, Siason I, Seng K and Masae A (2008) Managing excess capacity in small-scale fisheries: perspectivies from stakeholders in three Southeast Asian countries. Marine Policy 32: 692-700. Schoppe S, Seronay RA and Milan PP (1998) Floating fish aggregating devices (FADs) around Cuatro Islas, Leyte, Philippines: their impact on fisheries. In: Morton, B (ed.), The Marine Biology of the South China Sea III, p. 475-488. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Marine Biology of the South China Sea, Hong Kong. 1996. SEAFDEC (2011) Fishery Statistical Bulletin of Southeast Asia 2009. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, Bangkok, Thailand. 149 p.  SEAFDEC (2012) The Southeast Asian State of Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012., Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, Bangkok, Thailand. 130 p. p.  Reconstructing Philippine marine fisheries catches, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D 28 Selorio CMJ, Babaran RP and Anraku K (2008) Catch composition and discards of stationary liftnet fishery in Panay Gulf, Philippines. Memoirs of Faculty of Fisheries Kagoshima University 2008: 56-59. Shannon D (2002) The future of municipal fisheries in the Philippines: does the Philippine Fisheries Code do enough? Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 11(3): 717-743. Simpson AC (1979) Report of the BFAR/SCSP Workshop on the Fishery Resources of the North and Western Coasts of Luzon, 18-20 April 1979, Manila, Philippines. South China Sea fisheries development and coordinating programme. FAO, Rome. Spoehr A (1984) Change in Philippine capture fisheries: an historical overview. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 12(1): 25-56. Stobutzki IC, Silvestre GT, Abu Talib A, Krongprom A, Supongpan M, Khemakorn P, Armada N and Garces LR (2006) Decline of demersal coastal fisheries resources in three developing Asian countries. Fisheries Research 78: 130-142. Storer JA (1967) Aspects of fisheries in the developing Philippine economy. Studies in Tropical Oceanography 5: 363-374. Subaldo MC (2011) Gleaning, drying and marketing practices of sea cucumber in Davao del Sur, Philippines. JPAIR Multidisciplinary Journal 6: 117-126. Sunderlin WD (1994) Resource decline and adaptation through time: fishers in San Miguel Bay, Philippines, 1980-1993. Ocean and Coastal Management 25: 217-232. Villareal LV, Kelleher V and Tietze U (eds.) (2004) Guidelines on the collection of demographic and socio-economic information on fishing communities for use in coastal and aquatic resources management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 439. Rome, FAO, 120 p. Varkey DA, Ainsworth CH, Pitcher TJ, Goram Y and Sumaila UR (2010) Illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries catch in Raja Ampat Regency, Eastern Indonesia. Marine Policy 34: 228-236. Watson R and Pauly D (2001) Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature 414: 534-536. WB (1991) Project completion report. Philippines. National Fisheries Development Project (Loan 2156-PH). 25 p.  WB (2005) Philippines Environment Monitor 2005: Coastal and Marine Resource Management. World Bank Philippines Country Office, Pasig City, Philippines.  Zeller D, Booth S and Pauly D (2007) Fisheries contributions to the gross domestic product: underestimating small-scale fisheries in the Pacific. Marine Resource Economics 21: 355-374. Zeller D and Pauly D (2005) Good news, bad news: global fisheries discards are declining, but so are total catches. Fish and Fisheries 6: 156-159. Zeller D and Pauly D (2007) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for key countries and regions (1950-2005). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 15(2). 163 p.   Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 29 Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone A – northern Luzon (Regions I, II and III)24  V.A. Parducho1 and M.L.D. Palomares2  1 FishBase Information and Research Group, Inc., Khush Hall, IRRI, Los Baños, Laguna 4301 Philippines 2 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, V6T 1Z4; Email: m.palomares@fisheries.ubc.ca  Abstract  Independent estimates of daily catch per fisher from La Union (Region I), Pangasinan (Region I) and Zambales (Region III) were obtained from 12 published sources. The artisanal fisheries were classified into non-tuna and tuna fisheries and subsistence catch distinguished from the artisanal catch. These data indicated a breadth of non-tuna catches from 0.16 kg·day-1·fisher-1 to 8.54 kg·day-1·fisher-1 (n=17, s.e.=2.52, covering 1980-2010) and tuna catches from 0.15 kg·day-1·fisher-1 to 12 kg·day-1·fisher-1 (n=13, s.e.=3.90, covering 1998-2010). These data sets were compared, using log-transformed regression analyses, to the 1900 estimates of 19.7 kg·day-1 fisher-1 (standardized to 213 fishing days as currently practiced in the region) for the non-tuna, and 25 kg·day-1 fisher-1 (standardized to 166 fishing days) for the tuna fisheries. Results indicate decreasing trends in daily catches per fisher from 1950 to 2010, with rates of change at 76 % for non-tuna and 80 % for tuna fisheries. Only two estimates of subsistence catch were obtained, which when compared to the baseline of 5.2 kg·day-1·fisher-1 in a log-transformed regression analysis, gave subsistence catch estimates of 10,043 t (1950) to 13,640 t (2010). Total artisanal catch for the subzone estimated as the product of predicted daily catch per fisher, number of fishers and average number of fishing days in a year resulted in a reconstructed time series with catches from 8,656 t·year-1 (1950) to 38,438 t·year-1 (2010) and an average 28 % increase per decade. The reconstructed total catch was then separated into species components using the percent species composition of reported artisanal fisheries statistics for the subzone. This data suggests that yellowfin tuna is the most important exploited species in the subzone over the three decades for which this data was collected (1980s to 2000s). Slipmouths, included among the seven taxa making up 90 % of the catch in the 1980s slipped from 5th (1980s) to 19th (2000s) most important taxon in the catch, while anchovies, Acetes, round scads, hardtails and skipjack tuna are consistently among the groups contributing 90 % of the catch.  Introduction  Northern Luzon, hereafter referred to as Subzone A (see Figure 1), is subdivided into three administrative regions (I, II and III) covering the northern tip of the island of Luzon . For the purposes of this study, we exclude the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), a landlocked area of the Cordillera Mountains.  Region I, the Ilocos region, was created in 1972 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos under Presidential Decree No. 1.25 The four provinces making up this region, i.e., Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, La Union, and Pangasinan, covers a total land area of 12,840 km2 – about 4.3 % of the country’s total land area – with                                                      24 Cite as: Parducho, V.A., Palomares, M.L.D. (2014) Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone A – northern Luzon (Regions I, II and III). In: Palomares, M.L.D., Pauly, D. (eds.), Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950 to 2010, p. 29-44. Fisheries Centre Research Report 22(1). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 25 Regional profile: Ilocos. Bureau of Agricultural Statistics accessed on 12/08/13 from http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=1. Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 30 Pangasinan as the widest and La Union as the narrowest.26 The coastal region is bounded by the South China Sea in the west, Cagayan region in the north, the Cordillera mountain range in the east, and Central Luzon in the south. In 2011, fisheries contributed 17 % to the gross output of the region’s Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries subsector, which represents 25 % of the regional economy.27  Region II, the Cagayan Valley is composed of five provinces, i.e., Batanes, Cagayan, Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, and the city of Santiago. The second largest region in the country, Cagayan Valley has a total land area of 26,860 km2, and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the east, Central Luzon in the south, the Cordillera mountain range in the west, and Babuyan Channel in the north. With rich fishing grounds, fishing is among the major occupations in the region.28  Finally, Region III, Central Luzon, with the largest contiguous plains in the whole Philippine Archipelago, includes seven provinces, i.e., Aurora, Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales, and two large cities, i.e., Angeles and Olongapo. With a total land area of 21,470 km2,29 it represents 7.1 % of the country’s total land area and is bounded by the CAR and Cagayan Valley in the north, the South China Sea in the west, Manila Bay in the south, and the Philippine Sea in the east.30 Most of the subzone’s coast has a small tidal range. In most areas, the 200 m isobath hugs the coastline, e.g., along Zambales in the west facing the South China Sea and most of the eastern coastline facing the Pacific Ocean (see bathymetry in Centurioni et al. 2004, Figure 1, p. 114). The few shallow areas include the stretch of coast between Claveria (Region I) and Paluai Island (Region II) in the north facing the Babuyan Channel and Barit and Fuga Islands of the Babuyan Island Group, with 50-100 m depths from the mainland to the islands. In the western coast, the exception is Lingayen Gulf, with an average depth of 46 m and the 200 m isobath along its northern border just beyond the Gulf’s mouth (McManus et al. 1990).  In an overview of the capture fisheries of Lingayen Gulf, Silvestre and Palma (1990) described it as a “traditional fishing ground for trawlers” since before the Second World War, when 15 beam trawlers plied the area. In addition to this industrial trawling fleet (which also includes large, medium and ‘baby’ trawlers), a number of artisanal gears are employed in Lingayen Gulf, which can be extrapolated to the other regions of Subzone A. These include (i) hand/pole lines and their derivatives; (ii) gillnets; (iii) seine nets; (iv) various other nets (bag, lift, lever, cast, push, filter, scoop); (v) dredge, fish corral, fish and crab pots, jigger, and spear gun/harpoon (Umali 1950; Mines 1986; Silvestre and Palma 1990; Vincent Hilomen, Professor, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of the Philippines in Los Baños pers. comm.). Additionally, illegal gears such as muro-ami and blast fishing were used, apparently widely in the mid 1970s (Bailen 1978). In the early 2000s, 33 fishing gears were in operation within the region (V. Hilomen, UPLB, IBS pers. comm.), i.e., 2.4 times more than that of Mines’ (1986) mid-1980s estimate. Of these gears, the round haul seine, baby trawl, drift and bottom gill nets contributed 70 % of the catch in the mid-1980s (Mines 1986), while gillnets, hook and line, and ‘baby trawlers’ contributed 73 % of the catch in the early 2000s (V. Hilomen pers. comm.). The primary target species include mackerels, tunas and bonitos (e.g., Auxis thazard, Euthynnus affinis, Decapterus spp., Rastrelliger spp.), an array of reef-                                                     26 Regional office I profile. National Nutrition Council accessed on 12/08/2013 from http://www.nnc.gov.ph/component/k2/itemlist/category/117. 27 Regional profile: Ilocos. Bureau of Agricultural Statistics accessed on 10/10/13 from http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=1. 28 Cagayan Valley Region. Department of Tourism accessed on 12/08/13 from http://www.dotregion2.com.ph/welcome/index.php/78-frontpage/101-an-introduction-to-cagayan-valley-region. 29 Regional profile. Department of Environment and Natural Resources accessed on 12/08/13 from http://r3.denr.gov.ph/index.php/about-us/regional-profile. 30 Central Luzon. National Nutrition Council accessed on 12/08/13 from http://www.nnc.gov.ph/component/k2/item/278-central-luzon?tmpl=component&print=1. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 31 associated fishes (e.g., Mugil, Leiognathus, Ephinephelus, Siganus, Upeneus spp.) and invertebrates such as crabs (Portunus), shrimps (Metapeneus, Peneus), and cephalopods (Loligo).  Because of these conditions, and the setting-up of the Marine Science Institute Laboratory (University of the Philippines) in Bolinao, Lingayen Gulf tends to be the most studied fisheries in this subzone (see, e.g., Pauly et al. 1989).  Daily catch per fisher data  The sections below present the catch and/or landing and data on number of fishers, obtained from sources independent of Philippine government institutions involved in the assembly of fisheries statistics. Artisanal fisheries are reported as non-tuna and tuna catches, because tuna is an important albeit seasonal fishery, which can distort trends in artisanal catches. Finally, subsistence catch consumed by the fishers (as opposed to sold at local markets), but effected in ‘municipal’ waters by artisanal gears is estimated.    Figure 1. Subzone A, Northern Luzon, Philippines, showing the administrative regions (Regions I, II and III; CAR included here), provinces, fishing grounds, and its surrounding waters (from Smith et al. 1980); the insert shows this subzone (dark) relative to the Philippine EEZ (Redrawn by Mr. M.A. Yap from Figure 1 of Palomares and Pauly (this vol.) and a composite of open source maps).   Artisanal non-tuna fishery  The reconstructed non-tuna artisanal catch of the subzone were based on 17 independent estimates of catch per fisher per day from 8 sources (Table 1). The majority were from studies made along the coasts of La Union, Pangasinan, and Zambales, where two of the major fishing grounds in the country occur, i.e., Lingayen Gulf and the South China Sea. We did not find any applicable catch per fisher data to represent catch rates from fishing grounds surrounding the Cagayan region, i.e., the Babuyan Channel and the Eastern Philippine Sea. Different gears are employed in the two fishing grounds represented by data in Table 1, principally of the following types: hook and line, nets (bottom-set and drive-in gillnets, lift net, push net), spear and traps (beach seine, round haul seine). Other gears used were crab pots, fish corrals, Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 32 and jiggers. The catch of these gears are composed mostly of demersal fish species (e.g., emperors, groupers, and snappers) and may often include small pelagic fish species (e.g., anchovy and sardines).  The daily catch per fisher of non-tuna species ranging from 0.16 kg to 8.54 kg were obtained from different data types, viz.: (1) direct estimates of daily catch per fisher; (2) total daily/monthly/annual catch by a certain number of fishers; (3) catch per hour; and (4) catch per gear. Monthly and annual catch rates were divided by the number of fishing days; the average number of fishing days per year (213 days) obtained from data for the region from Muallil et al. (2012, Table 1, p. 3) was used in cases where this parameter was not specified, e.g., annual catch data from Calud et al. (1989). For data type (3), the average number of fishing hours per day per fisher was necessary in order to get the average catch per day. Cases with data type (4) used an average of the daily catch rates across gear types. In cases where different daily catch rates were supplied, e.g., daily catch rates by gear by month from Campos et al. (1994), the average daily catch rates were calculated and presented in Table 1. In cases where the data reported included either a) tuna as target species; or b) gear targeting only tuna species, catch rates were recalculated in order to separate the catch of tuna from non-tuna species and/or gears by getting the % contribution of tuna to the daily catch or to the number of gears employed. Note also that we made a distinction between full- and part-time fishers, counting full-time fishers with a weight of 1.0 and part-time fishers (assumed to take part in fishing only half of time) with 0.5. These data points were then compared to the estimate in Pauly (2000) of 4.2 t·year-1·fisher-1, standardized to 19.7 kg·day-1·fisher-1, assuming that the number of fishing days per year then was also equivalent to 213 days.  Tuna artisanal fishery  The reconstructed artisanal tuna catch of Subzone A was based on 11 independent estimates of daily catch per fisher from 4 sources (Table 1). Catch rates were mostly from the coast of Zambales, directly facing the South China Sea – an important tuna spawning ground (Wade 1951; Barut 2007). The catch rate from Lingayen Gulf was low, but is still included in the analysis. Unfortunately, data points were obtained only from the late 1990s to the present; data from previous decades were not available, at least from the literature we had access to. The following gears primarily used by tuna fishers are: gillnet, lambaklad (Calud et al. 1989, defined it as a modified fish corral made of bamboo and netting material), deep sea hook and line, longline, etc. Yellowfin tuna, big eye tuna, frigate tuna, mackerel, scad, and skipjack make up the bulk of the catch, but the fishery is not restricted to these species. According to Muallil et al. (2012), pelagic species (the bulk of which is composed of tuna and tuna-likes) contribute to 73 % of the catch, while the rest were demersal fish such as parrotfish, emperors, snappers, and groupers. The minimum and maximum landed catch per fisher of tuna were recorded at 0.15 kg and 12 kg, respectively. Daily catch per fisher rates were of the same data types as those discussed for the non-tuna artisanal fishery. The same treatment of full- and part-time fishers as discussed for the non-tuna fishery was used in cases where the number of fishers included such data. The 1900 catch per fisher estimate (Pauly 2000) was used here, standardized to 25 kg·day-1·fisher-1, assuming that the number of fishing days then was equivalent to 166 days (average tuna fishing days for Masinloc, Zambales, from Muallil et al. 2012).  Subsistence fishery  The reconstructed subsistence catch of the subzone were based only on 2 independent estimates of daily catch per fisher (Table 1). Both recorded catch rates were from Bolinao, Pangasinan, along the coast of Lingayen Gulf; one is from a gleaning study and the other from an artisanal fishery study. Note that there is usually a small percentage of catch by the artisanal fisheries that is used as take-home pay to fishers that they can either use for household consumption or for bartering/selling. Campos et al. (1994) reported that 20 % of the artisanal catch is brought home by fishers. Pet-Soede (2000), on the other hand, reports gleaning catches by subsistence fishers from the Gulf, one of the few studies on gleaning in the region. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 33 These values were compared with the 1950 estimate of a purely subsistence catch in Palomares et al. (this vol.) of 5.2 kg·day-1·fisher-1.  Catch composition data  The available national marine fisheries landing statistics (see Appendix C) were used in determining the species composition of the catch. The data available to us covers a 20-year reporting period, from 1981 to 2006. Changes in the reporting platforms (discussed in Palomares et al. this vol.) are evident in the ‘empty’ cells for certain species groups in the 1980s and 1990s and the rather large contribution of a group named ‘Others’ in the 2000s. However, for reasons already discussed in Palomares et al. (this vol.) and in Palomares and Pauly (this vol.), recent reporting (2000s) of national marine fisheries landing statistics is specific only for the 30 most important species which together make up 60-70 % of the catch and the rest are reported as aggregates.  