PROJECT BRIEF
1. IDENTIFIERS:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
DURATION:
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY:
EXECUTING AGENCY:
REQUESTING COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES:
ELIGIBILITY:
GEF FOCAL AREA:
GEF PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK:
Philippines – Coastal and Marine Biodiversity
Conservation in Mindanao
First 3 years of planned 12-year APL
The World Bank
Government of the Philippines
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR)
Republic of the Philippines
Philippines ratified the CBD in
September 1993.
Biodiversity
OP 2 (Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater
Ecosystems)
2. SUMMARY:
In this project, the GEF would aim to finance the incremental costs of promoting coastal and marine
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in the coastal waters of Mindanao, Philippines.
Mindanao has received little attention to date with regard to conservation of its marine biodiversity
resources. The GEF-assisted Coastal and Marine and Biodiversity Conservation Component
(CMBC) of the proposed Mindanao Rural Development Project (MRDP) will remove the barriers to
mainstreaming marine and coastal biodiversity conservation in coastal zone development by: (a)
establishing community-based management of marine sanctuaries; (b) strengthening local capacity to
address marine ecosystem management issues; (c) enhancing the knowledge base for sound
ecosystem management and decision- making, including monitoring and evaluation for sustainable
long-term marine ecosystem management; and (d) developing policy and action plans for marine
biodiversity conservation and mainstreaming it into coastal development plans. The concept is based
on the precept and the experiences that show that good marine management can simultaneously
conserve and protect biodiversity and increase fisheries productivity. These activities would have
considerable replication potential in Mindanao as part of the MRDP that would be an Adaptable
Lending Program of 10-12 year duration. The lessons learned during the first three-year phase
would be applied to subsequent phases when additional coastal provinces would be included under
the MRDP with the cumulative experience strengthening implementation of the CMBC. These
lessons would also have applicability in other regions of the Philippines and other tropical countries.
3. COSTS AND FINANCING:
GEF:
CO-FINANCING:
- Project
- PDF:
Subtotal GEF:
-IBRD:
-Govt. of Philippines and LGUs:
Subtotal Co
-Financing:
TOTAL PROJECT COST:
US$ 1.25 million
n/a
US$ 1.25 million
US$ 3.60million
US$ 1.20 million
US$ 4.80 million
US$ 6.05 MILLION
-IBRD:
-Govt. of Philippines
and LGUs:
Subtotal Associated
-Financing
5. OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT ENDORSEMENT:
4. ASSOCIATED FINANCING:
Name:
Ramon J. P. Paje
Organization: Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
US$ 26.40 million
US$
8.80 million
US$ 35.20 million
Title: Undersecretary
Date: March 9, 1999
6. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY CONTACT:
A. Robin Broadfield, Senior GEF Coordinator, East Asia Region
Phone (202)-473-4355, FAX (202)-522-3256
Email: rbroadfield@worldbank.org
Glossary of Acronyms
ADB
APL
ARMM
BFAR
CIDA
CBCRM
CMBC
CBD
CEP
CENRO
CFAD
CITES
CPDO
CPPAP
CRM
DA
DAF
DENR
ERDS
FRS
GEF
IBRD
FARMC
LGSP
LGU
MAO
MBCS
MFARMC
MNR
MRDP
NIPAS
NGO
PAMB
USAID
WWF
Asian Development Bank
Adaptable Program Loan
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
Bureau of Agriculture and Aquatic Resources
Canadian International Development Agency
Community-based Coastal Resources Management
Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation
Convention on Biodiversity
Coastal Environment Program
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
Community Funds for Agricultural Development
Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species
City Planning and Development Office (Cotabato City)
Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Project
Coastal Resources Management
Department of Agriculture
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries of ARMM
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Research and Development Sector
Fisheries Resources Project
Global Environmental Facility
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Fisheries Aquatic Resources Management Council
Local Government Support Program
Local Government Unit
Municipal Agricultural Officer
Marine Biodiversity Conservation and Environmental Management/Monitoring Specialist
Municipal Fishery and Aquatic Resources Management Councils
Ministry of Natural Resources (now DENR)
Mindanao Rural Development Program
National Integrated Protected Areas System
Non Governmental Organization
Protected Areas Management Board
United Sates Agency for International Development
World Wildlife Fund
BLOCK 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.
BACKGROUND
Marine and Coastal Setting and Biodiversity
The Philippines is an archipelago of more than 7,000 islands and islets. Its discontinuous coastline of
about 18,000 kilometers is longer than the coastline of most countries in the world. Because of the
declaration of the Exclusive Economic Zone, Philippine marine territorial waters cover around 2.2 million
square kilometers, 88 percent of which is oceanic waters, and the remaining 12 percent coastal waters.
Eighty percent of the provinces, 70 percent of the towns and 17 of 25 cities are situated along the
coastline. Half of the Philippine population resides in coastal communities and are somehow dependent
on the coastal waters. About 5 percent of the total Philippine labor force are employed here. Fish
production contributes approximately four percent of the Gross Domestic Product.
The degradation of the Philippine fisheries habitat is a major concern. The nearshore waters are heavily
overfished. Continuing rapid population growth and migration to coastal areas will further exacerbate
overfishing and over exploitation of coastal biodiversity and resource use.
More than 70 percent of the Philippine mangrove forests have already been denuded and
converted for aquaculture or reclaimed for other land uses. Only 150,000 hectares of the original
mangrove cover of 450,000 hectares in 1918 remain. Of the remaining, only 6 percent are in
excellent condition. Coral reefs are similarly degraded. Seventy percent of Philippine coral
reefs have been damaged and only 5 percent remain in excellent condition.
The Project Area
The coastal area of the provinces of Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat in Mindanao, Philippines is rich in
terms important coastal marine ecosystem. Covering a total coastline of 275 km, including the Island of
Bongo, coral reefs, seagrass beds, mangrove forest and extensive mudflats characterize the whole span.
The variability of marine life in the area is evident despite serious lack of scientific studies.
Three of the four species of endangered sea turtles including the green turtle, Chelonia mydas,
olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) and the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) use the area for
its feeding and nesting grounds. Other endangered mammals like the dugong (Dugong dugon),
cetaceans (whales and dolphins) and whale shark are reportedly common sightings in the
nearshore areas. An initial inventory of organisms suggest very high marine biodiversity with 46
genera of both soft and hard corals, 83 species of reef fishes and 8 of the 12 species mangroves
and all 8 species of seagrasses. Areas with >42 number of coral genera is considered highly
diverse (Veron, 1994), and the number could readily compare with Palawan, Indonesia and the
great barrier reef of Australia. Similarly, despite the disturbed state of seagrass beds, all 8 species
of seagrasses were observed including the very rare Philippine species, Thalassodendrum
ciliatum.
On the fisheries side, total production from the Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao and Cotabato City was
26,912 metric tons in 1996. This figure represents 1.90% of the total Philippine marine production.
Despite the abundance of fish, the production of small-scale fishersn=3775) amounted to only 4,412 tons
or about 1.16 t per fisher per year.
1
Moro Gulf and Illana Bay are the major fishing grounds. The major fisheries resources include the tunas
(Thunnus albacares, Katsuwonus pelamis), scads (Decapterus spp.), sardines (Sardinella spp.
Dussumiera spp.) and mackerels (Rastrelliger spp.). The tuna resources found in Moro Gulf is part of the
straddling tuna stocks in the central west pacific whose distribution range from the South China Sea to
Indonesia and up to Papua New Guinea. Interestingly, scanty scientific evidence suggest that Moro Gulf,
together with the Sulu Sea is one of the breeding grounds of the yellow fin tuna.
On the political side, the area suffers from considerable instability due to opposing political interests.
These are more of a concern at the national and regional level than at the community level. The
intervention proposed under this component would be directed at coastal communities that would be
assisted to restore, conserve, and protect marine biodiversity and coastal resources in their immediate
vicinities and would not be directly affected by the political problems. Through their proper management
and conservation of their immediate coastal resources and biodiversity, they will concurrently benefit
from increased returns from fisheries that would be the incentive for sustained appropriate management.
Threats to this Biodiversity
Among the major threats is the commercial fishing that encroaches on municipal fishing grounds through
legal loopholes and a generally inefficient enforcement of laws and regulations. The coastal marine
ecosystems and their associated fauna and flora are threatened by current use and activities. As a result,
many poor fishermen resort to the use of non-sustainable fishing methods such as explosives (dynamite,
home made bombs using fertilizers), poisons (plant extracts, cyanide), fine mesh nets have decimated fish
fauna and damaged habitats such as seagrass beds and coral reefs.
Similarly, upland activities associated with agriculture and mining have triggered massive sedimentation
that silt deposits of the major rivers have altered the immediate and adjacent ecosystems.
Two sites have been selected for assistance under the Phase 1 of the MRDP -- The Paril-Sangay Protected
Seascape in Sultan Kudarat and Bongo Island site in Maguindanao. The Paril-Sangay Protected Seascape
contains a wide range marine species and habitats some of which have global importance, including
nesting areas for three species of marine turtle and habitat for the dugong. DENR has formulated a plan
for the rehabilitation of the Paril-Sangay site that could be rapidly implemented with the assistance
proposed under project. Near-shore coral reef habitats in parts of Bongo Island have been seriously
damaged by blast fishing, and some of the island’s mangroves have been degraded from unmanaged
cutting. The biodiversity and marine ecology surrounding the Island could quickly be restored through
interventions under the project. Annex D provides details of the marine biodiversity and condition of the
coastal resources at each site. Detailed social assessments of the selected areas can be found in Annex E.
Government Response and Project Strategy
The GOP has legislated a number of key laws, policies, regulations and guidelines to reverse the trend of
coastal environmental degradation and to foster sustainable coastal resources management (CRM) and
fisheries. The report entitled Legal and Jurisdictional Guidebook for Coastal Resource Management in
the Philippines (DENR/DILG/DA-BFAR/CRMP 1997) primarily intended for LGUs with their much
expanded role in CRM is currently the best available codification and analysis of the many and sometimes
laws, policies, orders, regulations and guidelines on coastal and marine matters. Coastal Resource
Management in the Philippines is guided by the principles embodied in the Constitution, PSSD, MTDP,
National Marine Policy and agenda 21 prepared by the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development.
Likewise, CRM projects must be consistent with the Government commitments to international treaties
and agreements such as UNCED, Basel Convention, Montreal Protocol, UNCLOS, Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) and CITES.
2
The key institutional and legislative actions taken by the he GOP to address the root causes of its
degrading coastal environment include the following:
 The Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources was divided into 2 agencies in 1974, being the
Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Within the DA, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) was established and mandated to
develop and manage the country's fisheries;
 Through a series of cabinet modifications before the 1990s, the DENR was given a major
responsibility for the exploration and development of natural resources including fisheries (EO 192 of
1987). The DENR's role in CRM became even more significant with the enactment of the National
Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) law (RA 7586 of 1992) which declares eight categories of
protected areas;
 The Local Government Code (RA 7160 of 1991) has devolved specific fishery management functions
(regulatory and enforcement) to the local government units (LGUs). This landmark piece of legislation
also encouraged the participation of the people through Peoples Organizations (PO) /Non-governmental
Organizations (NGO) in matters of public concern, such as coastal resources management;
 Executive Order No. 247 was adopted on May 18, 1995 and provides guidelines and procedures for
prospecting biological and genetic resources in the public domain, and its implementing rules and
regulations were approved by the DENR Secretary on June 12, 1996 via Department Administrative
Order No. 96-20; and
 The most recent and significant law regarding coastal resources is the RA 8550 or the Philippine
Fisheries Code of February 1998 which provides for the "development, management and conservation of
the fisheries and aquatic resources, integrating all laws pertinent thereto.”
There is a number of other government bodies with mandates and functions pertaining to CRM. These
are the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Transportation and
Communication (DOTC), the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) of the Department of National Defense
(DND), the Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development (PCAMRD) under the
Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and Department of Tourism (DOT).
2.
Project Objectives
The development objective of the proposed Mindanao Rural Development Project (MRDP), that would
be an Adaptable Program Loan, is to develop, improve, and diversify the livelihoods of rural and
indigenous peoples primarily through increased agricultural and fisheries production, to improve rural
infrastructure and to strengthen rural institutions and coastal resource management for the purpose of
alleviating poverty in Mindanao. This objective would be achieved by:

