Environmentalists in southern Negros Oriental

A.C. Alcala

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the good work of the Sibulan Local Government officials and their Bantay Dagat in coastal resource management (CRM) by protecting their marine reserves and the marine biodiversity in their coastal zone. Some of the endangered species that they are protecting are the sea turtles. What impressed me is the fact that the local communities along the shoreline are aware of the need to protect and manage these resources, as shown by their action in saving the eggs laid by a female turtle. This is an indication of the successful campaign for the conservation of marine resources in this town.

Today, I would like to commend the environmentalists in the town of Siaton, Negros Oriental, a town that is not known for the commitment to manage its coastal and marine resources. In fact, it is a town where apparently some barangay and municipal officials, including some members of the Bantay Dagat, are in cahoots with some people (some coming from Dumaguete who refuse to give their names) who use destructive fishing methods such as SCUBA to spearfish (spearfishing with SCUBA is not allowed) in marine reserves in violation of the rules governing marine protected areas.  I even have some information (to be verified of course) that one or two from the DENR office in Dumaguete are among the culprits.

It takes much courage on the part of these environmentalists to oppose those who would destroy the marine environment, and I commend their dedication to the cause of good environment. I congratulate them for risking their lives for the sake of the environment.

I would like to congratulate Gena Dayon, Martin Jordan and Tony Yucor for their valiant efforts in protecting the marine resources in Antulang, Siit, Siaton. Through their efforts, a number of turtle nests in their beaches have been protected. Several hatchlings have been allowed to return to the sea.

Also, through their efforts, a small marine reserve has been established in Antulang and is protected by them, almost without the help of government officials; in fact, despite the attempts of some people in the area to destroy this reserve. This marine reserve has been monitored by our group at SUAKCREM and has been found to be an excellent reserve with a large fish biomass and high species richness that exceeded our expectations for marine reserves because in two years of protection, the biomass doubled. This marine reserve seems to be an exceptional case because doubling in biomass can be expected only after 3-4 years of protection. There must be favorable environmental factors in the Siit area that are responsible for this phenomenon, but these factors would be nullified if there were no good protection.

I should not forget to point out that this marine reserve is now attracting many visiting SCUBA divers and is earning for the town of Siaton and of course also for resorts where these divers operate from. This development definitely helps in the tourism program of the country.

In our CRM program, we should engage all our people in the activities that are needed to successfully manage our marine resources, whether they are our own people or they are from somewhere else. What matters is that the environment is kept in healthy condition and is sustained for future use by those coming after us. Everyone in our country should play his part in sustainable development. Our local environment is part of the global environment. What we do here affects other areas. It therefore does not make sense to discriminate others who are not Filipinos in the same way that Filipinos in other lands should not be discriminated against.

Negros Oriental is the leading province in CRM. We all take pride in this fact, and we look forward to the day when all towns in the province are models of marine conservation. But we have to see to it that Dumaguete, the capital city is also a model city, which unfortunately is not yet the case. The only one marine reserve in Dumaguete is a non-functional reserve, and is quite an embarrassment to all of us. This reminds me of the comment of one national observer, who said “Silliman University in Dumaguete City is known for its environmental achievements outside the city, but it has a problem of water pollution on its campus.”   

Just als this turtels coms out the hole siit bay was blockt by a ilegal gill net (all this turtels) be get die!

