ANNUAL PROJECT REPORT (APR)



Annual Project Report (APR)

for UNDP/GEF Projects

2004 | |

| |

|Official Title: |Conservation of the Tubbataha Reef National Marine Park (TRNMP) and World Heritage Site |

| | |

|Country: Philippines | |

|UNDP Project Number: |PHI/00/G36 |GEF Project Number: |985 |

|Date of Report: |June 2004 |Date of Last APR: |May 2003 |

|1. BASIC PROJECT IDENTIFIERS- Please enter all date (DD/MM/YEAR) |

|Focal Area |Biodiversity |

|Operational Programme |2: Coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystem |

|Date Of Entry in WP |20/MAR/2000 |

|ProDoc Signature Date |23/AUG/2000 |

|Duration (months) |48 months (4years) |

|Date of First Disbursement [1] |October 2000 |

|Closing Date |Original: September 2004 |

| |Revised 1: |

| |Revised 2: |

|1.1 BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION. (To be filled by Regional Coordinating Unit) |

|As it appears in PIMS. Please adjust if required. |

|The overall objective of the proposed conservation initiative is to protect the unique and relatively pristine condition of the globally significant |

|biological diversity and ecological processes of the Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park (TRNMP) and to manage TRNMP and the surrounding area on a |

|sustainable and ecologically sound basis. This objective of the project will largely be pursued through the implementation of the approved Management Plan |

|for TRNMP. The conservation of TRNMP also depends on the actions in the surrounding areas including the islands of Cagayancillo and Cavili. Human |

|inhabitants of these islands threaten TRNMP as they are using and permitting the extraction of resources from the Park. |

|Has it been adjusted? : NO |

|Impacts on: |Has the project |Quantitative Information of impact |How was this measured / How was|Other comments on impacts |

| |produced impacts? Yes |(what are these impacts and how much of them has been|the information collected? | |

| |/ No / Not applicable /|produced ?) | | |

| |Planned | | | |

|Expanding protected areas |Yes |Area (hectares) affected : 54,323 hectares of local |Community mapping and actual |Management of these marine reserves are by |

| | |marine reserves in Cagayancillo covered by local |survey with the aid of GPS and |the local gov’t and communities. The |

| | |ordinances and expanded area for TRNMP in the |GIS in finalizing boundaries |municipal gov’t allocate annual budget for |

| | |proposed Tubbataha Bill | |operations including law enforcement. |

| | | | |The Tubbataha Bill expanded the area to |

| | | | |include J.Beazley. Management will be |

| | | | |assumed by the TPAMB. |

|Improving management effectiveness of protected areas|Yes |Areas (hectares) affected: 33,200 hectares covered by|A management effectiveness |The actual monitoring of indicators are |

| | |the TRNMP |monitoring program has become |built into the different |

| | | |part of the TRNMP management |activities/programs such as the long-term |

| | | |plan and several indicators are|ecosystem research, the conservation |

| | | |already being monitored. |awareness and capacity building programs. |

|Improving practices of sustainable use of |Yes |Areas (hectares) of production landscape and |Mapping and measurement were |This will involve the government, private |

|biodiversity resources. | |seascape: Municipal waters of Cagayancillo have no |referred to NAMRIA |and business sectors within and outside the|

| | |actual measurement yet because of unresolved legal | |municipality of Cagayancillo. |

| | |basis for delineating municipal waters. Tourism, | | |

| | |fishery, seaweeds farming and finance development are| | |

| | |now anchored on improved condition of marine | | |

| | |resources, spearheaded by the municipal government in| | |

| | |the implementation of their CRM program. | | |

|Changes in sectoral policies, laws and regulations to|Yes |TRNMP Bill filed in Congress for passage into law. |----- |The bill reinforces the operation of the |

|improve biodiversity conservation and sustainable | |The bill will be re-filed at the opening of the new | |Park as provided for in the TRNMP |

|use. | |Congress. Once approved this will harmonizing the | |Management Plan which currently guides the |

| | |NIPAS, SEP and Local Gov’t Code in managing a | |TPAMB and the TMO in its implementation |

| | |specific protected area. | |activities. |

|Sharing of benefits between and/or in countries, |----- |Describe outcomes |----- |----- |

|arising from the use of genetic resources | | | | |

|Other impacts[2] |Planned |Protection of TRNMP serves as an effective groundwork|----- |Species biodiversity can be promoted by |

| | |in promoting regional efforts to conserve marine | |identifying migratory species within the |

| | |biodiversity, such as the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine | |region such as sea turtles, seabirds and |

| | |Ecoregion Conservation Program. This contributes | |marine mammals. Economically, this can |

| | |directly to increase effectiveness in connecting and | |also dwell on migratory species of |

| | |magnifying the values of protected areas. | |commercial value such as tuna. |

|3. PROJECT PERFORMANCE |

|SRF Goal (*): |Environmentally sustainable development to reduce human poverty |

|SRF Sub Goal (*) |Sustainable environmental management and energy development to improve the livelihoods and security of the poor |

|Strategic Area of Support (1) |National policy, legal and regulatory framework for environmentally sustainable development |

| |Outcome: Environment and natural resources (ENR) policies, framework and plans strengthened, rationalized and effectively implemented |

|Strategic Area of Support (2) |Institutional framework for sustainable environmental management and energy development |

| |Outcome: Improved capacity of national/ sectoral authorities to plan and implement integrated approaches to environmental management and energy development |

| |that responds to the needs of the poor |

(*) The UNDP Country Office will fill out these fields

|3.1 OBJECTIVE |

|Indicator 1 |Value in year 0 |Mid-term Target |End of Project | 2003 Measure |2004 Measure |Last year | This year |

| | |(Year 2002) |Target (Year 2004)| | |Rating |Rating[3] |

|Stable or |Decreasing trend |Reef health |Reef health |After the bleaching event in 1998, the reef |Reef condition index still increasing indicating |HS |HS |

|increased reef |in reef condition |condition stable |condition |condition index continuously increased |possible recovery to reef condition before bleaching | | |

|health | | |increasing |showing reef recovery. |event. | | |

|Indicator 2 |Value in year 0 |Mid-term Target |End of Project Target|2003 Measure |2004 Measure |Last year | This year |

| | |(Year 2002) |(Year 2004) | | |Rating |Rating |

|Effective management |Management structure |Target resource |Tubbataha Protected |TPAMB & TMO, the Cagayancillo Livelihood|TPAMB & TMO take on full responsibility of TRNMP |HS |S |

|structure in place |not fully operational|managers are aware|Area Management Board|Committee and Core of Trainers together |management; Municipal Gov’t of Cagayancillo and | | |

| |and roles of members |of their roles and|(TPAMB) has a clear |with the LGU are functioning in |Pangabuhian Foundation takes on full | | |

| |not clear |functions |legal mandate to |accordance with their respective roles |responsibility of CRM and livelihood program in | | |

| | | |sustain long-term |and responsibilities |Cagayancillo | | |

| | | |operations | | | | |

|Indicator 3 |Value in year 0 |Mid-term Target |End of Project Target |2003 Measure |2004 Measure |Last year | This year |

| | |(Year 2002) |(Year 2004) | | |Rating |Rating |

|Appropriate management|Management system and|Management system and|Long-term TRNMP |Management instruments developed and |Plans are implemented by the respective |HS |S |

|system and instruments|instruments are |instruments are |management plan |implemented: revised TRNMP management |organizations in charge. Budget allocations are| | |

|developed and |insufficient for |developed with |updated and |plan, TRNMP bill, CRM plan, Livelihood |likewise included in the regular appropriations| | |

|implemented |effective management |stakeholders |implemented in |Operations Plan, Park Tourism Rules and|of the Provincial Government, Cagayancillo | | |

| | | |partnership with |regulations, Marine Ecosystem Research|Municipal Government, the Philippine Navy, the | | |

| | | |stakeholders |and Monitoring Plan, IEC and Capacity |Philippine Coast Guard. DENR started to | | |

| | | | |Building Plan, Comprehensive |finance specific projects on information | | |

| | | | |Cagayancillo Fishery Code, Accounting |campaign. | | |

| | | | |Policies and Procedures for TMO. | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | |TRNMP qualified as a pilot site in the | | | |

| | | | |Marine Protected Area (MPA)- Management| | | |

| | | | |Effectiveness Initiative (MEI)under the| | | |

| | | | |IUCN- World Commission on Protected | | | |

| | | | |Areas (WCPA) –Marine. It is one of the | | | |

| | | | |18 pilot sites worldwide, testing |Management effectiveness monitoring and | | |

| | | | |indicators of management effectiveness |evaluation incorporated in the TRNMP Management| | |

| | | | |to develop a guidebook which could be |Plan. Several indicators have been included in| | |

| | | | |used by other MPAs. |the regular activities. Other indicators | | |

| | | | | |identified serve as reference for project | | |

| | | | | |development by other interested organizations | | |

| | | | | |such as Conservation International, and the | | |

| | | | | |World Heritage Center. | | |

|Overall rating |S |

|Project Comment on rating |The project has effectively managed the protected areas as shown by the increasing trends in biological indicators inspite of the bleaching event in 1998. Management |

| |structures and systems are operational and handled well by the local management groups within the TPAMB and the Local Government of Cagayancillo, which will continue to|

| |function beyond this project term. However, the TRNMP bill which will in effect provide permanence to the TPAMB and its operational systems is still in the process of|

| |approval by the Philippine Congress. Delay in this process was brought about the national elections. The remaining months of the project will still require re-filing |

| |and lobbying for the passage of this bill. |

|CO Comment |CO agrees with the satisfactory (S) rating. |

|RC Comment | |

|PTA Comment | |

|3.2 OUTCOMES.[4]- |

|Outcome 1: Bring about the effective long-term management of TRNMP |

| |Value in year 0 |Mid-term Target |End of Project Target |2003 Measure |2004 Measure |Last year | This year |

| | |(Year 2002) |Year 2004) | | |Rating |Rating[5] |

|Indicator 1: |TPAMB as a policy |Tubbataha Management |TPAMB meeting regularly|The interim TPAMB meets quarterly to decide |100% of scheduled meetings attended by |HS |HS |

|Functional TPAMB & |making body does not |Office created |and making decisions |on policy issues; an Executive Committee |90% of members, on the average. Policy | | |

|TMO |have an implementing | |which are implemented |meets monthly or as the need arises to decide|decisions are made and translated into | | |

| |arm to operationalize | |by the TMO |on immediate concerns & come up with policy |action through the Execom and the TMO. | | |

| |its decisions | | |recommendations to TPAMB; TMO operational | | | |

| | | | |with 4 staff –the Prov’l Gov allocated PhP |The ranger station is directly supervised| | |

| | | | |800,000 for salaries and administrative cost |by the Park Manager who heads the TMO. | | |

| | | | |of TMO for 2003 and the LGU of Cagayancillo | | | |

| | | | |allocated PhP 480,000 for the CRM |The Cagayancillo Satellite office | | |

| | | | |implementation for 2003. |functions as a CRM center, Pangabuhian | | |

| | | | | |office and Information Resource Center | | |

| | | | | |(mini-library). Manpower are provided by| | |

| | | | | |the Municipal Government and the | | |

| | | | | |Pangabuhian Foundation. | | |

|Indicator 2: |Management Plan |Management Plan |Revised Management Plan|Revised management plan drafted and validated|Revised Management Plan guides |S |HS |

|TRNMP Management |approved in 1998 is |updated and revised |approved and |with major stakeholders. Implementation of |implementation of activities in TRNMP and| | |

|Plan implemented |implemented in |in accordance with |implemented in a |activities are in accordance with the |Cagayancillo. | | |

| |fragmented activity |new information and |programmatic manner |management plan. | | | |

| |oriented manner |developments | | | | | |

|Indicator 3: |Law enforcement |Patrols are conducted|Reduced incidence of |Year-round patrol & maintenance of |Ranger station maintained with basic |S |S |

|Law enforcement and |procedures not clear |regularly following a|illegal activities in |facilities/ equipment in TRNMP being |patrol and surveillance equipment. | | |

|patrol system in |among implementors |clear delineation of |the Park and associated|undertaken by the composite team of Park |Composite team of rangers conduct regular| | |

|place | |roles and functions |marine areas |Rangers (Phil. Navy, Phil. Coast Guard, |patrols, except when weather is bad. The| | |

| | |in law enforcement | |KKP/TMO). In Cagayancillo, the |radar was fixed and calibrated to be more| | |

| | | | |reorganization of MFARMC/BFARMC was |useful during times when actual patrols | | |

| | | | |facilitated through the LGU-Mun. Agriculture |are not possible. There were | | |

| | | | |Office. The Municipal Comprehensive Fishery|shipgroundings reported due to bad | | |

| | | | |Ordinance is being implemented by the |weather but none for illegal fishing. | | |

| | | | |recently formed Kilusang Sagip Kalikasan | | | |

| | | | |(KSK). Communities are engaged in patrol and|In Cagayancillo, the Municipal Government| | |

| | | | |surveillance of the fishing grounds, seaweed |through the Kilusang Sagip Kalikasan and | | |

| | | | |farms and marine reserves. Live fish trade |the PNP continue to implement law | | |

| | | | |was stopped by the Municipal Gov of |enforcement activities in accordance with| | |

| | | | |Cagayancillo to abate cyanide fishing. |their Fisheries Code. Inspite of | | |

| | | | |Seaweed farming which is a sustainable |inadequacies in law enforcement equipment| | |

| | | | |resource use is being fully supported through|and manpower, the local community’s | | |

| | | | |technical and financial assistance. |general perception points to reduced | | |

| | | | | |incidence of illegal fishing. | | |

|Indicator 4: |Limited understanding |Conducted trainings |TPAMB/TMO, park |Park Rangers (including the Phil. Navy, Phil.|Continuing training were undertaken |S |S |

|Resource management |and experience in |directly related to |rangers, Cagayancillo |Coast Guard) are undergoing continuous |involving a total of 988 individual | | |

|capacities show |managing an offshore |MPA and |LGU and communities are|training on marine ecology, basic research |partners. Training topics involved | | |

|improvement |MPA; Cagayancillo LGU |coastal/marine |managing the |methods & para-legal techniques. Trainings |MPA/CRM management, livelihood planning &| | |

| |and communities very |resource management |conservation of |on equipment operation and maintenance were |operation and law enforcement. | | |

| |passive to |for TPAMB, TMO, park |resources and resolving|attended by marine park rangers. Training | | | |

| |coastal/marine |rangers, Cagayancillo|arising issues |on sustainable resource management & |Local group directly manage field | | |

| |resource management |LGU and communities, |pertaining to actual |livelihood attended by the Livelihood |operations and are showing improved | | |

| | |project staff and |operations |Committee/Cagayancillo Pangabuhi-an |skills as shown by progress of work in | | |

| | |other stakeholders | |Foundation members; the CATCO continues to |the Parks visitor management and in | | |

| | | | |train mothers, law enforcers (M/BFARMC) and |Cagayancillo’s CRM and livelihood fund | | |

| | | | |the youth on marine resource conservation. |management. | | |

| | | | |Training were designed to provide operational| | | |

| | | | |skills directly applied in the implementation| | | |

| | | | |of activities that the participants are | | | |

| | | | |involved in. | | | |

|Indicator 5: |Diver tourism not well|Developed and tested |Full implementation of |Rules and regulations for the conduct of |Enforcement of park rules and regulations|S |HS |

|Rules for dive |regulated |a permitting and user|the permitting and user|tourism activities improved and enforced |coordinated with the Phil. Coast Guard to| | |

|tourism developed | |fee system based on |fee system by the |together with dive tour operators. |reinforce permitting system. Violations | | |

|and implemented | |improved park rules |TPAMB/TMO | |are properly documented and meted with | | |

| | |and regulations | | |corresponding fines and sanctions. A | | |

| | | | | |total of P271,200 collected from fines | | |

| | | | | |since 1999. Tourists participate in | | |

| | | | | |conservation awareness activities and | | |

| | | | | |some volunteer their service in the | | |

| | | | | |production and distribution of | | |

| | | | | |information materials. | | |

|Indicator 6: |Funds are limited to |TRNMP trust fund |Core operation of the |Park user fee & permitting system being |Total user fee (now called conservation |S |S |

|Sustainable |activity-based |established utilizing|TPAMB to protect TRNMP |implemented; collections are in a Trust Fund |fee) collection for 2000-2004 dive | | |

|financing plan in |projects; there is no |collections from |provided for by the |with the Provincial Government under a |seasons amounted to P8.9M. This | | |

|place |long-term financing |conservation fees |trust fund and |well-defined disbursement scheme. The Prov’l|constitutes the bulk of the Trust Fund | | |

| |plan to sustain |(park user fee for |commitment by partner |Gov’t is allocating funds for the operation |which funds about 30% of annual core cost| | |

| |management of the Park|dive tourism) |organizations |of the TMO while the Municipal Gov’t of |for TRNMP management. | | |

| | | | |Cagayancillo is allocating funds for the CRM.| | | |

| | | | |Continuing project development is being |A 10-year financing plan is being | | |

| | | | |pursued. A more comprehensive sustainable |finalized to reflect bare bones cost that| | |

| | | | |financing plan shall be completed in 2003. |will sustain effective management of | | |

| | | | | |TRNMP. | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | |The Municipal Government of Cagayancillo | | |

| | | | | |provides annual budget appropriation for | | |

| | | | | |the implementation of their CRM and | | |

| | | | | |livelihood program. | | |

|Indicator 7: TRNMP |Effectivity of the |Effectivity of the |If applicable, a more |TRNMP is beng protected as a no-take zone and|It was decided in the TPAMB that the |S |HS |

|zonation assessed |existing zonation plan|zonation plan |effective plan is put |area for marine ecosystem research and |TRNMP will maintain its no-take status, | | |

|and enforced |based on conservation |assessed and if |in place. |education. |proven to be most effective in protecting| | |

| |merits not assessed |necessary a more | | |the reefs and in increasing potential | | |

| | |effective plan is | | |benefits that can support fisheries in | | |

| | |designed. | | |associated communities, specifically | | |

| | | | | |Cagayancillo. | | |

|Indicator 8: Jessie |J.Beazley and Basterra|Assess the |Develop a management |Jessie Beazley has been included in the TRNMP|The TRNMP Bill while still pending |S |S |

|Beazley and Basterra|Reefs not included in |possibility of |approach for these |House Bill 5515, thus increasing its coverage|approval by Congress, remains to be the | | |

|Reefs included in |the TRNMP |including these reefs|reefs |to 87,655 hectares (from 33,200 ha). A |instrument to include J. Beazley as part | | |

|the TRNMP | |as part of TRNMP | |separate management plan for Basterra Reef is|of the Park. Basterra Reef is now being | | |

| | | | |being prepared based on biological assessment|considered as part of the larger effort | | |

| | | | |of the reef. |to create a network of MPAs in the | | |

| | | | | |Cagayan Ridge. This is being pursued in | | |

| | | | | |line with the SSME Conservation Plan. | | |

|Outcome 2: Raise awareness regarding the importance of conserving TRNMP so that stakeholders are aware and actively supporting conservation efforts |

| |Value in year 0 |Mid-term Target |End of Project |2003 Measure |2004 Measure |Last year | This year |

| | |(Year 2002) |Target | | |Rating |Rating |

| | | |Year 2004) | | | | |

|Indicator 1: |No targeted |Increased |More partners are |Communities in Cagayancillo have accepted |While there are sentiments among |S |S |

|Local communities, |conservation |understanding and |supporting |TRNMP as a no-take zone. Jessie Beazley’s |Cagayancillo residents that benefits derived| | |

|government units, |awareness or |appreciation of the |conservation of |inclusion to the TRNMP was also supported by |from the conservation of Tubbataha are not | | |

|dive operators and |education activities|benefits of protecting|Tubbataha and are |the LGU and communities in Cagayancillo |yet enough to compensate lost opportunities | | |

|tourists are aware, |on-going |Tubbataha and coastal/|participating in the| |from fishing in TRNMP, most fishermen accept| | |

|supportive and | |marine resources as a |conservation of |Tambuli ta mga Cagayanen, a local NGO, airing |the value of potential benefits in the | | |

|involved in | |whole |coastal/ marine |radio program with environmental messages |long-term and are willing to make | | |

|conservation | | |resources |incorporated with the Cagayan cultural |sacrifices. There is also a growing sense of| | |

| | | | |heritage. A magazine format was adopted for |pride for Tubbataha being a part of | | |

| | | | |the one-hour radio program. |Cagayancillo. There are perceptions of a | | |

| | | | | |brighter future because of the improvement | | |

| | | | |The Prov. Government through the office of the|in their marine resources. | | |

| | | | |Prov, Agriculture provides technical | | | |

| | | | |assistance to the project under its Prov’l CRM|There are private groups negotiating with | | |

| | | | |program; the Prov. Treasury likewise provide |the Municipal Government of Cagayancillo for| | |

| | | | |administrative support to the management of |partnership in tourism and live aquarium | | |

| | | | |the Trust Fund; the Governor supports Park |fish trade with certification mechanism. | | |

| | | | |management through fund allocation. The | | | |

| | | | |Puerto Princesa Rotary Club donated mooring |The provincial government of Negros Oriental| | |

| | | | |buoys for the park. |is also keen on operating package tours for | | |

| | | | | |local tourists to Cagayancillo and | | |

| | | | |Dive operators assist in briefing the tourists|Tubbataha. | | |

| | | | |on the tourism rules and regulations in TRNMP | | | |

| | | | |and in reporting violations. They also |A seaweed processor would like to buy | | |

| | | | |provide testimonies on the improving |seaweeds directly from the Pangabuhian | | |

| | | | |conditions of the reefs indicated by increased|Foundation. | | |

| | | | |sightings of megafauna. | | | |

| | | | | |Other partners such as the Provincial | | |

| | | | |There were violations of the Park Rules by the|Government, Phil. Navy and Phil. Coast Guard| | |

| | | | |tour operators. But these were tackled in a |continue to provide not only financial but | | |

| | | | |consultation meeting which was well-attended. |manpower and logistical support. | | |

| | | | |Fines were paid. | | | |

|Outcome 3: Ensure that relevant policies and regulations support conservation and resource management in TRNMP |

| |Value in year 0 |Mid-term Target |End of Project |2003 Measure |2004 Measure |Last year | This year |

| | |(Year 2002) |Target | | |Rating |Rating |

| | | |Year 2004) | | | | |

|Indicator 1: |Only limited |Policy studies |Necessary legal |PCSDS revived its Legal Committee chaired by the|On the basis of initial submission to Congress |S |MS |

|Policy climate |policy analysis |undertaken on |instruments designed|Vice Governor and includes in its main agenda |of the TRNMP Bill, it will be re-filed when it | | |

|supportive of |has been |structural, |and passed as |the protection of TRNMP. It supports the |resumes session. This was delayed due to the | | |

|conservation and |undertaken to |financial and |statutes to |recommendations of the policy study prepared |national elections. | | |

|long-term |guide policy |regulatory issues |strengthen |under the sub-contract of the Legal Env’l | | | |

|sustainable |formulation |affecting |conservation |Assistance Center (ELAC) commissioned by the |In the absence of a specific law for TRNMP, the| | |

|management of TRNMP| |management of TRNMP|management of TRNMP |project. |TPAMB operates on the basis of existing laws | | |

| | | | | |such as the NIPAS, SEP and Local Government | | |

| | | | |Law enforcement organizations in Palawan shows |Code. | | |

| | | | |improved unity in addressing cases related to | | | |

| | | | |violation of the Park and fishery laws – | | | |

| | | | |manifested in the Chinese Poaching cases. The | | | |

| | | | |major problem is in the judiciary which is | | | |

| | | | |greatly influenced by the national offices. | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | |Members of the Congressional Committee on | | | |

| | | | |Environment expressed support to the TRNMP Bill | | | |

| | | | |(House Bill 5515) through sponsorship. House | | | |

| | | | |Bill 5515 was filed in Congress through the 2 | | | |

| | | | |Congressmen of Palawan. A technical working | | | |

| | | | |group was formed to hear comments from other | | | |

| | | | |agencies, specially DENR. A substitute bill | | | |

| | | | |incorporating these comments have been prepared | | | |

| | | | |for the next hearing. | | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | |The Philippine Biodiversity Conservation | | | |

| | | | |Priority Program (support to the National | | | |

| | | | |Biodiversity Strategy and Action developed for | | | |

| | | | |Phil. Agenda 21) identified and includes TRNMP | | | |

| | | | |and Cagayan as areas of high priority. | | | |

|Outcome 4: Conduct research and monitoring on the reef to detect and document changes in the condition of the reef system |

| |Value in year 0 |Mid-term Target |End of Project |2003 Measure |2004 Measure |Last year | This year |

| | |(Year 2002) |Target | | |Rating |Rating |

| | | |Year 2004) | | | | |

|Indicator 1: |Results of |Designed an |Biophysical factors |The long-term marine ecosystem research and |Studies showed that for the last years, |HS |HS |

|Biological |biological studies |ecosystem research|influencing the |monitoring program being implemented and |natural factors rather than human activities | | |

|knowledge of the |were not maximized |and monitoring |ecosystem identified|expanded to include climate change, in response |affect the structure of the reefs in | | |

|reef system |for management |protocol to |and used in adaptive|to the forecast of El Nino this year. |Tubbataha. The decline in hard coral cover in| | |

|increased and |because conduct of |establish baseline|management | |1999 brought about by El Nino in 1998 is | | |

|changes in the |surveys were not |information and | |Annual research and monitoring report for 2002 |believed to be circumvented by protection | | |

|condition of the |properly coordinated|track changes in | |completed. |measures preventing human induced damages. | | |

|ecosystem | |the condition of | | |Thus increasing trends in reef condition index| | |

|documented | |the ecosystem | | |have been recorded over the last four years. | | |

| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | |2003 and 2004 research and monitoring reports | | |

| | | | | |have been completed showing improving | | |

| | | | | |biophysical conditions in the reefs of | | |

| | | | | |Tubbataha and Cagayancillo. | | |

|Indicator 2: GIS |Geographical |Updated GIS |Enhanced collection,|Coastal resource map for Cagayancillo prepared |GIS maps and database have been incorporated |HS |HS |

|database on TRNMP |information on |information for |storage and analysis|together with the LGU and communities; updated |in the CMARIS and concrete plans to update are| | |

|and Cagayancillo |Tubbataha were not |the the different |of geographical |GIS –generated maps on boundaries, bathymetry |in place as part of the SSME Conservation | | |

|established and |organized to allow |project sites |information relevant|and resources for TRNMP (including Jessie |Program. Such updated information will be | | |

|being used in |maximum use for | |to management |Beazley) available. |used in the development of network of MPAs | | |

|management and |management | | | |within the Cagayan Ridge. | | |

|decision-making | | | | | | | |

|Outcome 5: Establish an effective local community resource management program that is linked to reserves and alternative resource use regimes |

| |Value in year 0 |Mid-term Target |End of Project Target|2003 Measure |2004 Measure |Last year | This year |

| | |(Year 2002) |Year 2004) | | |Rating |Rating |

|Indicator 1: |There was very |Analysis of the |Monitor and evaluate|Data for socio-economic and governance |Monitoring survey on socio-economic and |S |S |

|Better understanding |limited information|resource use |changes in resource |indicators were gathered to enhance baseline |governance indicators was undertaken to | | |

|of resource use and |on resource use and|pattern and |use and |survey. |evaluate changes and come up with | | |

|socio-economic factors|socio-economic |socio-economic |socio-economic | |recommendations for the local management | | |

|leading to resource |condition from |factors leading to |conditions in | |groups to consider in the implementation of | | |

|depletion in TRNMP and|which management |resource depletion |Cagayancillo and its | |their CRM and livelihood program. | | |

|Cagayancillo |decisions can be |in TRNMP and |impact on TRNMP | | | | |

| |made |Cagayancillo | | | | | |

|Indicator 2: |Cagayancillo reefs |Develop a coastal |Cagayancillo |The municipal government and communities in |The established local marine reserves are |HS |HS |

|Exploitation pressure |were being |resource management|government and |Cagayancillo are actively involved in the |being managed by clusters of barangays | | |

|on TRNMP decreases as |destroyed and |program with the |communities |patrol and surveillance of their fishing |concerned and funded by the Municipal | | |

|communities |marine resources |communities of |implementing a |grounds and seaweed farms. |Government. Management committees have been| | |

|sustainably manage |were being depleted|Cagayancillo |sustainable coastal | |formed for each of the 5 marine reserves and| | |

|their natural | | |resource management | |are showing improved biophysical conditions.| | |

|resources | | |program | | | | |

|Indicator 3: |Cagayancillo |Develop a locally |A local group |Livelihood Fund supports 27 projects with an |The Livelihood Fund managed by the |S |HS |

|Exploitation pressure |fishermen relies |managed livelihood |managing a |aggregate amount of PhP 250,000. Repayments |Pangabuhian Foundation in partnership with | | |

|on TRNMP decreases as |heavily on fishing |program that is |sustainable |are recorded at 86%. The management of the |the Municipal Government continuously | | |

|communities are |as their primary |linked to |livelihood program |fund includes policies ensuring the commitment|provide financial assistance to its members | | |

|benefiting from |source of income. |conservation |that is linked to |of members and borrowers to defined and agreed|(152). Although there are operational | | |

|community-based | | |conservation |conservation measures. |problems and issues being encountered, the | | |

|alternative livelihood| | | | |management continuously seek ways to adjust | | |

|programs | | | | |policies and reach more members of the | | |

| | | | | |community without sacrificing the integrity | | |

| | | | | |of the limited funds they now have. | | |

| | | | | |Repayment of loans as of Dec 2003 was placed| | |

| | | | | |at88%, involving 103 borrowers. Earnings | | |

| | | | | |from loans amounted to P60,319. | | |

|Indicator 4: Criteria,|The link between |Identified |Identified criteria |Local marine reserves with a total area of 242|Local marine reserves which are managed as |S |HS |

|indicators and best |conservation and |applicable criteria|and indicators |hectares identified and being managed by the |no-take zone were reduced to a total of | | |

|practice guidelines |economic benefits |and indicators of |applied in the CRM |CRM team under the Municipal Agriculture |99.7 hectares instead of the 242 hectares to| | |

|for biodiversity |is not clear in the|best practice for |plan including the |Office. |have more areas for community use. This was| | |

|conservation are |local communities |biodiversity |livelihood operations| |also a practical move considering the | | |

|incorporated into |in Cagayancillo |conservation |plan | |capacity and resources of the local | | |

|economic activities, |thus resulting to | | | |management groups. Barangay and municipal | | |

|plans and strategies |short-term | | | |ordinances have been approved to legitimize | | |

| |exploitation that | | | |the designation of such areas. Moreover, | | |

| |leads to resource | | | |with the CRM plan in place, marine areas | | |

| |depletion | | | |outside of these reserves will remain to be | | |

| | | | | |the subject of multiple-use management | | |

| | | | | |strategies. | | |

| | | | | | | | |

|Overall rating |S |

|3.3 WORK PLAN |TIMING |

|For outcomes rated MS or U please describe priority Actions planned for the following reporting period to overcome constrains | |

|ISSUE/CONSTRAINT: Delayed passing of the TRNMP Bill into a law |Date Entered: June 2004 |

|PRIORITY ACTION: Re-file the Bill when Congress resumes and strengthen lobby group to include budget appropriation in its approval. | |

| |Expected |

|BY WHOM: TPAMB in coordination with PCSD, DENR and the two Congressional Representatives of Palawan |Completion: September 2004 |

|ISSUE/CONSTRAINT: Delayed in the development of the business plan |Date Entered: June 2004 |

|PRIORITY ACTION: With the submitted business plan, the TPAMB will prepare its priorities for the next 5 3 years and come up with doable work and financial | |

|plan, considering available resources |Expected |

| |Completion: September 2004 |

|BY WHOM: TPAMB and TMO | |

|3.4 RISKS. |

| |Risk Description |Describe Status of Risk at start |Describe Status Last Year |Describe Status this Year |Rating* |

| | |of project (Year 0) | | | |

|A |The Tubbataha Protected Area Bill will be |Low risk considering that there |Considering experiences of |The provisions of the bill have been |S |

| |fully supported and passed into law |is a generic bill for protected |protected areas under NIPAS|agreed to by the major agencies involved | |

| | |areas under NIPAS to facilitate |in accessing their funds |such as DENR, the Palawan Council for | |

| | |legislation. |and the need to come up |Sustainable Dev (PCSD) but the provision | |

| | | |with specific mechanisms |for budget allocation still encounters | |

| | | |for TRNMP because of the |difficulty in the Congressional Committee | |

| | | |Strategic Env’l Plan which |on Budget Appropriations because of the | |

| | | |is special law for Palawan,|economic crisis faced by the country. | |

| | | |the proposed bill for | | |

| | | |Tubbataha did not strictly | | |

| | | |follow the generic bill and| | |

| | | |therefore would cause some | | |

| | | |difficulty in legislation. | | |

|B |Stakeholders are receptive to information |Stakeholders are receptive in |Stakeholders show |Stakeholders continue to show interest and|L |

| |about the importance of conserving |understanding the significance of|increasing interest in |involvement in marine biodiversity | |

| |biodiversity in Tubbataha |biodiversity and the significance|marine biodiversity |conservation by acting as information | |

| | |of MPAs as a tool in conserving |conservation after seeing |agents themselves. | |

| | |marine biodiversity. |the results in Tubbataha | | |

| | | |and in the Cagayancillo | | |

| | | |Reefs | | |

|C |The agencies involved in the development and|There are several mandates to |The TPAMB was well |Partner agencies were supportive of the |L |

| |application of policies and regulations will|which involved agencies respond |recognized and became a |TPAMB and its implementation of the TRNMP | |

| |cooperate in taking action based on results|to. There are apparent conflicts|good channel for conflict |Management Plan. However, each agency is | |

| |of assessments |which need to be resolved to |resolution. |beset with operational difficulties which | |

| | |achieve cooperation. | |sometimes constrain them from fully | |

| | | | |supporting management actions. | |

|D |Changes in the ecosystem can be promptly |The distance of Tubbataha and |Locally based management |Management of change require continuing |M |

| |assessed and fed into the development of |Cagayancillo prevents prompt |groups such as the marine |effort to improve capacities of local | |

| |management strategies |assessment of changes. |park rangers in Tubbataha, |management groups. Challenges are | |

| | | |the Municipal Gov’t in |evolving and from problems within the | |

| | | |Cagayancillo need to |boundaries of the managed areas to | |

| | | |increase their capacity to |problems and issues coming from external | |

| | | |promptly assess the changes|sources – climate change, solid waste | |

| | | |which are important for |pollution dumped in the oceans, offshore | |

| | | |improving management |oil exploration. | |

| | | |strategies. | | |

|E |Communities and the local government are |MPAs tend to displace local use |Communities in Cagayancillo|There is sustained involvement among |L |

| |willing to participate and get involved in |of resources. This can result to|and its Municipal |communities and increased involvement by | |

| |the management of their marine resources |resistance from local communities|Government are actively |the Municipal Gov’t in managing the marine| |

| | |and local governments. |involved in coastal |resources. | |

| | | |resource management. | | |

|Additional Risks or unexpected problems encountered during the last year of implementation |

| |

|The National Government has awarded Palawan’s offshore waters in the Sulu Sea for oil exploration. Although the park itself was not included in the oil grid, the next grid is relatively near. |

|Cagayancillo, on the other hand, is inside the grid. Technology for oil exploration is not yet known to management so there is no conclusive stand whether this is favorable or not. Granting that the |

|technology for exploration and operation will not be harmful, oil companies involved can be viewed as potential partners. |

(*) H= High ; S= Substantial ; M=Modest ; L= Low. Please refer to Instruction sheet for definition of ratings for risks

|Please describe actions taken or planned to manage High and Substantial risks |

| |

|There will be renewed effort to re-file bill and organize a stronger lobby group for its passage, specifically the justification for appropriation of budget. |

| |

|4. ADJUSTMENTS TO ORIGINAL PROJECT STRATEGY |

|Indication of any major adjustments in strategies, targets and outcomes. |

|Have the project's expected outcomes changed in the course of implementation? |

| |

|Not substantially. The project outcomes were practically the same. Adjustments resulting from new information and experiential learning were reflected or incorporated in the management instruments |

|which were used by the local management groups to continue the initiatives of the project. |

| |

|Explain how and when changes were made. |

| |

|An internal mid-term evaluation was done by KKP in 2002 but this focused on operational details and indicators of performance. |

| |

|The TRNMP management plan, as part of the process, undergoes periodic review and adjustments. |

| |

|Likewise, the CRM Plan for Cagayancillo will undergo periodic review and adjustments. |

| |

|Was the logical framework matrix of the project updated to reflect changes in activities/outputs/objectives? |

| |

|Changes were made in the annual work plans and budget submitted which essentially reflected changes in the logframe. |

| |

|Has this affected the project's objectives or overall goal? |

| |

|No |

|5. LESSONS |

|5.1 Are there lessons that could benefit the design or the implementation of other GEF-funded projects? Please list up to three and indicate which one/s could be worth of developing case studies |

|a. Management effectivity in an MPA can lead to leakage problem – destructive activities transferred (not stopped) in other unprotected or less protected areas. MPAs are not stand-alone units and|

|should include a monitoring system that captures its effect and relationship with other areas. |

| |

|b. MPAs tend to displace local fishermen; loss in income can be viewed as local investment rather than lost opportunity to encourage local involvement. |

| |

|c. Management councils, committees or boards constituted by several organizations with separate though interconnected mandates can be effective only if it has a strong implementing arm, such as the |

|TMO in the case of Tubbataha. |

|5.2 Have these lessons been exchanged with other GEF or NON-GEF-funded projects? If so, please list the projects and describe the process. |

|These lessons are now guiding the TPAMB in its implementation strategies. |

| |

|WWF within its system embarks on long-term commitments in larger management areas to safeguard connectivity in the ecosystem and ensure sustainability. |

| |

|Through exchange visits, TRNMP establishes link with Apo Reef to address issues common to both, such as the leakage problem. |

|6. PARTNERSHIP STRATEGIES |

|This section refers to collaboration among institutions to achieve mutually shared or agreed upon objectives and goals that draws on individual strengths and maximizes synergies. For the purpose of |

|this report partners are understood as those that either: i) cooperate with the project (through in kind, or financial collaboration); or ii) are subcontracted providers of project services. |

|6.1 Please provide the following information |

|Partner Full Name |Type (*) |Role (*) |$ Value |

|(Do not give acronym only!) | | | |

| | | |Contributed |Contracted |

| | | |(leveraged) | |

|Provincial Government of Palawan | |Policy advise |5,450 | |

|Municipal Government of Cagayancillo | |Implements complementary projects |5,000 | |

|Philippine Navy | |Law enforcement |22,000 | |

|Philippine Coast Guard | |Law enforcement |14,500 | |

|Palawan State University | |Business Plan | |4,720 |

| | | | | |

|(*) Please refer to Instruction sheet for guidelines on how to fill out this section. |

|6.2 Please describe any changes on partnership strategy (if any) from previous year |

| |

|In comparison with the first years, partnerships are now directly linked with TPAMB and TMO rather than WWF as the project implementer. This ensures continuity of arrangements. |

|6.3 Additional information on Private Sector Involvement. |

|This refers to companies that contribute to a project as opposed to receiving financing from it as subcontractors. |

|What economic sector does the company work in (e.g. tourism, fisheries, forestry, agriculture)? |

|Dive operators and tourists |

|Live aquarium fish importers (potential partners) |

| |

|How is the company contributing to project objectives? |

|Dive operators and tourists contribute to park management through their payment of conservation fees upon entry to the park. They also help in information and education campaign. |

| |

|Live aquarium fish trade is being developed in Cagayancillo to replace illegal practices of collection using cyanide. The Municipal Government is leading this project under the livelihood program in|

|partnership with Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) and Reefcheck. Several importers have signified interest to take part in the marketing. |

| |

|How is the company being involved in project implementation? |

|Dive operators brief their guests on Park Rules and Regulations as well as the significance of marine biodiversity conservation. Increasing number of tourists are also providing personal |

|contributions of video footage and stills useful in the development of information materials. |

| |

|Implementation arrangements with live aquarium fish importers are under negotiation. |

| |

|What benefit is the company deriving from contributing to the project? |

|World class diving translates to increase in bookings and good financial profit among dive operators. There were some operators who speculate that they might charter additional boats to accommodate |

|tourists booking for next year’s dive season. |

| |

|5. If the project has not involved companies but could benefit from their resources please explain, given sufficient resources, what could be done within the project to develop such involvement? |

|7. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY |

|7.1 |

|a) What are the key changes brought about (or that will be brought about) by the project which must be maintained into the future.? |

| |

|1) Active involvement of the military in conservation |

|2) Local legislations supporting management groups and instruments for local action |

|3) Communicating conservation results to wider audience for greater participation |

|4) TRNMP as a world heritage providing global benefits can logically continue seek support from international sources to share the cost of management |

|5) Material wealth is important but it is more effective to shape the values of local communities in favor of conservation so that they are more ready to absorb responsibilities to employ wise use of|

|resources and maximize benefits |

| |

|7.2 What are the critical conditions that must be maintained in order for these changes to be sustained? |

|Please refer to instructions for additional guidance. |

|Condition Required |Indications that it will be maintained |

|1) Well defined management |Management systems are defined on the basis of experiences shared by project implementers and stakeholders |

|structure | |

|2) Support to permanent structures |All organizations were designed to function within their regular mandate but with increased sense of accountability |

|such as the LGU | |

|7.3 |

|a. Does the project make use of a micro-finance facility? Yes |

| |

|b. If so, was such a facility developed specifically for the project, or was an existing one used? How effective is it? |

| |

|The facility was designed specific to the needs and capacities in Cagayancillo and is continually improved out of their own judgment and decisions. The facility is effective up to the level of being |

|able to have an organized management group. It will take two years more to ascertain its effectivity in reaching out to wider beneficiaries. |

|8. NON-PROJECT ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY CO AND UNDP/GEF IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT |

|This section aims to identify activities carried out by UNDP (either the country office or the GEF unit) that were not a part of the project, or which resulted from an unanticipated problem, but that|

|have directly contributed towards the achievement of project objectives. It encompasses activities such as advocacy, policy dialogue, and knowledge management efforts. If soft assistance is not an |

|issue for the project or too sensitive to address, this section can be left empty. |

| |

|9. MONITORING AND EVALUATION |Comments |

|CO Field Visit |LAST: March 2004 |NEXT:---- | |

|UNDP GEF Field Visit |LAST: March 2004 – May 2004 |NEXT:--- | |

|Tripartite Review |LAST: August 2003 |NEXT:--- | |

|Mid-Term Evaluation |PLANNED: 3rd Q 2003 |DONE: May 2004 |Very late considering project ends |

| | | |Sep 2004 |

|Final Evaluation |PLANNED: September 2004 |DONE: | |

|Other (*) | |

(*) Please explain whether the project has been subject to any additional review e.g. Country Evaluations, GEF Specially Managed Project Review (SMPR), GEF Thematic Reviews.

|10. FINANCIAL INFORMATION – |

|Please present all financial values in US$ millions (e.g. 3,502,000 = 3.502) |

|10.1 PROJECT FUNDING. Please present all financial values in US$ millions (e.g. 3,502,000 = 3.502) |

| |Grant |

|UNDP (TRAC) |P | | | | | | |

| |A | | | | | | |

|UN Agency |P | | | | | | |

| |A | | | | | | |

|Government |P |.058 | | | | | |

| |A |.046 | | | | | |

|Bilateral Donors |P | | | | | | |

| |A | | | | | | |

|Multilateral Donors |P | | | | | | |

| |A | | | | | | |

|Regional Banks |P | | | | | | |

| |A | | | | | | |

|Non-Govern. Org. |P |.7285 | | | | | |

| |A |.7285 | | | | | |

|Private Sector |P | | | | | | |

| |A | | | | | | |

|Other |P | | | | | | |

| |A | | | | | | |

|Total |P |0.7865 | | | | | |

|Co-Financing | | | | | | | |

| |A |0.7745 | | | | | |

|TOTAL FUNDING |Proposed |1.5115 |

| |ACTUAL |1.4995 |

P=Proposed ; A=Actual

(*) Concessional or market rate

|10.2 PROJECT DISBURSEMENTS. From project start up to date of this report |

|Cumulative actual disbursement ($millions)- as of May 2004 | $669,142 |

|Cumulative planned disbursement ($millions)(*) |$ 700,000 |

|Disbursements ratio |95% |

|(% of actual vs. planned expenditures) | |

(*) As stated in original budget in PRODOC

-----------------------

[1] To be filled in Headquarters

[2] Other impacts may be environmental, social, institutional, economic, etc. Many should have already have been identified as indicators in the objectives and outcomes section of the logical framework matrix. Note that you should NOT include discussion of results related to outputs, inputs or activities such as reporting on the number of workshops held, people trained, etc. The focus is on actual measurable changes in condition.

[3] Ratings. HS: Highly Satisfactory / S: Satisfactory / MS: marginally Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory. Please refer to Instruction Sheet for definition of each rating.

[4] Please use the same format to report on additional outcomes in case the project has more than three.

[5] Ratings. HS: Highly Satisfactory / S: Satisfactory / MS: marginally Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory. Please refer to Instruction Sheet for definition of each rating

-----------------------

2: Impacts and results related to the new GEF Strategic Priorities

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download