Improving LGU capability for agricultural development planning and implementation;
 Establishing viable institutional, financial and community-based systems for supporting rural
development and natural resource and biodiversity conservation within targeted agricultural and fishing
communities, in 5 to 6 provinces during APL phase 1 of the MRDP; and
3
 Increasing incomes, providing additional employment opportunities, improving food security, and
improving natural resource management by the targeted agricultural and fisher folk communities.
The global environmental objectives of the proposed GEF-assisted component of this project are to
conserve and restore globally important coastal habitats and related marine biodiversity in Mindanao by
mainstreaming biodiversity and marine ecosystem conservation in community development and in the
coastal fisheries sector. Many coastal regions of Mindanao have received little international, national, and
local attention to conserving natural marine resources. The proposed GEF-assisted component would
further assist in creating sanctuaries and protected habitats for endangered species found in the area,
including species of dugong and sea turtle. This project will also help to advance a model with broader
applicability for mainstreaming biodiversity considerations in a sector with crucial social, economic, and
environmental dimensions throughout Mindanao (including the ARMM), the Philippines, and tropical
regions. Through the implementation of the proposed MRDP, the lessons learned from first phase
activities would be applied to arrest degradation and restore coastal and marine biodiveristy in subsequent
phases. The subsequent phases that would expand project implementation to include additional qualifying
sites in the coastal provinces of Mindanao included under the project.
3.
Project Description
Project Approach: The proposed rural development program is designed to cover provinces in
Mindanao with high levels of poverty incidence and a largely agricultural and fisheries base. Given that
55% of the rural population in Mindanao is poor, and in recognition of the fact that poverty alleviation
requires a sustained approach, a phased long term program, using the Adaptable Program Loan (APL)
instrument is being considered. This will permit the Bank to provide sustained support for the program,
possibly covering between 10 to 12 years. It would be designed as a targeted poverty reduction program
for the rural poor and indigenous communities of Mindanao, focusing particularly on interventions
necessary to increase productivity and incomes of small and landless farmers and fisherfolk. Regarding
the latter, the project would provide support the establishment of marine protected areas for the
conservation of marine biodiversity that would concurrently serve as spawning and nurturing areas for
commercially important local species in addition to those of global importance. The program of physical
investments to be supported under the project would be demand-driven and based on local and
community priorities. The proposed GEF-assisted Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Component would be
implemented following the basic strategy of the MRDP.
Outline of Project Components: In support of poor, rural smallholder farmers and fishers, the project is
being designed to target key constraints which have been inhibiting growth in agricultural production and
improvements in agricultural productivity and coastal resource management and marine biodiversity
conservation. The request for GEF assistance would be incremental to the project’s emphasis upon
improvements in agricultural productivity and specifically pertains to the conservation of marine
biodiversity through implementation of the Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation Component
(CMBC). Of the proposed project components, coastal investments under the Community Funds for
Agricultural Development Component would specifically complement the GEF-assisted activities and the
Overall Program Management Component would include regional DENR and DA/BFAR representation
that would guide the implementation of the CMBC. The overall The project components would be the
following:

Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation (CMBC) (Total Cost US$1.25 million; GEF
US$1.25 million): To promote the conservation of marine biodiversity of global importance and
restoration of degraded coastal areas, the project would implement a GEF-assisted community-based
resource management component that would support: (i) a resource assessment survey of selected
sites with marine biodiversity of global significance; (ii) the application of a participatory planning
4
process for identification, development and management of the conservation areas and appropriate
management regimes; (iii) strengthening of local marine resource surveillance by coastal
communities linked to existing enforcement agencies; (iv) formulation and implementation of a
monitoring and evaluation program; (v) assistance to the development of alternative income
generating activities for those involved in livelihoods that are particularly destructive to the marine
environment which would also be complemented by the Community Funds for Agricultural
Development Component described below; and (vi) the training of DENR/BFAR officers and
NGO/PO staff in sustainable marine and fisheries management methods as trainers for fisherfolk,
school age children, community leaders, and other stakeholders in the vicinity of sites selected as
protected areas to be assisted under the project.

Community Funds for Agricultural Development (CFAD) (Total Cost US$3.2 million; no GEF
Financing): The total planned allocation for the CFAD under the MRDP is US$8 million for five
provinces selected for inclusion under Phase 1 of the MRDP. It is thus estimated that approximately
US$3.2 million (40%) would be allocated for Sultan Kudarat and Maguindanao Provinces. The
MRDP project would aim to (i) strengthen technical support for poor smallholders and fishers in
coastal and inland areas; (ii) ensure better returns from land and water resource, (iii) encourage
income diversification (particularly for those heavily involved in the overexploitation of natural
resources); and (iv) improve linkages between individual farmers and fishers, local cooperatives, and
People’s Organizations with rural financial institutions to improve credit availability to help revitalize
local rural economies.

Institutional Capacity Building and Program Development (Total Cost US$4 million; no GEF
financing) would support overall Program Management and Administration, Monitoring and
Evaluation, and for technical studies and survey work for subsequent phases of the APL.
Specifically, it would include measures aimed at: (i) strengthening role and capacity of the local
development councils and boards for rural development planning, related resource management and
monitoring; (ii) linking technical skills enhancement related to the specific programs to be
implemented, as outlined above (infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, natural resource conservation,
etc.); (iii) strengthening provincial level planning and allocation of funds for rural development and
natural resource conservation and use ; (iv) building an M&E capacity locally; and (v) supporting the
national government agencies in adapting to their new roles in supporting LGUs under devolution.
This support would also be extended to the CMBC. As part of the activities under the CMBC,
Protected Area Management Boards (PAMB) would be formed, if nonexistent, or strengthened for
each site selected for assistance under the project. In addition, one environmental officer with a
background in marine resources management would be assigned by the DENR to each of the two
Community Environmental and Natural Resource Offices (CEBRO) administering each of the two
project sites through the three years of Phase 1. These officers would have backgrounds in marine
resources management and would be provided additional training under the project at marine resource
management institutes in the Philippines. The training would focus on the methods of establishing
and sustainably managing a marine conservation sites and protecting biodiversity. Toward the end of
the second year of the project, additional provinces would be identified for inclusion under Phase 2 of
the MRDP. Assuming that five or six additional coastal projects would be included with a total of 10
new conservation sites to be supported under the project, about 10 additional officers would
reassigned to work on the CMBC – one for each site. It is expected for the proposed third and fourth
phases of the project, that some of these experienced officers would be transferred for the
identification and development of additional qualifying sites identified under those phases.

Other Project Component (US$28 million; no GEF financing): The Rural Infrastructure
Component would include the (i) rehabilitation and new construction of rural roads, (ii) expansion of
communal irrigation systems (CIS) and small water impounding projects for irrigation; and (iii)
5
improved access to rural water supplies. Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation
Component
Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation (CMBC) Component (Total Cost US$1.25 million;
GEF US$1.25 million)
Detailed Features – Phase 1 of MRDP
The design of this component for the first phase of the APL is to focus on assisting activities in two
provinces in Mindanao, Sultan Kudarat and Maguindanao, where other project activities would also be
implemented and could support coastal management. The first phase of the APL would also be used to
work with communities at two sites that were selected via consultation during preparation of the
component to formulate management plans for the protected areas. The selected sites are: (i) ParilSangay Protected Seascape, Kalimansig, Sultan Kudarat Province; and (ii) Bongo Island, Parang,
Maguidanao Province. Development of these sites under the project would begin during for the first year
of phase 1 of the APL, community consultation would continue with training conducted, and resource
assessment and monitoring initiated at the two selected sites. Lessons learned from these Phase 1 sites
would be applied at qualifying sites selected for inclusion under Phase 2 with the cumulative experience
applied in subsequent Phases of the MRDP.

Resource assessment survey of selected conservation sites (Total Cost US$0.47 Million; GEF
US$0.47 million). This would be one of the first activities to be undertaken where resource profiling
would include the collection and compilation of all relevant information on the biophysical features
of the area, inventory of flora and fauna, and the determination of endangered and threatened species,
in addition to those already identified (Annex D). An initial area plan would be developed that
includes the demarcation of protected area and delineation of the different management zones (e.g.
strict protection zones, sustainable use zones, restoration zones, habitat management zones, multiple
use zones and buffer zones). Under this plan, initial management measures based on the resource
inventory would be recommended. These community-based initiatives may include, but not be
limited to, the imposition of closed fishing periods for certain fish species, particularly during
spawning season, the adjustments/replacement of certain fishing gears, and/or fishing techniques to
conform to environmentally friendly fishing strategies. These assessments and plans would be
coordinated by the Ecosystem Research and Development Sector (ERDS) of the DENR with
assistance from national and international consultants. During this phase, identification of additional
sites for mangrove reforestation is among the activities that would be included.

Application of a participatory planning and management process for identification and development
of protected areas (Total Cost US$0.06 million; GEF US$0.6 million): It is expected that local NGOs
would be recruited to work toward awareness building about the threats to marine biodiversity and
resultant adverse impacts to fishers’ livelihoods. For the first phase of the project, the two sites noted
above that were selected through stakeholder consultation would be planned in detail, developed and
managed through continued community participation. For additional qualifying sites that would be
selected for assistance during subsequent phases of the project, the planned strategy under Phase 1,
with adjustments from lessons learned during that phase, would involve all stakeholders being
consulted and involved in the identification, planning, development, and subsequent operation to
enhance biodiversity conservation and optimal coastal resource use. To augment local knowledge
and experience, representatives from Peoples Organizations (PO) in other areas in the country (e.g.,
Bais Bay of Dmaguete, Apo Island, Palompon Leyte, etc.), where successful coastal marine
management and marine protected area experience has concurrently led to improved biodiversity
conservation and greater returns from fishing, would be invited to visit the POs at the project sites to
share their experiences and how obstacles were overcome. Some representatives from the MCBC
6
sites would also visit the areas of the Philippines where community-based good management
practices have been demonstrated.

Strengthening of local marine resources surveillance by coastal communities linked to existing
enforcement agencies (Total Cost US$0.09 million; GEF US$0.09 million): Two activities may be
undertaken, the training of stakeholders in community-based surveillance to complement existing
agencies and the reorientation of the existing enforcement agencies on newly passed laws (NIPAS,
Local Government Code, Fisheries Code, etc.) and regulations. Strengthening of the capabilities of
enforcement agencies is expected with the installation of a community-based radio communications
network in the protected area and the procurement of a chase boat (equipped with binoculars and
cameras with telephoto lenses) to guard each of the two selected areas.

Resource monitoring and evaluation program (Total Cost US$0.38 million; GEF US$0.38 million):
Under this component, monitoring would be undertaken by the Ecosystem Research and
Development Sector (ERDS) of the DENR on a yearly basis. Assistance would be provided to the
ERDS by national and international consultants. Basic key indicators would be identified, and data
would be collected to monitor the progress of the conservation area in terms of biodiversity and to
monitor the recovery of damaged habitat. The acquisition of monitoring equipment built into the
project would improve the monitoring capability of the ERDS. Also, during the latter part Phase 1,
monitoring of other livelihood components like mariculture of seaweeds, shellfish, and cage fish
culture (independently or in combination) may also be undertaken. Impacts upon water quality would
also be assessed and assisted by the project.

Assistance to the development of alternative income generating (AIG) activities (Total Cost US$0.10
million; GEF US$0.10 million): This component would be specifically targeted to benefit those
involved in livelihoods that are particularly destructive to the marine environment. It would also be
complemented by Community Funds for Agricultural Development Component mentioned above. In
this component, the selected NGO (who would be identified in close consultation with the concerned
community and LGUs) would help fishing communities in the identification and development of
mostly water-based alternative livelihood activities. The main target group would be those poor
coastal fishers who practice destructive fishing techniques. Opportunities for AIG activities include
crab fattening, seaweed culture (possible improvement of existing culture techniques and technology),
combination of fish cage with seaweed and/or bivalve culture and the transplantation of giant clams
(Tridacna sp.) Similarly, developmental skills in fish processing may improve products and,
therefore, give value added to the fish produced. Bee keeping is another option that can be
conducted, particularly in the vicinity of mangroves. For all activities proposed for grant assistance
under this component, an environmental analysis would be conducted by the DENR/NGO in advance
of approval and implementation, showing each activity would be environmentally benign.
Ecotourism, though considered, may not be a demand-driven option during the first three-year phase
of the project due to instability in the area. The NGO would also assist their respective communities
with the preparation of proposals for grant support from the CFAD of the MRDP, following the
general guidelines for the project.

