2nd ASEAN HERITAGE PARKS CONFERENCE AND THE 4TH … · Regional Conference for Protected Areas, 23-27 April 2007, Sabah, Malaysia. ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity ... Issues Relating

2nd ASEAN HERITAGE PARKS CONFERENCE AND THE 4TH REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA 1

PROCEEDINGS

2nd ASEAN HERITAGE PARKS

CONFERENCE and the

4th REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia23-27 April 2007

ii PROCEEDINGS

Recommended citation

ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, BirdLife International, Haribon Foundation, and Sabah Parks (2008). Proceedings of the 2nd ASEAN Heritage Parks Conference and 4th Regional Conference for Protected Areas, 23-27 April 2007, Sabah, Malaysia.

ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) is a regional inter-governmental centre of excellence of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) for policy formulation and coordination, capacity development, awareness raising and linkage building with networks of institutions in Southeast Asia.

ISBN: 978-971-94164-0-1

Published by the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, with funding from the European Union. Date of Printing: June 2009In house printing by ACB

Developed and produced by the ACB Publications Team

Monina T. Uriarte, PhD Bridget P. Botengan Sahlee Bugna-Barrer Nanie S. Gonzales Rhia C. Galsim

2nd ASEAN HERITAGE PARKS CONFERENCE AND THE 4TH REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Organizers .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ix ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity..........................................................................................................................................................................ix Birdlife International .................................................................................................................................................................................................ix IUCN-WCPA-SEA .............................................................................................................................................................................................................x Sabah Parks ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................x

Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................xi

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ xiii

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Background and Context ...........................................................................................................................................................................................1 Objectives of the Conference ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Methodology........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Participants .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Synthesis of the Opening Programme

Welcome Addresses ......................................................................................................................................................................................................4 Keynote Address ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Conference Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................................................6

Synthesis of Conference Papers 1. Report on the 1st ASEAN Heritage Parks Conference .........................................................................................................7 2. Programme of Work on Protected Areas: Progress and Prospects ...........................................................................7 3. Country Reports ....................................................................................................................................................................................................8 4. Gap Analysis Workshop Results: National and Regional Action Points ...........................................................18 5. Report on Capacity Building Series 2: Management Effectiveness Assessment.......................................20 6. The ASEAN Guidelines on Competence Standards for Protected Area Jobs: A Tool for Developing Capacity Building Programmes for ASEAN Heritage Parks Staff ...................................20

iv PROCEEDINGS

7. ACB’s Biodiversity Information Management: Moving Information Forward in 2007 ......................21 8. Sabah and Its Protected Areas and Introduction to the Field Trips .....................................................................21 9. Scaling Up: Protecting the Global Centre of Marine Biodiversity in the Coral Triangle ...................22 10. Status of Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia..........................................................................................................22 11. Integrating Fisheries and Habitat Management in the UNEP/GEF Habitat Demonstration Sites .......................................................................................................................................................................................22 12. Sulu Sulawesi Seascape: Securing Globally Important Marine Ecosystems .................................................23

Synthesis of Parallel Sessions 1. Communication and Community Relations in Protected Area Management .............................................24

1.1 Communication and Community Relations in Singapore’s Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve .....................................................................................................................................................................................24 1.2 ASEAN Heritage Parks: The Best Practices and Lessons in Protected Area Management .................................................................................................................................................24 1.3 Communication and Community in Kaeng Krachan National Park ......................................................... 25 2. Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas ...............................................................................................26 2.1 Land Use Confl ict Management in Samar Island Natural Park, Philippines ....................................26 2.2 Land Use and Natural Resources Confl ict: The Case of Suku Kulawi, Marena, Central Sulawesi Provinsi .........................................................................................................................................26 2.3 Traditional Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas

in Virachey National Park, Kok Lak Commune ......................................................................................................... 27 2.4 Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas in The Land of Papua:

Lorentz National Park ........................................................................................................................................................................ 27 3. Information Sharing and Knowledge Management on Protected Areas .........................................................30 3.1. World Database on Protected Areas ......................................................................................................................................30 3.2. Protected Area Learning Network ...........................................................................................................................................30 4. Gap Analysis for Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia ......................................................................................30 4.1 Marine Protected Areas: Inputs to the Gap Analyses for the Southeast Asian Region ...........30 4.2 Status of Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia - What Next? .............................................................31 5. Indigenous Peoples in Protected Area Management .......................................................................................................33 5.1 Engaging Indigenous People in Protected Area Development, Functioning and Management: Case Study – Hoang Lien Son Project .................................................33 5.2. From the Ground Up: Documenting Subsistence Pattern in Buayan-Kionop Community Use Zone, Crocker Range Park, Sabah ...............................................................................................33 6. Sustainable Financing for Protected Areas ................................................................................................................................ 35 6.1 Sustainable Financing for Protected Areas .....................................................................................................................35 6.2 Papua Civil Society Support Foundation ...........................................................................................................................35 7. Capacity Development for Better Protected Area Management .............................................................................. 37 7.1 Training Course on Biodiversity – BIOTROP Training and Information Centre Experience .................................................................................................................................................................................. 37 7.2 Master in Public Management, Major in Protected Area Management in the Philippines.................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 8. Biodiversity Monitoring for Terrestrial PAs .............................................................................................................................39 8.1 Monitoring Asia’s IBAs .....................................................................................................................................................................39 8.2 Biodiversity Monitoring System in Protected Areas in the Philippines ................................................39 8.3 Towards Site Level Monitoring in Lao PDR ..................................................................................................................40 9. Managing World Heritage Sites in Southeast Asia ..............................................................................................................41 9.1 World Heritage Sites in Southeast Asia: Strengthening Integrated Conservation and Development at the Regional Level ............................................................................................................................41 9.2 Komodo National Park (A World Heritage Site), Indonesia ............................................................................42 9.3 The Evolving Management of the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras: Focus on the Ifugao Rice Terraces ..........................................................................................................................................42

2nd ASEAN HERITAGE PARKS CONFERENCE AND THE 4TH REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA v

10. Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas in Southeast Asia ..........................................44 10.1 Introduction to Management Effectiveness Evaluation ....................................................................................44 10.2 Policy Challenges to the Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas ...................................................................................................................................................................................44 10.3 MPA-Management Effectiveness: A Case Study from Viet Nam ...............................................................44 10.4 The Application of RAPPAM Tool in Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45 11. Biodiversity Monitoring for Marine Protected Areas........................................................................................................ 47 11.1 Building Community-Based Marine Protected Area Monitoring.............................................................. 47 11.2 Monitoring Stakeholder Perceptions to Improve Effectiveness of MPA Management ........................................................................................................................................................................ 47 11.3 Biodiversity Monitoring of Marine Protected Areas .............................................................................................48 12. Sustainable Livelihood and Equity in Relation to Protected Areas ......................................................................49 12.1 The Segama Conservation Area – A Case for Stewardship .............................................................................49 12.2 Sustainable Tourism and Protected Areas – Thailand .......................................................................................49 12.3 Achieving Conservation Through Community Participation and Poverty Reduction: Nha Trang Bay Case Study .............................................................................................................................50 12.4 Livelihood Inputs as a Tool to Deliver on Conservation Objectives at the Natmataung National Park ...........................................................................................................................................................................................50 13. Issues Relating to Application of IUCN Categories for Protected Areas.......................................................... 52 13.1 Application of IUCN Categories for Protected Areas in Sabah, Malaysia .......................................... 52 13.2 IUCN Protected Area Categories ............................................................................................................................................ 52 13.3 The National Integrated Protected Areas System in the Philippines and the IUCN Categorie ................................................................................................................................................................. 52 13.4 Protected Area Categories in Thailand .............................................................................................................................53

The Regional Action Plan for ASEAN Heritage Parks and Other Protected Areas .................................................................54

Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................................62

Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................63

Photo Documentation ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................64 Directory of Participants, Guests and Resource Persons ...............................................................................................................................68

Figures 1. CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas ............................................................................................................................7 2. Process for Developing Occupational Standards for Protected Areas in ASEAN ....................................20 3. Priority Marine Protected Areas of Outstanding Universal Values ......................................................................23