 

Mr. Roger A. de Dios

Regional Director

Mines and Geosciences Bureau

White Plaines Subdivision, Banilad

Mandaue City, Cebu

 

SUBJECT:  OBJECTION TO APPLICATION OF OFFSHORE MINING EXPLORATION

 

Dear Mr. de Dios:

 

Thank you for referring the application for offshore mining exploration of Daytona Mining and Development Corporation. The mining areas being targeted for exploration are classified as fishing and tourism zones and provide jobs, food, ecological services, recreation and tourism opportunities that play critical roles not only in our municipality’s economy, but benefits our  country`s  comprehensive policy on environmental protection where all local governments are obliged in all measures to consistently apply RA 8550 where we are mandated to safeguard the health of the marine environment, and  prevent, reduce, and control of its pollution and degradation.  Siaton has currently three Marine Protected Areas and shall continue to establish more as our coasts are lined with coral reefs that make these ideal for conservation.   We have also learned that offshore mining of magnetite in Cagayan has increased the area´s vulnerability to floods as magnetite holds the sand together. The absence of magnetite in the sand can deplete the coastal and near-shore areas as now being experienced in La Union.

 

Though Pres. Arroyo  “harmonized”  conflicting laws that contradict the Mining Act in 2004, we believe that we still have to follow international laws that protect our coasts from further degradation by industrial and commercial activities onshore and offshore that affect habitat loss, rising sea levels, ocean acidification that lead to climate change.  The value of our marine resources is not a trade-off between the economy and the environment, and we need to ensure accountability for all of our actions affecting ocean, coasts, and marine resources.  Our coastal resources therefore require protection as we have a stewardship responsibility for the benefit of this and future generations.

 

We hope that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources review existing environmental policies to ensure integration and collaboration across jurisdictional lines in meeting the objectives of our regional governance structures, and national and international policies for our oceans and coasts that we can employ an integrated and comprehensive ecosystem-based approach that addresses conservation and sustainable use of our country`s very precious coral reefs. For such reasons, we strongly object to all offshore mining explorations in our municipality.

 

Very truly yours,

 

Gena Dayon

FISH AND CORAL SUBSTRATE TRENDS, DIVE HUB SANCTUARY 2008-2009

 

Portia Joy Nillos-Kleiven¹, MSc & Brian Stockwell, MSc¹

^{___________________________}

[1]Silliman University-Angelo King Center for Research and Environmental Management (SUAKCREM)

2/F Silliman University-Institute of Environmental and Marine Sciences, Bantayan, Dumaguete City, 6200

Telefax: (035) 4225698 email: portianillos@yahoo.com, suakcrem@yahoo.com

 

 

Introduction/Rationale

 

            Marine protected areas or marine sanctuaries have proven to be the best option in the Philippines for addressing the issue of declining near-shore and coral reef fisheries. In the Visayas, there are currently 564 marine protected areas that are established, with the majority being community-based and small I size (about 5 hectares on average).  Among major islands with established MPAs, Negros Island has the highest percentage (ca. 50.98%) of functional marine protected areas (Alcala, Bucol, and Nillos-Kleiven, in press), with the municipality of Dauin unsurprisingly heading the list of municipality with the most number of functional MPAs.

 

            Sadly, in the municipality of Siaton, only one marine protected area made it to the list of functional MPAs—and it is not even legally considered as a marine sanctuary yet.  This is the proposed Dive Hub Antulang MPA located in Sitio Antulang, Si-it, Siaton.  This report contains the results of technical surveys conducted in August 2008 and July 2009 inside and outside the proposed MPA.  It is hoped that these results will encourage the local government unit of the municipality to fast track the legal process of establishing the said MPA, and also to encourage better management of other MPAs in the municipality.

 

Study Site

 

            The study site is a small reserve/sanctuary that was protected since 2007 thru the efforts of a local resort, Dive Hub Philippines (Figure 1, next page).   The area is directly in front of the resort, and has an area of approximately 300 sq meters (1/3 hectare), which is very small in terms of marine sanctuary standards.  Heavy fishing pressure is evident in the area, with many commercial fishing boats regularly fishing not far from shore, as well as locals regularly fishing outside the proposed MPA with spear guns, fishing pots, and hook-and-lines. 

