The Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) Marine Protected Area (MPA) Working Group Workshop for the Coral Triangle Marine Protected Areas System (CTMPAS) was held on March 17 – 18, 2016 in Meranti Hotel, Quezon City, Philippines.
Three participants of the six CTI-CFF MPA Technical Working Group Focal Persons attended the Workshop as well as 15 resource persons, observers, and donor representatives (ANNEX 1). CTI-CFF is composed of six countries (CT6), namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and Timor Leste. Only Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines are represented.
The event was hosted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources of the Philippines (DENR) and was funded by the Philippine National CTI Coordinating Committee (NCCC) with support from the GIZ-SSME Project and the ADB CTI-SEA Project.
The CTI MPA Working Group Workshop for CTMPAS was aimed to improving the CTMPAS nomination and the site selection process for CTMPAS categories 3 and 4, and to review the draft design of the CTMPAS Recognition.
The main agreements and recommendations during the Workshop are as follows:
- Simplify and improve the nomination form for CTMPAS as suggested in the Workshop;
- Revise the nomination and selection process by using the scoring breakdown discussed and revised during the Workshop;
- Continue developing the CTMPAS Recognition awards and process by addressing the issues and concerns identified during the Workshop;
- Present the Workshop results to the Pacific countries by utilizing existing partnerships; and
- For Results of the Workshop to be adopted and be part of the Agenda of the next Working Group Meeting
Summary of Proceedings
MARCH 17, 2016 (DAY ONE)
The event was formally opened by Ms. Marlynn Mendoza of the Coastal and Marine Division (CMD) of the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) giving a welcome message in behalf of Director Theresa Mundita Lim. She emphasized the need to push through with this activity to increase the participation of the countries in developing a network of MPAs dedicated in improving its Management Effectiveness.
Mr. John Erick Avelino of the NCCC Secretariat provided a brief overview of what will transpire during the two-day Workshop. He also provided the rational and objectives of the Workshop.
Presentation 1: The CTMPAS Framework: Updates and Action Plans
As an overview, Ms. Nilda Baling from the CMD presented the CTMPAS Framework and Action Plan. She highlighted Goal 3 of the CTI Regional Plan of Action namely “By 2020 – MPAs Established and Effectively Managed” specifically Target 1: “Region-wide CTMPAS in place and fully functional”. She gave emphasis to the principles, design strategies, components and site categories of the CTMPAS Framework. In addition, Ms. Baling presented the results of the 1st and 2nd round of nominations showing the different MPAs across the six countries which were qualified for categories 3 and 4. Lastly, she presented the CTI-CFF MPA Roadmap 2014-2020 targets including the development of a regional recognition awards system. (ANNEX 2)
Workshop 1: CTMPAS Nomination Form
The first Workshop for the day was facilitated by Ms. Evangeline Miclat of Conservation International – Philippines (CI-P), one of the members of the Philippine NCCC. Ms. Miclat initially gave an overview of the CTMPAS nomination form showing the specific parts and how to accomplish it based on the current explanatory notes. The participants were then asked to write down their general comments on the nomination form.
Among the general comments are the following:
On the nomination form:
A short narrative on the description of the MPAs should be allotted at the beginning of the nomination form for a quick overview.
Review the attributes in the form to verify its applicability to the other countries.
Disaggregate the nomination form based on the habitat type located within the MPA.
Provide detailed explanatory notes for attributes which have specific qualifiers.
Improve explanatory notes for attributes such as “Sites forms a network (or an equivalent)” which can be difficult for the nominating country to determine due the lack of scientific research/study in the MPA.
Forms should be able to highlight the implementation of the management plans in the MPA.
A levelling-off activity should be conducted for the countries and the evaluators to have a common understanding on the nomination form.
On the nomination form submissions:
Countries should provide valid weblinks to their submissions as some errors were detected duringthe screening (e.g., translation to English, webpage not working).
Among the discussions on specific attributes are the following:
Part 1. Data Attributes in the CT Atlas and Core (Minimum) Data Requirements
Longitude (1.2) and Latitude (1.3)
It was suggested to consider other alternative description such as in Malaysia where theyuse circular measurement and/or measure the distance of the MPA from the shore (i.e. #of nautical miles from the shore at LLW). Discussions thereafter include the differencesbetween the description of the location of the MPA (1.2 and 1.3) with that of the descriptionof the total area of the MPA (1.12) that may address Malaysia’s concern as raised by Mr.Suraji of Indonesia.
It was mentioned that the Philippines will have an internal discussion on the nationallymanaged (NIPAS) PAs which can be nominated for the CTMPAS. This is regarding therequired size of the marine component for Protected Landscapes and Seascapes.
Management Plan (1.13)
Mr. Ab Rahim Gor Yaman of Malaysia suggested that other types of MPA Management Plan(e.g., Strategic Action Plan, Zonation Plan)be included in this attribute. Mr. de los Reyesfrom the Philippines suggested to include other management plan qualifiers such as anindication of implementation of the plan. Ms. Miclat explained that this may be addressedby other items in the form (2.4.3 “management plan and or zoning plan approved andimplemented).