Tables 1. List of ASEAN Heritage Parks .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Distribution of Participants ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 3. Summary of Country Reports ................................................................................................................................................................... 9 4. Regional Action Points: Communication and Community Relations in Protected Area Management ............................................................................................................................................................ 25 5. Regional Action Points: Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas ................................ 27 6. Regional Action Points: Information Sharing and Knowledge Management on Protected Areas ............................................................................................................................................................................................31 7. Regional Action Points: Gap Analysis for Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia ...............................................................................................................................................................................................32

vi PROCEEDINGS

8. Regional Action Points: Indigenous Peoples in Protected Area Management ...........................................34 9. Regional Action Points: Sustainable Financing for Protected Areas ................................................................. 35 10. Regional Action Points: Capacity Development for Better Protected Area Management ................ 37 11. Regional Action Points: Biodiversity Monitoring for Terrestrial Protected Areas .................................40 12. Regional Action Points: Managing World Heritage Sites in Southern Asia .................................................43 13. Regional Action Points: Management Effectiveness Assessment of PAs in SEA .....................................45 14. Regional Action Points: Biodiversity Monitoring of MPAs .........................................................................................48 15. Regional Action Points: Sustainable Livelihood and Equity in Relation to Protected Areas .........51 16. Regional Action Point: Issues Relating to Application of IUCN Categories for Protected Areas .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 53 17. Regional Action Plan for ASEAN Heritage Parks and Protected Areas ............................................................54 Contents of the CD (All paper/powerpoint presentations are contained in the CD that comes with this publication. The CD is inside the packet attached to the inside back cover.) Annexes A. Conference Papers 1. Report on the 1st ASEAN Heritage Parks Conference 2. Programme of Work on Protected Areas: Progress and Prospects 3. Country Reports 4. Gap Analysis Workshop Results: National and Regional Action Points 5. Report on Capacity Building Series 2: Management Effectiveness Assessment 6. The ASEAN Guidelines on Competence Standards for Protected Area Jobs: A Tool for Developing Capacity Building Programmes for ASEAN Heritage Parks Staff 7. ACB’s Biodiversity Information Management: Moving Information Forward in 2007 8. Sabah and Its Protected Areas and Introduction to the Field Trips 9. Scaling Up: Protecting the Global Centre of Marine Biodiversity in the Coral Triangle 10. Status of Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia 11. Integrating Fisheries and Habitat Management in the UNEP/GEF Habitat Demonstration Sites 12. Sulu Sulawesi Seascape: Securing Globally Important Marine Ecosystems B. Parallel Sessions Papers 1. Communication and Community Relations in Protected Area Management

1.1 Communication and Community Relations in Singapore’s Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve 1.2 ASEAN Heritage Parks: The Best Practices and Lessons in Protected Area Management 1.3 Communication and Community in Kaeng Krachan National Park 2. Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas 2.1 Land Use Confl ict Management in Samar Island Natural Park, Philippines 2.2 Land Use and Natural Resources Confl ict: The Case of Suku Kulawi, Marena, Central Sulawesi Provinsi 2.3 Traditional Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas

in Virachey National Park, Kok Lak Commune 2.4 Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas in The Land of Papua:

Lorentz National Park 3. Information Sharing and Knowledge Management on Protected Areas 3.1. World Database on Protected Areas 3.2. Protected Area Learning Network 4. Gap Analysis for Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia 4.1 Marine Protected Areas: Inputs to the Gap Analyses for the Southeast Asian Region 4.2 Status of Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia - What Next?

2nd ASEAN HERITAGE PARKS CONFERENCE AND THE 4TH REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA vii

