Talk:Fisheries in the Philippines

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Fisheries in the Philippines
• Aquaculture in the Philippines
• Municipal fisheries in the Philippines
• Commercial fisheries in the Philippines
• History of fisheries in the Philippines

)

• ... that over the history of fisheries in the Philippines, the once dominant local municipal fisheries became supplanted first by commercial fisheries, and then by aquaculture? Source: Trends in the fisheries sector covering five decades, i.e., from the 1950s to the present, show the growth and decay of municipal fisheries. During the early 1950s, municipal fisheries comprised the bulk of fisheries production, which was 150 percent greater than the commercial sector...Then, the contribution of the municipal sector to total fishery production dropped drastically to a little over 30 percent of the total catch. By 1996, approximately 33 percent was contributed by the municipal sector, According to the volume of fisheries production data in the Philippines (1980–2010), capture fisheries have made up a high percentage (82%) of the total fisheries production for three decades, and the percentage of marine capture fisheries is 89% and that of inland fisheries is 11% among capture fisheries. The percentage of capture fisheries is decreasing recently, while that of aquaculture is growing, Aquaculture experienced a 4.58% growth rate and remained to be the top contributor to the country’s total volume of production, accounting for 54.15% share. Municipal fisheries contributed 25.96%, while commercial fisheries constituted up 19.89% share, both experiencing slight declines in terms of production volume
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Emi Shinohara
  • Comment: Emi Shinohara is two reviews. Also reviewed were Pabhāvatī, Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., and Verna Mersereau. This nomination combines five articles into one hook for administrative ease and to not repeat the same topic on DYK, although I can suggest individual hooks if desired. There's a fun fact about the death of Hirohito. Due to the interrelated nature of the articles there is duplicated text between them, however there should be a DYKs-worth of unique text in all. As always, open to other hook suggestions.

Created by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Number of QPQs required: 5. Nominator has 47 past nominations.

CMD (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC).

• Hot dang, amazing work with these articles. All five seem high quality, and I don't see any evidence of copyvio or other outstanding issues. All articles are eligible, and the hook is interesting enough and confirmed by the sources. QPQs check out. Is this planned to be a GT down the line? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

  Replied on user talk. CMD (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fisheries in the Philippines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 19:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 02:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this on. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, I've been taking a break. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience Chipmunkdavis, over to you. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Prose and content

• They fall under the jurisdiction of their relevant local government unit[s]

  Done

• poorly managed, and are overfished WP:CINS

  Reworded

• have aimed to ensure fisheries are sustainable and prioritize the support of local fisherfolk while managing the challenges of overexploitation, habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change a strange sentence; aiming to ensure they're sustainable and to prevent habitat destruction etc?

  Reworded

• the establishment of marine protected areas the management technique would surely be more about upholding these marine protected areas rather than establishing them?

  Interestingly it's both, local governments are mandated to create MPAs as part of their management responsibilities. Upholding is a separate sort of challenge.

• Their main product is squalene, which is extracted for export. This sentence is quite confusing without clicking through and reading, it needs some context

  Reworded

• while large boats range range in use?

  Reworded

• which includes big-eye tuna, eastern little tuna, frigate tuna, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna. This information is duplicating information from earlier. If you want to include it here as well, why would you not pick the four most important as listed earlier?

  Trimmed

• Many seaweed farms are small-scale and farmer-owned. Seaweed farming was often carried out alongside other methods of obtaining income, such as fishing. why the switch in tenses?

  Done

• adding $4.33 billion to the economy Which currency is this?

  Done

• Over 40% of imports are tuna Why is imports relevant to fisheries?

  Imports are mixed into the domestic stream, and provide feed for aquaculture. Nonetheless, taking the wider thrust of your comments, have rearranged and trimmed this section to be more focused.

  Ah, I read it as relating to domestic consumption rather than industrial. Perhaps this can be a bit clearer; "fisheries production" is a bit euphemistic and reads just as easily as fish haul as canning etc. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's a mixture, I've tweaked and rearranged a bit to link imports to re-export.

