Scoping review of marine fisheries governance in the Philippines: Goals, instruments, actions, opportunities and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective fisheries governance has long been a challenge to achieve across the globe with critical implications for food security and livelihoods in coastal zones. This is especially true for the Philippines, an archipelagic country with abundant coastal biodiversity. While scholars have investigated specific elements of fisheries governance in the Philippines, none has sought to make holistic sense in terms of the coherence of its goals, instruments, actions, opportunities, and challenges. To address this gap, a scoping review was conducted based upon 160 published articles. Results of the study reveal that marine fisheries governance in the Philippines is primarily dominated by participatory governance, specifically co-management, which encourages public-private partnerships. This collaborative arrangement is legally empowered by legislation that provides the mandate for the decentralization of fisheries governance – the Local Government Code of 1991 and the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998. Marine fisheries governance is primarily oriented towards biodiversity conservation, an overarching goal necessary to achieve other social, economic, and cultural goals. In order to achieve these goals, a combination of hard and soft instruments is typically employed in governance operations in tandem with, predominantly, surveillance and enforcement actions. Opportunities in fisheries governance are principally institutional factors (i.e. institutional linkages), whereas challenges are mostly resource-oriented factors (i.e. illegal fishing). More broadly, marine fisheries governance in the Philippines has evolved in response to historical political processes and especially the dynamics of power relations among key actors – the state, market and civil society - and the struggle for decolonization. • The evolution of marine fisheries governance in the Philippines reflects power dynamics and regulatory decolonization. • Participatory governance dominates the main body of theory and praxis of Philippine marine fisheries sector. • Philippine fisheries governance prioritizes biodiversity conservation, sought through hard and soft regulatory instruments. • Forging institutional links is the top opportunity in Philippine fisheries governance and illegal fishing the top challenge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".