Calbayog Pan-as Hayiban Protected

Landscape
MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS
ASSESSMENT2021

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS
ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021
CPHPL - PAMO
6/8/2021
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Description of the Protected Area 3

Area Description and Location
Figure 1. The CPHPL Map

II. Methodology 5
Figure 2. Protected Area management Board (PAMB)
Members who have answered forms for MEA

III. Results and Analysis 6

3.1 Significance/Values/Key Features 8
3.2 Threats and Stressors 10
Table 1 Top Threats in CPHPL
based on the number of responses
Table 1.1 Top Threats in CPHPL based on weighted average

3.3 Management Effectiveness 13

3.4 Context 13
Table 2. Frequency and Percentage of Respondents
for Context Element
3.5 Planning 13
Table 3. Frequency and Percentage of Respondents
for Planning Element
3.6 Input 19
Table 4. Frequency and Percentage of Respondents
for Input Element
3.7 Process 21
Table 5. Frequency and Percentage of Respondents
for Process Element

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 1

 3.8 Output/Outcome 24
Table 6. Frequency and Percentage of Respondents
for Output/Outcome Element

IV. Summary and Recommendations 25

Figure 3. MEA ratings 2021
Figure 4. PA Management Effectiveness Result 2021 27
Table 7. Recommended interventions to improve management
Effectiveness in the CPHPL. 27
Annex 1. List of Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) 29
Members Responded on the Management
Effectiveness Assessment

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 2

 Management Effectiveness Assessment Report 2021

I. Description of the Protected Area

Area Description and Location

The Calbayog Pan-as–Hayiban Protected Landscape (CPHPL) was previously

proclaimed as Pan-as Hayiban Forest Reserve. It is located northwest of the City of
Calbayog, Province of Samar in Oquendo District between Tinambacan District and San
Isidro, Northern Samar. A mountainous region in the Tanauan Ridge within the Mount
Zamal Range that divides the three provinces of Samar. The protected area extends along
the valley of the Hayiban River, the primary source of water of Calbayog. It consists of
old growth trees and a system of rivers, waterfalls and streams capable of generating
2,279 liters of water per day. It also contains the Pan-as falls and surrounding landscape
which also supply hydroelectric power to the city. The area was declared a forest reserve
in 1967 known as the Pan-as Falls–Hayiban Watershed Forest Reserve with a total area of
7,832 hectares (19,350 acres). The Pan-as Hayiban is one of the 39 watersheds in the
main island of Samar. It encompasses several barangays in the mountainous northern
interior of Oquendo District by Calbayog's border with Northern Samar province. The
area is the location of the three sources of water supply for the Calbayog City Water
District, namely Pan-as falls in barangay Pilar, and Pasungon Falls and Himoni River in
the adjacent barangay of Cabatuan. Pan-as Falls is situated some 20 kilometers (12 mi)
northwest of Calbayog City Proper with an elevation of 274 meters (899 ft.) above sea
level, and is one of the city's popular tourist attractions. It is surrounded by open canopy
and residual forests with some areas of cultivation with brushes and grasslands. The
protected area possesses an outstanding beauty and natural features. It is a primary forest
of lowland dipterocarp type as exemplified by its original landscape, the best example of
the remaining tropical rainforest in the country today. CPHPL is endowed with diverse
range of floral species from trees to undershrub’s, ferns, orchid and epiphytes. In fact,
Parcel II still exhibits a natural stand of one might be called as century old trees which
have grown undisturbed in their primeval stage.

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 3

 The presence of these magnificent stands of giant trees measuring more or less
100 meters in diameter at breast height which abound in the park distinctly characterizes
CPHPL along with another natural park in the region. It has also a rich faunal
composition of both terrestrial and aquatic life forms. It is currently a home to endemic
species of flora and fauna including rare and endangered species. The protected area has
relatively large size nesting or low peaks and rolling terrain in the heart of the Samar. Its
scenic beauty and visual quality, serene and pristine environment makes the place an ideal
outdoor recreational ground. Aside from being an ideal vacationing and camping ground,
CPHPL could also be best developed into an educational resource and training center.
Considering its existing remarkable natural features of national and international
significance, a pristine environment with remaining intact forest vegetation aside being an
educational and ecotourism potential, the PA deserve utmost protection and proper
management for its ecological, scenic and educational features including its biological
richness, notwithstanding its economic and environment benefit it provides. Although the
naturalness of the environment is under threat by timber poaching and wildlife hunting,
still it remains intact due to its strong resiliency to regenerate itself
.
Fig I. The image appended below shows the map of the Calbayog Pan-As Hayiban
Protected Landscape. It has two separate land coverage and between and surrounding
them
are barangays and/or settlements thriving therein

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 4

II. Methodology

A detailed and complete assessment of the status of management effectiveness and

performance was conducted, with respect to biodiversity conservation under the National
Integrated Protected Area Systems (NIPAS) Act as amended by RA 11038, using the
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) and complementing participative
appraisal methods. The METT was enhanced with key informant interviews (KIIs), focus
group discussions (FGDs). With the individual METT results, findings from cluster
assessments, and recent related reviews, the status of effectiveness of PA management was
determined and courses of key actions were identified to improve overall PA management
effectiveness. The overall enhanced METT results and findings proved to be useful as
starting points for connecting the dots with respect to the continuing decline in closed and
open canopy forests resources, the results were then validated by the CPHPL PAMO staff
and other DENR personnel. A total of 18 Protected Area Management Board members
participated in the Management Effectiveness Assessment which was held at the Calbayog
Sports center, Calbayog City.

The MEA is more of a rapid appraisal rather than an assessment tool in that there is
heavy reliance on perception and anecdotal information, rather than hard data. Each
participant was given a questionnaire and each question was read to the group and explained
in the local dialect and tagalog version. Respondents marked the answer of their choice.

Figure 2. Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) members answering the given forms
forMEA

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 5

 MEA scores were processed and individual scores per category were obtained as well
as overall scores per individual. These were then averaged per component and the average
overall score for the MEA was calculated. In the calculation of the score, questions that are
not applicable to the site, e.g., Indigenous Peoples (IP), were disregarded from the total
divisor for that component. For example, if IPs are not present for the site, then the total
number for the questions of the PROCESS component will now be 11 instead of 12 and since
the highest score for each question is 3, the total score for PROCESS will now be 33 (3 x 11)
instead of 36 (3 x 12). If a participant did not answer one question in the PROCESS
component. Average score for each question was used to evaluate and explain the rating
obtained per component.

For the threat analysis, respondents were asked to rate identified threats within the PA
at a spatial coverage or degree of intensity, whichever was appropriate, with five responses
possible: HIGH threat for spatial coverage or degree of intensity at >10% to 100%,
MEDIUM threat at >5% to 10%, LOW threat <5% to 0% , No Data (ND) for threats which
are present but cannot be quantified because of lack of information regarding the threat, and
Not Applicable (NA) for threats that are absent or not applicable to the site. In addition to
ranking by frequency of responses per rating, weighted averaging was also done by assigning
numeric equivalents to the estimates used. Thus, HIGH = 3, MEDIUM = 2, LOW = 1, ND =
0 and NA = 0. In case of equal averages, these were then assigned the same rank. This is
done because it is difficult to prioritize the top threats just based on the number of responses
per category.

III. Results and Analysis

The METT percentage scores are helpful in providing clues as to how the
management parameters (i.e., context, planning, input, etc.) are being provided focused
attention to meet the outcomes, and as a baseline dataset.

The METT’s Data Sheet 2 contains a list of generic threats classified in terms of
residential and commercial development, agricultural and aquaculture activities within the
protected area, biological resource use within the protected area, climate change and severe
weather condition, and socio-cultural threats, among others. Those surveyed were asked to
identify the threats that were present and affecting CPHPL, and if possible, rank these threats

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 6

according to their impact on the protected area. Some reports were able to present the threats
adhering to the instructions while most simply listed those that the stakeholders perceived as
present. The highest threats area; Residential and commercial development (Threats #1),
categories as those that are present and have significant adverse impacts on the PA
management. The threats that were identified by most as present and have considerable
impact on the PA are in the human intrusions and disturbances (Threats #6), natural systems
modification (Threats #7), pollution (Threats #9) categories. Threats from invasive species
and genes and transportation categories were identified as present but not having severe
impact by the stakeholders.

The KIIs and FGDs, revealed a number of challenges constraining effective PA

management and indicated which threats are more consistent with the realities on the ground.
The major specific challenges and threats to effective CPHPL management most frequently
identified, and having direct correspondence to some of the threats listed in the METT, were
Storms and flooding, Household Sewage and Urban Waste water, illegal extraction of timber
and non-timber products within the protected area, increasing human settlements and
establishments within the PA.

Other challenges to effective PA management identified through the consultation

processes were (a) political intervention, (b) limited financial and manpower resources result
to weak technical and enforcement capacities of staff. With adequate funds, PA staff may be
hired and trained, enforcement and other relevant monitoring equipment may be purchased
and utilized, and operation activities may be undertaken.

The overall average METT percentage score for the CPHPL was calculated at
73.05%. However, the general observations and feedback from the KIIs and FGDs indicate
that the METT results are overestimations of the real conditions and further articulates and
clarifies many of the key challenges and opportunities that substantiate and qualifies the
METT survey results. The 73.05% rating of CPHPL indicates a “good” management
effectiveness status based on BMB TB 2018-05.

Among the six (6) distinct elements, the result revealed that CPHPL got the highest
rating which is 100% to the Context element. It was followed by the, Output, Planning

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 7

Process and Input element with rating at 80.86% 74.07%, 72.39% and 66.90%, respectively.
The lowest rating of 66.90% was scored in the Input element.

III.1 Significance/Values/Key Features

As a protected area (PA), the Calbayog Pan-as Hayiban Protected Landscape

(CPHPL) exemplifies unique scenic beauty that would surely captivate the interest of the
local and/or foreign travelers and visitors. The protected area has a relatively large size
nestling on low peaks and rolling terrain in the heart of Samar Province particularly within
the 47,247.57 hectares Pan-as Hayiban Watershed that sustain the water supply necessary for
domestic and industrial use. Its scenic beauty and visual quality, as well as cool invigorating
climate make the place ideal outdoor recreational grounds. Such recreational activities may
include as, but not limited to camping, mountain climbing, nature trekking, birds watching,
photography, boating, rafting, swimming and game fishing in the rivers are some of the many
outdoor recreational activities that could be enjoyed within in the protected area. Calbayog
Pan-as Hayiban Protected Landscape lies within the northern part of Calbayog City with a
geographical coordinate of 12 13’ 00” latitude. The 5,067.93-hectare protected area is
contained solely within the administrative jurisdiction of City of Calbayog, Province of
Samar. Nonetheless, the potential use and socioeconomic benefits it possesses and current
challenges and threats to protected area compels the need to sustain and improve its existence
through conservation and protection activities and strategies. Since the CPHPL, just like any
other protected areas in the world, lies at the heart of the life-support systems on which
human survival and development depend the establishment and management of such
protected areas being two of the most important ways of ensuring that the world’s biological
resources are conserved to meet the material and cultural needs of mankind now and in the
future (World bank, 1997). The Republic Act No. 7586, series of 1992 led the
institutionalization of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS). This
promulgation becomes the classification and administration of all designed protected areas in
the country to maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems, to preserve
genetic diversity, to ensure sustainable use of resources found therein and to maintain their
natural conditions to the greatest extent possible. Among its salient features are the
designation of buffer zones as added layer of protection and the recognition and inclusion of
communities inside protected areas in the sustainable management of the resources.

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 8

 In this line, the CPHPL Protected Area Management Plan is designed fitting and
responsive to the provisions of the NIPAS act of 1992. This shall serve as the basic
framework for site-specific development priorities and activities for the protected area and as
guide for operations and necessary funding. The implementing rules and regulations of the
law as embodied in DENR Administrative Order No. 26 series of 2008 that states that: a) the
plan shall promote the adoption and implementation of innovative management strategies
such as management zones; buffer zones for multiple use and protection; habitat conservation
and rehabilitation, biodiversity management, community organizing, socio-economic and
scientific researches; site specific policy development; post management and fire control; b)
the plan shall provide protection of indigenous cultural community domains and interest and
for the rights of tenured migrants; and c) the plan shall create closer coordination between
and among the DENR, local government, the private sector and the general populace.

Corollary thereto, the plan features varied community development approaches that
are place-specific or fitting to the needs of the protected are. This includes community-based,
participatory and all of society processes and co-management schemes. These approaches are
seen as tools that will gauge the promotion of sustainable livelihood opportunities for the
locals that are supportive of biodiversity conservation and protection. Given the magnanimity
of environmental duties and responsibilities at hand, the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources is somehow delimited of financial and human resources to fully realize the
goals and objectives. Because of these, linkages and partnerships with the local residents, the
LGUs, other government agencies and other stakeholders are tapped in the over-all
management and implementation of the Plan through Memorandum of Agreements (MOA)
and other documents. The Plan is anchored on the goal of biodiversity conservation and
protection which is the foremost priority above all other activities identified.

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 9

3.2 Threats/Stressors

Those surveyed were asked to identify the threats that were present and affecting
CPHPL and if possible, rank these threats according to their impact on the protected area.
The results show that the two highest threats identified by 18 PAMB members are storms and
flooding and housing and settlement (Table 1).

The KIIs and FGDs, revealed a number of challenges constraining effective PA

management and indicated which threats are more consistent with the realities on the ground.
The major specific challenges and threats to effective PA management most frequently
identified, and having direct correspondence to some of the threats listed in the METT, were
Storms and flooding, increasing human settlements and establishments within the PA,
Logging and Wood Harvesting and Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals.

Table 1. Top threats in CPHPL based on the number of responses.

Frequency of Responses
Threats No
High Medium Low NA
Data

1. Storms and flooding 72% 28% 0 0 0

2. Housing and Settlement 56% 22% 22% 0 0

3. Household Sewage and
50% 28% 22% 0 0
Urban Waste water
4. Logging and Wood
50% 6% 44% 0 0
Harvesting
5. Hunting, killing and
44% 33% 22% 0 0
collecting terrestrial animals
6. Gathering Terrestrial Plants
44% 28% 28% 0 0
or Plant Product
7. Habitat shifting and
44% 33% 22% 0 0
alteration
8. Droughts 39% 28% 33% 0 0
9. Loss of Support to 39% 22% 39% 0 0
communities and projects
due to changes of political

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 10

 leadership

Table 1.1 Top threats in CPHPL based on weighted average.

Frequency of Responses Average

Threats
High Medium Low No Data NA
1. Storms and
flooding 13 5 0 0 0
2. Housing and
Settlement 10 4 4 0 0
3. Household Sewage
and Urban Waste 9 5 4 0 0
water

4. Logging and Wood

9 1 8 0 0
Harvesting

5. Hunting, killing
and collecting 8 6 4 0 0
terrestrial animals

6. Gathering
Terrestrial Plants 8 5 5 0 0
or Plant Product
7. Habitat shifting
and alteration 8 6 4 0 0

8. Droughts 7 5 6 0 0
9. Loss of Support to
communities and
projects due to 7 4 7 0 0
changes of
political leadership

Consequently, these threats have been known and fully incorporated in the
formulation of CPHPL Management Plan. Storms and flooding are natural threats identified
to be affecting the whole of the PA. Considering that CPHPL is in the Northern Part of
Eastern Visayas, experiencing the effects of storms yearly, flooding hazards were identified
by the respondents to be present in the barangays of the Cag-anahaw, Pilar, Barral, Dawo,
Bayo and Macatingog. Household sewage and urban waste water were also identified to be
present in in the densely populated barangays of the PA, although these were also seen in the

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 11

other component barangays, and housing and settlement, in the more populated barangays of
the PA.

Based on the KII, the most significant threat/stressor in the management of the
CPHPL is the lack of equipment and permanent PA personnel, Logging and Wood
Harvesting, lack/poor implementation and enforcement of PA laws, and Hunting, killing and
collecting terrestrial animals within the PA. Management strategies to reduce the threats as
identified by the PAMB members or respondents include:

1. Storms and Flooding

- Reforestation / rehabilitation
- IEC on environmental conservation and protection
- Strengthen the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council through
provision of logistics and rescue team training
- Presentation of flood and landslide prone areas

2. Housing and Settlement

- Resettlement/Relocation area/Socialized housing
- Issuance of tenurial instrument
- Skills development training
- Alternative livelihood

3. Logging and Wood Harvesting, lack/poor implementation resources

- Strict enforcement / advocacy of forestry laws
- Strengthen the Deputized Environment and Natural Resources Officer through
various trainings and seminars
- Trainings/seminars to other Brgy officials and tanod as Deputized Wildlife
Enforcement Officer

4. Household sewage and Urban Waste Water

- Implementation of RA 9003 (Solid Waste Management Act) with high penalties
to violators
- IEC on proper waste management

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 12

3.3 Management Effectiveness Assessment

Under this are relative data on management effectiveness based on identified and duly
set forth elements and/or criteria.

3.4 Context

Table 2. Frequency and Percentage of Respondents for Context Element

No. of Total
Element Question No. Score Percentage
Respondents Score
1) Does the 0 0 0 0
protected area 1 0 0 0
Context have legal 2 0 0 0
status? 3 18 54 100%
Total Context 54 100%

Context provides the relevant background information needed to plan and implement
management and to shape and focus an evaluation on the most important aspects of
management. CPHPL MEA rating result for Context is 100%. The maximum score for this
element was achieved (see Table 2). The result sprung from the fact that during the conduct
of the MEA, the protected area, particularly the CPHPL, is already legislate by virtue of RA
11038 otherwise known as the Expanded NIPAS Act of 2018 amending RA 7586, NIPAS
Act of 1992. Given this, a relative 100% rating was recorded.

3.5 Planning

Table 3. Frequency and Percentage of Respondents for Planning Element

No. of Total
Element Question No. Score Percentage
Respondents Score
1. Are appropriate 0 1 0 5.56%
regulations in place to 1 2 2 11.11%
control land use and 2 7 14 38.89%
Planning
activities (e.g.,
3 8 24 44.44%
hunting)?

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 13

2) Is management 0 0 0 0
undertaken 1 2 2 11.11%
according to agreed 2 13 26 72.22%
objectives? 3 3 9 16.67%

3) Is the protected 0 1 0 5.56%

area the right size 1 2 2 11.11%
and shape to protect 2 11 22 61.11%
species, habitats,
ecological processes
and water
catchments of key 3 4 12 22.22%
conservations

4) Is there a 0 0 0 0
management plan 1 1 1 5.56%
and is it being 2 5 10 27.78%
implemented? 3 12 36 66.67%

3.1 The planning

process allows adequate
opportunity for key
stakeholders to +1 0 0 0
influence the
management plan

3.2 There is an
established schedule
and process for
+1 1 1 5.56%
periodic review and
updating of the
management plan.
3.3 The results of
monitoring, research
and evaluation are +1 10 10 55.56%
routinely incorporated
into planning.
3.4 Operations Manual
+1 3 3 16.67%
3.5 Enforcement
+1 0 0 0
Manual

5) Is there a regular 0 0 0 0
work plan and is it 1 4 4 22.22%
being implemented? 2 5 10 27.78%
3 9 18 50%

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 14

 6) Does land and water 0 0 0 0
use planning recognize 1 2 2 11.11%
the protected area and 2 16 32 88.89%
aid the achievement of
objectives? 3 0 0 0

Total Planning 240 74.07%

Planning as a management parameter, takes into consideration the design, guiding

framework and strategic direction management will take to achieve the ultimate goal and
purpose of the protected area. There are six target areas being assessed: 1) regulations
controlling resource use, 2) objectives of management, 3) PA design, 4) management plan, 5)
work and financial plan (WFP), and 6) planning as an aid to achieving the objectives.
Additional bonus questions are given.

Based on the MEA assessment, the rating for planning element was 74.07%. Basic to
the planning component is the management plan and its overall quality in terms of vision,
mission and goal.

The vision of CPHPL Management Plan Calbayog Pan-as Hayiban Protected

Landscape as a representative sample of the forest, river, and cave biodiversity landscape and
unique natural scenic areas of national or international significance providing sustained
ecological services and opportunities for equitable and sustainable development and avenues
for stakeholder participation and empowerment on its management and its goal and
objectives are:

Calbayog Pan-as Hayiban Protected Landscape biological diversity (genetics, species

and ecosystem levels) protected and conserved thereby sustaining its ecological services
and socio-economic benefits derived from the sustainable use of natural resources

1. To delineate and demarcate the boundary of the PA with permanent and visible
markers following the passage by the Congress of the RA 11038.
2. To adopt and implement management zoning modalities, which shall safeguard
the biodiversity of CPHPL from destructive and unsustainable exploitations while

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 15

 supporting local community needs for land tenure security, basic social services
and sustainable livelihood.
3. To continuously enforce an integrated resource protection framework that will
sustain the participation of communities and other stakeholders in protecting the
forest, rivers, and caves, and other ecologically important resources of CPHPL
from illegal, destructive and/or inappropriate uses.
4. To enhance the habitat, watershed and other ecological functions of CPHPL
through restoration and/or rehabilitation of open and denuded areas; inadequately
stocked and logged over sites; critical watersheds and wildlife habitats with the
active participation of different stakeholders.
5. To update the biodiversity information of CPHPL through regular monitoring and
continuing research and the findings of which form part of the basis in coming out
with management options and decisions.
6. To sustain the implementation of conservation awareness activities that would
heighten the appreciation of local communities and the public in general on the
biodiversity importance of CPHPL so as to gain broader support for its
conservation and protection.

Calbayog Pan-as Hayiban Protected Landscape established as a complimentary

ecotourism destination in the region, where strong community participation, local
benefits and conservation education are promoted with effective visitors’ management
system and ecologically appropriate physical structures;

1. To initiate social preparation and capacity building of local communities and other
stakeholders in providing effective ecotourism services that would likewise offer
them with additional and sustainable livelihood alternatives in pilot ecotourism
areas.
2. To develop and install compatible and appropriate visitors/s facilities that will
enhance the natural features of CPHPL ecotourism areas and promote
conservation education and values.
3. To design and implement pilot and site-based ecotourism events and products that
will promote the ecotourism program of CPHPL.

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 16

 4. To establish network and coordination with concerned government and non-
government institutions for the marketing and promotion of the CPHPL
ecotourism.
5. To conduct carrying capacity and feasibility studies of other areas with high
ecotourism potentials and opportunities so as to develop additional ecotourism
sites.
Opportunities and mechanisms provided to institutionalize a gender sensitive and
community-based resource management paradigm and to support the improvement of
the quality of life of tenured migrants and other resource-dependent communities of the
PA.

1. To facilitate the organizing of communities in areas where no existing people/s

organizations and/or strengthening of existing community organization/s
involving men and women. If any, capacitate them to become effective resource
managers and partners in the conservation and protection of CPHPL.
2. To boost the economic capacities of tenured migrants and other resource-
dependent communities of the PA by providing opportunities and measures
for the adoption of non-destructive and sustainable livelihood practices or
economic enterprises that would mitigate threats to the biodiversity and the
environment, in general.
3. To assist tenured migrants in accessing and availing legal and locally appropriate
land tenure instruments so as to create sense of belongingness and stewardship
among them over areas covered by CPHPL, while providing humanitarian
considerations to address the occupancy of non-qualified tenured migrants
4. To establish network and coordination among government and non-government
institutions for the delivery of necessary basic social service requirements of
tenured migrants and other resource-dependent communities of CPHPL.

A CPHPL with a strengthened and operational management system supported with

legislative measures that provides funding support and ensures broad-based
stakeholder participation.

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 17

 1. To strengthen and sustain the operation of the PAMB, as well as the PA
Management Office with competent personnel and provided with necessary
logistical and financial resources and appropriate facilities.
2. To advance the management and technical capacities of PAMB, PAMO staff and
other stakeholders in protected area management.
3. To enlist the participation of stakeholders in the management of CPHPL through
installation of partnership and/or co-management arrangements in the
implementation of the CPHPL Management Plan.
4. To harmonize biodiversity and sustainable development needs of CPHPL to the
larger development landscape of Samar by integrating the management plan to
short and long-term development plans and legislative agenda of local
governments, national agencies and other concerned institutions.
5. To carry out resource mobilization strategies that would respond to the
sustainability of CPHPL management operations.
6. To formulate and enforce policies and guidelines that will ensure the conservation
and protection of the PA.
7. To develop and implement a participatory monitoring and evaluation system so as
to enhance the management system of CPHPL.

Activities specified in the Work and financial plan of CPHPL have their relations to
the translation of the goal and objectives of the management plan. Seemingly, the Work and
Financial Plan for 2021 cover Protected Area Development and Management activities such
as, however not limited to, Strengthening/Operationalization of PAMB members otherwise
termed as PAMB Operationalization, Implementation of Biodiversity Monitoring System
(BMS), Communication, Education and Public Awareness Program, Maintenance of PA
facilities. These activities constitute the realization of the management plan.

The Expanded NIPAS law allows for gating as well as permitting mechanisms to
regulate resource access and use in the PA. These are in the form of demarcation, resolutions,
laws and ordinances, permits/issuance of instruments coming from the PAMB, the LGU, and
the DENR. In terms of demarcation, it has been currently conducted. Resolutions are also
regularly formulated by the PAMB to control resource access and use while permits are
issued by the DENR Regional Office (CDD). The City of Calbayog is an active partner in
implementation of projects and programs of CPHPL-PAMO and the memorandum of

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 18

agreement signed between the DENR, the City of Calbayog, in ecotourism activities. The
strict protection and multiple use zones of the PA have not been delineated although land use
has been identified within the protected area.

3.6 Input

Table 4. Frequency and Percentage of Respondents for Input Element

No. of Total
Element Question No. Score Percentage
Respondents Score
1. Can staff (i.e., those 0 1 0 5.56%
with responsibility for 1 5 5 27.78%
managing the site) 2 8 16 44.44%
enforce protected area
rules well enough? 3 4 12 22.22%

2. Do you have enough 0 0 0 0

Input information to 1 6 6 33.33%
manage the area 2 10 20 55.56%
3 2 6 11.11%

3. Are there enough 0 1 0 5.56%

people employed to 1 6 6 33.33%
manage the protected 2 5 10 27.78%
area? 3 6 18 33.33%

4. Are staff adequately 0 0 0 0

trained to fulfil 1 3 3 16.67%
management 2 12 24 66.67%
objectives? 3 3 9 16.67%

5. Is the current budget 0 0 0 0

sufficient? 1 5 5 27.78%
2 9 18 50%
3 4 12 22.22%

6. Is the budget secure? 0 0 0 0

1 3 3 16.67%

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 19

 2 3 6 16.67%
3 12 36 66.67%

7. Is equipment 0 1 0 5.56%
sufficient for 1 2 2 11.11%
management needs? 2 13 26 72.22%
3 2 6 11.11%

8. If fees (i.e entry fees or 0 1 0 5.56%

fines) are applied, do 1 1 1 5.56%
they help protected 2 9 18 50
area management? 3 7 21 38.89%
4.1 At least 20% of IPAF
is allocated to support
sustainable financing +1 0 0 0
activities.

Total Input 289 66.90%

Assessing input seeks to investigate the availability and adequacy of human resource,
social capital, facilities, information, financial, and equipment integral to effective
management. For the METT survey, assessing input as a management parameter included the
indicators of 1) staff capacity, 2) information or data, 3) number of personnel, 4) adequately
trained staff, 5) budget, 6) security of budget, 7) equipment, 8) fees.

The Input component scored a rating of only 66.90%. The reason that attributed to the
low rating is the lack of regular personnel in the PAMO of CPHPL. In terms of staffing,
CPHPL lack sufficient number of qualified technical and operational staff to ensure effective
PA management Only two (2) are regular staff including the Protected Area Superintendent
(PASu). Only five (5) contractual staff were hired to assist in the operation and other
activities of the protected area. There is also a need to further capacitate the staff to enhance
the technical capabilities and skills. Majority of the protected area staffs are contractual and
volunteers (Deputized ENRO). The position and designation of staff (e.g., administration,
field, technical, etc.) is not clearly provided. The number of personnel directly and actively
involved in the overall management of a protected area is not proportional to the size and
scope of work needed to effectively manage the CPHPL resources and address the threats.

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 20

 Enforcement CPHPL was perceived to be weak. The lack of manpower constrains the
Protected Area Management Office (PAMO) to effectively conduct regular patrolling,
monitoring, and enforcement activities. The fact that many of the major threats to effective
PA management earlier identified such as encroachment, illegal extraction of PA resources,
conversion of lands in agricultural plots, and increasing agricultural activities in the PA,
indicate serious weaknesses in enforcement capacities. The protection and enforcement
activities are present and effective, which have been mainly attributed to presence and
deputation of community members and established partnerships with local enforcement
agencies.
No entrance fees are being collected yet by the PAMO. But, the CPHPL-PAMB has
already collected the SAPA fee of the PA user within the CPHPL. The fee collected was
deposited to the IPAF account of CPHPL-PAMB.

Further, there is no service vehicle in CPHPL at present that can be used for
monitoring, and other protected area activities.

3.7 Process

Table 5. Frequency and Percentage of Respondents for Process Element

No. of Total
Element Question No. Score Percentage
Respondents Score
0 0 0 0
1. Is the boundary 1 2 2 11.11%
known and
2 5 10 27.78
demarcated?
3 11 33 61.11%

2. Are systems in place 0 3 0 16.67%

Process to control access/ 1 4 4 22.22%
resource use in the 2 9 18 50
protected area?
3 2 6 11.11%

3. Is there a 0 1 0 5.56%
programme of 1 8 8 44.44%
management- 2 4 8 22.22%
oriented survey and
research work? 3 5 15 27.78%

4. Is active resource 0 1 0 5.56%

management being 1 3 3 16.67%

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 21

 2 13 26 72.22%
undertaken 3 1 3 5.56%

5. Is the budget 0 0 0 0
managed to meet 1 2 2 11.11%
critical management 2 10 20 55.56%
needs? 3 6 18 33.33%

6. Is equipment 0 1 0 5.56%
adequately 1 2 2 11.11%
maintained 2 11 22 61.11%
3 4 12 22.22%

7. Is there a planned 0 1 0 5.56%

education 1 4 4 22.22%
programme linked 2 13 26 72.22%
to the objectives and
needs? 3 0 0 0

8. Is there cooperation 0 0 0 0
with adjacent land 1 9 9 50
and water users? 2 6 12 33.33%
3 3 9 16.67%

9. Do local 0 0 0 0
communities’ 1 2 2 11.11%
resident or near the 2 4 8 22.22%
protected area have
input to
management 3 12 36 66.67%
decisions?
5.1 There is open
communication and
trust between local
and/or indigenous 15 15 83.33%
people, stakeholders
and protected area +1
manager.
5.2 Programmes to
enhance community
welfare, while
9 9 50%
conserving protected
area resources, are +1
being implemented
5.3 Local and/or 9 9 50%
indigenous people
actively support the +1

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 22

 protected area.
10. Are management 0 0 0 0
activities monitored 1 3 3 16.67%
against 2 11 22 61.11%
performance?
4 12 22.22%
3

11. Do commercial tour 0 2 0 11.11%

operators contribute 1 1 1 5.56%
to protected area 2 4 8 22.22%
management? 3 11 33 61.117%

A. Are there special D 9

uses that will C
require the issuance
B 8
of a tenurial
instrument?
A 1

B. Existence of SAPA D 1
or other agreements C 14
for commercial B 1
resource users A 2

Total Process 430 72.39 %

The value of assessing process as a management effectiveness parameter is mainly

based on the importance it places on the standard of management within a protected area
system. In the METT survey, the key indicators identified to assess process are: 1) boundary
delineation and demarcation, 2) systems to control PA access and use, 3) program of
management-orientated survey and research work, 4) active resource management, 5) budget,
6) equipment, 7) objective/needs-based education program, 8) co-operation with adjacent
land and water users, 9) inputs from local communities, 10) performance monitoring, and 11)
inputs from commercial tour operators. This is the component which has the greatest number
of questions.
For this element, CPHPL got an average score of 72.39%. This is because PA
boundaries are still on the process of demarcation. The location of the two (2) management
zones of the CPHPL have been identified in the management plan but has not been verified
on the ground. High scores were obtained from the planned education programme linked to

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 23

the objectives and needs and active resource management being undertaken. This is because
of the active role of the CPHPL-PAMO and the CPHPL-PAMB.

There is a good and harmonious relationship among the members of the PAMB, and
between the PAMB and DENR. Currently, the PAMB-CPHPL consists of 30 members with
the DENR Regional Executive Director serves as the chairman. A total of 15 members
composes the PAMB Technical Working Group (TWG). In terms of participation, there is
high participation from the stakeholders in the development of the management plans,
planning and monitoring.

3.8 Output/Outcomes

Table 6. Frequency and Percentage of Respondents for Output/Outcomes

No. of Total
Element Question No. Score Percentage
Respondents Score
1. Is the protected area 0 0 0 0
providing economic 1 6 6 33.33%
benefits to local 2 9 18 50%
communities, e.g.,
income, employment,
payment for 3 2 6 11.11%
environmental
services?

Output/ 2. Are visitor facilities 0 2 0 11.11%

Outcomes adequate? 1 5 5 27.78%
2 7 14 38.89%
3 4 12 22.22%

3. What is the condition 0 0 0 0

of the important 1 2 2 11.11%
values of the 2 12 24 66.67%
protected area as
compared to when it 3 4 12 22.22%
was first designated?

6.1 The assessment of the +1 13 13 72.22%

condition of values is
based and/or monitoring

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 24

 6.2 Specific management
programmes are being
implemented to address
threats to biodiversity, +1 9 9 50%
ecological and cultural
values.
6.3 Activities to maintain
key biodiversity,
ecological and cultural +1 10 10 55.56%
values are a routine part
of park management

Total Output 131 80.86 %

The primary indicator for output as a management effectiveness parameter focused on

the presence or absence of a visitors’ center. Output element evaluates the delivery of
services and product. This is only evaluated in terms of adequacy of visitor facilities. More
respondents said that visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of
visitation. This is possibly because the PA itself does not have a visitor center, cottage to
house the visitors who want to stay overnight, picnic shed although there are waterfalls in the
PA.

Outcomes as a management parameter indicate whether the goals and objectives of

management in a particular protected area were achieved. The overall METT and KII and
FGD results show that there is a mixed level of awareness and observations on what the
outcomes are and whether they have been achieved. It is difficult to determine accurately
whether the CPHPL goals, purpose and objectives were achieved. There are essentially two
outcome indicators being measured by the METT and these are (a) economic returns, and (b)
increase in biodiversity. The rating for Output and Outcomes element was 80.86%.

Summary and Recommendations

The overall average METT percentage score was calculated at an average of 73.05%.
However, the general observations and feedback from the KIIs and FGDs indicate that the

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 25

METT results are overestimations of the actual situations and further clarifies many of the
key challenges and opportunities that substantiate the METT survey results. The overall
management effectiveness CPHPL surveyed is “GOOD”.

Based on the Key Informant Interviews conducted, most of the respondents believe
that effective management of the protected area can be achieved with sufficient/adequate
funding. Other management interventions identified were, trainings for staff and PAMB
members, the creation of permanent positions which will focus only on activities of the PA,
better coordination of management activities, and logistical support especially for mobility of
PA staff. Also been identified is the strengthening of enforcement teams, policy support, and
provision of necessary management equipment. Weaknesses/gaps are inevitable but to be
improved through realizations of plans, adequate staffing with trainings and strengthened
enforcement for protection and conservation.

There is a need to make PA management meaningful to poor communities in order for them
to fully participate in conservation and protection efforts. Specific recommendations are
grouped into key focal areas of (a) Institutions and Governance, (b) Financing, (c)
Partnerships, and (d) Management and Operations.

Institutional/Governance

Membership composition in the PAMB needs to have a firm and strong technical and
operational capacity such that PA management is implemented in a more professional
manner.

Financing

Financing PA management remains a serious challenge given the scope and extent of
management needs, and the limited resources available. One strategy to ensure appropriate
and timely financing would be to seek ways and means for developing incentives that would
attract social entrepreneurs.

Partnership

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 26

 A key recommendation to ensure effective PA management is building strong
partnerships with LGUs. It was noted that LGUs have enormous powers and authorities over
their resources, hence they can leverage change if guided properly.

Management and Operations

Effective PA management should always begin with accurate technical information.

DENR should consider employing current and practical technologies to provide up-to-date
visual assessments of forest cover and land use. With the right information, it may be easy to
get the media and other forms of communication to share data will serve well in advocating
protected area management. This indicates the importance of effective communication and
advocacy in PA management.

Figures below shows the results of CPHPL MEA results of 2021.

Context

100%

50%
Output Planning

0%

Process Input

Figure 3. PA Management Effectiveness Result 2021

To address the weaknesses in management that emerged during the MEA, the
following activities and their respective outputs (Table 7) were suggested by the participants:

Table 7. Recommended Interventions to Improve CPHPL Management Effectiveness

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 27

 PROPOSED
MEA Component OUTPUT
ACTIVITIES
Management Zoning Delineation of Strict Protection Zone
and Multiple-use zone

Strict protection zones (SPZs) and

PLANNING multiple use zones (MUZs) must be
incorporated in the Comprehensive
Land Use Plans (CLUP) of LGU
Calbayog City
Designation of Buffer Zone Buffer Zone Designated
IPAF Generation and Approved fees system (user’s fee,
Utilization visitor’s fee), areas for ecotourism
identified, MOA for benefits sharing
scheme between DENR and LGU
INPUT Calbayog City.
SAPA fee collected and to be
collected
PAMB and Staff Capacity Study tours, seminars on ENIPAS,
Building Tour Guide trainings for staff
Staffing CPHPL staff manual, increased staff
Management-Oriented Surveys & research such as carrying
Survey & Research capacity, willingness to pay,
vulnerability studies, Stock
PROCESS Enhancement Activities and
Trainings, Community level of
awareness on CPHPL.
Protection Systems Forest Protection Plan
Patrolling Patrolling Plan, Uniforms,
PA Equipment Service vehicle and BMS equipment
Information Center, Cottage, Picnic
OUTPUT Visitor Facilities
Shed and Camp site

Prepared by:

For. DENNIS DELOS SANTOS

Forester -III/PASu, CPHPL

Noted by:

For. ELSIE M. BORJA

OIC, CENR Officer

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 28

Annex I. List of Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) Members/Respondents on
the Management Effectiveness Assessment

Year of
Office/Departmen appointment
No. Name Designation
t as PAMB
members
1 For. Tirso P. Parian Jr., CESO IV PAMB Chairman/ DENR Region VIII 2020
Regional Executive
Director
2 Hon. EDGAR MARY S. Congressman, 1ST Congress 2019
SARMIENTO District Samar
Alternate: Councilor of LGU Calbayog
Hon. CHARLITO L. COÑEJOS Calbayog City City, Samar
3 Hon. REYNOLDS MICHAEL T. Governor Province of Samar 2019
TAN
Alternate: PERMO Province of Samar 2020
For. WILFREDO LACAMBRA
4 Hon. DIEGO P. RIVERA City Mayor LGU Calbayog 2021
City, Samar
Alternate: City ENRO LGU Calbayog 2021
Mr. LORENZO RAS, JR. City, Samar
5 Mr. LORD BYRON P. Regional Director OCD RO VIII 2020
TORRECARION
Commanding Officer, 43rd INF
Battalion
6 PNP Calbayog City CCPS Chief PNP Calbayog City 2021
7 MYLENE C. ROSALES Regional Director NEDA RO VIII 2019
Alternate: NEDA RO VIII
Mrs. GRACE ARTECHE
8 ANGEL C. ENRIQUEZ, CESO III Regional Director DA RO VIII 2020
9 ENGR. ERNESTO M. GRANADA Regional Director DOST RO VIII 2020

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 29

10 Dr. BENJAMIN PECAYO, MD University President NWSSU/Academe 2019
Alternate: Instructor NWSSU/Academe
Mrs. ROSALINA TARRAYO
11 Hon.MA. CHRISTINA BALUNAN Chairwoman Brgy Barral 2018
12 Hon. AGUSTIN J. ANQUILAN Chairman Brgy. Pilar 2018
13 Hon. MYRA PARIDO Chairwoman Brgy. Bayo 2018
14 Hon. MA. CHRISTINA Chairwoman Brgy. Dawo 2018
TAMOYANG
15 Hon. ANITA A. MADAMBA Chairwoman Brgy. Roxas 2018
16 Hon. ROGELIO R. CASTILLO Chairman Brgy. Macatingog 2018
17 Hon. ANGELO GARALZA Chairman Brgy. Cag-anahaw 2018
18 Hon. LUCIA TAN Chairwoman Brgy. San Rufino 2018
Alternate: Barangay Treasurer Brgy. San Rufino 2020
Mr. DIONESIO CATALAN
19 Hon. ALBERTO DOQUIDOC JR.- Chairman Brgy. Can-gumaod 2018
20 Hon. Chairman Brgy. Tinaplacan 2018
21 Hon. SOFRONIO LABIAN Chairman Brgy Pena I 2018
22 Hon. JOVITO ROSALES Chairman Brgy. Mantaong 2018
23 Hon. ELIZABETH DURO chairwoman Brgy. Danao II 2018

24 Hon. SAYDE A. JULITO JR. Chairman Brgy. Santander, N. 2018

Samar
25 Mrs. Rosario R. Gonzaga Private Sector New
26 Mr. JAPSER YBANES Governor/ President KRAEFI/NGO Renewal
2017
27 Mrs. LETECIA GARALZA PO President CUFA/PO New
28 Mrs. MERLA A. ROSALADO President Religious Group New
29 Mr. PACENCIO YBAÑES PO Member KRAEFI/NGO New
30 Mrs. ELIZABETH B. JULATON PO President THIFA/PO New

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT 2021 30