5. Indigenous Peoples in Protected Area Management 5.1 Engaging Indigenous People in Protected Area Development, Functioning and Management: Case Study – Hoang Lien Son Project 5.2. From the Ground Up: Documenting Subsistence Pattern in Buayan-Kionop Community Use Zone, Crocker Range Park, Sabah 6. Sustainable Financing for Protected Areas 6.1 Sustainable Financing for Protected Areas 6.2 Papua Civil Society Support Foundation 7. Capacity Development for Better Protected Area Management 7.1 Training Course on Biodiversity – BIOTROP Training and Information Centre Experience 7.2 Master in Public Management, Major in Protected Area Management in the Philippines 8. Biodiversity Monitoring for Terrestrial PAs 8.1 Monitoring Asia’s IBAs 8.2 Biodiversity Monitoring System in Protected Areas in the Philippiness 8.3 Towards Site Level Monitoring in Lao PDR 9. Managing World Heritage Sites in Southeast Asia 9.1 World Heritage Sites in Southeast Asia: Strengthening Integrated Conservation and Development at the Regional Level 9.2 Komodo National Park (A World Heritage Site), Indonesia 9.3 The Evolving Management of the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras: Focus on the Ifugao Rice Terraces 10. Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas in Southeast Asia 10.1 Introduction to Management Effectiveness Evaluation 10.2 Policy Challenges to the Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas 10.3 MPA-Management Effectiveness: A Case Study from Viet Nam 10.4 The Application of RAPPAM Tool in Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas 11. Biodiversity Monitoring for Marine Protected Areas 11.1 Building Community-Based Marine Protected Area Monitoring 11.2 Monitoring Stakeholder Perceptions to Improve Effectiveness of MPA Management 11.3 Biodiversity Monitoring of Marine Protected Areas 12. Sustainable Livelihood and Equity in Relation to Protected Areas 12.1 The Segama Conservation Area – A Case for Stewardship 12.2 Sustainable Tourism and Protected Areas – Thailand 12.3 Achieving Conservation Through Community Participation and Poverty Reduction: Nha Trang Bay Case Study 12.4 Livelihood Inputs as a Tool to Deliver on Conservation Objectives at the Natmataung National Park 13. Issues Relating to Application of IUCN Categories for Protected Areas 13.1 Application of IUCN Categories for Protected Areas in Sabah, Malaysia 13.2 IUCN Protected Area Categories 13.2 The National Integrated Protected Area System in the Philippines and the IUCN Categories 13.4 Protected Area Categories in Thailand

2nd ASEAN HERITAGE PARKS CONFERENCE AND THE 4TH REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA ix

THE ORGANIZERS

ASEAN CENTRE FOR BIODIVERSITYThe ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) is an intergovernmental regional centre

of excellence of the ASEAN for policy formulation, capacity development, awareness raising and linkage building with networks of institutions in the ASEAN. The Centre is a development and continuation of the ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation (ARCBC). The overall objective of the ACB is to enable the ASEAN to meet the call by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to achieve a signifi cant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by the year 2010.

ASEAN CENTRE for BIODIVERSITY3/F ERDB Bldg., UPLB Forestry CampusCollege, Laguna 4031 PhilippinesTelefax : (6349) 536-2865 / (632) 584-4246Email: [email protected]: www.aseanbiodiversity.org

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONALBirdlife International is a global partnership of conservation organizations that

thrives to conserve birds, their habitats and global diversity, working with people towards sustainability in the use of natural resources. Birdlife partners operate in over one hundred countries and territories worldwide and collaborate on regional work programmes in every continent. It has been working in protected area management in collaboration with the ASEAN governments even before the Conventional on Biological Diversity (CBD). Birdlife has identifi ed the Important Bird Areas (IBA) for all of Asia following a globally accepted set of criteria. Recently, it has embarked to complement this effort by identifying an additional set of sites called Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) that represent other signifi cant faunal groups in most countries in the ASEAN region.

BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL2/F, Santos and Sons Building973 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City1109 PhilippinesEmail: [email protected] [email protected]: www.birdlife.org/worldwide/national/philippines/index.html

x PROCEEDINGS

IUCN-WCPA in the SEAThe World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) is one of six Commissions

of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The mission of the IUCN’s WCPA is “to promote an effectively managed, representative system of marine and terrestrial protected areas as an integral part of IUCN mission.” WCPA and its partners strive to provide leadership on protected areas issues to governments, NGOs, communities, and other key stakeholders. Emphasizing its power to convene a diversity of actors, WCPA works by bringing science, knowledge and experience to bear on decision-making to address the existing challenges and on future issues and opportunities in order to realize a common vision “that society fully recognizes and supports the importance of protected areas in the 21st Century by securing key places for biological and cultural diversity, promoting equity and justice, maintaining the quality of the environment, and ensuring the sustainable use of the natural resources for poverty reduction, food and water security, and the prevention of confl icts.”

IUCN HeadquartersRue Mauverney 28, Gland 1196, Switzerland

Email: [email protected]

[email protected]

Website: www.iucn.org

www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa

SABAH PARKSSabah Parks is a government institution of the State of Sabah, Malaysia.