Thus, before the official statistics could be used in obtaining the species composition of the catch by decade, the following corrections had to be made: (1) taxon names were standardized, thus consolidating ‘doubled’ or ‘tripled’ taxon groups, e.g., ‘fusilier (dalagang-bukid)’ used in the 1980s and ‘Caesio (dalagang-bukid)’ used in the 2000s reporting were combined (catches summed) to ‘fusiliers (Caesio, dalagang-bukid)’; (2) grouped taxa were split into individual species, e.g., species in the taxon group yellowfin/bigeye tuna in the 1980s-1990s were reported separately in the 2000s; by using the % distribution of each species in the 2000s data set, the 1980s and 1990s data were split into yellowfin and bigeye tuna; (3) remaining miscellaneous groupings were standardized, e.g., ornamental shells, other shells and assorted shells, were consolidated as ‘Shells nei’; (4) taxa with less than 1 t of reported catch were grouped with miscellaneous groups in (3); and (5) marine mammals, sea turtles and marine plants were grouped under ‘Miscellaneous marine species’, i.e., a group of animals that this reconstruction does not cover.  The official statistics, corrected as described above, were then used to get the annual % composition of each taxon. Missing data for a taxon (e.g., for 1950-1980, 1983, 1985-1987, and 2007-2010) were inter/extrapolated using the following rules: 1) if % catch data is interpolated between Y1 and Y2, corresponding to years X1 and X2, then Yi+1 = Yi+[(Y1-Y2)/(X1-X2)], where Yi+1 is the missing % catch data; 2) if % catch data is (forward or backward) extrapolated from Yi corresponding to year Xi, then Yi+1 = (∑Yi … Yi+3)/3 or Yi-1 = (∑Yi … Yi-3)/3.  The most important species in the catch were obtained from the sums of the catch for all years with official landing statistics using rank and percentile analysis. This list was then used to graph the species or taxon groups that represent 70% of the catch.  Results Non-tuna artisanal fishery  The cloud of 17 data-pairs (kg·day-1·fisher-1 vs. year; standard error of X/Y pairs at 2.52) for this sector compared with the standardized 1900 value from Pauly (2000) resulted in a logarithmic linear relationship with a relatively low fit (r2=0.24). This is because the 2006-2010 data points broke the downward trend of the 1980s and the 1990s (Figure 2A). Excluding these 5 points would result in an r2 value of 0.52, which, given n=13 (including Pauly 2000), is still rather low. Disregarding these points will bias our analysis, thus, we opted for a geometric mean analysis; with the geometric mean of the daily catch per fisher for n=17 (excluding the 1900 baseline) at 1.9 kg in 1997, and with the 1900 baseline resulting in the log-log relationship presented in Equation (1):  Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 34 Non-tuna catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1; log10) = 156.13 - 47.223·log10(Year) … (1)  Note that the geometric mean of the first and second cloud of points in Figure 2A is 1.4 kg in 1992 or a decrease of almost 25% from the 1997 mean, while the geometric mean of the third cloud of points is at 3.7 t or an increase of almost 160% from the 1992 mean. This high variability, inherent in the nature of the data points themselves (i.e., different target species, gears, and methodologies), is reduced by taking the geometric mean as represented by Equation (1).  Equation (1) was then used to reconstruct the daily catch of non-tuna species by artisanal fishers from 1950-2010, then multiplied by the average number of fishing days (213 days; see above), and then multiplied by the number of artisanal fishers estimated for this subzone in Palomares and Pauly (this vol., Figure 2A, p. 24). The resulting annual catch of non-tuna species per fisher is presented in Figure 2D, with a range of 6,030 t in 1950 to 28,015 t in 2010, or a 29 % increase per decade.  Tuna artisanal fishery  The cloud of 11 points (standard error = 3.90) for this sector was used to obtain a geometric mean daily catch per fisher of 1.6 kg in 2004 (see Figure 2B). This was plotted with the standardized baseline of 25.3 kg for 1900. The resulting relationship is presented in Equation (2):  Tuna catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1; log10) = 173.27-52.418·log10(Year) … (2)  The tuna fishery is seasonal throughout the Philippines, i.e., the prevalence of typhoons may prevent boats from sailing and may hamper the setting of fish aggregating devices (Barut 2007); thus, the 166 tuna fishing days average from data in Muallil et al. (2012) is an acceptable assumption. In addition, not all artisanal fishers in the region will go tuna fishing, though half of them may (e.g., from the western regions). The calculated daily tuna catch from Equation (2) were thus multiplied by 166 fishing days and then by [0.5*number of fishers] estimated in Palomares and Pauly (this vol.) for Subzone A. The resulting annual tuna catches ranged from 2,626 t (1950) to 10,423 t (2010), with a 26 % increase per decade (see Figure 2D).  Subsistence fishery  The two data points (see Figure 2C) we were able to assemble for this area on subsistence fishing gave an average daily catch per fisher of 1.15 kg in 1992. As we cannot relate this to the 1900 estimate of average artisanal catch from Pauly (2000), we took instead the estimate of 5.20 kg for 1950 obtained in Palomares et al. (this vol.) for Mabini, Batangas (Region IV-a), the highest estimate of subsistence fishing that was available to us. As this study was of a coastal community that survived mostly on gleaning in the 1940s until the 1950s, its use as a baseline for subsistence catch can be justified. In addition, the geometric mean of just over 1 kg per fisher in the early 1990s resembles the results reported in Palomares et al. (this vol.) and Cabanban et al. (this vol.) for other areas in the Philippines. The log-log plot resulting from the use of the geometric mean and the baseline is presented in Equation (3):  Subsistence catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1; log10) = 231.58 – 70.172·log10(Year) … (3)  The daily catch per fisher estimated from Equation (3) was multiplied with an average of 227 fishing days usually practiced in Bolinao, Pangasinan based on Muallil et al. (2012). Assuming that a certain proportion of artisanal (50%) and industrial fishers (10%) take a proportion of their catch home for consumption, reconstructed total subsistence catch as:  Reconstructed subsistence catch (t) = Catch (t·year-1·fisher-1)* [Subs. + (Art.*0.5) … (4) Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 35 + (Ind.*.10)] The resulting annual subsistence catches ranged from 10,043 t (1950) to 13,543 t (2010), with a 5 % increase per decade (see Figure 2D).   Table 1. Catch of artisanal (tuna and non-tuna fisheries) and subsistence fishers in Subzone A (Regions I, II and III) assembled from independent sources and used in this analysis. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Artisanal Non-tuna species   1980 2.25 Not specified Not specified Lingayen Gulf (I) 0.48 t·year-1 (Calud et al. 1989, p. 4) for 213 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3). 1984 3.29 Not specified Not specified Lingayen Gulf (I) 0.7 t·year-1 (Calud et al. 1989, p. 4) for 213 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3). 1986 7.99 spear, hook and line Serranidae, Lethrinidae, Mullidae, Labridae, Scaridae, Gobiidae, Siganidae, others Cape Bolinao, Lingayen Gulf, Pangasinan (I) Averaged from daily catch rates by gear for Jun-Dec 1986 (Acosta et al. 1988, Appendix Tables 4 and 5, p. 24-25). 1987 3.79 spear, trap fish, fish corral, bottom-set and drive-in gillnets Siganidae, Labridae, Scaridae, Gobiidae, Muraenidae, Terapontidae, Gerreidae, Serranidae, Pinguipedidae, Pomacentridae, Mullidae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Apogonidae, others Cape Bolinao, Lingayen Gulf, Pangasinan (I) Averaged from daily catch rates by gear for May-Dec 1987 (Campos et al. 1994; Tables 1-4, p. 84-86). 1987 3.94 Not specified Not specified Lingayen Gulf, Pangasinan and La Union (I) 0.84 t·year-1 (Silvestre et al. 1991; p. 29) for 213 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3). 1988 3.96 spear, trap fish, fish corral, bottom-set and drive-in gillnets Siganidae, Labridae, Scaridae, Gobiidae, Muraenidae, Terapontidae, Gerreidae, Serranidae, Pinguipedidae, Pomacentridae, Mullidae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Apogonidae, others Cape Bolinao, Lingayen Gulf, Pangasinan (I) Averaged from daily catch rates by gear for Jan-Apr 1988 (Campos et al. 1994; Tables 1-4, p. 84-86). 1998 0.37 lamp net, parisris, compressor, shell compressor, triplet, fixed trap, gleaning, gillnet, hook and line, crab pot, spear gun Not specified Bolinao, Pangasinan (I) Daily catch rates by gear (Pet-Soede 2000; Table  2, p. 37) were used to obtain the % contribution of non-tuna gears in the total catch of 7 villages (71% of 1,645 kg). This was divided by the sum of the number of fishers (n=3154 from Pet-Soede 2000; Table 1, p. 37) from the 7 villages.     Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 36 Table 1. Continued. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Artisanal (continued) Non-tuna species (continued)   1998 0.87 longline, squid jigger, spear gun, push net, troll line, lift net, trap, beach seine, round haul seine Carangidae, Holocentridae, Siganidae, Mullidae, Scaridae, Acanthuridae, Priacanthidae, Nemipteridae, others northern Zambales coast (III) Averaged daily catch rates for non-tuna gears (Rueca et al. 2009, Table 9, p. 14) divided by a reconstructed number of fishers in Northern Zambales. Number of fishers was obtained using the % distribution of gears by municipality (Rueca et al. 2009, Table 4, p. 9 ) multiplied by the number of fishers (Rueca et al. 2009, Table 3, p. 8) where full-time fishers were given a weight of 1 and part-time fishers a weight of 0.5. 1999 0.79 longline, squid jigger, spear gun, push net, troll line, lift net, trap, beach seine, round haul seine Carangidae, Holocentridae, Siganidae, Mullidae, Scaridae, Acanthuridae, Priacanthidae, Nemipteridae, others northern Zambales coast (III) Idem 2000 0.70 longline, squid jigger, spear gun, push net, troll line, lift net, trap, beach seine, round haul seine Carangidae, Holocentridae, Siganidae, Mullidae, Scaridae, Acanthuridae, Priacanthidae, Nemipteridae, others northern Zambales coast (III) Idem 2001 0.16 longline, squid jigger, spear gun, push net, troll line, lift net, trap, beach seine, round haul seine Carangidae, Holocentridae, Siganidae, Mullidae, Scaridae, Acanthuridae, Priacanthidae, Nemipteridae, others northern Zambales coast (III) Idem 2002 0.58 longline, squid jigger, spear gun, push net, troll line, lift net, trap, beach seine, round haul seine Carangidae, Holocentridae, Siganidae, Mullidae, Scaridae, Acanthuridae, Priacanthidae, Nemipteridae, others northern Zambales coast (III) Idem 2006 8.54 lambaklad caranx, swordfish, Spanish mackerel, sailfish, dolphinfish, garfish, big-eyed crevally, shark, stingray, sardines Ilocos Sur (I) A total daily landed non-tuna catch of 1,743 kg by 204 fishers (Sanidad et al. 2006, Tables 4 and 5, p. 12). 2010 2.18 Not specified 91 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 9 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Alaminos, Pangasinan (I) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.91 for non-tuna catch. 2010 3.37 Not specified 91 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 9 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Bolinao, Pangasinan (I) Idem 2010 4.46 Not specified 27 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 73 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Masinloc, Zambales (III) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.27 for non-tuna catch. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 37       Table 1. Continued.   Artisanal Tuna species   2010 2.33 Not specified 63 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 37 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Subic, Zambales (III) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.63 for non-tuna catch. 1998 3.82 gillnet, handline, multiple hook and line, baby bagnet, trammel line, baby trawl yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis), big-eyed tuna (Thunnus obesus), frigate tuna (Auxis thazard thazard), bullet tuna (Auxis rochei rochei), mackerel tuna (Euthynnus affinis) northern Zambales coast (III) Averaged daily catch rates for tuna catching gears (Rueca et al. 2009, Table 9, p. 14) divided by a reconstructed number of fishers in Northern Zambales. Number of fishers was obtained using the % distribution of gears by municipality (Rueca et al. 2009, Table 4, p. 9 ) multiplied by the number of fishers (Rueca et al. 2009, Table 3, p. 8) where full-time fishers were given a weight of 1 and part-time fishers a weight of 0.5. 1998 0.15 deep sea hook and line tuna, mackerel Bolinao, Pangasinan (I) Averaged from total landed catch divided by number of fishers (Pet-Soede 2000, Table 1, p. 37) multiplied by % tuna catch distribution from catch rates by gear (Pet-Soede 2000, Table 2, p. 37). 1999 3.42 gillnet, handline, multiple hook and line, baby bagnet, trammel line, baby trawl yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis), big-eyed tuna (Thunnus obesus), frigate tuna (Auxis thazard thazard), bullet tuna (Auxis rochei rochei), mackerel tuna (Euthynnus affinis) northern Zambales coast (III) Idem 2000 3.06 gillnet, handline, multiple hook and line, baby bagnet, trammel line, baby trawl yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis), big-eyed tuna (Thunnus obesus), frigate tuna (Auxis thazard thazard), bullet tuna (Auxis rochei rochei), mackerel tuna (Euthynnus affinis) northern Zambales coast (III) Idem 2001 0.78 gillnet, handline, multiple hook and line, baby bagnet, trammel line, baby trawl yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis), big-eyed tuna (Thunnus obesus), frigate tuna (Auxis thazard thazard), bullet tuna (Auxis rochei rochei), mackerel tuna (Euthynnus affinis) northern Zambales coast (III) Idem 2002 2.56 gillnet, handline, multiple hook and line, baby bagnet, trammel line, baby trawl yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis), big-eyed tuna (Thunnus obesus), frigate tuna (Auxis thazard thazard), bullet tuna (Auxis rochei rochei), mackerel tuna (Euthynnus affinis) northern Zambales coast (III) Idem       Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 38       Table 1. Continued. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Artisanal (continued) Tuna species (continued)   2006 8.53 lambaklad yellowfin, frigate, skipjack Ilocos Sur (I) A total daily landed tuna catch of 1,740 kg by 204 fishers (Sanidad et al. 2006, Tables 4 and 5, p. 12). 2010 0.22 Not specified 91 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 9 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Alaminos, Pangasinan (I) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.09 for non-tuna catch. 2010 0.33 Not specified 91 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 9 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Bolinao, Pangasinan (I) Idem 2010 12.05 Not specified 27 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 73 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Masinloc, Zambales (III) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.73 for non-tuna catch. 2010 1.37 Not specified 63 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 37 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Subic, Zambales (III) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.37 for non-tuna catch.   Subsistence Mixed   1987 0.75 spear fishing, trap fishing, fish corral, gill net Signus fuscescens, Choerodon anchorago, Scarus ghobban, Calotomus japonicus, Scarus rhodurepterus, Acentrogobius puntang, Signus spinus, Cheilinus trilobatus, Gymnothorax pictus, Pelates quadrilineatus, Gerres oyena, Epinephelus merra, Leptoscarus vaigiensis, Parapercis cylindrica, Dischistodus chrysopoecilus, Parupeneus barberinus, Lethrinus harak, Lethrinus ornatus, Siganus virgatus, Mulloidichthys flavolineatus, Siganus guttatus, Siganus argenteus, Lutjanus fulviflamma, Lethrinus lentjan, Cheilodipterus quinquilineatus, others Cape Bolinao, Lingayen Gulf, Pangasinan (I) Averaged from 20 % of daily catch rates by gear for Jan-Apr 1988 (Campos et al. 1994; Tables 1-4, p. 84-86). 1998 1.75 gleaning shells Bolinao, Pangasinan (I) Average daily catch per fisher by 3-6 gleaners (Pet-Soede 2000, Table 2, p. 37).   Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 39 Table 2. Results of the rank and percentile analysis of marine artisanal landings for northern Luzon (representing Regions I-III, or Subzone A) from 1981 to 2006 reported by the Philippine Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. Rank Percentile English name Scientific name 1 100 Yellowfin tuna Thunnus obesus 2 98 Anchovy Enchrasicolina spp. 3 97 Acetes  Acetes spp. 4 95 Round scad Decapterus macrosoma 5 94 Skipjack Katsuwonus pelamis 6 92 Hardtail Megalaspis cordyla 7 90 White shrimps Fenneropenae spp. 8 89 Threadfin bream Nemipterus virgatus 9 87 Siganid Siganus spp. 10 85 Squid Loligo spp. 11 84 Slipmouth Leiognathus spp. 12 82 Flying fish Cypselurus poelicopter 13 81 Frigate tuna Auxis spp. 14 79 Blue crab Portunus pelagicus 15 77 Spanish mackerel Acanthocybium solandri 16 76 Leather jacket Scomberoides spp. 17 74 Snapper Pristipomoides filamentosus 18 73 Big-eyed scad Selar crumenophthalmus 19 71 Indo-Pacific mackerel  Rastrelliger brachysoma 20 69 Endeavor prawn  Metapenaeus spp.   Catch composition  The rank and percentile analysis resulted in a list of 20 taxa making up 70 % of the catch, the most important of which is yellowfin tuna (see Table 2 and Figure 2E). In the 1980s, 90% of the total catch consisted of the following species, arranged in decreasing order: yellowfin tuna, Acetes, anchovy, skipjack tuna and slipmouths. In the 1990s, this configuration slightly changed to yellowfin tuna, anchovy, Acetes, round scads and hardtails. Finally in the 2000s, catch was primarily composed of yellowfin tuna, anchovy, hardtails, round scads and skipjack tuna. In all three decades, tuna species dominated the catch, with small pelagic fish species such as anchovy consistently being on top, followed by Acetes and round scads. Demersal species like threadfin breams, siganids, slipmouths, and snappers and some pelagic species usually targeted by the industrial fleet, e.g., frigate tuna and mackerel, and commercially important macroinvertebrates such as shrimps, squids, and crabs made up the rest of the upper 70 %. We present in Figure 2E only the most important species for clarity of the graph, as there are more than 100 species caught by the artisanal fisheries in this subzone.  