Socio-demographic profile and baseline information on Freshwater Clam (Corbicula spp.) "Bennek" in Alcala, Cagayan Valley: Policy recommendation

J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 20 23 153 | Molina et al. RE RERE RESEARCH SEARCHSEARCH SEARCH PAPER PAPERPAPER PAPER OPEN ACCESS OPEN ACCESSOPEN ACCESS OPEN ACCESS Socio-demographic profile and baseline information on Freshwater Clam ( Corbicula spp.) “Bennek” in Alcala, Cagayan Valley: Policy recommendation Lenimfa P . Molina * , Salvador T . Miranda Jr . , Eunice S . Daluddung , Simeon R. Rabanal Jr. Cagayan State University, Aparri Campus , Maura, Aparri, Cagayan , Phillippens Article published on July 16, 2023 Key words: Freshwater clam , Socio - economic status , Practices, Fisheries data , Gatherers Abstract This study aims to acquire baseline data on the socio-economic profile of the Freshwater Clam “bennek” gatherers, their fishing techniques, conservational practices, and management plans in light of the increasing strain of development on biodiversity. This study used the descriptive-survey method of research. The bennek gatherers were discovered to be middle-aged, to have completed elementary and high school, to have two siblings living with them, and to have their fathers as the primary gatherers of their young. The gatherers had an average harvest of less than 5 gantas each day for 3–4 hours per day, 4-5 days per week, and use their own wooden boat and “Karadikad” as harvesting implement. Majority of bivalve gatherers earned less than 5000.00 pesos per month. Additionally, majority of bennek gatherers reside in concrete homes with electric lighting and deep wells for water source. In addition, the months of March through July are when the harvest is at its greatest. Most of the gatherers' harvest is used for domestic consumption. Majority of gatherers appreciate the varied management strategies' relevance. Quarrying and river siltation are two issues that the “bennek” gatherers frequently encounter. Policy recommendations were presented to the Local Government Unit of Alcala for a sustainable supply of Freshwater Clam locally known as bennek in the different study sites where this resource is thriving. * Corresponding Author: Lenimfa P. Molina  molinalenimfa[email protected] Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences (JBES) ISSN: 2220-6663 (Print) 2222-3045 (Online) Vol. 23, No. 1, p. 153-162, 2023 http://www.innspub.net J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 20 23 154 | Molina et al. Introduction Due to extraordinary pressures brought by the increase in human population and socioeconomic expansion, freshwater environments are among the most vulnerable on the globe (Dudgeon et al., 2006; Vorosmarty et al., 2010; Vorosmarty et al., 2015). The increasing global anthropogenic pressure causes habitat destruction, ecosystem changes and degradation, over-exploitation, pollution, the introduction of invasive alien species (IAS), and climate change (Malmqvist and Rundle, 2002; Strayer and Dudgeon, 2010; Hermoso et al., 2016). Freshwater bivalves are among the species with high extinction levels as a result of the biodiversity crisis, which is one of the main repercussions of a sharply increasing human demand (Strayer et al., 2004; Lydeard et al., 2004; Regnier et al., 2009; Lopes-Lima et al., 2014, 2017). The species' possible survival is considerably impacted, and the wide range of ecological services it provides to researchers, managers, policymakers, and the general public will strengthen their cooperation in protecting this organism. The Cagayan River, located in the Cagayan Valley area in the northeastern part of Luzon, is the longest in the Philippines. It flows across the provinces of Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, Isabela, and Cagayan (Principe, 2012; Lopes-Lima et al., 2018). The 505-kilometerlong headwaters of the Caraballo Mountains in central Luzon run north into the Babuyan Canal close to the town of Aparri, where the Cagayan River drops sharply to 91 meters at the river's mouth (Mayor and Ancog, 2016). It should be kept in mind that stream flooding may have contributed to the river's extension, and although this has not yet been confirmed, in some