Training of DENR/BFAR officers, LGU/NGO/PO staff, and schoolteachers as trainers in sustainable
marine and fisheries management (Total Cost US$0.15 million; GEFN US$0.15 million). Those
trained would be educators for fisherfolk, school age children, community leaders, and other
stakeholders in the vicinity of sites selected for assistance under the project. This component would
involve educating all levels of the community in the benefits of marine biodiversity conservation,
sustainable fisheries, and optimal marine resource use. The training of the trainers would be
conducted at one of the higher level education institutions and institutes that have a suitable
curriculum on coastal resources management. Those trained through these sessions would
7
subsequently conduct workshops and lead classes on the information learned. These workshops
would be conducted after the trainer consults with the communities on the condition of their
respective coastal resources. From this knowledge base, the trainer would apply the technical
information obtained from his/her training courses on marine biodiversity conservation and coastal
resource management. This training could also include on-site investigations including diving at the
project sites.
4.
Project Cost Estimates (U.S.$ millions)
Total Cost
Component
A. Rural Infrastructure
Roads Establishing Aquatic Sanctuaries
Irrigation
Water Supply
IBRD
GOP/
LGU
GEF
28.00
17.00
10.00
1.00
21.00
12.75
7.50
0.75
7.00
4.25
2.50
0.25
8.00
6.00
2.00
C. Institutional Capacity Building and Program
Development
4.00
3.00
1.00
D. Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation
(Base Case)
Resource assessment survey of selected conservation sites
Application of a participatory planning and management
process for identification and development of protected
areas
1.25
1.25
0.47
0.06
0.47
0.06
Strengthening of local marine resources surveillance by
coastal communities linked to existing enforcement
agencies
0.09
0.09
Resource Monitoring and evaluation program
0.38
0.38
Assistance to the development of alternative income
generating (AIG) activities
0.10
0.10
Training of DENR/BFAR officers, LGU/NGO/PO staff,
and school teachers as trainers in sustainable marine and
fisheries management
0.15
0.15
B. Community Funds for Agricultural Development
TOTAL
41.25
40.00
Precise baseline and incremental costs are estimates to be refined during further project preparation.
8
1.25
5.
Global Benefits and Target Populations
The areas considered for protection host three species of marine turtles and dugongs whose distribution
range have been shrinking due to habitat destruction. The project site will become an important and
substantial addition to their natural distribution range. The project will reap significant benefits on the
conservation of this globally important areas with its host of rare species (Thalassodendrum ciliatum),
highly diverse corals.
Through the protection and restoration of habitats, the fisheries community will be the prime beneficiary
through improved catch. Moreover, significant lessons for replication in succeeding areas for
implementation could be drawn from the various activities and approaches used in the project.
The project would target the poor by providing alternative livelihood and extricate them from nonprofitable and destructive livelihood activities. Through community organizing by the NGOs,
environmental awareness and educational campaign especially for the younger generation would translate
into values that would pay handsome benefit for later generations.
6.
Institutional and Implementation Arrangements
The project would be implemented over a three-year period as Phase 1 of the planned APL. The
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is tasked to undertake the process for the
proclamation of specific pilot areas to be protected following the provisions stipulated in the NIPAS Act
(Republic Act 7586). The DENR would also work directly with local staff the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources (BFAR) of the Department of Agriculture (DA), as necessary. The DENR and
People’s Organizations would also inform the Philippine Coast Guard for its intervention should any
infractions and illegal, prohibited activities take place in or in the vicinity of the project areas that would,
in particular, though not be limited to, adversely impact the sites developed under the component.
Once declared as protected, the implementation will be taken over by the Protected Area Management
Board (PAMB) as stipulated under Section 11 of Republic Act 7586 and Chapter V of the implementing
rules and regulations (DAO No. 25, Series of 1992). Representation of the stakeholders (fishers, peoples
organizations, cultural minorities) to the board should be maximized. The Protected Area Superintendent
(PAS) shall be the chief operating DENR officer at the site and shall handle both the administrative and
regulatory function of the protected area.
In order to ensure soundness in the implementation of various activities of each module, these activities
should be contracted out to competent NGOs or research groups. For example, for the inventory of
species, the task should be given to the scientists of the National Museum. Alternatively, if the DENR’s
Ecosystem Research and Development Sector (ERDS) has skilled staff who can do the work, the ERDS
could undertake it with assistance from the National Museum, as required. Training components of the
project shall be given to the training department of the DENR or in the absence of expertise, should be
contracted to qualified groups from the academe or NGOs who have local experiences. The detailed
design and implementation of the proposed resource assessment and resource monitoring and evaluation
components would also be assisted by national and international consults with backgrounds in marine
biodiversity conservation.
The project would also use the community-based approach to allow the stakeholders and resource users to
have a direct hand in the management of the environment and resources within their jurisdiction.
9
Flexibility to carefully phase implementation of project component is necessary in order to be able to
incorporate lessons learned so that project’s objectives and activities are corresponding adjusted during
project implementation.
Block 2: Project Rationale
7.
CAS Objectives Supported by the Project
CAS document number 15362-PH dated February 15, 1996 – Date of latest CAS discussion – Progress
Report (R98-41): March 24, 1998
The Bank’s overarching mission is to help the Philippines are (i) sustaining economic growth through
sound macroeconomic policies; (ii) strengthening public sector management; (iii) strengthening
infrastructure and facilitating private sector participation; (iv) alleviating poverty and upgrading basic
social services; and (v) supporting sustainable natural resource management. The linkages between
marine biodiversity conservation, sustainable fisheries management and poverty alleviation are fully
supportive of CAS objectives and are the foundation for all proposed project investments and GEF grant
assistance.
8.
GEF Operational Strategy and Program Objectives Addressed by the Project
The Philippines ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in October, 1993. The project is
consistent with the GEF Operational Strategy for Biodiversity, and addresses GEF Operational Program
Number 2 (Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems). It directly addresses OP objectives
(conservation and sustainable use), including in-situ protection and sustainable use in vulnerable and
threatened habitats. The project is consistent with COP guidance and the Jakarta Mandate in that it
promotes conservation and sustainable use of vulnerable marine habitats and species by promoting
community management and access to alternative livelihoods. It will test new models for conservation
and management of marine areas in an area recognized as having some of the richest marine biodiversity
in the world. The project responds to COP3 and COP4 guidance through capacity building of local
institutions and communities and an ecosystem approach to coastal management. It also focuses on
sectoral integration and economic incentives by
linking conservation practices to development
opportunities under the associated MRDP financing.
The Philippines is rich in terms of marine biodiversity. Even though the project sites have been little
surveyed they are known to harbor rich marine resources, including rich coral reefs, sea grass beds and
mangrove habitats. Through support for conservation measures for marine threatened and endangered
species, including marine turtles and dugong, the project will provide better protection to migratory
species and support the objectives of the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species. The project attempts to
mainstream coastal conservation into regional development by demonstrating that sound management
practices will lead to restoration and recovery of marine habitats and species. It is expected that lessons
learned will be replicated in other coastal areas in Mindanao in later phases of the MRDP project.
9.
Main Sector Issues and Government Strategy
The main issues facing the conservation and sustainable management of marine resources in the
Philippines are the:


control of over-fishing and poaching by unlicensed external fishers;
prohibition of destructive fishing techniques such cyanide, muro-ami and blast fishing;
10