 

            However, because of the constant protection and vigilance of the Dive Hub staff, the small area inside the boundaries have remarkably recovered well, and is fast becoming a favorite dive site for divers, both local and foreign.  The reef inside the boundaries of the MPA is remarkably diverse for such a small area, and the fish community one can observe is akin to areas that have been protected for a long time.  This small area is a microcosm of what the reefs around Siaton probably used to be—and perhaps a vision of what these reefs can be if only they are properly protected.

Dive Hub Antulang proposed MPA

Fig. 1. Location of the proposed Dive Hub marine protected area study site (white arrow), with adjacent control site (yellow arrow)

 

 

 

Materials and Methods

 

Standard survey methods for fish (Fish Visual Census) and corals (Point-Intercept method) (English et al., 1997) were used in this survey. Fish species identification was confirmed using field guides (Allen and Steene 1997; Allen, Steene, Humann, and Deloach, 2003). Only easily visible, non-cryptic species were included. Corals were classified only according to life-forms (massive, branching, etc.)  For each study area, a deep (10-12 m) and a shallow (3-5m) station was surveyed, each station composing of  three 50-m transects. The transects were laid out in a consistent depth following the contour of the reef, separated by 10 m in between transects.

 

            Fish biomass was calculated using the formula:  W= a x L^b, where a and b  are constants that were obtained from FishBase 2000.  Fish density is expressed as the average number of fish observed for 500 m² in three transects.  Fish were also categorized as target (those that are often targeted by fishers, such as parrotfishes (Scaridae), breams (Nemipteridae), fusiliers (Caesionidae), goatfishes (Mullidae), snappers (Lutjanidae), emperors (Lethrinidae), jacks (Carangidae) and groupers (Serranidae) among others. The last 4 families are considered as “Predators”. Non-target fish are butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae), angelfishes (Pomacanthidae), damselfishes (Pomacentridae), wrasses (Labridae), anthias (Anthininae), cardinalfishes (Apogonidae), and others. 

 

For corals, percentage cover for a particular substrate was determined using the following formula:                   __number of substrate points_ ­­­­­  x 100

                                        Total number of points (100)

 

The category LHC or Live Hard Coral is determined by adding up the following categories: CB (branching non-acroporid), CBA (branching acroporid), CE (encrusting corals), CF (foliose coral), CFUNG (fungiid), CM (massive corals), and CSUB (sub-massive corals). 

 

 

Results and Discussion

 

            a. Corals

            There was a slight improvement in the average live hard coral cover (LHC) inside and outside the proposed reserve from 2008 to 2009.  The LHC increased from 21% in 2008 to 25% in 2009 outside the proposed reserve, and from 19.33% to 21% in the same period inside the reserve.  The average percentage of dead coral (DC) and dead coral with algae (DCA), however, decreased considerably inside the proposed reserve from 8.33% in 2008 to a mere 2.33% in 2009, while the percentages were approximately maintained outside the reserve. 

 

Whether this increase in coral cover constitutes a real increase or is a result of sampling design cannot be ascertained, as the researchers did not use permanent transects which is the best method to use if monitoring coral growth.  However, the drastic decrease of dead coral inside the reserve is indicating that the reef here is not receiving as much damage as outside the boundaries, which over time will eventually result to higher coral cover inside the reserve.

 

 One thing that is sure however, is that live hard coral cover  inside and immediately outside the reserve are relatively stable, and if conditions remain the same (constant protection), this trend will continue over time and real improvements will be noted in the future.

 

 

           

            Figure 2. Substrate trend from 2008-2009 inside and immediately outside the proposed MPA.

 

 

            b. Fish

            While the recovery of damaged corals might take time, this situation is not applicable to fish communities. Fish, especially top predators and target species, respond very quickly to protection, and this is why their biomass, density, and diversity are more reliable to gauge the effectivity of newly established MPAs. 