cases, loose and unconsolidated riverbank sedimentary deposits may have had an impact on the flora. It offers a variety of resources that support the livelihood of the fishermen and other activities that enable them to be productive. Given its wide area, it is one of the principal sources of freshwater fish such as the high-priced "Ludong", Cestraeus plicatilis, mollusks (unnok; dalilea spp., balinggasa; anodonta woodiana, tulya; Corbicula manilensis, and kabibe; Batissa violacea, etc.) and crustacean (Aramang; Palaemon and Acetes spp., etc.). One municipality that benefitted from the diversity of the Cagayan River is Alcala, Cagayan, which is a third-class municipality in the Cagayan province. It is located along a section of the Cagayan River where farming and fishing are two of the local population's main sources of income. The Cagayan River, also known as Rio Grande de Cagayan, is the longest and widest stream on the island of Luzon and is home to a variety of fish species. One of these fisheries' resources is the Corbicula spp. that thrives in the tributaries of the Cagayan River and is commonly referred to as "bennek" by the locals. Considering current information about the environmental practices and socioeconomic profile of bivalve gatherers in the Cagayan Valley, Philippines this will be a significant contribution to the environmental protection of bivalve species. Similar to beliefs, affective reactions, and behavioral intentions, conservation practices cover activities and issues related to the environment (Schultz et al., 2004; Geng et al., 2015). Assessing environmental awareness is necessary to determine the level of knowledge held by the population being studied regarding the seriousness of environmental problems, their response to, and their interactions with, nature (Ziadat, 2010; Ayukekbong, Ntemgwa, and Atabe, 2017). Worldwide, excessive human exploitation and frequently ill-considered state economic policies significantly and negatively influence biodiversity and the natural environment. According to some experts, the solution to this issue may lay in a thorough investigation and comprehension of human environmental knowledge and attitudes (Newbold et al., 2015). Thus, the socio-demographic profile of the Corbicula spp. gatherers, their harvesting practices, and problems encountered while gathering this resource were assessed in this study. Materials and methods Study Site This study was conducted in the four barangays of the municipality of Alcala namely: Tupang, Maraburab, and Carallangan which are adjacent to the Cagayan River, while Pinopoc is located within its tributaries. J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 20 23 155 | Molina et al. Fig. 1. Map showing Alcala, Cagayan Valley. Research Design The descriptive-survey method of research was used in this study. It documented the demographic profile of the Corbicula spp. gatherers in the four barangays, their fishing practices and methods of collection, and problems they encountered in gathering the freshwater clam. Respondents and Sampling Techniques The researchers requested the list of respondents from the Municipal Agriculturist Office (MAO) of LGU Alcala which was generated from the Fish R system. The bennek gatherers in every site of the study were taken as respondents. Purposive sampling technique was adopted in identifying the Corbicula spp. gatherers involved in the study. Only those identified based on the list were given questionnaires and interviewed. Research Instrument A questionnaire was used to gather the necessary data. Part 1 of the questionnaire elicited data regarding clam gatherers’ demographic and economic profile; Part II focused on clam gatherers’ practices, gathering tools, and problems they encountered while gathering freshwater clam. The questionnaires were personally distributed by the researchers to the respondents. The researchers assisted the respondents in answering by translating some questions into their dialect. Data Collection Before the research implementation, formal coordination and seeking permission from the authorities concerned were done. Upon the approval from the municipal mayor of Alcala was sought subsequent coordination was made with the barangay