• You can cut down the nutrition section, if you are trying to identify trends then state it in prose rather than listing out so many numbers. You only need the most recent years figures. Also, none of it is about nutrition, but rather domestic consumption.

  Cut to recent years and added the gender component of those numbers. I added Consumption to the title. I haven't gone into specific details in the article, but nutrition is important and prominent as a consideration in sources from what I have seen. Not in the article, but for example page 59-60 here, which notes wild-caught fish have higher nutritional benefits than milkfish and tilapia (the aquaculture fish).

• often being seen as a fallback for those unable to make a living otherwise. MOS:DATED given two sentences ago you mention the collapse of municipal fishing

  The fallback is a cultural conception, as it's an archipelago and anyone can fish. This is part of why the collapse of fisheries has had a significant impact on people, as they lose a historically secure livelihood option. I've tweaked to try and clarify this.

• A fish market in Cubao Cubao links to disambig

  Odd. It was a redirect with possibilities. It seems it was turned into a redirect this July. I don't really see how most of those items fit a disambiguation page, and the first line definitely isn't in the usual disambiguation style. I would suggest leaving this as is, as Cubao is the clear primary topic of Cubao.

• Same with The government identified 2,302,648 people as working in fisheries in 2022. as cutting down nutrition section

  Replaced 2020 data with 2022.

• The depletion of fisheries in different parts of the country have exacerbated the precarious economic situation of many fisherfolk in some local areas. This is a strange sentence, I'm not sure what it's adding the previous sentences, except perhaps clarifying that reduced catches are due to a depletion of fisheries

  Reworded

• Fisherfolk poverty continuously decreased from 2006 to 2018. Why is this?

  The source just reports the bare facts, but I suspect offhand it was a function of general economic growth rather than anything specific to fisheries.

• The government has developed specific plans to try and address fisherfolk poverty MOS:DATED

  Reworded to be more timeless.

• The redlinks in the "Size at which fish species are considered mature" are confusing; looking at the "Java parrotfish" for instance in the source gives the scientific name Scarus javanicus. This is despite, according to our article on Scarus, such a species not existing.

  Scarus javanicus is a synonym for Scarus hypselopterus. I've come across quite a few sources produced in Southeast Asia that seem to use outdated scientific names long after they were accepted as invalid.

  Could you work through the other redlinks? I can see "Japanese scad" is redlinked, but Japanese jack mackerel may be an appropriate link? etc.

  • Whitesaddle goatfish is Parupeneus ciliatus
  • Shortfin scad is Decapterus macrosoma, currently a circular redirect back to the very stubby genus page.
  • Lattice monocle bream is Scolopsis taenioptera
  • Java parrotfish per above is Scarus javanicus, a synonym for Scarus hypselopterus.
  • Java parrotfish per above is Scarus javanicus, a synonym for Scarus hypselopterus.
  • Japanese scad is Decapterus maruadsi, a different species (but also Carangidae) to Japanese jack mackerel. I didn't notice that shared common name (and anecdotally from writing this common names in the Philippines can differ from more global common names), will pipe the (seemingly in this case currently valid) scientific name and create that disambiguation page.
  • Ornate threadfin bream is Nemipterus hexodon

  I did take a quick look for all these, and they seem likely notable and thus appropriate for redlinks.

• the use of mangrove forests could you explain what it means to "use" mangrove forests? Perhaps "fishing of" would be more appropriate?
• Introduce acronym LGU on first use.

  Done

• Link Barangay

  Done

• Generally, I would say the page is too long and doesn't adhere to summary style. It is on a relatively niche topic and is at almost 10 000 words, which Probably should be divided or trimmed. I like the essay User:Trainsandotherthings/The Earth Test here. I do think reading at times can be a drag when excessive detail is gone into such as the Policy and legislation section and other examples given above.

