United Nations Environment Programme

environment for development

 
Division of Environmental Law and Conventions
Manual on Compliance with and Enforcement of Multilateral Environmental Agreements
Alert someone to this resource Leave Feedback Home > Enforcement > Institutional Frameworks > Designation of Responsibilities > Case Study
Participatory Management and Monitoring of Protected Areas in the Philippines

In the Philippines, protected areas are established and managed through the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS). Participatory management for each established protected area is central to effective implementation of the NIPAS.

Management of each protected area is supervised by a Protected Area Management Board (PAMB). The Board is composed of representatives of the various local stakeholders such as the DENR Regional Executive Director, the Provincial Development Officer, representatives from the Municipal Government, the Barangay, tribal communities, concerned NGOs, and other agencies in the area. The members are formally appointed by the DENR Secretary and serve for a term of five years, without compensation. If a protected area has a large PAMB membership, the PAMB creates an Executive Committee which is chaired by the Regional Technical Director or Provincial Officer of the DENR and composed of at least two representatives from the local government, concerned NGOs, and indigenous communities.

There are a total of 162 PAMBs in the country that meet regularly to discuss the plans and programmes of their respective protected areas. Involvement of local stakeholders in protected area management through the PAMB has improved public support for the protected areas and the management decisions. Indeed, the public has participated at the early stages of establishing many protected areas and developing the management plans.

The Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS) was designed to improve the information available for decisionmakers in protected areas through the regular collection of data, focusing on priority species and natural resource utilisation. The stakeholders involved in the implementation of the BMS are the 1) PAMB, 2) protected area staff, and 3) local communities (including local non-government and peoples’ organisations). The PAMB responds to issues that are identified through the BMS process and undertakes appropriate management measures to address these issues. The PAMB also ensures that the necessary administrative and financial mechanisms are in place to implement the BMS. The protected area staff are involved in the actual monitoring of biodiversity and regularly report information and recommendations to the PAMB. The local people and communities actively participate in the biodiversity monitoring process through regular focus group discussions with the protected area staff. By this means, they report their observations on the status of biodiversity and their use and offer suggestions on how certain biodiversity and protected area management issues may be addressed. Local communities are also involved in the actual implementation of activities to protect and conserve biodiversity.

The first two years of BMS implementation (1999-2001) yielded promising results in eight protected areas in which the BMS was first applied. In that period, 156 documented management interventions had been implemented on the ground. These activities addressed issues of biodiversity conservation, such as sustainable land and resource use, habitat management and protection, and protection of conservation-dependent species. A total of 105 PAMB resolutions and decisions, including ordinances issued by municipal and barangay councils as well as tribal councils, were passed.

The BMS strengthened the participation of the local stakeholders in the management of the eight sites. The protected area staff work closely with 350 community volunteers to monitor the status of biodiversity and resource use on a regular basis. Together, they discuss their observations and cooperate in the implementation of follow-up actions. All these efforts have contributed to improving the effective management of the protected areas.

For more information, contact Ms. Meriden Maranan at planning@pawb.gov.ph

A A Print this page
Search the Manual
Guidelines Search
Case Studies Search
» More Search Tools
Resources for
Guideline 41(a)
Case Studies
Kenya’s Environmental Institutional Framework
Jamaica’s Natural Resources Conservation Authority
Vertical Designation of Enforcement Responsibilities for Enforcing Pollution-Control Laws in the United States
Mapping Brazil’s Coral Reefs
Participatory Management and Monitoring of Protected Areas in the Philippines
Remote Sensing and other Emerging Information Sources
Mekong River: Sub-Regional Environmental Information and Monitoring System
Recording of Environmental Violations in The Gambia
Indian Government Environmental Information System
Public Disclosure of Corporate Environmental Performance in Ghana
Use of Affidavits in Argentina’s Water Law
Self-Monitoring Required by U.S. Environmental Laws
Brazil’s Participatory Process for Gathering Information on Biodiversity
Capacity Building for Judicial Officers and Practitioners in Uganda
Court-Appointed Experts in Croatia
Federal Sentencing Guidelines in the United States
UNEP’s Judges Programme
Specialised Environmental Administrative Tribunals and Prosecutors in the United States
EU Forum of Judges for the Environment
Cameroon’s Efforts to Strengthen the Capacity of Magistrates and Other Legal Officers
Checklists
Checklist for Prosecuting Environmental Cases
Checklist for Assistance to Courts
Additional Resources
Additional Resources For Monitoring And Evaluation
© UNEP | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Site Map