captain of the selected study sites. The agricultural technician assisted the researchers in floating questionnaires together with the barangay officials in the different communities involved in the study. An informal interview with the respondents was also performed to gather further details and validate data gathered from the questionnaires. Data Analysis The collected data were organized and tabulated for analysis. Descriptive statistics such as frequency counts and percentage rank were used in the study. Results and discussion Distribution of Respondents The municipality of Alcala consists of 25 barangays. Out of the 25 barangays, 4 of them were identified as the sampling site. The lists of Registered Fisher folks were provided by the Municipal Agricultural Office of the municipality. J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 20 23 156 | Molina et al. Based on the list, twenty-seven (27) came from Brgy Tupang, and Fifteen (15) came from Brgy. Maraburab, twelve (12) came from Brgy. Pinopoc and eight (8) were from Brgy. Carallangan. Fig. 2. The proportion of respondents in the different Barangay. Gatherer’s Profile Table 1 shows the respondents’ demographic profile. As for age, it was noted that 31-40 years of age was the highest which constitute 29.03% of the respondents, while the eldest group of 61 above was the lowest. Looking at the gender, most of the gatherers were male which constitute 75.81% while female has only 24.19%. Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents. Age Frequency (n=62) Percent 20-30 years old 14 22.58 31-40 years old 18 29.03 41-50 years old 14 22.58 51-60 years old 9 14.52 61-Above 7 11.29 Gender Male 47 75.81 Female 15 24.19 Educational Background Elementary Level 20 32.26 HS Level 20 32.26 College Level 6 9.68 No Schooling 4 6.45 Elementary Graduate 7 11.29 HS Graduate 5 8.06 Number of Years in Gathering "Bennek" 0-10 Years 29 46.77 11-20 Years 24 38.71 20 Years Above 9 14.52 It denotes that the majority, the head of the family engaged mostly in looking for food and working to provide for the needs of the family. Concerning educational background, the table shows that most of the gatherers were at the elementary and high school level which constitutes 32.26%, about 6.45% did not attend school and there were 9.68% who are at the college level. The data suggest that bennek collectors came from families that could not adequately support the education of their children. Furthermore, in terms of the number of years in gathering bennek, most of them are within less than ten years with a percentage of 46.77%, and more than 20 years being the lowest. According to the respondents during the interview, fathers help in transporting their harvest to the market and the children help mothers in doing the marketing and processing. Socio-economic Status of the Respondents Table 2 shows the socio-economic status of the respondents. As to the number of siblings in the family, most of the respondents have 1-2 siblings with a frequency count of 27 or 43.55% and only one respondent is having 7 siblings above. This finding indicates that most bennek gatherers had a small size family. In terms of house ownership, most of the gatherers owned their house 54.84% and most had a concrete type of house with a frequency of 20 and only 1 had a nipa/cogon house. This shows that the respondents are aware that one of the basic needs of a family is a house. Moreover, most of the gatherers have electricity as lighting facilities and a deep well as a source of water. Further, fishing and farming are the major sources of income with a frequency 0f 30 and 26 respectively. For the monthly income of the bennek gatherers, 35 or 56.45% have an income of below P5, 000.00. This finding implies that the respondents mostly belong to families whose living standards are below the poverty line. According to the latest report by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) of the Philippines, a Filipino family of five members needs PhP 5,458.00 monthly income to buy their minimum basic food needs and Php 7,821.00 monthly to include their minimum basic non-food needs. J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 20 23 157 | Molina et al. Table 2. Socio-economic