DENR-PAWB
Proceedings
of
the National Biodiversity
Monitoring Workshop
June 2-3, 2005
Forest Hills Resort, Subic Bay Olongapo City, Zambales
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Introduction and Rationale ___________________________________________ 3
II.
Objectives of the Workshop _________________________________________ 4
III.
Highlights of the Two-day Workshop _________________________________ 5
DAY 1 (June 2) _____________________________________________________ 5
DAY 2 (June 3) ____________________________________________________ 6
IV.
Conclusion ______________________________________________________ 5
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX 1. Program of Activities
2. List of Participants
3. Presentations
4. Questions & Answers
5. Pressure-State-Response Framework
6. Outputs of Workshop 1 & 2 by Group
7. Photo Documentation
2
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
I.
Introduction and Rationale
After the success of the Philippine Biodiversity Conservation PrioritySetting Program (PBCPP) in 2002, there has been a need to follow up
efforts on the program’s prescribed conservation strategic actions.
Because of the huge amount of effort and funding being channeled into
conservation initiatives and projects, a PBCPP strategic action that needs
immediate attention is institutionalizing monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
systems in which it is now both high time and necessary to determine
whether we are indeed making successes in our conservation efforts to
save biodiversity.
Preliminary observations on the state of monitoring in this country reveal
that most monitoring efforts are project specific (e.g. management) or on
site development. Little has there been in the effort to monitor the status
of species and the state of their ecosystems. A recent survey showed
that only 27 out of the 492 globally threatened (CR, EN and VU) species in
the Hotspot are being monitored. Moreover, monitoring is happening at
very different scales and through various ways and means, such that it has
become difficult to assess conservation successes in a common unit of
measurement that is understandable and useful to all. Therefore, a
proposal to develop a set of indicators that meets the needs of all
stakeholders in conservation (including NGOs, government, donors,
researchers, etc.) and which also contributes to reporting at the
international level to the Convention on Biological Diversity was
conceived. It is recognized that to assess whether the conservation
community is effectively conserving biodiversity, set targets and monitor
our progress in achieving them. The conservation community as a whole
must coordinate and collaborate efforts to ensure that all elements of the
Earth’s biodiversity have caretakers. Because each stakeholder plays a
specific and different role in conserving biodiversity, it is most effective
for us to establish a collaborative framework and divide up the work that
needs to be done in any area.
Even with multiple organizations working towards biodiversity
conservation, we have a formidable task ahead of us. The clock is ticking,
and we face an extinction crisis on a global scale. Therefore, we must be
intelligent in allocating our scarce conservation resources. Threats to
biodiversity are simply too severe to allow precious conservation
resources to be invested in poorly targeted projects, or programs with no
baselines for monitoring. In addition, we are developing a set of indicators
3
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
that deliver data on the status of these biodiversity compatible to and
being used by the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Due to the common interest in furthering the success of the PBCPP and in
ensuring that our conservation actions are indeed contributing to saving
the biodiversity hotspot and meeting our CBD commitments, a Steering
Committee composed of the following members: representatives from the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources –Protected Areas and
Wildlife Bureau (DENR-PAWB), Conservation International – Philippines
(CIP), Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Nature, Inc (Haribon),
Foundation for Philippine Environment (FPE) and Kabang Kalikasan ng
Pilipinas (KKP), and former core convenors of the PBCPP, Dr. Perry Ong
of University of the Philippines –Center for Integrative and Development
Studies (UP-CIDS) and Dr. Rowena Boquiren
of University of the
Philippines Baguio (UP-Baguio) was formed. The committee have agreed
to look on a project to set biodiversity targets for achieving conservation
outcomes at the species, site and landscape level from site to regional to
national and global perspective as well.
The DENR-PAWB, CIP, Haribon, and the FPE (members of the Steering
Committee) spearhead the holding of a National Workshop on Monitoring
for Terrestrial Biodiversity last June 2-3, 2005 at the Forest Hills Resort,
Subic, Olongapo City. The purpose of the workshop is to bring together
organizations and individuals with extensive knowledge and/or first-hand
experience in projects that synthesize biodiversity data or focus on
biodiversity monitoring at the species, site, or landscape scale.
II.
Objectives of the Workshop
a. Share M&E efforts among institutions and learn from their
experiences;
b. Have a common understanding of the monitoring tools being used
to measure the impact of conservation activities;
c. Formulate a common framework/protocol for monitoring;
d. Identify gaps, needs and recommendations for M&E work; and
e. Develop action plans
4
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
III. Highlights of the Two-day Workshop
The National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop took place from 2—3 June
2005 in Subic, Olongapo City, Philippines (Annex 1). A total of 50
participants attended the workshop representing 21 institutions from the
national government agencies, non-government organizations, scientific
community, academic institutions and the donor community (Annex 2).
