639.

736
C81
CORAL FARMING: A Tool for Reef Rehabilitation and
Community Ecotourism

Thomas Heeger and Filipina Sotto (eds.) 2000

Published through funding of the Gennan Ministry of Environment (BMU),

facilitated by the Gennan Technical Cooperation and the Tropical Ecology
Program (GTZ-TOB)

All Rights Reserved

Printed in the Philippines

Front Cover TEXT AND PHOTOS BY T. HEEGER

Background picture: Fisherfolk working in the farm. They have been certified
as Open Water Scuba Divers and use a surface air supplying compressor
system (Brownies Third Lung). Both divers have removed their fins to avoid
stirring up fine sediments, which could cause stress to the growing coral
fragments.

Front cover down from left to right:

(a) A diver cuts off a fragment from a colony of Acropora valenciennesi

using pliers.

(b) Women of the community are fixing the coral fragments with galvanized
wire on fossil limestone slabs.

(c) This Acropora divaricata fragment formed a stable secondary basal disc
in less than 12 weeks.

(d) These two coral fragments were selected for reef rehabilitation because
they are firmly attached to the limestone substrate and have grown to
considerable size. Coral fanning has proven to increase coral biomass
and provides additional income to fisherfolk through reef rehabilitation.
 Acknowledgements
The Coral Farm and Ecotourism Project is a joint project between
the University of San Carlos, Marine Biology Section and the
Ministry of Environment (BMU) facilitated by the Tropical Ecology
Program of the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ- TC>B).

The project team would like to thank first of all the people of
Barangay Caw-oy for the good times during our work together for
a better life and environment.

Special thanks to the following institutions, agencies and persons

for financial support and commitment to improve the coral reefs:

• German Technical Cooperation, Tropical Ecology Program

(Dr. G. Bruzak, Dr. C. Baetke, Mrs. M. Hammer)
• Center for International Migration and Development (CIM)
• University of San Carlos, Marine Biology Section
• Commission on Higher Education- Center Of Development (Dr. A. Alcala)
• Rotary Club of Cebu Fuente District 3860 (Mr. V. Del Fierro)
• Forderkreis der Riffaquarianer (Mr. D. Knop)
• German Embassy Manila (Mr. A Reichardt)
• GTZ Office Manila (Mr. B. Winkler, Mrs. C. Frigillana)
• US Peace Corps (Ms. M. Cashman and Mr. S. Albert)
• Hon. Congressman of 6th district, (Mr. E. Herrera)
• Office of the Mayor of Lapu-Lapu City, (Mr. E. Weigel)
• Barangay Captain of Caw-oy, (Mr. A. Amores)
• Alf Verbum Design Center (Br. A. Flores)
• Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR, Mr. A. Cerilles)
• Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR, Dr. C. Corrales)
• Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Resources Development
(PCAMRD, Dr. R. Guerrero)
• Plantation Bay Resort and Hotel (Mr. M. Gonzales)
• International Marinelife Alliance, (IMA, Dr. V. Pratt, Mr. B. Ordillo)
• Dr. Sabine Schoppe (CIM)
• Fisherfolk of Consuelo, Camotes
• Mr. M. Langevoord (Dutch marine biologist)
• Mr. A. Arong and Mr. N. Tandayag (Crew of "VIOLIX")
• The staff and personnel of the USC Marine Biology Section
• Marine Biology students and volunteers from different countries
 PREFACE

This book edited by Heeger and Sotto, depicts the dual role of coral
reef farming in rehabilitating degraded reefs and in providing
alternative livelihood opportunities for fisherfolks.

The importance of coral reef farms in the archipelagic setting of the

Philippines cannot be overemphasized. Our 7,106 islands provide
some 25,000 km 2 of productive coral reef areas, home to some 500
species (or 83%) of known coral species. But our coral reefs are
being endangered by diseases and the synergistic effects of
environmental degradation. If left unchecked, it is predicted that
some 10% to 30% of the coral reef species would be extinct in the
next 50 years.

This compilation discusses various techniques of reef rehabilitation

and subsequently highlights the economic and ecological benefits of
community-based coral farming. It draws on the particular experience
of the two-hectare Olango Coral Farm, established in a natural
environment with the participation of the local community. The
objectives of this farm is to serve as a nursery for coral fragments,
maintain biodiversity and generate income for the fisherfolk by
marketing the farm-grown coral fragments for rehabilitation and
ecotourism.

The workteam likewise tackles certain issues raised by the scientific

and local community regarding the over-impact of the coral farm on
the ecology and the community. Although some of these issues
remain unresolved, nevertheless this work affords us a solution or
action plan with regards to the problem of coral reef degradation.
Coral farms are tools for reef rehabilitation and community
ecotourism.

In combining scientific knowledge and community participation, the

problem and solution of reef degradation assume a different
perspective. This gives way to the concept of community-based
resource management, wherein the members of the community or
the stakeholders take responsibility in managing their reef resources.

J~~-
Fr. Fr ncisco T. Estepa, SVD
Presi ent, University of San Carlos
 Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Preface

Chapter 1
Coral Farming: A Tool for Reef Rehabilitation and Community
Ecotourism..............................................................................................1
1.0 Introduction ............................................. ___ ........ _......... _. __ ... _........ _._ .1
1 .1 Why farm corals? ..........................................................................4
1.2 Threats to coral reefs 6
2.0 Rehabilitation of Coral Reefs ·············································-·····-----····7
2.1 Techniques of reef rehabilitation....................................................7
3.0 Community-Based Coral Farming ...................................................8
3.1 Site requirements and community preparation_ ..............................9
3 .2 Collection of coral fragments .........................................................12
3.3 Fixation of corals 15
3.4 Nursery technique.... : ................................................................... _15
4.0 Community-based Coral Reef Rehabilitation ..................................17
4. 1 Site requirements..........................................................................17
4.2 Selection and collection of coral fragments in the farm .................. 18
4.3 Reef rehabilitation technique ........................................................ _19
4.4 Monitoring of fragment survival_ .................................................... _20
4.5 Comparison of reef rehabilitation versus
non-reef rehabilitation sites .......................................................... 21
5.0 Funding for Reef Rehabilitation .......................................................21
5.1 Export of farm-grown corals ..........................................................22
6.0 Benefit-cost Analysis of Coral Farming···········································23
6.1 What is at risk if the productivity of coral reefs decreases? ........... 25
6.2 Infrastructure cost ........................................................................ _26
6.3 Operational cost .......................................................................... _28
6.4 Ecological and social benefits through coral farming and
reef rehabilitation ......................................................................... 29
7.0 General Remarks on Code of Practice for
Professional Diving ......................................................................... _30

Chapter II
The Socio-economics of Coral Farming:
The Caw-oy Experience..................................................................33
1.0 Introduction 33
2.0 Site Profile · · · · ···· · · · · · · · · · · ·· · · · ·· ·· ·· · · · ·· ··· · · · · · · · ··· ··· · ······ · · · · ·· ··· · ·· · · · ······ · ····· · · ·34
3.0 Community .iiivoivement ·coraf F·arming::::::: :: ::::::::::: ::::::: :: :::::::::
iri. 36
3.1 Who are ir,volved? ........................................................................36
3.2 Process of involving the community ..............................................37
3.3 Data gathering ............................................................................. _37
3.4 Planning with the people ...............................................................38
3. 5 Actions ...................................................... _..................................38
3.6 Core group building_ ......................................................................3~
4.0 Issues ............................. ----------············ __________ . _____ .. _. _.. ________ . __ .......... __ .... __ 4
Chapter Ill
Legal Issues on Coral Farming in the Philippines ................43
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................43
2.0 Legal Issues Raised..........................................................................44
2.1 Issue 1: Is the establishment of coral farm in Caw-oy legal ........... 44
2.2 Issue 2: Is USC-MBS allowed to implement community-based ·
coral farming in Caw-oy? .................................................44
2.3 Issue 3: Is coral farming illegal? ....................................................45
3.0 Remarks ····························································································46

Chapter IV
Setting up Ecotourism Ventures:
The Olango Coral Farm Ecotour..................................................48
1.0 What is Ecotourism? 48
1.1 Community organization and participatory planning·············· ........ 51
1.1 Product development ...................................................................56
2.0 Guiding Questions for Community-based
Ecotourism Product Planning··························································56
3.0 Based on the Above Assessment, the Ecotour
Product Development is Feasible,, ..................................................59
3.1 Target market and packaging.................................................... 59
4.0 Behind the Scenes: Costing and Pricing
for the Olango Coral Farm Ecotour Package...................................61
4.1 Fine tuning the ecotourism product with tour operators 62
4.2 Community produced souvenirs .65
··················································

ChapterV
The Coral Trail: Ecotourism Attraction ····························-··-·····68
Legends 70
Plate 1 · 71
PI ate 2· ·······························································································73
Plate 3·······························································································15
Plate 4 ······· ........ · ....... ·· ... ........ ·11
··--·-················-··································································-······
Plate 5............................................................................................... 79
Plate 6··················································--···················--·-·····--------------··81
Plate 7
Plate 8................................................................................................83
85
·-···········--·····-········-·························-········································
Plate 9 ... -. -. -. -.... -.... -. ----................... -...... ---........... -.-. --.... --.. -.. --. -... -....... .87
Glossary ............................................................................................... __88
References 89
Append ix 1 ······························································································93
Append ix 2 ······························································································94
--------------···················-·-·----·--·--·-····--·-·····------------------------·········
Chapter I

CORAL FARMING: A Tool for Reef Rehabilita-

tion and Community Ecotourism
Thomas Heeger, Filipina Sotto, Joey Gatus, Cristeta Laron and Carsten Huttche

1.0 Introduction
11
••••• Man marks the earth with rnin-hts control stoys with the shore.... 11

(English poet Lord George Gordon Byron, 1788-1824)

The first part of Lord Byron's statement accounts for the state of our
ocean today, the second part holds true as well because man's ac-
tivities are indeed uncontrolled beyond the shore. The extent and
depth of human interactions causing stress to marine environments
is greater than ever before. According to Wilkinson (1998) the sum
of stresses caused by deforestation, pollution, soil runoff (25% of the
earth's top soil is already lost (Raven 1988), coastal development,
urbanization and overfishing have taken its toll, resulting in a reduc-
tion of productivity and loss of biodiversity at rates that gain speed
(Plate 1d).

Scientific-based concerns of conserving the ocean and adequate

measures are contradictions to the continuing exploitation of re-
sources by all means (Pauly and Chua 1988). The situation
is not restricted to developing countries, where poverty and lack of
alternatives leave hardly any options, highly industrialized coun-
tries also failed in managing their resources sustainably. For in-
stance, the fishing industry has been promoted through government
subsidles and loans for fishermen to avail of sophisticated gears. As
a consequence of the increased fishing effort, particularly in the
North Atlantic, blunt neglect of data on fish population systematics
and selfish national interests in fisheries, most commercially tar-
geted stocks collapsed. Whether the point-of-no-return has already
passed remains to be seen in the future. Right now, some govern-

1
ments buy back-subsidized fishing vessels and provide incentives to
fisherfolk for the days they refrain from fishing.

The conflict between conservation and economics of resource utili-

zation has gained much attention when it was proven that sustain-
able catches are not necessarily an advantage in economic terms.
Clark (1973) showed that it is economically justifiable to kill all blue
whales and invest the revenues in a growing market instead of
waiting until the population recovers allowing sustainable catches.

Even if the problem of conservation is globally recognized for some

species, such international concerns may not jive with national is-
sues: when the drastic decline of whales was recognized in the
1960s, an indefinite moratorium on commercial whale hunting was
signed in 1982. Yet some nations (Norway, Japan, Russia and Ice-
land) continue to violate the moratorium for cultural, traditional or
simply economic reasons.

We have been aiming for a sustainable use of our resources, how-

ever, mankind has not proven to be able to sustain any natural re-
source in history. It is in the nature of humans to consume, which is
not necessarily negative per se instead may have even an environ-
ment enhancing effect if the carrying capacity is not exceeded. The
Yanomami tribe in the Amazon was able to meet all their needs from
the forest resources and still has a positive impact on the ecosys-
tem, because they apply selective and non-destructive ways to util-
ize their resources. Why can we not follow such example? Well, it
has been calculated that a single Yanomami Indian needs 777 hec-
tares of forest (that is a square with more than 2.7 km side length) to
maintain the ecological balance of the system permanently un-
harmed (Taylor 1988). Precisely this is where the main problem in
the 21st century lies and will become more serious in the near fu-
ture: limited space for too many people. With the rapid population
growth, particularly in developing countries, the competition for re-
sources would be far beyond sustainable level (Plate 1c). In just a
century the world population increased sixfold from 1 billion to 6 bil-
lion people.

Logically, with less resource users the chances for sustainability are
higher, yet in the coming decades the number of people most likely

2
will not decrease, hence. food production has to increase. This was
successfully demonstrated on land by modernizing farming tech-
niques and recently, genetically enhanced products.

Meanwhile attempts to increase t~e productivity of the sea are still in

their infancy. Aquaculture with high capital investment and intensive
farming of marine organisms for export, at high environmental costs,
will not solve the resource shortage in developing countries. Inter-
restrial farming the soil is prepared for planting, growth is carefully
tended and harvest is the output of the effort invested. When trans-
lated to the sea. productivity could be easily enhanced. A commu-
nity-based small-scale sea ranching, using low-tech set ups, which
are non-extractive, but enhancing has potential in improving produc-
tivity. Examples of sea-ranching organisms are those belonging to
low trophic levels (e.g. sea urchins, sea cucumbers, giant clams ,
abalone, top shell, spider conch, rabbit fish etc), capable of building
proteins with minimal losses in respiration (Table 1).

Table 1. Environmental and fisheries management measures

for conserving remaining resources.
Environmental Measures Fisheries Management Measure~
• Monitor coastal construction for strict en- • immediate stop of government subsidies for
vi ronmental compliance fishing vessels or gears

• stop mangrove conversion into aquacul- • stop issuing fisheries permits for commer-
ture ponds cial fistiers

• ban on logging, only reforested area may

• ban commercial fishers from coastal waters
be harvested

• iostan sewage systems • control mesh size

• phase out of large vessels
• improve solid waste management (no renewal of licenses)
• environmental masterplan as government
• stop of destructive fishing techniques
priority
• comm itment from public officials beyond • invest in rehabilitation programs
their terms of office

• environmental education In elementary • I

and tilgh-sctiool ;currlctJll'Jm

3
Efforts to increase the productivity of the sea will be futile if the con-
ditions for healthy ecosystems continue to deteriorate. Likewise, ex-
isting laws and regulations have to be strictly enforced to conserve
the remaining resources.

1.1 Why farm corals?

Coral reefs in the Inda-Pacific Region, where the Philippine Archi-

pelago belongs are "hot spots" in terms of biological diversity. The
18,000-km long coastlines of 7,106 islands favor about 25,000-km2
highly productive coral reef area. Of the 600 shallow water coral
species known to science, 83 % are found in the Philippines sup-
porting approx. 2,200 fish and tens of thousands of invertebrate
species, and there are still quite a number undescribed ones (Plate
1e,f) (Wells and Hanna 1992; White and Cruz-Trinidad 1998}. This
rich marine resource is highly at risk considering the rapid rate by
which coral reef worldwide are degraded through the synergistic ef-
fect of man-induced stresses (Wilkinson 1998}. New approaches
are needed to mitigate the situation.

Basically, the solution to this problem sounds simple: reduce the

stress on the reefs and rehabilitate the degraded ones. Precisely,
this was the entry point for coral farming. After 5 years of imple-
menting micro-projects on Coastal Resource Management in part-
nership with local communities, we tried to tackle this problem with
the combination of addressing two issues: rehabilitation of degraded
reefs and at the same time providing alternative livelihood to fisher-
folk. If the community is farming corals for reef rehabilitation and
biodiversity conservation it could result to a shift from the use of de-
structive fishing to a more environmentally enhancing activity. Fur-
thermore, this will reduce the pressure on fishery resources and ad-
ditionally increase coral cover and productivity.

There are two main reasons why coral farming for reef rehabilitation
could be beneficial. One is ethical: who has ever seen the teeming
bounty of reef organisms from colorful reef fishes to corals of various
shapes and sizes, crabs, shells, worms and the array of other crit-
ters crowed together, all following a complex but surprisingly func-
tional system of feeding and reproduction made possible through
sophisticated strategies of adaptation, feels the breath of creation

4
(or in less religious terms: evolution) and will support any biodiver-
sity conservation or rehabilitation efforts. The second reason is eco-
nomics: consumptive and non-consumptive benefits which can be
derived from the existing healthy coral reefs (Table 2), ranging from
high fish catch, coastal protection to genetic variability among indi-
viduals of the same species (Plate 1g). From the anthropocentric
point of view, the economic reason appears to have more weight.
Whichever of the two reasons above is considered, there is consen-
sus among stakeholders, managers, politicians and scientists that
conserving healthy and productive coral reef ecosystems is impor-
tant and worthwhile (Berg et al. 1998; Constanza et al. 1997; Spur-
geon 1992; White and Cruz-Trinidad 1998).

Table 2. Consumptive and non-consumptive benefits

from
'.
coral
- . --
reefs.
; -. ~. ~------- -~-~-----···- -
- .. . - ... -- - ~- ___ .. - ..._ .,

;:.~-:.-: fjstier1~:(lncl~diOQ;~·ny'h~~~sJdd manrie org~n,sm: •... >- - · .,: · ·

;: · __. .. -~·-,t~sµ·~, as_·!,sb.,t'-~"~nJS(mqnus~~· ~~tn.~Qrrt1$•. · ~ I ; : .. _· ·_ : -··_- • ~- • _

t;- ·:·;: ~~~~d'~'.-?:~{l ~- ·- :

1
~ :-<:'. ~',; ; : ~~... ,. ~"·3·1
0

1 '; C , ·., •• : ' '. ' : ~·- • •• • , • , , ·:.: ;;; .,:~ :-.:

• tourism (ecotourlsm, recreation)

rit:~.~~~~fe?..,._~:~~::;:"""~--rs:::r";v3~_z-- o::--~ -:_ -,: _.:_·/ :·-_:•·-~0··7
• diversity of species
{~\1:ffij11e[c.:$$~;[::T!~-·- ,·_'/). :,; .-~-~:~-L /': :- /:,-: . -J~~·~--:":"7.·;~•:.~.::~·7
• coastal protection (erosion control, beach enhancement)

During the last two decades many projects have been undertaken
and publications that deal on theories, experiences and lessons
learned on coral reef management emphasizing the best strategies
on how to achieve sustainable use of resources. However, their im-
pact on the community level was admittedly low and the destructive
exploitation meanwhile reached a dimension where the point of con-
serving resources in their full capacity might have surpassed. What
is urgent now is to take action in protecting the coral reefs from
harmful consequences. Coral farming for reef rehabilitation and
ecotourism could model the way for a new approach to serve the
people and the reefs.

5
1.2 Threats to coral reefs

The coral reefs worldwide are threatened by either natural or an-

thropogenic causes (Wilkinson 1998). Although history has shown
that since the evolution of corals starting from the Ordovician period
approx. 500 million years ago, they were able to overcome all natu-
ral threats such as diseases, predators, parasites, sea surface tem-
perature variabilities and physical forces. However, those natural
threats may have a dramatic effect on local reefs but are most
probably not accountable for large-scale coral reef degradation as
long as the conditions for coral growth remain. This seems not to be
the case anymore: the reports on diseases and parasites are in-
creasing. Some scientists argue that the Epizoic Disease PEY (An-
tonius 1999), Skeleton Eroding Disease SEO (Antonius 1999), Black
Band Disease BBD (Santavy et al. 1997) and Yellow Blotch Disease
(Korrubel and Riegl 1998) are indicators of stress caused by deterio-
rating water quality. Especially during the last decades the EL Nino
Southern Oscillation (ENSO) coupled with elevated sea surface
temperatures (SST) has been affecting the reefs (Plate 1a) (Linden
1998). But corals' natural ability to survive under suboptimal tem-
perature condition through recruitment has proven to be a success-
ful survival strategy. This balancing mechanism might get easily lose
if human-triggered climate change by greenhouse gases would
cause prolonged periods of higher water temperatures: In this way
the corals will not have the time needed for regrowth which could
result in impoverished reefs with considerable loss in diversity.

