Status of the Fish Community of the Kuguita Fish Sanctuary, Kuguita,

Mambajao, Camiguin after One Year of Protection

Oliver R.T. Paderanga*a, Roberto S. Apugana and Bernardo S. Jasma Jr.

Abstract

The fish communities inside and outside the Kuguita Fish Sanctuary were surveyed one
year prior to and one year after its establishment and the data analyzed using the BACI
design to determine whether the establishment of the marine reserve had an impact on
the fish communities in the area. Results show that there were no significant differences
between fish density and diversity in the non-reserve (NR) and reserve (KFS) sites prior
to and after the establishment of the marine reserve. Although there was a difference in
the species composition between periods, this difference could not be attributed to the
establishment of the marine reserve as there was no significant difference between the
NR and KFS sites. The results show that the Kuguita Fish Sanctuary did not have any
distinguishable and significant effect on the fish population of Kuguita a year after its
establishment.

Background
Marine reserves have been established around Camiguin Island to conserve its natural marine
resources and help make the fishery sustainable. Some were also established to promote tourism
in these areas from which additional income can be collected by the locals. These reserves have
mostly been set up through the initiative of the barangays wherein they are located and are
mostly managed at the local barangay level.
The common and main management tool in Camiguin to obtain the primary objectives is the
“no-take” policy, wherein nothing is allowed to be taken from within the marine reserves. Entry
into the reserves is also usually not allowed and this follows directly from the no-take rule. As
the marine reserves are usually located near and just in front of the barangays which initiated
them, monitoring is usually straightforward and done by simply looking out from the beach.
Rationale
The link between actions and outcomes is often not so obvious. Faced with the daily demands of
their jobs, many managers are not able to regularly and formally step back and reflect on the
cumulative results of their efforts. In the absence of such reflection, resources may be wasted and
objectives may not be achieved. The evaluation of management effectiveness provides a formal
way to learn from successes and failures and help people understand how and why management
practices are being adapted (Pomeroy et al, 2004).
In the absence of evaluation, marine reserve management may adopt practices that are
ineffective, such as the case of the marine reserve at Medano White Island Marine Sanctuary at
Agoho, Camiguin wherein an effective management strategy was replaced with an ineffective
one (Paderanga, 2007).
Evaluation is therefore essential – ineffective policies or actions can be revealed and replaced
and effective ones can be strengthened. This is a basic tenet of adaptive management.
The effectiveness of the management of a marine reserve should be evaluated periodically so that
policies and strategies can be adjusted as needed. An increase in the mean fish density after a
period of protection is one of the objectives of establishing a marine reserve and is also one of
the indicators of effective marine reserve management.
Marine reserves can reach mean fish densities after 1 – 3 years of protection (Halpern and
Warner, 2002). Conducted one year after the establishment of the Kuguita marine reserve at
Kuguita, Mambajao, the study seeks to determine whether the “no-take” policy of the marine
reserve already has an effect on the fish community in the area.
Review of Literature

Marine reserves are a type of marine protected area (MPA). The designation “marine protected
area” encompasses everything from small marine parks established to protect an endangered or
threatened species, a unique habitat, or a site of historical or cultural interest to vast reserves
intended to achieve a range of conservation, economic, and societal objectives and encompassing
different types of protection (Agardy 2000). A commonly cited definition of a marine protected
area is:

Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and
associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved
by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment.
(Resolution 17.38 of the IUCN general assembly [1988] reaffirmed in Resolution
19.46 [1994])
The actual level of protection within MPAs varies considerably; most allow some extractive
activities such as fishing, while prohibiting others such as drilling for oil or gas (Lubchenco et al
2003). Many MPAs offer no protection whatever from fishing (Roberts 1998).

Marine reserves are marine protected areas in which no extractive use of any resource – living,
fossil or mineral – nor any habitat destruction is allowed (Lubchenco et al 2003).

Marine reserves have increasingly been advocated as a tool for marine conservation and
management (Lubchenco et al 2003, Roberts, et al. 2003, Botsford et al 2003) although some
authors would caution against being overly optimistic as to the efficacy of marine reserves as a
fishery management tool (Hilborn, et al. 2004, Shipp 2002).

Although there is considerable debate regarding their effectiveness (Botsford et al 2003, Willis et
al 2003, Jameson et al 2002, Shipp 2002, Allison et al 1999), in some areas the establishment of
marine reserves is the only tool available as a practical coastal resource management option.

Objectives

Conducted one year after the establishment of the Kuguita marine reserve at Kuguita, Mambajao,
the study seeks to determine whether the “no-take” policy of the marine reserve already has an
effect on the fish community in the area.

