PARTICIPATORY RESOURCE ASSESSMENT OF THE COASTAL AND MARINE HABITATS OF CAMIGUCAMIGUI IIINN ISLAND

An Initiative of the Government of the implemented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the LGUs of with funding support from New Zealand Agency for International Development

Management Servicesss Contractor, Tetra Tech EMI TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page 111 The PRA Activittivityivity …………………………………………………………. 111 General PRA ReResults (Province-Wide) …………………………………….. 11 General Recommommendations ………………………………………………… 17 222 PRA of the Mununicipality of Sagay ………………………………………. 22212111 General PRA ReResults ………………………………………………………... 23 Recommendatioations ………………………………………………………….. 30 Brgy. Bugang,g, SaSagay ………………………………………………………... 32 Brgy. Mayana,a, SSagay ……………………………………………………….. 36 Brgy. Poblacionion, Sagay …………………………………………………….. 40 Brgy. Bonbon,n, SSagay ……………………………………………………….. 43 Brgy. Alangilan,lan, Sagay …………………………………………………… 47 Brgy. Manuyog,og, Sagay ……………………………………………………… 51 Brgy. Balite, SagSagay ………………………………………………………….. 55 333 PRA of the Mununicipality of Catarman ……………………………………. 59 General PRA ReResults ………………………………………………………... 63 Recommendatioations ………………………………………………………….. 71 Brgy. Bonbon,n, CCatarman ...... …………………………………………... 73 Brgy. Catibac,c, CCatarman ...... …………………………………………..... 78 Brgy. Lawigan,n, CCatarman ...... …………………………………………... 83 Brgy. Panghiawiawan, Catarman ...... ………………………………………. 88 Brgy. Compol,ol, CCatarman ...... …………………………………………... 93 Brgy. Poblacionion, Catarman ...... …………………………………………. 98 Brgy. Alga, Cataatarman …….....……………………………………………... 103 Brgy. Tangaro,ro, CCatarman .....……………………………………………... 107 444 PRA of the Mununicipality of ……………………………………... 112 General PRA ReResults ………………………………………………………... 115 Recommendatioations ………………………………………………………….. 125 Brgy. Tupsan PePequeño, Mahinog ……………………………………..... 128 Brgy. Catuhogangan, Mahinog ……………………………………….…..... 133

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Finalal Report), page - iiiiii

Section Page 4 Brgy. Hubangongon, Mahinog ………………………………...... 138 Brgy. San Jose,se, MMahinog ………………………………………...... 143 Brgy. Binaliwanan, Mahinog ……………………………………………..... 148 Brgy. Poblacionion, Mahinog ………………………………………...... 153 Brgy. San Roqueque, Mahinog ……………………………………...... 158 Brgy. Benoni,i, MMahinog …………………………………………….…..... 165 Brgy. San Migueiguel, Mahinog …………………..…………………...... 171 555 PRA of the Mununicipality of ………………………………… 171717717777 General PRA ReResults ………………………………………………………... 180 Recommendatioations ………………………………………………………….. 191 Brgy. Naasag,g, MMambajao ..……………..…………………...... 193 Brgy. Yumbing,ng, Mambajao ..……………..…………………...... 197 Brgy. Agoho,, MMambajao ..……………..…………………...... 201 Brgy. Bug-ong,g, MMambajao .……………..…………………...... 205 Brgy. Kuguita,a, MMambajao ..……………..…………………...... 209 Brgy. Baylao,, MMambajao ..……………..…………………...... 213 Brgy. Poblacionion, Mambajao ..……………..…………………...... 218 Brgy. Balbagon,on, Mambajao ..……………..…………………...... 223 Brgy. Anito, MaMambajao ..……………..…………………...... 228 Brgy. Magting,g, MMambajao ..……………..…………………...... 232 Brgy. Tupsan GrGrande, Mambajao ..……………..……………………... 237 666 PRA of the Mununicipality of …………………………………... 242 General PRA ReResults ………………………………………………………... 244 Recommendatioations ………………………………………………………….. 252 Brgy. Maac, GuGuinsiliban ..……………..…………………...... 254 Brgy. Cabuan,n, GGuinsiliban ..……………..…………………...... 259 Brgy. Cantaan,n, GGuinsiliban ..……………..…………………...... 264 Brgy. North PobPoblacion, Guinsiliban ..……………..……………………. 271 Brgy. South PobPoblacion, Guinsiliban ..……………..………………………. 277 Brgy. Liong, GuGuinsiliban ..……………..…………………...... 283

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Finalal Report), page - iiiiiiiii

Section 1: THE PRA ACTIVITY

The Participatory Resource Assessment (PRA) of marine habitats of the five municipalities of Camiguin Island was conducted from May 12 -31, 2008 . A detailed schedule of activities is shown in Appendix 1.