status of the respondents. Number of Siblings Frequency (n=62) Percent 1 - 2 Siblings 27 43.55 3 - 4 Siblings 11 17.74 5 - 6 Siblings 5 8.06 7 Siblings Above 1 1.61 No Answer 18 29.03 House Ownership Owned 34 54.84 Not Owned 15 24.19 No Answer 13 20.97 Type of House Concrete 20 32.26 Nipa/Cogon Hut 1 1.61 Wood/Bamboo w/GI Roof 5 8.06 Half Nipa/Half Concrete 6 9.68 No Answer 30 48.39 Lighting Facilities Kerosene Lamp 2 3.23 Electric Light 51 82.26 Gasoline/Candle Light 1 1.61 No Answer 8 12.90 Source of Water Supply Pump Well 23 37.10 Deep Well 25 40.32 Nawasa 14 22.58 Source of Income Fishing 30 48.39 Farming 26 41.94 Construction 16 25.81 Others (e.g Driving,Labandera, Laborer) 22 35.48 Monthly Income 5,000 below 35 56.45 5,000 - 10,000 11 21.15 10,000 - 15,000 3 5.77 15,000 above 3 5.77 No Answer 10 19.2 Gathering Management and Strategies The gathering tools/implement by gatherers used and their management strategies are shown in Table 5. Most of the respondents with a frequency of 27 or 43.55% use the “karadikad” in gathering followed by gleaning or manual with a frequency of 17 or 27.42%. Out of 62 gatherers, fishing and gathering are done by the head of the family with a frequency of 20 or 32.26%. Most of the time, their children also help the father in gathering bennek. It indicates that all family members cooperate and practice division of labor for their livelihood. Furthermore, most gatherers used their wooden boats in gathering bennek with a frequency of 21 or 33.87%. Table 3. Gathering tools/implements. Gathering Tools/Implements Frequency (n=62) Percent Karadikad 27 43.55 Trawl 7 11.29 Tako 5 8.06 Karadikad w/ Net 2 3.23 Gleaning 17 27.42 No Answer 4 6.45 Family Involved in Gathering Bennek Father 20 32.26 Mother 7 11.29 Children 17 27.42 Other (e.g Partner, BF/GF) 18 29.03 Type of Boat used in Gathering Bennek Wooden Boat 21 33.87 With Engine 16 25.81 Without Engine 7 11.29 Owned 21 33.87 Shared/Rented 2 3.23 No Boat 1 1.61 Management strategies Table 4 shows the management practices and strategies being employed by the respondents. Of all the identified strategies, most of the gatherers wanted to limit the catch with a frequency of 20 or 32.26%, followed by gear restriction (f=16 or 25.81%), size catch regulation (f=15 or 24.19%), close season (f=10 or 16.13%) and gear modification being the lowest with only one respondent. It means that the gatherers who are mostly dependent on the bennek resource wanted to regulate the volume of catch to make it sustainable. This practice of the gatherers is very important to let resource reproduce thereby sustaining the standing stocks. Looking at the likeliness of the different strategies, most of the bennek gatherers answered this as important for gear restriction with a frequency count of 16 or 25.81%, very important for limiting the catch (f=23 or 20.97%), they need to regulate the size being collected (f= 18 or 29.03%). Most of the respondents responded that gear modification is also important (f=21 or 33.87%) as part of the management strategy and closed season should be implemented (f=21 or 33.87%). Findings revealed that the bennek gatherers are very vigilant in protecting the bennek resource and its habitat. J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 20 23 158 | Molina et al. Table 4. Management practices/strategies. Management Practices/Strategies Frequency (n=62) Percent Gear Restriction 16 25.81 Limit Catch 20 32.26 Size Catch Regulation 15 24.19 Gear Modification 1 1.61 Close Season 10 16.13 Likeliness on the Importance of the Management Practices Gear Restriction Should be restricted 6 9.68 Slightly restricted 13 20.97 Important 16 25.81 Very important 9 14.52 Don't know 3 4.84 No Answer 15 24.19 Limit Catch Should be restricted 3 4.84 Slightly restricted 4 6.45 Important 17 27.42 Very important 23 37.10 Don't know 4 6.45 No Answer 11 17.74 Size Catch Regulation Should be restricted 3 4.84 Slightly restricted 3 4.84 Important 18 29.03 Very important 17 27.42 Don't know 10 16.13 No Answer 11 17.74 Gear Modification Should be restricted 7 11.29 Slightly restricted 6 9.68 Important 21 33.87 Very important 12 19.35 Don't know 3 4.84 No Answer 13 20.97 Close Season Should be restricted 21 33.87 Slightly restricted 3 4.84 Important 3 4.84 Very important 5 8.06 Don't know 10 16.13 No Answer 20 32.26 Table 5 shows the duration of implementation of the identified management strategies. For the gear restriction, most of the respondents wanted to implement this for 9 months to 1 year (f=7 or 11.29%), limiting the catch and size catch regulation should be implemented within 1-2 months only with a frequency of 13 or 20.97% and 17 or 27.42% respectively. For the gear modification, respondents wanted to implement it within 3-4 months and 7-8 months with a frequency of 3 or 4.84% while for close season, with a frequency of 2 or 3.23% wanted to implement it within 9 months to 1 year. Results revealed that respondents have different views and perceptions as to the duration of implementation of the given management strategies. Table 5. Duration of management strategy implementation. Duration of Management Strategy Implementation Frequency Percent Gear Restriction (n= 62) 1 - 2 months 4 6.45 3 - 4 months 2 3.23 5 - 6 months 0.00 7 - 8 months 3 4.84 9 months - 1 year 7 11.29 No Answer 46 74.19 Limit Catch 1 - 2 months 13 20.97 3 - 4 months 5 8.06 5 - 6 months 0.00 7 - 8 months 3 4.84 9 months - 1 year 1 1.61 No Answer 40 64.52 Size Catch Regulation 1 - 2 months 17 27.42 3 - 4 months 5 8.06 5 - 6 months 2 3.23 7 - 8 months 1 1.61 9 months - 1 year 1 1.61 No Answer 36 58.06 Gear Modification 1 - 2 months 1 1.61 3 - 4 months 3 4.84 5 - 6 months 1 1.61 7 - 8 months 3 4.84 9 months - 1 year 1 1.61 No Answer 53 85.48 Close Season 1 - 2 months 1 1.61 3 - 4 months 1 1.61 5 - 6 months 0.00 7 - 8 months 1 1.61 9 months - 1 year 2 3.23 No Answer 57 91.94 Fisheries Data Gathering/Collection Sites Table 6 shows the location of the gathering site for bennek gatherers. Most of the respondents gathered bennek within their barangay with a frequency of 49 or 79.03%, 6 respondents gathered bennek nearby barangay (f=9.68%), and 4 or 6.45% of the respondents collected in other municipality. In terms of the area of the gathering sites, most of the respondents had a fishing ground below 1 ha with a frequency of 36 or 58.06%. In terms of water depth, most of the respondents identified their gathering sites as below 5 foot with a frequency of 29 or 46.77%. It simply denotes that gatherers can only collect J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 20 23 159 | Molina et al. bennek during low tide or when the water level is low. Moreover, respondents identified the type of sediments in the sites as sandy and muddy with a frequency count of 29 or 46.77 and 25 or 40.32 respectively. The observation of the respondents is a manifestation of the habitat structure of the bennek resource. Aside from bennek, other resources have been collected and majority of such are balinggasa (f=20 or 32.26%), lasik (f=11 or 17.74%), bisukul (f=10 or 16.13%), susu and cabibi with 6 or 9.68% and 2 or 3.23% respectively. Table 6. Gathering areas. Location of Gathering Sites Frequency (n=62) Percent Within Barangay 49 79.03 Nearby Barangay 6 9.68 Other Municipality 4 6.45 No Answer 3 4.84 Approximate Area of Gathering Sites Below 1 ha. 36 58.06 1 - 5 has. 16 25.81 6 - 10 has. 2 3.23 No Answer 8 12.90 Water Depth Below 5 foot 29 46.77 6 - 10 foot 16 25.81 11 - 15 foot 5 8.06 16 foot above 2 2.23 No Answer 10 16.13 Types of Sediments Muddy 25 40.32 Sandy 29 46.77 Clay Loam 3 4.84 Stonny 5 8.06 Other Species Caught Cabibi 2 3.23 Lasik 11 17.74 Balinggasa 20 32.26 Bisukul 10 16.13 Susu 6 9.68 No Answer 13 20.97 Gathering Practices Table 7 discloses the gathering practices, duration, volume of catch, and marketing strategies of the respondents. As shown in the table, most of the bennek gatherers spend 2-4 hours with a frequency of 20 or 32.26% followed by 5-6 hours (f=15 or 24.19%) and 10-12 hours with a frequency of 8 or 12.90%. It denotes that most of the gatherers collected bennek the whole daytime. For the gathering frequency, most of the respondents consumed 3-4 days in a week (f=23 or 37.10%), 1-2 days (f=11 or 17.74%), 5-6 days, and a whole week with 10 or 16.13% and 7 or 11.29% respectively. As to the volume of catch per gathering/day 20 or 32.26% gathered less than 5 gantas, and 14 or 22.58% could gather 16-20 gantas. It implied that the amount of bennek being collected depends on the number of collection hours in a day. With regards to the marketing and post-harvest activity, 18 or 29.03% of the respondents utilized their catch for their household consumption, shared it with friends and relatives (f=14 or 22.58%), some respondents sold their harvest to traders (f=12 or 19.35%), sold to markets (f=11 or 17.74%) and 5 or 8.06% of the respondents processed their harvest. On the other hand, based on the given marketing problems encountered, most of the respondents answered that there are limited buyers of bennek with frequency of 27 or 43.55%. Table 7. Gathering duration, volume of catch and marketing strategies. Number of Hours in Gathering Bennek Frequency (n=62) Percent 2 - 4 hours 20 32.26 5 - 6 hours 15 24.19 7 - 9 hours 1 1.61 10 - 12 hours 8 12.90 13 hours above 1 1.61 No Answer 17 27.42 Number of Days per Week 1 - 2 days 11 17.74 3 - 4 days 23 37.10 5 - 6 days 10 16.13 Whole week 7 11.29 No Answer 11 17.74 Volume of Catch Less than 5 salop 20 32.26 6 - 10 salop 5 8.06 11 - 15 salop 9 14.52 16 - 20 salop 14 22.58 21 - 25 salop 9 14.52 25 salop above 5 8.06 Marketing and Post - harvest Strategy Family Consumption 18 29.03 Sold to Traders 12 19.35 Shared to Friends/Relatives 14 22.58 Use as Alternative Feeds 1 1.61 Sold to Market 11 17.74 Sold to Regular Buyers 1 1.61 Processed 5 8.06 Problems in Marketing Difficult transportation 9 14.52 Non or low numbers of buyers 27 43.55 Small size of catch 7 11.29 Expensive transportation 5 8.06 Hagging from buyers 3 4.84 Others (e.g dark color, off season) 11 17.74 J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 20 23 160 | Molina et al. Gathering Seasonality Table 8 depicts the seasonality of gathering bennek. The high gathering effort started in the month of April until the month of July when most of the respondents answered for the month of May (f=30 or 48.39%) and the low gathering of bennek started in the month of March until the month of April. While there was no gathering of bennek in the month of January to March. The data means that there was no gathering in those months due to the rainy season which affected the habitat of the resource. Moreover, the peak of harvest started in the months of March to July while the remaining months are considered lean season. Table 8. Seasonality of gathering bennek. Month High Gathering (f) Percent Low Gathering (f) Percent No Gathering (f) Percent Peak Season (f) Percent Lean Season (f) Percent Jan 22 35.48 27 43.55 Feb 23 37.10 23 37.10 24 38.71 Mar 9 14.52 4 6.45 17 27.42 30 48.39 17 27.42 Apr 16 25.81 18 29.03 1 1.61 35 56.45 13 20.97 May 30 48.39 2 3.23 32 51.61 1 1.61 Jun 27 43.55 27 43.55 Jul 23 37.10 2 3.23 3 4.84 28 45.16 1 1.61 Aug 2 3.23 2 3.23 9 14.52 13 20.97 18 29.03 Sep 1 1.61 1 1.61 17 27.42 19 30.65 25 40.32 Oct 2 3.23 17 27.42 19 30.65 24 38.71 Nov 1 1.61 17 27.42 18 29.03 13 20.97 Dec 2 3.23 17 27.42 19 30.65 15 24.19 Problems Encountered by the Gatherers The common problems encountered by the bennek gatherers are presented in Table 9. The common problem of the respondents is quarrying in the collection sites with a frequency of 21 or 33.87%, followed by siltation of the river (f=13 or 20.97%) most especially during flooding. Some respondents identified typhoon/seasonal (f=9 or 14.52%), soil erosion (f=7 or 11.29%), and mining (f=6 or 9.68%). Most of the common problems identified by the respondents were relative to the habitat destruction of bennek. Table 9. Common problems encountered of the gatherers. Common Problems Encountered Frequency (n=62) Percent Mining 6 9.68 Fish Cage 2 3.23 Destructive Fishing 3 4.84 Chemical Discharge 1 1.61 Soil Erosion 7 11.29 River Siltation 13 20.97 Quarrying 21 33.87 Others (e.g high water level, seasonal, typhoon) 9 14.52 Conclusion This study was conducted to document local fishery methods of collection, and socio-economic aspects and to determine species and size composition, seasonality, and relative abundance of the freshwater clam “bennek” resource in Alcala, Cagayan. The findings of the study revealed that in terms of biodemographic data, the bennek gatherers are mostly males with ages of 31-40 years old, elementary and high school level, compose of 4-6 members in every household with the father as prime gatherer with the help of the children in the collection. Most of the bennek gatherers owned their house, made of concrete structure with electricity as lighting facility, deep well as a source of water, fishing, and farming as the major source of income, and a monthly income of less than 5000.00 a month. Furthermore, most of the bennek gatherers used wooden boats, owned and “Karadikad” as the major implement/gear used in gathering bennek. Furthermore, for the management strategies, most of the respondents perceived these as must be important and must be implemented in the short and long term. J. Bio. & Env. Sci. 20 23 161 | Molina et al. Most respondents gathered bennek within their barangay, with less than 1 hectare area at a depth of below 5 foot, with less 5 gantas as harvest, and “balinggasa” is among the other collected harvest species aside from bennek. Most of the bennek gatherers spend 2-4 hours in a day, 3-4 days a week and most of them used their catch for family consumption. Low marketability was determined as the main problem. The high gathering effort is from April to July, the low gathering is from March until April and there was no gathering from January to March and between September to December. The peak of harvest is March to July while the remaining months are considered lean season. The common problems of the respondents is quarrying in the collection sites and siltation of the river especially during flooding. Recommendation The following recommendations are given based on the results of the study: (1) To ensure the sustainability “bennek” stocks, size catch regulation should implement to allow the growth of small-size stock and for natural breeding; (2) Strict and constant monitoring of the bennek resource should be done by the LGU concerned; (3) Regulate quarrying activities as it may destroy the habitat of the “bennek” resource and other benthic organisms; and (4) Strict implementation of the municipal and local ordinances about the gathering of bennek and other related activities in the Cagayan River. Acknowledgement This research study was made possible with a funding grant from the Cagayan State University-Research and Development Office. We also thank the Local Government of Alcala headed by the Municipal Mayor, Hon. Atty. Christine I. Antonio, to the Municipal Agriculture Office and the Barangay Officials of the four study sites for allowing and assisting the researchers during the conduct of the study. Also, to the members of the review panel for their invaluable suggestions and recommendations during the In-house Review. This study would be a basis and may contribute to the crafting of policies and ordinances relevant to the conservation of the freshwater clam resource. References Ayukekbong JA, Ntemgwa M, Atabe AN. 2017. The threat of antimicrobial resistance in developing countries: causes and control strategies. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control 6(1), p.47. Dudgeon DAH, Arthington MO, Gessner ZI, Kawabata D, Jknowler C, Lévêque RJ, Naiman AH, Prieur-Richard D, Soto M, Stiassny LJ, Sullivan CA. 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81, 163-182. Geng L, Xu, J, Ye L, Zhou W, Zhou K. 2015. Connections with nature and environmental behaviors. PloS one 10(5). Hermoso V, Abell R, Linke S, Boon P. 2016. The role of protected areas for freshwater biodiversity conservation: challenges and opportunities in a rapidly changing world. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26, pp.3-11. Lopes‐ ‐‐ ‐Lima M, Sousa R, Geist J, Aldridge DC, Araujo R, Bergengren J, Bespalaya Y, Bódis E, Burlakova L, Van Damme D, Douda K. 2017. Conservation status of freshwater mussels in Europe: state of the art and future challenges. Biological Reviews 92(1), pp.572-607. Lopes-Lima M, Teixeira A, Froufe E, Lopes A, Varandas S, Sousa R. 2014. Biology and conservation of freshwater bivalves: past, present and future perspectives. Hydrobiologia 735, 1-13. Lydeard CRH, Cowie WF, Ponder AE, Bogan P, Bouchet SA, Clark KS, Cummings TJ, Frest O, Gargominy DG, Herbert R, Hershler K, Perez E, Roth B, Seddon M, Strong EE, Thompson FG. 2004. The global decline of nonmarine mollusks. BioScience 54, 321-330.