  This article was split into four subarticles during writing. If you have specific ideas for what more could be shifted down to those articles, that would be appreciated. CMD (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think the history section is insufficiently summary style; it's about 1/3 of the length of the article it's summarizing. It only really needs four paragraphs maximum given its use of Template:Main. Other things that can be cut are discussed above. I would say the volume of listing in prose makes the article harder to read, and more important examples can be chosen as representative. I'm also a bit uncertain about the extent to which the concept of "fisheries" extends. Does it refer to harvesting (as implied from the lede sentence)? Or does it refer to the entire commercial fishing industry? In the case of the former, it's undue to spend 500+ words discussing the international trade of the product of harvesting. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  History sections get us all in the end, that should all already be in the subarticle so I'll cut it down. The inclusion of the processing and sales information was due to it being present in many sources, which discuss markets for both the municipal and commercial fisheries. International trade gets its own section in the BFAR reports. CMD (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's fair. The international trade section can still be cut down, particularly the importation stuff as mentioned about. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Each LGU is able to implement this in their own chosen manner, with there being no prescribed standard.

  Done

• Sangguniang Bayan or Sangguniang Panlungsod. Why or?

  Done

• Local laws must be in line with national laws and policy. What is the difference in this section between municipal authorities and LGUs?

  LGU is the general term for municipal governments and city governments, it's not the most intuitive terminology.

• Could you explain the relationship between these two sentences?

• At municipal, provincial, and national levels, Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (FARMCs) are established through Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) No. 196 from 2000 and its later amendments.
• Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Councils were established through Executive Order 240.[9] These can be created at the barangay level, or at the city/municipality level.

• There are two separate establishments, EO 240 and FAO 196. I've grouped and reworded.

• If you're going to note Fisheries Administrative Order is shortened to FAO, you should shorten all uses.

  Done

• Why do you sometimes identify FAOs as BFAR, and other times not?

  Removed

• Only ships larger than 20 GT

  Done

• The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997 provides some control over natural resources to recognized indigenous groups in their ancestral lands, meaning they can fish in recognized lands without registering so long as they follow fishing regulations, and other fisherfolk require special consent to fish in these areas. condense this sentence, the second half is the most important

• Condensed

• What are Letters of Instruction?

  They're similar to executive orders but are administrative rather than legal, except when they're not. Here is a relevant court case. They should probably be included in Ordinance Power of the President of the Philippines (part of Executive issuances). I've generalized the text to include that wikilink.

• The Restrictions on gear section can be heavily condensed, you can be more succinct with examples. Perhaps 2-3 sentences.

  Condensed, wary of condensing it too far at the moment as there is no sub-article for this.

• yet they can often be acceptable to local communities who might participate in setting their size and boundaries could you elaborate on this?

  It's about local control, tweaked and added a general source and a source on a specific example.

• Closed seasons for specific species are enabled by the Philippine Fisheries Code. this paragraph can be cut right down. It serves as a history of closed seasons rather than a brief overview.

  Sat on this since you first wrote it. Since you have mentioned elsewhere the prose has an issue with listing, I figured out I could make an actual list (or table) and save the prose.

• The FMAs were established through FAO 263. why is it important to identify what number FAO this was established through?

  Probably not here given FMAs could have their own article, so removed.

• (fully named "An Act to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing") unnecessary

  I included this among the information on illegal fishing to illustrate that the law was focused on illegal fishing as a topic (or at least presented as such), which does not come through with the shorter "Fisheries code of 1998" common name.

  I think you explained it sufficiently and it doesn't need the illustration.

  Far be it from me to deny sufficient explanatory powers, removed.

• Most cases were related to incidents within municipal fisheries, or areas with closed seasons.[8]: 14  The most common violations among BFAR cases are unauthorized fishing, using gear inappropriate for municipal fisheries, and unlicensed employees. are these two sentences contradictory?

  No one is spatial one is the activity, I've shifted things throughout that paragraph to clear this up and trimmed a bit.

• forumlas

  Eesh

  I pointed this out and when I later went in to fix something else I cleaned this up, I didn't just point at it to be mean sorry

  More an eesh at me, presumably typing too fast.

• Plans to tackle IUU fishing include the 2013 National Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and BFAR's 2019-2023 Fisheries Law Enforcement Operations Action Plan (FAO 271 of 2018). I'll use this as an example of what I said earlier: "I would say the volume of listing in prose makes the article harder to read":

Are these examples very important? If they are, and would pass GNG for instance, they are worth listing out in full. If there are elements to them that are important, those are what should be highlighted. For instance, Plans to tackle IUU fishing include national plans and ones organized by BFAR. I understand this can be clarified to be more precise, but I hope my point of taking the elements you want to highlight is crucial for adhering to summary style and improving readability and concision.