Composing the PRA team were the following: • Janet S. Estacion, Ph.D. (Team Leader, CCRMP Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist - Biophysical) • Oliver R. T. Paderanga (Camiguin State Polytechnic State College) • Bernardo L. Jasma, Jr. (PRA and MPA monitoring Research Assistant) • Jean O. Polo (Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region X) • Diwata Amida Macansantos (CCRMP Project Officer) • Julie Jadman (CCRMP Technical Assistant) • Ron Kirby B. Manit (Volunteer) • Ryan A. Neri (Volunteer) • Evelyn Deguit (CCRMP Field Coordinator)

The PRA process involved three days per municipality wherein selected local participants from the community (ranging from fisherfolks to members of the ‘’ (village ) council were trained in PRA methods (Day 1) , conducted actual field surveys (Day 2) and analy zed and presented their results (Day 3) . The PRA training included the following:

• Coral reef cover survey using point-intercept method, • Reef fish composition and biomass using fish visual census method, • Seagrass cover and its associated macroinvertebrates using the transect -quadrat and belt-method, respectively,

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 111

• Mangrove forest status using species identific ation, density determination and measurement of the circumference at breast height, and • Fish catch enumeration using interview guide questions.

Since not all of the municipalities had seagrass beds and mangrove forests, t he coverage of the training depe nded upon habitats present in the different municipalities. These were previously determined in a separate PCRA habitat mapping exercise conducted prior to this activity. Common to all the municipalities were coral reef and reef fish survey, and fish catch enumeration.

Day 1: Training . At the beginning of each 3 -day activity, the participants were oriented on the connection of the PRA Habitat Assessment with the general scheme of the Project’s objectives (Fig. 1.1 ) and the PRA team members introduced. Lect ures were then conducted on the methodologies that will be used (Fig. 1.2). All the methodologies were provided for in a module (Appendix 2), a copy of which was provided for each barangay at the onset of the training. After the lecture, participants were then divided into teams (coral survey, fish visual census, fish enumeration and others)(Fig. 1. 3) for more detailed instruction on the specific methods that will be used. This encouraged more participation and allowed more interaction between the team memb ers and the participants.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 222

AAA BBB Figure 1.1.1. 1. Orientation of participants by Project Staff, Evelyn Deguit at Catar mmman (A) and Diwata Macansantos at Mambajao (B).

AAA

B Figure 1.1.1. 2. Formal lectures on habitat BB assessment at the Municipality of Guinsiliban (A) and Mahinog (B) by Dr. Janet EstacionEstacion....

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 333

AAA BBB AAA BBB

CCC DDD

Figure 1.1.1. 3. Group instruction for fish visual census lead by Bernardo Jasma, Jr at Sagay (A), coral

survey with Oliver Paderanga at Mambajao (B), fish catch enumeration with Julie Jadman at Guinsiliban (C) and seagrass survey with Janet Estacion (D) at Mahinog.

After the group instruction, p articipants then applied the methods for habitat survey in ‘mock transects’ (Fig. 1. 4) and fish catch enumeration in role -playing exercises. Apart from practicing the methods, the land-based exercise also familiarized the participants with the forms that will be used in the actual survey. After participants readings of the ‘mock transects’ were then verified by the trainers. If their readings were not accurate, they had to repeat the exercise. At the end of Day 1, arrangements were made for the logistics of the actual survey: participants who will conduct the various as pects of the survey, materials needed such as small outrigger boats and the member of the team who will be assigned to the area.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 444

AAA BBB

CCC DDD

EEE FFF

Figure 1.1.1. 4. Participants reading the ‘mock transect’ together with trainers at Sagay (A(A(A-(A ---B), Mahinog (C), Mambajao (D), Catarman (E) and Guinsiliban (F).

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 555

Day 2: Field Survey. As mentioned, the field survey of all the barangays within a municipality was conducted within a day. To accomplish this, the following measures were taken: (1) All participants involved in coral reef survey and fish visual census had to be competent in water. (2) To ensure the safety of the participants, outrigger boats (Fig. 1. 5) were used during the activity. Some municipalities provided life vests for the activity. (3) A member of the team was tasked to help 1 -3 barangays (depending on the number per municipality) with each team member actually in the water with the participants/trainees during the s urvey (Fig. 1.6). Apart from providing direct guidance, the trainers were also able to validate the data collected by the participant.