provision of knowledge of sustainable fishing practices;
use of fine mesh nets, enforcement of closed fishing periods during key spawning seasons;
need to establishment of marine sanctuaries and the conservation key nurturing areas such as
mangroves; and
prevention of the capture of threatened and endangered species, including marine mammals and sea
turtles.
The GOP strategy to address these issues are embodied in its February 19, 1998 “Republic Act No. 8550”
which is “an act providing for the development, management and conservation of the fisheries and aquatic
resources, integrating all laws pertinent thereto, and for other purposes” and in the National Integrated
Protected Areas System (Republic Act No. 7586 dated June 1, 1992) that was primarily established to
ensure the conservation of biological diversity and the use and enjoyment of protected areas. The Coastal
Environment Program (CEP) was established by the DENR in April 1993 to coordinate the management
of coastal ecosystems in the Philippines. The CEP has five major components; (i) Coastal Habitats and
Biodiversity; (ii) Endangered Species; (iii) Coastal Industries and Pollution; (iv) Resource Inventory and
Assessment; and (iv) Research and Special Projects. The legislation of the above Acts and the
establishment of the CEP demonstrate the GOP’s commitment to conserving and sustainably managing
coastal resources and biodiversity.
10.
Project Alternatives Considered and Reasons for Rejection
The project rejected the approach to identify all areas for possible protection and conservation in
Mindanao. Instead, the project focused only on two specific sites in two adjoining provinces. This is part
of the phasing of the project implementation where experiences and lessons learned from work with these
sites will be adapted and applied for succeeding areas for consideration. It would also give more
flexibility and evade the “straight jacket approach” where pre-determined sites offer less flexibility but
would have obvious planning advantages.
Fishing is one of the worst forms of ecological intervention and cessation of fishing activities is a drastic
solution to biodegradation. This approach was rejected because of the enormous social and economic
consequences. Over 15,000 people will be affected and the fish supply in the area as a cheaper source of
protein for the populace would be seriously affected. Instead, species-specific regulation of some gears
and specific closed fishing periods to promote conservation will be considered, depending on the results
of a detailed inventory and the results of the resource assessment of the area.
11.
Major Related projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Development Agencies
Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Project (CPPAP) (IBRD; US$20 million; (1994-2001)
The objective of this project is to conserve biodiversity and to sustainably develop natural resources
through the establishment of a system of reserves. The project includes biodiversity conservation in
terrestrial, marine, and freshwater habitats. Examples of successful activities implemented under this
project have been and will be considered during the implementation of the proposed Coastal and Marine
Biodiversity Conservation Component (CMBC) of the MRDP. The CPPAP’s implementation is currently
rated as satisfactory.
Community-based Resource Management Project (IBRD; US$50 million; 1998-2003)
This projects coastal and nearshore fisheries activities include establishing of artificial reefs and fish
sanctuaries, replanting of mangroves, and protecting beaches. The experience with establishment of
11
mangroves and fish sanctuaries provides relevant experience to assisting with the achievement of the
development objectives under the CMBC.
Coastal Resources Management Project in Central Visayas Region (IBRD; US$3 million; 1986-90)
The experience from this project of directly involving LGUs in project implementation and with various
marine management technologies has been useful in assisting with the design of the CMBC.
Fisheries Resources Management Project (ADB; US$89.1 million; 1998- 2004)
This project largely focuses on (i) improvements to fisheries management in 18 of 26 priority bays in the
Philippines (including follow on work with sites developed under the FSP discussed below); (ii) support
for the alternative livelihood development for fisherfolk; and (iii) institutional strengthening of national,
regional, and local level public sector agencies involved in fisheries. The
Fisheries Sector Program (ADB; US$80 million; 1989-95)
The goals of this project were to: (i) rehabilitate the ecological status of the coastal zone; (ii) reduce
extensive poverty; and (iii) improve the productivity sector. The design and strategy pursued under this
project provided important lessons with regard to the design of the CMBC, particularly with regard to the
necessity of strengthening community-based fisheries surveillance capacities, the importance of providing
alternative livelihoods to poor artisanal fisherfolk, and means of extending knowledge of coastal
management at the barangay and People’s Organization levels.
Coastal Resource Management Project (USAID; US$22 million; 1992-2000)
The experience from this ongoing project has been helpful in designing the management and livelihood
development activities of the CMBC, particularly from the standpoint of policy analysis and formulation
and small-scale sustainable, low-cost, and environmentally sound enterprise development. The prior
experience and continued advancements achieved under this project would have direct relevance to the
CMBC.
12.
Lessons Learned and Reflected in Proposed Project Design
Lessons learned from past coastal resources management projects (CRM) in the country showed the
following: (i) CRM or CBCRM programs are likely to be successful when government support for local
institutions are strong and where state policies and regulations are consistent with the needs of the
populace; (ii) that local government officials and personnel have very limited knowledge about coastal
and marine environment as well as community organizing; (iii) enforcement of laws and regulations is
better if given to the fisherfolk or stakeholders; (iv) that CRM projects for poverty alleviation has not
been fully addressed; (v) a thorough and detailed knowledge of the area and its resources is a prime
consideration before any management plan could be developed; and (vi) community organizing is an
effective approach for effective community participation in decision making and education campaign.
These lessons have been incorporated into the design by using the community-based approach where the
enforcement and protection component, the monitoring, and part of the evaluation would be implemented
by the stakeholders after undergoing proper training. Inventory of species and water quality analyses
would primarily be conducted by the DENR’s Environmental Research and Development Service
(ERDS) with assistance from the National Museum, as required, for the former, and training by a
university for the latter.
12
The design of the project is simple, flexible and focused on a two specific project sites where the
stakeholders are given chance to manage the resources which belong to them. They would be trained to
do so under the project. The role of the local government units is also emphasized with the plan to “train
and inform” the local government personnel on the issues of coastal marine environment. Considerable
guidance for the design of the CMBC was gained from the preparation of the Indonesia: Coral Reef
Rehabilitation and Management Project (COREMAP) in which community participation was key to
project design and has been further incorporated in project decision making and activities taken up during
implementation.
One important lesson learned under the CPPAP was that when effective environmental management and
biodiversity conservation activities are implemented by coastal communities and the benefits, such as
increased resultant fisheries productivity, are clearly seen, the communities have the strong incentive to
sustain the management for their own benefit. That management concurrently helps to conserve the
environment and protect biodiversity.
13.
Indications of Borrower Commitment and Ownership
There is keen interest in the DENR at the national level, in Region 12, and by the Autonomous Region of
Muslim Mindanao to support the Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation component of the
proposed MRDP. The endorsement letter accompanying this proposal from the GEF Focal Point in the
DENR demonstrates the GOP’s commitment to the implementation of the component. Also, local
officers of Community Environmental Resource Offices (CERO) of the DENR in the project area
welcomed the possibility of assisting with the implementation of the component. Captains of the
barangays and Fishers Organization consulted during preparation of the component very much looked
forward to the potential opportunities that would come with the component toward improving resource
use that would result from the proposed conservation measures.
14.
Value Added of Bank Support
A strong leadership role is required given the magnitude of issues and the number of donors working in
the sector and the impact of investments of other sectors on coastal resources and marine biodiversity.
The Bank is in a unique position to play that role given its experience in the sector, particularly in the East
Asia region, and its understanding of what is needed to manage the sector (acquired through project and
sector work). It is also in a position to build partnerships with experts in the sector and NGOs, other
institutions, and donors.
Block 3: Project Preparation
15.
Has a Project Preparation Plan been Agreed with the Borrower?
Yes. The preparation plan included an initial Bank mission in May 1998 during which a majority of the
national agencies directly and directly involved in the conservation of marine biodiversity were consulted.
In addition, LGUs, People’s Organizations, and fishers were consulted during a visit to Mindanao. One
output from that mission was the June 1998 consultant’s report entitled: “Coastal and Marine
Management needs in the Philippines.” Subsequently, a pre-appraisal Bank mission for the MRDP was
conducted in February-March 1999 during which the project areas in Maguidanao and Sultan Kudarat
Provinces were visited, stakeholders consulted, this proposal was prepared. A subsequent visit for fine
tuning the proposal is planned for May-June 1999 when the MRDP would be appraised.
13
16.
Has Recipient Drafted a Project Implementation Plan (PIP)?
No. The project implementation plan for the Coastal and Marine Management component would be
incorporated in the overall PIP for the MRDP in advance of project appraisal that is scheduled for
May/June 1999.
17.
Advice/Consultation Outside Country Department
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Within the World Bank: ENVGC, EASRD, EACPH
Other international agencies: UNDP, ADB, ICLARM
NGOs: WWF/KKP Philippines,
Bilateral agencies: USAID
18.
Issues Requiring Special Attention
a. Economic and Financial
Incremental cost annex attached – Annex A.
b. Technical
The main technical issue that could arise under the project is the capacity of local DENR/CERO officers.
Many of these officers who have been assigned to work in coastal areas and on the CEP were former
Forestry Officers. They often have little experience marine resource and biodiversity management
matters. The project would provide training for directly involved officers who would also be
complemented by national and expatriate Marine Biodiveristy and Environmental
Management/Monitoring Specialists and NGOs familiar with coastal issues. See Annex D.
c. Institutional
The local government units can make or unmake the success of the project. To ensure smooth
implementation, local government units must be “briefed” in detail and whenever, possibly undergo
special training so as to fully understand and appreciate the project.
Rapport between and among various agencies concerned with the implementation of the project as well as
those created independently (e.g. FARMC) should be clearly worked out and their respective roles
defined.
d. Social/Political
There are a number of social and cultural conflicts and other political disturbances in the project areas that
could affect the outcome of the component. These include: (i) violent skirmishes between tribal groups;
(ii) cultural incompatibilities that are religion based; (iii) political instability due to hostilities among
political groups; (iv) extreme rural poverty that compromise log-term management strategies aims at
environmental and biodiversity conservation and protection; and (v) piracy in coastal waters. The project
design has taken these concerns into consideration. It has been determined that through consultation
during preparation, that the approach to directly involve the barangay and local people’s organizations
into the design, implementation, and operational aspects of the component would greatly help to
overcome these potential social problems which mainly pertain to regional and national issues and not to
local communities. See Annex E.
14
e. Resettlement
No voluntary or non-voluntary resettlement will occur under the coastal and marine component.
f. Environmental
Overall the project would lead to improvements in the coastal environment by discouraging destructive
fishing techniques and improving fisheries management which would result in conservation of
biodiversity and sustainable resource use. The only potentially adverse environmental impacts that could
result from the component would be the impacts of fish cage culture upon the marine environment due to
(i) pollution from discharge of fish wastes, (ii) impacts on wild fish populations such as grouper if large
scale harvesting of wild juveniles is undertaken, and (iii) the impacts on populations of low valued fishes
as feed for the cultured fish. Under the component, only small-scale opportunities would exist for
development of fish cage culture under the livelihood development component. In addition as noted
above under the Research Sub-component, analyses of the impact of existing fish cage culture on water
quality would be monitored and options for culturing feed fish, such as tilapia fingerlings on shore,
would be explored.
g. Stakeholder Participation
The primary stakeholders are the local villages near and adjacent to the areas under consideration. These
are composed people of multi-cultural origins that include the indigenous and migrants. Involvement of
these local communities in management decisions concerning the protected areas and natural resource use
is an essential part of the project. Other stakeholders include the seaweed farmers of Bongo Island, the
local and regional government units, and the fry collectors who have expressed optimism during
discussions with them as part of project preparation on their possible direct participation in the project
through the community based-approach. These discussions included both technical and social assessment
sessions with fishers, People’s Organizations, and LGU officers from February 6 – 26, 1999 in barangays
adjacent to the project sites in Sultan Kudarat and Maguindanao Provinces.
h. Sustainability and Risks
Project sustainability is addressed at three levels: technical, institutional, and financial.
Technical Sustainability: the various components including the monitoring and evaluation and habitat
restoration and conservation of biodiversity appear to be technically sustainable.
Institutional Sustainability: the sustainability of community based approach in management of protected
areas is less secure as institutional sustainability depends largely on the commitment of various
organizations, specially by local government units, to the project. Also crucial would be the participation
of the NGOs in assisting the community in organizing themselves and help implement some of the major
activities of the project.
Financial Sustainability: Since the financial benefits would be directly accrued by the communities
implementing the sub-components, the incentive to continue the sustainable management practices would
be highly probable. Concurrently, these improved practices would not only improve their livelihoods but
also conserve and protect marine biodiversity within the project areas.
15
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex A.
Project Design Summary
Annex B.
Incremental Cost Analysis
Annex C.
STAP Roster Technical Review
Annex C1. Response to STAP Review
Annex D.
Description of and Rationale for Selection of APL1 Sites
Annex E.
Summary of Social Assessment and Participatory Needs
Annex F.
On-Site Management Sites Proposed for GEF Financing
Annex G.
Maps
16
ANNEX A
PROJECT DESIGN SUMMARY
Narrative Summary
Sector-related CAS
Goal:
1. Poverty Reduction
2. Strengthen Public
Sector Management
3. Supporting
Sustainable Natural
Resource Management
Key Performance Indicators
Monitoring and Evaluation
Reduced incidence of rural
poverty within target areas in
participating provinces
Periodic surveys; mid-term
and final project
evaluations
Improved service delivery in
support of better defined rural
development goals and
targets
Restored and sustained
management of marine and
coastal ecosystems and
biodiversity
Program/Project
Development
Objective:
1. Improved well being
of small holders and
rural poor through
sustainable increase in
productivity, and
diversification of rural
economic activities in
targeted poverty
areas/communities
(Program to cover
potentially 24
provinces; initial phase
to target 4 to 5
provinces).
2. Devolution and local
autonomy in rural
development planning
and implementation is
enhanced.
Annual resource
assessments at selected
project site
Critical Assumptions
(Goal to Bank
Mission)
Political commitment
and financial support
to actively pursue
programs and policies
targeted at poverty
reduction and
sustainable marine
resource management
and biodiversity
conservation
(Objective to Goal)
1. Increase of productivity higher corn and palay yields;
increase in area planted to
diversified crops. GVA from
agriculture and fisheries
increased in participating
provinces.
1. Implementation of
specific studies to monitor
progress, beneficiary
surveys, and use of other
statistics. Program of biannual monitoring reports;
and annual evaluation.
No major natural
calamities, or drastic
changes in weather
(such as earthquakes,
excessive typhoons,
prolonged droughts,
etc.).
2. Adoption of improved
natural resource management
practices, increase in area
under perennial crops,
resulting in better vegetative
cover and improved soil
fertility.
2. Mid-term evaluation
(prior to launching second
phase of APL).
General economic
stability in the
country/participating
regions; inflation to
remain in check (less
than 10% annually);
initiatives of peace
accord maintained
3. Positive impact on
employment opportunities in
targeted areas.
4. Periodic and independent
reviews of LGUs
development plans.
4. Increased incomes of