DAY 1 (June 2)
The Workshop formally started with the presentation of the workshop
overview by Mr. Blas Tabaranza, of Haribon Foundation, recalling the
identified need in the past for species, habitats and people, which was
established and acted on through the PBCPP and highlighting the current
concern on not only on how money was spent, but on how the projects had
impacts on biodiversity and monitoring. He stressed the need to target the
objectives of this workshop, which was to establish standards for
monitoring specific taxonomic groups, as well as, for a monitoring system
that includes the social aspect of conservation. This was followed by the
introduction of the National Biodiversity Monitoring (NBM) Workshop
Steering Committee (i.e., DENR-PAWB, CI-Philippines, Haribon
Foundation, and FPE), third-person introductions of participants, and
presentation of the participants’ expectations of the workshop, which
included sharing of lessons learned, balanced appreciation between
partners for species and habitat conservation, linkage and networking,
gaps analysis, and standards for M&E.
Various presentations (Annex 3) on monitoring methods, experiences,
accomplishments, and lessons learned were presented in the plenary. The
information from each presentation was consolidated and presented in a
matrix that was used and refined during the working group session in the
afternoon to further identify current monitoring initiatives. The
presentations during the morning session were given by Anson Tagtag of
DENR-PAWB on the Biodiversity Monitoring System; David Castor of
Negros Forest Ecological Foundation, Inc. (NFEFI) and Angelo Bibar of
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) – DENR
Region VII on the Biodiversity Monitoring Evaluation (BIOME); Leonard Co
of CI-Philippines on the Forest Dynamics Plot; Carlo Custodio of DENRPAWB on Mid-Winter Bird Counts; Nonito Tamayo of FMB on Forestry
Monitoring: Adoption and Implementation of an Appropriate System of
Criterion and Indicator for the Philippines and Connie Morales of CIPhilippines on Outcomes Definition and Monitoring. The afternoon
5
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
presentation started with Blas Tabaranza of Haribon on the Foundation’s
Threatened Species Program; Ana Blesilda Meneses of Coastal
Conservation and Education Foundation (CCEF) on the Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs) Rating and Database System; and Merlijn van Veerd of Plan
International on the Crocodile Rehabilitation, Observance and
Conservation (CROC) Project. The list of questions directed at the
presenters and their corresponding answers are shown in Annex 4. The
general discussions showed the need for standardization of research and
monitoring tools and methods, data robustness and applicability, species
prioritization at the national level, capacity-building, community and local
stakeholders’ buy-in and involvement in research and monitoring, IEC
advocacy, knowledge management, reporting system, and sustainability.
Participants broke out into groups (Herpetofauna and Mammals,
Habitat/Forestry/PAs, Wetland and Terrestrial Birds, and Socio-economic
Aspect) in Workshop 1 to identify monitoring indicators using the
Pressure-State-Response framework (Annex 5). The Pressure-StateResponse (PSR) framework acts as a basis for many existing monitoring
frameworks. Human activities exert pressure on the environment through
a range of social, political and economic activities; this pressure changes
the quality and quantity, or state, of the environment; and society reacts
to these changes through environmental, economic and policy responses
(OECD 1993 OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance
Reviews. OECD Environment Monographs No. 83. OECD, Paris, France).
These human responses include any organized behavior that aims to
reduce, prevent or mitigate undesirable change or environmental results
(CI 2004).
DAY 2 (June 3)
The outputs of Workshop 1 were presented in the morning of Day 2 in the
plenary (Annex 6). Two monitoring methods, identified to be widely
practiced in the country, are Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS) of
DENR and the Biodiversity Monitoring and Evaluation (BIOME)
implemented by FPE and their partner NGOs. The Socio-Economic group
pointed out the difficulty in standardizing methods and operations as
variables differ depending on the institutional objectives, needs, concerns,
and budgets, priorities, as well as, the components of various institutions.
A minimum set of indicators required to respond to biodiversity
conservation, however, was presented.
Workshop 2 commenced,
thereafter, on the prioritization of indicators earlier identified for further
development and baseline data collection leading towards the development
6
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
and design of an action plan on a national, regional, and site-based
biodiversity-monitoring scale (Annex 7).