Actually, anthropogenic threats are the main causes for the most se-
rious coral reef devastation and long lasting effect (Wells and Hanna
1992). The synergetic effects of pollution, sewage, solid waste,
coastal construction, urbanization, forest and mangrove denudation,
destructive overexploitation (Plate 1d) imposed multiple stresses on
the reefs in a short span of geological time scale (not more than half
a century) leaving the corals and their associated fauna little means
to adapt and survive. Should this trend persist, the predicted species
loss of reefs might reach 10 to 30% over the next fifty years.

6
2.0 Rehabilitation of Coral Reefs

2.1 Techniques of reef rehabilitation

The technology of reef rehabilitation was developed mainly to repair

damaged reef areas by both natural (e.g. Crown-of-thorns infesta-
tions (Plate 1d), typhoons, bleaching etc.) and man-made causes
(e.g ship grounding, anchoring, destructive fishing (Plate 1d), coral
mining, temporary pollution) and as mitigating measure for coastal
development (Precht 1998). The concept of rehabilitation is not a
new idea, however, the strategies differed (Table 3). Generally, all
methods have the same objective: to improve coral cover by either
providing suitable substrates for coral recruits, supplying recruits, or
by fragmenting donor colonies and transfer them to degraded reef
sites. But because the working time of scientists with expensive
equipment (SCUBA) is involved, the rehabilitation efforts are still
costly and possible only on small scale.

Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of different methodologies in

reef rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation
Description of
Approach Advantages Disadvantages
the Method
(Sour~e)
.. : .•. --· - ..... -----= - . -
• Artificial reef any design made of - providing substrate - fish attracting device
Clari< & Edwards tires, bamboo, concrete - usually accepted by wide - unnatural material
(1999): Fitz- or other materials de- range of organisms set- - small scale only
hardinge & Baily- ployed on the seanoor Uing on hard substrate - coral biomass
Brock (1989) to provide substrate for - relatively cheap increases very slow
benthic organism - substrate is not a
limiting factor
• Coral trans- extraction of entire - restocking the - costly, time Intensive
plantation colonies from donor site rehabilitation site with - small scale only
Birl<eland et al. and transfer to the re- large colonies - SCUBA required
(1979): Clark & habilitation site - physical protection of - high training Input
Edwards (1995); recruits f.hrough colonies - impoverishing donc,r site
Edwards & Clari< fast coral cover increase - high mortalities
(1999) - decreases
. .
coral
-- . biomass
--
• Electrically wire construction with a - faster growth of corals - small scale only
stimulated cathode and an anode - increase coral biomass - expensive and time
coral growth are connected to a any design possible intensive
enhancement power source (e.g. solar - all species tested - high infrastructure
Hilbertz et al. panels), accretion of showed input
(1977); van Treek brucite and aragonite positive response - not suitable for all sites
& Schuhmacher depositions through - high training input
(1997, 1999) mineralization process - SCUBA required
of seawater support
coral growth

7
Rehabilitation Description of
-Approach Advantages Disadvantages
the Method
(Source)
• Larval mature colonies are - only few colonies are - small scale only
reseeding kept in aquaria until harvested from the wild - expensive and time
Franklln et al. release of eggs and - high number of recruits Intensive (aquarium
(.1998); Oren & . sperms. Larvae settle - enhanced natural setup)
Bei:iayahu (1997) on ~ubstrate and are method - substrate limited to
reseeded to the reef size of aquaria
- natural competition
among recruits
reduces survival
per area
- high mortality rate during
reseeding
- SCUBA required
• Coral fragment coral fragments are cut - cost effective and fast - only few species suitable
re-seeding off from donor colonies - increase coral biomass - site must meet requirements
Harriott & Fisk and deployed to the - large scale possible for successful deployment and
(1988); Highsmith rehabilitation site with or - training input low high survival rates
(1982); Kaly without being attached - SCUBA required
(1995); Lindahl individually to substrate
(1998); Yap et al.
(1992)
·•·Community- coral fragments are cut - increase of coral bio- - high training input
based coral off from donor colonies, mass - infrastructure required
farming fixed on natural sub- - majority of species -SCUBA required
Heeger et al. strate and after forma- tolerate fragmentation
(1999); Heeger et tion of secondary basal - high survival rates
al. (2000) disc deployed at reef (> 90%)
rehabllitation site - higher natural recruit-
ment
survival after rehabilita-
tion
- cost efficient because
fisherfolk carry out work
- increase of environ
mental
awareness and resource
ownership
- provide alternative llvell-
hood for flsherfolk
- less pressure on fish
resources
- community benefits by
marketing the fragments
for reef rehabllitatlon

3.0 Community-based Coral Farming

The coral farming and reef rehabilitation technique with the partici-
pation of the community has two major advantages: First the overall
costs is lowered down to a fraction compared to what is paid for the
scientist's labor cost and second the number of people involved al-

8
lows an almost unlimited output of fragments for large scale reef re-
habilitation (Plate 2a ).

3. 1 Site requirements and community preparation

The major considerations in the selection of a coral farm site are the
general conditions for coral growth, availability of donor corals (high
diversity of species), distance to reefs for rehabilitation within a
range of 20 nautical miles and participation of the local fisherfolk
community.

The physical conditions required for coral farming are accessibility to

the site preferably protected against strong wave action and clear
water (a minimum of 12 m Secchi depth visibility at all times), a sa-
linity between 32 and 36 ppt and water temperature above 22° C (for
faster growth temperatures above 25° Care recommended) to a
maximum of 30° C. Should maximum annual water temperature ex-
ceed 30° C, the fragmentation activities should be suspended until
such time that the temperature drops to normal.

The vicinity of the farm site should be free from freshwater inflow of
rivers. Freshwater run-off after a heavy downpour should not be a
problem if the farm is more than 100 meters from the shore without
extensive reef flat. If the farm is planned close to urban and/or in-
dustrial settlements, the impact of pollution should be assessed by
comparing the coral cover and species abundance of the farm site
with that of a nearby reef. Should the site surveyed have low coral
cover and species abundance then it should not be selected. Tidal
currents usually have positive effects on coral reefs such as flushing
and providing plankton corals are feeding on. However, if the tidal
current exceeds 1m x s- 1 this may dislocate fragments.

The bottom topography should have extensive sandy or seagrass

substrate with isolated coral patches at a depth ranging from 6 to 12
meters (Plate 2b). In shallower areas, the lateral particle transport is
faster during moderate winds and wave action that the corals get
buried within a few days. Whereas in deeper areas the growth of
corals is expected to be slower which could result to a lower turn-
over rate of fragments in the farm and as a consequence increases
costs. Large reef flats with steep drop off are not suitable coral farm

9
sites. Even if an area appears to be suitable as a farm site because
of other considerations, priority should be given on reefs with natural
abundance of corals since this will guarantee that the abiotic condi-
tions are met (Table 4 ).

Table 4. Abiotic, biotic and social site requirements for coral

farming {nm= nautical mile).
Abiot~~-~e~-~~-r~~!~~~:j
. •· ..... ~'-'·. --#-. ._!._·:.,_ ......
rrJ~iotit
~~q~ire~-·: .· ' -·· so~ial ~equi~a"m~nts
'-'---·- - --~--·-- --• - .• - #--=- - ' - - -· -
• site accessibility • abundant and highly diverse • acceptability and support
coral species in the adja- of the project objectives
cent reefs by the local community
• . clear' water (minimum 12 m :•- ··abundance of'p~dators • community with artisanal
Secchl d~ptfl~vlslbility at ail ·· (coralllvorous fish; starfish fishermen willing to en-
times), sal!nify· between 32 etc.) Is within natural limits gage ln coral farming
to 36 ppt,= water tempera-
ture 22 to 3Cf.C
• no freshwater inflow • reefs with potential donor • community organizer
from rivers within 5 nm corals in 5 to 10 nm vicinity available
range
• . very low ln~ustri~I and/or. ·--: '. t.· ; . reef ·reh~~tli~ijon slte;s ~lthln . · • ·. ·· legs.I ~Lippert by i..GU
urban pollution within 5 nm.. · 20-'30 nm. .. . . . (MOA, TQR, Barang~y
·· Resolutions etc.)
• moderate tidal currents
(max. 1 m x s· 1 )
• bottom topography sup-
ports extensive sandy
substrate with isolated
Goral patches at 6 to 12 m
depth

As much as possible a reef with donor potential should be found in

the vicinity of the proposed farm site, not more than 10 nautical
miles and can be reached within 30 min by boat. Likewise, the reefs
targeted for rehabilitation should be reachable in two to three hours
(20 to 30 nm} from the farm site to minimize the stress of the coral
fragments caused by long transport. Figure 1 shows the coral farm
site in Barangay Caw-oy, Olango Is., Cebu, Philippines.

Prior to the set up of the farm, a survey should be conducted to

check the abundance of predators (Crown-of-thorns, corallivorous
fishes and shells and starfishes such as the pin-cushion starfish,
Culcita) (Plate 7b. c, d). Potential farm sites with high population
densities of predators compared to other healthy reef sites should
be validated with the fisherfolk whether this is seasonal or all year
round. The abundance of many predators can affect successful
coral farming.

10
The acceptability and support of the community are major elements
for the coral farm operation. A participatory planning process is rec-
ommended to brief the receiving community on the objectives of the
project, opportunities available as well as the expectations and.the

'
*
Mactan Is.
The Coral Fann

•
PHILIPPIN i

t2S
"E

Figure 1. Location of the coral farm site in Caw-oy (arrow), Olango Island,
Cebu, Philippines.

role of the community. Transparency and honesty regarding the

benefits and opportunities of the project are prerequisites to build
trust and confidence. Therefore, the community-organizing compo-
nent should be assigned to a person with a strong community or-
ganizing background and interest in marine ecology.

Project planning and community preparation may take six months,

but can be shorter if there is already an established link between the
community and the project implementor. In the case of Olango Coral
Farm Project the community was receptive of the proposed project
since they had good experience with the implementors in their pre-
vious projects (small-scale gardening, providing funds for water cis-
terns, supporting and designing comfort rooms, loans for fish traps,
scholarships etc.).

11
The other key element is strong commitment of the Local Govern-
ment units (LG Us) even beyond their term of office. Such commit-
ment from the LGU should be stipulated in a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) including Terms of Reference (TOR), Barangay
Resolutions and Ordinances etc. This is crucial for the continuation
of the coral farm operation beyond the project's term.

3.2 Collection of coral fragments (Plate 2, 3)

The divers involved in fragmenting corals have to be properly trained

on the techniques both in theory and practice by a marine biologist
to prevent damage to the reefs. It is recommended that the frag-
menting technique is checked under water by a supervisor (marine
biologist) before they fragment corals on their own.

The donor site is preferably a reef site with high coral cover and di-
versity (Plate 2e,f). Collection of fragments should be done in the
morning to be able to complete the work and deploy the fragments
to their designated nursery units within one day (should the work be
discontinued due to bad
weather conditions, fragments Things to Prepare for Coral Farming:
will be placed in the baskets • Boat arrangements
on the seafloor). • Containers (for each 100-150 fragments one
plastic barrel, styrofoam box etc.)
• Pale (for filling of barrels and/or water
Upon reaching the donor site, change
four to six divers are able to • 1 basket (approx. 30 I) for each diver
• 1 set of pliers, hammer and chisel for each
collect about 1,500 fragments diver
in one hour, gear up and • SCUBA gear for each diver, or surface com-
pressor
agree on a maximum bottom
time (Plate 2b). For diving safety, the divers work independently in
pair (both divers are in sight of each other). The direction of collec-
tion should start always opposite the current direction so the return
to the boat with the fragment filled basket will be easy and safe.

There are seven growth forms of corals: massive, columnar, en-

crusting, branching, foliaceous, laminar and free-living. All the
growth forms can be fragmented using hammer and chisel provided
they belong to the suitable species (refer to list in Appendix 1). In
some branching or laminar growing species, the use of pliers is rec-
ommended for cutting the desired fragment size (Plate 2g).

12
Since the primary objective of coral fragmentation is to increase
coral biomass, this can only be achieved, if the donor coral colony
remains attached to the substrate and is not fragmented beyond half
of the colony size. Strict compliance with this requirement is crucial
to the success of the entire methodology! In the unlikely event that
the entire colony will be detached.from the substrate, resulting from
the use of pliers, hammer or chisel, fragmentation should be discon-
tinued and a firm position of the colony on the substrate should be
secured to facilitate natural reattachment.

Large table forming colonies such as Acropora (1-2m in diameter)

may be fragmented to an extent of 1Oto 20% of colony size, smaller
colonies up to 50% maximum (Plate 2h). Before fragmenting a col-
ony, check for fishes and invertebrates (also under the colony!) and
the growth architecture. Drive away animals that could be harmed
by the fragmentation. Try to chisel off main branches, which will re-
sult in pie like slices of fragments (Plate 2h).

Typical Coral Farming Day They can be further sub-

The entire activity wlll take a team of four persons
fragmented to obtain the
about 6-8 hours (depending on transportation dis- small fist-size fragment
tances approx. 10 hours)
(approx. 4 cm x 8 cm), best
Morning: suitable for further growth.
• logistic preparations (staff, equlpr:nent, food etc.)
• collection of fragments at donor site
Place the fragments in the
• transfer to coral fann (nursery) basket (Plate 3g). Collect
• fixation of fragments smaller fragments (result-
• fragments down to seafloor
ing from fragmentation)
Afternoon: • and deploy them on nearby
• fragments collected from ttie sea floor and
transferred to CNUs hard substrate (rocks, reef
limestone, dead resident
Equipment
• regular maintenance and stored·property corals etc.). Research has
shown that even some of
Important:
• sele~ healthy corals c:I many ~lfferent species the smaller pieces are able
• check for animals In arid under donor colony to attach to the substrate
before fragmenting
and continue to grow. In
..
•
•
take less than 50% of ttie colony
do not c6U~t underslZed ·corals
~eP'?-Y small plec;es of. corals- (resulting from ,
collection) to suitable su~trate: adjacent ,to the ·::
this manner, losses of coral
biomass can be minimized
colony. · · ·· · · · and the donor reef site will
• cut massive and submasslve colonies at ·the · be enhanced.
margin, not at the center •

13
Try to avoid handling coral species that may cause irritation. As a
rule of thumb fragment as many species as possible. Do not choose
only the fast-growing branching species like the acroporids but also
massive and submassive species. For massive and submassive
species select larger colonies (more than 30 cm diameter} and
chisel off from the margin close to the substrate. Refrain from cutting
a massive colony in half, because the whole colony might get de-
tached from the substrate.

Exclude donor corals with fouling organisms on major parts of their

colonies from fragmentation. These corals are already exposed to
higher stress levels and usually show retarded growth. Once the
basket is filled with fragments, get neutrally buoyant and return back
to the boat at the surface. Hand over the basket to the boat crew
and go down again.

At the surface, the water is allowed to drain out of the basket before
having it on board. The corals are transferred manually without de-
lay to the seawater filled containers. However, an exposure time of a
few minutes has not proven to affect the survival rate. It is recom-
mended to place heavy and sturdy fragments (mostly massive spe-
cies} first in the containers followed by the more fragile ones (mostly
branching species} on top. All containers should be covered to pro-
tect fragments from direct sunlight. A good indicator for the stress
levels of fragments is the mucus production of polyps. Change the
seawater in the containers every·30 min. In changing the water tilt
the container, retain the fragments by hand and drain approx. 80%
of the water. Refill carefully, by pouring the water along the side of
the container rather than directly on the corals. After fragmentation,
the boat is supposed to proceed to the farm site for coral fragment
fixation.

Remarks: A coral donor site which has just been dynamited has the
following advantages: the coral fragments can easily be picked up
(particularly massive corals, because they require more effort to
chisel them off) and dive time is saved. Additionally, collection of
blasted reef corals for farming provides a reasonable chance for
survival and may mitigate the overall destructive effects.

14
3.3 Fixation of Coral Fragments (Plate 4)

Arrangements with the fisherfolks should be made prior to the

transfer of fragments so that they are able to prepare the tools for
fixation. The coral fragments are then transferred to the basins filled
with seawater. Before the fragments are fixed, the limestone slabs
are washed with seawater. r--~----··-------
: · :Things to Prepare-for Coral Tying:
Limestone was purchased - .
from a commercial dealer in . Materials: . . .
Mactan with standard sizes ·• ·contalnei'$forfragments
• pilers ·
of 20 cm x 5 cm x 1.5 cm. • plastic canvass · ..
Each fragment is attached • galvanized wire# 18, # 18 (cut pieces of 25
to 35 cm length) ·
onto a limestone slab. If pos- • nmestone slabs (break Into parts, one sub-
sible the largest part of the strata for each-fragment) ·
·Important:
fragment should be. in con- .·• changewaterfrequenlly-lfcontamlnated by
tact with the substrate, most ··· ·: · antkXlrroslve. substances on pliers.
Of the Polyps a •~e or·1ented '. ·•.. place·eJc:h qgment,on Qne sqbstrate
' · • posltic,h ~t:i.fra ··'"-_ nt' rfln contactwith
upward in vertical position of substrate · · · ~ - ~ · ·
th e firag ment (Plate 4e • f) · .•• • ·orient polyps upward .
fix frag_menbf,·flj'riily on substtate with wire
The wire should be placed ends on the side
snugly around the fragment. • checkeachfragQl&nUortlghtffxatlonbefore
and firmly tightened at the releaalng lritQ:tbe~ter ·
side of the substrate using pliers (plate 4c). Cut off excess wire
ends. Before the fragment is released into the water check manually
for firm attachment. In case it is still loose, tighten the wire with pli-
ers. Since the pliers are protected against corrosion with oil, which
easily contaminates the water in the containers, the water should be
changed every 15 minutes.

Large fragments constituting of a single polyp (e.g. Lobophyllia,

Symphyllia etc.) should be fixed laterally to the substrate. For fragile
or delicate fragments two wires are used to attach them tightly to the
substrate (Plate 6g).

3.4 Nursery technique (Plate 5, 6)

After the women tied all the fragments to the limestone slabs and
threw them into the water, the divers collect the fragments from the
seafloor into the baskets using SCUBA or surface air supplying
compressor (Plate 5a).

15
If possible, massive and other heavy coral fragments should be
placed first in the baskets to avoid breaking off branches of more
delicate species. Loosely fixed fragments found may either be col-
lected or returned to the surface for retying or tightened with pliers
underwater. If tying is done under water the disadvantage is the re-
duced bottom time. Once the basket is filled (depending on basket
volume even two might be carried by one diver), the buoyancy de-
vice (BCD) is inflated (for SCUBA users) to establish neutral buoy-
ancy and the basket can be transferred to its designated coral nurs-
ery unit (CNU) (Plate 2c1 5 b, c). Compressor users lack the means
to establish neutral buoyancy and take their fins off to avoid stirring
up the sediments.

The fragments are transferred manually to the CNUs. A coral nurs-

ery unit is made of a concrete square structure, with an inner area of
1 m2 • The concrete frame has a dimension of 10 cm in width and 10
cm in height. Depending on the size and species of the fragments,
50 to 90 may be placed together in one unit (Plate 5d, e, f). A dis-
tance of 5 to 10 cm from each other is recommended (Plate 5g, h).
The growth of fragments should be monitored weekly.

Fragments falling down to the side have to be placed back to its ver-
tical position, unless they already reached a size where horizontal
position is more stable than vertical. Remove starfish predators, ac-
cumulated sand and dense algal assemblages from the CNUs (Plate
7a, c, d). Release predators to a
Preparation for the Deployment of safe distance (~200 m) from the
th
Fragmen~ to e CNUs: farm. Dead fragments (no more
Materials live tissues and polyps visible)
• Diving equipment should be collected and trans-
• baskets
• pliers ferred back to the Guardhouse
• CN~ ready for stocking (plastic canvass for recording and untying (the
In place)
Important: substrate can be re-used). Par-
• handle fragments with care that they tially dead fragments should not
maintain position on substrate
• establish neutral buoyancy or remove be removed immediately be-
fins when transporting fragments cause many of them can still re-
• do not overstock the CNUs (50 to 90 cover (Plate 7b).
fragments each)
• do not remove partially dead fragments

16
4.0 Community-based Coral Reef Rehabilitation
4.1 Site requirements

The community of the coral receiving site should be briefed using

nature interpretation materials about the background, coral farming
objectives, methodology and reef scaping through rehabilitation.
Ideally, the request for reef rehabilitation originates from a local
community who intends to improve the conditions of "their" reef. In
this way the community takes on the responsibilities to guard and
monitor the fragments growth beyond the rehabilitation activities.