beneficiary households in
participating provinces
5. Annual assessments of
marine biodiversity at sites
selected to be marine
protected areas and
demonstrated
reduction/elimination of
destructive fishing
5. Improved rural
development plans, better
linked to poverty targets and
A-1
3. Implementation
Completion Reports for
each phase.
Sustained political and
budgetary
commitment to
supporting O&M;
complementary
initiatives to address
social sector issues
and improved coastal
environmental
management and
a vision for rural development practices.
for the LGUs; increased
involvement of local
stakeholders in planning and
resource allocation and
conservation of coastal
resources and biodiversity.
Outputs:
1. Community/other
stakeholder
participation in project
is facilitated through
better organization,
preparation of
development plans and
capacity building
Essential rural roads in
key production and
coastal areas are
rehabilitated (and in
some limited cases,
established) and
maintained by LGUs
and local communities
2. Sustainable
agricultural and
fisheries production
systems and diversified
farming, fishing
activities, and marine
biodiversity
conservation, are
introduced
Community generated rural
development plans for
supporting improvements in
their economic well-being are
approved and implemented in
eligible communities
Kilometers of rural roads
rehabilitated, maintained and
established.
Clear road designs standards
adopted to guide investments.
Bi-annual monitoring
reports; annual evaluations
Implementation
Completion Reports
Annual resource assessment
reports are prepared to
show incremental changes
in marine species diversity
and abundance
biodiversity
conservation.
Effective surveillance
and enforcement of
relevant laws
pertaining to coastal
and marine resource
management.
(Outputs to Objective)
Counterpart funding is
provided on an
adequate and timely
manner by both the
national and local
governments
Lack of LGU and
beneficiary
commitment to O&M.
Improved delivery of
extension services to farmers
and fisheries; better linked to
programs of national
agencies, SUCs; and to the
private sector.
Rehabilitation of
cooperatives; increased
delivery of farm credit
Increase in areas covered by
communal irrigation systems,
operated and maintained by
LGUs and local communities
Fishers’ and People’s
Organizations knowledge of
how marine resource and
biodiversity conservation can
contribute to higher
productivity and destructive
fishing methods abandoned
Hectares of reforested
watersheds
Plantings of perennial crops
A-2
Decline or elimination of
destructive fishing
techniques and resultant
increased fish production.
Surveillance measures
taken up by communities in
conjunction with assistance
from law enforcement
agencies.
The beneficial impacts
of biodiversity
conservation on
fisheries productivity
can be effectively
conveyed/
demonstrated to
coastal communities.
3. Communal irrigation
systems are expanded
and maintained by
LGUs and local
communities
4. Rehabilitation of
denuded watersheds by
LGUs and local
communities
5. Need for first level
rural water supply
systems of target
communities are met
6. Capabilities of LGUs
and local communities
in rural development
planning and
implementation and
conservation of coastal
marine biodiversity are
enhanced.
Number of households
benefited from the provision
of first level water supply
system
Number of LGU staff and
community leaders trained
(formally and informally)
Adoption of rural
development plans, based on
resource base and poverty
distribution within
participating LGUs
Selected marine areas are
protected and habitats are
rehabilitated
The mainstreaming of coastal
and marine biodiversity
conservation into
development plans for coastal
areas.
Re-colonization, by
populations of indigenous
species, of damaged marine
habitats designated as
conservation areas.
Understanding and
demonstration of
benefits of marine
biodiversity can be
conveyed to selected
coastal communities.
Development plans for
coastal areas include
environmental analysis of
potential impacts to marine
biodiversity.
Project
Components/Subcomponents:
Rural Infrastructure
Inputs: (budget for each
component)
Community Funds for
Agricultural
Development
TBD during preparation
Project MIS
Disbursement records
Audit reports
Institutional Capacity
Building and Program
Development
Over-all Program
Management
Coastal and Marine
Biodiversity
Conservation
(Components to
Outputs)
GEF-assistance at US$1.25
million
A-3
Timely availability of
counterpart funds
Competent and
committed staff will
be appointed to
facilitate and
coordinate the
planning and
implementation of
project activities.
ANNEX B
INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS
Overview
The Philippines has important coastal resources and globally significant marine biodiversity. Indeed, the
coastal waters of the Philippines archipelago support the greatest marine biodiversity in the world. Many
of these resources have been seriously degraded and marine biodiversity serious threatened particularly in
near-shore areas. This GEF-assisted component complements the proposed IBRD-assisted Mindanao
Rural Development Project and aims at promoting marine biodiversity conservation mainly by
mainstreaming it within local fishing communities and Local Government Units (LGU) in the
Philippines.
Context and Broad Development Goals
The GOP has recognized the ecological, economic, and financial importance of preserving its marine
resources. Toward achieving this objective a number of Government Acts and Executive and
Administrative Orders has been formulated and specifically aimed at conserving marine biodiversity and
improving fisheries management. In addition the Coastal Environment Program under the DENR has
been established to specifically address these issues in conjunction with related activities of the
Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management
Baseline
Under the baseline scenario, it is expected that the stakeholders and fishing communities in the coastal
areas will continue to overexploit coastal resources using destructive methods that will further threaten
marine biodiversity. With the current financial crises confronting the country, the GOP will have direct,
higher priorities of addressing immediate social issues confronting its people. Without external
assistance, the long-term impacts of continued mismanagement by coastal communities could lead to
irreversible damage and permanent losses to the country’s endowment of marine resources and
biodiversity, particularly in Mindanao. Under the MRDP, the Community Funds for Agricultural
Development Component (CFAD) would assist in reducing overexploitation of natural resources through
providing financial and technical assistance toward the development of new occupations or significantly
increasing the income from existing activities. The focus would primarily be upon the rural populace
engaged in agricultural activities with some resources to fishing communities. In the case of the latter, it
would help to reduce pressure on the exploitation of marine resources.
Global Environmental Objectives
The global environmental objectives of the GEF components of this project are to conserve globally
important marine biodiversity and to sustainably manage coastal resources in the Philippines by
mainstreaming marine biodiversity and coastal resource conservation within coastal communities and
LGUs in Mindanao. Importantly, this project will also help develop a model with broader applicability for
mainstreaming biodiversity considerations in a sector with crucial social, economic, and environmental
dimensions in Mindanao and more broadly in the Philippines.
GEF Alternative
B-1
Under the GEF scenario, substantial information, capacity, and experience will be developed to promote
the mainstreaming of marine biodiversity conservation and sustainable use within the fisheries sector,
particularly at the community level. The GEF approach relies on removing barriers for successful
mainstreaming through demonstration, capacity building, enhancement of the information base for sound
decision making, and policy development in Mindanao as part of the proposed MRDP, where little
attention has been paid in the past to marine resource and biodiversity conservation. The GEF
components will support the piloting of community-based marine sanctuaries to benefit both fishing
resources and marine biodiversity; enhance local capacity for addressing coastal ecosystem management
issues; and enhance the knowledge base for sound ecosystem management and decision-making,
including monitoring and evaluation for sustainable long-term marine ecosystem management. It is
expected that these steps will have substantial multiplying effects and provide the foundation for
mainstreaming biodiversity considerations within the Mindanao’s important coastal resource and fisheries
sectors. This would be facilitated by the inclusion of the CMBC component in the subsequent phases of
the proposed MRDP that would also have the knock-on benefit of gaining lessons from the earlier phases
of the MRDP. A sub-component of the Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation Component
(CMBC) would also provide alternative income generating activities to coastal fishers but would
particularly target those who are presently engaged in destructive fishing practices, providing them with
alternative and more beneficial livelihood options. Also, assistance would also be provided for coastal
communities to make application for funds for demand-driven activities that would be available under the
CFAD of the MRDP. It would further assist in the demarcation and protection of marine areas with
biodiversity of global importance and assist in their sustained management and protection. Without the
CMBC, these marine biodiversity conservation-related activities would not be implemented in the project
area under the CMBC.
Incremental Costs
The incremental costs are calculated as the difference between the GEF scenario and the baseline scenario
and total US$1.25 million.
B-2
Incremental Cost Matrix for GEF Funding
Component
Cost
Category
Cost US$ Domestic Benefit
Million*
MRDP IBRD/GOP
Baseline
3.20
Increased
agricultural
production and
profitability and
creation of
additional,
diversified
employment
Baseline
1.60
Improvements in the
government’s
capacity to manage
rural development,
reduce poverty and
conserve natural
resources and marine
biodiversity.
Mainstreaming
marine biodiversity
conservation into
rural and coastal
development
planning and
GEF
Alternative
1.25 Sustained increase in
fisheries production
and potential for
ecotourism
development.
Improved access of
coastal communities
to alternative
livelihoods.
4.80
6.05
Enhancement and
improvement of
coastal habitats for
threatened and nonthreatened marine
species of local and
global significance
Community Funds
for Agricultural
Development
Component
estimated for
Maguindanao and
Sultan Kudarat
Provinces only
(Total overall
project estimate
US$40 million)
Institutional
Capacity Building
and Program
Development
Component
(Total overall
project estimate for
this component is
US$4 million)
Coastal and Marine
Biodiversity
Component
Baseline
GEF
Alternative
Incremental
Global Benefit
1.25
*Precise baseline and incremental costs are estimates to be refined during further project preparation.
B-3
ANNEX C
STAP REVIEW
Technical Review of Project Proposal: Philippines - Coastal and Marine Biodiversity
Conservation in Mindanao
1. Scientific and Technical Soundness of the project
The project proposal is scientifically and technically sound. It is designed in a manner which integrates
effective rural development and nature conservation measures for linked coastal and marine ecosystems
in two specific target areas, namely (i) Paril-Sangay Protected Seascape, Kalimansig, Sultan Kudarat
Province; (ii) Bongo Island, Parang, Maguidanao Province. The selection of these areas is based on a
pragmatic evaluation of ecological as well as socio-economic factors which influence the health and
productivity of the ecosystems and the utilisation of natural resources derived from those systems.
The project design effectively integrates environmental, social and economic dimensions relevant to
biological diversity conservation. These include: (a) establishing community-based management of
marine sanctuaries; (b) strengthening local capacity to address marine ecosystem management issues; (c)
enhancing the knowledge base for sound ecosystem management and decision- making, including
monitoring and evaluation for sustainable long-term marine ecosystem management; and (d) developing
policy and action plans for integrating biological conservation into coastal development plans and
fisheries management. The adoption of the ecosystem basis for these activities is a further sound
technical measure.
The proposed GEF-assisted community-based resource management component would support: (i) a
resource assessment survey of selected conservation sites with marine biodiversity of global significance;
(ii) the application of a participatory planning and management process for identification and
development of the defined protected areas; (iii) strengthening of local marine resource surveillance by
coastal communities linked to existing enforcement agencies; (iv) formulation of a monitoring and
evaluation program; (v) assistance to the development of alternative income generating activities for those
involved in livelihoods that are particularly destructive to the marine environment
The GEF component is designed to complement the proposed Mindanao Rural Development Project
(MRDP) which is being designed to target key constraints which have been inhibiting growth in
agricultural production and improvements in agricultural productivity and coastal resource management
and marine biodiversity conservation. By building upon the resources and planned activities which will be
made available through the proposed MRDP, the GEF funds will achieve added value well in excess of
the 1.27 Million US requested. Although the total funding for rural development will be shared among
many sites in Mindanao, sufficient funding should be available to make a major contribution towards
developing alternative incomes and other rural development measures that will reduce pressures upon
local communities to damage and over-exploit their environments at the two GEF target sites. This
investment provides a very valuable opportunity for the GEF to make major progress in developing pilot
programmes which can be used as models elsewhere in Mindanao and other parts of Asia.
There are a number of technical advantages offered by developing GEF funding in cooperation with the
MRDP. For example, the Institutional Capacity Building and Program Development components of the
MRDP would support the management of the GEF funded activities . Specifically, the MRDP would
help establish Protected Area Management Boards (PAMB) for each designated marine protected area,
C-1
and would provide training for addition environmental officers with backgrounds in marine resources
management who would be assigned to each of the two Community Environmental and Natural Resource
Offices. The proposed training would focus on the methods of establishing and sustainably managing a
marine protected area and protecting biodiversity.
The anticipated long-term investment in the Rural Development component of the project (10-12 years)
will provide opportunities to develop consistent support to the two sites where GEF funding will be
applied which should allow the development and then expansion of effective social and economic
measures to help ensure local people are not forced back into patterns of activity which would otherwise
undo the environmental and natural resource sustainability benefits achieved.
There are some potential weaknesses in the project design that should be given further consideration.
One example is the continuing pressures associated with population growth and migration to coastal
areas. Neither the MRDP project or the GEF component will be able to address these pressing issues and
there is a real danger that they could seriously detract from the hoped for success of the planned
investment. Other weaknesses may be more easily dealt with. For example, local communities and
stakeholders are being asked to take on major responsibilities for managing and policing conservation
areas and helping to manage resources use activities. However, there is no mention of their rights of
access to those same resources. A major problem with marine and coastal areas is the common property
nature of reefs and other ecosystems and the resources they generate. Experience has shown that by
granting communities user rights to such areas and resources, they are given a powerful incentive to
manage them sustainably. The project should seek to clarify the position vis a vis the Philippine policies
and legislation to ensure that they can provide local communities with guaranteed user rights to the local
natural resources they will be asked to help manage.
The research component should also be reviewed. As stated in the project proposal potential sites for
mariculture operations will be assessed. However, the impact of such development will only be assessed
after they have been put into operation. This may be pragmatic, but is does pose the risk that well
intentioned measures to promote alternative income generation could degrade the very resources the GEF
funding is seeking to protect. It would be better to do initial EIA scoping studies to ensure the carrying
capacity of sites will not be exceeded, then proceed in a very carefully monitored manner to develop cage
culture of fin fish and other mariculture activities.
One point that the project could anticipate is that by focusing investment in selected areas, people in
neighbouring areas will see their neighbours benefiting from a project because they have been persuaded
to stop damaging fishing practices. This can produce unexpected results. For example, in Indonesia
villagers in non-targeted sites where dynamite fishing was not commonly practised started to use
dynamite in order to attract attention to their development needs in the hope that people would respond
and include them in rural development and conservation projects .
2. Identification of the Global Environmental Benefits and/or Drawbacks
The threats to the rich and diverse ecosystems in the proposed sites are addressed effectively by the
project design. The global environmental benefits are clearly identified in the project objectives, namely
to conserve and restore globally important coastal habitats and related marine biodiversity by making
biodiversity and marine ecosystem conservation a major focus in community development and in the
coastal fisheries sector. The proposed GEF-assisted component would help to create sanctuaries and
protected habitats for endangered species found in the area, including species of dugong and sea turtle.
Due to the careful selection of the two pilot sites and the integration of social and economic measures
under the Rural Development component, there would appear to be few significant potential drawbacks.
