Design of an LGU implemented comprehensive fisheries ...

Design of an LGU implemented comprehensive fisheries catch and effort monitoring schemes by UPVFI

By Wilfredo L. Campos and Donna M. Guarte

A PR IL 2017

Harnessing Marketsto Secure a Futurefor Near-shore Fishers

Design of an LGU implemented comprehensive fisheries

ii Harnessing Markets to Secure a Future for Near-shore Fishers

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the responsibility of the authors do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Acknowledgment


Harnessing Markets to Secure a Future for Near-shore Fishers iii

IntroductionFisheries Profiling A. Elements and objectives of a fisheries profile B. Preparation for conducting a fisheries profile C. Conducting a fisheries profile D. Processing information from a fisheries profile and their relevance to management Design of the Actual Monitoring Scheme for the Rapid Assessment of Target Resources at Rare Project Sites Harvest Control Reference Points and Related InformationReferencesAppendix 1. Types of Fishing GearsAppendix 2. Common Problems And Concerns Raised During The Focused Group Discussion

Contents010101010305

09

14222226


iv Harnessing Markets to Secure a Future for Near-shore Fishers

By Wilfredo L. Campos and Donna M. Guarte

Design of an LGU implemented comprehensive fisheries catch and effort monitoring schemes by UPVFI


Harnessing Markets to Secure a Future for Near-shore Fishers v

INTRODUCTIONMunicipal local government units are mandated to manage fisheries within their coastal waters. More needs to be done in this regard, especially because relatively little has been gained since the enactment of the Fisheries Code 18 years ago. The principal obstacle to this is the lack of even the most basic information on catch and fishing effort. Until recently, most efforts towards this end have focused on monitoring catches and estimating production. In recent years, the BFAR initiated efforts to register fishers, vessels and gear in all coastal municipalities nationwide. These data, however, need to be “matched “with their respective catches to provide more insights into management. By design, these efforts need to be complemented by monitoring how, when and where fishers operate (i.e. effort), and what they catch. This document presents the design and operationalization of a low-cost LGU-implemented fisheries catch and effort monitoring system which complements gear and fisher registration efforts, and more importantly, provides LGUs with the information they need to effectively manage their fisheries. In addition, the scheme can be readily modified to include sampling for more detailed biological studies focused on specific resources or species.

FISHERIES PROFILINGIn areas where fisheries information is nil and or unavailable, fisheries profiling through focused group discussions (FGD) may serve as the main source of information. An advantage in holding such discussions is that it is inexpensive and more detailed information can be gathered and some verification is allowed through active discussion with and among the participants (Campos & Castillo, 2007). The ideal participants in fisheries profiling are fishers, wives of fishers and fish buyers from both sectors (municipal and commercial), fisheries officers, bantay dagat officers, BFARMC and MFARMC officials.

II.A. Elements and objective of a fisheries profileA fisheries profile is an initial characterization of a fishery in a locality with the main objective of gathering basic information that are needed to manage natural marine resources. The basic information that can be gathered in a fisheries profile are:• Fishing gear types – enumeration of the different

gear types used with a corresponding description of its operation. Appendix 1 shows some common gear types.

• Fishing effort – typically expressed as number of gear units, number of fishers, number of fishing days or months per year (fishing calendar), number of fishers per trip and fishing hours per trip

Catch rate – usually expressed as catch per fishing trip or fishing operation; commonly presented as

catch per fisher per trip or per day • Fishing area –specific locations where fishers

frequently fish (used in spatial distribution of effort)

• Catch composition – listing of catch by gear type and information on the dominant catch for each gear type and their seasonality

Other information – such as issues, problems and concerns in the fishery; trends in fisheries.

II.B. Preparations for conducting a fisheries profile1. Compilation of available information. The team should compile and familiarize themselves with available background information about the area – number of coastal barangays, number of fishers, fishing gears used, commonly caught species, map of the area and previous studies concerning their fisheries. These information will be helpful in conducting the FGD, especially when participants are not willing to answer the questions seriously. This is typical of the first few minutes of an FGD. A team is usually composed of 3 members – a discussion leader, a documenter who posts information on the board and assists in fielding/clarifying questions, and a notekeeper who jots down notes, especially those on clarifications, and photos (Fig. 1).

2. Identification of coastal barangays to be involved in the FGD. Ideally, all coastal barangays should be included, but when the number of barangays is more than 10, priority barangays should be identified based on fisher density and recommendations from the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (FARMC) and the LGU. Or a series of FGDs (2-3 sessions) may be conducted to cover all barangays. This, however, will depend on the resources (material and time) available to the team.

3. Preparing the list of participants. The ideal participants include fishers, their wives, and fish buyers/

Figure 1. Example of focused group discussion (FGD)

(Batangas)


1 Harnessing Markets to Secure a Future for Near-shore Fishers

vendors/dealers from both sectors (municipal and commercial), fisheries officers/LGU, bantay dagat officers, BFARMC and MFARMC officials. At the minimum, representatives of a barangay should be familiar with the different gear types used by residents of the barangay, including their operations, catch rates, composition and an idea of how many fishers there are in the barangay. Barangay officials would usually be familiar with the latter. The minimum number of participants per coastal barangay is 3 and the maximum is 5. Too many participants will be difficult to handle during the FGD.

4. Coordination with the LGU and MAO. Ideally, a letter addressed to the mayor is sent at least a few weeks prior to the FGD. . The letter should explain the aims and outputs of the activity and how these may be used in the management of their fishery. The letter should be explicit also in requesting the kind of assistance the team will need from them, such as securing of the venue (open or closed space is okay) and informing/inviting participants to the FGD.

5. Preparation of materials needed. • gear inventory matrix – this will eventually contain

a list of the names of gear types used in the barangays involved ( manila paper or a board may be used if available)

• catch matrix containing the basic catch and effort information written on a sheet of manila paper ( a board may be used if available).

• sketch of the municipal map (Fig. 4) on a sheet of manila paper showing islands, islets, shoal areas, as well as isobaths, approximate municipal water boundaries, coastal barangays and other notable landmarks.

• colored pens or crayons for marking the areas where the different gear types operate

• reference books to validate the equivalent English name of fishing gears (drawings of the gear and how it is operated are also very helpful) and family/scientific names of the commonly caught species

• sound system (if available)• camera for photo-documentation (if available)

6. Guide questions. Structured questions should be prepared to ensure that all needed information will be gathered at the end of the FGD. Basically, these guide questions constitute the information in the catch matrix. Also, prepared questions will guide the flow of the discussion. The following are examples of the guide questions:• What are the fishing gear types used in your

barangay? If participants are from 5 coastal barangays, each

barangay should be asked one after the other, with

the information being listed in the gear inventory matrix

• Can someone illustrate and describe the nature of operation of each gear type?

Involve as many participants as possible to keep them immersed and to make them feel needed and important. This also allows clarifying the various ways the gear has been modified.

• How many units of each gear type do you have in your barangay?

This should be asked and noted down by barangay• How many fishers are using each gear type in

your barangay? This should be done by barangay• How many fishers are involved per operation in

each gear type? This is usually a range of values and it is also with

this question that modifications to gear types are revealed.

Figure 2. Example of gear inventory matrix format used in focused group discussions

Figure 3. Example of catch matrix format used in focused group discussion

Figure 4. Example of a rough sketch of

a municipal map used in focused group

discussions


Harnessing Markets to Secure a Future for Near-shore Fishers 2

• How long (no. of hours) is the fishing operation of each gear type?

This is usually a range of values that will likely differ between seasons.

• What is the average catch (in kg) of each fishing gear type per operation?

This is usually a range of values (e.g. 0 - 50kg), and fishers typically provide extreme “jackpot” values. It helps to ask what they caught the previous night, and the night before that, etc. to narrow down the range. The reaction of fishers from different barangays is also helpful in gauging if the values being given are gross overestimates. In most cases, the narrowed down range is listed down. If necessary, the range of catch rates by season (peak vs non-peak months) should also be noted. This question normally takes the longest time and discussions.

• What is the common catch of each fishing gear type? What species dominates the catch?

This information will be in local names and it is important to match them with names of families at least. Taxonomic guides and references come in handy at this point. The info may slightly differ from one barangay to another, and may also vary with season.

• How many days in a month is each gear type fished?

This will be a range of values, with the frequency differing between monsoon seasons. Note also if fishing is influenced by moon phase.

• How many months in a year is each gear type operated?

Some are used year-round, with peak use and catches in certain months. Others are used only in certain months. Many fishers use more than a single gear type (e.g., handline and other gear), some shift gear types depending on the monsoon season. When fishing is not year-round, fishing months should be identified for construction of the fishing gear calendar

• What month of the year are catch rates highest/lowest?

This information will be for the fishing calendar showing peak months.

Are there species that were caught 30-50 years ago (60’s to the 80’s) that are no longer caught at the present?

• What are the major problems concerning the fisheries in your area?

• What possible solutions can you suggest to address these problems?

7. Cost of conducting the FGD. Conducting a fisheries profile is less expensive than any other means

of fisheries data gathering. The major expenses are as follows:• materials (as listed above)• snacks for the participants (at least ~15-20 Php per

participant)• fare of participants (depends on how far the

coastal barangays are from the venue; this may be shouldered by the LGU)

• travel expenses of the team • cost of data processing and analytical services

rendered (10-15 man-days per FGD w/ 15 brgys)

II.C. Conducting a Fisheries Profile 1. Orientation. Before proceeding to the actual fisheries profiling, the discussion leader should give a short talk on the mechanics of the activity, what the activity is about, why it is conducted, and how the information may be used in their municipality (Fig. 5). After the orientation, it is advisable that participants will be acknowledged by coastal barangay to keep them engrossed with the activity. Participants should also be informed of the duration of the activity. The FGD usually takes 2-3 hours, depending on the number of barangays involved. Based on experience, 3hrs should be the maximum time set for the FGD. Beyond this participants become unresponsive and bored.

Figure 5. (a) Discussion leader explaining the importance of

fisheries profiling in Batangas, and (b) members of the team

during a focused group discussion in Antique

A

B



Figure 6. Identification of fishing gears used. In this example,

all types of gill nets and seine nets were identified with

corresponding descriptions

Figure 8. Participant mapping out areas where they usually fish in Mindoro, and (b) an

example of a completed gear map during the FGD in Balayan, Batangas

Figure 7. (a) The

discussion leader

filling up the catch

matrix, and (b) an

example of completed

catch matrix during

the FGD in Mindoro

Occidental

2. Filling up the gear inventory and number of fisher matrices. The orientation is followed by asking the participants the prepared guide questions starting from fishing gear identification. Identification starts from the most commonly used gears in each barangay to the least commonly used ones (see Appendix 1). After identification, participants are asked to illustrate and describe the nature of operation of each gear type (Fig. 6). This is important to properly translate the local names of the identified gears to the standard or appropriate English name. The next step is to ask each barangay how many gear units they have and how many fishers are using the different gear types.

3. Filling up the catch matrix. Participants are asked questions regarding the basic information that makes up the catch matrix (see section I.B.6). There should be a consensus on the values in the matrix, meaning all barangays should agree on the resulting values. In instances where participants do not provide a single value, it is best to note down the values separately by barangay. Note that most entries in the catch matrix will be a range of values (minimum-maximum) with the median or average as the common value (Fig. 7).

4. Gear mapping. This activity shows the relative distribution of fishing operations (trips) by gear type within the fishing ground. Each gear type is assigned a code or a symbol (may be color-coded also), so that areas where a given gear type is operated are marked with 1 symbol, while areas where operations are more frequent are marked with 2 or more symbols (Fig. 8). Landmarks noted down on the map help immensely in locating areas of operation. It is advisable to involve several participants from various barangays to keep them immersed with the activity. This activity can be done simultaneously during the filling up of the catch matrix.

5. Translating fish local names to scientific names (family/genus). This is important because local names of fishes may differ by barangay, municipality and region. Thus, properly translating them will provide not only a more detailed fisheries profile, but more importantly, information that is useful for management in other municipalities within the same fishing ground (or even other fishing grounds) as well. The importance of scientific names is overlooked too often, making across-sites learning less effective. Properly translating to scientific names is done by showing pictures of fishes to the participants and having them point out the commonly caught species (Fig. 9).



(6). Problems concerning the fishery. After completing all the matrices, participants are asked about what they consider as the major problems in the fishery. All concerns mentioned by the participants are noted down by the keeper (Fig.10). This step is important because this information may be used in drafting initial management measures. In some of the previous profiling activities, issues were raised that were “new” to the LGU. Some common problems/concerns raised during the past FGDs are presented in Appendix 2.

Figure 10. (a)

Discussion

leader asking the

participants about

fisheries-related

problems in Antique

and (b) an example

list of problems

encountered in

a focused group

discussion in Mindoro

Occidental

Figure 9. An FGD

team member (keeper)

showing pictures

of fishes to local

participants

Figure 11. (a) The

discussion leader

summarizing and

going over the output

of the activity, and

(b) the participants of

the FGD in Gigantes

Island, Carles, Iloilo

7. Summary of the discussion. The discussion leader presents the outputs of the activity and provides a summary of the discussion focusing on the information entered in the matrices (Fig. 11). This should be done to validate the information gathered. Lastly, a group photo (optional) may be taken to commemorate the success of the activity. II.D. Processing information from a fisheries profile and their relevance for management.The outputs of fisheries profiling provide basic information in the formulation of a fisheries management plan. This section uses sample output from fisheries profiling in Concepcion, Iloilo to illustrate how the gathered data are summarized and interpreted.

Ideally, a fisheries profile precedes a more systematic and comprehensive fisheries monitoring program where monitoring sites, target gear types, and biological sampling schemes are determined before the actual monitoring and sampling. The fisheries profile should provide all the information needed to determine these. Oftentimes, the fisheries profile as described above, may serve as basis for some initial management interventions because it already provides baseline information about the fisheries in an area. It is however strongly recommended that profiling be followed soon



Figure 13. Example plot showing total annual catch (EAC) in mt (bars) and catch rates (kg/

fisher/trip) (line) by gear type based on fisheries profiling information from Concepcion,

Iloilo. HK = hook & line, SJ = squid jig, TL = troll line, BSLL = bottom set longline, MHL =

multiple hook & line, HL = hand line, BSGN = bottom set gill net, EGN = encircling gill net,

CGN = crab gill net, SDG = squid gill net, DGN = drift gill net, DiGN = drive-in gill net, RHS

= round haul seine, SLN = stationary lift net, CLN = crab lift net, MLN = modified lift net,

FLN = fish lift net, DS = Danish seine, BS = beach seine, PN = push net, FN = filter net, ST

= squid trap, GI = gleaning, Tr = trawl, SN = scoop net, SF = spearfishing

Figure 12. Example of graph showing the percent contribution of fishing gears to total

gear units in Concepcion, Iloilo

after by a more extensive and systematic monitoring activity for a more comprehensive and adaptive fisheries management plan. 1. Gear inventory matrix. Information from the sheets of manila paper used during the FGD are encoded as is onto a worksheet (e.g., Excel). An example is shown in Table 1. The total number of units for each gear type is computed by adding the estimated number of units across all barangays. The total number of units for the entire municipality will be used for estimating total annual catch in the catch matrix. Table 1 shows estimates of units by gear type for each of 19 barangays/sitios in Concepcion, Iloilo provided by the FGD participants. The percent contribution of each gear type to the total number of gear units is also shown in the table and is presented in Fig. 12 for easier interpretation. The results of the inventory provide a general idea of the dominant and the most commonly used gear types in the area and the barangays where these gear types dominate. This information, in turn, is used as the basis for deciding which barangays or sitios and which gear types to monitor.

Sample Interpretation. The array of fishing gears used in a fishing ground directly reflects the kind of resources that are available and or abundant in the area. For example, the matrix below (Table 1) shows the estimated number of units of the various gear types used in the municipality. The most numerous are hook and line (kawil), fish trap (bobo), squid jig (kawil), crab gill net (pukot pangkasag) and bottom set gill net (palubog) (Fig. 12) and these indicate the abundance of mostly soft bottom resources, including squids and crabs. And since the data of profiling are listed by barangay as well (Table 1), deciding where to monitor the major gear types becomes straightforward. For example, in Table 1 barangays Malangabang (975 units or 25%), Igbon (503 units or 13%), Talotoan (484 or 12%), Tambaliza (373 units or 9.5%), Salvacion (336 units or 9%) and Sitio Baliguian, Malangabang (301units or 7.7%) recorded the highest number of gear units. These barangays should be prioritized in case a monitoring program, rapid or long term, were to be undertaken.

(2). Catch matrix. The catch matrix provides estimates of catch rates and fishing effort (expressed as number of gear units, fishers per trip, fishing hours per trip, fishing days per month and fishing months per year), months with high catch rates and dominant catches of each gear type. All the previous information are typically gathered in a fisheries profiling activity. An example of an encoded catch matrix showing the seasonality and composition of the catches is presented in Table 2a.

The estimated annual catch (EAC) of each gear can be estimated by multiplying the catch rate with the number of gear units, the number of fishing days per month and the number of fishing months per year. The

total EAC is simply the sum of all computed EACs for each gear. The resulting estimates (in kilograms) may be divided by 1000 to convert the values to metric tons. These computations are presented in Table 2b.

The contribution of the various gear types to annual production can also be estimated. The matrix also allows examination as to why the various gears had their respective contributions to total fisheries production: whether this is due to high fishing effort (fishing hours, fishing days/months, number of gear units and fishers) or to high catch rates, or to both. A more illustrative way of presenting the results of the



Design of an LGU implemented comprehensive fisheries Design of an LGU implemented comprehensive fisheries

Category English name Local name Sang

guta

n,

Polo

pini

aPu

rok,

M

alip

ayon

,

Lo

-ong

San

Vice

nte

& Di

aman

te,

Lo-o

ng Total (=A+B+…+S)

%

Mab

inol

igon

,

Lo

-ong

Talo

toan

Igbo

nBa

cjaw

an S

urBa

cjaw

an

Nort

eTa

mba

liza

Mal

anga

bang

Balig

uian

, M

alan

gaba

ngDu

ngon

Salv

acio

nSi

tio T

alisa

y,

Polo

pini

aPo

lopi

nia

Prop

erFishing gears

Mac

atun

aoBu

tlog

Nipa

Nino

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R s

Gill net Drift gill net Pamo 5 5 0.13Squid gill net Panlukos 5 10 15 0.38Crab gill net Pukot Pangkasag 5 1 8 250 7 76 3 350 8.95Encircling gill net Kutay/Likos/Pangarong 10 9 10 13 15 8 65 1.66Bottom set gill net Palubog 8 20 8 52 50 7 7 30 18 200 5.12

Drive-in net Drive-in gill net Panumbukan/Kayagkag 9 25 1 35 0.90Hook and line Bottom set longline Panlabay 8 9 5 5 5 7 39 1.00

Multiple hook & line Palanas 10 15 5 20 8 7 5 70 1.79Handline Pataw-Pataw 10 15 5 20 8 7 5 70 1.79Troll line Sibid-sibid/Panlukon 10 50 3 7 50 120 3.07Squid Jigger Pangkawil/Kawil 10 210 95 5 130 450 11.51Hook & Line Kawil/Pakaway/Panagat 90 30 8 160 100 10 5 120 500 95 150 20 100 8 4 1400 35.81

Lift net Crab lift net Kiming 20 15 5 20 60 1.53Fish lift net Timing/Kiming 21 15 10 8 1 55 1.41Modified lift net Baskal 4 25 1 30 0.77Stationary lift net Tangkal/Bintol 15 5 20 0.51Round haul seine Sinsuro 8 7 15 30 0.77

Seine net Drag net Lambat Suwayang 1 1 0.03Filter net 2 2 0.05Beach seine Sahid 4 3 7 0.18Push net Hudhud 15 15 0.38Danish seine Hulbot-hulbot 5 5 10 0.26

Surrounding net Ring net Likupan 6 6 0.15Trap Squid trap Bobo sa lokos* 13 7 20 0.51

Fish trap Bobo sa isda* 35 15 70 20 20 400 80 10 650 16.62Others Spearfishing Pamana 10 10 0.26

Gleaning Kinhas/Pamunit 30 25 20 25 100 2.56Trawl 18 3 9 40 70 1.79Scoop net Sikop 5 5 0.13

TOTAL 61 110 159 109 484 503 18 58 373 975 301 19 336 94 148 21 40 61 40 3910 100.00* gears units = number of fisher operators

Table 1. Example of encoded gear inventory matrix from Concepcion, Iloilo showing the formula used in deriving the total number of gear units


Table 2a. Example of encoded catch matrix showing the seasonality and composition of catches of various gear types used in Concepcion, Iloilo

Category English Name Local NameHook and line Hook & Line Kawil/Pakaway/Panagat 1400 2 1 4 20 12 Jul-Oct nemipterids. Whitings, terapon

Squid Jigger Pangkawil/Kawil 450 6 2 6 10 8 Mar-Oct; Mar-Jun squid, cuttle fishTroll line Sibid-sibid/Panlukon 120 8 3 4 10 3 Mar-Jun squid, cuttle fishBottom set longline Panlabay 39 7 1 6 5 5 Mar-Jul; May-Jun lethrinids, nemipterids, teraponMultiple hook & line Palanas 70 5 2 6 5 3 Apr-Jun lethrinids, nemipterids, teraponHandline Pataw-Pataw 70 3 1 4 10 2 May-Jun lethrinids, nemipterids

Gill net Bottom set gill net Palubog 200 15 2 6 20 7 Mar-Sep; May-Jul whitings, lethrinids, slipmouthsEncircling gill net Kutay/Likos/Pangarong 65 30 4 6 15 10 Mar-Dec; Sep-Dec sardinesCrab gill net Pukot Pangkasag 350 3 2 3 10 10 Mar-Dec; Jul-Dec portunids, mud crabSquid gill net Panlukos 15 10 2 4 20 10 Feb-Nov; Mar-Jun squid, cuttle fishDrift gill net Pamo 5 15 4 4 5 8 Mar-Oct; July-Oct scombrid, carangid, barracuda

Drive-in net Drive-in gill net Panumbukan/Kayagkag 35 15 2 3 5 12 Jan-Dec; Oct-Feb slipmouths, whitings, teraponLift net Round haul seine Sinsuro 30 250 18 5 22 12 Jan-Dec; Jul-Dec anchovies

Stationary lift net Tangkal/Bintol 20 25 3 6 15 7 Mar-Sep sardines, anchoviesCrab lift net Kiming 60 5 1 3 15 10 Mar-Dec; Jul-Dec portunids, mud crabModified lift net Baskal 30 8 2 12 15 12 Jan-Dec squid, cuttle fishFish lift net Timing/Kiming 55 4 1 2 15 5 Mar-Jul nemipterid, whitings, terapon

Seine net Danish seine Hulbot-hulbot 10 40 5 8 10 10 Mar-Dec; Jul-Dec sardines, engraulid, scombridsBeach seine Sahid 7 15 3 2 15 12 Jan-DecPush net Hudhud 15 5 2 3 15 4 Mar-JunFilter net 2 10 1 3 5 2 May-JunDrag net Lambat Suwayang 1 8 3 3 8 2 May-Jun

Surrounding net Ring net Likupan 6 300 20 8 15 12 Jan-Dec; Jul-Dec scombrid, carangidTrap Fish trap Bobo sa isda* 650 9 2 8 15 8 Mar-Oct; Mar-Jun nemipterids, lethrinids, terapon

Squid trap Bobo sa lokos* 20 18 2 16 20 12 Jan-Dec; Mar-Jun squids, cuttlefishOthers Gleaning Kinhas/Pamunit 100 5 3 2 25 9 Mar-Nov

Trawl 70 15 2 4 10 8 Mar-Oct shrimp, squidsScoop net Sikop 5 5 2 2 20 9 Apr-Dec; Jul-Dec shrimpSpearfishing Pamana 10 5 1 3 5 7 Mar-Sep

TOTAL 3910* gears units = number of fisher operators

Catch (dominant)No. fishing months/yr

No. fishing

days/mo

No. of fishing hrs/trip

No. of fishers/trip

Ave. catch (kg/trip)

No. of gear units

Fishing gearsRemarks

(fishing months; peak season)


Table 2b. Catch matrix showing the computation of estimated annual catch (EAC), in metric tons, contribution of fishing gears to total catch (%) and rank of fishing gears. Top 10 fishing gears with highest contribution to EAC are in bold font. Data from Concepcion, Iloilo

Category English Name Local NameHook and line Hook & Line Kawil/Pakaway/Panagat 1400 2 1 4 20 12 686.0 12.9 3

Squid Jigger Pangkawil/Kawil 450 6 2 6 10 8 227.6 4.3 7Troll line Sibid-sibid/Panlukon 120 8 3 4 10 3 28.8 0.5 18Bottom set longline Panlabay 39 7 1 6 5 5 6.8 0.1 21Multiple hook & line Palanas 70 5 2 6 5 3 4.6 0.1 22Handline Pataw-Pataw 70 3 1 4 10 2 3.2 0.1 25

Gill net Bottom set gill net Palubog 200 15 2 6 20 7 400.0 7.5 4Encircling gill net Kutay/Likos/Pangarong 65 30 4 6 15 10 292.5 5.5 6Crab gill net Pukot Pangkasag 350 3 2 3 10 10 105.0 2.0 9Squid gill net Panlukos 15 10 2 4 20 10 30.0 0.6 17Drift gill net Pamo 5 15 4 4 5 8 3.0 0.1 26

Drive-in net Drive-in gill net Panumbukan/Kayagkag 35 15 2 3 5 12 31.5 0.6 16Lift net Round haul seine Sinsuro 30 250 18 5 22 12 1941.4 36.6 1

Stationary lift net Tangkal/Bintol 20 25 3 6 15 7 48.8 0.9 12Crab lift net Kiming 60 5 1 3 15 10 45.0 0.8 13Modified lift net Baskal 30 8 2 12 15 12 43.2 0.8 14Fish lift net Timing/Kiming 55 4 1 2 15 5 17.6 0.3 20

Seine net Danish seine Hulbot-hulbot 10 40 5 8 10 10 38.8 0.7 15Beach seine Sahid 7 15 3 2 15 12 19.4 0.4 19Push net Hudhud 15 5 2 3 15 4 4.5 0.1 23Filter net 2 10 1 3 5 2 0.2 0.0 28Drag net Lambat Suwayang 1 8 3 3 8 2 0.1 0.0 29

Surrounding net Ring net Likupan 6 300 20 8 15 12 324.0 6.1 5Trap Fish trap Bobo sa isda 650 9 2 8 15 8 719.6 13.6 2

Squid trap Bobo sa lokos 20 18 2 16 20 12 86.4 1.6 10Others Gleaning Kinhas/Pamunit 100 5 3 2 25 9 112.5 2.1 8

Trawl 70 15 2 4 10 8 78.8 1.5 11Scoop net Sikop 5 5 2 2 20 9 4.5 0.1 24Spearfishing Pamana 10 5 1 3 5 7 1.8 0.0 27

TOTAL 3910 5305.4 100

No. fishing days/mo

(C)

No. fishing months/yr

(D)

Est. annual catch (MT)

= (A x B x C x D )/1000% Rank

Fishing gears No. of gear units

(A)

Ave. catch (kg/trip)

(B)

No. of fishers/trip

No. of fishing hrs/trip

FGD is by plotting the annual catch versus catch rates, fishing effort, etc. as shown in Figs. 13-15. With these graphs, the factor that contributes the most to total catch can easily be discerned. This kind of information is essential and may serve as initial measures even in the absence of a comprehensive or complete management plan. Additional monitoring will be necessary to truly quantify this and other related information.

Table 2a. Example of encoded catch matrix showing the seasonality and composition of catches of various gear types used in Concepcion, Iloilo.

Table 2b. Catch matrix showing the computation of estimated annual catch (EAC), in metric tons, contribution of fishing gears to total catch (%) and rank of fishing gears. Top 10 fishing gears with highest contribution to EAC are in bold font. Data from Concepcion, Iloilo.

Sample Interpretation. Figure 13 for example shows that round haul seine (RHS), fish trap (FT), hook and line (HL), bottom set gill net (BSGN), ring net (RN) and encircling gill net (EGN) had the highest contributions the annual catch, 82.2% ( 4,363,5 MT), but not all of them showed high catch rates. Hook

and line (HK) contributes substantially to total catch, but the low catch rates make it a rather inefficient gear type. On the other hand, bottom-set longlines (BSLL) squid traps (ST) and fish traps (Tr) are more efficient. Another example is the number of units per gear type and the number of fishing man-days per year (Fig. 14). Fishing man-days is the product of no. of gear units, number of fishers per operation, number of fishing days per month and number of fishing months per year. The two entities match each other very well, i.e., the more numerous gear types are used more often, except for round haul seines (RHS), which are operated by up to 18 people per trip, and is thus rather labor intensive. Hence, only a small number of RHS units contributes over 36% of the total annual catch, and also provides work for a good part of total effort. Fig. 15 shows catch rates (kgs/trip) and number of fishing trips per year with the overall mean catch rate (mean = 4.50 kg/trip) plotted as a dashed arrow. None of the gear types showing above average catch rates contribute substantially to overall fishing effort, except perhaps fish traps.

Such information can be used for even initial interventions, depending on whether the priority basis is number of fishers affected by the intervention, or the total number of trips in a year by gear type.

3. Gear calendar. The calendar is constructed using the identified fishing months in the year and remarks column in the catch matrix (Table 2a). The gear calendar (Table 3) shows the seasonality in the use of the various fishing gear types. Target species availability and peak season (high catch rates) may also be depicted. With this information, spawning/recruitment may be inferred which may be used as basis for drafting closed seasons or restrictions in fishing activities. Again, regular monitoring should be conducted to verify this information.

Fishing in the Philippines is generally influenced by 3 seasons, namely the Northeast (NE) monsoon months from November to February, summer months from March to May and the Southwest (SW) monsoon months from June to September or October. The summer months are characterized by calm seas and good weather conditions and are the most favorable months for fishing, while the NE and SW months are characterized by strong winds and rough sea conditions depending on geographical location of the fishing ground. Spawning in many species takes place during the monsoon seasons, so catch rates for some gear types and in some fishing grounds may be high during months when sea conditions are also rough.

Sample Interpretation. In the case of Concepcion, the SW and summer months are favorable to fishing, as indicated by the high catch rates in these months (Table 3). Concepcion, Iloilo is located in the northeast portion of Panay Island and is hence, more exposed

Figure 14. Example plot of no. of gear units and no. of fishing man-days (x 1000) by gear

type based on profiling information from Concepcion, Iloilo

Figure 15. Catch rate (kg/fisher/trip) and no. fishing trips/yr (x 1000) by gear type based on

profiling data from Concepcion, Iloilo. The dotted line shows the overall mean catch rate

(= 4.5 kgs/fisher/trip



during the NE than in the SW monsoon months. Two peak seasons are indicated in the calendar, one in the summer months and one in July-December. These peak seasons correspond well to the known peak seasons of the target species in the area. For example gears targeting schooling pelagics such as sardines and anchovies (e.g. encircling gill net, drift gill net, round haul seine, Danish seine, ring net and scoop net) and crabs (e.g. crab gill net, crab lift net) show high catch rates from July-December, while gears targeting squid record high catches in the summer months. It can be seen from this information that fishing activities are at a minimum during the NE monsoon months, because these are also the roughest months in the area. Hence, it is also during these months when fishers’ incomes are the least and supplemental livelihoods could be most helpful. 4. Gear map. This shows where most fishing operations are conducted in the area. This map is constructed by manually putting in symbols (= different gear types) in the municipal map using Microsoft PowerPoint (Fig. 16). The map may also depict where target species are caught or are concentrated and may be used in zoning fishery operations and in identifying possible area(s) for protection.

Table 3. Fishing calendar of the different gear types used in Concepcion, Iloilo. Highlighted months indicate high catch rates (=peak seasons).

Sample Interpretation. In Fig. 17, it can be seen that most fishing operations are concentrated in areas 5 to 8, suggesting that these are the areas in the fishing ground where potential user conflicts need to be resolved. Interestingly, the areas around and between the islands are also where most of the municipal’s marine protected areas are located. Oftentimes, such information leads to more questions, such as which gears are used is what areas. Fig. 18 shows the distribution of fishing effort (no. of trips in a year) for bottom set gill nets, drive-in gill nets, and encircling gill nets. The markers are color-coded with orange indicating more trips and white indicating the lowest number of trips. The various types of gill nets target different species. For example, encircling gill nets target sardines for most of the year and we can see from the figure that their operations are distributed inside Concepcion Bay (areas 2, 4 & 6) and in the periphery east of the islands, with highest concentrations of fishing trips north of Concepcion Bay (area 1) and offshore of the islands. How this distribution changes from month to month may provide clues on which areas sardines occur in during different stages of their life cycle.

The distribution of fishing effort in the fishing ground is also a function of the target species. Figure 19 shows the distribution of effort for gear types with even more specific targets, like squid jiggers, squid traps

Figure 16. Gear map showing the approximate locations where the various fishing gear

types in Concepcion, Iloilo are used

and squid gill nets. There are of course several species of squid in the area and they may have different habitats or display different seasonality in occurrences. The figure shows that most fishing operations for squid are concentrated in areas 5 & 8, but also in area 6 inside Concepcion Bay, which may refer to another species. There are various ways the gear calendar and gear map can be used in planning for the management of fishing effort with respect to areas in the fishing ground (space) and or months of the year (temporal). Provided




Table 3. Fishing calendar of the different gear types used in Concepcion, Iloilo. Highlighted months indicate high catch rates (=peak seasons)

Category English Name Local Name Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Hook and line Hook & Line Kawil/Pakaway/Panagat X X X X

Squid Jigger Pangkawil/Kawil X X X X X X X X

Troll line Sibid-sibid/Panlukon X X X X

Bottom set longline Panlabay X X X X X

Multiple hook & line Palanas X X X

Handline Pataw-Pataw X X

Gill net Bottom set gill net Palubog X X X X X X X

Encircling gill net Kutay/Likos/Pangarong X X X X X X X X X X

Crab gill net Pukot Pangkasag X X X X X X X X X X

Squid gill net Panlukos X X X X X X X X X X

Drift gill net Pamo X X X X X X X X X

Drive-in net Drive-in gill net Panumbukan/Kayagkag X X X X X X X X X X X X

Lift net Round haul seine Sinsuro X X X X X X X X X X X X

Stationary lift net Tangkal/Bintol X X X X X X X

Crab lift net Kiming X X X X X X X X X X

Modified lift net Baskal X X X X X X X X X X X X

Fish lift net Timing/Kiming X X X X X

Seine net Danish seine Hulbot-hulbot X X X X X X X X X X

Beach seine Sahid X X X X X X X X X X X

Push net Hudhud X X X X

Filter net X X

Drag net Lambat Suwayang X X

Surrounding net Ring net Likupan X X X X X X X X X X X X

Trap Fish trap Bobo sa isda X X X X X X X X

Squid trap Bobo sa lokos X X X X X X X X X X X X

Others Gleaning Kinhas/Pamunit X X X X X X X X X

Trawl X X X X X X X X

Scoop net Sikop X X X X X X X X X

Spearfishing Pamana X X X X X X X

CALENDARFISHING GEAR

the guide questions pertaining to these aspects are covered during the profiling, many possible options can be looked into and discussed even if only as initial interventions.

5. Catch composition. This reflects the species caught by various gear types in the area; which are common and which are dominant, if any. The information is restricted mostly to family or genus level of the resources at best. This is why using pictures in references and field guides is necessary during the profiling. Actual sampling at the landing sites or in the market should be conducted to verify the species. In assessing the status of resources in the fishing ground, indicator species are oftentimes studied. Information on the catch composition of various gear types is useful in deciding what species to monitor in the area or what the monitoring should focus on.

Sample Interpretation. Table 4 shows the more common groups of resources caught by various gear types. Most of the commonly-caught species are of high economic importance, including squid (Loliginidae), cuttlefish (Sepiidae), soft-demersals (Nemipteridae, Sillaginidae, Teraponidae, Leiognathidae), reef-associated fish (Lethrinidae), crabs (Portunidae), shrimps and pelagic fishes (Scombridae, sardines, anchovies, Sphyraenidae, Carangidae). Among these species, squids, cuttlefishes and soft-demersals are the most dominant and are targeted by a number of fishing gears. The table provides enough information to help determine which indicator species to monitor to assess the status of resources in the fishing ground. For example, if soft-bottom demersals are of interest, Nemipterids would be a good target group because it is caught by several gear types and samples would be readily available. Hence, a longer-term monitoring

Figure 17. Example gear map showing the spatial

distribution of total fishing effort (no. of trips)

of all gear types combined in Concepcion, Iloilo.

The larger the marker, the higher the proportion

of total fishing effort

Figure 18. Example map showing the spatial

distribution of fishing trips of 3 different gill nets

in Concepcion, Iloilo

Figure 19. Example map showing the spatial

distribution of fishing trips of various gear types

specifically targeting swimming crabs, sardine or

squid in Concepcion, Iloilo

study could include regular (e.g., weekly or bi-weekly) collections of biological samples. DESIGN OF THE ACTUAL MONITORING SCHEME FOR THE RAPID ASSESSMENT OF TARGET RESOURCES AT RARE PROJECT SITESIdeally, the very first activity of the study should have been to conduct FGDs to profile the fisheries in the RARE project sites. This would have provided the information needed to determine which species to focus on (to gather biological information), which gear types to monitor (for catch and effort information and as sources of biological samples), and where to collect these data (monitoring sites). There were 5 project areas where the rapid assessment was done: Cantilan and Cortes in Surigao del Sur; Culasi, Antique; Lubang and Looc in Mindoro Occidental; Tinambac, Camarines Sur; and Ayungon and Bindoy in Negros Occidental. Fisheries profiling was not conducted in all sites, since much information was already available from RARE on-site project staff. This included an initial list of potential species on which to focus the monitoring and rapid assessment (called target species), names of barangays in the sites where fishers catch these species, and gear types that commonly catch these target species. In addition, fisheries profiling was already done in some sites (e.g., Lubang/Looc & Surigao) and the reports were made available to this study. Interviews and questions fielded during small group consultations during the initial site visits filled in the gaps in information needed to design the monitoring and biological sampling scheme.Because of the short duration (3 months) of the project, it was clear from the beginning that the study could only allow two (2) trips to each site, except for Antique




Table 4. Dominant catch of the various fishing gears in Concepcion, Iloilo

Fishing gearsFamily/Group

Category English Name Local Name

Hook and line Hook & Line Kawil/Pakaway/Panagat X X X

Squid Jigger Pangkawil/Kawil X X

Troll line Sibid-sibid/Panlukon X X

Bottom set longline Panlabay X X X

Multiple hook & line Palanas X X X

Handline Pataw-Pataw X X

Gill net Bottom set gill net Palubog X X X

Encircling gill net Kutay/Likos/Pangarong X

Crab gill net Pukot Pangkasag X

Squid gill net Panlukos X X

Drift gill net Pamo X X X

Drive-in net Drive-in gill net Panumbukan/Kayagkag X X X

Lift net Round haul seine Sinsuro X

Stationary lift net Tangkal/Bintol X X

Crab lift net Kiming X

Modified lift net Baskal X X

Fish lift net Timing/Kiming X X X

Seine net Danish seine Hulbot-hulbot X X X

Beach seine Sahid

Push net Hudhud

Filter net

Drag net Lambat Suwayang

Surrounding net Ring net Likupan X X

Trap Fish trap Bobo sa isda* X X X

Squid trap Bobo sa lokos* X X

Others Gleaning Kinhas/Pamunit

Trawl X X

Scoop net Sikop X

Spearfishing Pamana

Cara

ngid

ae

Fishing gears

Nemipt

erid

ae

Silla

ginid

ae

Tera

poni

dae

Lolig

inida

e

Sepii

dae

Leth

rinid

ae

Sphy

raen

idae

Anch

ovies

Shrim

ps

Leio

gnat

hida

e

Sard

ines

Potu

nida

e

Scom

rbid

ae

Figure 20. Design

of monitoring and

biological sampling

schemes of the study

Figure 21. Focused group discussion in Brgy. Caloco, Tinambac, Camarines Sur

and Negros, which were visited more than twice because of their proximity to UPV in MIag-ao. Thus, the design and set-up of the monitoring scheme, hiring and training of enumerators and field assistants, which are usually done in the second visit, were completed in the initial visit. The second visits were to correct errors and iron out glitches in the recording of catch and effort data by enumerators, the subsampling of catches and sample processing by field assistants and other matters concerning data/sample gathering and the transport of samples. Any problems that arose in between or after the second visit were addressed over the phone.

Figure 20 is a flowchart showing the design of the fisheries monitoring and biological sampling schemes. The following is a narrative of the general procedures undertaken by the project team to fulfill its objectives, from the design and set-up of the monitoring and sampling schemes to its implementation, sample processing and analyses of data and information generated for each site. 1. Initial site visits were done to conduct FGDs and to meet with the LGU and RARE local teams. Typical group discussions (Fig. 21) are held with barangay officials (either the captain or council members) and several fisher-residents in the target sites of the municipality and do not take more than 1 hour each time. These were pre-arranged in some cases, but spur-of-the-moment in most. All arrangements were done with the assistance of on-site RARE Fellows and/or Project staff and/or staff of the Municipal Agriculturist’s Office. The purpose of the FGDs were to validate the information on target species and barangays to monitor, which were initially provided by RARE field staff and to some extent the LGUs themselves. Additional information gathered during the discussions included specific fishing areas by gear type, landing sites and time, and a rough idea of number of fishers by target gear type.The typical questions asked during the FGDs were: • What are the most commonly used gear types in

this and neighboring barangays? • How many gear units and fishers are using these

gear types?• What are the most abundant species caught by

these gear types? • Are these gear types used year round? • In which months are these species abundantly

caught?

2. Design of catch and effort monitoring and biological sampling schemes. After verifying the information on the most commonly-caught species, the gear types used to catch them, where these gear types operate from, and where catches are landed, monitoring sites and frequency of sampling were determined. In all sites, catch and effort for target species and gear types

were monitored daily in at least 3-4 sitios in each of the 5 project sites. Catch refers to the total amount in kgs of the catch from a single trip (including the portion which fishers and their families consume, if any) and the composition of the catch, where the weight of the target species is reported separately from the others’. Effort refers to the number of fishing trips recorded each day, together with the number of hours fishing. Both catch and effort are discussed in more detail in a later section. In addition to recording daily catch



and effort, size measurements of 1-2 kgs of each target species in the catches of the target gear types were done weekly if the target species were being monitored in a single sitio or barangay, and in alternating weeks if the target species were monitored in 2 or more sitios or barangays. Aside from measuring subsamples from the catches, another 1-2kgs of specimens of each target species were purchased weekly, partially processed, fixed in 10% seawater-formalin solution and transported to UPV in Miag-ao, Iloilo for complete processing and examination in the lab at a later date. Examples of the (a) program and (b) schedule of monitoring catch and effort and subsampling of catches in Surigao del Sur and Camarines Sur are shown in Figs. 22a-c.

3. Hiring and training of enumerators and field assistant (FA). In most sites, both enumerators and field assistants were recommended by the RARE local team and or staff of the LGU (MAO). Both were trained to do their respective tasks during the initial visits to the sites (Fig. 23).

Field enumerators were trained to record catches

of at least 5 operators (fishers or groups of fishers depending on gear) by gear type every morning. The area of operation was identified for each trip recorded using a gridded map of the area with coded zones. Examples of such maps are shown in a later section. The idea behind targeting a fixed number of identified fishers is for daily records to provide estimates of both catch rates (kg/fisher/trip) and effort, more precisely fishing frequency (number of fishing days per month). Otherwise, effort is typically extrapolated using some estimate of number of fishers and an assumed number of fishing days per month. The latter disregards geographical and seasonal differences in sea conditions between different fishing grounds. In addition, field enumerators were also instructed to count the number of fishers operating the various target gear types in the sitios/barangays covered by the study. By using these estimates, the fishing effort figures provided in the present study are not assumed but based on actual monitored effort. These and other related data were recorded in notebooks following the format and the guidelines shown in Fig. 24. In addition to recording catch and effort, enumerators measured specimens of target species from catches of assigned gear types once a week following the measurements shown in Fig. 25. They also arranged for the regular scheduled purchase of samples from the fishers at the various monitoring sites.

Field assistants, on the other hand, required a bit more skills and training. They did the initial processing of specimens from the field. These included verification of taxonomic identification of specimens from purchased samples, measurement of lengths and weights, and at least for some target species, determined macroscopic gonad development stage.

At this point, it is important to discuss and clarify the use of local names in systematic monitoring of catch and effort. Biological processes such as gonad development and maturation, spawning, size-age relationships, mortality, and especially their contributions that make up the life cycle are species specific. While measures of these processes may be very similar for closely related species, this should not be sufficient reason not to identify the target species. The practice of using common (local or English) names should be avoided because these typically change even between barangays within a single municipality. So unless such use of common names is coded, i.e. each local name corresponds to a specific unidentified species, their use for assessing stocks should be avoided. The inability to properly identify target species in the field is a real limitation, because this oftentimes requires examination of structures that are highly technical, microscopic, or simply cannot be done under field conditions. Hence, there should be efforts to construct field identification guides focused on target species and their close associates, after verification

Figure 22. Example design of

catch and effort monitoring (a)

and biological sampling scheme

(b) in Surigao del Sur and in

Tinambac, Camarines Sur (c)



Figure 23. Training of enumerators and field assistants in the different

RARE sites. Technical staff(s) explaining how to record catch and effort , (b)

the steps in processing biological samples, how to measure squid (b) and

fish (c, f) and how to dissect gonads

Figure 24. Catch and effort format (a), sample recording of catch and effort

(b), and some notes on proper recording of catch and effort (c)

Figure 25. The various length measurements for fish (isda), squid (pusit), and

octopus (pugita)

of taxonomic identifications in the laboratory. The guide has to be matched to the capabilities of field enumerators and assistants. An example of a field guide for caesionids caught in Culasi, Antique is shown in Fig. 26.

Gonad development stages were determined based on external morphological features following guides like the one used for the roundscad, Decapterus macrsoma (Fig. 27). Similar guides for other species were taken from the literature. In general, the size and shape of the gonads may differ somewhat between species, but all follow a general increase in size and change in color as they mature.

After the initial processing, the field assistants dissected off the head, gonad and guts of each identified specimen, stored these in labeled plastic containers with 10% buffered seawater-formalin solution, packed and prepared the specimens for transport to the lab in Miag-ao. These samples were used in verifying maturation stage and will also be used for future biological studies on the various species. In addition, since the field assistants were also present during the

enumerators’ training, they also learned what the field enumerators were supposed to do, so they were tasked with checking the catch and effort records kept by enumerators for inconsistencies and errors. Field assistants were provided with adequate funds to travel regularly to all the sitios covered by the monitoring/sampling scheme and to purchase supplies needed for the initial processing and transport of samples.

4. A second site visit. was conducted about 1 month after the initial visit to check on the recording of catch and effort information, to correct any errors, and to ensure that biological sampling and processing by field assistants was in accordance with what they were trained to do. Logbooks of catch and effort records were also collected at this time along with biological samples for transport to the lab in Miag-ao. Samples in subsequent weeks were sent to the lab via LBC. Ideally, this second visit should take place after the 1st or 2nd week of monitoring so that any errors can be corrected right away, especially in rapid or short-term assessments like this study.



Figure 26. Example guide to the identification of Caesionids used by field assistants and enumerators in Culasi, Antique and Ayungon/Bindoy, Negros

Orientlal during the study

Figure 27. Example

of male and female

gonads (Decapterus

macrosoma) showing

the different stages

of maturation. Sizes

in the picture are

proportional



Figure 29. Diagram illustrating the impact of using size at first maturity (Lm50) vs the

smallest size at maturity (Lm) as reference points in regulating fisheries catches

HARVEST CONTROL REFERENCE POINTS AND RELATED INFORMATIONThis section discusses the use of the data gathered (size, gonad maturity stage, gonad weight, and catch and effort of various gear types) in determining harvest control reference points and other information useful in formulating possible management interventions. 1. Size distribution of target species. For assessing stocks, length data are most meaningful when they adequately cover the progression from season to season within a year, or if examined in the context of age (e.g. growth) and reproduction (e.g. gonad maturation). Recruitment and spawning can also be inferred if the data covers a year or more.

Length data are presented as size frequency histograms by gear type to show the size distribution of target species caught by the fishery, and to check for differences in size selectivity (if any). These allow for formulating interventions that are specific to certain gear types rather than to all. For example, if catches from a certain gear are dominated by small individuals (e.g., juveniles), regulations can be limited to only those gear types. An example is provided by the size distribution of Selar crumenophthalmus (tamarong) caught by surface gill net (pukot) and hook and line (HL) off Negros Oriental (Fig. 28). The estimate of length at first maturity Lm50 is superimposed to provide a visual estimate of the proportion of mature individuals in the population that the fishery is catching. Lm50 is discussed in a later section below.

Sample interpretation. The combined size distributions from the two gear types show two (2) cohorts, with the smaller sized ones (mode: 12-13cm SL) caught by surface gill nets being largely shorter (younger) than the estimated length at maturity Lm50. The larger cohort (mode: 17-18cm SL), on the other hand, is caught mostly by hook and line and were mostly mature or spent during the study period (June to August 2016). Catching juvenile fish essentially removes them from the stock before they reach maturity, preventing them from contributing to the population. The more juvenile fish are caught, the higher the potential contribution that is removed. Since the smaller fish are caught mostly by one gear type, adjustments in this gear alone may provide an adequate intervention to the unsustainable practice of catching too many young fish. The smaller sized catches of gill nets is clearly due to the small mesh sizes used by the fishers. Hence the recommendation would be to increase the minimum mesh size limit for gill nets to allow smaller sized immature fish to pass through the nets. Such measures, however, need to be considered within the context of the entire fishery, since gill nets catch various species with widely differing sizes.

2. Size at sexual maturity. The size when the fish

becomes mature has long been used as a reference point for stock sustainability as this allows immature fish to grow, mature and spawn before being captured and removed from the stock. Between size at first maturity (Lm50) – the size at which 50% of fish becomes mature, and the smallest size at maturity (Lm) – the smallest size of mature fish observed, Lm50 is the more often used reference point. Lm50 is also the more conservative measure because all fish smaller than this size (immature or mature) including those up to Lm are allowed to pass through the net (see Figure 29), and can thus contribute to the stock through spawning. In contrast, if Lm were used as the reference, only those fish smaller than this size would be allowed to pass through the meshes of the net, preventing most, if not all, mature fish from contributing to the stock. Catching too many juveniles should be avoided because this reduces the number of spawners in the stock, which poses serious implications on recruitment to the fishery as a whole.

Maturity stages in fish can be determined either macroscopically (based on external appearance of fresh/preserved gonads) or histologically (based on sections of prepared gonad tissue viewed under the microscope). Histological examination, although more accurate and reliable, is more time consuming



and costly. Oftentimes, histologically-determined gonad development consists of six stages, i.e. stage 1 = immature, stage 2 = developing, stage 3 = mature, stage 4 = spawning active, stage 5 = spent and stage 6 = redeveloping. Macroscopic examination, on the other hand, is much less costly and can be done in the field without need of any equipment, provided the examiner is properly trained. It typically includes 4 stages: immature, developing, mature and spent, but is unable to stage redeveloping fish, which are oftentimes erroneously staged as immature leading to confusing results. Redeveloping gonads can only be recognized histologically, but indicators like minimum size of redeveloping fish can be set to guide macroscopic staging in the field. In a rapid assessment where there is little time to train field assistants, like in the present study, staging in the field should be verified by examining specimens back in the lab.

Data on gonad maturity stages by size class can be constructed into histograms to show at which size the onset of maturity sets in (Lm) (Fig. 30). The proportional distribution of mature fish across all size classes represents that portion of the stock that is able to spawn, or what is referred to as the spawning potential. These data can then be used to construct a cumulative frequency ogive, from which the “size at first maturity” (Lm50), and Lm95 can be derived. Lm95 together with Lm50 are then used in estimating the spawning potential ratio (SPR) of the unfished stocks (see section below). In the present study, the GeoGebra public domain software was used to construct the ogive. An example of a histogram of maturity stages and ogive is presented in Fig. 30.Sample interpretation. While the data cover only a period of over two months, a general trend can be recognized. At 16.5cm SL (mid-point), most fish are mature, although the smallest mature size recorded is 13cm SL (Figure 30a). Using the percentage of mature (& older) fish per size class, a maturity ogive was constructed and a logistic curve fitted (Fig. 30b) to the data using the model:

f(x) = M/[1 +(a . e-bx)] where: M = 100 a = 5,528,053,206.09 b = 1.48

Using this model, Lm50 was estimated at 15.6cm SL, while Lm95 was estimated at 17.54cm SL (Figure 30b). These parameters basically define the adult portion of the stock and are properly used to estimate spawning potential ratio, as discussed in a later section. Lm50 (or some higher point on the curve of Fig. 30b) itself may serve as a harvest control reference point for the (minimum) size limit of fish caught. Limiting catches to fish larger than this size allows at least those

fish sizes which attain up to 50% maturity to contribute to the stock. This, however, may not be the most conservative maturity-related harvest control reference point.

When the study period covers at least a year, the gonadosomatic index (GSI) can also be computed. GSI is the weight of the gonad relative to the body weight and is computed using the formula:

GSI (%) = [Gonad weight / Total weight] x 100

With GSI information, the spawning season(s) can be determined, with months showing the highest GSI values as the spawning peak(s). This information can then be used to compliment data on gonad development. Together, these information are critical when closed seasons are being considered as a management intervention.

3. Growth. Growth can be estimated from the progressive increase in length shown by monthly size frequency distributions of the population. This requires that length data cover a sufficiently long period to show a progression in size differences, typically a year at least. In situations where the collection of length data is limited to a few months only, relative age at a given length can be estimated provided that a growth equation (e.g. Von Bertalanffy Growth Model) for the same species has been constructed (from another area, or from previous years). Ageing studies based on

Figure 30. (a) Gonad maturity stages with size, and (b) maturity

curve of Selar crumenophthalmus in Negros Oriental. Note:

“n” above bars in (a) refers to the number of specimens

examined per size class



otoliths (fish) and statoliths (squid) may be too time consuming and costly for most multispecies stock assessment studies, but age at length/stage data may provide insights on the stock that could otherwise be masked by high variability in length data, particularly in heavily-fished stocks.

Growth models for several local species from different fishing grounds and from different years are available from various reports and studies, including Ingles and Pauly (1984), Corpus et al. (1985), Lavapie-Gonzales et al. (1997) and from FishBase (Froese and Pauly, 2016). For those species without any available information, published growth curves for closely-related (congeneric) species can be used as approximations. Aside from providing estimates of age, the parameters L and K of the Von Bertalanffy Growth model, together with estimates of the instantaneous natural mortality rate (M) are used in reconstructing the stock’s spawning potential (explained in next section). M is usually estimated when deriving total mortality rate of the stock. Since estimates of M are generally even less available than the growth parameters, it can be estimated for most target species in the study using the general formula of Pauly (1980), relating natural mortality to growth and average ambient water temperature in the fishing ground:

log M = - 0.0066 – 0.279logL + 0.6543logK + 0.4634logT

where: M = instantaneous natural mortality rate (annual) L = asymptotic length of the VBGM K = growth coefficient of the VBGM T = annual mean water temperature in the fishing ground (oC)

Fig. 31 is an example of the growth curve for S. crumenopthalmus.

Sample interpretation. Since the study covered only 2-3 months, it was not possible to derive growth models for any of the target species. A previously determined growth model for S. crumenophthalmus based on mean parameter estimates (L = 28.5cm SL; K = 2.0) from 3 areas in the Indo-West Pacific were used to estimate the relative ages of the 2 cohorts caught by surface gill nets and hook and line off Negros Oriental. In terms of relative age, the corresponding ages of the smallest mature individual recorded (Lm) and the length at first maturity (Lm50) are about 3.7 months and 4.5 months, respectively. Hence, it is likely that the juvenile cohort (mode: 12-13cm SL, ~3.5 months, Figure 28) will be spawning not in the following year, but in the next month(s). This species is likely to show either protracted spawning over several months and subsequent recruitment may be bimodal, with major and minor peaks. A closely related species, Selaroides

Figure 31. Growth curve of Selar crumenophthalmus caught off Negros Oriental. Note:

Lm50 (red line) is the size at which 50% of fish at that size are mature, while Lm is the

smallest size of mature fish observed

leptolepis, shows bimodal spawning peaks.4. Length-based spawning potential ratio (LB-SPR). The spawning potential ratio (SPR) is the fraction of the stock’s spawning potential that is not caught by the fishery (and therefore allowed to spawn). Hence, in an unfished stock, the SPR is 100% while values range from 0 – 100 for fished stocks. The more the overlap between the size distribution of fish caught by the fishery (including all gear types) and the size distribution of mature fish, the less the spawning potential left in the stock. SPR values between 20 – 40% are generally accepted as sustainable for fished stocks. Actual SPR values based on size, maturity (Lm50, Lm95), growth (K, L) and natural mortality (M) parameter values for the target species can be estimated using a web-based software accessible at http://barefootecologist.com.au/lbspr. Aside from SPR, the software also computes Lc (size at first capture) or the size at which 50% of all fish at that size are caught by the fisheries, which can be used as reference in establishing size limits. Hence, when the resulting actual SPR is below the set target minimum limit of 20-30%, the input size distribution can be adjusted by sliding from one to several size classes to the right (i.e., by increasing Lc) until the target SPR is attained. This necessarily corresponds to a larger Lc value which may serve as the target “length at first capture” the following year(s).

An example of the results for LB-SPR estimation is presented below (Table 5). Note that the Lc and the median length (L50) of the projected size distributions of fish in the combined catches are also presented. L50 estimates are more readily understandable and practical for management purposes. L50 estimates are computed from the ogives fitted to the original size distribution data.

Sample interpretation. At present, the estimated SPR of S. crumenophthalmus caught in the fishery



L (cm SL) L50 (cm SL) Spawning Potential Ratio20.08 (actual)20.7621.44

Table 5. Estimated spawning potential ratio of Selar crumenophthalmus caught off

Negros Oriental. Note: Lc = size at which 50% of all fish at that size are caught and L50 =

median length of all fish caught

15.0216.0217.02

16.0 %24.0 %33.0 %

off Negros Oriental is about 16.0%. This is lower than the recommended lower SPR limit which is 20%. The low SPR is attributed to the smaller sized individuals (= immature) caught in the fishery, of which 56% are below the Lm50. To increase the SPR of the species to a level between 20 and 30%, the L50 should be set between 16 and 17cm SL.

5. Catch and effort data. Daily records of catch (C) and effort (f) are summarized to give estimates of mean values for catch rate (kgs/fisher/trip), number of fishers per trip and number of hours fishing per trip by fishing gear. Because stocks of targeted species are widely distributed, those species targeted by neighboring barangays or even municipalities are from the same stock. For this reason, C and f data for sites with common targets should be pooled (by gear type) before the analysis. In this paper, the term “fishing trip” includes going out to the fishing ground, actual fishing, and then returning to land the catch. Most (municipal) gear types operate once a day only. Also, the term “catch rate” is used in this paper in place of “catch per unit effort” to avoid confusion. The mean number of fishing days per month is based on the actual trips of at least 5 specific target fishers by gear type in the monitored sitio/barangay over the monitoring period. This fishing frequency is multiplied by the number of units of the targeted gear type in the monitored sitio/barangay. The latter are based on actual counts and on-site interviews by the enumerators and field assistants. The reason for keeping the number and identity of target fishers fixed (as much as possible) is to ensure reliable estimates of fishing frequency. The latter is important in providing sound estimates of total catch (= supply) as this reflects the market viability of the target species.

The total catch by target gear type for the months covered by the study is: = Kg/fisher/trip X no. of fishers per operation X no. of fishing gear units X no. of fishing days/month X no. of months covered by the study

Annual catch (Cann) can be derived by multiplying the first 3 values in the equation shown above by 12 months, instead of only the months covered by the study. However, this estimate assumes that the target

species and the gear used to fish them are locally present in similar abundances throughout the year. Any seasonality in their abundance could invalidate this estimate.

Usually, the higher valued fish in the catches are listed down in record books of fish buyers in local common names and weighed separately, while the rest of the catch are simply categorized as “others”. Hence, some information on catch composition can be gleaned from records of local fish buyers. For this study, we told the enumerators and field assistants to count and separately record the weights of target species in the catches by gear type. In monitoring sites where closely related species were difficult to differentiate in the field (e.g., sardines and some siganids), the local common name for the group was used.

Fishing ground information (where fishers usually operate) can also be gleaned from the C and f monitoring data because a gridded map was used by enumerators so fishers could point out where they fished the day or night before. Hence, the gathered information can be summarized by gear, by target species and or both. These summaries in turn can be used as reference in zoning the fishing ground and in establishing areas for protection. Examples of such output from the monitored catch and effort data in Tinambac, Camarines Sur are presented below.

a. Catch of Monitored Gears. This reflects the catch (in kg and composition) of the monitored gears during the two month study period. If monitoring covered at least a year, seasonality of abundance and or dominance of target species in the combined catches and by gear type may be detected.

Sample Interpretation. The total monitored catch from the target fishing gears in the monitored barangays in Tinambac is 4,637.9 kg. Of this total, target species contributed 26.1% (1,210.5 kg), with Epinephelus quoyanus contributing the highest (15.2% or 703.4 kg) (Figure 32). The other 3 target species, Siganus canaliculatus, S. spinus and S. virgatus contributed 9.0% (415.8 kg), 1.9% (88.9 kg) and 0.1% (3.4 kg), respectively. Among the non-target groups, Scombridae (5.6%) and Lethrinidae (4.2%) showed relatively high contributions.

TIP: In presenting the pie chart, it is recommended that the smaller slices be placed in between the larger ones. This will make the presentation more visible. A detailed examination of the species composition of catches by gear type is presented in Fig. 33. Among the gears, hook and line and spear caught considerable amounts of E. quoyanus (18-20.1%), while catches of bottom set gill nets were dominated by scombrids (16.5%). The proportions of S. canaliculatus on the other hand were similar for the 3 gear types (8.2-9.9%),



Table 6. Total monitored catch of the target gears in the

monitored barangays in Tinambac, Camarines Sur for the

period June – or July 2016

while S. spinus were mostly caught by bottom set gill net (3.6%) and spear (2.2%). S. virgatus contributed only a small portion to the catches (0.03-0.2%). These results however, are based only on 2 months of data and may not fully represent the overall composition of the catches. The monitoring period was off-season for some target species (e.g., S. canaliculatus and S. spinus), and hence, their catches were in relatively smaller amounts.

b. Catch Rates and Effort. Catch rates reflect the catch efficiencies of the various fishing gears and are indicative of stock abundance. In this paper catch rates are expressed as kg per fisher per trip. Fishing effort may be expressed as number of fishers per gear type, which is derived by multiplying the number of fishers per operation by the number of gear units. Fishing frequency, on the other hand, refers to the number of fishing days per month and the seasonality of fishing activities, if any. If monitoring covered at least a year, seasonality of catch rates may have been detected, which may depict the seasonality of the species caught as well. Example outputs of catch and effort are presented below.

Sample Interpretation. Mean catch rates and fishing

effort (expressed as no. of gears units, number of fishers and fishing hours) of the gears monitored in Tinambac, Camarines Sur during the two month study period are presented in Table 7. Among the gears, hook and line showed the lowest catch rate (2.5 kg/fisher/trip), while catch rates of spear and gill nets were comparable, 3.9 and 3.6 kg/fisher/trip, respectively. The high catch rates of gill nets are primarily due to their efficient and active operation, their ability to catch pelagic and reef-associated fishes present and their longer nets (up to kilometers in length in some cases) which covers a wider area. High catch rates of spearfishing are attributed to its active operation. In most assessments, catch rates and fishing effort of passive gears are lower than the catch rates of active gears. In terms of overall effort, spear fishing alone made up 75% of all fishing

Agay-ayan San Antonio Caloco Total

Hook & line 48.9 329.4 378.2

Gill Net 22.0 382.3 1,515.7 1,920.0

Spear 375.3 583.6 1,380.7 2,339.7

Total 446.2 1,295.3 2,896.4 4,637.9

4,637.9

GearTotal Catch (kg)

Figure 32. Overall species composition of the monitored

fishing gears in barangays Agay-ayan, Caloco and San Antonio

in Tinambac, Camarines Sur

Figure 33. Species composition

of catches from bottom set gill

net, spear and hook and line in

Tinambac, Camarines Sur from

June - July 2016

Table 7. Catch rates and fishing effort of spear, bottom set gill net and hook and line in

Tinambac, Camarines Sur based on the results of the 2 month monitoring

trips from the 3 target gears in a month.Because the data covered only 2 months, seasonality

of catch rates cannot be determined. Another set of catch rate data (from Fish Forever) in the same site (Tinambac) but from the previous year (2015) can be used to examine within-year changes in catch rates of the various gear types. In general, catch rate seasonality is influenced by target species abundance, weather conditions (depends on the location of the study area) and fishing effort. When all these factors are favorable,



i.e. high abundance and good weather conditions which result to high fishing effort, catch rate will be high, and vice versa.