Options recommended for establishing coordination and information
exchange among similar-minded groups and individuals, included building
a new website or hosting one. A need for a more stable form of alliance,
such as definite moves for regularizing meeting and/or setting directives
was pointed out. Options recommended for the alliance included
continuance of the informal bonding (“barkadahan system”) of similarlyminded individuals, integration with the National Biodiversity Monitoring
(NBM) group in the Wildlife Conservation Society of the Philippines, or
creation of a separate set-up to accommodate all concerns. PAWB, the
clearing house for the PBCPP, pointed out the “Network for Nature”
initiatives done in the past that was not sustained due to lack of funding.
Due to time constraints, the group mandated the NBM Steering Committee
to discuss and make the final recommendations on the strategy
development for the NMB.
The participants were requested to submit the evaluation form distributed
earlier and the session was officially closed at 5:00 pm.
IV. Conclusion
The sharing of M&E efforts among institutions during the workshop has
been limited initially to those which are popular among biodiversity
conservationists or those with specific scientific purpose. Although there
have been a few more sharing raised during the group discussions, it has
become apparent that there is a need for standardizing monitoring and
evaluations tools or methods. To have a better understanding and
application of such tools among conservation practitioners, there were
recommendations by the participants for local stakeholders’ buy-in and
capacity-building.
The formulation of a common framework or protocol for monitoring and
evaluation necessitates the selection of indicators by which we can
associate their interactions through the PSR framework (Annex 5). The
indicators identified in workshop 1 (Annex 6) should form the units of
information, which we can measure over time and provide us a description
of the changes in a condition of interest. The indicator set and the tools
for measuring the indicators should form the protocol, which each partner
or stakeholder must adhere to such that their peers will have a basis for
7
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
evaluating their conservation performance. Once firmed up, this protocol
shall form part of the set of recommendations for a national
implementation by the Steering Committee, which organized this national
biodiversity-monitoring workshop.
The gaps, needs and recommendations for M&E work are documented in
the Annexes and additional information in this regard can be obtained from
a national survey that was conducted by CI. Seemingly, there has been
little attention in considering the human dimensions of biodiversity
conservation shown by the difficulty in standardizing methods in this area.
It is comforting to note, however, that in M&E there can be a minimum set
of indicators for human dimensions, which can respond to the needs of
biodiversity conservation.
An outstanding item among the action plans recommended by the
participants is the need of a stable form of alliance, which can be a vehicle
for setting directions for and addressing concerns in M&E. In support of
this the participants has mandated the NBM Steering Committee to discuss
and make the final recommendations on the strategy development for a
national biodiversity monitoring protocol.
8
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
Annex 1.
Program for the National Biodiversity
Monitoring Workshop
PROGRAM
Day 1 (June 2)
8:00 AM—9:00 AM
Workshop Overview/Introduction by affiliation
9:00 AM—9:30 AM
BIODIVERSITY MONITORING SYSTEM by Anson Tagtag,
Protected Areas & Wildlife Bureau
9:30 AM—10:00 AM
BIODIVERSITY
MONITORING
&
EVALUATION
(BIOME) by David Castor, NFEFI & Angelo Bibar, PENRO
10:00 AM—10:30 AM
FOREST DYNAMICS PLOT by Leonard Co, Conservation
International-Philippines
10:30 AM—11:00 AM
MID-WINTER BIRD COUNTS by Carlo Custodio, Protected Areas
& Wildlife Bureau
11:00 AM—11:10 AM
BREAK
11:10 AM—11:40 AM
FORESTRY MONITORING
Management Bureau
11:40 AM—12:10 PM
OUTCOMES MONITORING by Connie Morales, Conservation
International-Philippines
12:10 PM—1:00 PM
LUNCH
1:00 PM—1:30 PM
HARIBON FOUNDATION THREATENED
PROJECT by Blas Tabaranza, Haribon Foundation
1:30 PM—2:00 PM
CORAL REEF/MARINE MONITORING by Ana Blesilda
Menesis, Coastal Conservation & Education Foundation
2:00 PM—2:15 PM
BREAK
2:15 PM—5:00 PM
Workshop 1. The group will be divided into 4 (Herps and
Mammals; Habitat/Forestry; Terrestrial Birds & Wetland Birds;
and PAs & Social Aspect) to discuss the following:
9
by
Nonito
Tamayo,
Forest
SPECIES
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
1) What are the common monitoring tools/methodology?
2) What are the monitoring indicators used in your area?
3) List the needs in biodiversity monitoring?