A core group of key persons in the community should be identified

and encouraged to participate in all activities. A high level of eco-
logical awareness and support of the local community is essential
for long-term improvement of the reef.

First and foremost the reasons for reef degradation at a certain site
need to be verified. Any reef rehabilitation activity at a reef site with
persisting negative impact would be
a waste of effort and resources, since l"-portarit 'N~tes ;: ·
- • Inform community lrfdetafl -
it can be expected that the conditions · abouttheObJect1vesofco,-1· _
for coral growth are suboptimal. As a · reefrehabllltatlon -
general rule, sites with minimal coral • lcJeritlty icey persons.Jn·,ttie
cornr.nunlty and ·encourage
growth (less than 10% coral cover) ·partldpauon
should not be chosen for rehabil ita- • conduct LIT survey prior to ·
rehab actMUes with fisherfOlk
tion, unless the causes for the de- • no rehabllltaUon of reefs If
crease in coral cover and abundance degradat1on Is caused by
unldenUfted and persisting ·
have been identified and stopped. reason
· t th ' f
For lnS ance, e reason ,or ree eg- d • reef selected for rehab should
~ave at least 10% coral cover
radation (natural physical structure of .....,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.......
reef virtually destroyed = reduced to rubbles) is the exposure to
blast fishing or other destructive fishing techniques which later have
been abandoned, reef rehabilitation is advisable as long as the other
conditions for growth are met.

Attempts to establish a "seed reef' in an area where a natural coral

reef has never been formed will most probably be futile.
The ideal site selected for rehabilitation is characterized by easy ac-
cessibility, favorable abiotic and biotic conditions for coral growth

17
and an average depth of 6 to 12 m with hard s~bstrate (b~re rock,
rocky with accumulated sediments not exceeding 5 cm thickness,
dead resident corals). The cover of live resident corals should be
between 20 and 25%.

Prior to any rehabilitation activity a Line Intercept Transect (LIT) sur-

vey has to be conduc~ed together w!t~ t~e fi~herfolk ~o recor~ coral
cover, dominant species and to fam1hanze with the site (Eng,1sh et
al. 1997).

In one of the reef rehabilitation site of the project, the resident hard
coral cover was outcompeted by soft coral (Xenia sp.) with 38%
compared to 33% hard coral cover. Public beaches are located next
to that rehabilitation site and it is assumed that high organic influx
favored the luxuriant growth of Xenia. In fact, three month after the
rehabilitation some fragments have been overgrown by Xenia colo-
nies already. The data gathered during the survey will be the basis
for selecting corals species from the farm for the rehabilitation. All
objectives in site criteria evaluation should be explained to the
fisherfolk and they are encouraged to participate and identify the
criteria by themselves.

4.2 Selection and collection of coral fragments in the farm

(Plate 7)

The data from of the survey conducted at the proposed rehabilitation

site will be the basis for selection of fragments in terms of growth
forms suitable for the reef scaping. In case massive and submassive
are the dominant growth forms fragments for the rehabilitation will
be mainly sourced from farm stocks. Should branching species are
the prevailing growth forms at the proposed rehabilitation site, more
branching fragments should be selected from the farm.

Divers collect the fragments in baskets and transfer them into sea-
water filled containers at the boat. The only criteria in fragment se-
lection are healthy growth (intact skeleton, no fouling organisms)
and established firm contact with substrate (formation of secondary
basal disc). Most of the fragments will host fishes and a wide range
of invertebrates such as crabs, which stay with the fragment if
slowly, removed. Also the transport of several hours will be tolerated

18
by the associated fauna providing the water is changed once per
hour.

The divers count and transfer the fragments to the surface and re-
port the number to the supervisor who records it and informs the di-
vers once the target number of fragments for rehabilitation is already
reached. A medium-sized boat is able to transfer 1,000 fragments in
containers at one time. The weight of the water filled containers with
fragments is about 1,000 to 1,200 kilograms. During transport, the
coral fragments have to be protected against direct sunlight.

4.3 Reef rehabilitation technique (Plate 7, BJ

The fisherfolk who will be involved in reef rehabilitation have to be

taught the skill prior to the activity, to insure higher survival of the
fragments. So it is expected that all participants passed a hands- 11

on" rehabilitation check supervised by a marine biologist before en-

gaging in reef scaping. Before any deployment of the fragments to
the proposed rehabilitation site, a briefing of the team has to be
conducted to reiterate and stress important issues (please refer to
text box) that have been effective.

Once at the rehabilitation site, the team should immediately deploy

the fragments. If the team reach the rehabilitation site around lunch-
time, the entire containers can
Simple R~les Applied to Ensure be transferred to the seafloor
Survival Rates above 90%: before having the break. This is
to ensure immediate water ex-
• seled suitable hard substrate
• secure finn position of fragment utilizing change and adaptation to the
crevices and rifts of substrate new environment. After prepar-
• keep about a half arm length distance to
live resident coral colonies · ing the dive equipment, gearing
• If dead resident corals are abundant, up and briefing the team re-
anchor the fragment between· ihe
branches garding the designated areas
• avoid soft substrate unless species Is where to deploy the fragments,
known for natural growth on unstable
substrate
the coral fragments can be taken
• deploy fragments with an·average of2 from the containers into the bas-
per square meter kets, transferred to suitable
places and properly deployed.

19
The transfer of coral species from one site to another per se_ is a
manipulation of the natural recruitment process. Some species,
which are not present at a reef site, are probably introduced through
rehabilitation. Although this remains small scale considering the
huge reef areas it is still an intervention to the natural co~al ~ommu-
nity. Therefore, a different approach was tested: all species 1n ~he
proposed rehabilitation site were identified and the same species
collected from the farm. This procedure was found to be extremely
costly and time intensive. However, assuming that coral larvae,
generally have the potential to drift over hundreds of _miles, introd~c-
tion of species should not be a problem as long as the coral species
"introduced" are naturally abundant within their potential recruitment
range.

Another aspect gaining attention is the change of community struc-

ture through reef scaping. For a long time reefs have been exposed
to impacts of degrading nature, which altered the community to-
wards species loss and decrease in abundance. The reef rehabilita-
tion measures result in overall benign effects on the benthic com-
munity by increasing species abundance, supporting further natural
recovery and therefore should not be considered as posing prob-
lems for the reef communities.

4.4 Monitoring of fragment survival

At least a week after the deployment of the fragments to the reha-

bilitation site, monitoring can already be done. The purpose of
monitoring is to record the survival over time, learn from the advan-
tages or disadvantages of deploying fragments at certain micro-
habitats and document natural recruitment as well as increase in
reef associated invertebrate fauna. In general, the survival rate
should be well above 90% three months after rehabilitation. The
causes of mortality can be attributed to predation, natural competi-
tion and probably dislocation of fragments rather than stress due to
the handling during rehabilitation. Weekly monitoring is recom-
mended if scientific analysis of data is intended, otherwise monitor-
ing is not required.

20
4.5 Comparison of reef rehabilitation versus non-reef
rehabilitation sites

Coral reef communities with a wide range of coral species provide

many different microhabitats, feeding and reproduction grounds for
invertebrates and fish at all life stages. One square-kilometer
healthy reef produces enough fish that on the average 15.6 tons
might be harvested annually on a sustainable level (White and
Cruz-Trinidad 1998). Thus reef status in terms of coral abundance
and species diversity can be directly correlated with productivity.
This was one of the main entry points for rehabilitation measures:
aiming·to increase species diversity and abundance for corals and
its associated reef fauna. So far, the results of visual surveys
showed that the number of natural coral recruits and other inverte-
brates such as crabs, shells, worms etc. at the reef rehabilitation
sites appeared higher than in the non-rehabilitated control sites.

The coral fragment colonies provide shelter against predators

through their physical structure and support survival of recruits. This
conclusion is further supported by a reef study on the impact after
the bleaching in 1998, where 92%, of resident corals were killed,
mostly large Acropora tables. It was shown that the natural coral re-
cruitment was significantly higher using the still intact skeletons of
Acropora tables as substrate compared to the exposed bare rock
within the same reef.

Fisherfolk have asked permission to deploy passive, selective and

non-destructive fishing traps in the coral farm and claim to make
good catches compared to the adjacent reef site without coral nurs-
ery.

Long term studies of rehabilitation sites are necessary to evaluate

the extent and full impact of reef scaping.

5.0 Funding for reef rehabilitation

The infrastructure, labor; material and maintenance costs of coral
farming and reef rehabilitation efforts have to be subsidized to sus-
tain the operation. The project was designed to generate income.
and even profit to benefit the community. This was achieved mainly

21
by marketing the coral fragments to hotels, resorts, NGOs or privat~
sectors which have plans to rehabilitate certain reef areas. The proJ-
ect management was aware that this market is limited and their
demand can be met within a few Important Reminders:
years. To have additional sources
of income ecotourism was estab- • secure funding sources In advance
to ensure continuous coral farm
lished as a project component in operation
which profit will fund further reef re- • establish alternative fund generat-
ing facilities (e.g. ecotourism, Coral
habilitation. In addition, a "Coral Trail)
Trail" was set up for divers who will
pay an entrance fee of 5 US$ per diver to the coral farm operation.
Aside from the funding sources mentioned, other possibilities are
listed in table 5.

Table 5. Potential funding sources for coral farm operation and

reef rehabilitation (small-scale < 2,000 sqm; medium-scale < 5
hectares; large-scale > 5 hectares).
:Jil"_,)ij;t,~-t,~?;;),,,>: : ?'Z-TF·.·_:--, 7 n:~;·s·~-:ca::·.--·l:-'e'":-Z)
•,(r,r·•,,,;,.,, :.'"''ii,' .• ••.'· ' un·:dr:-1..ng
::::_-:-~?~•:<'
source: .. ·_. . ' ' ·''!:-..• ,· r•:•."-=-R-~e:-7f:_r-i_
. · ~- · ,_.:~~-~~·::-:~;;,-;:-:··], e e.:h•,··a··'-"'b';;_l·i-1,;1·
-,;.,_;t-l"o
IIILCI . '
-~- ,~ ~~,;~a;~·.:._,::~· . .~·~A ,t· ·_ ;· .. -~ •· ~- '-~~ :-~ .:.i-:,•.- ··-.. ,·.: ~::;, ~- - .:__:_~~- --· __ ~ . .
fJ;ttt;~i:'.Bf·.!. f::f:-~-;~ ;-,i-~:~~•.i~·:. /-·;~-~: ?~~- •..-..: ~- ~ ._ ...·...·-~;:,~~ :;.~~; ==-~-· 7

• International conservation organizations all scales

~?s®ernmenfaeenaes~:::;:;7,~~-:- _-·-:_~----:~-'.".'-.~·-~··.-::· ~ : ·:. :-~--.,: ·-::-T-~:--:·· --alu.ca1·es.-__:_·.:.·. ~- .-~:
• LGUs all scales

• Income through ecotourism small scale

• Dive tour operators small to medium scales

• Export for aquarium industry all scales

5. 1 Export of farm-grown corals

The export of coral fragments for the aquarium industry is a very

controversial issue and the legality of involving farm-grown corals
needs further clarification at least in the Philippines. Although the
interest of hobby reef aquarists is more on the economics, they too
have contributed considerably to the knowledge on the biology and
ecology of corals by mainly keeping live corals (Fossa & Nilsen
1996, Sprung & Delbeek 1997). On the other hand, if the extraction
of wild corals is not regulated, more pressure is put on the reefs,

22
which has to be avoided by all means. A proposed solution to this
problem, which considers the reefs, the stakeholders and the hobby
aquarists, could be the direct link to rehabilitation with every pur-
chase of a coral fragment. In the USA and Europe, small scler-
actinian polyps (ssp) are priced at 15 to 30 US$ per single coral col-
ony depending on the species, color and size. It could be explained
to customers that the coral fragments they are buying are farmed
and not from the wild. For every fragment purchased, a certain per-
centage (e.g. sufficient to rehabilitate 10 square meters of degraded
reef near the farm at two fragments per square meters) is invested
in reef rehabilitation. In this way the coral farm has a stable income
and can continue further to rehabilitate degraded reefs. The fisher-
folk would also have additional income through sustainable utiliza-
tion of their resources.

Unlike the corals for reef rehabilitation, the fragments for export
could be taken exclusively from farm-grown coral stocks and not
from the wild. This is because the number would be limited from
several hundreds to a few thousands coral fragments per month. If
this option would be accepted, only government agencies (such as
BFAR and DENR in the Philippines) shall have the authority to cer-
tify and monitor the export of corals as well as investment in reef re-
habilitation to avoid illegal practices. Farm-grown corals can easily
be identified as such even by non-experts with the secondary basal
disc attachment on the limestone substrate.

6.0 Benefit- Cost Analysis of Coral Farming

Five different ocean systems with characteristic biotic and abiotic
conditions favor 7,106 Philippine islands with an extensive, highly
productive shoreline of 17,463 km. More than 65% of Filipinos living
at or within the coastal areas are directly dependent on marine pro-
ducts and their high nutritive values. People have been utilizing coral
reef resources since prehistoric times without over harvesting (Wells
and Hanna 1992). In the Philippines, the resources of an estimated
25,000 km 2 reef area seemed to be infinite and everlasting. In the
last three decades, rapid increase in population density (2.4 % per
annum), coastal development, pollution, migration of farmers from
the mountains to the coastal areas and improved fishing gears have
led to heavy pressure on the productivity of the coral reefs. The

23
catch per unit effort (CPUE) decreased from almost 11 t x hp-1 in
1948 to less than 2 t x hp-1 in 1990 for the small pelagic fisheries
(Dalzell et al. 1987) and initiated a vicious circle. The traditional
fishing techniques have shifted to non-selective gears (no limits on
mesh size, destructive techniques like dynamite-, cyanide-, muro-
ami-, sahid- fisheries etc.) resulting in fish stock depletion, overex-
ploitation of many harvested species, and long term degradation of
the reefs.

Currently, meeting the basic daily food requirement has been the
main priority of the fishermen; hence, the use of destructive fishing
methods continues, to be able to have a sizeable catch. As a con-
sequence, law enforcement to protect the environment have little
effect since the sea is the most important protein source of food for
the people (Santos et al. 1997).

Management strategies to conserve the high productivity of coral

reefs and fish stocks have been conceptualized and implemented
since the Second World War. The measures and laws might have
been successful on the local level, but overall have not proven to be
effective. Fast population growth and negative proportional produc-
tivity of coastal areas point towards a two-way approach to tackle
the problem:

(1) Curb populations' growth

(2) Increase productivity of the coasts

The first issue requires, particularly in the Philippines, not only gov-
ernment and NGO initiated activities for education of family plan-
ning, but also the support of the Catholic Church, who is advocating
the use of natural birth control (rhythm method) and not the conse-
quent application of artificial contraceptives.

The second issue is not totally new. Increase in production could be

easily achieved by implementing community-owned low cost and
small-scale sea ranching units in the coastal shallow waters. Priority
should be on extensive polyculture of organisms at low trophic levels
for fast transfer of energy into animal protein, lower risk of diseases
and better match with the surrounding animal communities because
of minimal ecological impact. Sea ranching would not compete with

24
aquaculture since this technology requires high capital investment,
operates intensively at high ecological costs and usually requires
export markets to be profitable.

Most of the technology is already available only it has been hardly

transferred down to fisherfolk. The priority for funding should be on
ventures or projects that establish polyculture with active participa-
tion of fisherfolk. It is expected that this could offer more livelihood
options as well as decrease the pressure on reefs.

6.1 What is at risk if the productivity of coral reefs decreases?

Today only 2.4 % of the Philippine reefs are in excellent condition

(Figure 2), about three-quarters in good (22.4%) to fair (51.7) cate-
gory and 23.5% in poor category (Gomez et al. 1994 ). The eco-
nomic loss for fish yield alone in a 1 km 2 destroyed coral reef can
umount up to 200,000 US$ (White and Cruz-Trinidad, 1998) over a
period of ten years. Considering additional foregone revenues
tnrough tourism, coastal protection and biodiversity the total loss
may reach, just to bask in large numbers, well over 1.1 million US$
per km 2 healthy reef in the same period (Table 6).

Fair
51.7 %

Good ____________ ____

22.4 %
Exellent
2.4 % Poor 1
23 .5 %

0- 24.9% = poor; 25- 49.9%= fair; 50- 74.9%= good, 75- 100%= excellent

Figure 2. Status of the Philippine coral reefs (Gomez et al. 1994)

For instance, infrastructure costs of a city hospital may account for

50 million US$ and is only serving a comparably small number of
people. Natural ecosystems such as coral reefs, even if not visible to
everybody, provide benefits to hundred of thousands of people,
however the amount spent for protection/enhancement is minimal.

25
Just a mental exercise: An investment of 50 million US$ would be
sufficient to rehabilitate reefs along a strip of 2,500 km coastline with
a width of 100 m based on the cost of coral farming of 200,000 US$
per km2 • More than 50% of that (25 million US$) would be labor cost
providing income for 13,700 families for one year. Not to mention the
ecological benign impacts on the reef ecosystem.

Tourism•3 100 to 1,000 persons 2,000- 20,000

(domestic)
· -~~,~-~•ri 1~·7.':-:-;;•:;,----~-.-~7. Li-.
,.. ~ r t•. ~ ... t •
so·o.19.1,QOO,persons • •-
1
: • • •• •

mll~al>.' ~., - _··-~-- ·

..... ·, _ .. ,...
I. •· L , t• t • 0 '

------'=' ~- ._....:-...~-~-----J....l ..~-.... - ? .... , . --. - , . .

Coastal protection .5 5,000- 25,000

(prevention of erosion)
~i;M~ffigf~i$-ity:v~ifo;~~; :: ·:_:,: 1 ·: ~o(rtc>'2·;goq·persons · _ 2,400- 8,000
itwi1r'mar1ess~~~"'Y 1/~:;:J;;;{ E~~.-t~~ t'.~.:- ~<- ·._. .. -·· ·-~. · · ·; .__ ,J ~" _. . .. . . . . -- ... - -· .. - .. .. ~- . -- - -· - ~-

Total 31,900-113, 000

Assumptions:
• 1 Average market price of 1.5 US$ kg· 1 of reef fish
•2 Average market price to fishers of 10 US$ kg· 1 of live reef fish
•3 Average expenditure of 20 US$ tourisr 1 day· 1 staying at the site
•4 Average expenditure of 5 US$ tourisr 1 day· 1 for purchases at the site
• 5 Physical protection value of 5,000- 25,000 km· 1 year· 1 of reef beach front
• 6 Average expenditure of 4 US$ tourisr 1 day· 1 for entrance to marine sanctuary or for a donation

6.2 Infrastructure cost

All cost estimates are based on the coral farm in Caw-oy (prices
may differ regionally due to source of materials) and a US$ conver-
sion rate of 1 US$= 40Php.

The boat for farm operation should be able to carry 8 persons plus
1.5 tons for fragments and dive gears.

.
I

26
 A coral farm set-up as listed under option "A" (Table 7) has a frag-
ment turnover rate of up to 150,000 fragments for reef rehabilitation
annually. Option "A" also provides facilities for ecotourism (a large
guardhouse with comfort room).

The second option ("B") is trimmed" down to 12,550 US$. The ex-
pected output of this is between 20,000 to 40,000 fragments per
year. The mixture for the CNUs contain less cement which reduces
cost to 2,000 US$ for 100 units.

For option "C" less than 10,000 US$ is the ·cal cu lated cost for a
small-scale farm. More work is needed for this farm set-up, because
no CNUs will be constructed and the plastic canvasses for the frag-
ments have to be fixed with rocks. The output of fragments is in the
range of option "B".

.
Table 7. Infrastructure, cost of coral farming with three options .
Infrastructure Option A . Option B
- ---- - - ·-
11,000 USS 5,500 USS 5,500 USS
0 Diving
for two compressor for one compressor set for one compr.essor
equipment
sets and complete and complete equip- set and complete
equipment for 8 ment for 4 divers equipment for 4 divers
divers

• Farming equipment 250 US$ 250 (!JS$ 250 USS

Tools, plastic containers,
baskets, etc.

• Boat 4,000 USS 4,000 USS 4,000 USS

Medium sized, 16 knots
cruising speed, 20 I
diesel per hour
2,000WS$ 100 USS
7,500 US$
• Coral Nursery Units fo~ 100 CNUs, labori for plas ·c canvass,
for 300 CNUs, labor
and material
and material no CNUs
{less cernenti

3,500 US$ 800 US$ 100 US$

• Guard house styrofoam sup- for a simple bamboo for buoys, no guard
ported, with CR, and nipa construction house, no floating
1
60m platform structure

TOT'A L 26,250 US$ 12,550 US$ 9,950 US$

iI
27
6.3 Operational cost

The total costs involved in the gathering of coral fragments from the
donor site, fixation to the substrates, tending for 8 weeks grow-out
phase in the CNUs at the farm and the transfer to the rehabilitation
site is calculated at 10 US$ for 100 fragments based on the follow-
ing computations (Table 8).

Table 8. Cost of coral farming and reef rehabilitation.

100 frag- 100 frag-
Cost item Description ments
ments
[PhPJ [US$]
(1) Fragment gathering • 1
t.!__abcm. __ _ 4..dlv~r~__at g.Q0_fhp_day-1 = BOO PbP - ~§_3~ - 1.332
fuel for compressor 1 hr x 1 Ix 21 Php= 21 Php 1.4 0.035
,.,.aJes:e[ or._Qfil:'. _.• _. __ 4·0 IX 14-Ph ~- t~1,
{2} Fragment fixing • 2
f.fa'BJil'. 1.Q.0 pie~ for 60 Php 60
limestone substrate 1000 pieces for 335 Php
a vanlzed wire# 16; 1B · 1"'Kg for 35 Phn_ _
(3) Tending grow-out
(B weeks) • 3
32 0 .8

fuel for compressor

-==-=~=""-"-=- ........ =~~~-- -'-------'---
8 weeks x 2 Ix 21 Php= 336 Php 3.36 0.084
4)'R ,= --.=== I
labor 4 divers at 200 Php day"'= 800 Php 80 2

fueffor cqmp_i:,~~_or _ _ 4.1 x·21 Php= 84 Php 8.4 0.21

diesel for boat 2 hrs= 40 Ix 14 Php=- 560 Php 56 1 .4
Total Cost of 100 400:26 10.006
~Qfn!~ts :
Total Cost of 1000 m 2 8,000 200
)i)fil~~l.ef_'l_lj~~f~-~ --~~- ~""-- ijQ,000_ ~.Q.90
Total Cost of 1kmi B.000,000 200.000

.1 .2 transportation costs which include diesel for the boat operating within a 15 nautical mile
' radius between donor site, coral farm and rehabilitation site, a team of 4 persons gather 1,500
coral fragments day' 1 •
limestone is the substrate and galvanized wire the fixing material used by a skilled person
the labor needed for 100 fragments tending during the 8 weeks grow-out phase is 28.B minutes
•4 a team of 4 persons rehabllitates a reef area of 500 m 2 day" 1using 1,000 fragments (:c:12.5%
cover)

28
6.4 Ecological and social benefits through coral farming and
reef rehabilitation

The main ecological benefit of coral farming, where other positive

effects are based on, is the increase of coral biomass. In the farm, at
present there are more than 75 species-ef-corals. This is enhancing
species diversity conservation in an area where blast fishing is still
rampant and far from being controlled in the future. The farm is
planning to expand and set up a reserve area for coral colonies of
each kind to conserve biodiversity. The immediate impact of reef re-
habilitation is the increase in coral cover, the addition of microhabi-
tats and the physical protection of surrounding substrate provided by
the colonies. In surveys conducted it appears that the number of
coral recruits and the associated reef fauna is more abundant at re-
habilitation sites than control sites. However, this needs further
studies to prove statistical significance of findings.

The fishers of Olango Island, where the coral farm is located, are
known for using destructive fishing techniques (particularly blast
fishing, cyanide and fine mesh net fishing). With the introduction of
the coral farm, the fisherfolk were given the opportunity to work in
the farm and were compensated for their activities. Slowly they all
abandoned the use of destructive fishing gears and shifted to an en-
vironment enhancing and sustainabte livelihood. Such a shift in de-
structive fishing practices reduces the stress on the reefs.

In the first year of the project implementation, attempts to promote

land-based alternative livelihood were made but had a low level of
acceptance among the fisherfolk. Interviews revealed that they are
uneasy working on land because most of their lives have been spent
on the sea fishing for a living and its difficult to deviate their depend-
ency on the sea. This is different in the coral farm: their work is still
carried out in th.e sea, using safe diving equipment and carrying out
a task that helps to rehabilitate the reefs. Alternative income is the
main socio-economic impact of the coral farm.

The environmental awareness heightened considerably among the

members of the community, as indicated by the independent appre-
hension and prosecution of dynamite fishers from other villages.
Furthermore, the fisherfolk are improving their skills in communicat-
ing issues and concerns about their resources. This is the entry

29
point of community -based management of resources with better
perspectives than the top-down approach in management ever had:
the stakeholders' awareness and readiness to take responsibility for
their own natural resources.

The ecotourism component benefiting the local community by food

catering to visitors is another source of income without exploiting the
natural resources (Table 9). The local community is aware that
tourist appreciate a healthy marine environment with productive
reefs and high biodiversity. Consequently, the environmental aware-
ness of the community was strengthened not only by education but
also income using_ their natural resources. The coral farm, reef reha-
bilitation and ecotourism based in the community may model the
way for livelihood of fisherfolk with responsible and sustainable natu-
ral resource management (Plate 9 a-e ).

Table 9. Ecological and socio-economic benefits of coral farming

and reef rehabilitation. -~· -,•- ·- ... - r-. ·-·- ----·- -·· - -~--.~-- -~--··. 7""'''" ____ :

Socio~con·omic b'ehiflts·

• Increase of coral biomass • Alternative and/or supplemental livelihood

::,~:- <~~;:. ):~ . ~._-,_i:-;· ..... /} : ~: -,- ,:~~!i9fi.~1-yj_·o~9i~;;~.t~'.~iainec1 ·• ~,· ·:_~·

• Enhancement of reef microhabitats • · Sustained use of stakeholders resources
~ t' .-·,. l i,~.~.,.. ..,'( "l· •.. - 4.(~: >!!3·~~--~ ~:"-~~:~:VJ r:~:-; ~--:-----:-:: ~~-_::--;.•p~":"~ .. ;:-~~,~.. 7:-;7::7'- -.-;-,.~-.
/ . ::-;-:-;-•._---. •· -• --~~;
-~ !i,i L> J; •,-:.,~-;,, •. ::-.". ~ " . :,~:.•- .gt;\i ,:-= ,} ' ; '., ~i::· ;!1 . . ' R,ts~ ,In ,ovlll)Qmeratal B~f!tn~l?S- ' ' --· . . ·_ ~.
• Higher natural coral recruitment • Strengthening communal responsibilities of
managing resources
:i·;1~~f)Hfh~iltlii~it~n'~ot:~dib!tt':~ffauna··
. ._..,u ..+""'iii v_p,_!,-~-~-11":-.. '::,·.. ~- ➔ -r:· (· --... : ~-•. -- ·, .·. -;~- .;. -• :. ;"·~·t.-:7• :- ..
t. __ ·_ - .
·.- ,! . Abldlng.fis~eiYl~.a~d (eQUlations.·. ·•,.
.. . • • . -... - - ....... , ___ - -·'· ....._.____ -· .•• -.. - .: - ·. - .... - - ----- - ·- -

• Reduced pressure on fish stocks • Exchange with visitors

7 .0 General Remarks on Code of Practice for

Professional Diving

Professional diving differs from recreational diving which is for fun,

pleasure and education. Therefore, all standards for safety diving
and equipment maintenance have to be strictly followed.
Since the coral farm operation in 1997, more than 3,200 man diving
hours were logged and so far no diving related accident happened.

30
Except for some unpleasant encounters with marine stingers such
as siphonophores, hydrozoans and scyphozoan jellyfishes (Cni-
daria) which were abundant periodically. Even with wetsuit this could
not prevent the organisms from stinging the hands, feet or even
worst the face. Fortunately, not one of those who were stung devel-
oped allergies and the experience was more of a nuisance.

Work in the farm is physically strenuous and extended bottom time

bear the risk of hypothermia, especially if the weather condition is
bad. As much as possible all dive plans should consider bottom time
not to exceed one hour. After warm up, another dive may be done.
The team supervisor should conduct briefings before and debrief-
ings after each dive to agree on objectives and get feedback on the
result of the work.

All SCUBA diving activities follow the international .standards and

safety procedures of the PADI system. For the surface air supplying
compressor system, the following additional regulations apply: Div-
ing is allowed only in teams (each diver may work independently,
but divers should have each other in sight). The team for the surface
air supplying system consists of 3 to 4 persons (one surface super-
visor, two or three divers). Diving without surface supervisor or with
a _single diver at one time is
strictly prohibited. In case the Important Diving Rules:
weather conditions change • follow rules and regulations for safe diving
during the dive (wind, waves, atal times
• conduct briefings and debriefings to clarify
and strong rain) and are not objectives of dives
meeting the minimum safety • dive only If you feel physically and men-
tally fit
standards for the system op- • always abide to the buddy system
eration, all diving activities have • assign a surface supervisor for surface air
supplying compressor diving
to be aborted immediately. • If weather conditions are unfavorable do
not proceed with diving operation
The deployment of Coral Nurs- • follow maintenance plan for equipment
care strictly to maintain good condition
ery Units (CNUs) is a hard
work. After the CN Us are
loaded on a floating structure for transfer to the farm site, two divers
inflate their BCD fully and hold the CNU on the sides. One person
pushes the CNU into the water and the two divers reduce the sink-
ing rate. Once at the seafloor, the BCDs are deflated and the posi-
tion of the CNU is fine-tuned.

31
In returning to the surface one should not exceed the maximum as-
cending speed of 18m (60 fl) per minute, or as a rule of thumb
should not be faster than the smallest bubbles.

During a single working day, the same team of divers may not de-
ploy more than 10 CNUs down to the seafloor to avoid frequent as-
cends. Generally, a coral farm should not be below 10 m deep (be-
low 35 ft) so decompression limits will not apply during the dives.
However, total bottom time of consecutive dives should be within 3
hours. A minimum surface interval of one hour is recommended to
warm up and rest between dives.

32
Chapter II

THE SOCIO-ECONOMICS OF CORAL

FAR.MING: The Caw-oy Experience
Filipina Sotto, Cristeta Laron, Thomas Heeger, Joey Gatus and Carsten Hattche

1.0 Introduction

Many have been written about the deteriorating condition of our

coastal resources and a lot of groups have tried to channel their ef-
forts to respond to the worsening situation by adopting some forms
of coastal resources management. The concept of coastal resource
management has been with us for years, these alternatives take the
form of establishing marine reserves or sanctuaries for resource re-
generation, policy reforms and regulations, mangrove reforestation,
law enforcement, alternative livelihood for the fisherfolk or an inte-
gration of these approaches. Whether or not these efforts are suc-
cessful remains to be assessed, but with our coastal resources
showing continued signs of deterioration, our coral reefs almost to-
tally destroyed, we are faced with a challenge to come up with
something new and workable.

In Barangay Caw-oy, Olango Island, Lapu-Lapu City, Philippines, a

two-hectare Coral Farm was set up to try for the first time, farming of
corals in a natural environment. The objectives of the farm is to
serve as a nursery for coral fragments, maintain biodiversity and
generate income for the fisherfolk by marketing the farm-grown coral
fragments for rehabilitation and eco-tourism. The integration of the
social, economic and natural science was proven in this project as
an effective and practical strategy for coastal resource management,
which is also worth emulating.

In farming, coral fragmentation is used by cutting tissues or coral

nubbins from the mother corals and attaching the cut por-
tion/fragments to a new substrate, allowing the corals to grow.
Growth of corals after 6 to 12 weeks is remarkable and fragments at
this stage can already be deployed in a rehabilitation site. As sue-

33
cess of any resource management is dependent on the active par-
ticipation of the community, the local fisherfolk were involved in the
selection, fragmentation, tying, farming and rehabilitation of corals
and were trained on the basics of coral farming. While they were
made aware on issues related to marine environment, the project
was also able to offer and prove that coral farming can be an alter:.
native source of income for them. Community involvement also
leads to their understanding of their responsibility to protect and
manage their resources sustainably.

2.0 Site Profile

Caw-oy is located northeast of Mactan Island and is politically under
the jurisdiction of Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, Philippines. It is the small-
est of the eight (8) barangays within mainland Olango with a total
land area of 0.36 sq km (Flieger 1994 ). Generally, flat with hard
limestone bedrock, only few crops grow in the area because its soil
is not best suited for cultivation. Cassava is the main crop, which is
also Olango's staple food.

Caw:-oy has a total of 200 households with an average family size

of 5 persons. The population of Caw-oy is 1 ,002 with a population
density of 2,783 persons/km2 Of the 200 households, only 29 fami-
lies have access to varied types of toilet in their homes. One of the
reasons for the lack of toilet facilities in Caw-oy is the hard coralline
substrate, which make any form of digging in the area very difficult.
Most residents utilize the mudflats, seashore, and qpen fields for
human waste disposal.

The population of Caw-oy is young with more than 70% under 40

years old and only very few have finished high school and college
education. Although 95% own their house, only 68% own the lot
where they are residing. Houses are predominantly made of light
materials. 70% of the households are connected to the power line,
which provides electricity from 12:00 noon to 11 :30 pm.

The poverty line threshold was pegged at U$110 income in 1997

(NEDA). The survey of 42 households shows that 56% earn less
than U$50, and another 25% of the households earn between
U$87 .5 and U$275 per month. This means that 75% of the house-

34
holds are living below the poverty line with a monthly income of
U$11 O (Figure 1). Fishing at 40% is the most significant livelihood
among 42 respondents. Other livelihoods are service work (27% ),
vending (10%) and land-based farming (4%). 19% of the respon-
dents claimed to have no source of livelihood at all. Since the use of
destructive fishing methods in Caw-oy has been totally curbed in
1998, fishing is now dominated by fish trap, long line, hook and line,
set net and compressor diving (hookah-hookah). Few fishers work
on long distance trawlers or shell collectors and are up to four
months at sea.

~
cu
:::s
CT

l
50 & 238-278 200-238 162-200 125-162 88-125 50-88
Below

Monthly income level per household [in US$]

Figure 1. Monthly income distribution of families (US$) in Caw-oy, Olango Is.,

Cebu, Philippines. Respondents, n = 42.

Majority of the residents are dependent on marine resources for

their livelihood and subsistence. Fishing and fishing rel_~ted activities
are the source of income for most families in Caw-oy is fishing or
fishing related activities, although some have already ventured into
other occupations, like managing small sari-sari store, boat opera-
tors for tourists, manicure service, driving, etc. because of their de-
pleting marine resources. The proximity of Olango Island to Mactan
also offers them other opportunities, like working in industrial facto-
ries in Mactan Export Processing Zone.

Caw-oy can be reached by a motorized boat through Angasil, Dap-

dap, or Boot, Lapu-Lapu City, where boat service are available
every 30 minutes from 5:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. Travel time from these

35
points to Sta. Rosa or Baring will take 20-25 minutes. From Sta.
Rosa or Baring it is accessible by tricycle or "habal-habal" (single
motorcycle).

3.0 Community Involvement In Coral Farming

The Coral Farm Project was established in Barangay Caw-oy in De-
cember 1997 by virtue of a Barangay Resolution No 14 enacted by
Barangay Ordinance No. 7 series of 1997. The Barangay Ordinance
declared as protected area the two (2) hectare sea farm which was
utilized by the project. Education campaigns were conducted to in-
form the community about the proposed project and efforts were
made to explain how it can benefit them. As the people received the
project favorably, the two (2) hectare coral farm was set up and was
demarcated with buoys. Guidelines were drawn up together with the
community about what type of fishing methods will be allowed inside
the farm.

3.1 Who are involved?

Prior to the establishment of the coral farm in Caw-oy, the project

implementor has already organized three (3) Peoples Organizations
(PO): The Caw-oy Women's Association which has 49 members,
the Caw-oy Fisherfolk Organizations has 27 members, and the
Youth Group with 21 members. These POs served as partners in
implementing the coral farm project and are predominantly subsis-
tence-level fisherfolk. They comprise about 25 % of the total number
of families in Caw-oy. The other 75% of the families who are not di-
rectly involved in the operation of the farm, benefits from the project
through the community projects identified and implemented by the
community financed from the income derived from the farm. The lo-
cal government also share responsibility in the protection and
maintenance of the farm. Their participation, in fact, can facilitate or
hamper success of the project.

3.2 Process of involving the community

The idea of setting up a coral farm project comes from an academic

institution (the Marine Biology Section of the University of San Car-
los), hence from outside the community. Education campaigns and

36
consultations were then conducted to introduce the concept to the
community. This process may take long especially if the implemen-
tors are new to the area since they still have to establish rapport with
community and gain their trust before any support from the commu-
nity can be expected. In the case of the USC-MBS who have been
there 2 years prior to the implementation of the coral farm project, all
consultations were easily facilitated. Discussions about the concept
of coral farming did not also happen just once. Informal talks with
the people were done to conscienticize them on issues affecting
their environment.

Although consensus of public opinion is usually obtained from public

consultations, sometimes it does not warrant full acceptance by the
community. It is in the details of the implementation that individual or
community issues are unfolded. In this delicate process, it is im-
perative that the staff who should be doing the leg working and
contact building should have social skills apart from his/her technical
knowledge on marine resource management as negotiations and
compromises might be needed.

3.3 Data gathering

Aside from the environmental objective of the project, which is, reef
rehabilitation, the project also aims to provide supplemental income
to the fisheriolk through marketing of corals for rehabilitation and
eco-tourism. A baseline community survey was conducted in Caw-
oy to determine the socio-economic situation of the community be-
fore the project intervention. The people were tapped and were in-
volved in the actual generation of data. In data gathering the staff
should identify the felt needs of the people which can be a basis for
community actions.

3.4 Planning with the people

After the project was accepted, implementation of the project should

start with planning together with the people. The community was in-
formed of the targets and activities that the project needs to under-
take in the farm. Together with the community, the project imple-
mentors targeted: 1) to set up 300 coral nursery units (CNUs); 2)
place 30,000 fragments; 3) set-up an underwater trail or coral gar-

37
den; 4) develop an eco-tour with community interpretation; 5) estab-
lish an environmental training center and provide training for the
people.

In getting the participation of the community in planning, the draw-

out method is always found very effective. Rather than giving out-
.right the solution to the problem, draw-out from the community pos-
sible solutions they can think of, to motivate them to action and de-
velop their critical thinking. ·

3.5 Actions

The community was involved in almost all of the activities in the

farm. First the principles of resource management and coral farming
were explained to them. This was followed by technical and hands
on training were also conducted like, SCUBA diving, fragmentation
and tying of coral fragments, making of the coral nursery units,
gathering of corals and reef rehabilitation. Visits to other coastal re-
source management projects were also facilitated. Since a lot of
these activities involved group participation, sessions on value for-
mation team building and community assessments were also incor-
porated. Workshop on ecotourism was also conducted and the
fisherfolk were able to identify products in the community, which
they can include in the package tour once it is developed.

The community's involvement in the farm was paid. The fixing of

coral fragments on the substrates were done by wom~n who were
paid P60.00 (= U$1.5) per 100 fragments. For two (2) hours work by
women in the farm their income would range from P80.00-P150.00
(U$2-3. 75). The fishermen who were trained in scuba- diving also
get P200.00 (U$5) for 2-4 hours dive/labor in the farm. Their activi-
ties include gathering of corals, fragmentation, placement of frag-
ments to the coral nursery units to allow the corals to grow, cleaning
and maintenance of the farm, during rehabilitation transferring of
corals from the nursery units to the rehabilitation site and deploy-
ment of fragments. On the average, a couple earns U$7-9 daily for a
total of 6-man hrs work which could .amount to U$180 monthly in-
come. Seventy five percent (75%) of the typical 5-member
household in Caw-oy has an average monthly income of less than
U$87.5 with more than 8 working hours (refer to Chapter 1, Table 8 )-

38
The ecotour is also a potential alternative livelihood, which the
community can develop. Just recently, representatives from different
travel agencies, hotels and from the Department of Tourism, Cebu,
were invited to try the coral farm as a tour destination with the com~
munity serving fresh seafood and doing farming interpretations. The
general evaluation is commendable and this can generate income
for the community when materialized.

Aside from their activities in the farm, the fisherfolk were also mobi-
lized on issues affecting them. The Fisherfolk Organization is man-
aging a credit program for its members for their bamboo fish trap
project. They initially got a ten thousand pesos P10, 000.00 (U$250)
loan from the project implementor which they have already paid in
full. The group was able to generate more than P30, 000.00 (U$750)
from the initial capital of ten thousand P10,000.00 they borrowed.
The women's group initiated a beach clean-up drive in the commu-
nity, facilitated the latrine project for ·its members, and established
their community garden. Aside from doing community projects the
group also participates in fiesta gatherings and celebrates organiza-
tion anniversaries. These activities helped strengthen the community
organizations.

Meeting either informal or formal is an important step in the activities

of the community. It is in the meeting that the group decides what to
accomplish and how. It serves also as a training ground for local
leaders to preside and facilitate the group during meetings.

3. 6 Core group building

While community organizing entails participation of the community at

all stages of the developmental process, it is highly impracticable to
get the opinion of all that are involved all the time and in every step
of the way. A core group can be formed to formulate policies for the
preservation and maintenance of the farm and to take on the re-
sponsibility and power in the management of the farm. The core
group in Caw-oy is composed of the representatives from all the or-
ganizations existing and active in the barangay. It was formed after
the success of the public consultation conducted by the City of
Lapu-Lapu on the construction of the Environmental Training Center

39
at the shore of Caw-oy following a petition filed by a group in baran-
gay Caw-oy opposing the construction of the ETC in the proposed
project site. The support of the majority of the community residents
for the ETC showed to the entire community that the project is em-
braced and taken by the people as their own. The formation of the
core group also silenced those who initially opposed the construc-
tion of the ETC in the area, as one of their leaders became one of
the members of the core group.

Small Victories Strengthen Community Organizations

As success of the project and benefits to the community become

noticeable to the fisherfolk, the community is now taking on some
concerns and responsibilities on the farm, including the local gov-
ernment. The fixing of the electrical system of the guardhouse was
done by them with expenses to be taken from the share of the
community from the farm. The barangay captain promised to allo-
cate a certain amount from the IRA of the barangay for the mainte-
nance of the farm for the next fiscal year. The Congressman of the
6th District where Olango Island belongs appropriated P500, 000.00
for the construction of the ETC as more and more groups become
interested on the project, somehow, it boosted the morale of the
community.

The people also had been through a lot of struggles in trying to sup-
port and defend the project. Since the project is new and non-
conventional, it has become a subject of negative criticisms from
various sectors who are also into environmental protection and
management. These struggles somehow strengthen the group for
they see in their victories that their collective strength is effective.

Illegal fishing in the area has been reduced drastically to zero. The
community was given responsibility for enforcement and once they
apprehended a dynamite fisher from the place. Although the criminal
case was not pursued, the community was able to deliver the mes-
sage that dynamite fishing in the area is prohibited.

The increase in fish population now invited some fishers in Caw-oy

to place their bamboo fish traps in the coral farm. This has also en-
couraged further local participation. The coral farm is something the

40
 fisherfolk from Caw-oy can claim as their own. The maintenance and
management of the farm is assigned to the fisherfolk of Caw-oy to
the exclusion of those from the other communities. The assignment
gives them the feeling of ownership.

4.0 Issues

• While the project is dubbed as community-based", indicators for

11

a real community based-project are not yet in place. The en-

hancement of the capability of the people in managing their re-
sources takes time and the period varies depending on the re-
ceptiveness and readiness of the people. In Caw-oy, the com-
munity is not yet ready to assume full responsibility in the man-
agement of the project. There are still Institutional/Capability
Building needs of the organization that have to be addressed.
The dependency attitude common to the disadvantaged group
has to be transformed, where the people are given the opportu-
nity to make decisions and have control over their lives.

• Scientists and local governments should respect and encourage

genuine peoples' participation. While verbally many would claim
that they advocate peoples' participation, in practice we fall into
the trap of bringing the people into the picture only after major
decisions have been made. Empowerment only takes place
when social structures are set up that will facilitate the peoples
autonomous capacities to decide their own course and fate.

• Although the project was able to prove good for the environment
and economically viable as a livelihood option for the fisherfolk, it
was not free of negative criticisms from among the scientists and
professionals. Some negative feedback has even influenced a
few members of the community and local officials to be critical
about the project. A forum should be organized for intellectual
discussions.

• In the proposal, the project presumed that support from the

community or local government can easily be had, such that,
they will be able to provide a lot/land for the construction of the
Environmental Training Center (ETC) as a local counterpart.
There was difficulty in finding a lot for the project. Several lot

41
 owners from the community were requested to donate or allow
the use of their resource for the benefit of the community, yet no
one was willing to do it. The price of land in Cebu was so attrac-
tive (very high), no one was willing to sacrifice. Which proves a
point that individual interests run first over community interests.
Further investigation was conducted and our research showed
that there's a lot in Caw-oy where the declared owner in the tax
declaration is the City of Lapu-Lapu. So the intervention of the
City Mayor was sought and he committed to it. The problem was
not that simple as we thought, the claimants of the lot from Ba-
rangay Caw-oy appeared and opposed the use of the lot by the
project. This caused further delay of the construction of the
building. Finally it was decided together with the community that
the ETC building will be built at the shoreline of Caw-oy at the
back of the school building. But even this site was not freed from
oppositions as the issue was already tainted with politics. After
the City Government of Lapu-Lapu conducted a public hearing,
the issue was put into rest. The people of Caw-oy have spoken ...
they want the project.

• Politics in Caw-oy play a vital role in the success or failure of a

project. The construction of the ETC was decided twice by the
Lapu-Lapu City Council at the instance of a political leader and
the barangay captain. The two were having opposite views and
positions regarding the project, both were accommodated by the
Council, as a result, two resolutions were passed that decided
the fate of the Environmental Training Center. On one occasion a
daycare teacher was terminated due to her political leanings and
the candidate she supported in the election. A "tanod" was also
terminated because he was not able to carry out the order of the
barangay official for reasons not attributable to his fault.

42
 Chapter Ill

LEGAL ISSUES ON CORAL FARMING IN THE

PHILIPPINES
Christeta Laron, Filipina Sotto, Thomas Heeger, Joey Gatus and Carsten Huttche

1.0 Introduction

The recent global decline in coral reef health has galvanized an in-
ternational movement to save these invaluable ecosystems. In 1994,
the United States was instrumental in establishing and supporting
the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI). In initiating ICRI, the
Governments of the United States, France, Jamaica, Japan, The
Philippines, Sweden and the United Kingdom recognized the im-
portance of stopping and reversing the global degradation of coral
reefs and related ecosystems, and preserving marine biodiversity. In
1997, declared as the International Year of the Reef, many nations,
including the Philippines, initiated activities to raise public aware-
ness on the importance of conserving coral reefs and facilitate ac-
tions to protect coral reef ecosystems (US Coral Reef Task Force,
2000).

Managing the coral reef, like that of Apo Island in Negros Oriental
and Sumilon Island, Cebu reserves in the Philippines, has become
the focus of government and non-government interventions in ad-
dressing the problem of reef degradation. Until recently, the Marine
Biology Section of the University of San Carlos presented another
tool for reef rehabilitation and at the same time provide additional
income to the fisherfolk by farming corals through fragmentation.
This new option was the result of scientific research and community
work. After two years of project implementation, coral farming, has
proven two things: that it is a viable tool for reef rehabilitation and
another source of income for the community. Whether or not the
results of the Coral Farm Project which was primarily aimed at ame-
liorating the deterioration of our coastal resources will be fully ac-
cepted and adopted by environmental interventionists, reef scientists

43
government agencies and local government units mandated by law
to protect, conserve and utilize sustainably the coastal resources
including corals remains to be seen. The prevailing issues confront-
ing the project now is that- it contravenes existing environmental
policies and laws.

2.0 Legal Issues Raised

2.1 Issue I: Is the establishment of coral farm in
Caw-oy legal?

The project was established in Barangay Caw-oy, Olango Island,

Cebu Philippines by virtue of Barangay Resolution No. 14 and en-
acted by Barangay Ordinance No. 7 passed by Caw-oy Barangay
Council declaring a 2 hectare portion of their waters as coral farm.

The Resolution passed by the Barangay Council of Caw-oy was in

consonance with Republic Act (RA) 7160 Section 3i which states
that the local government units shall share with the National Gov-
ernment the responsibility in the management and maintenance of
ecological balance within their territorial jurisdiction, subject to the
provisions of this Code and national policies. Under this law, the
primary management responsibilities of maintaining the environment
is now devolved to the local government, hence the action of the Ba-
rangay Council of Caw-oy is legal.

2.2 Issue II: Is USC-MBS allowed to implement

community-based coral farming in Caw-oy?

Section 23. Article II of the Philippine Constitution states: that the

State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or
sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation. Under
this principle, the NGOs, POs and scientific institutions become
partners of LGUs in implementing programs for environmental pro-
tection and preservation.

44
 2.3 Issue Ill : Is coral farming illegal?

Presidential Decree 1219, which was promulgated on 14 October

1977, provides punishment for gathering, harvesting, collecting
and/or exporting of ordinary as well as precious corals. As loopholes
were found in the law, it was amended by PD 1698 on May 22, 1980
and tighten the regulations, including the prohibition of possession of
corals. Section 2 of Presidential Decree 1698 states: The gathering,
harvesting, collecting, transporting, possession, sale and/or export-
ing of ordinary coral, either in raw or processed form in any quantity,
is prohibited. The use of corals and materials in buildings and other
man-made structures such as, but not limited to piers, dams and
dikes, is likewise prohibited.

Section 3 of the same law further states that The Minister of Natural
Resources now Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) may issue a gratuitous permit to duly
established and recognized research and educational institutions to
gather in limited quantities any coral for scientific or educational pur-
poses only.

Section 4 grants authority to the Secretary of DENR to issue a spe-

cial permit to only one person/corporation for a limited period to
conduct experimental collection of precious and semi-precious cor-
als.

Another Philippine law being cited that rendered the farming of cor-
als illegal is Executive Order No. 247 which was adapted on May
1995 with the implementing rules and regulations approved by
DENR Secretary on June 21, 1996 as Department Administrative
Order No. 96-20. E.O. No. 247 covers prospecting of all biological
and genetic resources in the public domain, including natural
growths on public lands, which foreign and local individuals, entities,
organizations whether government or private intend t<? utilize: Except
traditional use, all bioprospecting activities aimed at dIscovenng, ex-
ploring or using these resources for pharmaceutical development,
agricultural and commercial applications.

45
Section 1 of E.O. 247 states that it shall be the policy of the States
to regulate the prospecting of biological and genetic resources so
that resources are protected and conserved, are developed and put
to the sustainable use and benefit of the national interest. Further, it
shall promote the development of local capability in science and
technology to achieve technological self-reliance in selected areas.

Section 2b of E.0.247 states that prospecting of biological and ge-

netic resources shall be allowed only with the prior informed consent
of the concerned local communities.

The Coral Farm Project in Caw-oy does not only have the informed
consent of the local communities but together with the local govern-
ment units, they are our partners in implementing the project at the
same time the direct beneficiaries.

3.0 Remarks

It is clear from the whereases of the decrees that the spirit and intent
of the two cited laws is really the conservation of corals for the pres-
ervation of the natural breeding grounds of fishes and other marine
organisms. The law finds it necessary that the exploration, exploita-
tion, utilization and conservation of corals are properly regulated to
ensure the preservation of the country's marine environment.

The coral farm project in Caw-oy does not in anyway contravene to

the intent and spirit of the two cited Philippine laws. In fact, coral
farming contributes to the biodiversity conservation of coral reefs.
With more than 22,000 fragments now in the farm placed in over
275 coral nursery units (CNUs), it was noticed that the number of
fish species in the farm increased through the new CNU habitats. In
fact, some fisherfolk placed their bamboo fish traps between the
CNUs and claimed to make good catches, which shows positive ef-
fect of the coral farm.

The method of coral farming is based on the ability of corals to

propagate asexually. The project was able to prove that in a natural
environment, stony coral fragments can grow to 2-3cm in 1-3
months.

46
The technology of coral farming has not yet been disseminated and
popularized, thus the Philippine law on corals is silent on the issue
of coral farming. We can remain fixated, rigid and dogmatic in fol-
lowing our coral law or we can take a look and study this new scien-
tific development and make amendments on our law. Coral farming
is a good tool for reef rehabilitation and in the Philippines we can be
proud of this new development.

47
CHAPTER IV
SETTING UP ECOTOURISM
VENTURES: The Olango Coral Farm Ecotour
Carsten Hattche, Thomas Heeger, Filipina Sotto, Joey Gatus and Christeta Laron

1.0 What is Ecotourism?

Promoting conservation objectives is a significant role of ecotourism,
which links this tourism market segment to the objectives of the
Olango Coral Farm. Apart from educating the guests about local en-
vironmental and conservation issues, revenues from ecotourism
should at least partially finance the costs of protecting natural areas.
In case of the Olango Coral Farm and other similar projects, this is
achieved by levying a user fee from tourists. This fee can be inte-
grated into the price for the ecotour or the ecotourism product, or
earmarked as a separate contribution for the project's conservation
activities. In the latter case, the ecotourists will have a more active
feeling of supporting conservation as the money is used for a spe-
cific purpose. In some cases, the contribution may be voluntary, in
other cases where these revenues are the sole source of funds for
the operation of a conservation area or program, this may be fixed at
a certain amount.

For the Olango Coral Farm, revenues from the tourist fees are used
to contribute to the operational cost of the coral farm, to finance
community extension programs such as student scholarships or im-
proving the sanitary infrastructure, or to co-finance coral rehabilita-
tion on nearby reefs or elsewhere in the country.

Ecotourism should bring economic benefits to local people in the

area of the tourism activity. That may include a wider range of locally
owned and operated tourism businesses such as tour operators and
travel agents, small and medium sized guesthouses and hotels
amongst others.

The element of business scale needs to be integrated as another

key factor that determines the environmental compatibility of any

48
 tourism activity. Large tour operations, as in the case of the Galapa-
gos Islands, bring many environmental problems with them related
to the l~rge _number of visitors and frequency of visitations. Thus,
ecotourism 1s often used to refer to a scale that is small with limited
ecological and social impacts.

In case of the O~ango Coral Farm the approach of community-

based ecotour,sm was followed which is described in this chapter.
Community-based ecotourism focuses on improving the livelihoods
of poor people in rural environments. This form of tourism can be
built on natural resources and culture, which are often the only sig-
nificant tourism assets that the poor have. It has the potential of of-
fering alternative income with benefits for education and health care
for the involved community members. Most of the people participat-
ing have no previous backgrounds in the tourism industry. In
Olango, they are fisherfolk from the coastal village Caw-Oy.

Being poor means often being forced to exploit natural resources in

unsustainable ways due to lack of alternative income opportunities.
In coastal areas this often leads to overexploitation and fishing with
destructive methods such as dynamite and cyanide fishing, Com-
munity-based ecotourism may be able to achieve two goals: a) pro-
vide alternative livelihood and income to the poor, and b) offer more
sustainable means of utilizing and conserving natural resources.

The element of business scale needs to be integrated as another

key factor that determines the environmental compatibility of any
tourism activity. Large tour operations, as in the case of the Galapa-
gos Islands, bring many environmental problems with them related
to the large number of visitors and frequency of visitations. Thus,
ecotourism is often used to refer to a scale that is small with limited
ecological and social impacts.

Ecotourism development covers a wide range of activities: strategic

planning, physical development, market rese_arch, pr~duct develop-
ment enterprise development, visitor education, tourism
stak~holders management and environmental impact mana~ement.
Community-based ecotourism adds the eleme~t ~f commu~1ty or:
ganization and capacity building to this list. Training of tourism skills
is most essential.

49
Each development process starts with planning. A number of plan-
ning indicators can be used to outline the development program and
match it with the expectations of the community stakeholders (Table
1 ).

Table 1. Indicators for community-based ecotourism and mass

nature-tourism -u -- ~

Coma:nuriity-based Ecotourlsm: Nature-based mass

Planning
Olango Coral Farm, Philippines tourism/nature tourism
Indicator

0 Small, no growth or slow growth • All scales, fast progression

Scale
to large scale

• Low investment • High Investment

• building on existing infrastructure and • Extensive supporting infra-
structure development,
investment proximity to nearby resort tourism
(Mactan/Cebu) • Priority to allow for fast,
• catering to day-trips rather easy and comfortable ac-
than over-night stays cess

• Provides livelihood and income for • Promote national develop-

poor fisherfolk ment objectives
• Promotes conservation objectives • distributes funds to central
0 Promote sustainable use of marine governmental agencies
Development goals resources Leakage's of revenues from
rural areas to city-based
operators, airlines , travel
agencies
r. ,. '" ~--~ Assels in natura resources an cu - ,filgnguesf capacffy
~ • d . ture • Migh.er.-eng ·Ser.9ices anQ)
t Aecom mo at1on
and other Facilities •
Stay within carrying capacity prices-
• Lower-end Services and prices

• Scientific tourism • Fishing and hunting

• Cultural tourism • High impacUhigh intensity
• Wildlife watching with interpretation adventure/sports activities
facilities and services • Non-individual, high volume
Activities • Individual travelling or small group and comfort nature tours

•
•
tours
Nature photography.
Diving and snorkeling
.. (e.g. AC-coaches}
Combination with other
non-nature related activities
• Coral propagation (e.g. ship cruises}

• Natural surroundings and cultural .Natural surroundings and

assets facilities equal •
Key focus • Facilities basic • ~ecreatlonal/relaxatlol)
• Educational/ interaction with focus
community

50
Lessons learned:

Community based eeotourism means:

• Providing alternative livelihood and income to the poor.
• A scale that is small with limited ecological and social impacts.
• Offers more sustainable means of utilization and conservation of
natural resources.
• Contributing to the financing of conservation areas and programs

1.1 Community organization and participatory planning

Community-based ecotourism has a very high probability of involv-

ing people that have never been previously exposed to the tourism
and service industry.

In case of the Olango Coral Farm the inhabitants of the coastal vil-
lage of Caw-Oy are mainly fisherfolks To supplement the daily in-
come from fishing of Pesos 100 or US$ 2.5 (on a bad fishing day) to
500 or US$ 12.5 (on a good day), subsistence farming and other ac-
tivities like shellcraft production are carried out by the village's
women.

The Olango Coral Farm started in 1997 and had involved local vil-
lagers in the set up and operational phase from the very beginning.
Thus, two community organizations, namely a fishermen association
and the Caw-oy women group had already been formed. The ecot-
ourism venture was build upon these organizations. If no such or-
ganization exists, it is wise to establish one on the onset of an ecot-
ourism J).roject to facilitate and channel the participation of the com-
munity. These organizations can grow and establish themselves in a
more formal manner with the progress of an on-going ecotourism
project. For all activities with the community a high level of transpar-
ency was maintained. The projected opportunities and potential
benefits were never exaggerated. All data collected (interviews,
questionnaires, photo documentation etc.) was feedback to the
community.

The coral farm's community organizer was essential in providing first

information on ecotourism activities to the communities in informaf
discussions and meetings. This served as an orientation and prepa-

51
ration for the participatory planning process to follow. If such man-
power cross-linking to other projects is not possible, a community
organizer for the ecotourism venture should be hired. The commu-
nity organizing components are crucial for the project.

A ecotourism workshop was conducted participated by the commu-

nity. The objective of the workshop was to identify planning pa-
rameters and to reach consensus of the community for the venture.
In detail:

• An understanding of the project expectations and benefits by

Caw-oy residents and other project participants
• Compare community expectations with initial project targets:
coral farming as alternative livelihood to destructive fishing tech-
niques; operation of an ecotourism business as a source of sta-
ble income; nature interpretation to raise environmental aware-
ness of community participants and tourists
• Introduction of the principles of ecotourism and ecotourism prod-
uct development
• Further in-depth development of project targets, activities and
programs together with the community

The planning workshop resulted in the identification of the following

project expectations for individuals or families from ectourism:

• Stable livelihood and livelihood improvement (higher income)

• Better education for children, financed through higher income
• Support for other small-scale businesses in the community
• Opportunities to sell other products to tourists (shell craft)
• Recovery of fish stocks by lessening the pressure on marine re-
sources

When asked how the community should benefit from ecotourism in

Olango, a priority list of community projects was compiled during the
workshop:

Money earned from ecotourism should be spent for community proj-

ects:

52
 Scholarships for access to higher educational institutions such
as high school and college;

Purchase of fish traps, a selective, passive and non-destructive

fishing gear called panggals are manufactured and used by Caw-
oy fishermen, they would like to extend the program;

Beach Clean-up and Greening, mainly requested by Caw-Oy

women, they would like to improve waste disposal in their com-
munity, possibilities for waste separation, re-cycling and com-
posting;

Water Supply Projects: Improve the community's supply with

freshwater by adding deep wells and cisterns for washing and
cooking purposes;

Community Library, containing school books and novels;

Credit for Cooperatives, for the start-up of small-scale enter-

prises.

Comments:
Out of lhe list of potential community projects, three proposals relate
to the use of other natural resources in Olango. It demonstrates that
ecotourism needs to be integrated with other sustainable coastal
zone management projects, including sustainable fishing tech-
niques. The women organizations will be instrumental to implement
tourism and environmental management programs at the community
level.

As an important result of the planning process, a consensus was

found that a percentage of the revenues from ecotourism would be
paid into a community fund to be managed by a corpmunity com-
mittee. This money will be used to finance projects for the village
and will benefit also non-participants of the ecotourism activities in
the community.

It was further agreed during the participatory planning session to

start with uniform salary structures for community members. It is im-
portant to explain benefit distribution early to avoid misunderstand-

53
ings and false expectations within the community. The structure of
earning distribution has to be simple and transparent for the same
reasons. In the case of the Olango Coral Farm that means every
community member who contributes substantially to the ecotourism
operation receives P 100.00 or US$ 2.5 per 4-5 hours-ecotour in the
beginning. The identified ecotour services provided by the commu-
nity includes interpretation and guiding, local transportation, house-
keeping, cooking, purchase of goods such as food and drinks taking
from one to a few hours of work. The salary structure can be later
revised, if tourism services are further refined and input discrepan-
cies become clear. For instance, the purchase and preparation of
local food delicacies may take much more time effort than the simple
provision of a boat transfer service from a larger boat to land and
back. Behind-the-scene managerial services such as accepting
bookings or financial accounting mean also greater responsibilities
for individual community-members. However, this remains for now
under the supervision of the project team, since simple communica-
tion facilities lack in the island.

The principles of tourism operations, such as quality of services in

guest reception, guiding, food preparation and presentation, costing,
accounting and marketing were introduced during the workshop. As
far as possible role play were used to visualize tourism services and
provide a learning experience.

Provisions for conflict management are essential for a participatory

planning process as they can be expected to arise. For instance,
non-participating community members could start to oppose the
project if they belong to other interest groups. Individuals may try to
interfere with the project for political or monetary reasons and so on.

In the case of Caw-Oy, a small entrepreneurial group of villagers

had started to construct and operate small seafood restaurants built
over the sea (local name: Payag Plate 9, a). The Payags serve local
and foreign tourists from nearby Mactan Island with fresh seafood
and local delicacies. Fish, shells and snails are purchased from local
fishermen, which provides economical benefits to them in close
proximity. The individual restaurant owners were mainly benefiting
from the operations, allowing a monthly income of up to Pesos
20,000 or US$ 500. The restaurant standards are basic but display

54
an authentic and rustic charm. The Payag operators feared compe-
tition from the ecotour operations once ecotourists are served meals
by the project at the coral farm. As the coral farm does not have a
restaurant facility at this time (the Environmental Training Center in
the shape of a fish is under construction Plate 8, h), a mutual bene-
ficial tour package was started. Ecotourists could take their lunch at
the Payag after visiting the coral farm. The community members are
participating in the preparation and presentation of food to their
guests at the Payag. (Plate 9, d). The payag owner receives a share
of the revenue from the food service as part of the ecotour. The
ecotour includes the Payag in its marketing concept, which provides
an additional source of guests for the restaurant (see product devel-
opment section).

Lessons-learned:

• Where possible build upon existing community organizational

structures, even created by other non-tourism projects.
• Women groups or organizations tend to play a central role in the
initial consensus finding process and also later in establishing
tourism services.
• Initial project targets need to be shared with the community and
re-checked for acceptance. When technical studies are carried
out by experts, results and management recommendations must
be fed back to the community for consensus decisions.
• Community benefits (also for community members not directly or
initially participating in the ecotourism venture) need to be clearly
defined and prioritized.
• Tourism revenue distribution structures should be early intro-
duced and remain simple and transparent.
• A conflict management mechanism should be established to al-
low opponents of the project to voice their concerns and allow
space for integration or other forms of conflict management.
• Not the entire community needs to support the project, just the
good majority

55
1.2 Product development

A key element of every community-based ecotourism project is the

detailed planning and product development process. For the Olango
Coral Farm Ecotour the same community groups and organizations
were involved in developing the ecotourism product based on the
existing coral farm.

An ecotour product consists of a pre-determined itinerary of tourism

activities (e.g. coral farming, diving, snorkeling, boating) and serv-
ices (e.g crafts, food and beverages, accommodation) based on one
or more ecological .and cultural tourism resources. It involves a
number of stakeholder groups on different ends of the ecotour prod-
uct delivery. This includes the community as the principal provider of
the product and services, tour operators, hotels and resorts and
various governmental agencies related to tourism. These groups
work in the areas of product marketing and retailing, provision of
auxiliary services ( e.g. transportation), or tourism training and per-
mits.

3.0 Guiding Questions for Community-Based

Ecotourism Product Planning
FLORES (1999) devetoped a set of guiding questions for .the com-
munity-based ecotourism products aiming to determine the feasibil-
ity of proposed ventures. For the Olango Coral Farm Ecotour these
questions were used to develop the ecotour together with the com-
munity. The answers may serve as a sample for what needs to be
considered in the process.

a) Do you have appropriate ecotourism resources to attract

visitors to come to your area?

The principal ecotourism resource in our case is the community-

based coral farm:

• Situated near the coastal village of Caw-Oy near the northern tip
of Olango Island, approximately a 30-minutes boat ride from
Mactan Island.

56
• 275 coral nursery units (CNUs) with estimated 22,000 coral
fragments for rehabilitation purposes. 2 hectares of seafloor area
covered.
• 22 local fisherfolks families are working at the coral farm on a
-part-time basis above and under water. 8 fishermen are now cer-
tified PADl-divers.
• A floating guardhouse has been installed to service the coral
farm and receive visitors.

b) Are you offering something unique (attraction, experience,

knowledge, package, price) that is competitive in relation to
other tour products in the area or those being visited by
your target tourists?

The Olango Coral Farm with its objective to rehabilitate reefs is

unique in the Philippines and even worldwide as a community-based
and community-operated project. It can be linked to other commu-
nity-based ecotourism projects on the same or neighboring islands
as a complementary destination.

c) Is your area accessible to tourists, safely, reliably and

regularly?

Except for days of rough sea in the channel between Mactan Island
and Olango Island the coral farm can be reached by local boats car-
rying up to 20 or 30 passengers in 30 minutes.

d) Are there tour operators (marketers) who could sell your

product directly to tourists and who could be responsible in
bringing the tourists to your area?

Yes, there are established tour operators on Cebu and Mactan ls-
land providing various tour packages for tourists visiting the area.
Many of the big resorts and hotels have leased out tour desks in
their lobbies to these tour operators. There, they sell tour packages
directly to the hotel or resort guests. Tour operators are organized in
the Cebu Association of Tour Operators (CATO).

57
e) Are there dedicated tourism workers (people who will work
in the venture) who enjoy relating with people and working
hard and are willing to commit to work even in difficult
times?

There is a group of about 20 people in the Caw-oy community,

which has regularly participated in meetings and training sessions
during one year of preparations. This group has demonstrated a
strong commitment and willingness to work. Out of them a core of 2-
4 fisherfolk are able to guide tourists.

f) Are the people in the community organized for and involved

in decision making on ecotourism development in their
area?

Yes, see description on community organization and participation

above.

g) Will the community share in the economic benefits of the

ecotour venture?

Yes, see description on community organization and participation

above.

h) Are government bodies on local development, resource and

tourism management in the area supportive of the planned
venture?

The Local Government Unit through its barangay captain is very

supportive of the project goals. The Department of Tourism (DOT)
has participated in familiarization tours to evaluate the ecotour prod-
uct and has recommended the tour officially. Financial support for
infrastructure development is provided by a congressman via the
local Mayor's office.

i) Do the community, concerned public agencies or private

groups integrate the ecotour venture in a larger environ-
mental conservation effort?

58
Yes, the community is involved in the coral farming program, which
serves to rehabilitate damaged coral reefs. Two coral reef sites have
been already rehabilitated. These are Plantation Bay Hotel and Re-
sort (4,000 coral fragments), Mactan, and Consuelo (2,000 coral
fragments), Ca motes. The survival rates are 82 to 92% after three
months. The supply of coral fragments from the Olango coral farm
provides direct income to the fisherfolks at Caw-oy.

j) Will there be a professional business management system

to run the venture in the locality?

This has to be established with the community. Continuous training

and supervision for the first years of operation are necessary to pre-
pare the community for the system of professional business man-
agement. This is essential for the long-term success of the project. A
gradual hand over is envisioned with more sophisticated tourism
skills such as accounting, bookkeeping and reservations to be
trained and handed over last. This process involves a cultural ad-
aptation from a mainly day-to-day subsistence life to a forward
looking approach with a fixed schedule of reliable work and services.

k) Is there access to financing for starting the venture?

Yes, the venture set up is part of the grant support for the Olango
Coral Farm.

3.0 Based on the Above Assessment, the Ecotour

Product Development is Feasible.

3. 1 Target market and packaging

The proximity to Mactan and Cebu makes the Olango Coral Farm to
an ideal day-trip destination. The target markets for this tour pro-
gram are beach resort tourists on nearby Mactan Island and hotel
guests from Cebu. This ecotour product can stand on its own or can
be integrated into a more comprehensive ecotour program with
other regional eco-destinations (Table 2).

59
Table 2. Cebu Tourist Arrivals· 1995-1999
~:99;5. 1996 1997 1998 1999
Total International 227,329 248,311 277,614 242,894 289,098
Arrivals
Fifa of net~ Deer-. :-9. 23% -11.80% 2.51% 19.02%

Total Domestic 273,158 334,628 380,031 391,847 461,980

Arrivals
. Rate of lncr:/Decr. 1 58% 22.50% 13.57% 3.11% 17.90%
~
Grand Total 500,487 582,939 657,645 634,741 751,078
,
Tota( Rate of 5. 9% "6.47% 12.82% 3.~8~ 18.33%
. lncrJDecr. ..
Source:Department of Tourism- Region 7

Part of the Olango Sample Itinerary for Olango Coral Farm Ecotour
Coral Farm experi-
ence is a unique, 8.00 am: Meeting at Maribago Marine Station or other launch
sites at Mactan Islands.
interactive intro-
duction to the nov- 8. 30 am: Boat Transfer from Maribago.to Olango Coral Farm .
!>; 00 am: Arrival and reception at Olango Coral Farm:
elty of coral farming • Fresh coconut welcome drink for visitors at the Coral Farm
for reef rehabilita- Guardhouse.
• The visitors are introduced to the coral farm and its objec-
tion and marine tives. Environmental education is practically applied at the
conservation. The coral farm:
• Fishermen will demonstrate their selective fishing gear, the
visitors will partici- 'pangal' amongst others, as alternatives to commonly used
pate in the coral destructive fishing methods such as dynamite-blasting.
farm activities car- • Guests can practice attaching coral fragments to substrate
before the fragments are being placed into the farm.
ried out by local • Snorkeling visitors can view the coral farm in shallow wa-
fishermen and the ters and observe the coral farm maintenance team at work.
• Free-and-easy swimming and snorkeling at the Coral Farm
women group. Note: Please bring along swim and bathing wear and snorkel
gear or notify us if you wish to rent snorkel gear.
Simple coral farm- 11._30 am: Transfer from the farm to the Payag (Restaurant by
ing work processes , the Sea) using small boats
such as tying coral 11. 30am: Lunch at the Payag.
fragments to sub- The _Caw-Oy women group will serve a diverse mix of local
seafood and local delicacies. Interested guests can observe and
strates before learn from them how to prepare delicious donuts and other des-
placing them into serts. Before departure the community will honor their guests
with a local folksong and a farewell gift..
special "underwater
gardens" or coral 12. 30 pm: Departing from Olango Coral Farm and Boat Trans-
fer back to Marbago Marine Station .
nursery units
(CNU), are demon- 13. 00 pm: End of Eco-Tour

60
strated to the guests, who are invited to try it with their own hands
(Plate 9, c)

The workers in the farm are fishermen who are trained and certified
divers. Snorkel gear can be used by the tourists to observe these
activities from close range. A trained interpreter will provide the
visitors with interesting background information on the Olango Coral
Farm and marine ecological topics during the tour. At a later stage,
divers will be able to explore an underwater dive trail near the farm
with interpretive signs fixed along the coral trail (Plate Be, f, g).
These activities are rounded up when the local women group invites
the visitors for a lunch made of local delicacies (Plate 9a-e ). The
package is presently planned to take 4-5 hours. The tour is also
suitable for study groups or naturalist travelers, students, and incen-
tive groups.

4.0 Behind the Scenes: Costing and Pricing for the

Olango Coral Farm Ecotour Package

The following costs and prices for the tour were worked out prior to
the tour. A minimum tour group size of fiye persons was assumed
(Table 3):

61
 • Cooking/ Housekeeping 3-4 persons 300.00
Local ·Boat Transfer 2 persons ·. -~r·· ·. •---__ ·100:0Q
~

• Nature Guide 1 person 150.00

~-.· _-!,~u~~e~e!"ation_Servf~___ ;_ _:'. '. ·1 ~~~~~----·- __ _ __ -_. ·- -c- ··---~-_--,- 190.pcC-~·~::-_- :j
Subtotal for manpower 800.00
r::::- . ----- - ----. ,-- --·•--. - ·, f. -
··7
- .- -~ ____ :r ---·- _ _ _ -..
• J --- ·-- --- - .• - - - -
1. :<Farewell Gift r I 3().00· -· : . -
~-.::.,.-___ .. . . .... - L. -- •· ... - - - !' --~ . . ·• •---. - - - - - ~ - .. -.,-......:..

TOTAL Cost Operations 1,292.00

)provisions for Coral Farm : Malntena!lce of buildings 25Q.00

TOTAL Cost Tour Package 5 persons 1,542.00

,... -. ------ ·--.~,- --....- ·----·
?foTALCostTour-Pack~ge·. ·..
,-...;.,..,..L.~:.,, ____ ... ___ .. , • . • ··• .... _, ___ ----------.
: :_~person ·--- --- _____________.,....._
; ·. • '
.3oa:~o· .
' <;._---...__ -~--·-----.. ~
,-J
Pricing for tour package

rt$~~:i,rcifit~n~st ·. ;.. _::·: · :.--.

!~-'!-~-~~ .-::.... --·----~. .
:·1r~--;e~;d~:<;,~,~~t~~~~-;>-,.-
... ·:______ , ___·-t _____:
·:r ·:·~-:-~--~~o~~~~-:c:1
-------=-·· ------··--·~--------- ----~'---•-·~------:~.----:...: -~·----· __ .1.,__,. __.. _J

Price for Non-Divers to tour operators 460.00

. .. : . . . . ....•. •· .. ·~ .... - ··-.
' ;PHce for Divers to tour _•. . - : ; Incl. fee for.<;o@I farm.1:trid i: . : . · ·: _ .. ·J
·:.bperators: :
. -. . . - ··.· · ;. ] i unqe~te(~l:mal~~n~~~~ .i '· .• : :.'.· .· ~~Cl.OQ . ·: .'". '" ·1
~ . ' .
-_-_ /~ ..... . ~[_~":~Pt~~~-~:::~~',,·, ~_;;:,'._:L.,~,''.'.c -~,·•·~ '2• '-~'.-<_:_j

4.1 Fine-tuning the ecotourism product with tour operators

The best way of fine-tuning a planned ecotourism product or ecotour

is to consult with professional tour operators. If you have packaged
a product, invite a group of tour operators for familiarization trips (in-
dustry jargon: 'fam-tour') to experience your product. Getting a posi-
tive feedback from them is important, as the tour operator will mar-
ket and sell your product to the tourists (Plate 9a-e ).

In case of the Olango Coral Farm Ecotour we invited the members

of CATO, the Cebu Association of Tour Operators· and other se-
lected specialist operators such as dive centers to attend 'tam-tours'.
The tour operators are participating as ordinary tourists in order to
experience the whole package first hand. This enables them to sell it
later to their customers, knowing the product from their own experi-
ence.

62
As industry professionals with extensive experience the tour opera-
tors' feedback and suggestions are of great value for the fine-tuning
process. For the Olango Coral Farm Ecotour we prepared a feed-
back questionnaire for the tour operators.

The analysis of the feedback questionnaire provided us with a better

estimate of our ecotour product. Below are the results in detail (Ta-
ble 4):

.-;~~-/-.~ •• •• : ., ► ),.-·_ •• _, :.--.-.:. ~: _· ;-:• ..... #- f ~- ... '.'. ·; ~~---.-· :·-·--_.. ; ·-;-·- - - ---·--
'- ~ - ~- .. t, . -
, . • l
~
•.-
f ~ ... )~~qep_Uon; :, · : .. , , . ?;3$ -. · i :. 27 ¼
' ... ~ ... , r --' . ______ ; ...• ______ __,._• -
· . ' .'
• Coral farm intro- 64% 36%
duction
.. I
•: ..

• Fishing methods
46% 27% 9%
demonstrations

• Paddling 27% 18% 55%:.!

1:n>u.r-=-::_s~~ff:~ :;·~-~~J ~-~-= .- _·.:~~) C.:c::"_ .~~j ------·- "- ____ ~---··· · _
• Cleanliness 73% 27%
:;,.~: -~··Frlendllriess < : ·.: .91%: ·,; ·~ .. 9%
~'-·-·--.-.,, .... -. -~- .. - .. ---
, .... --- .. ... ·-----•-· . ·--
..
- '• - . ~-
• Interaction with 91% 9%
visitors
\\f'-Jyag~ Lun,ch ~ ._-· _:: :'
;,:progr~'1' •. . .·. :.. ;:·
• Food Quality 91% 9%
·• Food Quan~ty 82% 18%

• Food Presentation 73% 18% 9%

... , . . . Cooking Demon- 24% 67% 9%

~~:-~... _s~tl9f'!_ :' : ... __ ''

• Farewell / Gift3 18% 9% 73%

63
1- visitor who was absent during the presentation
2- visitor who was not able to avail the service
3- Questionnaire was presented prior to farewell and gift presentation.

Overall, the community interactive experience, friendliness, food

quantity and quality were received very well. Interpretation services
and demonstrations of fishing methods and cooking skills will have
to be further improved. The demonstrations should be brief with eye
contact and a good voice projection by the presenters from the
community. The cooking demo could be optional for interested
guests during lunch. The reception at the coral farm and the lunch
could be accompanied by singing performances, as it is already the
case for the farewell.

More than half of the tour operators responded after the 'fam trip'
that a suitable group size would be between 5-10 guests per ecot-
our. It was commented that larger groups would be fine provided the
tour is conducted by a licensed and experienced guide and ade-
quate safety precautions are taken. There even may be a market for
special tours for couples, linking it to the positioning of Mactan's re-
sort as a destination for honeymooners from Japan or other coun-
tries.

In terms of willingness to spend for nature conservation, a simple

majority feels that Pesos 50 to 75 (US$ 1 .25 to 1.9) would be an
adequate amount per guest. Three respondents felt that the amount
should be up to the discretion of the guest to contribute i.e. should
not be fixed.

Taking a cautious approach for the Olango Coral Farm Ecotour a

donation of Pesos 50-60 per guest for conservation programs could
be levied. This is in addition to provisions made for the maintenance
of the coral farm and the underwater dive trail (Pesos 200 per diving

64
 guest). The conservation fee should be used to finance specific pro-
grams such as the rehabilitation of nearby coral reefs in Olango Is-
land. To create a visual link, the fee amount can be expressed in
numbers of coral fragments purchased with the money. Thus, each
tourist will know that with his contribution another 5-6 coral frag-
ments have been added to the rehabilitation of a specific reef sec-
tion.

The suggested retail price by tour operators for the Olango Coral
Farm Ecotour ranges from P400 (US$ 10) to P 1,400 (US$ 35). The
lower range may indicate the price for the services provided only at
the farm, exclusive.of the ferry transfer from Mactan and Olango ls-
land and back. Most of the suggested prices fall between P 500 and
P 699 (average: P 620). That corresponds well to the estimated tour
pricing structure of P 460 to 590, which was worked out during the
participatory planning process with the community.

Tour operators also suggested that local tourists should be charged

a lower price than foreign guests due to differences in average
household incomes. The price per guest for foreign· tourists could be
P 600 (US$ 15) and for local tourists P 500 (US$ 12.50). This would
be the price to the tour operators, which will have to include their
costs and margins.

For the booking and confirmation of tours the tour operators need
one point of contact, ideally situated in Cebu where most tour op-
erators are located for easy communication. The companies would
need tour quotations, tour guidelines, brochures, itinerary, tour
package details and mode of payments. These data and materials
will have to be provided by the project.
At the beginning advanced bookings would be required to allow the
Caw-oy community sufficient time to prepare for purchase of food
and set up procedures.

4.2 Community-produced souvenirs

At present the souvenir trade in Caw-Oy with shellcraft is in the

hand of middlemen. They deliver the shells fro~ other parts of the
Philippines to the community members, who wlll assemble the prod-
ucts, mainly shell-mats, coasters, etc. and sell them back for a fixed,

65
minimal fee to the middlemen. Massive shell harvesting for the sou-
venir trade is ecologically questionable . Alternative souvenirs should
be produced with local resources, and represent the Caw-oy com-
munity and Olango Island in a unique manner. As an ecotourism
project we are also emphasizing that souvenirs need to be produced
based on principles of sustainability:

A list of potential souvenir products were identified during the plan-

ning sessions with the community:

• Hand-made paper with embedded algae and shells as stationary,

picture frames, etc.
• Natural herbal teas and creams; the community members col-
lected and presented plants used for traditional medicinal pur-
poses (Table 5).

Table 5. Some examples of herbal plants, their applications and

medicinal value used in Caw-oy, 01-ango Island.

Plant used Parts used Medicinal

Local name/Scientific name /Applicatio~, Value

Leaves and roots,

Noni { ) Boil and drink Cure-all
L ts, exl@ct the c- -
Horse-raddish ( )
- - ~ .1 -.;;,.2)9}"4 .~;-CL,_..~
Leaves, extract juice, boil and Anti-septic.
Guava drink Diarrhea
Digau , ~ J,.:eaves, I - - ' Stomach ache,_,
Origano Leaves, boil and drink Cold
Roots, boll and drink - Pain-relief durtng men-
Elepante
...§.Y,uation
Tawa-Tawa. Leaves, boil and drink Blood circulation

Baha-Baha, 1• Leaves, boll and drink Cold

Gmelina, Bark, boil and drink Stomach ache, gas
Sinau-Sinau Leaves, boll and drtnl( Koney
Tuba-Tuba, Leaves, extract the juice and
apply Gas, Herpes simplex
Star-apple, Leaves. boll and drink ' Dl~rrhea__
Tamarind, Leaves, boil and drink Pain-relief
Lemon grass Leaves, boil and drink Hlgh61ood pressure,
hype~f;!OSIOD
NimypTree Leaves, boil and drink Diabetes, mosquitoes
repellent
Katubung Seeds.flower Tij9lfiaooe, aslfj!'iia"~' . ,:

66
Comments:
These plants would have to be checked for their potential values
and risks by the pharmaceutical and ethnobotanical specialists be-
fore being sold to tourists. Simple products like packaged herbal
teas or ointments against mosquito-bites and pain-relief can be mar-
keted to tourists by the Caw-oy community.

Lessons learned:
• Conduct 'fam-tours' with local tour operators for professional
feedback and product fine-tuning.
• Suitable group size would be between 5-10 guests per ecotour.
Larger groups would be fine provided the tour is conducted by a
trained guide and adequate safety precautions are taken.
• Establish the willingness to spend for nature conservation. Fixed
amounts need to be related to concrete and visual conservation
activities.
• Prices for tour packages can be developed together with the
community and then checked for market viability by tour opera-
tors.
• Different pricing structure for local and foreign tourists.
• For the booking and confirmation of tours the tour operators
need one point of contact for easy communication.
• The project needs to provide tour quotations, tour guidelines,
brochures, itinerary, tour package details and mode of payments.

67
CHAPTERV
THE CORAL TRAIL: An Ecotourism Attraction
Joey Gatus, Thomas Heeger, Filipina Sotto, Christeta Laron and Carsten Huttche

The coral trail is a component of the ecotourism program of the coral

farm. Unlike other ecotourism destinations, which showcase natural
landscapes or coral reefs, the coral trail offers a man-made structure
(concrete, stainless steel and rope) mixed with biotic elements. The
objective of the coral trail is:

To combine the dive experience with fun and educating ele-

ments about the reef ecosystem

A series of exhibits ( 14 stations) were arranged in strategic positions

in the vicinity of the coral farm with an approximate area of 3,000 m 2 •
Every station tells a story, written in layman's perspective for easier
understanding. The corresponding animals described in the text of
the sign are displayed (Plate 8e, f).

The coral trail showcase an underwater obstacle course to check

divers buoyancy prior to the actual site in order not to stir up the
bottom sediment, which could cause stress to the reef. After passing
the buoyancy test (Plate 89), divers proceed to the different stations.
They are connected through a safety line to glass signboards with
the text. The underwater exhibits focus on the different aspects of
the coral biology and other invertebrate life such as species diversity
of corals, morphology, reproduction and regeneration ability of pol-
yps, reef building and non-reef building corals, stinging anemones,
soft corals, giant clams (Appendix 2) and barrel sponge. The pang-
gal or fish trap fishery in Barangay Caw-oy, which is the main source
of livelihood, is also exhibited as a selective, non-destructive and
passive gear. Resident spotted garden eels (Heteroconger hass1),
batfishes (P/atax teira), hundreds of fusiliers (Caesio varilineata,
Pterocaesio tile) and sergeant majors (Abudefduf sexfasciatus) and
the docile but very poisonous banded sea snake (Laticauda co/u-
brina, Laticauda laticaudata) add to the whole scenery. However,
the snakes are not posing a threat to tourists or divers.

68
The trail starts at the guardhouse where the pumboats dock and the
divers are registered. The line is connected to the platform of the
guardhouse and will guide the divers from the beginning. The depth
at the start is 12 m and up to a maximum of 17 m and at the end of
the dive around 12 m. Total dive time is 35 to 45 min, depending on
the time spent watching the animals.

The coral trail has a carrying capacity of 2-3 divers (per batch) at a
time with a rotational coefficient of 5-10 minutes prior to the next
batch of divers. This will allow sufficient time for each team to read
the signs. In total, for a low impact operation of the trail, only 20 to
30 divers are allowed per day to dive the trail.

An entrance fees of 5 US$ (P200) per diver is charged for mainte-

nance of the trail, ticketing cost, security and for the community
projects. The Coral Farm Management Council handles all income
and the accounting.

There are a few things that need to be followed to have a safe and
enjoyable dive:

• Boats should only use their rope to dock at the guardhouse and
never use the anchors. In the advent of multiple docking, boat
operators are requested to dock at the rear end of the boat al-
ready docked at the guardhouse
• Get a briefing from the guard and claim your ticket before using
the trail
• Do not touch the animals (some of them might inflict a painful
sting!)
• Follow rules for safe diving and stay within the limits
• Remember: take nothing than pictures, leave nothing than bub-
bles and kill only time ....

69
LEGENDS

Plate 1 TEXT AND PHOTOS BY T. HEEGER UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED

(a) Natural threats to coral reefs such as extensive coral bleaching following pro-
longed periods of elevated sea surface temperatures (SST) caused by the El Nino
Southern Oscillation (ENSO) may have a dramatic effect on coral reefs locally.
However, as long as the conditions for coral growth are still given the reefs have
the capacity to recover fast on a geological time scale.

(b) A Crowr:i-of-thorn (Acanthaster plane,) starfish is devouring a massive coral.

(c) lnspite management measures and international efforts, human population

increases rapidly and the resources are exploited by all means. New concepts are
required to improve marine productivity through extensive small scale low-cost
sea ranching and at the same time curb population growth.

(d) In flagrante delicto ... This fisherman is blasting a reef. The technique known as
"dynamite fishing" uses ammonium nitrate commonly applied as fertilizer. lnspite
strict laws against the use of destructive fishing methods, the fisherfolk continue to
compete by all means for the dwindling marine resources in the Philippines and
blasts can still be counted daily.

(e) The polyps of this Acropora divaricata colony display beautiful colors. Aside
from aesthetic value, coral reefs support a high diversity of marine organisms and
genetic resources required in adapting to a changing environment.

(f) The Philippine coral reefs, host to 2,200 fishes, 600 coral and several hundred
thousands other invertebrate species, many of whom are still unknown to science,
have been identified as one of the "world's biodiversity hot spot area". This is at
risk should degradation continue. A snapper shrimp, Periclimenes tosaensis ap-
pears to be confident through protection of the Haddon's Sea Anemone ( Sticho-
dactyla haddoni), tentacles.

(g) Abundant fish like this roaming school·of jacks (Carangidae) is already a rare
sighting today. Actually, the fish production alone of one square kilometer of a
healthy coral reef is able to sustain an annual catch of approx. 15 tons on the av-
erage. This is equivalent to 22,500 US$ if one kilogram is sold at 1,5 US$. Multi-
plying the total reef area of the Philippines, which is more than 25,000 km 2 , with
the sustainable catch of 1O tons per km 2 yr1 by conservative estimate, the reve-
nues from fisheries alone could contribute to the country's economy 375 million
US$ annually. Degraded reefs produce much less ... an annual loss of millions of
US$.

(h) If the purpose of coral reef protection is not for biodiversity conservation, than
another reason is the huge economic potential it can provide to the tourism indus-
try. Particularly divers enjoy intact coral reefs, even at young age, and are willing
to pay high prices for recreational diving.

70
Plate 2
(a) The Coral Farm Project (CFP) is located in Caw-oy, Olango Island, Philippines
and has a total area of 20,000 m 2 • A floating guardhouse serves as working plat-
form for the coral nursery, the reception of tourists, as starting point for the "Coral
Trail" and as venue for nature interpretation on coral reef ecology conducted by
fisherfolk. The guardhouse was funded by the German Embassy in Manila.

(b) Fisherfolk preparing for a routine dive in the Coral Farm Nursery. They have
been certified as Open Water Scuba Divers and were briefed in the safe use of
the surface air supplying compressor systems (Brownies Third Lung). At one time
six divers can work simultaneously in the farm.

(c) The technical team of the Coral Farm prepares the deployment of coral nurs-
ery units (CNUs) to the.seafloor. Two divers with fully inflated buoyancy control
devices are able to place a unit down carefully. The CNU consists of a concrete
frame with an inner area of 1 by 1 meter. They serve as nursery areas of coral
fragments.

(d) After a plain sandy spqt was found, not too close to resident coral heads, a
plastic canvass will be placed under the CNU to protect the coral fragments
against sediment cover and infauna activity.

(eJ Donor reef sites are characterized by abundant and diver~e coral growth. De-
graded reefs should be considered as donor sites only under special circum-
stances (e.g. blastfishing area). Ideal sites have huge coral colonies with spa--e
limitation as can be seen in this picture. Fragmentation at the margins of those
colonies favors fast regrowth.

(f) Healthy Acropora valenciennesi and Acropora echinata colonies competing for
space. The impact of fragmentation on the donor corals is not detectable 10 to 14
weeks after fragmentation, when generally less than 20 % of the colonies are
taken.

(g) A diver cuts off a fragment from Acropora valenciennesi using pliers. From
huge table coral such as this colony usually less than 20% is fragmented. The
donor colony regenerates within a few months and the fragments form colonies
according to their species-specific symmetry.

(h) This colorful Acropora sp. was fragmented from a small table colony. Actually,
the size of the fragment is exceeding the desired small fist size optimal as frag-
ment colony. However, it is advisable to cut main branches of the donor colony ~n
order to avoid several very small fragments unsuitable for farming. This fragment
will be further subdivided before fixation on substrate.

72
Plate3
(a) Before the mass fragmentation has started the impact of fragmentation and
time of regrowth was studied. All of the 11 branching species studies showed
complete regrowth in less than 5 months. Out of 7 massive and submassive spe-
cies only one colony (Favites abdita) did not recover and was overgrown by algae.
Two replicates of the same species regenerated in 6 to 8 months. The other spe-
cies regrew in less than one year completely. Since the massive coral colonies
are smaller, up to 50 % were taken which explains the long time for total regrow.
The picture shows a freshly fragmented Porites cylindrica donor colony with re-
tracted polyps due to fragmentation. This colony was weekly monitored for re-
growth.

(b) Close-up of Porites cylindrica colony one week after fragmentation. All polyps
are extended and the fragmented skeleton shows overgrowing polyp tissue at the
margin. The center is covered with green algae.

(c) Four weeks after the fragmentation the Porites cy/indrica donor colony has
successfully overgrown the exposed skeleton. In comparison with picture {a) this
image shows that the adjacent branches opportunistically utilize the available
space and grew towards the fragmented branches. Complete regrowth {fragmen-
tation site not identifiable) took 14 weeks.

(d) This Acropora sp. colony was cut into halves. All exposed skeleton parts were
overgrown by live polyp tissues one month after fragmentation. Another month
later this picture was taken showing the fast growth of branches close to the col-
ony stalk. Original complete colony symmetry was reached after 4.5 months.

(e) Acropora samoensis freshly fragmented and tagged for re-growth monitoring.

(f) The same Acropora samoensis donor colony as picture {e) two weeks after
fragmentation. No exposed skeleton is visible since the cut area was overgrown.
In the center of the cut branches polyps are already elevated to follow the species
specific colony symmetry.

(g) Once the fragments are cut off from the donor colony they are placed into the
plastic baskets. The filled baskets are handed over to the fisherfolk on the boat.
One by one the fragments are placed into the containers filled with seawater and
protected with canvass against direct sunlight.

(h) Fragments of this size produce only little mucus during transport. Cutting into
preferable small fist-size just before fixation on limestone slabs has proven to be
less stressful to the coral fragments.

74
Plate4
(a) Coral fragments of different species (here Acropora, Porites, Millepora, Mon-
tipora and Turbinaria) may be placed together in a basin for a few hours. The pol-
yps are retracted and therefore not harming each other.

(b) The women are informed in advance about the fragmentation and prepare all
materials for fixation. A plastic canvass covers the working area to prevent excess
wire or limestone pieces from falling accidentally into the water. The wire is precut
in desired sizes of 20 to 30 cm each and the limestone slabs are divided in small
pieces and piled up.

(c) Each fragment is placed in a stable position on the substrate and the wire is
snugly fitted around coral and substrate. If possible, a large piece of fragment
should be in contact with the substrate and the polyps should be oriented up-
wards. The wire ends are twisted using pliers at the side of the fragments to allow
a firm stand on the plastic canvass of the coral nursery units. Excess wire is cut
off. After checking the fragments stable fixation on the substrates manually they
are thrown into the water and sink to an area under the guardhouse-where they
will be collected after the tying is completed.

(d) A marine biology student fixing a coral fragment of Acropora valenciennesi

vertically on a substrate marked with grids to study the formation of a secondary
basal disc over time. The weekly growth in terms of grid cover was recorded in
situ.

(e) This coral fragment of Acropora valenciennesi was fixed horizontally to identify
multiple secondary disc formation over time.

(f) A vertically fixed Acropora valenciennesi was tagged and the grids covered by
the coral recorded. The growth was monitored for 4 months.

(g) After 9 weeks this Acropora grandis fragment formed multiple secondary basal
disc fusing with each other and providing a firm connection to the substrate.
Growth is initially slower compared to vertically mounted fragments but the stabil-
ity is better. The polyps start forming new branches.

(h) The experiment with different mounted positions of coral fragments showed
that the horizontal position should be preferred over vertical fragment position.
Even if initial vertical growth is slower in horizontally mounted fragments the con-
nection with the substrate by multiple secondary basal discs has proven to be ad-
vantageous for stability and branch formation.

76
Plates
(a) The fragments are collected by divers into plastic baskets with a wide opening
once the fixation process is completed. In case fragments are not firmly fixed to
the substrate they will be separated and returned to the surface for further tying.

(b) The divers deploy the fragments in the plastic canvass covered coral nursery
units. Depending on size and species a total of 50 to 90 fragments may be placed
in one unit. However, certain species (e.g. Ga/axea fascicularis) need more dis-
tance to other species because they extend sweeper tentacles during night, which
might harm fragments placed too close.

(c) Divers are restocking a CNU with freshly cut coral fragments. Dead fragments
are removed regularly. The survival rate ranges between 87 to 95% 3 months af-
ter the fragmentation. According to our experience the longer the corals remain in
the farm the higher the risk to be preyed on. In general, the survival rate achieved
in the farm corresponds closely to the natural survival of corals of the same size
as the fragments.

(d) Overview of a newly stocked CNU with coral fragments. This picture is from
the start of the coral farming when two or more fragments were still fixed on the
same limestone substrate. Research has shown, that the growth of fragments
fixed on substrates together was considerably faster through fusing, but in many
cases different species were fixed on the same substrate which caused retarded
growth or even death of one fragment. It is therefore recommended to fix each
fragment on one substrate.

(e) Acropora species mounted together on one limestone slab. In the foreground
of the picture even different species share one slab. This is counterproductive to
the growth of fragment and each should be fixed on its own substrate.

(f) Poci/lopora verrucosa fragments with extended polyps. This species is the
preferred diet of the pincushion starfish Culcita novaeguineae and shows higher
mortality rates compared to other species. On the other hand damselfishes such
as Dascy/lus aruanus adapt with in a few weeks to even small fragments of Pocil-
/opora and take it as refuge.

(g) During the first year of coral farming growth measurements were taken weekly.
Whenever fragments were removed for photodocumentation from the plastic can-
vass, wrasses (Thalassoma sp.) crowd the units to prey quickly on polychaetes or
other invertebrates already part of the microhabitats of the fragments. Fishermen
have asked permission to place small fish traps between CNUs and claim to have
higher catches compared to adjacent reef areas.

(h) This Acropora valenciennesi fragment represents the smallest size suitable for
reef rehabilitation.

78
Plate&
(a) This Acropora divaricata fragment formed a stable secondary basal disc within
less than 12 weeks. Other fast growing branching species may attain attachment
to the substrate in much less time than three months, some slow growing massive
species may need as long as 4 to 6 months before budding new polyps.