IUCN Management Category (1.14)
It was suggested to capture other international/global recognition other than IUCN. Dr.Uychiaoco then clarified that the IUCN category pertains to the basis of the establishmentof the MPA and not on the international/global recognition of an MPA.
Administrative unit level 1 (1.16)
It was suggested to refine the qualifiers for the administrative unit level (e.g. National, localand/or established, operational etc.)
Zonation (1.17) and No take (1.18)
It was suggested to include additional information in the explanatory notes e.g. a zoningplan being in place and a description of the plan.
Mr. Suraji shared that these items are part of the same document being monitored forManagement Effectiveness in Indonesia.
Management Effectiveness Model (1.20)
It was suggested to include other types of management effectiveness tools from othercountries. As for Indonesia, Mr. Suraji suggested that the countries must be able to provide
a weblink of the tool used for assessing the management effectiveness (e.g. EKKP3K in Indonesia).
Mr. Suraji suggested to add further explanation/additional information on the process of validation. It was mentioned that there was a need to identify if the validation was done by an external assessor.
There was a comment that this item might be more specific to MEAT although Dr. Uychiaoco pointed out that this process accommodates all other type of management effectiveness models.
Consent to display and share (1.24)
Mr. Gor Yaman suggested that Categories 1 and 2 should be included in a database (CT Atlas).
Mr. Suraji also suggested that an MPA profile that is easily uploaded in the database should be included as an attachment to provide a brief description of the sites.
Ms. Miclat shared that presently, the CT Atlas houses these data but these have yet to be updated(e.g. in the Philippines, more coordinates to create “polygons” of MPA locations/boundaries are still needed).
The session continued with the presentation of Dr. Andre Uychiaoco on his experiences during the first round on CTMPAS Nominations. According to Dr.Uychiaoco, one of the obstacles during the first nomination was the subjective scoring provided by the evaluators. To address the issue, a scoring guide was developed to provide guidance to the evaluators. The guide was also designed to provide an objective scoring to the nominations. He also mentioned that additional points were provided for less discretions.
Dr. Uychiaoco also mentioned that some of the entries submitted in the first round of nominations did not have sufficient weblinks that will provide more information on the management of the MPA. He emphasized the importance of these weblinks in order for other countries to have access to data and to facilitate cross-learning. He also mentioned the importance of accessibility of the documents in the CT Atlas.
Reiterating one of the earlier comments, Ms. Miclat suggested that a brief narrative description regarding the MPA should be available that will bring about supplementary information on the nominated MPAs.
It was agreed as well that for this session, the group shall continue reviewing the attributes in the nomination form together with the scoring breakdown provided by Dr. Uychiaoco. The session was facilitated by Ms. Marion Daclan of the GIZ-SSME Project. The revised scoring breakdown including the comments can be seen as Annex 3.
Part 2. Information Requirements Showing Regional Significance of Sites Nominated for Category 3 or 4
Site Forms a Network (2.1)
Mr. Gor Yaman raised a concern regarding the review of size and scale indicated in the scoring sheet. He mentioned that the size and scale may not be applicable to the MPAs in Malaysia. Dr. Andre Uychiaoco answered that the scale was created according tothe size of the MPA nominated for round 1. He mentioned that the size and scale is highly arbitrary depending on the size ranges of MPAs nominated.
It was raised that the habitat types present should be included/added to the ecological design criteria. Ms. Evangeline Miclat suggested that the MPA explanatory note should indicate clear attributes on the types of habitat which are present in the protected area.
Mr. Suraji mentioned that MPAs in Indonesia consist of a core, buffer and utilization zones (no take area for tourism and multifuctions area for sustaibale fisheries).
Ms. Marion Daclan added that the evaluators should also be well versed on the different types of management plans present in each of the countries to better understand the terms in the nominations; hence the need for explanatory notes and descriptions in the nomination forms.
It was also suggested to separate the descriptions for the different types of networks (e.g., ecological, governance, or social-learning).
Site adheres to at least two of 5 ecological design criteria (2.2)
In general, the Meeting agreed that the explanatory note provided in this attribute is too broad and should be futher qualified.
It was also mentioned that some of the criteria under this attribute are not observed in the local management effectiveness assessment tool being used by the countries in their respective MPAs.
Ms. Nilda Baling added that the presence of all types of habitat in an MPA should be an important consideration in determining regional priority MPAs.
Resilience, raised the scientific study on habitat/ecosystem on an MPA site resilience should be taken in consideration due to unavailability/lack of data.
Site targets an identifiedregional priority area, habitat or species (2.3)
It was discussed that this attribute may be limiting due to the specific requirement of having a regionally significant species (e.g., breeding/spawning ground).
It was emphasized that this attribute is not only limited to key biodiversity areas (KBAs), but is also inclusive of various regional recognitions.