5:00 PM—5:30 PM
Wrap up
Day 2 (June 3)
9:00 AM—10:00 AM
Plenary Discussion/Presentation of Outputs
10:00 AM—12:00 NN
Workshop 2
Design the next steps and develop action plan on a national,
regional and site based biodiversity monitoring based on the
indicators.
12:00 NN—1:00 PM
LUNCH
1:00 PM—3:00 PM
Plenary Discussion/Presentation of Outputs
3:00 PM—4:30 PM
Workshop 3
Strategy Development (Coordination, Alliance Building, Fund
Raising and Data Sharing) for short- & long-term basis.
4:30 PM onwards
Presentation of Workplan
C L O S I N G
10
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
Annex 2.
List of Participants in the National
Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
#
Name
Organization
1
Amy Maling
Foundation for the Philippine Environment
2
Ana Blesilda Meneses
Coastal Conservation & Education Foundation
3
Andy Masipiquena
Mabuwaya Foundation, CVPED ISU
4
Angelo Bibar
Office of the Protected Area Superintendent; Mt. Kanlaon Natural Park
5
Anson Tagtag
Protected Areas & Wildlife Bureau, DENR
6
Apolinario Carino
SUCENTROP, Silliman University
7
Armand Pacudan
Foundation for the Philippine Environment
8
Blas Tabaranza
Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Nature
9
Carlo Custodio
Protected Areas & Wildlife Bureau, DENR
10
Connie Morales
Conservation International - Philippines
11
Daniel Lagunzad
University of the Philippines
12
Danilo Balete
Foundation for the Philippine Environment
13
David Castor
Negros Forest & Ecological Foundation
14
Jose Don de Alban
Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Nature
15
Edgardo Tongson
World Wide Fund for Nature
16
Ely Alcala
SUAKCREM, Silliman University
17
Fer Ramirez
Foundation for the Philippine Environment
18
Grace Ambal
CIP Consultant
19
Jayson Ibanez
Philippine Eagle Foundation
20
Joey Baril
UP Los Banos
21
Judeline Dimalibot
Philippine Council for Sustainable Development Staff
22
Justin Epting
Conservation International - DC
23
Leonard Co
Conservation International - Philippines
24
Lilia Barcena
Planning & Project Management Service Division, Forest
Management Bureau
25
Liza Duya
Conservation International - Philippines
26
Mark Saclag
Forest Management Bureau
27
Marlyn Mendoza
Protected Areas & Wildlife Bureau, DENR
28
Medardo Medel Eduarte Protected Areas & Wildlife Bureau, DENR
29
Merlijn Weerd
Mabuwaya Foundation, CVPED ISU
30
Moonyeen Alava
Documenter
31
Myrissa Lepiten-Tabao Foundation for the Philippine Environment
11
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
32
Nancy Ibuna
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
33
Nathaniel Bantayan
Environmental Remote Sensing & Geo-Information,
Laboratory Institute of Renewable Natural Resources
34
Nonito Tamayo
Forest Management Bureau
35
Norma Molinyawe
Protected Areas & Wildlife Bureau, DENR
36
Oliver Coroza
Conservation International - Philippines
37
Orlyn Orlanes
Cebu Biodiversity Conservation Foundation
38
Peter Widman
Katala Foundation, San Jose
39
Renato Folledo, Jr
Forestry Development Center, CFNR-UPLB
40
Romy Trono
Conservation International - Philippines
41
Rosheila Rodriguez
Conservation International - Philippines
42
Rowena Boquiren
Foundation for the Philippine Environment
43
Ruben Callo
Ecosystem Research & Development Bureau, Los Banos,
Laguna
44
Sheila Vergara
Facilitator
45
Stacy Vynne
Conservation International - DC
46
Will Crosse
Conservation International - DC
47
Wilma Romero
Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Nature
48
Arturo Manamtam
Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Nature
49
Alicia Catalina
Tabaranza
MSU-IIT/Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of
Nature
50
Edwino Fernando
UPLB - FBS
12
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
Annex 3.
Presentations
Please proceed to the soft copy of the presentations in the accompanying CD.
