MPA Governance and Management plan (BROP)
1. Abstract
Marine Protected Areas are suggested as the most effective tool in fisheries management. They serve as safe haven for fish, invertebrates, and corals to breed and grow to improve fish biomass, abundance, diversity, and improve reef habitats. The Hambongan Marine Protected Area has been established over 10 years now through the Municipal Ordinance # 00-02 Series of 2000. This ordinance describes rules and regulations in the no take zone, penalties per violation, definition of boundaries, and a management body designated to oversee and perform day to day activities. A management plan is drafted and adopted 3 months later to describe the major strategies and activities that the management will follow moving forward. However, over the years, the management performance was rated “PASSING” based on recent MPA rating and is still at level “1” [initiated]. The management body [Technical Working Group (TWG) and Management Committee (ManCom)] acknowledged this rating during the organizational development workshops. This can be attributed to the lack of support of department heads and line agencies, poor implementation of action plan and undefined functions of the management body. This results to increasing intrusion and weak enforcement continuum [PCRA]. Likewise, KAP revealed that very few individuals knew about the NTZ and its boundaries and while some are knowledgeable, they don’t take any responsibility or action to help manage the MPA. In terms of biophysical status, Hambongan NTZ is fairly covered by hard corals (48%) and rocks (29%), rubble (15%), and sand (8%) indicative of a good indicator for fast recovery of reefs. Fish communities are predominated by some indicator species butterflyfish at 5 individuals/100 m2. This can be explained by extractive practices inside the NTZ such as compressor and net fishing. Overall, the lack of community buy-in, poor governance and enforcement are the main issues pressing the NTZ.
In Hambongan NTZ, poor governance and poor implementation of enforcement continuum calls for improvement through well thought off strategies within the protected area taking into account community participation in the process. The diagnostic process [PCRA, MPA rating, OD]- had been instrumental in identifying such issues thereby used as basis in crafting this MPA Governance and Management Plan to improve governance, enforcement and community buy-in. This MPA-GMP will be carried out by the MPA Management Body [TWG and ManCom] within the timeframe June 2011-June 2012 and will be assessed regularly during meetings. This MPA-GMP will be supported by funding opportunities from various sources such as the Municipal CRM budget, Line Agencies, NGOs and Small Grants from local organizations.
2. Introduction
The Philippines ranked first with the most number of MPAs in the world. About 25% of the world’s MPAs are found in the Philippines. However, 15% of these MPAs are doomed to fail in an annual basis due to poor governance and weak enforcement (Aliňo 1998). In fact, during the Rare-initiated workshop in Cebu, on February 2010, these 2 issues surfaced as the most pressing compared to pollution, sedimentation, land-use issues, and climate change. This workshop was attended by scholars and experts in their fields in the Philippines.
Governance refer to the clarity of processes in selecting leaders to manage the MPA and enforcement [a subset of governance] refer to the capacity and availability of logistics to perform such roles that involves the entire continuum such as deterrence, apprehension, case filing and decision. The poor selection of leaders and weak capacity to enforce MPA boundaries and policies will result to the lack of community buy-in to support leaders and projects, unregulated unsustainable fishing activities inside MPAs, and unpopular MPA boundaries and ownership. Subsequently, MPA benefits are not maximized and the community loss pride over the local MPA.
Rare Pride Campaign is geared towards greater community buy-in for improved MPA governance and enforcement. Community buy-in refers to the active involvement of locale in critical projects after having clearly understood their roles and function for such projects and its long-term benefits. This may involve the process of behaviour change and maintenance of practices. A combination of locally practiced tools such as PCRA, management meetings, organizational development workshops plus KAP survey have been employed during the period between November 2010 to May 2011 to gain community support right up front. This is only the diagnostic phase of the campaign, but right at start community involvement is already sought for buy in. Eventually as we move forward to planning and implementation, the local community will not only have better appreciation of the entire process, but also gain ownership and pride of the MPA benefits. As more and more people from various sectors are involved with clear roles and functions for MPA management coupled with the elements of time to embed such practices, threats to the MPA will be reduced and protection of biodiversity will be enhanced. This will also ensure continued benefits of protected areas, establishment of buffer zones and zoning of the protected area to sustain productivity and building value of resources. In this way, the concern of the local community will be enhanced towards ownership and taking pride of their MPA.