Discussion  In the 1980s, 75 % of the total landings from Lingayen Gulf came from the artisanal sector (Silvestre et al. 1991). In the early 1990s, total marine landings from Regions I and III provided by BAS suggested a higher share from the South China Sea, roughly 79 % of the total landings (Barut 2007). The contributions of the fisheries sector for Regions I-III to agricultural production in recent years are 17.4 %, 5.9 %, and 20.6 %, respectively (BAS 2006-2013 CountrySTAT Philippines)31. These estimates illustrate the importance of these two major fishing grounds in the overall exploitation of marine resources in northern Luzon (Calud et al. 1991; Geronimo et al. 2007; Lopez 1986; Cortes-Zaragoza et al. 1989; McManus et al. 1990; Rueca et al. 2009; Silvestre et al. 1991; Silvestre and Hilomen 2004). This                                                      31 http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=1; http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=2; http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=3 Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 40 apparent high productivity may be related to several unique geographical and oceanographic traits of the subzone. The patches of shallow coastal waters (e.g., Lingayen Gulf and Babuyan Channel) that were predominantly mangrove habitats (acting as nursery to many small pelagic and demersal species) are exposed to upwelling conditions brought seasonally by the predominant oceanic currents. The seasonal North Equatorial Current comes from the east and bifurcates into the Mindanao Current flowing south and the Kuroshio Current flowing north (Toole et al. 1990). The Kuroshio Current from the Philippine Sea off the coast of Region II flows into the South China Sea through the Luzon Strait in colder months (Centurioni and Niiler 2004). Tang et al. (1999) hypothesize that the seasonal intrusions of colder water from the north through the Luzon Strait that encounter the warm Kuroshio Current may generate upwelling conditions, and thus may bring nutrients that favor phytoplankton blooms in an area of  otherwise low primary productivity (primary productivity measured at 0.10-1.53 gC·m-2·d-1; see Furio and Borja 2000). The South China Sea, on the other hand, is influenced by north-easterly monsoon winds which create a westward Ekman drift in winter that is reversed in summer, with the deep trenches off the western coast of Luzon contributing to the formation of the West Luzon Eddy (Hu et al. 2000; Qu 2000), which favor the transport of larvae from the rich coral reefs of, e.g. Palawan and the Sulu Sea, and may thus favor the tuna spawning grounds found off western Luzon (Wade 1951;Barut 2007, Figure 8, p. 15). In addition, with its narrow coastline directly facing the South China Sea – characteristic of shallow reefs, coves and bays – the Zambales coast is also an important fishing ground not only of demersal but also of pelagic species (Rueca et al. 2009). Contrary to the western coast, however, the deep waters of the eastern coast (Region II), facing some of the deepest trenches of the western Pacific Ocean, may be difficult to access by small artisanal vessels and may thus not contribute greatly to the artisanal catch of this subzone.  The multigear and multispecies fishery of Regions I and III account for the large landed artisanal catch (Calud et al. 1989; Calud et al. 1991; McManus et al. 1990; Silvestre and Hilomen 2004). Among the listed gear types used in Lingayen Gulf, for instance, the catch of gillnet (generally employed by the siganid fishery) made up 50 % of the landings, (Luna et al. 1990; Aragones et al. 1993; Calud et al. 1991; Campos et al. 1994; Gaerlan et al. 2002; McManus et al. 1990). Other demersal species caught belong to the following families: Acanthuridae, Apogonidae, Carangidae, Gobiidae, Labridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Mullidae, Nemipteridae, Priacanthidae, Pomacentridae, Scaridae, Serranidae, etc. (Acosta et al. 1988; Campos et al. 1994; Sanidad et al. 2006). Small pelagics of the family Engraulidae and Scombridae, are also caught from the subzone’s coastal areas (Gaerlan et al. 2002; Martosubroto 1998; Pet-Soede 2000; Rueca et al. 2009).  The tuna fishery (i.e, yellowfin tuna, skipjack, big-eyed tuna, eastern little tuna, frigate tuna), developed in the late 1970s and by the 1980s, was one of the main contributors to total fish landings from the South China Sea (Martosubroto 1998). The artisanal sector, in Zambales for instance, contributes 61 % of the region’s total tuna catch (the rest is from the industrial fishery; see Rueca et al. 2009). Gears commonly used by tuna fishers along the coast of Lingayen Gulf were surface and drift gillnets, which allowed fishing as far as the Ilocos coast (Calud et al. 1989). Yellowfin tuna is the major contributor to the total artisanal landed catch since the 1980s (Martosubroto 1998) followed by anchovy and Acetes, the latter is used in shrimp paste making – an important market (Calud et al. 1989). Yellowfin tuna and skipjack, considerably larger species, contribute more in weight, but anchovy dominate in number, as with other coastal pelagic species, e.g., sardines, mackerels, and round scads (McManus et al. 1990). Other commercially important macroinvertebrates (i.e., squid, blue crab and prawns) were also important in the catch since 1976, especially squids and shrimps caught along the Ilocos coast down to Lingayen Gulf (Lopez 1986; Hernando 1981).  In spite of the large landings reported for this subzone, recent studies report a decreasing trend in catch per unit effort (Barut 2007; Cruz-Trinidad et al. 2011; DENR 2010b; Gaerlan et al. 2002; Pauly 2000; Pet-Soede 2000; Rueca et al. 2009), which may be attributed to the following conditions: (i) increase in the number of fishers; (ii) increased fishing capacity (related to improved fishing technology); (iii) illegal Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 41 fishing practices; and (iv) failed recruitment of target species (Ferrer et al. 1994; Gaerlan et al. 2002; Martosubroto 1998). Tuna, being increasingly valued more than demersal species, artisanal fishers expanded their reach further offshore, and thus conflicted with the industrial tuna fishery (Calud et al. 1991; McManus et al. 1990). Calud et al. (1991) showed that 85 % of the 118 species caught by gillnets were also exploited by trawlers, and the non-compliance of industrial trawlers (‘baby trawlers’) with the 7 km ‘trawler-free’ inshore waters led to the tremendous overlap between the two sectors. As such, juvenile tuna dominated in the overall catch from “municipal waters” since the 1980s, and of the 6 commercially important species caught in these waters, the big-eyed tuna (Thunnus obesus) is now listed as vulnerable32 by the IUCN (Barut 2007). The continuous pressure on these species identifies Lingayen Gulf as one of the most overexploited fishing grounds in the country (Calud et al. 1989; Calud et al. 1991; McManus et al. 1990; Pauly 2000). The mariculture of economically important fish and shellfish was initiated in response to this problem. Mariculture requires a large amount of small to medium pelagic forage species (e.g., anchovies, sardines, mackerels), which form large dense schools that are easy to catch (Alder et al. 2008). Tuna feed on forage fish, and possibly as a consequence of forage fish extraction, tuna catches declined33 while forage fish in total catch landings increased alongside the doubled production from marine aquaculture in recent years (Tacon et al. 2009). The various economic and anthropological factors (see Gaerlan et al. 2002) leading to increased effort by a growing number of fishers coupled with destructive fishing practices (see Pauly et al. 1989) and other natural factors, such as climate change, disturbed the recruitment patterns of fish populations in the region, which led to a notable decrease in the demersal fish biomass of 15-30% (Silvestre and Palma 1990; Gaerlan et al. 2002; DENR 2010b; Estepa et al. 2001b; Ferrer et al. 1994).  The results shown as Figures 2A and 2B corroborate this decreasing trend in catch per unit of effort. Furthermore, the reconstructed total catches by the non-tuna and tuna artisanal fisheries presented in Figure 2D and the composition of the catch in Figure 2E matches the behaviour of these fisheries as discussed above. We thus feel that our reconstructions represent a reasonable picture of the evolution of artisanal fisheries of northern Luzon.  Subsistence fishery  The marine invertebrate catch from Lingayen Gulf alone consists of at least 120 species (cephalopods, crabs, echinoderms, lobsters, molluscs, shrimps) of low economic value, 52 % are hand-gathered while 46 % are those caught by artisanal gears (Estepa et al. 2001a; Lopez 1986; Luna et al. 1990; McManus et al. 1990). Hand-gathering, or simply gleaning, is a common reef activity performed by women and children along shallow areas during low tide (Estepa et al. 2001a; Ferrer et al. 1994; Luna et al. 1990; McManus et al. 1990; Pet-Soede 2000). It lasts for at least 3 hours a day and catch ranged from 1-3 kg (Pet-Soede 2000). Catch usually targeted shells only, especially of commercial importance, i.e. food and ornament (Estepa et al. 2001a; Ferrer et al. 1994; Luna et al. 1990; McManus et al. 1990). Small shells (such as species of the genus Strombus and Cypraea), sea urchins and sea cucumbers (used in Chinese cuisine), and edible seaweeds were sold (McManus 1989). Other species were caught either by spear gun, such as cuttlefish, lobster and octopus, or by fish corral, gillnet, traps and others, together with reef fishes (Christie et al. 2003; Ferrer et al. 1994; Lopez 1986; Luna et al. 1990, McManus et al. 1990). Since fishing is seasonal (i.e., monsoon dependent), some fishers, together with their household members, revert to gleaning as an alternative way to earn money (McManus 1989). The bulk of the catch is sold in the                                                      32 Thunnus obesus. International Union for Conservation of Nature accesses on 11/11/13 from http://discover.iucnredlist.org/species/21859 33 Little fish, big deal: for a healthy ocean, albacore tuna need forage fish. PEW accessed on 11/11/13 from http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/fact-sheets/little-fish-big-deal-for-a-healthy-ocean-albacore-tuna-need-forage-fish-85899505866 Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 42 market and only a minute portion is allotted for household consumption (Christie et al. 2003; Estepa et al. 2001a; Ferrer et al. 1994). Likewise, some 0.5-1 kg from the artisanal catch stated above is kept (Campos  Catch (log10) = 156.13-47.223*log10(Year)-1.5-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.52.02.53.275 3.280 3.285 3.290 3.295 3.300 3.305Non-tuna catch (kg*day-1*fisher-1;  log10)Year (log10)Year (log10)Catch (log10)  . – . · g10(Year)Non-tuna catch  (kg·day-1 ·fisher-1;  log 10) ANon-tuna catch (kg*day-1*fisher-1;  log10)Non-tuna catch  (kg·day-1 ·fisher-1;  log 10)  Catch (log10) = 173.27-52.418*log10(Year)-1.5-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.52.02.53.275 3.280 3.285 3.290 3.295 3.300 3.305Tuna catch (kg*day-1*fisher-1;  log10)Year (log10)Year (log10)Catch (log10)  . – . ·l g10(Year)Tuna catch  (kg·day-1·fisher-1;  log 10) BTuna catch (kg*day-1*fisher-1;  log10)Tuna catch  (kg·day-1·fisher-1;  log 10)  Catch (log10) = 231.58-70.172*log10(Year)-1.5-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.52.02.53.288 3.290 3.292 3.294 3.296 3.298 3.300 3.302Subsistence catch (kg*day-1*fisher-1;  log10)Year (log10)Year (log10)at  (l 10) = 231.58–70.172·log10(Year)Subsistence catch  (kg·day-1·fisher-1;  log 10) CSubsistence catch (kg*day-1*fisher-1;  log10)Subsistence catch  (kg·day-1·fisher-1;  log 10)   01020304050601950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Reconstructed artisanal catch (103t)Reconstructed artisanal catch (103t) DNon-tunaTunaSubsistence 0510152025303540451950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Reconstructed artisanal catch (103t)AnchovyAcetesRound scadHardtailWhite shrimpsYellowfin TunaSkipjackFrigate TunaBig-eye TunaEastern Little TunaOthersReconstructed artisanal catch (103t) EReconstructed artisanal catch (103t)Reconstructed artisanal catch (103t)  Figure 2. Catch per artisanal fisher per day (t; log10) based on independent estimates of catch data assembled in Table 1 used with demographics presented in Palomares and Pauly (this vol., Figure 2A, p. 24) and assumptions quoted in Table 1). A: Catch of non-tuna species by artisanal gears using the 1900 value of 4.2 t·year-1·fisher-1 of Pauly (2000) standardized to 19.7 kg·day-1·fisher-1 and the geometric mean of 1.86 kg·day-1·fisher-1 for 1997 from 17 data points with s.e.=2.524. B: Catch of tuna species by artisanal gears using the 1900 value standardized to 25 kg·day-1·fisher-1 and the geometric mean of 1.55 kg·day-1·fisher-1 for 2004 from 11 data points with s.e.=3.903. C: Catch of subsistence fishers using the 1950 value estimated in Palomares et al. (this vol.) of 5.2 kg·fisher-1·day-1 and the geometric mean of 1.15 kg·day-1·fisher-1 for 1992 from 2 data points. D: Reconstructed catches assuming: (i) an average of 213 fishing days in a year (Muallil et al. 2012 for landing areas within Subzone A) for non-tuna artisanal fishers; (ii) 166 fishing days for tuna artisanal fishers based on the average established for Masinloc, Zambales, i.e., landing site of most tuna fishers from the region (Muallil et al. 2012); (iii) only half of the fishers from this region engage in tuna fishing; and (iv) coastal gleaners spend 227 days in a year on subsistence fishing based on the average established for Bolinao, Pangasinan (Muallil et al. 2012). E: Composition of the catch based on percentage distribution of species from available national statistics (Appendix A) and reconstructed catches in (D) showing top 5 non-tuna and all 5 tuna species caught in Subzone A. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 43  et al. 1994; Christie et al. 2003). Decreased catch rates were observed by coastal fishers; for instance, in the 1980s, it took only an hour to fill a full basket of gleaned shells, while in the 1990s, a full basket was obtained only after a full day of gleaning (Estepa et al. 2001a; Ferrer et al. 1994). These studies are similar to the results in Figure 2C and suggest that the reconstruction presented in Figure 2D, the first of its kind, may well be a good representation of the evolution of subsistence catch in northern Luzon.  Acknowledgments  We wish to thank Daniel Pauly and Annadel Cabanban for their comments and Mike A. Yap for drafting the map. This is a contribution of Sea Around Us, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and the Pew Charitable Trusts.  References  Acosta, AR, and Recksiek, CW (1988) Coral reef fisheries at Cape Bolinao, Philippines: an assessment of catch, effort, and yield. Fisheries Stock Assessment CRSP Working Paper No. 41, 28 p. Alder J, Campbell B, Karpouzi V, Kaschner K and Pauly D (2008) Forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33:153-166. Aragones NV and de la Paz RM (1993) Biology and fishery of the siganid fishes of Bolinao, Pangasinan (Luzon Island, Philippines). MS Thesis, Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. Barut, N (2007) National report on the fish stocks and habitats of regional, global, and transboundary significance in the South China Sea: Philippines. In: UNEP (ed.) National Reports on the Fish Stocks and Habitats of Regional, Global, and Transboundary Significance in the South China Sea, p. 56. UNEP/GEF/SCS Technical Publication No. 15. Calud A, Cinco E and Silvestre G (1991) The gill net fishery of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines. In: Chou LM, Chua T-E, Khoo HW, Lim PE, Paw JN, Silvestre GT, Valencia MJ, White AT and Wong PK (eds.), Towards an integrated management of tropical coastal resources, p. 45-50. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 22. National University of Singapore, Singapore; Nationa; Science and Technology Board, Singapore; and International Center of Living Aquatic Resources Management, Philippines. Calud, A, Rodriquez, G, Aruelo, R, Aguilar, G, Cinco, E, Armada, N, and Silvestre, G (1989) Preliminary results of a study of the municipal fisheries in Lingayen Gulf. In: G. Silvestre, E. Miclat, and T.-E. Chua (eds.) Towards sustainable development of the coastal resources of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines, p. 3-29. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 17, 200 p. Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development, Los Baños, Laguna, and International Center for Living and Aquatic Resources Management, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines.  Campos, WL, del Norte-Campos, AGC and McManus, JW (1994) Yield estimates, catch, effort and fishery potential of the reef flat in Cape Bolinao, Philippines. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 10:82-95. Centurioni, LR, and Niiler, PP (2004) Observations of inflow of Philippine Sea surface water into the South China Sea through the Luzon Strait. Journal of Physical Oceanography 34: 113-121. Christie, P, Buhat, D, Garces, LR and White, AT (2003) The challenges and rewards of community-based coastal resources management: San Salvador Island, Philippines. In: S.R. Brechin, P.R. Wilshusen, C.L. Fortwangler, and P.C. West (eds.), Contested Nature – Promoting International Biodiversity Conservation with Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century, p. 231-249. SUNY Press, Albany, New York, SA. Cortes-Zaragoza E, Dalzell P and Pauly D (1989) Hook selectivity of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) caught off Darigayos Cove, La Union, Philippines. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 5(1): 12-17. Cruz-Trinidad A, Geronimo RC, Cabral RB and Aliño PM (2011) How much are the Bolinao-Anda coral reefs worth? Ocean and Coastal Management 54: 696-705. D’Agnes, H, Castro, J, D’Agnes, L and Montebon, R (2005) Gender issues within the population-environment nexus in Philippine coastal areas. Coastal Management Journal 33(4):1-18. DENR (2010a) Integrated coastal resources management plan 2010-2012: San Antonio, Zambales. ICRMP, DENR, Philippines, 107 p. DENR (2010b) Integrated coastal resources management plan 2010-2015: Botolan, Zambales. ICRMP, DENR, Philippines, 85 p. Estepa, NG, Salmo III, SG, Tamayo, EL and Juinio-Menez, MA (2001a) Resource assessment of economically important macroinvertebrates in Bolinao, Pangasinan, Philippines. In: L.T. McManus, M.A. Juinio-Menez, P.M. Alino, E.M. Ferrer, and J.C.A.M. Dizon (eds.) Paving the Way for Coastal Resources Management: the Bolinao (Philippines) Experience (1993-1997), p. 37-40. Community-Based Coastal Resources Management Project, Quezon City, Philippines, 255 p. Estepa, NG, Salmo, SG and Alino, PM (2001b) Fish landed catch assessment in Bolinao as baseline information for community-based coastal resource management. In: L.T. McManus, M.A. Juinio-Menez, P.M. Alino, E.M. Ferrer, and J.C.A.M. Dizon (eds.) Paving the Way for Coastal Resources Management: the Bolinao (Philippines) Experience (1993-1997), p. 41-44. Community-Based Coastal Resources Management Project, Quezon City, Philippines, 255 p. Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 44 Ferrer, EM, Polotan-dela Cruz, L, Rodriguez, SR, Jayme, AI and Moron, MD (1994) Tagaporo: the island dwellers, coastal resource profile of Barangay Dewey, Bolinao, Pangasinan. University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines, 90 p. Furio, E, and Borja, V (2000) The primary productivity in the South China Sea, Area III: Western Philippines. In: Proceedings of the Third Technical Seminar on Marine Fishery Resources Survey in the South China Sea, Area III: Western Philippines, p. 235–250. Special Paper No. SEC/SP/41. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, Bangkok, Thailand. Gaerlan RSP, Barut NC, Buccat FGA and Bugaoan BC (2002) An assessment of the Lingayen Gulf fisheries, Philippines. Paper presented to the NSAP pre-workshop evaluation, 22-24 April 2003, Manila, Philippines. Geronimo RC, Aliño PM and Peralta S (2007) Fisheries capacity and MPA size of towns with coral reefs in the Lingayen Gulf. Proceedings of the 9th National Symposium on Marine Science, Iloilo City, Philippines. Hernando AM and Flores EE (1981) The Philippines squid fishery : a review. Mar. Fish. Res. 43(1) : 13-20. Hu, J, Kawamura, H, Hong, H, Qi, Y (2000) A review on the currents in the South China Sea: seasonal circulation, South China Sea Warm Current and Kuroshio intrusion. Journal of Oceanography 56: 604-624. Lopez, MDG (1986) An invertebrate resource survey of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines. In: Jamieson GS and Bourne N (eds.), North Pacific Workshop on Stock Assessment and Management of Invertebrates, p. 402-409. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 92. Luna CZ and Concepcion JM (1990) Chapter 2: Natural resources. In: McManus LT and Chua T-E (eds.), The coastal environment profile of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines, p. 5-14. ICLARM Technical Report 22, 69 p. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. McManus, LT (1989) The gleaners of northwest Lingayen Gulf, Philippines. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly 12(2):13. McManus, LT, Luna, CZ, Guarin, FY (1990) Chapter I. Introduction. In: McManus, L.T. and Thia-Eng, C. (eds.) The Coastal Environment Profile of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines. ICLARM Technical Reports 22, 69 p. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Mines AN (1986) An assessment of the fisheries of Lingayen Gulf. PCARRD/NSTA Proj. Rep. 56 p. College of Fisheries, University of the Philippines in the Visayas, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. Muallil, RN, Cabral, RB, Mamauag, SS and Aliño, PM (2012) Status, trend and sustainability of small-scale fisheries in the Philippines. Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium, Cairns, Australia, 9-13 July 2012. Pauly, D (2000) Fisheries in the Philippines and in the world: an overview. Tambuli: A Publication for Coastal Management Practitioners (6): 23-25. Pauly, D, Silvestre, G, and Smith, IR (1989) On development, fisheries and dynamite, a brief review of tropical fisheries management. Natural Resource Modeling 3(3): 307-329. Pet-Soede, L (2000) Effects of coral beaching on the socio-economics of the fishery in Bolinao, Pangasinan, Philippines. Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Philippines, 46 p. Qu, T (2000) Upper-layer circulation in the South China Sea. Journal of Physical Oceanography 30: 1450-1460. Rueca, LM, Bien, BB, Bathan, RM, Yuzon, JI and Salamat, GB (2009) Fish stock assessment in northern Zambales coast. BFAR NFRDI Technical Paper Series 12(3), 28 p. Sanidad, RA, Cabatu, JQ and Daluddung, DM (2006) Assessment of lambaklad fishery in Ilocos Sur. North Luzon Aquatic and Marine Resources Research and Development, 12th Commodity R&D Review for Fisheries, 20 p. Silvestre GT and Hilomen VV (2004) Status of Lingayen Gulf fisheries - a brief update. In: DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture – Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In Turbulent Seas: the Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries, p. 285-291. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines, 378 p. Silvestre GT and Palma AL (1990) Chapter 3: Economic sector. In: McManus LT and Chua T-E (eds.), The Coastal Environment Profile of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines, p. 15-31. ICLARM Technical Reports 22, 69 p. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Silvestre, GT, Armada, N and Cinco, E (1991) Assessment of the capture fisheries of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines. In: Chou LM, Chua T-E, Khoo HW, Lim PE, Paw JN, Silvestre GT, Valencia MJ, White AT and Wong PK (eds.), Towards an Integrated Management of Tropical Coastal Resources, p. 25-36. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 22, 455 p. National University of Singapore, Singapore; National Science and Technology Board, Singapore; and International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Philippines. Smith, IR, Puzon, MY and Vidal-Libunao, CN (1980) Philippine municipal fisheries: a review of resources, technology and socioeconomics. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 4, 87 p. Tacon, AGJ and Metian, M (2009) Fishing for aquaculture: non-food use of small pelagic forage fish – a global perspective. Fisheries Science 17(3): 305-317. Tang, DL, Ni, IH, Kester, DR and Muller-Karger, FE (1999) Remote sensing observations of winter phytoplankton blooms southwest of the Luzon Strait in the South China Sea. University of South Florida Scholar Commons. Marine Science Faculty Publications. Paper 61. [http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/msc_facpub/61, accessed 13/11/2013]. Toole, JM, Millard, RC, Wang, Z, and Pu, S (1990) Observations of the Pacific North Equatorial Current bifurcation at the Philippine coast. Journal of Physical Oceanography 20: 307-318. Umali AF (1950) Guide to the classification of fishing gears in the Philippines. US Fish and Wildlife Serv. Res. Rep. 17. 1959. Wade CB (1951) Larvae of tuna and tuna-like fishes from Philippine waters. Fish. Bull. US 51: 445-485. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 45 Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B – southern Luzon (Regions IV, V and NCR)34  M.L.D. Palomares1, V.A. Parducho2  1 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, V6T 1Z4; Email: m.palomares@fisheries.ubc.ca 2 FishBase Information and Research Group, Inc., Khush Hall, IRRI, Los Baños, Laguna 4301 Philippines  Abstract  Independent estimates of daily catch per fisher (n=41) from Batangas, Mindoro, Palawan (Region IV) and Bicol (Region V) were obtained from 10 published sources; no applicable data was found to represent the fishing ground directly surrounding the NCR region, i.e., Manila Bay. These indicated a breadth of non-tuna catches from 0.15 kg·day-1·fisher-1 to 7.8 kg·day-1·fisher-1 (n=16, s.e.=0.00167, covering 1972-2010) and tuna catches from 0.28 kg·day-1·fisher-1 to 4.7 kg·day-1·fisher-1 (n=18, s.e.=0.00138, covering 1980-2010). These data sets were compared, using log-transformed regression analyses, to the 1900 estimates of 19.4 kg·day-1 fisher-1 (standardized to 216 fishing days as practiced in the region) for the non-tuna, and 18 kg·day-1 fisher-1 (standardized to 233 fishing days) for the tuna fisheries. Results indicate decreasing trends in daily catches per fisher from the 1950s to the 2000s, with average rates of 74 % for non-tuna and 76 % for tuna fisheries. Estimates of subsistence catch obtained from Batangas (Region IV) and Lagonoy Gulf (Region IV) ranging 5.2-0.75 kg·day-1 fisher-1 (n=7; s.e.=0.000913; covering 1955-2010) were compared to the baseline of 5.2 kg·day-1·fisher-1 in a log-transformed regression analysis. Results indicate an average decline in daily subsistence catch per fisher of 81 % over a 50-year period. Total artisanal catch for the subzone estimated as the product of predicted daily catch per fisher, number of fishers and average number of fishing days in a year resulted in a reconstructed time series with catches of 28,410 t·year-1 (1950) to 141,764 t·year-1 (2010) and an average increase of 30 % per decade. The reconstructed total catch separated into species components, using the percent species composition of reported artisanal fisheries statistics for the subzone, suggests that round scads (Decapterus macrosoma) is the most important exploited species in the subzone over the three decades for which this data was collected (1970s to 2000s), while small pelagic fishes (e.g., anchovies), frigate, yellowfin and skipjack tuna are consistently represented in the upper 80 % of the catch.  Introduction  Southern Luzon, hereafter referred to as Subzone B (see Figure 1) includes four administrative regions (IV-A, IV-B, V and NCR) of the southern half of the island of Luzon, bounded by the Province of Quezon in the northeastern border, south to Bicol (including the island of Masbate), west to the islands of Romblon, Mindoro (including the island of Marinduque), and Palawan (and its islands) and north along the eastern border of the South China Sea to the coasts of Batangas, Cavite, Rizal and the Metro Manila area i.e., the National Capital Region (NCR). This rather important subzone is home to 31% of the more than 22 million Filipinos inhabiting coastal areas (2000 estimate).                                                       34 Cite as: Palomares, M.L.D., Parducho, V.A. (2014) Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B – southern Luzon (Regions IV, V and NCR). In: Palomares, M.L.D., Pauly, D. (eds.), Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950 to 2010, p. 45-61. Fisheries Centre Research Report 22(1). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 46 Metro Manila (NCR) was created under Presidential Decree No. 824 issued by the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos, shifting the country’s capital city from Pasig to Manila.35 One of the 20 most populated metropolitan areas worldwide, it has a population of 12 million on a land area of 636 km2 composed of 17 local government units with 16 cities and 1 municipality (Pateros)36. It is bounded by Bulacan in the north, Rizal in the east, Laguna in the south, and Manila Bay in the west. In 2009, it contributed almost 3 % to the country’s total marine production.37  Region IV-A was created by Executive Order No. 103 in 200238, by dividing the Southern Tagalog region into two. This region includes the provinces of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, and Quezon (also known as CALABARZON) – occupying a total land area of 16,560 km2, with Quezon as the widest and Rizal as the narrowest.39 The region is bounded by the South China Sea in the west, Cordillera and Cagayan regions in the north, Pacific Ocean in the east, and the second division of the Southern Tagalog region in the south. In 2010, the region ranked 5th in terms of percent contribution to nominal fisheries landings, with the largest contribution from Quezon (37 %).40    Figure 1. Subzone B, Southern Luzon, Philippines, showing its four administrative regions (Regions IV-V and NCR), provinces, fishing grounds, and its surrounding waters; the insert shows this subzone (dark) relative to the Philippine EEZ (Redrawn by Mr. M.A. Yap from Figure 1 of Palomares and Pauly (this vol.) and a composite of open source maps).                                                       35 NCR National Capital Region regional profile. Department of Tourism accessed on 15/11/13 from http://www.visitmyphilippines.com/index.php?title=Regional%20Profile&func=all&pid=388&tbl=0 36 NCR profile. National Nutrition Council accessed on 09/11/13 from http://www.nnc.gov.ph/component/k2/itemlist/category/89 37 Fisheries subsector statistics. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources accessed on 15/11/13 from http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages/statistics/table1.htm 38 Regional profile CALABARZON. Department of Agriculture accessed on 15/11/13 from http://www.calabarzon.da.gov.ph/profile_CALABARZON.html 39 Region 4A-CALABARZON physical and socio-economic profile. Department of Environment and Natural Resources accessed on 15/11/13 from http://calabarzon.denr.gov.ph/index.php/about-us/regional-profile/reg-profile-physical-socio-eco 40 CALABARZON profile. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources accessed on 15/11/13 from http://region4a.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages_all/heading/about_us/CALABARZON_Profile/CALABARZON_Profile.html Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 47  Region IV-B include the islands separated from the mainland of the Southern Tagalog region; these are: Mindoro (Occidental and Oriental), Marinduque, Romblon, and Palawan (also known as MIMAROPA) – covering a total land area of 2,750 km2, with Palawan as the widest and Marinduque as the narrowest.41 It is bounded by the South China Sea in the west, CALABARZON in the north, Sibuyan Sea on the east, and the Visayas region in the south. Its economy is greatly dependent on fisheries and ecotourism.42 It contributed 14 % to the country’s nominal fish landings in 2002-2004, thus ranked as 2nd nationwide.43  At the southernmost tip of Luzon lies Region V, also known as the Bicol region. Region V includes the provinces of Albay, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Masbate, and Sorsogon – encompassing a total land area of 17,632 km2, 6 % of the country’s total land area.44 It is bounded by the Southern Tagalog in the west, Quezon province in the north, the Pacific Ocean in the east, and the Visayan seas in the south. The economy of Region V is dependent not only on agriculture, but also on fisheries, as the region is surrounded by important fishing grounds (i.e, Albay Gulf, Asid Gulf, Lagonoy Gulf, Lamon Bay, Ragay Gulf, San Miguel Bay, Sibuyan Sea, and Sorsogon Bay).45  The majority of Luzon’s traditional fishing grounds are within the boundaries of southern Luzon, and all are heavily exploited (Smith 1979). Two of these, located southwest and east of the region, i.e., the Sulu Sea and San Miguel Bay, respectively, are the most important fishing grounds in Subzone B (Pauly and Mines 1982; Campos et al. 2007; Lim et al. 1995; Smith 1979). San Miguel Bay, an 840 km2 shallow body of water located southeast of Luzon is characterized by sandy and muddy substrate, and was exploited uniquely with traditional fishing gears such as gillnet and hook and line until the Second World War; thereafter, trawlers strongly increased in numbers (Pauly 1982a; Pauly et al. 1982;, Lim et al. 1995; Mines et al. 1986; Smith and Pauly 1983; Yater 1982). Sustained fishing from both trawlers and artisanal fishers resulted in the bay’s overexploitation as early as in the 1980s (Pauly 1982a; Lim et al. 1995; Smith and Pauly 1983; Sunderlin 1994; Bundy and Pauly 2001).  The Sulu Sea, located in the western part of the country, bounded by Palawan and the Visayan islands, is another rich fishing ground in terms of abundance and diversity of species (Campos et al. 2007; Itano and Williams 2009). It is one of the top fish producers in terms of annual landings and an important tuna fishing ground (Barut 2007). Gears commonly used by fishers from this region are of the following types: (1) lines, i.e., hook and line and longline; (2) nets, i.e., scissor net, crab liftnet, filternet, beach seine, mini-trawl, drift gillnet, crab gillnet, bottom-set gillnet; and (3) others, i.e., speargun, fish trap, fish weir, stationary tidal weir, fish corral (Garces and Silvestre 2010; Olaño et al. 2009; Itano and Williams 2009; Lim et al. 1995; Mines et al. 1986; Munoz 1991). Of these, hook and line and gillnet contributed 89 % of the total annual landings (Garces and Silvestre 2010; Olaño 2009; Amparado 1993). The catch is mainly composed of the following groups: (1) demersal fish species, i.e., croakers (Otolithes ruber), mullet (Mugil dussumieri), hairtail or cutlassfish (Trichiurus lepturus), slipmouths (Leiognathidae), lizardfish (Sauridia tumbil), solefish (Cynoglossus sp.), goatfishes (Mullidae), and sea catfish (Arius thallasinus); (2) coastal pelagic fish species such as anchovies (Stolephorus spp.) and sardines (Sardinella spp.); (3) oceanic pelagic fish like tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis and Thunnus albacares) and mackerel (Rastrelliger                                                      41 Regional profile: MIMAROPA. Bureau of Agricultural Statistics accessed on 15/11/13 from http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=17 42 Region 4B-MIMAROPA regional profile. Department of Environment and Natural Resources accessed on 15/11/13 from http://mimaropa.denr.gov.ph/index.php/about-us/regional-profile 43 Region IV-B profile. National Nutrition Council accessed on 15/11/13 from http://www.nnc.gov.ph/component/k2/itemlist/category/101 44 Overview of Bicol region. Department of Agriculture accessed on 15/11/13 from http://bicol.da.gov.ph/Statistics/regional_profile.html 45 Region V Bicol regional profile. Department of Tourism accessed on 15/11/13 from http://www.visitmyphilippines.com/index.php?title=RegionalProfile&func=all&pid=170&tbl=0 Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 48 kanagurta); (4) crustaceans, i.e., small shrimps or balao (Acetes indicus, penaeid shrimps) and crabs such as the blue or swimming crab (Portunus pelagicus), mangrove or mud crab (Scylla serrata), and Charybdis feriata); (5) cephalopods or squids (Loligo spp.), cuttlefish (Sepia spp.), and octopus; (6) shelled molluscs, such as the window pane shell (Placuna placenta) and abalone (Haliotis sp.); and lastly (7) the commercially important sea cucumbers and seaweeds46 (Pauly 1982b; Mines et al. 1986; Lim et al. 1995; Olaño et al. 2009). The similarity in the gears employed and the catch composition of landings in these two fishing grounds support our assumption that the behaviour of fishing and fishers in the regions within this Subzone are similar, even if it covers a wide range of habitats.  Daily catch per fisher  The sections below present the catch per fisher data per sector obtained from sources other than Philippine government institutions tasked with assembling fisheries statistical data. The sectors were divided into 3: artisanal non-tuna, artisanal tuna and subsistence catches. The reasons for this division are given in Parducho and Palomares (this vol.).  Artisanal non-tuna fishery  The reconstructed non-tuna artisanal catch of the subzone was based on 16 independent estimates of catch per fisher per day from 7 sources (Table 1). Studies were made along the coasts of regions IV and V, i.e., Batangas, Bicol, Mindoro and northern Palawan. No applicable catch per fisher data was found to represent catch rates from the fishing ground directly surrounding the NCR region, i.e., Manila Bay. Different gears employed by the coastal provinces represented by data in Table 1 are of the same types as those in Subzone A (Parducho and Palomares, this vol.). Gillnet and hook and line were the most common gears, based on the boat and gear inventory conducted by BFAR (2003). The catch is composed mostly of demersal fish species (e.g., groupers, slipmouths, snappers, etc.) and small pelagic fish species (i.e., anchovies).  The daily catch per fisher of non-tuna species ranged from 0.15 kg to 7.8 kg obtained from various data types, similar to those specified in Parducho and Palomares (this vol.). Monthly and annual catch rates were divided by the average number of fishing days per year (216) obtained from data for the region from Muallil et al. (2012, p. 3), slightly differing from that used for Subzone A (213 days; see Parducho and Palomares, this vol.). This average number of days was used in cases where it was not specified, e.g., for the annual catch data from Smith and Pauly (1983). In cases where different catch rates were supplied, e.g., monthly catch rates by gear from Hamoy-Obusan (2004), the average daily catch rates were calculated using the average number of fishing days also specified in the source. In cases where the data reported included tuna as target species, the procedure followed for Subzone A (Parducho and Palomares, this vol.) was applied. These 16 data points were then compared with the estimate in Pauly (2000) of 4.2 t·year-1·fisher-1, standardized to 19.4 kg·day-1·fisher-1, assuming that the number of fishing days per year then was also 216.  Artisanal tuna fishery  The reconstructed artisanal tuna catch of Subzone B was based on 18 independent estimates of daily catch per fisher from 6 sources (Table 1). Catch rates were from the coastal provinces of regions IV and V, mostly from the Bicol region, exposed to fishing grounds opening to the Pacific (i.e., San Miguel Bay and Lagonoy Gulf). Almost all data points obtained were from the 2000s to the present and only one each for 1980s and 1990s. The gears primarily used by tuna fishers are gillnet and handlines. Tunas, mackerels, jacks, and scads make up the bulk of the catch alongside a few demersal fish species.                                                      46 Not included in this study see Palomares and Pauly (this vol.). Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 49  The landed values of tuna catch per fisher ranged from 0.28 kg to 4.7 kg. The types of data for which these values were obtained are similar to those used for the non-tuna artisanal fishery. An average of 233 fishing days per year (average tuna fishing days for Tabaco City, Albay; from West et al. 2011) was used in cases where only the annual or monthly catch and number of fishers were provided, like the case from Soliman and Dioneda (1997); otherwise, fishing trips per year was used instead, as was the case from Olaño et al. (2009). In the case of Yater (1982), where the data may have included both tuna and demersal fish in its catches using only one type of gear (i.e, gillnet), % tuna catch composition for Tinambac, Camarines Sur based on Muallil et al. (2012) was used. The 1900 catch per fisher estimate of Pauly (2000) for 1900 was standardized to 18 kg·day-1·fisher-1, assuming that the number of fishing days then was 233.  