Site achieves a threshold level of management effectiveness (2.4)
The Meeting agreed that this criterion must still hold the biggest point allocation, however, given the fact that each country employs different Management Effectiveness Tools, each country should make sure that that their tools are fully understood bythe MPA Working Group, Country Focal Persons and MPA Nomination Evaluators.
Mr. Gor Yaman commented that the term “feature” should be more elaborated and defined. Dr. Andre Uychiaoco answered that it is difficult to compare since each MPA have different features. However, he added that the level of significance and number of significance should be noted. Again, this should be levelled off among the evaluators to have a standard in scoring.
Mr. Gor Yaman commented that this criterion holds significant components like Enforcement and Livelihood, which entitles it to an increase of 5-point allocation. It was agreed that 5 points will be taken from the Site Design (2.2) and added to the criterion of IEC, Effective Enforcement, Multi-stakeholder involvement, livelihood and research and development for a total of 15 points (2.6).
Workshop 2: Nomination and Site Selection Process
Presentation of Nomination and Site Selection Process
Mr. Avelino presented the process of nomination and site selection using figure 17 (ANNEX 4) from the CTMPAS Framework and Action Plan. He explained the process in both in-country and regional level. Ms. Evangeline Miclat from Conservation International stated the error in the flowchart as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1.Errors identified in the flow chart for the nomination process
This concern will be discussed further with the MPA Adviser and Coordinator, and the MPA TWG.
Sharing of nomination process from each country
Mr. Suraji shared Indonesia’s experiences in choosing the sites to be nominated for Categories 3 and 4. He mentioned the use of the E-KKP3K for evaluating the management effectiveness of MPAs in Indonesia. Based on the results, those who achieved a Level 2 in E-KKP3K will further be evaluated for nomination to the CTMPAS. The nominations will then be sent to the Deputy General office for submission to the MPA TWG Chair.
In Malaysia, Mr. Ab Rahim Gor Yaman said that nomination process uses a localized version of the Philippines’ Management Effectiveness Assessment Tool (MEAT). In addition, he added that the assessment is being done quarterly and that the management is being managed by: (i) local managers, (ii) clients, and (iii) external assessment body. Mr. Gor Yaman also mentioned that the assessment uses nine (9) criteria. When an MPA site reached a score of 85%, this will be evaluated
at the regional level for possible nomination as Category 3 and 4. He added that the scoring is dependent on the Management Plan of an MPA.
In the Philippines, Mr. Avelino of the NCCC Secretariat mentioned that the MPAs selected for nomination are selected based on the results of the MPA MEAT and the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT). In addition, he mentioned that due to the size criteria, MPAs nominated are those under the NIPAS or the nationally-managed MPAs. MPAs with high scores (sites that are effectively managed) will be considered for the 3 and 4 Categories. He then mentioned that the NCCC is further consulted for the CTMPAS nominations.
The Meeting discussed options on how to encourage Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Timor Leste to actively participate in the CTMPAS. Dr. Uychiaoco commented that these countries should be visited and assisted in accomplishing the forms and submitting their nominations. Ms. Evangeline Miclat added that an incentive system may be developed to increase the participation of the Pacific countries. The system will be developed with assistance from the MPA Advisor and Coordinator.
In general, the group recommended mobilizing existing partnerships and projects in the Coral Triangle, particularly in the Pacific countries to encourage their participation in the CTMPAS. In addition, the participants recognize the need for human resources that will assist the countries in accomplishing and monitoring the submissions.
MARCH 18, 2016 (DAY TWO)
Presentation 3: MPA Awards
MPA Support Network: Para El Mar
Mr. Diovanie De Jesus of the UP – Marine Science Institute discussed the Para El Mar process. He highlighted that the basis in awarding best performing MPAs is through the MEAT form and other documents required by the evaluators. The MEAT form is divided into three criteria namely Management Effectiveness, Biophysical and Ecological Impacts and Socio-economic Impacts. Each criterion is broken into different indicators which are scored accordingly. A screening process follows where the evaluators shortlist all the MEAT submissions and conduct a validation. All shortlisted MPAs are provided a venue where they could present their MPAs to the evaluators and how they effectively manage them. These presentations are open to the public. The Para el Mar also gives recognition to effectively managed MPA networks. The awards system has opened doors for shortlisted MPAs to have funding opportunities from different projects to support their initiatives. It has also become a venue for collaboration among NGOs, different government agencies and academe to work towards the improvement of MPA management in their respective areas.
Protected Area Awards and Recognition
Ms. Ann Malano of the National Parks Division of BMB gave a brief description of the PA awards for National Parks under the National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS). The process includes
a call for nomination, actual review of a committee and an evaluation by a jury of independent consultants who are tasked to determine the winners. The award system recognizes both terrestrial and marine national parks. She mentioned that the PA award is fairly new and that it was started only last 2013. She added that there is an ongoing process to have the 2nd awarding by 2017.
It was also mentioned that there is no cash incentive given to the winners of the PA Awards. Ms. Malano emphasized the importance of a long preparation for such event to accommodate and encourage submissions. She also noted the advantage of using mass media to promote the awards.