Science Forum Day 1 - Len Garces - Management Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines

partnership Ÿ excellence Ÿ growth

MPA management effectiveness in selected areas in the Philippines:

Lessons learned and way forward

“Enhancing Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Management in the Philippines”

Len Garces, Mike PidoMaripaz Perez and Mark Tupper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Batangas_State_University's_Official_Seal.jpg


Outline

1. MPA Evaluation in Philippines and project sites

2. Lessons learned

3. Way forward


Background

• MPAs are useful tools among a suite of management options for fisheries and CRM in the Philippines

• Despite potential benefits of MPAs to coastal management programs, majority of MPAs do not meet their management objectives.

• only 10% of the over 3,000 MPAs globally meet their target goals and objectives

• At least 10-15% of the MPAs have been effectively managed (Alino 2001, PAMS 2008).



The degree to which management actions are

achieving the stated goals and objectives of a protected area

What is Management Effectiveness?

Source: Pomeroy et al 2004


It tells us how a managed area is -- or is not -- meeting its stated

goals and objectives

Why evaluate management effectiveness?



Does your MPA look more like this?…

…or this?



Figure 1. Some methodologies used in the evaluation of MPA management effectiveness in the Philippines.

Evaluation of MPA Management

Effectiveness

2. WCPA/DENR Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

(METT)

3. National CTI CC MPA Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool (MEAT)

1. How is your MPA Doing?

(IUCN/Pomeroy et al. 2004)

4. Others methods


Indicator-based MPA Management Effectiveness

• Started in 2002 by joint effort of IUCN – WCPA (Marine), NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program and WWF.

• 2004: Publication of “How is Your MPA Doing?” guidebook by Pomeroy et al.

• Used in some Palawan MPAs

• WorldFish rafting and testing of indicators in the Philippines since 2008-2009 (NOAA project) & 2009-2010 (DOST projects)


Outline


2. Lessons learned

3. Way forward


Lesson 1 - Number of indicators

Number of indicators could be reduced to ‘barest’ minimum


Progression/Testing of indicators

World Conservation Union (IUCN) - 2004

42 indicators:

10 Biophysical

16 Socioeconomic

16 Governance



“Enhancing MPA Management Effectiveness for the Calamianes Islands

MPA Network” - 2008

23 indicators:

6 Biophysical

8 Socioeconomic

9 Governance



“Capacity building to enhance MPA management effectiveness for the MPA

networks in the Philippines” – 6 sites

13 indicators:

1 Biophysical

6 Socioeconomic

6 Governance



Indicators selected

Cluster of Indicator Name of IndicatorBiophysical 1. Type, level, and return on fishing effort

Socioeconomic

1. Local marine resource use patterns2. Level of understanding of human impacts 3. Perceptions of local resource harvest4. Perceptions of non-market and non-use value5. Household income distribution by source6. Number and nature of markets

Governance

1. Level of resource conflict 2. Existence of a decision-making & management body3. Existence and adoption of a management plan4. Existence and adequacy of enabling legislation5. Availability and allocation of MPA admin resources6. Degree of interaction between managers and stakeholders


Study SitesProvince Municipality Name of MPA Year

established Ecosystem/Habitat Date survey conducted Partners involved Total Area

(ha)

Surigao del Sur

Cortes Capandan Marine Sanctuary 2003 Coral reefs with patches

of seagrass/algal bedsAugust2009

DOST XIII; SSPSU; BFAR;

USAID-FISH Project; WorldFish

Center

21.5

Cantilan General Island Marine Sanctuary 2005 Coral reefs with patches

of seagrass/algal beds 28

Bohol

Bien Unido Bilagbilangan East Marine Sanctuary 2006

Coral reefs with patches of mangroves and

seagrass beds

August – October

2009DOST VII; BISU;

PSU; USAID-FISH Project; WorldFish

Center

44.8

Bien Unido Pinamgo Marine Sanctuary 2004


seagrass beds

August – October

200937.8

Palawan

Busuanga Sagrada-Bogtong Marine Reserve 2006

Mangrove with patches of coral reefs and

seagrass beds

April – June 2008

PSU; USAID-FISH Project; WorldFish

Center

392

Coron

Declave Strict Protection Zone (Bintuan-Sangat

Marine Park)

2004Coral reefs with patches

of mangroves and seagrass beds

62.61

Culion Bugor-Sand Island MPA 2005


seagrass beds125

Quezon Alabat Casama Marine Sanctuary 2001 Mangroves October

2009DOST IV A; SLSU; WorldFish Center 10

Batangas Nasugbu Cutad Marine Protected Area 2009 Mangroves, coral reefs,

seagrass/algal beds July 2010 DOST IV A; BatSU; WorldFish Center

20 (no take); 93 (marine reserve)


Lesson 2 – Institutional Partnership

Partnership remains essential but may take different configuration


International donors

International project

National government agencies

State universities and colleges

Local government units, MPA management boards, fishing associations, etc

Levels of institutional partnership in MPA evaluation

International research agency



Roles and Responsibilities

overall coordination, technical direction and training of SUCs

Funding support, policy and advocacy

technical support to SUCs & facilitation of stakeholder workshops

Provision of secondary literature, site assistance


Lesson 3 – Capacity Building

Local SUCs/LGUs may be capacitated to take more active

roles in MPA management


Local Capacity Building

site coordination, testing/evaluation of MPA indicators

LGUs/ community members

Participation in interviews and workshops



Happy Faces of Partners!


Lesson 4 – Perception Surveys

Social survey needs to be validated with scientific bio-

physical surveys


Comparative Perspective• People’s perception• Scientific findings


People’s perception• General decline in

fish catch

• Scientific findings• in fish biomass

Complementary Results in Fisheries Condition


• People’s perception

• General in fish abundance

• Scientific findingsin fish density

Discrepancy in Fisheries Condition

Bintuan Inside (Abundance)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

2004 2006 2008

Targ

et &

Indi

cato

r Abu

ndan

ce

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

target ab indic ab All abund


• People’s perception• Sagrada-Bogtong – 58% worse now than

before• Bugor-Sand – 43% worse now than before

• Scientific findings• or no change in live hard coral cover

Discrepancy in Reef Condition


Lesson 5 – Summarizing the Results of Evaluation

‘Metrication’ of factors affecting MPA management effectiveness

remains a lingering question


Various factors related to MPA management effectiveness



MPA Rating System adopted by projectRating Meaning+ positive change (towards

meeting objectives)

0 no change

- negative change (in direction away from objectives)

? cannot determine (trend is uncertain or no data available)


Lesson 6 – Baseline Information

Need for good baseline remains critical


FISH Project Sites

• Good biophysical: 2004, 2006 and 2008• Limited socio-economic and governance


Outline


2. Lessons learned

3. Way forward


Contextualizing MPAs with other economic sectors

MPA Site


MPAs: in a nut shell 1. Be based on the fundamental ecology of the

organisms and/or habitats to be protected.

2. Limited by capacity of institutions and stakeholders involved.

3. Socioeconomic and political issues cause more MPA failures than ecological problems.

4. Be part of an integrated coastal management plan that addresses land and sea uses and their interactions


MPA Evaluation and Action:Beyond Rhetorics

Science Forum Day 1 - Len Garces - Management Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines

Technology

mpa management boards

mpa networks

mpa failures

management objectives

management actions

mpa rating system

coastal management programs

suite of management