Subsistence fishery  The reconstructed subsistence catch of Subzone B is based on 7 independent estimates of daily catch per fisher from 3 sources (Table 1). Catch rates originated mostly from along the coast of Batangas and one from Lagonoy Gulf, from gleaning and artisanal fishery studies. A small percentage of catch by the artisanal fisheries is usually partitioned as take home by fishers which they use for household consumption; Hamoy-Obusan (2004) reported that 8 % of the artisanal catch is brought home by fishers. On the other hand, Palomares et al. (this vol.) and Nieves et al. (2010) report gleaning catches by subsistence fishers that were either destined for household consumption or sale. These data points ranged from 0.75 kg·day-1 fisher-1 to 5.2 kg·day-1 fisher-1 and were compared with the 1950 estimate of a purely subsistence catch of 5.2 kg·day-1·fisher-1 reported in Palomares et al. (this vol.).  Catch composition  The most important species in the catch were obtained using rank and percentile analysis (see Parducho and Palomares, this vol., for the methodology) on the available data for regions in this subzone from national statistics. The list in Table 2 was then used to graph the species or taxon groups that represent 80 % of the catch.  Results Non-tuna artisanal fishery  The cloud of 16 data-pairs (kg·day-1·fisher-1 vs. year; standard error of X/Y pairs at 1.67) for this sector compared with the 1900 value from Pauly (2000) standardized to 213 fishing days, resulted in a logarithmic linear relationship with a low coefficient of determination (r2=0.29), mainly because the 2003 data points broke the downward trend from the 1970s to the present (Figure 2A). Excluding these 2 points would result in an r2 value of 0.66, which, given n=14 (including Pauly 2000), is still rather low. Disregarding these points will bias our analysis; thus, we opted for the use of a geometric mean instead. The geometric mean of the daily catch per fisher for n=16 (excluding the 1900 standardized baseline) was 2 kg in 2002 and compared with the 1900 baseline, resulted in the log-log relationship of Equation (1):   Equation (1) was then used to reconstruct the daily catch of non-tuna species by artisanal fishers from 1950-2010, then multiplied by the average number of fishing days (216 days; see above), and then multiplied by the number of artisanal fishers estimated for this subzone in Palomares and Pauly (this vol., Figure 2B, p. 24). The resulting annual catch of non-tuna species per fisher is presented in Figure 2D, with a range of 17,007 t in 1950 to 86,644 t in 2010, or a 31 % increase per decade. Non-tuna catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1; log10) = 143.67 - 43.427·log10(Year) … (1) Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 50  Table 1. Catch of artisanal (tuna and non-tuna fisheries) and subsistence fishers in Subzone B, Southern Luzon, Philippines (Regions IV, V and NCR) assembled from independent sources and used in the analyses presented in Figure 2. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Artisanal Non-tuna species   1972 4.70 gillnet, scissors net, baklad (fish corral), kitang (hook and line), beach seine, drive-in net, bocatot (fish pot), bintol (crab lift net), liftnet, hook and line  halfbeak, mullet, sea catfish, goatfish, common whiting, grunt, Therapon sp., Caranx sp., shrimps, goby, blue crab, flatfish, silver pike eel, grouper, sting ray, slipmouth, crevalle, anchovy, hardtail, snapper, talakitok (cavalla) Sorsogon Bay (V) Averaged from daily catch rates of non-tuna gears divided by the number of fishers from 4 municipalities surrounding the bay, i.e., Casiguran, Juban, Sorsogon and Castilla (Ordoñes et al. 1975; Table 2, p. 186-188). 1980 2.73 drift (panke) and bottom-set (palubog) gillnets major species caught: tiger-toothed croaker, whiskered croaker, deep-bodied crevalle, hairtail, mullet, and herring Castillo, San Miguel Bay (V) Average daily catch per fisher from total landed catch for 219 fishing days per year (Yater 1982, Table 1, p. 30) multiplied by 0.45 for non-tuna catch (% catch composition for Tinambac, Camarines Sur from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (n=96; Yater 1982, p. 28) . 1981 7.76 non-trawl small-scale gears (e.g., gillnet and scissor net) Stolephorus sp., Arius thalassinus, Mugillidae, Otolithes ruber, other Sciaenidae, Pomadasyidae, Carangidae, Leiognathidae, Trichiuridae, squids, crabs, penaeid shrimps, others San Miguel Bay (V) Average daily catch per fisher from annual landed catch (Smith and Pauly 1983, Table 1, p. 14) for 216 fishing days per year (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by number of fishers (Smith and Pauly 1983, Table 2, p. 15). 1996 3.88 bottom-set gillnet, filter net, hook and line, fish corral, buli-buli, pushnet, fish trap, speargun, crab pot, drift gillnet, encircling gillnet, liftnet, stationary liftnet, beach seine, crab liftnet Not specified San Miguel Bay (V) Averaged from annual catch rates of all artisanal gears (Soliman and Dioneda 1997, Table 1, p. 30) for 216 fishing days per year (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.45 for non-tuna catch (% catch composition for Tinambac, Camarines Sur from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by number of fishers (n=5300; Soliman and Dioneda 1997, p. 23). 2001 2.67 multiple hook and line, bottom-set longline, beach seine, stationary/crab liftnet, crab/fish pot/trap, speargun, jigger, fish corral, scoop net, troll line, squid trap, round haul seine Selar crumenophthalmus, Istiophorus platypterus, Rastrelliger faughnii, Coryphaena hippurus, Stolephorus sp., Decapterus russelli, Decapterus macrosoma, Rastrelliger kanagurta, Tylosurus crocodiles, Atule mate, Acanthocybium solandri, Elagatis bipinnulata, Siganus canaliculatus, Lutjanus malabaricus, Makaira mazara, Sardinella longiceps, Lethrinus lentjan, Cheilopogon furcatus, Sepioteuthis lessoniana, Portunus pelagicus, Sepia lycidas, Octopus macropus, Loligo uyii, Sepia pharaonis, Octopus aegina, Portunus sanguinolenthus, Scylla serrata, Charybdis feriata, Sepia recurvirustra, others Lagonoy Gulf (V) Averaged from annual catch rates of all artisanal gears for 208 fishing trips (assumed as days) per year (Olaño et al. 2009, Table 1, p. 7) multiplied by 0.48 for non-tuna catch (Olaño et al. 2009, Table 2, p. 9) divided by number of fishers (n=8379 from Olaño et al. 2009, p. 1).             Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 51 Table 1. Continued. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Artisanal (continued) Non-tuna species (continued)   2003 0.15 hook and line, net types, spear, trap dominant species: galunggong, tursilyo, pusit, barak, kambabalo, galunggong, lagidlid, alumahan, manamse, manitis Mabini, Batangas (IV) Averaged from monthly catch rates of all artisanal gears (Hamoy-Obusan 2004, Table 3, p. 9) multiplied by 0.30 for non-tuna catch and divided by the number of fishers (n=704; average for Mabini, Batangas from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3).  2003 0.23 hook and line, net types, spear, trap dominant species: burak, buluhan, manitis, kanuping, galunggong, tirok, bisugo, kalintigas, kulafu, burak, lapu-lapu, posit, pugita, panos, buglaw, alumahan, samaral, buglaw, palata, dilis, bagis, kanuping Tingloy Batangas (IV) Averaged from monthly catch rates of all artisanal gears (Hamoy-Obusan 2004, Table 4, p. 13)  multiplied by 0.45 for non-tuna catch (% catch composition for Batangas from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (n=680; Hamoy-Obusan 2004, p. 4). 2010 3.02 Not specified 72 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 28 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Bacacay, Albay (V)  Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.72 for non-tuna catch. 2010 1.13 Not specified 45 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 55 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Batangas (IV)   Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.45 for non-tuna catch. 2010 4.29 Not specified 67 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 33 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) El Nido, Palawan (IV)   Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.67 for non-tuna catch. 2010 2.58 Not specified 86 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 14 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Gubat, Sorsogon (V)  Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.86 for non-tuna catch. 2010 4.23 Not specified 83 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 17 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Looc , Romblon (V) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.83 for non-tuna catch. 2010 2.11 Not specified 31 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 69 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Lubang, Mindoro (IV)  Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.31 for non-tuna catch. 2010 1.53 Not specified 30 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 70 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Mabini, Batangas (IV)  Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.30 for non-tuna catch. 2010 1.73 Not specified 36 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 64 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Puerto Galera, Mindoro (IV)   Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.36 for non-tuna catch. 2010 2.57 Not specified 45 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 55 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Tinambac, Camarines Sur (V)  Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.45 for non-tuna catch.             Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 52 Table 1. Continued. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Artisanal Tuna species   1980 3.33 drift (panke) and bottom-set (palubog) gillnets tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines  Castillo, San Miguel Bay (V) Average daily catch per fisher from total landed catch for 219 fishing days per year (Yater 1982, Table 1, p. 30) multiplied by 0.55 for tuna catch (% catch composition for Tinambac, Camarines Sur from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (n=96; Yater 1982, p. 28) . 1996 4.40 bottom-set gillnet, hook and line, fish corral, bottom-set longline, fish trap, drift gillnet, encircling gillnet, liftnet tuna, sharks and rays San Miguel Bay (V) Averaged from annual catch rates of all artisanal gears (Soliman and Dioneda 1997, Table 1, p. 30) for 216 fishing days per year (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.55 for tuna catch (% catch composition for Tinambac, Camarines Sur from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by number of fishers (n=5300; Soliman and Dioneda 1997, p. 23). 2001 2.99 multiple hook and line, bottom-set longline, drift gillnet, bottom-set gillnet, encircling gillnet, surface gillnet Katsuwonus pelamis, Thunnus albacares, Euthynnus affinis, Auxis thazard, Auxis rochei, Thunnus alalunga, Thunnus tonggol, Thunnus obesus Lagonoy Gulf (V) Averaged from annual catch rates of all artisanal gears for 208 fishing trips (assumed as days) per year (Olaño et al. 2009, Table 1, p. 7) multiplied by 0.52 for tuna catch (Olaño et al. 2009, Table 2, p. 9) divided by number of fishers (n=8379 from Olaño et al. 2009, p. 1). 2003 0.34 gillnet and pamo net major species: tamban Mabini, Batangas (IV) Averaged from monthly catch rates of all artisanal gears (Hamoy-Obusan 2004, Table 3, p. 9) multiplied by 0.70 for non-tuna catch and divided by the number of fishers (n=704; average for Mabini, Batangas from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3).  2003 0.28 hook and line and net types major species: tanigue, tambakol, kambabalo   Tingloy Batangas (IV) Averaged from monthly catch rates of all artisanal gears (Hamoy-Obusan 2004, Table 4, p. 13)  multiplied by 0.55 for non-tuna catch (% catch composition for Batangas from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (n=680; Hamoy-Obusan 2004, p. 4). 2010 1.70 simple handline, jigger yellowfin tuna, albacore, skipjack, dolphinfish, sailfish, others Brgy. Sabang, Camarines Sur (V) Averaged from total monthly landings for 143 sampling days in Sep 2009-Aug 2010 (West et al. 2011, Appendix 2, p. 23) divided by the number of fishers (n=201; West et al. 2011, Appendix 2, Table 1, p. 10-11). 2010 1.25 simple handline yellowfin tuna, albacore, skipjack, dolphinfish, sailfish, others Nato, Camarines Sur (V) Averaged from monthly landings for 193 days, Sep 2009-Aug 2010 (West et al. 2011, p. 22) divided by the number of fishers (n=87; West et al. 2011, p. 11).                         Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 53 Table 1. Continued. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Artisanal (continued) Tuna species (continued)   2010 0.91 simple handline, multiple hook and line, troll line yellowfin tuna, albacore, skipjack, dolphinfish, sailfish, others Sugod, Albay (V) Averaged from monthly total port landings for 105 sampling days in Sep 2009-Aug 2010 (West et al. 2011, Appendix 2, p. 23) divided by the number of fishers (n=988; West et al. 2011, Appendix 2, Table 1, p. 11). 2010 1.50 simple handline yellowfin tuna, albacore, skipjack, dolphinfish, sailfish, others Tabaco City, Albay (V) Averaged from monthly total port landings for 233 sampling days in Sep 2009-Aug 2010 (West et al. 2011, Appendix 2, p. 23) divided by the number of fishers (n=333; West et al. 2011, Appendix 2, Table 1, p. 12). 2010 1.18 Not specified 72 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 28 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines)  Bacacay, Albay (V)  Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.28 for tuna catch. 2010 1.38 Not specified 45 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 55 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines)  Batangas (IV)   Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.55 for tuna catch. 2010 2.11 Not specified 67 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 33 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines)  El Nido, Palawan (IV)   Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.33 for tuna catch. 2010 0.42 Not specified 86 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 14 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines)  Gubat, Sorsogon (V)  Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.14 for tuna catch. 2010 0.87 Not specified 83 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 17 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines)  Looc , Romblon (V) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.17 for tuna catch. 2010 4.69 Not specified 31 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 69 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Mabini, Batangas (IV)  Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.69 for tuna catch. 2010 3.57 Not specified 30 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 70 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Mabini, Batangas (IV)  Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.70 for tuna catch. 2010 3.07 Not specified 36 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 64 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro (IV)   Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.64 for tuna catch. 2010 3.14 Not specified 45 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 55 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Tinambac, Camarines Sur (V)  Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.55 for tuna catch. Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 54       Table 1. Continued. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Subsistence Mixed   1955 5.20 gleaning fish and invertebrates Mabini, Batangas (IV) Average daily catch per fisher (Palomares et al. this volume, Figure 3D). 1965 3.40 gleaning fish and invertebrates Mabini, Batangas (IV) Idem 1975 2.73 gleaning fish and invertebrates Mabini, Batangas (IV) Idem 1985 2.20 gleaning fish and invertebrates Mabini, Batangas (IV) Idem 1995 0.90 gleaning fish and invertebrates Mabini, Batangas (IV) Idem 2003 0.75 artisanal gears fish Mabini, Batangas (IV) Average daily catch per fisher (Hamoy-Obusan 2004, p. 2). 2010 2.28 gleaning molluscs, echinoderms, crustaceans, brachiopod Lagonoy Gulf (V) Averaged from 40 % of the daily catch rates per gleaner from 3 coastal areas along Albay (Nieves et al. 2010, Tables 1a-c, p. 31-32).    Tuna artisanal fishery  The cloud of 18 points (standard error of 1.38 kg) for this sector was used to obtain a geometric mean of daily catch per fisher at 1.5 kg in 2006 (see Figure 2B) and plotted with the standardized baseline of 18 kg for 1900. The resulting relationship is presented in Equation (2):  Tuna catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1; log10) = 149.32 – 45.16·log10(Year) … (2)  The tuna fishery is seasonal throughout the Philippines, i.e., the prevalence of typhoons may prevent boats from sailing and may hamper the setting of fish aggregating devices (Barut 2007); thus, the 233 tuna fishing days averaged from data in West et al. (2011) is still an acceptable assumption. In addition, not all artisanal fishers in the region will go tuna fishing; i.e., we know that there is little, if not no, tuna artisanal fishing in the waters of the NCR (Williams 2002; 2004), there is quite a lot of tuna fishing (assumed at 80 %) in the two Region IV areas (which access the Sulu and South China Sea stocks; see Lewis 2004; Barut 2007) and some (assumed at 50 %) in Region V (which access the Pacific stock; Olaño et al. 2009). Thus, we assumed that on the average, 70 % of fishers will fish for tuna in Subzone B. The calculated daily tuna catches from Equation (2) were thus multiplied by 219 fishing days and then by 0.7*number of fishers estimated in Palomares and Pauly (this vol.) for Subzone B. The resulting annual tuna catches ranged from 11,403 t (1950) to 55,119 t (2010), with a 30 % increase per decade (see Figure 2D ); this deviates only slightly from the non-tuna catch rate stated above.  Subsistence fishery  The cloud of 7 data points (standard error of 0.9 kg) for this area’s subsistence fishing gave an average daily catch per fisher of 2.1 kg in 1984. The values were compared with the 5.2 kg estimate for 1950 obtained in Palomares et al. (this vol.) for Mabini, Batangas (Region IV-a). In addition, the geometric mean of just over 2 kg per fisher in the early 1990s is similar to the results reported in Palomares et al. (this vol.) and Cabanban et al. (this vol.). The log-log plot resulting from the use of the geometric mean and the baseline resulted in Equation (3):  Subsistence catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1; log10) = 176.37 – 53.389·log10(Year) … (3) Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 55  The daily catch per fisher estimated from Equation (3) was multiplied with an average of 156 fishing days usually practiced along Lagonoy Gulf based on a discussion by Nieves et al. (2010). Equation (4) in Parducho and Palomares (this volume) was used with the result of this multiplication to obtain the total subsistence catch for subzone B, which ranged from 15,570 t (1950) to 60,823 t (2012) increasing by 25 % per decade (see Figure 2D).  Catch composition  The rank and percentile analysis resulted in a list of 20 taxa making up 80 % of the catch, the most important of which is the round scad (see Figure 2E). In the 1980s, 90% of the total landed catch consisted of the following taxa in decreasing order: anchovy, round scad, sardine, frigate tuna, Acetes, threadfin bream, slipmouth, grouper, Indian mackerel, and cavalla. In the 1990s, this configuration slightly changed to fimbriated sardine, anchovy, frigate tuna, Indian mackerel, blue crab, slipmouth, yellowfin tuna, threadfin bream, skipjack, and round scad. Finally in the 2000s, the catch was primarily composed of round scad, Indian mackerel, yellowfin tuna, Indian sardine, frigate tuna, slipmouth, skipjack, anchovy, crevalle, and threadin bream. In all three decades, only 3 species of tuna (i.e., frigate tuna, yellowfin tuna and skipjack) were consistently part of the first 80 % of the catch. Small pelagic fishes (i.e., anchovy) followed as the second most important; demersal taxa such as slipmouths and threadfin breams, and some pelagic species usually targeted by the industrial fleet, e.g., sardines and mackerels, and the commercially important blue crab, made up the rest of the upper 80 %. We present in Figure 2E only the most important species for clarity of the graph, as there are more than 100 species caught by the artisanal fisheries in Subzone B.  Discussion  The marine ecosystems included in Subzone B vary from sandy/silt/mud substrates (e.g., San Miguel Bay; Mines et al. 1986) supporting fisheries for shrimps (Smith and Pauly 1983), to coral reefs supporting demersal fisheries (e.g., southwest Luzon, Mindoro, Palawan; Philreefs 2003; Fabinyi and Dalabanjan 2011), and the deeper waters of the Sulu Sea in the west and the Philippine Sea in the east supporting pelagic fisheries including tuna (Itano et al. 2009; West et al. 2011). There are several shallow embayments along these coastlines (e.g., Manila, Balayan and Tayabas Bays and Ragay Gulf in the west; Lamon and San Miguel Bays and Albay Gulf in the east), which are important nursery grounds for many fish and invertebrate species (Pauly 1982b; Silvestre et al. 1986), and thus, foster high productivity, notably of demersal stocks (Campos 2003).  It is thus logical that these productive areas contribute high percentages to the national landings, notably of demersal stocks. For instance, CALABARZON, MIMAROPA and the Bicol region, remained the top six fishery regions of the country in 2011 despite the decline in rate of fish catches compared from the previous year47, i.e., 6.0 %, 4.8 % and 0.45 %, respectively (BAS 2006-2013 CountrySTAT Philippines)48. A large percentage of the landings, 60 % of the national fish catches in the 2000s, were from the major fishing grounds around Palawan (NEDA 2005), and Batangas’ artisanal fishing sector contributed 10 % to CALABARZON’s overall fish catches (Hamoy-Obusan 2004). In addition, the Bicol region contributed 5 % (137,168 t) to the total national fisheries catches in 2008 (West et al. 2011), 52 % of which was from the artisanal sector.                                                       47 Western Visayas remains as the 4th largest contributor to the country’s fishery production, posted on May 8, 2012. National Statistical Coordination Board accessed on 02/12/13 from http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ru6/WA-Fishery2012.htm  48 http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=4; http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=17; http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=5 Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 56  Table 2. Results of the rank and percentile analysis of marine artisanal landings for southern Luzon (representing Regions IV-V and NCR, or Subzone B) from 1981 to 2006 reported by the Philippine Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. Rank Percentile English name Scientific name 1 100.0 Round scad Decapterus macrosoma 2 98.9 Anchovy Encrasicholina spp. 3 97.8 Indian mackerel  Rastrelliger kanagurta 4 96.8 Frigate tuna Auxis spp. 5 95.7 Slipmouth Leiognathus spp. 6 94.7 Fimbriated sardine  Sardinella fimbriata 7 93.6 Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares 8 92.6 Threadfin bream Nemipterus virgatus 9 91.5 Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis 10 90.5 Blue crab Portunus pelagicus 11 89.4 Cavalla  Caranx ignobilis 12 88.4 Indian sardine Sardinella  sp. 13 87.3 Siganid Siganus spp. 14 86.3 Big-eyed scad Selar crumenophthalmus 15 85.2 Crevalle Alepes spp. 16 84.2 Grouper Cephalopholis spp. 17 83.1 Squid Loligo spp. 18 82.1 Flying fish Cypselurus poecilopter 19 81.0 Indo-Pacific mackerel  Rastrelliger brachysoma 20 80.0 Spanish mackerel Acanthocybium solandri   The multigear and multispecies artisanal fisheries of Southern Luzon are similar to that of Northern Luzon. Gillnet is the most common gear employed by fishers in the Batangas (Hamoy-Obusan 2004) and Bicol regions (Amparado 1993; Garces and Silvestre 2010; Lim et al. 1995; Mines et al. 1986; Ordoñez et al. 1975; Smith and Pauly 1983; Sunderlin 1994; Yater 1982), representing 56 % of all gears used in this subzone (Silvestre and Cinco 1995; Soliman and Dioneda 1997). Soft-bottom demersal fishes, e.g., Leiognathidae, Sciaenidae, and Mullidae, make up more than 55 % to the total annual landings from San Miguel Bay, i.e., 56 % for 1997-2002 (Olaño et al. 2009) and 55% in 2004 (Pelea 2008). Other species caught were of the following types (based on habitat): hard-bottom demersal fishes (i.e., Serranidae, Lutjanidae, Chaetodontidae, etc.), coastal pelagic species (i.e., Clupeidae and Engraulidae), and occasional oceanic pelagic species (i.e., Scombridae) entering the bay (Pauly 1982b; Mines et al. 1986; Lim et al. 1995).  Tuna spawning grounds along the waters off west Palawan, Mindoro Strait and Sulu Sea (Barut 2007, Figure 8, p. 15) provide the adult tuna population that is exploited by this fishery. The Sulu Sea is centered on a deep isolated basin (with 500 m depths on the average; Gordon et al. 2011) bordered by topographic barriers which permit through flow of oceanic waters to and from the South China Sea, only through the Balabac Strait in the south and northern Palawan waters and Mindoro Strait in the north (Gordon et al. 2011). The migration of tuna species through these water passages allows for the mixing of stocks between the South China Sea and those from the Pacific Ocean via the Celebes Sea (Barut 2007; Campos et al. 2007), thus making the Sulu Sea the major tuna fishing ground of Subzone B. Palawan alone is surrounded by 13 major fishing grounds, i.e., Bacuit Bay, Malampaya Sound, Imuruan Bay, Ulugan Bay, Malanut Bay, Eran Bay, Coral Bay, Island Bay, Binunsalian Bay, Honda Bay, Green Island Bay, Taytay Bay and Sharkfin Bay (Pido et al. 1996, Figure 3, p. 20), where yellowfin, big-eye and skipjack tuna are the dominant species (Itano and Williams 2009). The most common gear types employed by tuna fishers are handlines (Barut et al. 1997; West et al. 2011) and gillnets (Dickson and Natividad, 1997; Itano and Williams 2009; Olaño et al. 2009). In Lagonoy Gulf, the largest and most important tuna fishing ground in the Bicol region, 89 % of the total landings were taken by these gears, Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 57 with scombrids and carangids making up 72 % of the catch (Olaño et al. 2009). Skipjack, yellowfin, eastern little, bigeye, albacore and frigate tuna (de Jesus 1982) represent 91.3 % of the Gulf’s total annual landings since the late 1980s (Amparado 1993); the rest of the catch consists of large pelagic species such as sailfish, blue marlin, wahoo and dolphinfish (Olaño et al. 2009). Tuna fishing picked up speed in the 1960s (Barut et al. 2003), and by the 1970s, contributed to the dramatic increase in the country’s total fish landings (Dickson and Natividad, 1997). This was not sustained, however, and by the 1980s, tuna catches from the west Sulu Sea were overtaken by small pelagic species, i.e., roundscads (Decapterus spp., Carangidae), anchovies (Stolephorus spp., Engraulidae), sardines (Sardinella spp., Clupeidae) and mackerels (Rastrelliger spp., Scombridae) (Zaragoza et al. 2004). Other species included in the group were round herrings (Clupeidae), fusiliers (Caesionidae), big-eyed scads (Carangidae), flying fishes (Exocoetidae), halfbeaks (Hemiramphidae), etc. (Lim et al. 1995; Mines et al. 1986; Olaño et al. 2009, Zaragoza et al. 2004), while commercially important invertebrate catches include penaeid shrimps and crabs, i.e., Portunus pelagicus and Scylla serrata (Lim et al. 1995).  Various reports indicate that most of the resources in this subzone are overexploited. Studies warned of biological overfishing as early as the 1960s for Manila Bay (Storer 1967) and the 1980s for San Miguel Bay (Lim et al. 1995; Smith and Pauly 1983). The major fishing grounds in southern Luzon, i.e., Honda Bay (Pido et al. 1996), Ragay Gulf (Malig and Montemayor 1987; Tandog-Edralin et al. 1988; Trinidad et al. 1993), Manila Bay (Munoz 1991), Lagonoy Gulf (Olaño et al. 2009; Soliman and Yamaoka 2010), San Miguel Bay (Lim et al. 1995; Mines et al. 1986; Smith and Pauly 1983; Sunderlin 1994), were reportedly overexploited since the 1980s (Malig and Montemayor 1987; Tandog-Edralin et al. 1987; Trinidad et al. 1993; Aypa 1994).  The San Miguel Bay fisheries are well studied, i.e., the comprehensive work of the International Centre on Living Aquatic Resources Management in the 1980s prompted continuous monitoring until recent years. San Miguel Bay’s demersal fisheries was described as overexploited since the shift from traditional gears (i.e., hook and line and gillnet) to trawls as early as 1935; this was again described in 1947 (Warfel and Manacop 1950; Mines et al. 1986). Since 1948, the uncontrolled in-migration of fishers from other Philippine provinces attracted by the fishing success in the area further increased pressure on the resources (Lim et al. 1995). Artisanal fisheries contributed 64 % (Mines et al. 1986) to the total annual landings from San Miguel Bay in the early 1980s, but their contribution declined to 44 % in 1991 (Lim et al. 1995). Moreover, successive estimations of the artisanal catch, i.e., 19,100 t in 1980 (Pauly and Mines 1982), 17,750 t in 1990 (Silvestre and Cinco 1995), and 16,900 t in 1994-1995 allows the estimation of a decline of 12 % over a 15-year period (Soliman and Dioneda 1997).  Manila Bay, the oldest and most important demersal fishing area in the NCR (see Pauly and Chua 1988), was studied by Storer (1967). In 1951, total reported landings from the bay was 9,000 t, but by 1984, this increased to 45,000 t (Silvestre et al. 1987). Still, studies in the late 1950s showed a decline in both the average catch rates of fishers and in the catches of demersal fish (Munoz 1991).  This pattern is also observed in Malampaya Sound, an important fishing ground in northern Palawan, which in 1973 contributed 19 % to the total national ‘municipal’ landings, a figure reduced to just over 1 % in 1993 (Pido et al. 1996). In Lagonoy Gulf, heavy fishing pressure (Nieves et al. 2010; Olaño et al. 2009; Pelea, 2008) affecting 25 % of the demersal and pelagic fishes contributed to growth overfishing, i.e., capture of undersized and immature fishes, primarily of tuna and other important species (Olaño et al. 2009), and caused a 7 % decline in landings in a span of 10 years (1994-2004; Soliman et al. 2008).  Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 58  Catch (log10) = 143.67-43.427*log10(Year)-1.5-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.52.02.53.275 3.280 3.285 3.290 3.295 3.300 3.305Non-tuna catch (kg*day-1*fisher-1;  log10)Year (log10)Year (log10)Catch (lo   – 3.427·log10(Year)Non-tuna catch  (kg·day-1 ·fisher-1;  log 10) ANon-tuna catch (kg*day-1*fisher-1;  log10)Non-tuna catch  (kg·day-1 ·fisher-1;  log 10)  Catch (log10) = 149.32-45.16*log10(Year)-1.5-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.52.02.53.275 3.280 3.285 3.290 3.295 3.300 3.305Tuna catch (kg*day-1*fisher-1;  log10)Year (log10)Year (log10)Catch (l –45.16·log10(Year)Tuna catch  (kg·day-1·fisher-1;  log 10) BTuna catch (kg*day-1*fisher-1;  log10)Tuna catch  (kg·day-1·fisher-1;  log 10)  Catch (log10) = 176.37-53.389*log10(Year)-1.5-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.52.02.53.288 3.290 3.292 3.294 3.296 3.298 3.300 3.302 3.304Subsistence catch (kg*day-1*fisher-1;  log10)Year (log10)Year (log10)Catch (log10) = 176.37– · ear)Subsistence catch  (kg·day-1·fisher-1;  log 10) CSubsistence catch (kg*day-1*fisher-1;  log10)Subsistence catch  (kg·day-1·fisher-1;  log 10)   0204060801001201401601802002201950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Reconstructed artisanal catch (103t)Reconstructed artisanal catch (103t) DNon-tunaTuna Subsistence 01020304050607080901001101201301401501950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Reconstructed artisanal catch (103t)Round scadAnchovyIndian MackerelSlipmouthFimbriated SardineFrigate TunaYellowfin TunaSkipjackEastern Little TunaBig-eye TunaOthersReconstructed artisanal catch (103t) EReconstructed artisanal catch (103t)Reconstructed artisanal catch (103t)  Figure 2. Catch per artisanal fisher per day (kg; log10) relationships based on independent estimates of catch per unit of effort data assembled in Table 2 used with demographics presented in Palomares and Pauly (this vol., Figure 2B, p. 24) and assumptions quoted in Table 1). A: Catch of non-tuna species by artisanal gears using the geometric mean of 2.03 kg·day-1·fisher-1 for 2002 from 16 data points with s.e.=1.672 compared with the 1900 value of Pauly (2000) standardized to fishing days (see D below). B: Catch of tuna species by artisanal gears using the geometric mean of 1.54 kg·day-1·fisher-1 for 2006 from 18 data points with s.e.=1.377. C: Catch of subsistence fishers using the geometric mean of 2.07 kg·day-1·fisher-1 for 1984 from 7 data points with s.e.=0.913 compared with the 1950 value established in Palomares et al. (this vol.) of 5.2 kg·day-1·fisher-1. D: Reconstructed catches assuming: (i) an average of 216 fishing days in a year (based on Muallil et al. 2012 for landing areas within Subzone B) for non-tuna artisanal fishers; (ii) 233 fishing days for tuna artisanal fishers based on the average established for Tabaco City, Albay (with the highest landed tuna catch in the Bicol region) from West et al. (2011); (iii) only half of the fishers from this region engage in tuna fishing; and (iv) coastal gleaners spend 156 days in a year on subsistence fishing based on the average established from Nieves et al. (2010). E: Composition of the catch based on percentage distribution of species from available national statistics (Appendix A) and reconstructed catches in (D) showing top 5 non-tuna and all 5 tuna species caught in Subzone B.  Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 59 Despite what seems to be a general trend of decreasing catch per unit of effort, reported catch from Subzone B in the 1980s continued to increase (see Smith and Pauly 1983) as did fishing effort, the number of fishers and the motorization of fishing crafts (Smith and Pauly 1983; Yater 1982). One case in point: based on the fisheries statistics published by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS), the estimated total annual landings of Lagonoy Gulf was 7,737 t in 1980, but jumped to 24,292 t in 1992 (Olaño et al. 2009), i.e., a 68 % increase in a span of 12 years. We think these catches landed in the southern parts of the Philippines, to the extent that they actually reflect increasing catches, are due to the geographic expansion of fishing operations, a widespread phenomenon (Swartz et al. 2010). In the Philippines, this is manisfested in the form of increasingly frequent incursions into the EEZ of neighboring countries, especially by fisheries targeting tuna. This expansion is partly corrected for in the synthesis paper by Palomares and Pauly (this vol.).  Subsistence fishery  Extensive (qualitative) studies on the subsistence fishery specific to this area is scarce, the only records applicable to our analyses are those presented in this study. Some descriptive studies, however, provide insights on the validity of our results. In Coron, Palawan, women and children of the Calamian-Tagbanwa group were observed to engage in reef gleaning – a fishing activity performed in the day during low tides and lasts for about two hours; catches include crabs collected in the mangroves and sea urchins, sea shells, seaweeds and reef fish collected from seagrass beds and rocky reefs (Sampang, 2007). In Lagonoy Gulf, gleaning was also a traditional practice conducted by women and children along shallow reef flats, mud flats, sand and rocky areas, seagrass beds, and mangrove areas; catches include shellfish, crustaceans and other invertebrates (Nieves et al. 2010). Gleaning is actually an alternative source of income for the majority of fishing households along the coast, especially when fishing activities are precluded by the northeast and southwest monsoons (Barut 2007). In the case of Mabini, Batangas, during the 1950s and 1960s, gleaning of macroinvertebrates was purely for subsistence (Palomares et al. this vol.); likewise, 0.5-1 kg from the artisanal catch is kept by each fisher for the same purpose (Hamoy-Obusan, 2004). In addition, only 20 % of the gleaned catch was consumed and the remaining 80 % was either shared or bartered (Palomares et al. this vol.). In a similar case, 40 % of the catch in Lagonoy Gulf was consumed and 60 % was sold as part of the artisanal fishery (Nieves et al. 2010). The reconstructed catch data (see Figure 2D) suggests that the sector contributed 35 % to the total artisanal catch in 1950 and 30 % in 2010. These results are in line with the observations presented in the studies we cite above and may be a good representation of the evolution of subsistence catch in southern Luzon.  Acknowledgments  This is a contribution of Sea Around Us, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and the Pew Charitable Trusts.  References  Amparado, HB (1993) Fishery resource assessment of Lagonoy Gulf. In: PCAMRD (ed.), Research and Development Highlights of the NARRDS (National Aquatic Resources Research and Development System) 1988-1992, p. 28. Book Series No.16/1993. Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. Aypa, SM (1994) Prospects of seafarming through the fisheries sector program (Philippines). In: Lacanilao F, Coloso RM and Quinitio GF (eds.), Proceedings of the Seminar-Workshop on Aquaculture Development in Southeast Asia and Prospects for Seafarming and Searanching; 19-23 August 1991, Iloilo City, Philippines, p. 129-142. SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department, Iloilo, Philippines, 159 p. Barut, N (2007) National report on the fish stocks and habitats of regional, global, and transboundary significance in the South China Sea: Philippines. In: UNEP (ed.), National reports on the Fish Stocks and Habitats of Regional, Global, and Transboundary Significance in the South China Sea, 56 p. UNEP/GEF/SCS Technical Publication No. 15. Barut, NC, Santos, MD and Garces, LR (1997) Overview of Philippine marine fisheries. In: Silvestre G and Pauly D (eds.), Status and Management of Tropical Fisheries in Asia, p. 62-71. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 53, 208 p. Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone B, Palomares, MLD and Parducho, VA 60 Barut, NC, Santos, MD, Mijares, LL, Subade, R, Armada, NB and Garces, LR (2003) Philippine coastal fisheries situation. In: Silvestre G, Garces L, Stobutzki I, Ahmed M, Valmonte-Santos RA, Luna C, Lachica-Aliño L, Munro P, Christensen V and Pauly D (eds.), Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries, p. 885-914. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 67, 1120 p. BFAR (2003) Tayabas Bay, Quezon: boat and gear inventory. BFAR-IVA. Bundy, A and Pauly, D (2001) Selective harvesting by small-scale fisheries: ecosystem analysis of San Miguel Bay, Philippines. Fisheries Research 53: 263-281. Campos, WL (2003) Analysis of demersal fish assemblages in selected Philippine fishing grounds. In: G. Silvestre, L. Garces, I. Stobutzki, M. Ahmed, R.A. Valmonte-Santos, C. Luna, L. Lachica-Aliño, P. Munro, V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries, p. 227-248. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 67, 1120 p. Campos, WL, Beldia II, PD, Noblezada, MP and Asis, JC (2007) Investigating biodiversity corridors in the Sulu Sea: distribution and dispersal of fish larvae. Semi-Annual Report submitted to Conservation International Philippines, University of the Philippines Visayas, Miag-ao, Iloilo, Philippines, 31 p. Coral Reef Information Network of the Philippines (Philreefs) (2003) Philippine coral reefs through time (2003): workshop proceedings. Second of the Atlas of Philippine Coral Reefs Series. Coral Reef Information Network of the Philippines (PhilReefs), University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute, Quezon City, Philippines and the Marine Parks Center, Tokyo, Japan. de Jesus, AS (1982) Catalogue of tuna fishing gears of the Philippines. Indo-Pacific Tuna Development and Management Programme, 56 p. Dickson, J, and Natividad, AC (1997) Tuna fishing and a review of payaos in the Philippines. In: Le-Gall JY, Cayre P and Taquet M (eds.), Mechanisms and Effects of the Aggregation of Tuna by Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs), p. 141–158. Elsevier, Paris, France. Fabinyi, M, and Dalabajan, D (2011) Policy and practice in the live reef fish for food trade: A case study from Palawan, Philippines. Marine Policy 35:371–378. Garces, LR and Silvestre, GT (2010) An evaluation of resource overlaps among fishing gears in the coastal fisheries using multivariate techniques. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India 52(1):1-7. Gordon, AL, Sprintall, J and Field, A (2011) Regional oceanography of the Philippine archipelago. Oceanography 24(1):14-27. Hamoy-Obusan, ACC (2004) From the sea to our table: fish catch status of Mabini and Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines. Unpublished manuscript submitted to WWF-Philippines, 18 p. Itano, DG and Williams, PG (2009) Review of bigeye and yellowfin tuna cataches landed in Palawan, Philippines. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 54 p. Lewis, AD (2004) Review of tuna fisheries and the tuna fishery statistical system in the Philippines. Prepared for the Preparatory Conference for the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. WCPFC–SC1 ST IP–6, 59 p. Lim, CP, Matsuda, Y and Shigemi, Y (1995) Problems and constraints in Philippine munciipal fisheries: the case of San Miguel Bay, Camarines Sur. Environmental Management 19(6):837-852. Malig, JB and Montemayor, JR (1987) Exploitation and management of marine fishery resources in the Philippines. RAPA Report No. 10. Presented in the Symposium on the Exploutation and Management of Marine Fishery Resources in Southeast Asia, FAO, Bangkok (Thailand). Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission, Bangkok, Thailand: FAO, p.132-145. Mines, AN, Smith, IR and Pauly, D (1986) An overview of the fisheries of San Miguel Bay, Philippines. In: Maclean JL, Dizon LB and Hosillos LV (eds.), The First Asian Fisheries Forum, p. 385-388. Asian Fisheries Society, Manila, Philippines. Muallil, RN, Cabral, RB, Mamauag, SS and Aliño, PM (2012) Status, trend and sustainability of small-scale fisheries in the Philippines. Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium, Cairns, Australia, 9-13 July 2012. Muñoz, JC (1991) Manila Bay: status of its fisheries and management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 23:311-314. National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) (2005) Region IV-B physical framework plan 2004-2030. National Economic and Development Authority, Pasig City, Philippines, 151 p. Nieves, PM, de Jesus, SC, Macale, AMB and Pelea, JMD (2010) An assessment of macro-invertebrate gleaning in fisheries on Albay side of Lagonoy Gulf. Kuroshio Science 4-1:27-35. Olaño, VL, Vergara, MB and Gonzales, FL (2009) Assessment of the fisheries of Lagonoy Gulf (Region V). BFAR-NFRDI Technical Paper Series 12(5), 31 p. Ordoñez, JA, Arce, FM, Ganaden, RA and Metrillo Jr., NN (1975) On the hydro-biological and fisheries survey of Sorsogon Bay, Luzon island. Philippine Journal of Fisheries 13(2):178-203. Pauly, D (1982a) History and present status of the fisheries. In: Pauly D and Mines AN (eds), Small-scale Fisheries of San Miguel Bay Philippines: Biology and Stock Assessment, p. 95-124. ICLARM Technical Report 7. Pauly, D (1982b) The fishes and their ecology. In: Pauly D and Mines AN (eds), Small-scale Fisheries of San Miguel Bay Philippines: Biology and Stock Assessment, p. 15-33. ICLARM Technical Report 7. [Reprinted 1985 as: Ecology of coastal and estuarine fishes in Southeast Asia: a Philippine case study. In: A. Yañez-Arancibia (ed.) Fish Community Ecology in Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons. Towards and Ecosystem Integration, p. 499-535. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Press, Mexico, D.F.]. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 61 Pauly, D (2000) Fisheries in the Philippines and in the world: an overview. Tambuli: A Publication for Coastal Management Practitioners (6): 23-25. Pauly, D and Chua, TE (1988) The overfishing of marine resources: socioeconomic background in Southeast Asia. Ambio. 17(3): 200-206. Pauly, D and Mines, AN (Editors) (1982) Small-scale fisheries of San Miguel Bay Philippines: biology and stock assessment. ICLARM Technical Report 7. 124 p. Pauly, D, Mines, AN and Navaluna, NA (1982) Catch and effort in the small-scale fisheries. In: Pauly D and Mines AN (eds.), Small-scale Fisheries of San Miguel Bay, Philippines: Biology and Stock Assessment, p. 56-64. ICLARM Technical Reports 7. Pelea, NR (2008) Post-harvest processing, poverty among fishers and fishery resource management in Lagonoy Gulf (Philippines). Memoirs of Faculty of Fisheries Kagoshima University (2008): 60-65. Pido, M, Pomeroy, R, Carlos, M, Garces, A, Agbayani, R, Sandalo, A, Catain, V, Benavente, A, Bacosa, R and Matulac, J (1996) The application of the institutional analysis research framework in the evaluation of fisheries and other coastal resources management systems in Palawan, Philippines. In: Pido MD, Pomeroy RS, Katon KB, Carlos MB and Sandalo AC (eds.), The Management Systems of Marine Fisheries and Other Coastal Resources in Palawan, Philippines: Concepts, Experiences, and Lessons, p. 14-37. ICLARM/PSCDS Research Report No. 4.  Sampang, AG (2007) The Calamian Tagbanwa ancestral domain (Coron Is., Palawan, Philippines): evaluation of traditional fishing practices towards biodiversity conservation and sustainability. WorldFish Center, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines, 77 p. Silvestre, G and Cinco, EA (1995) Capture fisheries sector and coastal resource management issues: San Miguel Bay capture fisheries: an overview. The Coastal Environmental Profile of San Miguel Bay, Philippines, ICLARM, Manila, CD ROM. Silvestre, G, Regalado, R and Pauly, D (1986) Status of Philippine demersal stocks-inferences from underutilized catch rate data. In: Pauly D, Saeger J and Silvestre G (eds.), Resources, Management and Socio-economics of Philippine Marine Fisheries, p. 47-96. Dept. Mar. Fish. Tech. Rep. 10. Silvestre, G, Federizon, R, Muñoz, J and Pauly, D (1987) Over-exploitation of the demersal resources of Manila Bay and adjacent areas. In: Symposium on the Exploitation and Management of Marine Fishery Resources in Southeast Asia, p. 269-287. ICLARM Contribution No. 357. Smith, IR (1979) Traditional fisheries development in the Philippines. ICLARM Newsletter 2(3):16-18. Smith, IR and Pauly, D (1983) Small-scale fisheries of San Miguel Bay, Philippines: resolving multigear competition in nearshore fisheries. ICLARM Newsletter 6(4):11-18. Soliman, VS and Dioneda, RR (1997) Catch and effort assessment of the fisheries of San Miguel Bay, Philippines. In: Soliman VS and Dioneda RR (eds) Capture fisheries assessment of San Miguel Bay, Post-resource and Ecological Assessment of San Miguel Bay, Philippines (1995-1997) , p. 23-35. Vol. I. BFAR. Fisheries Sector Program and Bicol University College of Fisheries. SMB Post-REA Tech. Rep., 90 p. Soliman, VS, Mendoza Jr., AB and Yamaoka, K (2008) Seaweed-associated fishes of Lagonoy Gulf in Bicol, the Philippines – with emphasis on siganids (Teleostei: Siganidae). Kuroshio Science 2-1:67-72. Storer, JA (1967) Aspects of fisheries in the developing Philippines economy. Studies in Tropical Oceanography Miami 5:363-374. Sunderlin, WD (1994) Resource decline and adaptation through time: fishes in San Miguel Bay, Philippines, 1980-1993. Ocean & Coastal Management 25:217-232. Swartz, W, Sala, E, Watson, R and Pauly, D (2010) The spatial expansion and ecological footprint of fisheries (1950 to present). PLoS ONE 5(12) e15143, 6 p. Trinidad, AC, Pomeroy, RS, Corpuz, PV and Aguero, M (1993) Bioeconomics of the Philippine small pelagic fishery. ICLARM Tech. Rep. 38, 74 p. Warfel HL and Manacop PR (1950) Ottertrawl exploration in Philippine waters. Fish Wildl. Serv. (US) Res. Rep. 25, 49 p . West, R, Palma, MA, Barut, N, Garvilles, E, Ayanan, D (2011) Preliminary assessment of the handline (banca) fisheries in the Philippines (FIS/2009/033). Final Report. Canberra, ACT: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. Williams, P (2002) Current status of data available from the Indonesian and Philippines domestic tuna fisheries. SWG-7, SCTB 15, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 2002. Williams, P (2004) A summary of tuna fishery data collected from the Philippines National Stock Assessment Project (NSAP), 1997–2002. Draft report to BFAR/NFRDI, October 2004 Yater, F (1982) Gill-netters: costs, returns and sharing systems. In: Smith IR and Mines AN (eds.), Small-scale Fisheries of San Miguel Bay, Philippines: Economics of Production and Marketing, p. 27-44. ICLARM Tech. Report 8. Zaragoza, EC, Pagdilao, CR and Moreno, EP (2004) Overview of the small pelagic fisheries. In: Department of Agriculture – Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (eds.), In Turbulent Seas: the Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries, p. 32-37. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines, 378 p.  Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone C, Cabanban, AS et al. 62 Marine artisanal and subsistence fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone C – Visayas (Regions VI-VIII)49  A.S. Cabanban1, D.M. Teves-Maturan2, V.A. Parducho3, and M.L.D. Palomares4  1ASC Ecological and Engineering Solutions, Dumaguete City 6200, Oriental Negros, Philippines; E-mail: annadel.cabanban@gmail.com 2City of Bais, Oriental Negros, Philippines  3FishBase Information and Research Group, Inc., Khush Hall, IRRI, Los Baños, Laguna 4301 Philippines  4Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, V6T 1Z4   Abstract  Subzone C is composed of Regions VI, VII, and VIII administrative regions in the Visayas, Philippines. The Subzone C has 6 islands: Bohol, Cebu, Leyte, Panay, Samar, and Siquijor islands. The islands are fringed with mangroves, seagrass beds, coral reefs, coastal waters, and bays that are habitats of a diverse flora and fauna.  This biodiversity is exploited, but the daily catch per fisher in artisanal non-tuna fisheries, artisanal tuna fisheries, and subsistence fisheries all declined from 1950 to the 2010. The reconstructed artisanal catches, increased from 31,732 t in 1950 to 71,661 t in 2010 because of increase in number of fishers in the region, and the modification of fishing gears. The artisanal non-tuna catches and artisanal tuna catches increased by 18,389 t from 1950 to 40,769 t in 2010, while tuna catches ranged from 13,342 t (1950) to 30,892 t (2010). The most notable increase was in subsistence catch, from about 15,251 t 1950 to 58,829 t in 2010. The composition of the top 20 taxa in the reconstructed catches in 1950 to 1980 changed in 1980 to 1990, and again from 1990 to 2010. The over-exploitation of the fish stocks by the artisanal fisheries is attributed to many factors, including the open access nature of the fisheries, the increase in coastal population, poverty and poor governance, all of which require different tools under the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries.  Introduction  Subzone C covers three administrative regions (Regions VI, VII, and VIII) in the Visayas group of islands in the central Philippines (Figure 1). Samar and Leyte islands are in the eastern Visayas and bordering the Philippine Sea, west of the Pacific Ocean. Cebu, Bohol, Siguijor, and Negros islands are in central Visayas. These islands are surrounded by internal seas of the Philippines, the Bohol Sea, Camotes Sea, Visayan Sea, Tanon Strait, Cebu Strait. Panay Island is found in the western part of the Visayas and bordering the eastern part of Sulu Sea.  The islands are fringed by mangrove forests, seagrass beds, and coral reefs that provide habitats for fishes and invertebrates that are exploited by artisanal fisheries. Samar has the largest stand of mangrove forest (Zamora, 2003) and the largest man-made mangrove forest (1,700 ha) is Banacon Island, Bohol (Green et al. 2004; Christie et al. 2006). The Philippine Double Barrier Reef, one of only six double barrier reefs in the world, is found in Danajon Bank between Bohol, Cebu, and Leyte islands. The islands also have bays                                                      49 Cite as: Cabanban, A.S., Teves-Maturan, D.M., Parducho, V.A., Palomares, M.L.D. (2014) Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone C – Visayas (Regions VI-VIII). In: Palomares, M.L.D., Pauly, D. (eds.), Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950 to 2010, p. 62-76. Fisheries Centre Research Report 22(1). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 63 and gulfs that are enriched by nutrients from land, e.g., Carigara Bay, Leyte Gulf, Maqueda Bay, Panay Gulf (Edralin et al. 1988).  Subzone C is biodiverse, and 26 (21 %; n=123) integrated marine Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) were identified in Regions VI, VII, VIII by experts in the Philippines, based on the presence of species that are threatened and endangered (Ambal et al 2012). This list includes Iloilo Strait (Iloilo and Guimaras Provinces) and Concepcion (Iloilo Province) in Region VI, Sagay Protected Seascape (Negros Occidental), Bantayan Islets, Gilotangan Marine Sanctuary, and Moalboal (Cebu Province), Bais Bay (Negros Oriental), eastern coast of Siquijor (Siquijor Province), Danajon Bank (mainly in Bohol Province).  The area around Cebu is the “center-of-the-center” of the world’s marine biodiversity (Carpenter and Springer, 2005). The subzone has rich fishing grounds. The internal seas are shallower than the Philippine Sea to the east of Samar. The coastal waters (up to 15 km from the shoreline) surrounding the islands are the natural and accessible fishing grounds for artisanal fishers (e.g., Green et al. 2004; West et al. 2011).  The Visayas has active and complex oceanographic characteristics and a regional circulation of marine waters that responds strongly to monsoonal winds (Gordon et al. 2011). Oceanic water from the Pacific Ocean enters the San Bernardino Strait between Luzon Island and the Samar Islands and Surigao Strait between Samar and Surigao peninsula, northeast Mindanao. The northern inflow through San Bernardino Strait travels to the Cebu Strait and then to the Bohol Sea, where it mixes with the southern oceanic in-flow to Surigao Strait. In the Bohol Sea, there is a double estuary pattern of water movement, with the interaction of the inflow from the Sulu Sea at the surface and from the South China Sea at deeper depths (400-500 m) over the Dipolog sill. In the Bohol Sea, the in-flow from the Pacific Ocean meets the in-flow of waters from the South China and Sulu Seas forming a shallow estuary pattern over the Dipolog sill. The bottom estuary is formed by the in-flow from the South China Sea, moves over and down the sill, displacing (upwelling) waters from the bottom to the surface, where it moves to the direction of the Sulu Sea. In the Sulu Sea, monsoonal winds circulate marine waters in clockwise and counter-clockwise directions and bathe the western shoreline of Panay Island and flow into the Bohol and Visayan Seas through the Panay Strait. The active circulation of shallow and deep waters transports nutrient-rich coastal waters and up-welled waters, which drive primary productivity and fisheries.  Region VI , with a land area of 22,000 km2, is composed of 6 provinces, 16 cities, and 117 municipalities and had a population reported at 12,500 heads in 2007 (annual growth rate at 1.35 % during the period 2000-2007; NEDA50). It is bounded by Jintolo Channel to the north; the Visayan Sea to the east; Panay Gulf, Sulu Sea to the south. Coral reefs and mangrove areas (swamp-land) was estimated at about 14,110 km-2; Anon. 198851). There are 77 coastal municipalities with rich coastal resources52.  Region VII, with a land area of 15,000 km2, is composed of the island provinces of Cebu, Bohol, Siquijor, and Oriental Negros (the eastern portion of Negros Island). It is bounded by the Visayan Sea to the north, Leyte to the east, Mindanao Sea to the south, and the spine of Negros Island, divides the 2 provinces of Negros Island and covers 113 municipalities with a total population of 5.2 million in 201053 and a fishing fleet of 78,400 vessels (Green  et al. 2004) both motorized  and non-motorized.  Region VIII , with a land area of 202 km2, is composed of the Provinces of Leyte and Samar bounded by the Visayan Sea and the San Bernardino Strait in the north, the Mindanao Sea and Surigao Strait in the south, the Cebu Strait in the west, and the Philippine Sea in the east. It covers, 6 provinces and 136                                                      50 http://www.neda.gov.ph/RDP/main.asp 51 http://www.rfu6.da.gov.ph/agribiz/index.htm 52 http://www.rfu6.da.gov.ph/agribiz/index.htm 53 http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone C, Cabanban, AS et al. 64 municipalities with a population of 3.9 million in 20103 and a fishing fleet composed of about 58,000 municipal vessels recorded in 2000 (Riviera-Guieb et al. 2002).    Figure 1. Map of the Visayas group of islands, central Philippines representing Subzone C (Regions VI, VII, and VIII), provinces, fishing grounds, and its surrounding waters; the insert shows this subzone (dark) relative to the Philippine EEZ (Redrawn by Mr. M.A. Yap from Figure 1 of Palomares and Pauly (this vol.) and a composite of open source maps).   Regions VI, VII, and VIII are inhabited by 16.2 million Visayans (201054) with Cebu City being the second largest city in the Philippines. The provincial capital cities are also densely populated (e.g., Catbalogan, Samar, Tacloban, Leyte, Tagbilaran, Bohol, Dumaguete, Oriental Negros, Bacolod, Occidental Negros, Iloilo, Iloilo, etc.). The urban populations depend on agricultural and fishery products from rural areas of the provinces (e.g., Bais Bay supplies fishery products to Dumaguete City while Banate Bay supplies shellfish to Iloilo City – see Cabanban et al. this vol.; Green et al. 2004). The path of typhoons that develop in the Pacific Ocean passes through this area, and generally affects Samar and Leyte Island. However, on 8 December 2013, super-typhoon Yolanda landed on 5 coastal areas in Subzone C, and Guiuan, Eastern Samar, Tolosa, Leyte, Daang Bantayan, Cebu, Bantayan Island, Cebu, Concepcion, Iloilo, and Busuanga, Palawan were affected. All the typhoon’s land-falls were on the islands within Regions VI, VII, and VIII except Busuanga (Region IV, Subzone B). The super-typhoon brought 10 to 30 mm hr-1 precipitation and winds at 215 km h-1, with gusts at 250 km h-1. The typhoon destroyed fishing villages and fishing boats (bancas) that are used by artisanal fishers.  Daily catch per fisher data  Catch (kg) per fisher per day was taken from reports or was calculated from data provided by reports (see Table 1). The annual catch per fisher was calculated as the product of catch per fisher per day and the average number of days of fishing in a year, while the average number of days of fishing was calculated based on the data in Table 2 of Muallil et al. 2012 for various localities.                                                       54 http://www.nnc.gov.ph Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 65 Artisanal non-tuna fishery  The reconstructed non-tuna fishery using artisanal gears, from the 1900 value of 4.2 t·fisher-1·year-1 of Pauly (2000) to geometric mean of 1.3 kg·fisher-1·year-1 (for 1997), was based on 29 independent data points with s.e.= 1.937 from 14 sources, mainly from localities in Central Visayas (Region VII) were research and conservation of coastal and marine resources were implemented since 1979 by Silliman University and projects funded by bilateral and multilateral donors (e.g., Coastal and Marine Resources Management Project, Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Fisheries, and others).  