• Got rid of both paragraphs and added a table.

• In the research section, you're not trying to give a history of the research; if it's notable enough then it will go in Fisheries in the Philippines#History. You are trying to give an overview of current research.

  Removed, although I suppose it's more research institutions than specific research.

• area being covered by live coral

  Done

• This is despite the protection of mangrove forests actually bringing about positive economic outcomes for local fisheries. NPOV, is the despite you or the source? It is unclear if these positive economic outcomes are greater than those when converted to aquaculture.

  It's summarizing the source which has the economic valuations, however I rewrote to make that explicit.

• I really can't see the utility in listing examples of natural disasters, and if you do, listing five examples.

  Removed

• such as coasts, coral reefs, and mangroves these examples of habitats have been made clear throughout the article

  Trimmed that and a bit more.

• cause direct damage to many fisherfolk it injures them?

  Sadly that is true, however I've reworded to make the economic focus clear.

• Is there a reason east in "the East coast" is capitalized?

  Fixed

• The introduction of payao, while increasing tuna fisheries, increased the catch of juvenile tuna, with some locations seeing 90% of catch being under a year old. some redundancy as this repeats previous sentences
• These direct impacts occur alongside what direct impacts?

  Removed as redundant to fixes implemented elsewhere.

• illegal fishing of foreign vessels by foreign vessels?

  Done

• with control of coastal resources was likely exercised

  Done

• fishery intensity is this the appropriate word to modify? Would fishing be more appropriate?

  Seen both, but fishing is probably more common, so changed.

• A provincial trawling bans was first issued grammar

  Done

• steadily until the mid-1970s, and starting growing again WP:CINS

  Changed

• The mid-1970s saw the introduction of payao introduction of modern payao?

  I'm really not sure. Many sources simply say they were first used in 1975[1][2].

  Interesting. I mentioned it because in payao (fishing) it discusses payaos much earlier.

  It is quite. This source from that article vaguely dates it back a bit more to a process starting in 1969. My suspicion is that 1975 saw widespread adoption by the tuna industry specifically, and I'll keep an eye out for sources on that.

• aimed at creating sustainability in fisheries also consider "promoting" instead of creating

  Done and done

• The newly created 1987 constitution

  Done

• Integrated coastal zone management is a good link

  Added as Integrated coastal management, currently a redirect, as that should probably be the target article title. May propose an RM there.

Sources

• The Verde Island Passage is possibly the most diverse marine area on the planet. This sentence, particularly possibly doesn't really line up with the source.

  Reworded

• The value of marine ecosystem services is thought to be around US$966.6 billion. This needs to include the continental shelf qualifier.

  Done

• 826.01 thousand tons source says "826.01 thousand MT"; to my understanding these are not the same thing. I can see the same issue further down the paragraph with This included 1.48 million tons of seaweed Further, it reads awkwardly, why not just 826,010 MT? This is accurate according to page 68 of the source.

  Done throughout

• perhaps 10%

  Done

• Philippine environmental law is often regarded as very high quality not really supported, especially by a 20 year old source.

  Tweaked with new sources.

• earned US$170 million, but caused US$1,640 million in environmental damage" qualify that this is over a 20 year period.

  Done

• It is relatively understudied MOS:DATED

  Tweaked

• The first farmed fish is thought to be milkfish, collected from tidal waters and raised in brackish ponds. url goes to incorrect chapter: use this

  Thanks

• Link for "How many MPAs are there in the Philippines" appears broken

  Damn. That seems to be a permanent victim of the destruction google cache. Replaced with [3].

Spot check

Revision

• [10] Y
• [20a] clock I can't see in the source anything supporting the text

  This was probably in for details on P. Monodon in its table, but there's no need as this is in the other source, so removed.

