This project is conceptualized as a pilot study to further document the observations of the STS scientists on GSA at LGU level. We are focusing on two municipalities in Batangas, both 2nd class municipalities with differing geographies and similar population sizes, but rapidly urbanizing within the CALABARZON region and one in Isabela Province. The two municipalities in Batangas are Malvar, Batangas, an inland town   and Calatagan, Batangas, a coastal town and the municipality in Isabela is Dinapigue. Work with Dinapigue will be through the Isabela Coastal Development Office (ICDO) 

The project aims to strengthen multi-level governance of terrestrial biodiversity in the Philippines by identifying institutional gaps and clarifying national–local coordination mechanisms. By focusing on Northern Sierra Madre, a biodiversity hotspot with complex governance arrangements, the study will generate actionable recommendations to improve local implementation of national biodiversity policies and programs.

This project generally aims to develop a policy framework and actionable recommendations that strengthen local environmental governance and policy coherence for biodiversity conservation in the Bicol Region, with lessons applicable to national policy reforms. Specifically, it aims to: 

• Assess existing institutional arrangements and policy overlaps in biodiversity management among LGUs, DENR, and other regional stakeholders in the Bicol Region.

• Evaluate LGU capacities, resources, and practices in mainstreaming biodiversity into local development and land-use planning.

• Identify gaps, barriers, and opportunities in policy enforcement and inter-agency coordination at the regional level.

• Develop a policy coherence framework that aligns local governance mechanisms with national biodiversity strategies and international treaty commitments.

• Produce policy briefs and recommendations to inform both regional governance improvements and national biodiversity conservation reforms.
  

The Philippines is a State Party to more than a dozen major Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), CITES, the Montreal Protocol, the Stockholm and Basel Conventions, MARPOL, and emerging global regimes such as the Plastics Treaty (expected 2025) and the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Treaty (now enforced this 2026).

Despite this extensive participation, a persistent governance gap remains: scientific knowledge seldom informs diplomatic negotiation or treaty implementation in a systematic, institutionalized manner. Philippine delegations to MEA negotiations are still predominantly composed of legal experts and foreign-service officers. While essential, this composition often lacks the scientific depth required in technically complex negotiations—particularly in areas such as climate impacts, biodiversity metrics, hazardous chemicals, marine science, and pollution pathways. At the same time, scientific and research institutions in the country rarely translate their findings into diplomatic or policy-ready language, resulting in under-utilised expertise and missed opportunities for evidence-based negotiation positions.

These structural weaknesses—fragmented interagency coordination, weak science-policy translation mechanisms, absence of standing technical advisory pools, and limited long-term capacity development—diminish the country’s negotiating strength. They also undermine compliance, reduce policy coherence, and constrain the Philippines’ ability to influence emerging global environmental norms and financing frameworks.

This project directly addresses these governance gaps by institutionalizing science diplomacy as a core pillar of Philippine environmental governance. It will strengthen science–policydiplomacy interfaces, develop mechanisms for sustained technical support to MEA delegations, and produce a strategic, decision-maker-ready policy brief aligned with CBP 2026 priority themes on environmental governance, international environmental relations, and the science–policy interface.

This area will focus on assessing outcomes of fisheries policy on food security informed by scientific evidence on climate and environmental changes, economic prospects, social change, and gender issues. A suggested area is to relate aquaculture and fisheries innovation and how this impacts coastal nutrition profiles, geographies, logistics, disaster risk reduction, fisheries stock management, economics, ecological risks such as biological invasion, and the issue of genetically modified fish (GM FISH).

This area will focus on assessing the impact of protected areas policies and legislation on impacts such as on financial sustainability of protected areas, ecological and biodiversity outcomes, community stakeholder participation, employment, and small and medium enterprise investment in communities that host protected areas.

This area focuses on the nexus between geopolitics and marine science research in the context of national priorities in developing the Blue Economy and transboundary issues. This area highlights the role of governmental science advice, non-governmental marine environment advocacy, and science diplomacy. The role of defense-related and sponsored research in informing public policy is an area that needs to be explored here. For national defense and security, the doctrine of technologically superior knowledge-gathering and storage platforms is key for securing national interests in territorial waters and the EEZ.