Artisanal tuna fishery  The reconstructed tuna catch for the Subzone was based on 4 data points in 1977 (Aprieto 1981; Table 1). These were estimates of catches using hook-and-line. The species in the catches were skipjack, yellow fin, big-eye, and frigate tunas.  Subsistence fishery  The reconstructed catch for subsistence fishery was based on information from three types of sources, 6 data points altogether (s.e.=0.814). Empirical data on gleaning were collected in Negros and Panay Islands in 2011 (Cabanban et al. this vol.). Secondary data were obtained from the literature (e.g., Savina and White 1986). The subsistence portion of the artisanal fishery was assumed at 10 % of the reported landing. This assumption is based on the observation of artisanal fishery in Negros Oriental by the first author that fishers keep a portion of their catch for the consumption of their families.  Catch composition data  The catch composition data was extracted from the Bureau of Agriculture and Statistics (BAS). The treatment of this data is explained in Parducho and Palomares (this vol.).  Results  The daily catch of fishers engaged in non-tuna fishing (Figure 2A), tuna-fishing (Figure 2B), and subsistence fishing (Figure 2C) strongly declined, while the reconstructed catches from these fisheries increased from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 2D). The daily catch of non-tuna species estimated by the resulting relationship expressed in Equation (1) decreased by 81% from 4.7 kg in 1950 to 0.85 kg in 2010 (Figure 2A).  Non-tuna catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1; log10) = 179.63-54.394 log10 (Year) … (1)  The daily catch of tuna artisanal fishers estimated by the resulting relationship expressed in Equation (2) decreased by 80 % from 4.3 kg in 1950 to 0.82 kg in 2010 (Figure 2B).  Tuna catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1; log10) = 174.88-52.962 log10 (Year) … (2)  The daily catch per subsistence fisher estimated by the resulting relationship expressed in Equation (3) decreased by 69 % from 5.2 kg in 1950 to 1.6 kg in 2010 (Figure 2C).  Subsistence (kg·day-1·fisher-1; log10) = 128.69-38.897 log10 (Year) … (3)  Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone C, Cabanban, AS et al. 66  Table 1. Catch of artisanal (tuna and non-tuna fisheries) and subsistence fishers in Sub-zone C (Regions VI-VIII) assembled from independent sources and used in the analysis shown in Figure 2. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Artisanal Non-tuna species   1977 0.64 Not specified Not specified Sumilon Island, Negros Oriental (VII) 14 t·km-2·year-1 (Alcala 1988, p. 197) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Alcala 1988). 1980 1.10 Not specified Not specified Sumilon Island, Negros Oriental (VII) 24 t·km-2·year-1 (Alcala 1988, p. 197) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Alcala 1988). 1980 0.38 Not specified Not specified Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) 16.75 t·km-2·year-1 (Alcala 1988, p. 197) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004). 1980 0.59 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) and non-reef (Scombridae) fish species Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged daily catch per fisher from the total annual catch of 18.68 t·km-2·year-1 from a 1.06 km2 reef area (Maypa et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 210) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004). 1980 0.45 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Average daily catch per fisher  assuming 3 hours of fishing per day (Maypa et al. 2012, p. 209) 1984 1.69 Not specified 60-65 % Caesionidae, others Sumilon Island, Negros Oriental (VII) 36.9 t·year-1 (Alcala and Russ, 2002, p. 184) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Alcala 1988). 1984 1.78 hook and line, gillnet, trap Not specified Sumilon Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged from daily catch per fisher of all gears (Alcala 1988, Table 2, p. 197). 1985 0.89 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) and non-reef (Scombridae) fish species Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged daily catch per fisher from the total annual catch of 36.7 t·km-2·year-1 from a 1.06 km2 reef area (Maypa et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 210) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004). 1986 0.98 hook and line, gillnet, trap Not specified Sumilon Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged from daily catch per fisher of all gears (Alcala 1988, Table 2, p. 197). 1986 0.60 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) and non-reef (Scombridae) fish species Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged daily catch per fisher from the total annual catch of 24.87 t·km-2·year-1 from a 1.06 km2 reef area (Maypa et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 210) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004).                   Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 67 Table 1. Continued. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Artisanal (continued) Non-tuna species (continued)   1997 0.56 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) and non-reef (Scombridae) fish species Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged daily catch per fisher from the total annual catch of 23.08 t·km-2·year-1 from a 1.06 km2 reef area (Maypa et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 210) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004). 1997 3.00 hook and line Not specified Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Average daily catch per fisher  assuming 3 hours of fishing per day (Maypa et al. 2012, p. 209) 1997 5.55 hook and line Not specified Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Average daily catch per fisher  assuming 3 hours of fishing per day (Maypa et al. 2012, p. 209) 1999 0.70 – – Cangmating,, Negros Oriental (VII) (Murphy et al. 1999) 2000 0.49 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) and non-reef (Scombridae) fish species Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged daily catch per fisher from the total annual catch of 20.28 t·km-2·year-1 from a 1.06 km2 reef area (Maypa et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 210) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004). 2001 0.98 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) and non-reef (Scombridae) fish species Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged daily catch per fisher from the total annual catch of 19.09 t·km-2·year-1 from a 1.06 km2 reef area (Maypa et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 210) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004). 2001 6.00 hook and line Not specified Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Average daily catch per fisher  assuming 3 hours of fishing per day (Maypa et al. 2012, p. 209) 2001 3.59 hook and line Carangidae, Acanthuridae Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Average daily catch per fisher  assuming 3 hours of fishing per day (Maypa et al. 2002, p. 209) 2002 3.18 gleaning mollusks, crustaceans, brachiopods, crabs Banate Bay, Panay Island (VI) Averaged from annual catch, assuming 80 % of the catch was sold (del Norte-Campos et al. 2005, p. 15). 2004 8.84 hook and line, nets, spear, fish trap Not specified Bohol (VII) Averaged from catch rates of different gears per trip (Samonte-Tan et al. 2007, p. 327) divided by the number of fishers (n=242; Samonte-Tan et al. 2007, p. 326), assuming 80 % of the catch was sold (del Norte-Campos et al. 2005, p. 15). 2010 3.70 Not specified 14 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 86 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Amlan, Negros Oriental (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.14. 2010 3.30 Not specified 32 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 68 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Boljoon, Cebu (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.32. Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone C, Cabanban, AS et al. 68       Table 1. Continued. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Artisanal (continued) Non-tuna species (continued)   2010 2.00 Not specified 69 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 31 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Hinunangan, Southern Leyte (VIII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.69. 2010 2.20 Not specified 67 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 33 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Inabanga, Bohol (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.67. 2010 4.90 Not specified 38 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 62 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) San Francisco, Cebu (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.38. 2010 2.00 Not specified 47 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 53 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) San Francisco, Southern Leyte (VIII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.47. 2010 4.60 Not specified 43 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 57 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Tagbilaran City, Bohol (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.43. 2012 1.67 – – Bais Bay, Negros Oriental (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Cabanban et al. this vol.). 2012 0.99 – – Banate Bay, Panay Island (VI) Average daily catch per fisher (Cabanban et al. this vol.).   Artisanal Tuna species – – 1980 0.59 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) and non-reef (Scombridae) fish species Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged daily catch per fisher from the total annual catch of 18.68 t·km-2·year-1 from a 1.06 km2 reef area (Maypa et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 210) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004). 1985 0.89 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) and non-reef (Scombridae) fish species Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged daily catch per fisher from the total annual catch of 36.7 t·km-2·year-1 from a 1.06 km2 reef area (Maypa et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 210) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004). 1986 0.60 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) and non-reef (Scombridae) fish species Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged daily catch per fisher from the total annual catch of 24.87 t·km-2·year-1 from a 1.06 km2 reef area (Maypa et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 210) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004).             Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 69 Table 1. Continued. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Artisanal (continued) Tuna species (continued)   1989 1.82 — — Region VI Guerrero (1989) 1997 0.56 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) and non-reef (Scombridae) fish species Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged daily catch per fisher from the total annual catch of 23.08 t·km-2·year-1 from a 1.06 km2 reef area (Maypa et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 210) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004). 2000 0.49 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) and non-reef (Scombridae) fish species Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged daily catch per fisher from the total annual catch of 20.28 t·km-2·year-1 from a 1.06 km2 reef area (Maypa et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 210) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004). 2001 0.98 hook and line, gillnet, spear, bamboo traps reef (Carangidae, Acanthuridae, Caesionidae, Cephalopoda, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Epinephelinae, others) and non-reef (Scombridae) fish species Apo Island, Negros Oriental (VII) Averaged daily catch per fisher from the total annual catch of 19.09 t·km-2·year-1 from a 1.06 km2 reef area (Maypa et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 210) for 218 fishing days per year (average from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) divided by the number of fishers (Russ et al. 2004). 2010 3.18 Not specified 14 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 86 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Amlan, Negros Oriental (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.86. 2010 2.24 Not specified 32 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 68 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Boljoon, Cebu (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.68. 2010 0.62 Not specified 69 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 31 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Hinunangan, Southern Leyte (VIII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.31. 2010 0.73 Not specified 67 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 33 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Inabanga, Bohol (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.33. 2010 3.04 Not specified 38 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 62 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) San Francisco, Cebu (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.62. 2010 1.06 Not specified 47 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 53 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) San Francisco, Southern Leyte (VIII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.53.       Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone C, Cabanban, AS et al. 70 Table 1. Continued. Year Catch (kg·day-1·fisher-1) Gear Target Species Locality (Region) Remarks (Source)   Artisanal (continued) Tuna species (continued)   2010 2.62 Not specified 43 % demersal (such as parrotfishes, emperors, snappers, groupers), 57 % pelagic (major species: tunas and mackerels, jacks and scads, sardines) Tagbilaran City, Bohol (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3) multiplied by 0.57.   Subsistence Mixed   2002 1.94 gleaning – Cordova, Cebu (VII) Average daily catch per fisher from annual catch per gleaner (Montenegro et al. 2005, p. 18) for 237 fishing days per year (based on data for San Francisco, Cebu, from Muallil et al. 2012, Table 1, p. 3). 2002 0.80 gleaning mollusks, crustaceans, brachiopods, crabs Banate Bay, Panay Island (VI) Averaged from annual catch, assuming 20 % of the catch was consumed (del Norte-Campos et al. 2005, p. 15). 2004 2.75 gleaning gastropods, bivalves, echinoderms Bohol (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Samonte-Tan et al. 2007, p. 327). 2004 2.21 hook and line, nets, spear, fish trap Not specified Bohol (VII) Averaged from catch rates of different gears per trip (Samonte-Tan et al. 2007, p. 327) divided by the number of fishers (n=242; Samonte-Tan et al. 2007, p. 326), assuming 20 % of the catch was consumed (del Norte-Campos et al. 2005, p. 15). 2012 2.31 gleaning fish and invertebrate Negros Oriental (VII) Average daily catch per fisher (Cabanban et al. this vol.). 2012 1.23 gleaning fish and invertebrate Banate Bay, Panay Island (VI) Average daily catch per fisher (Cabanban et al. this vol.).         The total reconstructed catches of the artisanal non-tuna, artisanal tuna, and subsistence fisheries increased from 46,983 t in 1950 to 130,490 t in 2010 (Figure 2D). Non-tuna catches increased on the average by 14 % from 18,400 t (1950) to 40,800 t (2010), while tuna catches increased on the average by 15 % from 13,300 t (1950) to 30,900 t (2010). Subsistence catch also increased on the average by 25 % from 15,250 t (1950) to 58,800 t (2010).  Catch composition data  The catches of marine artisanal fisheries from 1981 to 2006 is mainly composed of small pelagic fishes (Table 2), including several species of sardines (rank 1, 2, 3, 7, and 14), two species of mackerel (rank 9 and 12), and 2 scads (rank 11 and 19) (Table 2). The tuna species that compose 7 % of the catches were frigate tuna (rank 8) and eastern little tuna (rank 10). The reconstructed catches of the top 20 fishes and invertebrates and those that compose 75 % of the total catches increased from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 2E).  Discussion  The artisanal fisheries is over-exploited in Regions VI, VII, and VIII as evidenced by the steady decline of catch per fisher from 1950 to 2010 in the artisanal non-tuna, artisanal tuna, and subsistence catches (Figures 2A, B, C). The decline of catches of fishers is commonly reported in coastal resources management projects but the trend is rarely quantified. The daily catch per fisher in Danajon Bank (Region VII and III) was 17.8 kg in 1950, but declined to 2.0 kg in 2000 (CRMP 1998 in Ablong et al. Philippine Marine Fisheries Catches: A Bottom-up Reconstruction, 1950-2010, Palomares, MLD and Pauly, D (eds.) 71 1999). In Olango Island, Cebu (Region VII), the decline was from 20 kg·day-1·fisher-1 in 1960 to less than 2 kg·day-1·fisher-1 in 1998 (CRMP 1998). This over-exploitation of artisanal fisheries along the coastal waters surrounding the Visayan Islands was also reported in the commercial fisheries in the major fishing grounds of these Regions. For instance, Carigara Bay, Danajon Bank, Northern and South Southern Tanon Strait are exploited by more than 70 fishers km2, while 2-70 fishers km2 fish the waters of Northern Panay and Visayan Sea (Edralin et al. 1988).   Table 2. Rank and percentile analysis of marine artisanal landings for Visayas (representing Regions VI, VII and VIII, i.e., Subzone C) from 1981 to 2006 reported by the Philippine Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. Rank Percentile English name Scientific name 1 100.0 Blue crab Portunus pelagicus 2 98.6 Fimbriated Sardine  Sardinella fimbriata 3 97.3 Slipmouth Leiognathus spp. 4 96.0 Anchovy Encrasicholina spp. 5 94.6 Squid Loligo spp. 6 93.3 Threadfin Bream Nemipterus virgatus 7 92.0 Sardine Sardinella spp. 8 90.6 Frigate Tuna Auxis spp. 9 89.3 Indo-Pacific Mackerel  Rastrelliger brachysoma 10 88.0 Eastern Little Tuna Euthynnus affinis 11 86.6 Round Scad Decapterus macrosoma 12 85.3 Indian Mackerel  Rastrelliger kanagurta 13 84.0 Sillago/Whiting Sillago sihama 14 82.6 Indian Sardine Sardinella sp. 15 81.3 Flying fish Cypselurus poecilopter 16 80.0 Mullet Mugil spp. 17 78.6 White Shrimps Fenneropenae spp. 18 77.3 Crevalle Alepes spp. 19 76.0 Big-eyed Scad Selar crumenophthalmus 20 74.6 Acetes  Acetes spp.   This decline was attributed to illegal fishing practices and socio-economic conditions (e.g., Green et al. 2004; Alcala and Russ, 2002). Dynamite-fishing was introduced in World War II and poisoning using plant extracts began in the 1950s. The use of poisons extended to the use of cyanide to catch fish for the aquarium trade (Albaladejo et al. 1981) and the live reef fish food trade (Sadovy et al. 2003) in the 1960s. Fine-mesh nets, that are un-selective for juvenile stages, trawls that destroy the bottom fauna, and highly efficient fishing technology increasing exploitation rate were introduced in the 1970s. Monofilament and fine-mesh nets were introduced in the 1980s, while fishing vessels with large wattage of lights to attract fishes were introduced in the 1990s (albeit in commercial fisheries). Clearing of mangrove forests, reclamation on mudflats, seagrass beds, and reef flats (e.g., Alcala and Russ, 2002; Christie et al. 2004; Green et al. 2003), and pollution of coastal waters from land-based sources contribute the destruction of habitats of fishes and invertebrates. Poverty in fishing communities and the incessant increase in human population are often mentioned as the causes of over-exploitation of artisanal fisheries in the Visayan region (e.g., Le Blanc 1997; Rivera-Guieb et al. 2002; Green et al. 2004). Marine artisanal fisheries of the Philippines, Subzone C, Cabanban, AS et al