3. Objectives and scope
1. To improve MPA enforcement processes by November 2011 [i.e. upgraded guardhouse, enforcement, protocols/plans, intelligence network and communication, logbook system]
2. To improve MPA governance system by November 2011 [i.e. regular meeting, increase membership, documentation, management planning, evaluation, monitoring team]
3. Improve MPA effectiveness rating to level 3 [enforced] by June 2012
4. Tools
Tools employed included Participatory Coastal Resource Assessment (PCRA) tools; an MPA effectiveness rating workshop and a Technical Working Group (TWG) and Management Committee (ManCom) Organizational Development (OD) and planning workshops
Three participatory assessment methods were used to assess current status of fisheries, management performance and community knowledge and practices namely Participatory Coastal Resource Assessment (PCRA), TWG and ManCom OD and planning workshops and KAP survey.
1. PCRA is a critical assessment tool that takes into account the community as the main source of information and data gatherers. It has been widely used in the Philippines since the birth of community-based resource management projects in over a decade now. This tool generated a whole suite of focused group discussions [FGDs] not limited to fishery enforcement, resource map, MPA history and etc. The objective of which is to improve community buy-in right at start of project and understand the fishery status in the locality.
2. MPA effectiveness rating system is a self-assessment tool initiated by CCEF and modified by EcoGov to determine management performance of MPA. It is a system that came about to address the need to improve the overall quality of management-since most MPA face difficulty in enforcement due to poverty and general lack of awareness about the coastal environment. This rating was administered on with the newly reconstituted MPA management body [TWG and ManCom]. This tool generated conclusions on management status and management focus, collated documents supporting rating, and basis for planning.
3. Organizational development is a conceptual, organization-wide effort to increase an organizations effectiveness and viability through an external facilitator. In our case, we employed OD to assess the local organizations i.e. the TWG and ManCom vis a vis MPA management on separate dates. This workshops generated action plan focusing on improving organizational performance and strengthening for improve MPA governance and enforcement.
5. MPA profile
MPA history, resource use and enforcement
1. PCRA [FGD on enforcement, resource map (digitized), and MPA history]. Please take into account results of other PCRA tools-if necessary.
FGD on enforcement
Over a decade now, the Hambongan NTZ has accounted 10 violations. These violations were recorded in the barangay records and in the police blotter, all violation listed in the matrix below were apprehended and penalized. But until now Most of the violations include intrusion to NTZ using compressor fishing, cyanide, hook and line and fish nets by fishers coming from neighbouring towns and barangays. It can be gleaned from the results [Table 1] that an increasing trend in sightings and accounts of violations was recorded since MPA establishment. However, validity and further details of such accounts of fishing, number and provenance of intruders, and time of day or occasion when incident took place is impossible due to the lack of logbook system. Police blotter on MPA intrusions is also absent for verification of data. Additionally the lack of enforcement logistics, support and intelligence and the capacity to practice the whole enforcement continuum aggravates the process.
MPA Enforcement
Year / Number of infringement / Types/forms of infringement/gears used / Intruders (from where, who, age group) / Course/s of action taken (apprehension, affidavit writing, litigation, imprisonment) / Forms of incentives/disincentives / RemarksYear 1 (After MPA establishment) / 3 / MPA intrusions using hook and line, compressor and fish nets / Cuaming island, Sto. Rosario and Hambongan / Turned over to Police, penalty / Cash incentives to enforcers
Year 2 / 1 / Fish pots / Tungod / Fish post where impound / Violators are penalized
Year 3 / 3 / Hook and line / Tungod / Apprehended by the seaborne patrol team / Violators are penalized / It was brought to the Police station booked
Year 4 / 1 / Bottum set net / Tungod / Apprehended by the seaborne patrol team / Violators are penalized / Penalty - Php 2,000.00
Year 5 / 2 / Compressor / Cuaming island / Apprehended by the seaborne patrol team / Violators are penalized / The boat was impound in favor of the gvernment
Year 6 / There are some reports but, no one was been arrested/apprehended
MPA History and Folklore
The Hambongan Marine Sanctuary before it was formally established, fisherfolks coming from nearby coastal communities including Hambongan fishers used to fish in this area. According to my qualitative research, the place where regularly bombarded by dynamite fishers in Hambongan. During those days they always caught as many as 3 pumpboats full of dynamited fish. Even though they always and keep on doing this activity for so long, they observed that they can still catch plenty of fish, although there is a sign of decline.