(b) Experiments with marine epoxy show very good results once the fragment is
growing in the CNU. However, the cost of material, time to cure requires at least
30 min exposure time, low number of fragments fixed per time unit by one person
compared to other techniques and finally the high number of fragments detaching
form the substrate during the transfer to the CNU is not supporting the use of ma-
rine epoxy for fragment fixation.

(c) Tip of Acropora muricata fragment showing multiple polyps around the axial
polyp starting to branch 2 weeks after fragmentation.

(d) At the entire margin of this Ga/axea fascicularis fragment the polyps are bud-
ding to complete the species specific growth symmetry. Galaxea species need
more distance to other fragments in the CNUs because they extend up to 15 cm
long sweeper tentacles and may harm other polyps.

· (e) Heliopora coerulea, a non-scleractinian coral known as "Blue Coral", is ex-

tremely tolerant to the fragmentation process and grows very fast. The picture
shows a fragment, which integrated the plastic cable tie six weeks after fixation.
Before wire was used, all fragments were fixed on the substrate with plastic cable
ties. Even if the tying is faster compared to the wire technique, plastic is not bio-
degradable and too expensive.

(f) Brain corals such as Symphyl/ia recta grow at much slower rate compared to
branching species. This polyp budded off only 6 months after fragmentation. Spe-
cial care is required not to injure the large polyps when fragmenting a colony.

(g) Large brain coral polyps (Symphyllia recta) need to be laterally supported by
substrate in order to achieve a stable position on the plastic canvass in the CN U.

(h) The•Vice-Ambassador of the Republic of Germany (Mr. German) and the Proj-
ect Manager (T. Heeger) check on an Acropora carduus colony during a visit of
the coral farm by the German Delegation for Economic Cooperation and Devel-
opme~t (h~ad~d. by Mrs. Troscher). The fragment achieved 35 cm height from
small fist size in Just 14 months. As a natural recruit through sexual reproduction
the coral would have a few millimeter in diameter, barely visible by the naked eye
after 14 months. Damselfishes and several crabs take advantage form the physi-
cal protection through the microhabitat provided by the colony.
Photo by: F. Sotto

80
Plate 7
(a) Two divers busy with routine works in the coral farm. Some of the tasks carried
out weekly are removal of predators and animals causing disadvantageous condi-
tions, cleaning CNUs of sediments and excessive algal growth as well as rear-
ranging the fragments after being dislocated by fishes.

(b) Almost two third of this Acropora fragment has been digested by the pin-
cushion starfish Cu/cita novaeguineae, the main predator in the coral farm. How-
ever, polyps close to the substrate have been spared and can soon regrow.

(c) Sneaking in a CNU to prey on coral fragments seems to be the mission for the
starfish Protoreaster nodosus. In fact, this species ranks third on the list of preda-
tors identified in the farm after the pin-cushion starfish (Cu/cita novaeguineae) and
the Crown-of-Thorns (Acanthaster plane,).

(d) Caught in the act! The pin-cushion starfish (Cu/cita novaeguineae) devouring
selected coral fragments. If undisturbed, the starfish might finish off half of the
fragments in one CN U.

(e) Coral colonies selected for reef rehabilitation like the ones shown by the fish-
ermen have met the following criteria: formation of a secondary basal disc, stable
position on the substrate and healthy growth.

(f) The fragments selected for reef rehabilitation are transferred to styrofoam or
plastic containers with a minimum volume of 50 liters. Different species might be
mixed for several hours without negative effects. A canvass is required to protect
against direct sunlight during transport. A useful indicator for stress of corals is
increased mucus production. In general, water change is recommended after
each hour.

(g) A diver is searching for suitable areas to deploy fragments at a rehabilitation

site. Regular briefing has to be conducted with the team participating in "reef
scaping". The objective is to identify optimal microhabitats of reef where the frag-
ments will be finally deployed which ensures high survival rates.

(h) This Acropora divaricata fragment was deployed at an ideal site. With distance
to resident corals and with the branches already in contact with the rocky sub-
strate, the basic conditions are given for further prosperous growth.

82
Plate 8
(a) A worst possible scenario for 11reef scaping 11 is being demonstrated in this pic-
ture. A nicely growing Pachyseris colony was placed on top of a large Acropora
table and few weeks later, the Acropora polyps most probably overgrow the frag-
ment and the objective to rehabilitate will not be achieved instead more stress
would be put on resident corals.

(b) Fragment deployment close to live resident corals could result to competition
for space. Shown here is an Euphyllia colony successfully defending its space
requirements against the Acropora fragment, which was partially killed.

(c) A carefully chosen site for coral fragment placement. The fragments provide
physical protection, which is readily adapted by fishes and invertebrates. Not only
the coral cover will be increased through the fragments also the survival rates of
natural coral recruits may be expected to be higher.

(d) An overview of reef rehabilitation site. On the average, 2 fragments have been
deployed per squaremeter. However, the sites are not equally suitable and patchy
distributed, therefore the actual deployment number ranges from O to 8 fragments
per squaremeter .

. (e) One component of the project is ecotourism with the overall objective of gen-
erating income for fisherfolk through their natural resources. A "Coral Trail" over
14 stations was set up for interested SCUBA divers. An entrance fee is charged
which will cover maintenance cost, labor cost and projects benefiting the commu-
nity.

(t) The Giant Clam Station introduces the divers to the ecology of three giant
clams species (Tridacna squamosa, T. maxima and Hippopus hippopus) dis-
played in front of the sign.

(g) The first station of the Coral Trail is a compulsory buoyancy check for divers.
Four obstacles with decreasing opening area have been set up floating just above
the seafloor. All diving visitors are required to fine-tune their buoyancy and dive
through the four obstacles without touching them. The picture shows a diver
passing through the last and most difficult obstacle, a triangle.

(h) Another component within the Coral Farm and Ecotourism Project is the con-
struction of an Environmental Training Center (ETC) in the shape of a fish (model
displayed by Dr. Blum and Mrs. Troscher of the German Delegation for Economic
Cooperation and Development during a visit in the coral farm). The ETC will serve
the following purposes (Photo by: F. Sotto):

• catering food to tourists and souvenir shop

• venue for the awareness building and environmental training for all fisherfolk
• center for environmental communication between stakeholders and media people
• lecture room for nature guides to educate/brief tourists on the coral farm and the Coral Trail
• gallery for permanent poster exhibition on environmental issues
• store room for diving facilities

84
Plate9 Photos by C. Huttche

(a) "Restaurant by the Sea". The development of ecotourism in connection with

the coral farm includes catering to tourists. At reasonable prices fresh seafood is
offered. The income benefits the community.

(b) Several meetings and workshops were conducted participated by the local
community to train them on the basis of tourist interaction such as receiving tour-
ists, sanitation, responding to needs, style of food presentation etc.

(c) Visitors of the coral farm are introduced to the technology by a fisherman
working in the farm. After the nature interpretation, the tourists have the unique
opportunity for hands-on training. Some of them fix live coral fragments to natural
substrate and release the corals to the nursery for further growth. The corals are
used to restock degraded reef areas.

(d) Before the coral farm could be promoted as ecotourism destination by Cebu
City tour operators, a familiarization tour was conducted to get feedback in order
to further improve the venture. This picture shows mouth-watering delicacies pro-
fessionally displayed by the women of the community.

(e) Members of the Caw-oy Women's Group singing a farewell song they com-
posed wearing their ethnic costumes known as "malong". Mqst of the visitors ex-
pressed that they feel to have been privileged experiencing true Filipino hospitality
and culture.

86
 GLOSSARY
Abiotic: Non-living.

Barangay: Smallest government unit

Benthic: Living on the sea bottom.

Biotic: Living.

Crown-of-thorns: Sea star. Common predator of hard corals. This sea star
might cause locally severe damage to the reef during
population outbreaks.

Diversity: Variety.

Line-intercept-
tran sect (LIT): Survey method for coral reef assessment. Results are
expressed in percentage of benthic life forms such as
hard and soft corals, sponges etc.

Muro-ami: Philippine term for an illegal fishing method wherein

fishes are scared with the help of weights bumping on the
sea bottom.

Panggal: Visayan term for a selective, passive and non-destructive

fishing trap.

Scleractinian: Reef-building coral.

Trophic level: Position of an organism or species in a food web.

88
 REFERENCES

Antonius, A. (1999): Halofollicu/ina coral/asia, a new coral killing ciliate on lndo-

Pacific reefs. Coral Reefs 18, 300

Antonius, A. (1999): Metapeyssonnelia corallepida a new coral killing red algaa on

Carribbean reefs. Coral Reefs 18, 301

Berg, H., Ohman, C., Troeng, S. and 0. Linden (1998): Environmental economics
of coral reef destruction in Sri Lanka. Ambio 21.. 627-634

Birkeland, C., Randall, R.H. and G. Grimm (1979): Three methods of coral trans-
plantation for the purpose of reestablishing a coral community in the thermal efflu-
ent area at the Tanguisson Power Plant. University of Guam. Tech. Rep . .6.Q,

Boull6n, R.C. (1985): Planificaci6n del Espacio Turistico. Ed. Trillas, Mexico, OF.

Clark S. and A.J. Edwards (1995): Coral transplantation as ah aid to reef rehabili-
tation: evaluation of a case study in the Maledive Islands. Coral Reefs .14, 201-
213

Clark, C.W. (1973): Profit maximization and the extinction of animal species. J.
Pol. Econ . .8.1, 950-961

Clark, S. and A.J. Edwards (1999): An evaluation of artificial reef structures as

tools for marine habitat rehabilitation in the Maldives. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Fresh.
Ecosys. 9. 5-21

Constanza, R., D'Arge, R., De Groot, B., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Lim-
burg, K., Naeema, S. O'Neill, R.V. ,Parvelo, J., Raskin R.G., Sutton P. and M. Van
der Belt (1997): The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital.
Nature Jal, 253-260

Curran, S. and M. Comer (1998): Assessment of coral reef sites in Port Barton,
Palawan. Rep.

Dalzell, P., Corpuz, P., Ganaden, R. and D. Pauly (1987): Estimation of the maxi-
mum sustainable yield and maximum economic rent from the Philippine small pe-
lagic fisheries. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Tech. Rep.1.Q, 23pp

Edwards, A.J. and S. Clark (1999): Coral transplantation: A useful management

tool or misguided meddling. Mar. poll. Bull. az.
4 74-487

English, S., Wilkinson, C. and V. Baker (1997): Survey manual for tropical marine
resources. Austr. Inst. of Mar. Sci., 390pp

89
Fitzhardinge, R.C. and J.H. Baily-Brock (1989): Colonisation of artificial reef mate-
rials by corals and other sessile organisms. Bull. Mar. Sci. ~. 567-579

Flieger, W. (1994): Cebu: A demographic and socio-economic profile based on

the 1990 census. Published by the National Statistics Office, Manila 668 pp.

Flores, M. (1999): Ecotour Product Development. Tambuli, May 1999, pp 21-25

Fossa, S. and A.J. Nilsen (1996): The modern coral reef aquarium. Vol.1, B.
Schmetkamp Verlag, Bernheim, Germany, 447pp

Franklin, H., Muhando, C.A. and U. Lindahl (1998): Coral culturing and temporal
recruitment patterns in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Ambia 21., 645-650

Gomez, E.D., Alina, P.M., Yap, H.T. and W.Y. Licuanan (1994): A review of the
status of Philippine reefs. Mar. Poll. Bull. 29, 62-68

Harriot,V.J. and D.A. Fisk (1988): Coral transplantation as reef management op-
tion. Proc. 6th International Coral Reef Symposium, Australia, 375-379.

Heeger, T., Cashman, M. and F. Sotto (1999): Coral farming as alternative liveli-
hood, for sustainable natural resource management and coral reef rehabilitation.
Proc. Ocean. Intern. Pacific Rim, Singapore,.171-185

Heeger, T., Sotto, F., Gatus, J. and C. Laron (2000): Community-based coral
farming for reef rehabilitation, biodiversity conservation and as a livelihood option
for fisherfolk. Proc. ADSEA, SEAFDEC Philippines (in press).

Highsmith, R.C. (1982): Reproduction by fragmentation of corals. Mar. Ecol. Prag.

Ser. I. 207-226

Hilbertz, W., Fletcher, D. and C. Krausse (1977): Mineral accretion technology:

applications for architecture and aquaculture. Industrial Forum .8, 75-84

Kaly, U.L., (1995): Experimental test of the effects of methods of attachments and
handling on the rapid transplantation of corals.CRF Reef Research Centre. Techn.
Rep. 1, Townsville, 24pp

Korrubel J.L. and B. Riegl (1998): A new coral disease from the southern Arabian
Gulf. Coral Reefs 11, 22

La Vina, A.G., Caleda, M.J.A. and M.L.L. Baylon (1997): A manual on the imple-
mentation of Executive Order No. 247. Regulating access to biological and ge-
netic resources in the Philippines. (Editors): 63pp.

Lindahl, U. (1998): Low-tech rehabilitation of degraded coral reefs through trans-

plantation of staghorn corals. Ambia 27. 645-650

90
 l!nden, 0. (1998): Coral mortality in the tropics: massive causes and effects Am
b10 21., 588 . -

Oren, U. and Y. ~enayahu (1997): Transplantation of juvenile corals: a new a _

m,
proach for enhancing colonization of artificial reefs. Mar. Biol. 499-505 P

PauJy, ~- and T.E. Ch~a (1988): The overfishing of marine resources and socio-
economic background tn Southeast Asia. Ambio 11, 200-206

Precht, W. F. ( 1998): The art and science of reef restoration. Geotimes ~. 16-20

Presidential Decree No. 1219. Providing for the exploration, exploitation, utilization
and conservation of coral resources.

Presidential Decree No. 1698. Amending certain provisions of Presidential Decree

no. 1219 dated October 14, 1977, providing for the exploration, exploitation, utili-
zation and conservation of coral resources.

Raven, P.H. (1988): Our diminishing tropical rainforests. In: Biodiversity (E.O. Wil-
son, ed.). Nat. Acad. Press Washington, 119-122

Santavy, D.L., Peters, E:C., Quirolo, C., Porter, J.W. and C.N. Bianchi (1997):
Yellow-blotch disease outbreak on reefs of the San Blas Islands, Panama. Coral
Reefs .1.B, 97

Santos L.C., Sotto, F., Heeger, T. and S. Albert (1997): Livelihood and the envi-
ronment: Inextricable issues in Olango Island. The Barefoot Media Initiative, Cebu
City, Philippines, 100pp

Sprung, J. and J.C. Delbeek (1997): The reef aquarium. Ricordea Publish. Florida,
USA, 546pp

Spurgeon, J.P.G. (1992): The economic valuation of coral reefs. Mar. Poll. Bull.
~. 529-536

Taylor, K.I. (1988): Deforestation and lndiijns in Brazilian Amazonia. In: Biodiver-
sity (E.O. Wilson, ed.). Nat. Acad. Press Washington, 138-144

United States Coral Reef Task Force (2000): The National Action Plan to con-
serve coral reefs, Washington D.C. 34pp.

van Treek, P. and H. Schuhmacher (1997): Initial survival of coral nubbins trans-
planted by a new coral transplantation technology: options for reef rehabilitation.
Mar Ecol Prog Ser . .15Q. 287-292

van Treek, P. and H. Schuhmacher (1999): Artificial reefs created by eletrolysis

and coral transplantation: An approach ensuring the compatibility of environmental
protection and diving tourism. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci.~. 75-81

91
Wells, S.M. and N. Hanna (1992): The Greenpeace book of coral reefs. Sterling
Publishing Co. Inc., New York. 160pp

White, A.T. and A. Cruz-Trinidad (1998): The values of Philippine coastal re-
sources: Why protection and management are critical. Coastal Resource Man-
agement Project, Cebu City, Philippines, 96pp

Wilkinson (1998): Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 1998. Australian Institute of
Marine Sciences, Queensland, Australia

Yap, H. T., Alina, P.M and E.D. Gomez (1992): Trends in growth and mortality of
three coral species (Anthozoa: Scleractinia) including effects of transplantation.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. aa.91-101

92
 Appendix 1

Both list of corals proven suitable or unsuitable for fragmentation are incomplete,
a much higher number of species can be expected to tolerate the fragmentation
and a few more species might not.

All solitary corals (such as Fungia spp. Heliofungia actiniformis, Ctenactis spp.
Polphyl/ia talpina .... etc. ) may be fragmented but not below 25% fragment size in
order to attain high survival rates. No fixation on substrate is necessary, they can
be placed in the Coral Nursery Units directly

List of species suitable for fragmentation

Acanthastrea echinata Cycloseris spp Mycedium elephantotus
Acanthastrea lordhowensis Cyphastrea japonica Oulophyllia spp.
Acrhelia horrescens Cyphastrea microphthalma Oxypora spp.
Acropora acuminata Diploastrea heliopora Pachyseris rugosa
Acropora carduus Dipolastrea spp. Pachyserisspeciosa
Acropora cerealis Echinophyllia aspera Pavona explanulata
Acropora echinata Echinopora lamellosa Pavona spp.
Acropora florida Echinopora spp. Pectinia alcicomis
Acropora grandis Euphyllia ancora Pectinia paeonia
Acropora humilis Euphyllia spp. Pectlnia teres
Acropora hyacinthus Favia spp. Platygyra daedalea
Acropora latistella Favites abdita Platygyra spp.
Acropora longicyathus Favites spp. Plerogyra sinuosa
Acropora loripes Fungia spp. Pocillopora eydouxi
Acropora millepora Galaxea astreata Pocillopora verrucosa
Acropora muricata Galaxea fascicularis Podabacia crustacea
Acropora nana Goniastrea retiformis Polyphyllia talplna
Acropora nasuta Goniastrea spp. Porites cylindrica
Acropora nobilis Goniopora djiboutiensis Porites lichen
Acropora palifera Goniopora spp. Porites nlgrescens
Acropora pulchra Halomitra pileus Porites rus
Acropora samoensis Heliofungia actinifonnis Psammocora spp.
Acropora sannentosa Heliopora coerulea Sandalolitha robusta
Acropora selago Herpolitha spp. Stytophora plstillata
Acropora speciosa Hydnophora exesa Symphyllia spp.
Acropora spp. Hydnophora rigida Tubipora muslca
Acropora subglabra Leptoria spp. Turbinaria bifrons
Acropora subulata Leptoseris explanata Turbinaria frondens
Acropora tenuis Lobophyllia hatail Turbinaria peltata
Acropora valenciennesi Lobophyllia hemprichii
Acropora verweyi Merulina ampliata List of species unsuitable fo
Alveopora spp. Millepora spp. fragmentation
Astreopora myriophthalma Montastrea curta
Barabattoia amicorum Montastrea spp. Acropora cytherea
Catalaphyllia jardinei Montipora monasteriata Leptoseris gardineri
Caulastrea spp. Montipora spp. Pectinla lactuca
Coscinaraea spp. Montipora tuberculosa Pocillopora damicomis
Seriatopora hystrix
Tubastrea micrantha

93
 Appendix 2

Coral Trail Sign 2

Improve Your Buoyancy
Try to dive through all 4 obstacles without touching them or the seafloor. This exer-
cise aids in preventing sediment stir up and makes your dive more enjoyable.
How have you done?
> 5 touches = What the hell is buoyancy? Please check your buoyancy and try again
3 to 4 touches= Not too bad, but not good enough! Check your buoyancy and try again
1-2 touches = Good! Fine tune your buoyancy and proceed lo sign 3.
no touches = Excellent! Congrats! You appear to be perfectly buoyant!
Hurry up, the corals are waiting for YOU ...... .

GT Please follow the line and proceed to sign 3.

Cqral Trail Sign 6

Giant Clams
Giant clams are the largest bivalves in the sea. Tridacna rum reaches up to 1.4 m
an.J a weight of more than 200 kg. They live in shallow water and expose their
brightly colored mantle containing zooxanthellae to the sunlight. Tridacna ~ is
considered extinct in the Philippines. On the left side you see the Fluted Giant Clam
(Iridacna sauamgsa), in the center the Large Giant Clam {L maxima) and on the
right side a China Clam (Hipoopus hlppopus}. Please don't touch the animals, they
might close their shell too fast for your fingers .....

Gr Please follow the line and proceed to sign 7.

I I \
94