Specifically, the objectives of the study were the following:

1. To determine the density of fish in the two study sites (inside, KFS, and outside, NR) in
the period one year after the establishment of the Kuguita Fish Sanctuary,

2. To determine the diversity of fish in the two study sites in the period one year after the
establishment of the Kuguita Fish Sanctuary,

3. To compare the fish community in the KFS and NR in the period one year after
establishment of the KFS with the fish community one year prior to its establishment.

Methodology

The study area was located in Barangay Kuguita, Mambajao, Camiguin. Two study sites were
established, inside the Kuguita marine reserve and outside it (Fig. 1 and 2). Site selection was
limited to areas within the boundaries of Barangay Kuguita as these were the areas assessed in
preparation of the establishment of the Kuguita Fish Sanctuary (KFS) (Paderanga, 2006).
 Kuguita

Camiguin

Kuguita

Camiguin

Mindanao

Figure 1 Location map of Kuguita Fish Sanctuary.

The 17.7 hectare KFS was established in August 30, 2006 with the passing of Mambajao
Municipal Ordinance No. 060805, series of 2006 “An Ordinance Establishing the Kuguita Fish
Sanctuary of Brgy. Kuguita, Mambajao, Camiguin, Providing for Its Regulation and/or
Conservation/Protection Measures and for Other Related Purposes”. The “no-take” policy was
the main management strategy and was implemented immediately after the passing of the
municipal ordinance.
 Kuguita Fish Sanctuary

KFS
NR

Baylao

Kuguita, Mambajao
Bug-ong

Figure 2 Location map of Kuguita Fish Sanctuary (KFS) and the non-reserve (NR) areas. Labels for KFS
and NR indicate both name and transect locations for the areas.

Fish populations inside the selected areas were surveyed and assessed using the Fish Visual
Census method (described in the Survey Manual for Tropical Marine Resources by English et al,
1997) during two sampling periods, August 9 to 11, 2005 and October 10 and 15 to 16, 2007
representing one year before establishment of the marine reserve and one year after the
establishment respectively. The data were analyzed using the design called the Optimal Impact
Assessment or the Before-After/Control-Impact method (Green, 1979 in Underwood, 1996).
Although there are criticisms to the use of this design (Underwood, 1996, and Osenberg et al,
1992), this design was the most appropriate for the data gathered. ANOVA was then employed
to determine whether there were significant differences between the two periods.

Results

Fish density The densities of fish for the two study sites (KFS and NR) decreased slightly for
both areas between the two periods (Figure 3). However, ANOVA did not show any significant
differences between sites and between periods (p = 0.614 between periods, p = 0.795 between
locations) (Appendix 1A).
 Mean Densities of Fish for the Different Periods and Locations

400

350

300

250
Ind/1000 m3 (C.I.)

200

150

100

50

0
KFS NR KFS NR
Before After
August 2005 October 2007
Period and Location

Figure 3 Mean densities of fish for the inside and outside the marine reserve for the periods before and after
the establishment of the Kuguita Marine Reserve

Species composition Fish of the family Pomacentridae made up the bulk of the total fish
population for both periods and locations (an average of 76%) (Fig. 4). There was a difference in
the populations of the fish families in between the two periods with a reduction in the number of
individuals for Labridae.
 Relative Abundance of Fish per Family

300.00

Others
250.00 Synodontidae
Scorpaenidae
Bercydae
200.00 Mullidae
Lutjanidae
Individuals/m3

Carangidae
Apogonidae
150.00
Serranidae
Scaridae
Pomacentridae
100.00 Pomacanthidae
Nemipteridae
Labridae
Chaetodontidae
50.00
Caesionidae
Acanthuridae

-
KFS NR KFS NR

Before, After,
August 2005 October 2007
Period and location

Figure 4 The densities of fish per family in relation to the total population per sampling period and location.

Species diversity Table 1 shows the diversity values for the two sites and two locations. There
were no significant differences between periods (p = 0.939) and between locations (p = 0.272).

Table 1 Fish diversity values for the respective study sites and periods.
n H' 1-D

Before, KFS 32 1.16036 0.906719

After, KFS 30 1.08 0.88

Discussion of Results

The results show that there are no significant differences between the fish community in terms of
total fish density or diversity. Although there is a difference between the number of labrids
before and after the establishment of the marine reserve, this difference can not be attributed to
the establishment of the KFS as there is no difference between the NR and KFS sites. This may
be a temporal variation experienced by the general area.
Summary and Conclusions

The fish communities inside and outside the Kuguita Fish Sanctuary were surveyed one year
prior to and one year after its establishment and the data analyzed using the BACI design to
determine whether the establishment of the marine reserve had an impact on the fish
communities in the area. Results show that there were no significant differences between fish
density and diversity in the non-reserve (NR) and reserve (KFS) sites prior to and after the
establishment of the marine reserve. Although there was a difference in the species composition
between periods, this difference could not be attributed to the establishment of the marine
reserve as there was no significant difference between the NR and KFS sites.