After several years, coastal resource management became popular in the town, and the municipal local government initiated a project, a foreign funded project called the Community Based Resource Management Project (CBRMP) and Hambongan became one of the project sites. Series of public consultations and community assemblies are conducted to gauge the pulse of the people about the proposal of establishing a Marine Sanctuary in the area. Data’s had been gathered and validated, and the community decided to establish a marine sanctuary in the reef locally called the “Sinug-ang” which means triangular in form. It was initially established in October of 1999 and formally established and legalized by a municipal ordinance to lined-up rules and regulations for management and enforcement of the area in the year 2000.
MPA History and folklore
Year / Uses and activities of Core Zone; folklores / Uses and activities of the Buffer Zone; folkloresBefore establishment / This was once the major bombing are, using dynamite. It was also believed that some mysterious beings live in the area. This area was their jackpot area when they go dynamite fishing / Traditional Fishing ground
1 year after establishment / Protected by virtue of a Municipal Ordinance. Restricted to all types of fishing activities. Reef monitoring and research activities / None. The buffer zone was not managed properly. Still no fishing is allowed and utilized as snorkelling area
2 years after establishment / Protected by virtue of a Municipal Ordinance. Restricted to all types of fishing activities. Reef monitoring and research activities / None. The buffer zone was not managed properly. Still no fishing is allowed and utilized as snorkelling area
6 years after establishment (up to 2010) / Protected by virtue of a Municipal Ordinance. Restricted to all types of fishing activities. Reef monitoring and research activities / None. The buffer zone was not managed properly. Still no fishing is allowed and utilized as snorkelling area
MPA effectiveness rating and analysis
1. MPA rating level and analysis (insert analysis of graphs and explain)
Based on the recently held MPA rating workshop, Hambongan NTZ is rated Level 1- Initiated with a PASSING mark for management status despite the number of years since Hambongan NTZ has been established. The management focus analysis derived from this assessment includes capacitating the Management Body [TWG and ManCom] in practicing their roles and functions for MPA management. Secondly, establishment of hard enforcement measures such as capacitating deputized fish wardens and review of penalties and provisions in the ordinance and linkage building with PNP to assist during apprehension and the entire enforcement continuum. Third, establishment of soft enforcement measures to enhance deterrence such as marker buoys to delineate boundaries, upgrading of guardhouse, and enhancement of intelligence system.
MPA Management Ratings and Focus
Management Focus / Relevant indicators / Total Available points / Actual Score per Management Focus / Actual Score divided by Total Available PointsManagement Plan / 4, 10, 27, 38, 39 / 9 / 0 / 0.0%
Management Body / 5, 11, 20, 29,32, 40 / 10 / 4 / 40.0%
Legal Instrument and support / 6, 9, 37, 41 / 6 / 4 / 66.7%
Community Participation / 1, 3, 8 / 7 / 7 / 100.0%
Financing / 12, 19, 28, 35, 49 / 9 / 3 / 33.3%
IEC / 7, 14, 23, 44, 45, 46 / 12 / 5 / 41.7%
Enforcement / 13, 15, 21, 25, 26, 30, 36 / 19 / 7 / 36.8%
Monitoring and evaluation / 2, 18, 24, 33, 34, 42, 43 / 9 / 2 / 22.2%
Maintenance of infrastructure and site development / 16, 17, 22, 31, 47, 48 / 6 / 0 / 0.0%
Threats and management challenges of the MPA
List of threats and challenges of the MPAHard enforcement / Soft enforcement / Management Body
1. Lacking of enforcement team / bantay dagat
2. Use of cyanide and compressor fishing
3. Dynamite fishing operations / 1. Lack maintenance plan for marker buoys
2. Lack access to guardhouse during high tide
3. Lack maintenance plan for guardhouse
4. Absence of bulletin board and marker
5. Lack of communication facilities– handheld radio / cell phone
6. Lack pumpboat and maintenance plan / 1. Issues among members
2. Lack of understanding on roles and functions
3. Some member discretely allow intruders
4. Some members own compressor
5. Attendance during meetings
TWG
The Technical Working Group of Inabanga was actually created way back in year 2000. It is the date when the LGU implemented and strengthen the LGU’s initiatives on coastal resource management. It is the time also when we implemented the comprehensive natural resources management project, a foreign funded project, the Community Based Resource Management Project (CBRMP) funded by the World Bank. The TWG was created just to spearhead all the activities in crafting the towns Coastal Resources Management (CRM) Plans. The TWG are tasked to perform all the responsibilities, from conducting series of meetings, orientations, validations and planning activities. In short they are the main actors in CRM. Since then, the TWG freeze its involvement and it is inactive for so long.