Sabah Parks has jurisdiction and supervision over national parks including the management, development and protection of the proclaimed national parks of the State. Sabah State Parks are reserves that have been set aside in their natural condition for unimpaired maintenance. These include Kinabalu Park, Turtle Islands Park, Tunku Abdul Rahman Park, Pulau Tiga Park, Tawau Hills Park, and Crocker Range Park. Almost every major habitat in Sabah is represented in the six State parks. These support a vast array of plant and animal species that are unique, rare and of great signifi cance, including many species found nowhere else in the world.

SABAH PARKS

P.O. Box 10626, 88806

Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

Tel: +6088-212719

+6088-221001

2nd ASEAN HERITAGE PARKS CONFERENCE AND THE 4TH REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2nd ASEAN Heritage Parks (AHP) Conference was conducted back-to back with the 4th Regional Conference for Protected Areas in Southeast Asia on 23-27 April

2007 in Sabah, Malaysia. The Conference reviewed the AHP Programme, in particular its components, namely: 1) Capacity development; 2) Information sharing network; 3) Technical staff exchange program; 4) Promotion of tourism; 5) Participation in joint research programme; 6) Bi-annual conference of managers; and 7) Management improvement programme. The Conference also reviewed the actions taken in relation to the strategic directions set out at the 2003 World Parks Congress V held in Durban, South Africa and the Programme of Work (PoW) on Protected Areas (PAs) approved at the 7th Conference of Parties (CoP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

The Conference brought together 223 participants composed of the heads and staff of PA and AHP management authorities; offi cials and representatives of international and local non-government organizations, and other PA practitioners.

The Conference identifi ed regional actions for protected areas in relation to meeting the Durban Accord and the commitments in the PoW on PAs and the AHP Programme; and strengthened the management of the network on protected areas in the Region with special focus on AHPs.

Specifi cally, the Conference reviewed the status of protected area management in the SEA region, shared experiences, imparted best practices, identifi ed problems and issues and formulated a common regional strategic direction to respond to the challenges in the sustainable use of biodiversity, access and sharing equitably the benefi ts from biodiversity and conservation of biodiversity.

Various issues and concerns with regard to PA management came up. Among these were: the recognition of the role of indigenous and local communities in PA management and the provision of technical and fi nancial support for them to conduct cultural environmental

xii PROCEEDINGS

impact assessment/monitoring; management of wastes generated from ecotourism activities in PAs; marketing and promotion of AHPs; need for regional cooperation/mechanisms; strengthening of the capacity building program for PA management; and regional certifi cation for logging, wildlife trade and destructive fi shing methods as necessary tools for better management of PAs.

The parallel sessions came up with issues, lessons learned and recommendations on how to move the work forward in relation to the PoW for PAs. The 13 parallel sessions were:

1. Communication and Community Relations in Protected Area Management2. Land Use and Conflict Management in Protected Areas 3. Information Sharing and Knowledge Management on Protected Areas4. Gap Analysis for Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia 5. Indigenous Peoples in Protected Area Management 6. Sustainable Financing for Protected Areas7. Capacity Development for Better PA Management8. Biodiversity Monitoring for Terrestrial PAs 9. Managing World Heritage Sites in Southeast Asia 10. Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas in Southeast Asia11. Biodiversity Monitoring for Marine Protected Areas 12. Sustainable Livelihood and Equity in Relation to Protected Areas13. Issues Relating to Application of IUCN Categories for Protected AreasThe Conference drafted the Regional Action Plan for AHPs and PAs of SEA that would

complement and support national conservation initiatives toward the conservation and management of protected areas. The proceedings of the conference will serve as reference in defi ning and selecting priority activities in the AHPs and PAs.

The following are the key areas for action proposed for the ASEAN region:• Establishment and strengthening of national and regional systems of PA

management integrated into a global network as a contribution to globally agreed goals;

• Establishment and strengthening of regional networks, thereby promoting equity and benefi t sharing and integrating PAs in broader land and seascapes;

• Promotion of improved site-based PA planning and management and capacity building of PA staff through appropriate technology transfer;

• Assessment, monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness of PA management and development and adoption of minimum standards and best practices for national and regional PAs, and ensuring that scientifi c knowledge contributes to the effectiveness of PA systems;

• Enhancement and securing involvement of indigenous and local communities in PAs and strengthening communication, education and public awareness; and ensuring fi nancial stability.