• [20b] Y
• [30] Y
• [40] Y
• [50] Y
• [60] Y
• [70] I wouldn't say this is a good summary of the sources, which should reflect that the majority are poorly managed, not just inconsistently. (Having looked at sources [69] and [71]

  Harsh but justifiable. Tweaked with a link to the (surprisingly stubby) Paper park.

• [80] clock is this still true? The exhibition opened ostensibly before the carve-up into 12 FMAs.

  I have actually reached out to OCEANA (the organization that worked on the FMAs) about this specific question, as I couldn't find an answer and had similar questions. Despite the FMA creation following the Benham rise annexation, as can be seen at that link the mapped areas didn't include the rise. The OCEANA representative stated that they thought it was part of FMA 1 (makes sense), but I haven't found been able to source that in a Wikipedia-safe way.

• [90a] Y
• [90b] clock flagged above

  Fixed above.

• [100] Y (link issue flagged above)

  Fixed above.

Suggestions

• The short description is incorrect. The article probably doesn't need a short description.

  Done

• are defined through the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550),[1] which defines repetition of defines reads awkwardly

  Reworded

• General comment: The article has a lot of statistics, which is okay, but it can make it harder to read at times. Some things are fine with prose, such as "Over half (62.88%) of caught fish come from five regions".

  Unsure what this means?

  I just mean you can cut the (62.88%) from the sentence and the meaning isn't changed and it reads more naturally and easily. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• 0.16 million tons → 160 thousand tons

  Done

• Some inconsistency in capitalization of PhP and spacing with number.

  Done what I think MOS:CURRENCY is asking

• the cooperation of local and national government with fisherfolk and other stakeholders → "local and national governments to cooperate with..."

  Done

• Quite a bit of MOS:OVERLINKING per the paragraph beginning "Links may be excessive even if they are informative"

  Done some trimming, should be nothing duplicative within a section at the very least.

• Pollution has also increased due to the overall increase in shipping. → A rise in shipping has also increased pollution

  Done

• decrease potential income

  Done

• Growing population during American rule add article to beginning (e.g. a, the)

  Changed to Population growth

• what it was in 1951 what it had been

  Done

• had began to become apparent were becoming apparent

  Done

Other

• Images:

• File:Philippine Island - Manila - NARA - 68156526.jpg clock Creation date should be made consistent

• Changed to March 1933 per the scanned image

• File:Lanuza Bay fishing zones.JPG I think the copyright for this isn't the photo, but the map within. If you can clarify this / update that it would be helpful.

• I have tentatively tagged it as PD-USAID, as the map publisher is the USAID FISH project. If that isn't right (images within images and sub-contracting across borders makes this feel tricky), I suspect it'll have to be removed from Commons.

• Stable Y
• Broad / summary style clock I want to see more work on this, I will re-review
• Neutral clock Some normative claims around sustainability concerns, I will re-review as this may just be me. I have flagged one in the review.
• No COPYVIO / OR Y 29.6% Earwig, legislation titles

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

A general reply to the issues of WP:Summary style, a challenge in writing this article was that there was a lack of other articles to summarize. This was the main article for the information at hand, and still is for much of it. I did spin four sub-articles out of this one to help wrestle it down into the form I submitted to GAN. I am not opposed to the concept of more (one on IUU fishing was suggested elsewhere) in principle, but as a general note we are at 8,041 words now which feels reasonable given the lack of sub-articles. CMD (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Rollinginhisgrave, this was a very thorough review, which I appreciate. I have implemented/responded to all above, very helpful suggestions. Sorry about the delay, I became very busy the past week and a bit. CMD (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I'll respond to any comments I have questions/notes on now and do another sweep of the article within the 24 hours. On summary style; frankly I think I used the wrong term. Apologies, it's embarrassing. Not for today. No worries about the delay. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Second sweep

• have historically been poorly managed I don't think "historically" is an accurate summary per revisions above

  Fair enough

• effectivness

  Some small fixes made

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis I've obviously not got the energy for a second sweep, I apologize for wasting your time. I made a few starts on doing it and only got a bit into #Resources, and only remembering flagging the double use of surrounding in the first sentence making it harder to read. Passing now, thanks for your excellent work here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.