Figure 1.1.1. 5. A typical scene during the habitat assessment: Trainers and participants on outrigger boats.

Whenever possible , each barangay should have a survey team composed of 3 -4 members: one for the coral survey, another for the fish visual census and a third to man the boat. In cases where a barangay did not have a complete team, the neighboring baranga y(s) adopted it and helped in the conduct of the survey.

Being familiar with their coastal habitats, the participants selected the sites they surveyed. Within each site, a 50 m transect ropes were laid. These are marked with a red ribbon at every 2 m int erval for coral readings and a blue ribbon at every 5 m interval for the fish visual census. After the first ‘reading’ the transect rope was again laid until three replicate transects were done. Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 666

AAA BBB

Figure 1.1.1. 666... Trainers Julie Jadman (A, left) and Oliver Paderanga (B, background) participants from Catarman during the field survey. participants from Catarman during the field survey.

Day 3: Analysis and Presentation of Results. It is not uncommon to find participants who have had previous training in habitat assessment. In the case of Camiguin, five of our participants were already exposed to a 2 -week extensive PRA training. However, these trainings usually end in data collectio n and no attention is given on how the collected data set can actually be analyzed and thus can install a deeper understanding of the importance of habitat monitoring. This portion of the PRA attempts to address this deficiency.

To do this, participants w ere given back the data they collected and were taught how to do a preliminary analysis. They were tasked to do the following:

(A) Coral Reef Survey – compute for cover of each category per transect, obtain the averages of each category for all three tran sects and make a pie chart to illustrate their results (Fig. 1.7).

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 777

Figure 1.1.1. 7. A sample of the pie charts generated using the coral reef survey data collected by the participants.

(B) Fish Visual Census – compute the density of fishes per size range per transect for each fish ‘species’ (‘species’ referring to local names), compute for the average density for each size class for all the transects for each ‘species’ and make a bar graphs to illustrate their results (Fig. 1.8).

Figure 1.1.1. 8. A sample of a bar graph generated by participants from the fish visual census data.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 888

(C) Fish Catch Enumeration – determine the catch composition, average sizes and weights of the fishes caught and compute for the catch per unit effort. (D) Seagrass Beds – determine species composition and average percent cover; bottom profile (Fig. 1.9).

Figure 1.1.1. 9. A sample of a seagrass bed profile generated by the participants.

(E) Mangrove Forests – determine species composition, average CBH, density of seedlings, saplings and trees.

After they were oriented on how to do their analysis, they were groups and were guided by the trainer who was assigned to them during the field survey. Materials used t o generate the illustrations were simple, using just calibrated empty pie charts and bar graphs which they colored using crayons. This method hopefully made the participants understand that the lack of technology (i.e. computers) should not be deterrence f or data analysis.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 999

The diagrams made by the participants were then photographed and inserted into a pre - prepared power point presentation that contained previously generated PCRA habitat maps. A sample of a presentation is shown in Appendix 3. Each barangay team was requested to present their results (Fig. 1. 10).

Figure 1.1.1. 10. Presentation of data by participants.

After each presentation, feedback from the trainers on the general status of the habitats assessed and its implications to marine resource management and conservation were discussed. During this portion, the importance of habitat monitoring and its role in government planning was highlighted. Also, the desire of the project for the continued su pport and participation of the local community and the local government units was emphasized.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 101010

GENERAL RESULTS

Overview of the Marine Ecosystems of Camiguin Province

Five distinct marine habitats were observed within the mainland of Camiguin Province: Coral reefs, seagrass beds, mangrove forests, rocky communities and sandy communities.

Areas with distinct and extensive coral reefs were commonly seen at Guinsiliban and yet were limited to only some barangays at Mahinog (Tupsan Pequeño to Hubagon), Catarman (Sunken Cemetery) and Mambajao (Tupsan Grande to Magting) (Table 1. 1). Reefs were generally coral patches interspersed with sand. The marine habitats of Catarman and Sagay were generally rocky (composed of terrestrial boulders and stones) with smal l coral growths (often small submassive to massive types) struggling to grow on top of the larger boulders. The more fragile corals (example the tabular acroporids)(commonly called ‘payong -payong’) are not common and if seen are often uprooted, up -ended, fragmented or dead. These are indicators are good indicators that an area is often exposed to strong wave action. The beaches of Catarman and Sagay also show the extent of wave action they experience as indicated by areas have steep -angled, pebbled beaches . In some areas, remnants of small coral colonies litter the beaches where they have been tossed by the waves. The marine habitat of Mambajao is generally sandy with either the green algae, Enteromorpha (‘lumot’), or the brown algae, Sargassum and/or Turbinaria, growing on rocks or stones scattered in the sand.

These results are not surprising as Camiguin Island is of volcanic origin and thus the limestone base required for the establishment of a large, continuous reef is absent. The establishment of extensive reef areas requires a stable substrate and the often sandy and/or rock base coupled with exposure to wave action brought about by monsoons and storms is not favorable to extensive reef formation.

The absence of e xtensive reefs in some areas should not detract LGUs from recognizing their intrinsic importance in the local economy. Sandy beaches are the main attraction for bathers and picnickers, of which a good proportion of local tourists belong. Apart from this, b each front properties with sandy shorelines are highly sought by resorts and hotel owners.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 111111

Furthermore, they are also important to local fishers and tourist boat operators as docking sites. Thus LGUs should incorporate these areas into their CRM plans sinc e these can be a major source of resource conflict.

Table 1.1.1. 1. PRA results of mean live coralcover (in percent), their classification (C) based on Gomez et al (1991) for all the barangays (brgy) of the five municipalities of Camiguin Province. Legend: NA = not applicable.

SAGAY CATARMAN MAHINOG MAMBAJAO GUINSILIBAN Live Live Live Live Live Brgy CCC Brgy CCC Brgy CCC Brgy CCC Brgy CCC Coral Coral Coral Coral Coral Tupsan Bugang F 34.7 Bonbon F 41.3 F 33.3 Naasag P 6.7 Maac P 1.3 Pequeño Mayana F 46.7 Catibac F 40.0 Catohugan F 43.3 Yumbing P 8.0 Cabuan P 17.3 F 29.3 Lawigan F 33.3 Hubangon F 33.3 Agoho NA 0 Cantaan G 52.0 Panghia - North Bonbon F 32.4 F 28.0 San Jose P 10.0 Bug-ong NA 0 F 28.0 wan Pob South Alangilan P 14.9 Compol P 22.7 Binaliwan P 11.7 Kuguita P 6.7 F 28.0 Pob Manuyog F 38.7 Poblacion F 36.0 Poblacion P 6.7 Baylao P 24.0 Liong F 42.7 Balite F 34.6 Alga P 24.0 San Roque P 13.3 Poblacion F 25.3 Tangaro F 33.3 Benoni P 10.0 Balbagon P 21.3 San P 15.0 Anito P 20.0 Miguel Magting F 34.7 Tupsan F 30.3 Grande

Extensive seagrass beds were present at Mahinog (Benoni -San Miguel) and Guinsiliban (North - South Poblacion). At Benoni-San Miguel, the bed extends 500m from the shore with a pure Enhalus acoroides bed at the first 300 m followed by a mixed bed of Halophila ovalis, Halodule pinifolia, Cymodocea rotundata, Thalassia hemprichii and Enhalus acoroides . At Guinsiliban, the beds were primarily Thalassia -Enhalus beds, the most extensive of which was found at South Poblacion. Apart from Thalassia hemprichii and Enhalus acoroides , three other species were recorded: Cymodocea rotundata , Halodule pinifolia and Halophila ov alis .

Large m angrove forests were found at Mahinog (Benoni-San Miguel) and Guinsiliban (Cantaan). These sites have portions with primary forests that are composed of large, old trees. It is imperative that existing primary forests be conserved since this ecosystem has limited distribution at Camiguin.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 121212

CompositionComposition,, Density and Size Classes of Fishes at PRA Sites

The PRA survey made the participants realize three general trends of the fish population within the surveyed reefs:

(A) Fish diversity (total number of kinds of fishes) was low for several sites, particularly at Sagay with target having higher representation (Fig. 1.11), (B) The fishes within the surveyed sites were mainly composed of non -target species (Fig. 1.12), and (C) Fishes within the sites were generally small, belonging to the 1 -10 cm size rage (Fig. 1.13).

The results of the fish visual census are discussed in detail in the sections devoted to each municipality.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 131313

32 SAGAY 32 CATARMAN 28 28

24 24 20 20 16 16

12 12 NumberNumber ofof 'Species''Species' NumberNumber ofof 'Species''Species' NumberNumber ofof 'Species''Species' 8 NumberNumber ofof 'Species''Species' 8 4 4

0 0 BugBugang ang Mayana Pob Bo Bonbon nbon Ala Manuyog Balite Bonbon Cat Law Pang Com Pob AlgAlga a Tang

32 32 MAHINOG MAMBAJAO 28 28 24 24

20 20 16 16 12 12

NumberNumber ofof 'Species''Species' NumberNumber ofof 'Species''Species' NumberNumber ofof 'Species''Species' 8 NumberNumber ofof 'Species''Species' 8 4 4 0 0 TupPeq Cat Hub SJSJSJ BinBinBin Pob SRSRSRBen SMSMSM Naa YYum um AgAgo o Bug Kug Bay Pob Bal Ani Mag T TupG upG

32 GUINSILIBAN Legend 28 Indicator Species 24 20 Target Species (Reef) 16 Target Species (Pelagic) 12 Non -Target Species NumberNumber ofof 'Species''Species' NumberNumber ofof 'Species''Species' 8

4 Unclassified

0 Maac Cabuan Cantaan N Pob S Pob Liong

Figure 1.1.1. 11. Number of fish ‘species’ (based on local names) recorded at the different PRA sites of the five municipalities of Camiguin Provice. The YY----scale was standardized for easy comparison among sites.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 141414

600 600 SAGAY 500 500 CATARMAN 400 400 300 300 200 200

100 100 MeanMean DensityDensity (Ind/500(Ind/500 m2) m2) MeanMean DensityDensity (Ind/500(Ind/500 m2) m2) MeanMean DensityDensity (Ind/500(Ind/500 m2) m2) MeanMean DensityDensity (Ind/500(Ind/500 m2) m2) 0 0 BugBugang ang Mayana Pob Bonbon Ala Manuyog Balite Bonbon Cat Law Pang Com Pob AlgAlga a Tang

600 600 MAMBAJAO 500 MAHIN OGOGOG 500 400 400 300 300 200 200

100 100 MeanMean DensityDensity (Ind/500(Ind/500 m2) m2) MeanMean DensityDensity (Ind/500(Ind/500 m2) m2) MeanMean DensityDensity (Ind/500(Ind/500 m2) m2) MeanMean DensityDensity (Ind/500(Ind/500 m2) m2) 0 0 Tup Peq Cat Hub SJ Bin Pob SR Ben SM Naa Yum Ago Bug Kug Bay Pob Bal Ani Mag TupG

600 Legend GUINSILIBAN 500 Indicator Species

400 Target Species (Reef)

300 Target Species (Pelagic)

200 Non -Target Species

100 MeanMean DensityDensity (Ind/500(Ind/500 m2) m2) MeanMean DensityDensity (Ind/500(Ind/500 m2) m2) Unclassified

0 Maac Cabuan Cantaan N Pob S Pob Liong

Figure 1.1.1. 12. Mean fish density (number of individuals/500 m 222) recorded at the different PRA sites of the five municipalities of Camiguin Provice. The Y ---scale-scale was standardized for easy comparison among sites.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 151515

600 600

500 500 SAGAY CATARMAN 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 MeanMean FishFish DensityDensity (Number/500(Number/500 m2) m2) MeanMean FishFish DensityDensity (Number/500(Number/500 m2) m2) MeanMean FishFish DensityDensity (Number/500(Number/500 m2) m2) 0 MeanMean FishFish DensityDensity0 (Number/500(Number/500 m2) m2) BugBugo o May PoPob b Bo Bon n Ala Man Bal Bon Cat Law Pan Com Pob Ald Tan

600 600 MAMBAJAO 500 MAHINOG 500 400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100 MeanMean FishFish DensityDensity (Number/500(Number/500 m2) m2) MeanMean FishFish DensityDensity (Number/500(Number/500 m2) m2) MeanMean FishFish DensityDensity (Number/500(Number/500 m2) m2) MeanMean FishFish DensityDensity (Number/500(Number/500 m2) m2) 0 0 TTG GTGG Cat Hub SJSJSJ BinBinBin PobPo b SRSRSRBen SMSMSM Naa YYum um AgAgo o BugBugo o Kug Bay PoPob b Bal Ani Mag TGTGTG Legend

1-10 cm

600 GUINSILIBAN 11 -20 cm 500 21 -30 cm

400 > 31 cm

300

200

100 MeanMean FishFish DensityDensity (Number/500(Number/500 m2) m2) MeanMean FishFish DensityDensity (Number/500(Number/500 m2) m2) 0 Maa Cab Can NPNPNP SPSPSPLioLioLio

Figure 1.1.1. 13. Size composition of fishes recorded at the different PRA sites of the five municipalities of Camiguin Provice. The Y ---scale was standardized for easy comparison among sites.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 161616

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

• Although some barangays were poorly represented during the PRA exercise, some participants willingly ‘adopted’ those barangays without representation and conducted the field survey. Although this cooperative effort was commendable, the objective of the PRA was not achieved in these barangays .

Poor attendance was traced through the delayed communications from the municipal to barangay level and the misconception that ‘contra-partido’ barangays were not included in the PRA. Another was th e confusion regarding the number of participants that were needed per barangay.

The Municipalities of Sagay and Catarman are commended for their sustained interest in the PRA despite unforeseen interruptions brought about by two storms . The participants of Guinsiliban for the high performance rating they obtained from the trainers/facilitators .

Since one of the objectives of the CCRMP is to integrate an annual PRA activity, there is a need for active involvement of all barangays. Those barangays who have wi lling participants yet do not have extensive, distinct reefs can still be encouraged to participate in annual PRAs. However, one of the limitations of the PRA is fish identification. Designated municipal CRM officers are encouraged to start a ‘fish album’ which would standardize fish identification. The fish album should contain photographs of the common fishes encountered at reefs at Camiguin, their common names and their verified scientific names.

• Sandy beaches of Mambajao – The utilization of these marine communities must be incorporated in the Municipal’s CRM plan since it may be a source of resource conflict between fisherfolks and local hotel/resort owners. Probable restricted entrance and utilizatio n of sandy beaches to local residents and fisherfolks has to be addressed by the LGU.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 171717

• Mahinog Lagoon - The mangroves of Mahinog are suspected remnants of primary forests thus are ‘old’ trees (as attested by their girth (circumference). Most of these trees are around the ‘lagoon’, a formerly embayed area where a coastal road was constructed and where tidal flushing was reduced to culverts at the center of the ‘lagoon’.

As shown by Paderanga ♣ (undated), water entering the lagoon tended to stay near the entr y rate due to the deep area of the lagoon immediately near the culvert opening and the culvert itself. The culvert opening is too narrow to allow more tidal water exchange and its level too high (0.729 m above lowest low tide level)(which may have been des igned to maintain water within the lagoon during the lowest low tide). The low water flushing will ultimately affect the health of the large mangrove trees, causing them to slowly deteriorate.

Apart from this, the low water exchange within the lagoon will probably cause the gradually shallowing of the lagoon and the deterioration of its water quality (increased water turbidity, decreased DO, higher organic matter content, increased bacterial coliform contamination and others). E fforts to limit the cages and habitation within the perimeters of the lagoon is highly commended, however, monitoring of the lagoon’s water quality should be initiated and maintained. The number of culverts or openings to the lagoon should be increased to allow more water exchange d uring the normal tidal cycles.

• Cantaan White Beach and Mangrove forest – This is the only area within the entire Camiguin mainland that has an extensive white sandy beach and has the largest existing mangrove forest. The presence of the white sand beach underlines the extensive coral reef in the area and the favorable conditions that is has for reef development (which is not seen at other sites) . At present, the site is presently protected and its continued protection is strongly recommended not only for its reefs but also as one of the very few successful reseeding sites for giant clams. The site is also presently a platform for the active involvement of the youth in conservation programs. Its mangrove forests and the ‘giant clam garden’ should be develop ed into a cohesive good eco-tourism program.

♣ Apugan, RS, WB Badoy and ORT Paderanga. 2006. Water Renewal Time of Taguines Lagoon, Camiguin Island, Philippines. Jour. of Aquatic Sci. 3:83-90

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 181818

• If more MPAs were to be established within the province, the possibility of ‘sharing’ MPA sites between neighboring barangays be considered. Each barangay would propose adjoining sites as MPAs so as to not onl y share the cost of protection and maintenance but also increase the area of the MPA.

• Fish catch data was intentionally not analyzed in this report due to the small sampling size. Data collection initiated by the project should be maintained by the LGUs so as to obtain a clear picture of the state of the fisheries of the Province. It is recommended that CCRMP identifies major fish landing sites and examines other government agencies collecting fish catch data.

Participatory Resource Assessment of Camiguin, 2008 (Final Report) , page - 191919