Sample Interpretation. In the example below, spear and bottom set gill net showed seasonality in catch rates — an increase from March-July, and a decrease thereafter (Fig. 34). For hook and line, the trend is different - catch rates increased in March-April, then decreased somewhat in May-June and then increased again. The observed seasonality in catch rates of spear and gill nets corresponds to the weather conditions and known spawning season of target species in Tinambac. The reported spawning season of most target species in the area, such as groupers and siganids, is during the summer months (March-May). The spawning season often corresponds with high catch rates. For weather conditions, from December to early March and late July to October, the area experiences rough seas due to the Northeast and Southwest monsoons. These rough sea conditions limit the fishing operations of gill nets in particular, and hence, the decline in catch rates. Limited fishing operations are supported by the decrease in the number of fishing days in each month and number of fishing hours per trip in January-February and June-August. For hook and line, the increasing catch rates during the SW monsoon (July-August) may be due to their reduced operations from other gear types (= less competition for resources) and less selective nature. In addition, hook and line operations are less affected by rough seas as compared to gill nets.

c. Extrapolation to Total Catch. The purpose of extrapolation is to estimate the production of the monitored gears in each of the barangays. The estimated production can be used as an indicator of the potential supply to markets. When the basis of extrapolation covered only a few months (i.e only 2-3 months) and was outside the spawning season of the target species, total catch may be underestimated. Thus, the ideal basis for extrapolation should cover at least a year, covering both the spawning (=peak season) and non-spawning seasons.

The total annual catch of each gear can be extrapolated by multiplying the catch rate (average kg/fisher/trip) by the mean number of fishing days per month, number of fishing months per year and number of fishers using the gear type (Table 8). An example of extrapolation is presented below using data collected in Tinambac.

It is always good practice to review and assess how realistic and how representative the data to be used in the catch matrix are, even if they are based on actual monitoring. In Table 8 below, Column B shows estimates of the number of fishing days per month by barangay and by gear type. The values highlighted in green are unrealistically low even if they represent the actual records of fishing trips in the monitored site. All

Figure 34. Catch rates and fishing effort of the monitored

gears in Tinambac, Camarines Sur based on data collected

through fisheries monitoring over the 8-month period January-

August 2015 of Fish Forever. Catch rate is expressed as kg/

fisher/trip while effort is expressed as no. of fishing hrs/trip

and no. of fishing days/month. Vertical lines denote standard

deviation

3 barangays are next to each other and are well within Tinambac Bay, so that all would share very similar sea conditions, and more importantly, the same stocks. Hence, it is unlikely that typical hook and line fishers in Brgy Agay-ayan would fish only 6 days in a month, when their neighbors are fishing 20 days a month. It is more likely that something atypical happened to the target fishers operating this gear type in Brgy Agay-ayan, such as getting sick at the same time or perhaps shifting to situations. In extrapolating, it is important that the figures used are closest to the typical values,



otherwise the extrapolation would be meaningless. In Table 8, the atypical values in column B were adjusted to 20 (column C), which is closer to the typical value based on data from neighboring barangays. In addition, because no other information on the number of fishing months per year is available, the value of 12 months is used.

Sample Interpretation. The estimated annual catch of hook and line, spear and bottom set gill net in Agay-ayan, Caloco and San Antonio is about 832.1MT. Among the gears, spear contributed the highest (433.6 MT or 52.1%), probably because a lot of fishers are using them, 388 fishers (only 120 fishers for hook and line and 300 for bottom set gill net) and their operations are more frequent (21-29 days/month). Between barangays, San Antonio showed the highest catch (562.6 MT or 67.6%), where the number of fishers is also the highest, 510 fishers (148 fishers in Agay-ayan and 250 fishers in Caloco).

d. Fishing ground. This information reflects the areas where fishers usually operate and where catch rates are high. Such information can be used as reference in zoning fishing grounds and in establishing marine protected areas. The frequency of trips and catch rates of all gears operating in the area are used. Data are converted to percent (%) (only for frequency of trips) and are represented by a symbol of different sizes for easier interpretation. Gears targeting specific fish groups, such as squid, may be presented separately as they show areas where these target groups are

Table 8. (a) Catch matrix

showing the estimated

annual catch of hook and

line, bottom set gill net

and spear in barangays

Agay-ayan, San Antonio

and Caloco in Tinambac

Camrines Sur, and (b)

summary of the estimated

annual catch by gear and

by barangay

abundant. An example of summarized fishing ground data is presented below (Fig. 35).

TIP: Use no more than 3-4 symbols in the gear maps since too many symbols clutters the map making it difficult to interpret.

Sample interpretation. In terms of fishing trips, most of the fishing activities are restricted to waters inside municipal waters, although those in a given barangay are not restricted from fishing in other barangays. To some fishers, this is a problem (based on mini-FGDs conducted), because according to them, fishers from other barangays benefit instead of them. Among the barangays, the most fished areas are San Antonio, Caloco and Pag-asa, although some fishers operate as far as east and north of Cimarron Islands.

For fishing gears targeting S. canaliculatus (Figure 35b), operations were also restricted inside the municipal waters, specifically in barangays Caloco and Pag-asa. For E. quoyanus (Figure 35c), gear operations were concentrated in barangays San Antonio and Pag-asa.

For catch rates, mean values are generally comparable between coastal barangays (2.0-2.6 kg/fisher/trip) (Fig. 36), except in areas 3 and 8 in Brgy Caloco where the lowest catch rates were recorded (1.0-1.7 kg/fisher/trip). The highest catch rate on the other hand was observed in area 9 (Cimarron Islets). Between gear types, spearfishing and hook and line showed higher catch rates in areas 4, 5, 6, 10 and 8, while bottom set gill net was highest in areas 9 and 2.



A BC

Figure 35. Map showing (a) where hook and

line, spear and gill nets are usually operated, (b)

where the target species Siganus canaliculatus

and (c) Epinephelus quoyanus are caught in

Tinambac, Camarines Sur (June-July 2016).

Figure 36. Map of

catch rates (kg/fisher/

trip) of the different

fishing gears used in

Tinambac, Camarines

Sur

Legend 20-41% 7-19% 0.1-3%



REFERENCES

Campos, W.L. and G.B. Castillo. 2007. Basic Fisheries Profile Information:

Inputs for FISH-BE. Philippine Environmental Governance 2 Project, Pasig City,

Philippines

APPENDIX 1. TYPES OF FISHING GEAR

1. Passive gears

• remains stationary and relies on fish moving to the gear

• inexpensive to operate

• have less potential damage to the marine environment

2. Active gears

• designed to be dragged or towed in order to catch fish

• more efficient in terms of landed catch weight

• accounts for a major part of world’s catch

• cause more damage to the marine environment

EXAMPLES OF PASSIVE GEARS

1. Traps – usually set for 8-36 hours during the day or night

2. Stationary nets – set against the water current and in intertidal area

during high tide

Squid trap Crab trap

Fish corral

Drift gill net (pamo)

Set gill net (palubog)

Bottom set gill net



3. Hook and lines – use single or multiple hooks, with or without floater

Simple handline (pasol)

Surface longline (kitang) Bottom set longline (kitang)

Hook and line

with floater

(pataw-pataw)



Troll (sibid-sibid)

EXAMPLES OF ACTIVE GEARS

1. Troll lines – use lured hooks and are usually dragged by running boats

Different type of lures used in troll lines

2. Squid jigs (tina-tina/lukon-lukon) – use umbrella hooks that are jigged in

the water

4. Beach Seine (baling/sahid) – operated by 8-20 people, net is semi-

enclosed and is dragged to the shore

5. Trawl – submerged to the bottom and towed by a moving boat

3. Drive-in Gill Net (dumbol) – use of poles and other scaring paraphernalia

to drive fish into the nets

Beam Trawl

Otter Trawl



6. Surrounding Nets – nets are set initially as semi-enclosed, use superlight

to attract fish

7. Scallop Dredge – submerged to the bottom and dragged by a moving

boat

8. Scoop nets (sikop/sikpaw) – used for scooping small sized fish/shrimps

in intertidal areas/river mouths

Encircling gill net (likos)

Round haul seine (lawag) – often used for schooling pelagics

Purse seine– often used for schooling pelagics



APPENDIX 2. COMMON PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS RAISED

DURING THE FOCUSED GROUP DISCUSSION

1. Environment-related

• Upland deforestation causing erosion and siltation

• Mangrove clearing for fishpond use

• Poison runoff from lake with fish cages during flood

• Mining causing erosion and siltation in coastal habitats

• Improper waste disposal

• Disposal of wastes by ships

• Disposal of wastes by factories

• Establishment of factories

• Stray animals and absence of comfort rooms

• No maintenance of artificial reef

• No MPA

• More frequent typhoon

2. Fishing facility and assistance

• Funds available for loan of fishers but the interest is quite high

• No ice plant for storage

• Lack of equipment and facilities for fishing

• Expensive materials for fishing

• Use of non-motorized banca (low technology)

• No fishport

• No market for fish catch

• Lack of financial assistance

• No alternative livelihood

3. Laws and Enforcement

• Lack of law enforcement or reinforcement

• Inactive bantay dagat

• Owner of big fishing vessels are politician/bigger people

• Fishing of other municipality in the municipal waters

• Lack of active participation from the coastal barangays

• No fishers organization

• FARMC and MAPC present but no legalities

• Lack of ordinances

• llegal fishing methods (purse seine, dynamite fishing, sodium)

• Intrusion of commercial fishing gears inside municipal waters

• Increasing fishing pressure by commercial fishers

• Cannot apprehend illegal fishers because of many requirements/legalities

4. Fishing gears and Fisheries

• Proliferation of payao or fish aggregating devise

• Increase in the number of fishers

• Declining catch

• Low market price for fishes

• Depletion of smaller fishes (e.g. dulong) that serves as food for larger

fishes

• Disappearance of some fish species

• Destruction of corals because of hulbot-hulbot

• Destruction of seagrass beds due to prawn/shrimp trawling



Date post:	10-May-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Design of an LGU implemented comprehensive fisheries ...

Documents