C-2
3. Fit with GEF Goals and Operational Strategies
The Project Rationale section sets out clearly the GEF Operational Strategy and Programme Objectives
which will be addressed by the project. It directly addresses OP objectives (conservation and sustainable
use), including in-situ protection, and having a primary focus on ecosystems in areas at risk.
The project explicitly addresses all GEF outputs under OP 2, i.e., sectoral integration, sustainable use, and
institutional strengthening.
4. Regional Context
The broader context setting out the global, regional and national importance of the biological diversity of
the two pilot sites is well developed in the body of the proposal. The site descriptions are adequate and
the planned resource assessments will add further information to strengthen the development of
community based management and monitoring.
5. Replicability of the Project
The project sets out to create an effective fusion of social, economic and environmental management
measures that should enjoy a wide body of local community support. By integrating the MRDP and GEF
components the project will seek to adapt well established community management models that have
worked elsewhere in the Philippines and apply them to Mindanao. By adopting this approach and refining
participatory planning techniques for biological conservation, there is good potential for replicating them
in other provinces in Mindanao under later phases of MRDP and through normal development funding.
Evidence of the benefits to local communities of biological conservation should spread to other
communities and there should be a receptiveness that would make it possible to replicate the benefits
when the capacity is available to support further initiatives.
The well developed and supportive national, regional (Provincial) legal and policy framework which has
been developed over recent years in the Philippines would facilitate the application of the results of the
two pilot biological diversity conservation initiatives to other areas.
Secondary Issues:
1. Linkages to Other Focal Areas
The project addresses GEF Operational Program Number 2 (Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater
Ecosystems).
2. Linkages to Other Programmes and Action Plans
The project documentation provides a comprehensive illustration of related programmes and actin plans.
3. Degree of Involvement of Stakeholders in the Project
The preliminary socio-economic and environmental surveys were used to identify the key stakeholders,
and to initiate a process by which local stakeholders and other interests with local communities can be
C-3
integrated into the definition of conservation issues and the formulation of management solutions. Given
the importance of the active involvement of all relevant stakeholders in the development of community
based management of the ecosystem and development of human activities, it would have been helpful to
have further details of how this would be handled in the project design.
4. Capacity-Building
Capacity building is designed as a major component of the GEF funded project. There are clearly
identified priorities for capacity building set out for the DENR, local Government Units, and stakeholders
from the local communities. Capacity building is also a component of the rural development component
in respect to helping people develop alternative forms of livelihood, including the sustainable utilisation
of the coastal and nearshore marine resource base.
Specific measures to strengthen human resources under the GEF component include: 1) strengthening
local capacity to take part in participatory planning approaches to the solution of marine ecosystem
management issues; and 2) enhancing the knowledge base for sound ecosystem management and
decision- making, including monitoring and evaluation for sustainable long-term marine ecosystem
management
The Rural Development project will also provide capacity building in areas which will support the
biological conservation measures. Examples include: 1) Improving LGU capability for agricultural
development planning and implementation; 2) Establishing viable institutional, financial and communitybased systems for supporting rural development and natural resource and biodiversity conservation. The
Community Funds for Agricultural Development Component will provide the training for DENR/BFAR
officers and NGO/PO staff in sustainable marine and fisheries management methods as trainers for
fisherfolk, school age children, community leaders, and other stakeholders in the vicinity of sites selected
as protected areas to be assisted under the project.
5. Innovativeness of the Project
There are three strongly innovative features of this project, namely:
1. It provides funding for marine and coastal biological conservation in areas of Mindanao which have
received little international, national or more local support;
2. It seeks to develop policy and action plans for marine biodiversity conservation and make it an
integral part of coastal development plans;
3. By integrating GEF and IBRD funding in support of rural development, the project has the potential
to enable local communities to get out of the trap of poverty and to take a positive leading role in
biological conservation of local ecosystems and the sustainable use of renewable resources.
Peter Burbridge
C-4
ANNEX C1
RESPONSE TO STAP REVIEW
This proposal was subject to an Independent Technical review by a qualified expert from the STAP
roster. The reviewer’s comments can be found in Annex C, immediately preceding this response to the
review.
The reviewer raised four issues that arose as a result of the evaluation of the proposal. These include (i)
uncontrolled population growth and migration to coastal areas and resultant increased pressures upon
coastal resources; (ii) rights of communities to manage coastal resources which are held as common
property; (iii) issues over the effectiveness of the research component and concern over potential
environmental impacts of alternative generating activities that would be financed by the project; and (iv)
inadvertent encouragement of villages in the vicinity of the project sites to take up destructive fishing
techniques in an attempt to gain assistance toward rehabilitation of those sites by the project.
Increased Population Pressure on Coastal Resources: The reviewer has pointed out that with
increases in coastal populations and migrations to coastal areas, there is a trend that further
overexploitation of coastal resources and degradation to coastal ecosystems would result. The control of
increases to coastal populations is beyond the scope of the component. However, through improvements
in community-based sustainable management of coastal resources, ecosystems, and marine biodiversity
and the communities’ direct participation in enforcement of national regulations and local ordinances, the
potential adverse impacts would be much better controlled as discussed below
Rights of Communities to Coastal Resources: The Local Government Code (RA 7160 of 1991) has
devolved specific fishery management functions (regulatory and enforcement) to the local government
units (LGUs). This landmark piece of legislation also encouraged the participation of the people through
Peoples Organizations (PO) /Non-governmental Organizations (NGO) in matters of public concern, such
as coastal resources management. This local government code, thereby, provides the capacity for LGUs
to designate the management of a specific conservation and protected areas. In addition, the
establishment of a Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) under DENR’s Coastal Environment
Program at each selected qualifying site would assist in guiding the management of each site. Moreover,
once the respective site has been formally allocated to a local community’s People’s Organization, clear
lines of management and conservation responsibilities would be established.
Research and Environmental Impacts of Alternative Income Generating Activities: As specified in
section “3. Project Description” in the description of the alternative income generating activity subcomponent, no activity would receive assistance under the project until an environmental analysis would
be conducted by the DENR to determine its potential impacts might be upon the local environment and
that activity is found to be benign. For activities such as fish cage culture, where the issue of a specific
area’s carrying capacity are not fully understood, a phased development approach would be prescribed
with water quality monitoring conducted for an initial pilot phase to determine the impact and absorptive
capacity of the area. Support is provided under the project for this monitoring that would be the main
emphasis of the research component during Phase 1.
Encouragement of Destructive Practices to Gain Project Assistance for Rehabilitation: Site selection
and qualification will only be based on the importance of biodiversity in the area and not upon the
condition of a particular ecosystem.. This site selection criterion would be explained on a widespread
basis through all available lines of communication in the project area to deter encouraging communities
or individuals from taking on or increasing destructive practices as new areas are brought under
consideration under the project. Social assessments identifying those who would be entitled to assistance
C1 - 1
would be done in advance of formally designating an area. With direct community participation in the
process, those who would be entitled to assistance would be identified and selected through a consultative
process.
C1 - 2
ANNEX D
Description of and Rationale for Selection of APL1 Sites
Project Area
Initially, the project proposal would cover the provinces of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato
City. These areas form a contiguous coastal areas along the eastern side of Moro Gulf consisting of
approximately ~247 km extending from the boundary of Lanao del Sur to the north and southwards until
the boundary of Sultan Kudarat to South Cotabato (Figure 1).
Assessment of Areas
Line agencies were contacted in the project area to determine existing protected areas or pending plans to
establish new ones. For the Province of Maguindanao, line agencies (DAF, DENR) of the Autonomous
Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), the MFARMC and Sanguinaang Bayan representative for
fisheries of Parang, Maguindanao; for Sultan Kudarat, the DENR-ERDS-EMPAS, DA-Fisheries agencies
of Region 12 and the CENRO-CEP and MAO for Kalamansig and the MAO of Lebak municipalities
were consulted. For Cotabato City, the offices of the City Planning and Development Office (CPDO) and
the Office of the Veterinary Services of the city were consulted. All relevant and available data for each
area were also collected.
Site visits and discussions with the local populace (including but not limited to Barangay officials) and
interviews with fishers or resource user of the area were conducted in order to get their reaction and views
on how protected areas would affect them. Fisheries information including issues and problems
confronting the fisheries in the area were also collected from interviews to support existing secondary
data.
In the study area, similar initiatives are underway which partly include the area under consideration. For
example, the coastal areas of northern Maguindanao and Cotabato City are actually part of Illana Bay
where the establishment of the Integrated Illana Bay Management Council is currently underway through
the cooperative efforts of the Local Government Support Fund (LGSP) and the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA). Likewise, the whole of Moro Gulf where the coastal area of Sultan
Kudarat is situated, formed part of the Sulu-Celebes Large Area Protected Zones currently being
implemented by the DENR. These two projects have made initial studies like resource assessment and
socio-economic profiles for specific areas under consideration. Therefore, whatever interventions and
activities to be undertaken in the study area would be closely linked to and complementary with the
objectives of these other activities.
Areas with Global Significance for Possible Inclusion in the Protected Areas
Listed below are two areas for possible inclusion in the Protected Areas Management Scheme These
include the:
1. Paril-Sangay Protected Seascape, Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat Province
2. Bongo Island, Parang, Maguindanao Province
Areas with national Significance
1. Palembang Fish Sanctuary
2. Polloc, Parang Maguindanao
D-1
A detailed description of each areas together with the criteria used in the evaluation of each area are given
below:
Paril-Sangay Protected Seascape
The names refer to Barangay Paril and Barangay Sangay in the municipality of Kalamansig, Sultan
Kudarat where the proposed protected seascape will be established. Of the two areas considered, this area
offers the most pristine environment.
The area considered is Donauang Island (locally called Balut Island) and the adjacent area and the
shallow water between the island and the mainland. Initially proposed to cover only the Donauang Island
with an approximate area of 500 hectares, the area was increased to 1,200 hectares after consultation and
public hearing, to include the southern part under Barangay Sangay. Note that there has been considerable
progress made as far as this area is concerned. The progress made is so advanced that the DENR-ERDSCEP in Region X11 and the municipality of Kalamansig have already finished a draft Proclamation to be
submitted to the President upon endorsement by Secretary of DENR.
What is interesting about this area is that the establishment of a protected emanated from the local
populace in order to conserve and manage their resources. The ERDS-CEP program provided the funds to
set the activities in motion following the format of NIPAS Law. Appendix 1 shows the process
undertaken for the area to be declared protected.
Substantial areas of the coral reefs are still in good condition. An initial inventory of species revealed the
presence of 20 genera of corals, 23 families of reef fishes belonging to 83 species and 7 species of
seagrass. In the proposed site, extensive coral reef buildup is found between 30-80 ft (15-25 m) of water.
Based on the inspection of fish catch from the area, the sizes of fish are still large. For instance, large
fusiliers, parrot fishes and barracudas comprise fish catch of gillnets with high catch rates (minimum of
15 kg/d). Similarly, hook and line catches remain high (10-15 kg/d) pinpointing to the presence of
sufficient but still undetermined number of fish stocks. Moreover, the sightings of large predators such as
sharks, manta rays and green turtles are indicators of a still pristine environment. This observations would
probably make the area the most diverse among the two areas being considered. What is interesting is that
initial attempts to culture seaweeds failed due to the reported heavy grazing of marine turtles on the
culture areas. The beach area east of Donauang Island is a known nesting ground of turtles.
Other Considerations
Sightings of marine turtles have been consistently reported along the coastline between Cotabato City and
as far south as Palembang, Sultan Kudarat with the greatest concentration of reports of turtle nestings and
sightings between Barangay Tran, Lebak and Barangay Milbuk, Palembang. The data provided from
tagging by the Rescue Center of CENRO office at Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat, documented and sightings
of at least three species of turtles and dugong. The turtle species include the green turtle (Chelonia
mydas), olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) and the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea). These species
are on the list of threatened marine mammals (CITES) and are protected by Philippine law (MNR AO No.
12, S. 1979). In the offshore areas, cetaceans (dolphins) are sighted with regularity and are also protected
under FAO 185-1, S. 1997.
The entire coastal area of Sultan Kudarat composed of three coastal municipalities of Lebak, Kalamansig
and Palembang would be an ideal site to protect the marine turtles as the area appears to be part of the
natural geographic range of marine turtles.
D-2
On another environmental development, successful mangrove reforestation in Lebak (involving some 311
ha of undeveloped and/or abandoned fishponds) by the CEP-CENRO at Kalamansig has been observed.
The area was planted with Rhizopora species and survival rate is a high 80%. The trees are already 4-5
years old and about 2-4 meters high. Another 60 ha of abandoned fishponds are being considered for
further mangrove replanting pending availability of logistical support.
With the interest to protect biodiversity of the coastal area, it would appear ideal and proper to include
some of the forest areas (belonging to the mountain range of Kulaman) adjacent to the marine areas to be
protected. A good example would be the inclusion of the whole Island of Donauang under protection.
There are no settlements in the area and the island is still inhabited Philippine monkeys while the nearby
forest in the mainland still boasts of wildlife such as wild pigs, deer, monkeys, large fruit bats and birds.
Bongo Island, Parang, Maguindanao Province
This is a medium-sized island (2,300 ha) located west of Parang Municipality. It gained prominence in
1976 when it was struck by a tsunami where a still undermined number of people perished. The island is
about 11.5 km long and about 1.8-2.79 km wide. It is fringed by reefs on the northeast, north and
northwest that extend to a distance of about 0.93 km and on the northwest side reaches about 2 km from
the shore edge (Coast Pilot, 1968). On the eastern side, reefs are very narrow. The estimated reef area for
the whole island is about ~12 sq. km.
Resource and inventory assessment made in 1998 (LGSP-CIDA, 1998) revealed that live coral cover
based on five sampling sites ranged from fair to good with four stations having an average live cover of
39.1%. Only one station located at Tuka Maror on the eastern side has a good cover of 70%. However,
most reefs are dead primarily due to excessive use of explosives in fishing. This condition was confirmed
by actual skin dive survey made in the area. The island also offers substantial mangrove forest on the
northwestern and northern side of the island made up mostly of secondary growth dominated by
Sonneratia alba. This species represented about 87% of the crown cover and 76% of the trees counted
(LGSP-CIDA, 1998). In the same study, the examination of soft benthic organisms (meiofauna) from the
sampling sites in Bongo Island showed the highest density of these fish food organisms compared to other
sites sampled in the municipality of Parang. It is thus likely the sampling area is a critical habitat for
nurturing juveniles of important species in the area.
The reasons why Bongo Island was chosen as one of the two sites for marine protection are the following:

It offers all three important coastal marine habitats, namely, very large reef area, substantial
mangrove cover and seagrass beds;

The reef area as well as the mangrove forest are highly disturbed and seriously needs largescale intervention to help speed recovery;

The size of the island with a very large village at Barangay Litayen where both agriculture
and fishing is practiced, is very ideal for monitoring and evaluation purposes;

It is strategically located some 22 km from Parang municipality surrounded by deep water,
which, from an ecological point of view, makes it isolated and not readily accessible or
influenced by activities from nearby areas;

Although reef-based fishing is still practiced, it represents only a minor activity, thus,
establishment of protected areas may not posed serious dislocation; and

The reef areas continue to be of great importance to livelihood because the area is currently
used for seaweed culture.
D-3
Therefore, in consideration of the above, the area as possible site for protection offers both ecological and
social advantages inherent for islands as protected sites. The possibility of habitat restoration (reefs and
reef fishes) without seriously constraining or affecting their existing livelihood would be of primary
importance.
Incremental Impact of Establishing Protected Areas on Fisheries Based on Other Experiences
The concept on the use protected areas in fisheries started after the classic study by Alcala (1984) and
many subsequent studies on coral reef protection and fishery yields. Protection of certain areas from
fishing would allow the recovery of fish stocks and initiate the recovery of the damaged habitat. It was
proven, as in the case of Sumilon Island Reserve, that when half of the area was closed to fishing leaving
the other half open for exploitation, fish yields on the exploited side doubled within a year of protection,
suggesting that the increase fish yield came from the protected zone.
The results were so encouraging that despite serious lack of further knowledge, the concept was readily
disseminated and applied. Thus, there is the proliferation of the establishment of fish sanctuaries, marine
reserves and other protected area schemes. The concept was being peddled as a highly viable option for
livelihood enhancement and as an answer to “all your fisheries worries”. Together with the establishment
of artificial reefs, the program was in fact adopted as a national program by the Department of
Agriculture.
While experiences with establishment of protected areas on one hand appeared to be working, the
establishment of artificial reefs on the other hand, have been strongly opposed by the academe on the
ground that when not properly implemented, may cause more damage than solutions. A moratorium for
the establishment of artificial reefs was issued (Balgos 1996). Despite the moratorium, artificial reef
deployment still continues in the project area.
Until the present time, there is no fixed formula that could ensure the viability of using protected area to
rehabilitate fisheries stocks. There are however, guiding principles that have been amassed by experiences
in the last 15 years and is summarized below:

The establishment of protected areas means a reduction of the available fishing grounds.
Since those recommended for protection are areas with still sizeable fish population, the
immediate impact would be reduction in catch and therefore decreased income. It therefore
important that any move to delimit fishing to specified areas should be coupled with a
livelihood enhancement component to cover losses in income.

The size of the protected zone relative to the general area considered should be significant.
The Sumilon Island experience was successful probably because the protected area
represented about 50% of the total area around the island. However, the use of 50% ratio
would be taking too much of the area that its economic consequences would be enormous.
As an alternative, a network of protected areas representing about 15% of the total reef area
may be adapted. This scheme will be used in Guimaras province (Ingles and Babaran
1997). Instead of having one large area, a network of small-protected areas distributed over
the whole island may be established. However, the scheme remains to be proven.

The third consideration would be the status of the area or the general environment to be
protected. There are instances where areas being proposed for protection are already
severely damaged that recovery of fish stocks as well as the habitat will not prosper without
any major intervention such as re-introduction of fish species and transplantation of corals.
Lack or absence of such activities could prolong or at worse not work at all. There is no
Philippine experience on the success of reseeding experiments of reef fishes while coral
D-4
transplantation remain largely in the experimental stage. Results however pinpoint to some
success.

Recovery time of fish stocks vary depending on the condition of the area at the time
protection was enforced. Tropical fish species have very fast growth rates compared to their
temperate counterparts. Given a critical mass of fish stocks remaining in the protected area
at the time of implementation, improvement in fish density and abundance will be evident
in two years. For the Paril-Sangay Protected Seascape, fish stocks recovery may even be
shorter. However, for highly depleted areas, especially for islands far from sources of fish
recruits like the Bongo Island, re-introduction of fish species might be undertaken. While
the good reef in Tuka Maror should be identified as source of replenishment, the process
may be very slow. For coral reefs, recovery time is quite slow because of its inherently
slow growth rate. Depending on the type damage on the reefs, recovery could vary from 510 years for damage on reefs caused by natural causes (e.g. storms, surges) to 40 years for
blasted reefs (Gomez et al. 1996).
Essential to the success of managing protected areas is the identification of a management body that will
be directly responsible for all the activities related to the protected area. While the management body
should be under the Local Government Unit, its head should be part of the career service program and not
an elective official. This is to maintain the continuity of operations and activities and to avoid influences
of partisan politics.
Strict enforcement of rules, laws and policies related to the implementation and management of the
protected area remain the key to success, especially during the early stages of protection. For the Sumilon
Island experience, the breakdown of the protected area after one year resulted in a rapid decline in fish
yields with catch rates reverting back to its pre-regulated condition after just one year.
Benefits arising from the recovery of fish stocks and rehabilitation of habitats will manifest in improved
income from increased catch rates on a sustainable basis. Indirect benefits will be in the form of low
overhead costs as fishers will not have to go to distant grounds to fish. Likewise, the conservation of
biodiversity would become one of its major benefits not to mention potential revenues that may be
generated from ecotourism.
Paril-Sangay Protected Seascape
For the Paril-Sangay Protected Seascape, the area is relatively pristine. Fishing in the nearby areas outside
the protected zone would mean longer time to reach the fishing ground for those living directly in front of
the area. It would also reduce the number of fishing days in a year, since part of the protected area is used
to be the fishing ground during inclement weather.
There are other possibilities for livelihood. The bay facing barangay Paril is an ideal site for fish cage
culture. In fact, culture trials are underway. Other possible sources of income include the collection of
milkfish fry. For land-based livelihood, agriculture on the slopes of mountains may be improved and
enhanced. Note that during inclement weather, people in the area shift to agriculture which is actually
their major economic activity during southwest monsoon. Fishing formed only a part time activity for
many villagers.
Bongo Island Protected Area
For the Bongo Island, the whole coral reef area, sea grass beds and mangrove swamplands should be
considered for protection. But because these are also used for other purposes, protection should be done in
D-5
phases. The coral reefs on the western side are damaged, should be considered for protection, and would
be ideal for the project to determine the incremental benefits of proposed intervention. But because of
major economic activity such as culture of seaweeds, the area may be declared as a fish sanctuary where
fishing would not be allowed, but where seaweed culture could continue. On the eastern side, although
the reefs are very narrow and limited, the area in Tuka Maror would be an ideal site for the source of
recruits. On these areas, no activities should be allowed. This area, as suggested by the LGSP-CIDA
study, may be declared as a core zone (Figure 2) where no activity except for scientific purposes. The rest
of the northern half of the island may be considered as a fish sanctuary where again the continued culture
of seaweeds would be allowed. The rest of the island may be used for other economic and recreational
purposes.
As there are few fishers operating in the area due to low catch, displacement of fishers will be minimal.
Those that will be affected include the fish corral operators on the northern part of the island and few
Joloanons catching octopus. Since there are several nearby shoals and reefs patches to the west and north
west of the island, these fishers will not be deprived of their fishing grounds.
D-6
ANNEX E
SUMMARY OF SOCIAL ASSESSMENT AND PARTICIPATORY NEEDS
A participatory coastal area assessment was conducted in the areas proposed as marine protected areas,
including the nearby vicinities. Focus on this activity were the following:
1. To explore and document the socio-economic conditions of the communities adjacent to the
selected MPAS and sanctuaries;
2. To determine whether there are existing local institutions and administrative structures that can be
proposed to possibly manage the identified protected areas, and make recommendations with
costs of needed changes and strengthening of the institutions and their facilities;
3. To identify possible alternative livelihood options and employment potentials for the coastal
village people within and near the proposed protected areas;
4. To determine the training needs as well as education program for the establishment and sustained
management of the selected MPAs and sanctuaries; and,
5. To find out if there are existing regulations the community had enacted for the protection of their
marine resources.
To achieve these tasks, a rapid appraisal was conducted in the two study areas. For the proposed marine
protected area in Sultan Kudarat, particularly for Paril-Sangay Marine Protected Seascape in Kalamansig,
the Regional Director, the chief planning officer and the Coastal Environment Program Manager of
DENR-Region XII, provided substantial information. The Regional Director and planning officer of DABFAR also provided additional information about the fishing communities. Selected local leaders, who
were also CEP cooperators, were interviewed. Regarding the proposed marine conservation area around
Bongo Island in Maguindanao, data on the socio-economic situation were obtained from the municipal
planning and development officer of the Municipality of Parang. The MFARMC President who also is a
local official served as key person who provided the necessary information together with some local
residents of Bongo Island. The technical staff of DA-Fisheries Sector and Project Management Officers
of the Integrated Illana Bay Management Council provided assistance and relevant needed information.
The DENR and the DA-Fisheries also provided references specifically their integrated coastal resource
management plans for Parang and for Pari-Sangay Marine Protected Seascape in Kalamansig.
A.
PARIL-SANGAY MARINE PROTECTED SEACAPE, KALAMANSIG,
SULTAN KUDARAT
General Description of the Area. There are three coastal municipalities in Sultan Kudarat, namely Lebak,
Kalamansig and Palimbang. These have extensive and long coastlines of 480 kilometers and are adjacent
to each other. The identified municipalities of Sultan Kudarat belongs to Region XII. Celebes Sea is the
biggest source of marine resources for these coastal towns. These areas are where Sultan Kudarat’s
richest tuna sanctuary and vast brackish and freshwater resources could be found. It takes three hours to
reach these towns by pump boat, around 45 minutes by plane and around 7 hours by land.
E-1
The municipal waters of the three coastal towns are the traditional fishing grounds and main sources of
livelihood of the marginal fishermen. They exhibit a high degree of biodiversity and abundant marine life.
Kalamansig is one of the richest municipalities in terms of coastal and marine resources due to its good to
excellent coral reefs. Its municipal water is at the base of the Illana Bay and within the portion of Moro
Gulf. It is also in this coastal municipality where DENR launched a pilot site of Coastal Environment
Program (CEP). To date, the DENR Region XII is processing the proclamation of Paril-Sangay within the
Kalamansig-Lebak CEP site as a marine protected seascape.
The place is nearly 64 kilometers away from Cotabato City and 89 kilometers from General Santos City.
Human settlements and developments are concentrated in the southeastern portions of the area wherein a
dilapidated jetty, that can still service fishing vessels with a tonnage of less than 5 tons, is located.
Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile. Lebak has a total population of 61,884, with an average
household number of five. Population growth rate is 3.16 percent. Kalamansig has a total population of
35,900, with average household number of 4.5. Growth rate is estimated to be 2.93. For Palimbang,
population totals 40,646 with average growth rate of 5 and population growth rate of 3.50. Fishing is the
major occupation in these areas. Lebak has a total of 1,027 fisherfolks, 954 for Kalamansig and 480 for
Palimbang. Brackish water fishponds in the coastlines of Lebak and Kalamansig are suitable for
aquaculture development. Lebak has a fishpond area of 247 hectares, 104.5 hectares for Kalamansig and
22.4 hectares for Palimbang. Lembak has 5 fishermen organizations with 406 members. Kalamsig has 10
fishermen organizations with 286 members and Palimbang has three fishermen organizations with 83
members.
Agriculture, also a primary source of livelihood, is supported by the broad alluvial plains for rice
production. Coconut is the most extensive crop grown. Cacao is commonly inter-cropped with coconut.
Coffee is also a major crop in Kalamansig and Lebak. Other crops include banana and root crops. Two
river watersheds in Lebak and one in Palimbang support a total of 4,400 hectares of rice fields. Forestry
plantation are mostly found in Lebak and Kalamansig. There are small scale processing mills in the
locality.
While income of the people in the coastal area is relatively higher than the upland and lowland areas, the
average income is still low at P54,205 per annum.
Most if not all the coastal barangays have limited access to basic social services despite their proximity to
town centers. Health services are inadequate and potable water supply is insufficient. Among those
within the mainstream culture, the Ilonggos assume the greatest number of populace, followed by the
Ilocanos and Cebuanos. The four top leading causes of morbidity are influenza, diarrhea, pneumonia and
bronchitis. The four causes of mortality are hypertensive vascular diseases, accidents/violence,
pneumonia and tuberculosis. Literacy rate at 93 percent was considered high, mostly having secondary
education. Dwellings are generally temporary
Existing Institutional Development and Structure.
The farmers’ and fisherfolks organizations are the influential local formations in the coastal barangays.
Cooperatives are also considered influential because of the various services they extend to their members
such as service facilities and credit assistance. Influential individuals in the coastal communities are the
barangay captains and some members of the barangay councils. The purok leaders, local church leaders as
well as tribal leaders are also in the list of influential individuals. The Barangay Assembly is one of the
most popular organization which is apparently the institution used of getting things done at the barangay
level.
E-2
The coastal waters of Paril and Sangay are proposed for conservation in 1998 through a barangay
resolution that was forwarded to the DENR Region XII. The area when proclaimed as a marine protected
seascape shall be managed pursuant to RA 7586 or the NIPAS Act of 1992 and its implementing rules
and guidelines. Laws and regulations legislated by the local government, municipal or provincial, in
support to existing national laws and regulations, and in relation to the management of the proposed
seascape including adjacent areas shall be adopted.
To date, there are 5 local ordinances and resolutions supporting the management of the proposed
seascape, to wit:





Ordinance No. 33, S. 1999 Centralizing the selling of fish at the Public Market, Kalamansig,
Sultan Kudarat
Ordinance No. 66, S. 1994 Stabilizing the price of fish and meat in the Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat
Ordinance No. 69, S. 1994 Prohibiting the use of fish net locally called “Baling”, newlook and
other fishing gears which have negative effects on the aquatic resources within the municipal
water of Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat
Ordinance No. 97-18 Regulating fishing and/or fisheries in the municipality of Lebak and/or for
other purposes in accordance with the provision of local Government Code 704 as amended, FAO
and providing penalty thereof
Resolution No. 7, S. 1998 Creating the protected Area Management Board (PAMB) on the
coastal barangays of Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat
Alternative Livelihood and Employment Potentials
Alternative options and potential employment opportunities are expected to allure fervid participation of
the coastal families and organizations in resource management. This is a strategy that can reduce pressure
in the fishery resources as brought about by another source of income.
There are very limited alternative livelihood assistance extended by government agencies and LGUs. If
ever, the assistance is usually provided by NGOs or form part of the assistance extended to members of
organized groups such as cooperatives. The project would further assist in supporting sustainable and
environmentally sound livelihood activities that would reduce dependence upon already over-exploited
natural coastal resources.
Training Needs Assessment
Most of the skills training extended by DENR under the CEP are skills training related to the alternative
livelihood projects extended in the area. Other seminars conducted and initiated by the DENR-CEP are
the following:






Mangrove rehabilitation and protection
Waste Management
Restoration of Biodiversity
Training for Bantay Dagat volunteers
Critical habitat protection
Project proposal preparation
E-3
Proposed Project Interventions
Project interventions will be geared toward supporting the management of the proposed marine protected
area through a participatory approach enjoining the affected communities.
1. Constituency capability building will be undertaken to enhance participation and empowerment
of the local communities
2. Policy review and formulation geared toward the formulation and implementation of regulations
and policies for the community-based resource management of the proposed marine protected
area
3. Provision of alternative livelihood projects to reduce pressure on fishery resources
2. INDICATIVE ACTION
1. Constituency capability building will also be undertaken to enhance participation and cooperation
among organized groups. Community/Cooperative development, values orientation, public
assembly and fora, massive IEC are the most common and found to be effective.
2. The proposed alternative livelihood projects initially identified to support coastal resource
management, particularly in the marine protected areas are (a) land based, (b) home-based and (c)
marine based. Land-based alternative livelihood which are hoped to encourage marginal
fishermen and their families to develop additional skills and earn additional income. Further, the
fishing pressure imposed in the coastal zone will be lessened enabling the area to recuperate and
restock naturally. Home-based alternative livelihood will help coastal communities, particularly
the housewives earn and help improve their family income. These are intended for the spouses of
marginal fishermen who are willing to learn and earn income while at home Because of the
abundance of pelagic fishes within the Moro Gulf and the availability of ideal areas for fish
culture, the implementation of marine-based livelihood opportunities is warranted. Skills training
along the lines of these identified alternative livelihoods are encouraged among the would-be
beneficiaries. This will ensure that the skills needed would be developed and would contribute to
the success of the implementation of livelihood opportunities.
3. Community-Based Participation in Coastal and Marine Resources Protection and Regulations.
The fishery resources within the proposed marine protected seascape shall be managed pursuant
to the provisions defined in RA 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991,
RA 7596 known as NIPAS Act of 1992 and RA 8550 known as Fisheries Code of 1998.. In
support, the conduct of massive public orientation and policy review regarding these laws and
regulations will be undertaken.
B.
BONGO ISLAND, PARANG, MAGUINDANAO
General Description of the Area.Parang is a coastal town of Maguindanao province under the
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARRMM). The municipality has 21 barangays, 13 of which
are coastal barangays and has a total area of 23,138 hectares. . It has one island called the Bongo Island
with five (5) barangays. Said island has been proposed as a marine fish sanctuary and marine reserve.
Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile. Parang has a total population of 49,562. Around 51 percent
of the population are Christians, while 49 percent are Islam believers. The ethnic groups that dominantly
E-4
prevail are Cebuano, Iranon and Maguindanao. Fishing is the primary occupation in the coastal barangays
followed by land-base occupations such as employment in the services sector, farming and those
employed in the government sector. Primary crops produced are copra, yellow corn, coconut, cassava,
durian and marang. Monthly income is on the average Pp. 2,800.00 that is just enough to defray the
household expenditures.
Most of the people in Parang own their houses that are generally made of wood. They are equipped with
electricity as lighting facility. The majority makes use of firewood for cooking, although there are some
who use the LPG. Open wells and faucets are the source of potable water. Water-sealed toilets are widely
used. Literacy rate is 88.85 percent. Average household size is 6.
Coastal waters are the major source of fish and other marine products. However, overfishing and
denudation of forests of Parang endangered the main source of livelihood of the subsistence fisherfolks
and farmers. Problems that led to the deterioration and depletion of the coastal resources are attributed to
the use of illegal fishing methods, massive cutting of trees in the hilly part of Paring and improper waste
disposal of the residents at the coastal and neighboring areas. Critical habitat including mangroves are
also destroyed due to these illegal practices employed in fishing as well as unfriendly activities of man to
the environment.
Existing Institutional Arrangements and Structures for Bongo Island
In this coastal area, there are already existing Local Barangay Council structures actively involved in
coastal resource related activities. These are the cooperatives for fishermen and the well-known FARMC
which are established and mobilized in the coastal communities. The community-base participatory
approach of managing the coastal resources in Parang is enhanced through these local organizations.
Also, there are initial activities of the Project Management Office of the Illana Bay Management Council
based at DA-ARMM such as coastal resource management planning, training, monitoring and evaluation
as well as surveillance in the area. All activities are in cooperation with the Parang Municipal FARMC
and the LGU-Parang.
Existing Alternative Livelihood Projects in the Area
Inventory of available alternative livelihood projects in the area did not reveal much. Most of the homebased alternative projects were assisted by the existing fishermen cooperatives, and those extended by the
DA-Fisheries Sector. However, sustainability of these livelihood projects, which were sporadic and few
is not assured due to limited funds.
Training Needs Assessment
The DA-Fisheries and the PMO staff of the Ilene Bay Management Council had been conducting training
sessions and IEC activities in the coastal communities through the FARMC. These are along coastal and
marine conservation and protection, fisheries management and Banta Data training. To date, funds come
from the agency and foreign assistance extended by CIDA to the Council.
3. PROPOSED PROJECT INTERVENTIONS
In support to the participatory approach of managing the proposed Bongo Island Marine Reserve and
Sanctuary, the following will be considered:
E-5
1. Support and enhance the existing community-based resource management efforts of the local
FARMC,
2. Provide appropriate alternative livelihood projects for the fisherfolk organizations
3. Strengthen the institutional and local capabilities of the LGUs, GOs, NGOs and POs, particularly
the FARMCs geared toward integrated and multi-sectoral coastal resource management of
Parang.
Indicative Activities
To insure that indicative interventions can be successfully carried out, these will be in close coordination
with the local government units, local leaders and concerned agencies.
1. Consultative activities and orientation of LGUs, concerned agencies and affected communities
regarding resource management and protection of coastal town of Parang in general and Bongo Island
as a protected area in particular.
2. Provision of appropriate alternative livelihood assistance packaged with seed capital, skills
development and marketing assistance. Certain criteria will have to be established as bases of
selecting appropriateness of the project. The identified priority choices which can be considered will
include (a) goat raising, (b) duck raising, (c) salted duck egg production, (d) poultry production, (e)
eucheuma or agar-agar farming, (f) “Lato” Caulerpa lentilifera culture, (g) retail trading, (h) dried
fish processing, (i) handicraft and (j) bakery.
3. Institutional and capability building activities to enhance collaborative and community-based
management for Parang, including preparatory social preparedness of the local people affected by the
Bongo Island Marine Reserve and sanctuary. This will include relevant training sessions, workshops
and education campaign.
E-6
Annex F
Philippines: Marine Conservation and Biodiversity Project
On-Site Management Sites Proposed for GEF Financing
CHARACTERISTICS
Paril-Sangay Protected Seascape
Bongo Island, Parang Maguindanao
Size (km2)
Population
GEF Justification
1.2 km2
2.3 km2
Biological Diversity
Current Status
Main Threats
Key Interventions
(proposed)
Other Existing or Proposed
Programs
Globally significant conservation area
for green turtles (Chelonia Mydas),
hawksbill turtles (Erythmochylis
imbricata) and Dugongs
All three important coastal marine
habitats including coral reefs, seagrass
beds and magrove forest. Cetaceans and
whale shark common. Donauang Island
also have birds and monkeys
Proposed Protected Seascape. CEPERDS Draft Proclamation finished
-harvesting of turtle eggs and slaughter
of turtles for food
-reports of use of cyanide
-use of unfriendly fishing gears such as
gillnets on reefs
Biodiversity hotspot where presence
of high biodiversity is threatened by
various activities
Contains 47 genera of corals, 83
species of reef fishes and 8 species
of seagrasses including the rare
Thalassodendrum ciliatum.
Proposed fish sanctuary by the
Integrated Illana Management
Council (1998)
-use of non-sustainable fishing
practices such as explosives, cyanide
-indiscriminate cutting of mangrove
trees for fuel and charcoal trade
-strengthening enforcement and effective
management
-environmental awareness and training
programs for local communities
-shift to the use of environment friendly
gears
-generation of alternative livelihood
-environmental awareness and
training programs for local
communities
-strengthening of enforcement and
surveillance capabilities
-generation of alternative livelihood
-proposed mariculture of groupers
-integrated seaweed/cage fish/oyster
mariculture experiment
-proposed reforestation of
mangroves
-extensive culture of Eucheuma
spinosum
F-1
ANNEX G
Maps of the Project Areas
Map 1. Overview of Project Area showing location of Project Areas of Maguindanao and sultan
Kudarat Provinces.
G-1
Map 2. Location of Paril-Sangay Protected Seascape in Sultan Kudarat Province.
Map 3. Location of Bongo Island in Maguindanao Province
G-2
Map. 4. Details of Bongo Island Site.
G-3
LETTER OF COUNTRY ENDORSEMENT
BY DESIGNATED OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT