SALIENT POINTS FROM A READING OF A RESEARCH PAPER ENTITLED “THE HISTORY OF BINAOBAO’S SWAMP AND RECLAMATION” BY FARIOLEN et.al

 DISCLAIMER: The purpose of this short reaction paper is to highlight interesting findings the authors stated in the summary, conclusion and recommendation of the study.  May also provide relevance of the research methodology used to qualify and quantify the answer of the statement of the problem. 

 Here, I would like to start with the Statement of the Problem (page 2). 

“This study determines the background and the reclamation of the swamp in Brgy. Binaobao, Bantayan, Cebu.  Specifically, this will opt to answer the following questions:

1.       What is the history of the swamp?

2.       When/how did the swamp’s reclamation started?

3.       What rights/ownership was given to the residents to occupy the space in the swamp?

4.       What is the image of the swamp after its reclamation?

 What is the history of the swamp?

·         On page 17, the authors cited species of tilapia existed in the swamp.  This is interesting because tilapia species is not endemic in the Philippines in fact the first tilapia species from Mozabique Oreochromis mossambicus was introduced to the Philippines in the late 1950 (Smith et.al) and another species Oreochromis niloticus from Thailand and Israel in 1970;

·         The authors did not mention some local names of mangrove species existed in the area and how it is being used by the inhabitants. Interesting because it is usually the most exploited resources in coastal area used for house construction, firewood and others;

·         The authors described the swamp as a clean brackish flow of water – brackish suggests constant flow of fresh water from a water source such as spring going to the swamp and mixed with salt water;

·         The authors did not clearly describe the history of the swamp as manmade or natural formation. 

 When/how did the swamp’s reclamation started?

·         On page 18, paragraph 1 – “So the local government suggested and permitted the residents to reclaim any part of the swamp as their relocation”.  It is not clear what legal instrument has the LGU granted to the residents the right to start reclaiming. 

·         In paragraph 3, “The LGU of the Municipality of Bantayan, held a reclamation at the swamp area of Brgy. Binaobao where in lands are reserved lands for public use”.  This statement suggests another reclamation activity initiated by the LGU other than reclamation initiated by the displaced residents as results from new road openings construction.  If the above statement is true – how it was managed as land reserved since 1970;

·         In paragraph 4, “In the reclamation process, the residents were made their way to occupy the area in the swamp”.  In the absence of legal basis, this action is a result of unregulated activities in the area.  And that the residents made a gradual dumping of filling materials to expand their occupied area;

·         The author did not clearly discuss how the settlers managed the resources in the area ex. Fishponds, tilapia fishing etc.;

 What rights/ownership was given to the residents to occupy the space in the swamp?

·         In page 19, paragraph 4 “The rights were given to the residents’ states that all the reclaimed land that the local were able to finish will be part of their name”.  This statement suggests printed ownership transfer documents or agreement between the LGU and the reclamation settlers. The authors did not clearly describe nor cited documents title to support the quoted statement above.

·         Reclamation activities is under the mandate of the Philippines Reclamation Authority (PRA) – The authors did not discuss what regulatory functions exercised by the PRA since its creation in 1977.  No regulatory mechanisms cited to describe regulatory functions exercised by the LGU of Bantayan.

 What is the image of the swamp after its reclamation?

·         This statement is vague for a research to obtain qualitative and quantitative answer. 

 The Conclusion of the Study

·         The data presented/discussed in the study is insufficient to support a “perfect habitat” description as conclusion;

·         The historical timeline was not clearly established to describe the entire occurrence of the events;

·         The presented discussion is insufficient to establish the process of giving ownership rights and what form of ownership mechanism did the LGU granted to the settlers;

·         The data is insufficient to make a conclusion on the abundance status of the swamp;

There was no data presented or document pertaining to a reclamation project initiated by the government