 

            Biomass, or the weight of living tissue, is the best indicator of reserve effectivity, as these take time to build up, and is the best “tell-tale” sign of whether an area has been protected constantly.  The constant protection of the proposed MPA in Dive Hub is very evident—total fish biomass increased by a factor of 2.6, and target fish biomass increased by a factor of 3.4  in only one year inside the reserve (Figure 5). The same parameters have also increased outside, although not by the same magnitude—it increased by a factor of 1.7 for total fish biomass, and by a factor or 2.8 for target species (Figure 4).

 

This general over-all increase in fish biomass inside and immediately outside the proposed reserve is a

very good indicator that the area is recovering well. It also means good news for the community, as there are more fish outside the reserve now than farther away that they can harvest for their daily consumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. A school of parrotfish in the reserve. (Photo: A.W. Kleiven)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 (left) & Figure 5 (right).   Trends in average biomass for total, target, and  top predatory species outside (control) and inside (reserve) the proposed MPA from 2008-2009.

 

 

 

`Fish density for all categories (total, target, and top predator species) increased both inside (Figure 5)  and immediately outside (Figure 6) the reserve.  Although at first glance, the control area seems to have more fish compared to the reserve area, it should be noted that the reserve had much higher densities of target fish and top predatory species compared to outside. The presence of a large number of juvenile groupers in the reserve and adjacent fished area was also noted. The increase in top predator densities in the control area might be an indication that some species are moving out of the reserve.  Most probably, their presence in the control area could mean that the reserve is simply too small to contain their territories, and thus they were also  observed outside.  

Figure 5 (left) and Figure 6 (right). Trends in density of target, top predatory species, as well as total density of fishes observed inside the proposed reserve and immediately outside.

 

            In terms of relative abundance, pomacentrids (damselfishes) were the most numerous fish observed in all areas from 2008 to 2009, followed by serranids (groupers and fairy basslets) (Figure 7, 8). Pomacentrids are the most dominant fish family in disturbed reefs.   However, it should be noted that the relative percentage of other fish families increased considerably in both the control and reserve areas for 2009, indicating that the diversity of other fish species is on the increasing trend.

 

Figure 7. A large school of fairy basslets inside the reserve. (Photo: A.W. Kleiven)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8 . Trends in family abundance for fish species outside and inside the reserve from 2008- 2009.

            The diversity of fish species observed in the area has also increased significantly, from 201 species noted in 2008, to 260 fish species noted in 2009, which is a significant increase of 29% more compared to the year before (see Annex A for complete species list).

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

 

            The proposed Dive Hub MPA is a well-managed, functional reserve, based on the scientific evidence that was gathered from surveys in 2008 and 2009.  It is a shining example of what a small group of dedicated people can do if they really put their hearts and hands into protecting the coral reef. It is remarkable that such a rich variety of marine life can thrive in such a small area.  The small reserve offers hope for all the reefs in the Siaton area—if such a small area can create such an impact on the nearby fisheries, how much more beneficial would it be if we protected all our MPAs properly and establish more MPAs?

The protection regime that has been followed for the past 2 years is indeed bearing fruit. This constant protection should continue so that the benefits of a functional reserve—increased fish diversity, biomass and density—can be realized not only inside the reserve but in the in the nearby fished areas as well. 

 

Figure 9.  A school of fusiliers observed inside the reserve. (Photo: A.W. Kleiven)

It is also recommended that the area of the reserve be increased eventually, as it is currently too small to afford full protection to species that need large areas of reef to thrive, such as jacks, snappers, and other commercially important fish species.

 

 

Acknowledgements

 

            The authors would like to thank the entire staff of Dive Hub for making this survey very enjoyable for us.  Mr. Arne Willy Kleiven took the underwater photos and provided important logistics support, We look forward to future collaborations and a better, bigger MPA.  May the tribe grow.

 

 

References:

 

Alcala, A.C., A. Bucol, and P. Nillos-Kleiven. In press. Directory of Marine Protected Areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Oceanfriends Foundation Inc, Dumaguete City, Philippines. 192 pp.

