Governance of the Coastal and Aquatic Areas The Tagbanwa Foundation of Coron Island has formulated their ADSDPP. The Plan defines the various zones of the Domain and provides the corresponding details of the governance policies of each zone. These include no-go zones, fish sanctuaries, tourism areas, sacred sites and fish harvesting rules and regulations.12 However, the harmonization with the local Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and the adoption of the Tagbanwa ADSDPP has been very difficult and challenging. The Tagbanwa see a very rough road ahead in their effort to secure LGU recognition of their ADSDPP. The issues arising from the policy overlaps of the Fishery Code, Local Government Code and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act regarding the governance of the aquatic areas, which fall under the same jurisdictions, have been very difficult to resolve. The SEP Law, The Fisheries Code and Ancestral Waters The Strategic Environment Plan of Palawan takes a more conciliatory stance with regards to the recognition of indigenous rights of over the ocean. The SEP identifies “tribal ancestral lands” as one of three main components of the ECAN13 and defines “tribal ancestral lands” in Section 3 as “… areas comprising both land and sea that are traditionally occupied by the cultural minorities. It goes further by defining the ECAN areas: “These areas, traditionally occupied by cultural minorities, comprise both land and sea areas. These shall be treated in the same graded system of control and prohibition as in the others abovementioned except for stronger emphasis in cultural considerations. The SEP, therefore, shall define a special kind of zonation to fulfill the material and cultural needs of the tribes using consultative processes and cultural mapping of the ancestral lands.” The provisions of the SEP law (RA 7611) on the definition of ECAN areas were pioneering. It was the first Republic Act that acknowledged the existence of ancestral waters within ancestral domains. This was not lost among the Tagbanwa of Coron as they extensively quoted the SEP provisions on ECAN zoning to provide a legal backbone for their claim of ancestral waters as part of their ancestral domain. Finally, in the case of Palawan, the Fisheries Code differs from the SEP’s definition of coastal areas. The Revised Fisheries Code specifies coastal areas or coastal zones as a band of dry and submerged land at the direct interface of earth and ocean processes, which may include areas within 1 kilometer from the shore at high tide. As mentioned above, the SEP defines a coastal zone as an area, which includes the whole coastline up to the open sea. Apart from a coastal core zone, this may also include communal fishing grounds. The SEP also stipulates that “Tribal Ancestral Lands” may comprise both land and sea areas whose control and prohibition will place a stronger emphasis on “cultural considerations,” employing “cultural mapping” in devising a zoning scheme. In providing for the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, which adopts the SEP as its core strategy, the Revised Fisheries Code clearly gives way to these issues. In a provision, the Code adopts the PCSD’s special mandate to grant permits within the 15-kilometer zone of coastal waters. It can be argued from this provision that guidelines covering the PCSD’s zoning scheme also applies to the 15-kilometer zone of coastal waters; and thus, at least in the case of the Tagbanwa CADT, “cultural considerations” and the “material and cultural needs” of indigenous communities will take precedence in the delineation of Teeb ang Surublien. 17