1. BIODIVERSITY MONITORING SYSTEM (BMS) (Anson Tagtag, PAWB)
2. BIODIVERSITY MONITORING EVALUATION (BIOME)
(David Castor,
NFEF; and Angelo Bibar, PENRO)
3. FOREST DYNAMICS PLOT (Leonard Co, CI-Philippines)
4. MID-WINTER BIRD COUNTS (Carlo Custodio, PAWB)
5. FORESTRY MONITORING: ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
AN APPROPRIATE SYSTEM OF C & I FOR THE PHILIPPINSE (Nonito
Tamayo, FMB)
6. OUTCOMES MONITORING (Connie Morales, CI-Philippines)
7. HARIBON FOUNDATION’S THREATENED SPECIES PROGRAM
(Blas
Tabaranza, Haribon Foundation)
8. MPA RATING AND DATABASE SYSTEM (Ana Blesilda Meneses, CCEF)
9. CROCODILE REHABILITATION, OBSERVANCE AND CONSERVATION
(CROC) PROJECT (Merlijn Weerd, Mabuwaya Foundation)
13
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
Annex 4.
Questions & Answers
Presentation 1: BIODIVERSITY MONITORING SYSTEM (BMS) (Anson Tagtag, PAWB)
Q1 (Carlo Custodio): BMS data presented was only up to 2002. What has happened
after 2002? It should be noted that BMS was more of government than community
involvement.
Community has not been involved in monitoring, their participation was mostly
consultative.
A1:
Q2 (?): Were trends established?
Trends were difficult to assess: no consistency of data; different data
collectors; available data reports more of human activities which were not quantified.
A2:
Q3 (Ely Alcala): What were the intentions/ other uses of the information collected?
Data can serve as basis for policy-making. In the Wildlife Act, list of
economically-important species for direct use of community
A3:
Comment (Sheila Vergara): Consider this as an information gap, for later discussion.
National repository of information is important.
Presentation 2:
BIODIVERSITY MONITORING EVALUATION (BIOME)
NEFFI; and Angelo Bibar, PENRO)
(David Castor,
Q1 (Carlo Custodio): This whole activity is project-based. What has happened in terms
of LGU participation?
A1:
Two LGUs are interested in implementing monitoring y themselves.
Q2 (?): What about threats? Threat reduction assessment?
A2:
Levels of threats as well as frequency of existing threats are being monitored.
(Weng Boquiren): Compare learning of BMS and BIOME.
concerns on utilization trends? Sustainability?
Q3
How is it addressing
Biome takes off from BMS. It is only a part of a long-term project of FPE. The
premise is that it should be part of project implementation procedures. In terms of
sustainability; the BMS team were paid, BIOME team are largely voluntary. Need for
social acceptability and community involvement. Need for the institutionalization of
BIOME.
A3:
Q4 (Weng): The question is: Is LGU involvement the answer to sustainability?
A4:
Political will is a challenge.
Comment (Sheila Vergara): Value-added: 1) LGU support; 2) threat reduction.
14
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
Presentation 3: FOREST DYNAMICS PLOT (Leonard Co, CI-Philippines)
Q1
(Ely Alcala): Are methods used applicable in reforested and/or fragmented forests?
Yes, but is very labor-intensive and expensive. NTER is a good compromise at
10 cm/ha instead of 1cm. Valuation studies may be useful, e.g., rattan as a
management indicator species.
A1:
Q2
(?): Micro-organisms in relation to other species?
A2: Yes, in the future. Currently in the planning stage. One drawback in Palanan is
its accessibility.
Q3
(?): Student of virtual GIS modeling….? To characterize watershed….?
A3: ???
Presentation 4: MID-WINTER BIRD COUNTS (Carlo Custodio, PAWB)
No Questions
Presentation 5: FORESTRY MONITORING: ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN
APPROPRIATE SYSTEM OF C & I FOR THE PHILIPPINSE (Nonito
Tamayo, FMB)
(Blas Tabaranza): In relation to genetic biodiversity conservation, how to conserve
FMU at the genetic level?
Q1
A1:
???
Q2 (Blas Tabaranza): Thresholds are not yet available in the Philippines. For example,
in a 30,000 sq.km area, what is valuation of ecological services? What is the sustainable
level of forest and non-forest ration.
A2: No definite answer. Interest now is more on trends. Difficult to say is SFM can
be achieved as it is largely market-driven.
Q3 (Blas): What was the basis of DAO 24 (i.e., logging is not allowed above 100m when
there are no loggable trees in that altitude)
A3: No basis; need to state the obvious.
Q4 (Blas): Need to focus on lowland forest as it is the most threatened.
15
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
Presentation 6: OUTCOMES MONITORING (Connie Morales, CI-Philippines)
Q1 (Danny Balete): Two points that we need to consider. Point one: mammals are listed
as threatened by default, how can the category be used to report success? Point two:
Forest Cover, also not a good indicator. Most species have a high tolerance for
disturbance and stress.
- For now, since the IUCN doesn’t have a final assessment of the Philippine
threatened species status, we can use the current publication until we made a report
on this to update the list.
A1:
Q2 (?): What about species that are not listed in the IUCN but may be threatened in the
Philippines (under the restricted range criteria)? How about monitoring them as well?
A2: KBAs is global; priority is thus for global species. Maybe national priorities may
be identified and use.
Q3 (?): Why the insistence to use IUCN [Red List Criteria and Categories] which may
not be applicable. Philippines need to set up own criteria.
Q4 (?): Defining KBAs; Listing of threatened species = list of already in Wildlife Act IRR.
A4: KBAs follows PCBPP but Outcomes Monitoring follows process similar to IBA
with data to back it up.
Technology/tools are already available.
community in the process toward sustainability.
Q5
(?):
The concern is how to engage the
Presentation 7 : HARIBON FOUNDATION’S THREATENED SPECIES PROGRAM
(Blas Tabaranza, Haribon Foundation)
(Nel Bantayan): Is the program limited to flora and fauna?
technology development?
Q1
Is it possible for
A1: Priority is for birds, mammals, herps. The premise is, marine research has been
more advanced and well funded. This program is aimed at providing opportunity for
terrestrial researchers.
Q2
(Ed Tongson): Capacity-building for faculty members in Sibuyan for Mt-Guiting
Research.
A2: Partnership has been established in Luzon (e.g.. La Salle), Visayas (e.g., Silliman
University) and Mindanao (e.g., MSU).
identifies.
Unfortunately, Sibuyan has not been
Q3 (?): Is government application possible?
A3: No but individual application from government employees is.
16
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
Presentation 8 : MPA RATING AND DATABASE SYSTEM (Ana Meneses, CCEF)
Q1 ( ?) : Are these MPAs recognized by PAWB ?
There are two kinds of MPAs: 1) nationally-declared PAs; and 2) locally
declared PAs, to which this MPA Rating System has been applied. However, the
system has been developed in collaboration with PAWB.
A1:
Q2 (?): What is the advantage of PIT and LIT?
A2: LIT covers a 25cm assessment for the whole 50m transect, thus is much more
important to science. PIT is easier and this useful in terms of faster feedback of
results to LGU.
Q3 (?): ??????
A3: Some MPAs are not able to move forward after its creation. The Rating System
provides a tool for monitoring progress as well as for collaboration.
Presentation 9 : CROCODILE REHABILITATION, OBSERVANCE AND CONSERVATION
(CROC) PROJECT (Merlijn, Plan International)
(Blas Tabaranza): Has there been an assessment of the population size of C.
mindorensis and C. porosus?
Q1
A1: > 100 for both. C. porosus is considered to be potentially dangerous.
Q2 (Blas): What is the success of re-introduction?
A2: Not yet initiated/none.
Q3 (Blas): Is it possible that failure is due to fear/low social acceptability?
A3: Yes. Misconception about the behavior of the crocodiles. C. mindorensis are not
man-eaters.
campaign.
Method used to count croc is to dive with them.
Need for an IEC
Q4 (Ely Alcala): How to measure level of success in terms of social acceptance?
A4: It is possible to have community perception survey but maybe not as detailed as
the one used by the MPA Rating System. What has been done was to conduct FGDs.
(Jude): Based on the Palawan experience, there has been problems in terms of
increasing people’s acceptance of the idea to reintroduce crocs in the wild. Is the project
willing to accept crocs from Palawan for reintroduction in northern Luzon?
Q5
A5: The Palawan stock might be coming from Mindanao (i.e., Liguasan Marsh)? Two
things: 1) these are two different genetic stock: from Mindanao and northern Luzon.
2) Also not a good idea to introduced farmed-reared animals into wild population.
Ideally, they should be introduced from their original site/source.
17
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
Annex 5.
Pressure-State-Response Framework
State
Biophysical
System
Response
Management
System
Pressure
Social System
18
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
Annex 6. Outputs of Workshop 1 & 2 by Group
Please proceed to the soft copy of the workshop outputs in the accompanying CD.
a Habitat/Forest group (file name: workshop1&2_habitat)
b. Socio-economic group (file name: workshop1_socio econ
matrix & workshop2_socio)
c. Bird group (file name: workshop1&2_birds)
d. Mammals and Herps group (file name: workshop1&2 mammals-
herps)
19
Proceedings of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Workshop
Annex 7.
Photo Documentation
Please proceed to the soft copy of the photo documentation in the accompanying CD.
20