 

Allen, G., R. Steene, P. Humann, and N. Deloach. 2003. Reef fish identification: Tropical Pacific. New World Publications, Inc. 457 pp.

 

Allen, G., and R. Steene. 1998. Indo-Pacific Coral Reef Field Guide. Tropical Reef Research; Singapore. 378pp.

 

English, S., C. Wilkinson, and V. Baker. 1997. Survey Manual for Tropical Marine Resources, 2^nd ed. Australian Institute of Marine Science. ASEAN-Australia Marine Science Project. Townsville, Australia. 390 pp.

 

Froese, R. and D. Pauly, eds. 2000. FishBase 2000: concepts, designs and data sources. ICLARM, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines. 344 pp.

 

Lieske, E., and R. Myers. 2002.  Coral reef fishes: Indo-Pacific and Caribbean. Revised ed. Princeton University Press, USA. 400 pp.

 

 

ANNEX A

Family	Spname	2008	2009	Grand Total
Acanthuridae	Acanthurus lineatus	1	1	1
	Acanthurus mata	1	1	1
	Acanthurus nigricans		1	1
	Acanthurus nigrofuscus	1	1	1
	Acanthurus pyroferus	1	1	1
	Acanthurus xanthopterus		1	1
	Ctenochaetus binotatus	1	1	1
	Ctenochaetus cyanocheilus	1	1	1
	Ctenochaetus striatus	1	1	1
	Naso annulatus		1	1
	Naso brachycentron	1	1	1
	Naso caeruleacauda	1	1	1
	Naso hexacanthus	1		1
	Naso lopezi		1	1
	Naso minor	1	1	1
	Naso unicornis		1	1
	Naso vlamingii		1	1
	Zebrasoma scopas	1	1	1
Apogonidae	Apogon aureus	1	1	1
	Apogon bandanensis		1	1
	Apogon compressus	1	1	1
	Apogon cyanosoma		1	1
	Apogon sealei		1	1
	Archamia melasma		1	1
	Cheilodipterus artus		1	1
	Cheilodipterus macrodon		1	1
	Cheilodipterus quinquelineatus	1	1	1
Aulostomidae	Aulostomus chinensis	1	1	1
Balistidae	Balistapus undulatus	1	1	1
	Balistoides conspicillum	1		1
	Balistoides viridescens	1	1	1
	Melichthys vidua		1	1
	Odonus niger	1	1	1
	Rhinecanthus verrucosus	1	1	1
Belonidae	Tylosurus crocodilus		1	1
Blennidae	Plagiotremus rhinorhynchos	1	1	1
	Plagiotremus tapeinosoma	1	1	1
Caesionidae	Caesio caerulaurea	1	1	1
	Pterocaesio pisang		1	1
	Pterocaesio tesselata		1	1
Chaetodontidae	Chaetodon auriga	1	1	1
	Chaetodon baronessa	1	1	1
	Chaetodon citrinellus		1	1
	Chaetodon kleini	1	1	1
	Chaetodon lunulatus	1	1	1
	Chaetodon melannotus	1	1	1
	Chaetodon ornatissimus	1	1	1
	Chaetodon punctatofasciatus	1	1	1
	Chaetodon rafflesi	1	1	1
	Chaetodon selene	1		1
	Chaetodon trifascialis	1	1	1
	Chaetodon ulietensis	1		1
	Chaetodon unimaculatus	1	1	1
	Chaetodon vagabundus	1	1	1
	Coradion melanopus		1	1
	Cordion chrysozonus	1		1
	Forcipiger flavissimus	1	1	1
	Forcipiger longirostris	1	1	1
	Heniochus chrysostomus		1	1
	Heniochus diphreutes		1	1
	Heniochus flavissimus		1	1
	Heniochus singularis		1	1
	Heniochus varius	1	1	1
Cirrhitidae	Cirrhitichthys falco	1	1	1
	Paracirrhites forsteri	1	1	1
Diodontidae	Cyclichthys orbicularis		1	1
Echeneidae	Echeneis naucrates	1		1
Ephippidae	Platax pinnatus		1	1
	Platax teira	1	1	1
Fistulariidae	Fistularia commersoni		1	1
Gobiidae	Amblyeleotris guttata		1	1
	Amblyeleotris randalli		1	1
	Amblyeleotris steinitzi		1	1
	Amblygobius decussatus		1	1
	Amblygobius hectori	1	1	1
	Amblygobius phalaena		1	1
	Ctenogobius tangaroai		1	1
	Valenciennea puellaris		1	1
	Valenciennea strigata		1	1
Haemulidae	Diagramma pictum		1	1
	Plectorhicnhus chaetodonoides	1		1
	Plectorhicnhus lessoni		1	1
	Plectorhicnhus vittatus	1		1
Holocentridae	Myripristis berndti		1	1
	Myripristis kuntee	1		1
	Myripristis murdjan		1	1
	Sargocentron cornutum		1	1
	Sargocentron diadema		1	1
	Sargocentron melanospilos		1	1
	Sargocentron spiniferum		1	1
Kyphosidae	Kyphosus sp.		1	1
Labridae	Anampses geographicus	1	1	1
	Anampses melanurus		1	1
	Anampses meleagrides	1	1	1
	Anampses twistii	1	1	1
	Bodianus axillaris		1	1
	Bodianus diana	1	1	1
	Bodianus mesothorax	1	1	1
	Cheilinus fasciatus		1	1
	Cheilinus oxycephalus	1	1	1
	Cheilinus trilobatus	1	1	1
	Cheililnus undulatus		1	1
	Cheilio inermis	1	1	1
	Cirrhilabrus cyanopleura	1	1	1
	Cirrhilabrus lubbocki	1	1	1
	Coris aygula		1	1
	Coris batuensis	1	1	1
	Coris gaimard	1	1	1
	Diproctacanthus xanthurus	1	1	1
	Epibulus insidiator	1	1	1
	Gomphosus varius	1	1	1
	Halichoeres argus		1	1
	Halichoeres chrysus	1	1	1
	Halichoeres hortulanus	1	1	1
	Halichoeres marginatus	1	1	1
	Halichoeres melanurus	1	1	1
	Halichoeres podostigma	1	1	1
	Halichoeres prosopeion	1	1	1
	Halichoeres richmondi	1	1	1
	Halichoeres scapularis	1	1	1
	Halichoeres solorensis	1	1	1
	Hemigymnus fasciatus	1	1	1
	Hemigymnus melapterus	1	1	1
	Hologymnosus annulatus		1	1
	Labrichthys unilineatus	1	1	1
	Labroides bicolor	1	1	1
	Labroides dimidiatus	1	1	1
	Labropsis manabei	1		1
	Macropharyngodon meleagris	1	1	1
	Macropharyngodon negrosensis	1	1	1
	Oxycheilinus celebicus	1	1	1
	Oxycheilinus diagrammus	1	1	1
	Pseudocheilinus evanidus	1	1	1
	Pseudocheilinus hexataenia	1	1	1
	Pseudocoris yamashiroi	1	1	1
	Pseudodax mollucanus	1	1	1
	Pteragogus enneacanthus		1	1
	Pterogogus cryptus	1	1	1
	Stethojulis bandanensis	1	1	1
	Stethojulis interupta	1	1	1
	Stethojulis trilineatus		1	1
	Thalassoma hardwicke	1	1	1
	Thalassoma lunare	1	1	1
Lethrinidae	Lethrinus erythracanthus	1	1	1
	Lethrinus ornatus	1	1	1
	Monotaxis grandoculis	1	1	1
Lutjanidae	Lutjanus argentimaculatus		1	1
	Lutjanus biguttatus	1	1	1
	Lutjanus bohar		1	1
	Lutjanus decussatus	1