The Kuguita Fish Sanctuary did not have any distinguishable and significant effect on the fish
population of Kuguita a year after its establishment. Although marine reserves can already reach
mean density levels a year after their establishment, some can take as long as 3 years (Halpern
and Warner, 2002). The effect of the establishment of the Kuguita Fish Sanctuary may not yet
be discernable after one year, or it could also be that the management strategy employed is
ineffective. It is recommended that monitoring be continued and that the management strategy
being used also be looked into, to determine whether there may be flaws in the management
system.
Literature Cited

Agardy, T. 2000. Information needs for marine protected areas: scientific and societal. Bulletin
of Marine Science 66(3):875-888
Allison, G.W., J. Lubchenco & M.H. Carr. 1999. Marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient
for marine conservation. Ecol. Appl, 8 (Supplement): S79-S92.
Botsford, L.W, F. Micheli & A. Hastings. 2003. Principles for the design of marine reserves.
Ecological Applications 13 (1): S25-S31
English, S., C. Wilkinson and V. Baker. 1994. Survey manual for tropical marine resources.
Australia: ASEAN-AUSTRALIA Marine Science Project. 367 p.
Halpern, B.S. and R.R. Warner. 2002. Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects. Ecology
Letters 5: 361–366
Hilborn R., K. Stokes, J. Maguire, T. Smith, L.W. Botsford, M. Mangel, J. Orensanz, A. Parma,
J. Rice, J. Bell, K..L Cochrane, S. Garcia, S.J. Hall, G.P. Kirkwood, K. Sainsbury, G.
Stefansson & C. Walters. 2004. When can marine reserves improve fisheries management?
Ocean & Coastal Management 47: 197–205
Jameson S.C., M.H. Tupper & J.M. Ridley. 2002. The three screen doors: can marine
‘‘protected’’ areas be effective? Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 1177–1183
Lubchenco, J, S.R. Palumbi, S.D. Gaines and S. Andelman. 2003. Plugging a hole in the ocean:
the emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications, 13(1):S3-S7
Osenberg, C.W., S.J. Holbrook and R.J. Schmitt. 1992. Implications for the Design of
Environmental Assessment Studies. In: Perspectives on the Marine Environment,
Proceedings from a Symosium on the Marine Environment of Southern California. USC Sea
Grant Program, Los Angeles, CA. p. 75-89
Paderanga, O.R.T. 2007. The Effect Of The Enforcement Of The "No-Take" Reserve Policy And
Its Relaxation On The Abundance Of Coral Reef Fishes Of Medano White Island, Agoho,
Mambajao, Camiguin: Basis For Improved Management. Unpublished Master’s thesis in
Environmental Management, Graduate School, University of Southern Philippines, Cebu
City, Cebu, Philippines, 54 pp.
Paderanga, O.R.T., R.S. Apugan and B.L. Jasma. 2006. Determination of potential sites for
small-sized marine reserve establishment in two barangays of Camiguin Island, Philippines.
Paper presented at the 38th Annual Convention of the Federation of Institutions for the
Marine and Freshwater Sciences (FIMFS) October 19 – 21, University of San Carlos, Cebu
City, Philippines
Pomeroy, R.S., J.E. Parks and L.M. Watson.2004. How is your MPA doing? A Guidebook of
Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management
Effectiveness. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xvi + 216 pp.
Roberts, C.M., S. Andelman, G. Branch, R.H. Bustamante, J.C. Castilla, J. Dugan, B.S. Halpern,
K.D. Lafferty, H. Leslie, J. Lubchenco, D. McArdle, H.P. Possingham, M. Ruckelshaus &
R.R. Warner. 2003. Ecological criteria for evaluating candidate sites for marine reserves.
Ecol Appl 13 (1) Supplement: S199-S214.
Roberts, CM. 1998. Permanent no-take zones: a minimum standard for effective marine
protected areas. In: Coral Reefs: challenges and opportunities for sustainable management:
proceedings of an associated event of the fifth annual World Bank conference on
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development/Hatziolos, M.E., Hooten, A.J. and
Fodor, M (editors). Pp 96-100
Shipp, R.L. 2002. No Take Marine Protected Areas (nMPAs) as a fishery management tool, a
pragmatic perspective. Report to the FishAmerica Foundation. 18p.
Underwood, A.J. 1996. Environmental Design and Analysis in Marine Environmental Sampling.
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Manuals and Guides No. 34 UNESCO 86
pp.
Willis, T.J., R.B. Millar, R.C. Babcock & N. Tolimieri. 2003. Burdens of evidence and the
benefits of marine reserves: putting Descartes before des horse? Environmental
Conservation 30: 97-103