2nd ASEAN HERITAGE PARKS CONFERENCE AND THE 4TH REGIONAL CONFERENCE OF PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA xiii

ACRONYMS

ACB ASEAN Centre for BiodiversityADB Asian Development BankAHP ASEAN Heritage ParkAIPP Asia Indigenous People’s PactAMS ASEAN Member StatesARCBC ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity ConservationASEAN Association of Southeast Asian NationsASOEN ASEAN Senior Ministers for the EnvironmentAWGNCB ASEAN Working Group on Nature and Conservation of BiodiversityBBEC Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystem ConservationBMS Biodiversity Monitoring System BPAMB Biodiversity Protected Area Management ProjectCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCB-MPA Community-based Marine Protected AreaCCA Community Conserved AreaCEPA Communication, Education and Public AwarenessCHM Clearing House MechanismCI Conservation InternationalCITES Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and FaunaCOBSEA RCU Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia Regional Coordinating UnitCoP Conference of PartiesCPA Community Protected AreaCTC Coral Triangle CenterCUZ Community-Use ZoneDENR Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesEC European CommissionEIA Environment Impact AssessmentEMS Environment Management Systems EPP Ecosystems PAs and People ProjectEU European UnionGEF Global Environment FacilityGMI Global Marine InitiativeHLSP Hoang Lien Son ProjectIBA Important Bird AreasICM Integrated Coastal ManagementICRAN International Coral Reef Action NetworkIEC Information, Education and CommunicationIP Indigenous PeoplesIUCN International Union for the Conservation of NatureKBA Key Biodiversity AreaMBCC Marine Biodiversity Conservation CorridorMEA Management Effectiveness AssessmentMEAs Multilateral Environmental AgreementsMEE Management Effectiveness Evaluation

xiv PROCEEDINGS

MPA Marine Protected AreaNCSA National Capacity Self-AssessmentNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas SystemNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNP National ParkPA Protected AreaPALNet Protected Area Learning NetworkPAMANA Ka Sa Pilipinas Pambansang Alyansa ng Maliliit na Mangingisda ka sa Pilipinas PAMB Protected Area Management BoardPAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife BureauPCSSF Papua Civil Society Support FoundationPoW Programme of WorkRECOFTC Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacifi cRAPPAM Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Areas ManagementRNHP Regional Natural Heritage ProgrammeRWG-F Regional Working Group on FisheriesSBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientifi c, Technical and Technological AdviceSBWR Sungei Buloh Wetland ReserveSEACMPA Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected AreasSEAFDEC Southeast Asian Fisheries Development CenterSEA Southeast AsiaSHCA Species/Habitat Conservation AreaSINP Samar Island Natural ParkSSS Sulu-Sulawesi SeascapeTNC The Nature ConservancyTNLL Lore Lindu National Park (Indonesia)UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization USAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentWB World BankWCPA World Commission on Protected AreasWDPA World Database on Protected AreasWCMC World Conservation Monitoring CentreWHS World Heritage SitesWWF World Wide Fund for Nature / World Wildlife Fund for NatureWPC World Parks Congress


OVERVIEW

Background and ContextThe ASEAN Heritage Parks (AHP) embody the

aspirations of the peoples of Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam to conserve their natural heritage that represent the bounty and diversity of living organisms of their nations. The abundance of these diverse biological resources also ensures the continuous fl ow of goods and ecosystems services for the benefi t of the present and future generations. Thus, the ASEAN Ministers of the Environment all signed the ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks on 18 December 2003, wherein the ASEAN Member States (AMS) agreed that “common cooperation is necessary to conserve and manage the ASEAN Heritage Parks for the development and implementation of regional conservation and management action plans as well as regional mechanisms complementary to national efforts to implement conservation measures”. They likewise defi ned the criteria for the selection of AHPs that

resulted in the increase in the number of AHPs from 11 to 27. Table 1 shows the list of AHPs.

The 1st ASEAN Heritage Parks Conference was held in Khao Yai National Park, Thailand in April 2004, where it was recommended that the AHP Conference be conducted every two years.

The 2nd AHP Conference was held back to back with the 4th Regional Conference on Protected Areas in Southeast Asia from 23 to 27 April 2007 in Sabah, Malaysia. The PA heads and staff reassessed their programmes of activities based on the global programmes and directions adopted during the 5th World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa in September 2003 and also in compliance with the Programme of Work (PoW) on Protected Areas (PAs) of the 7th Conference of Parties (CoP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). They also gained knowledge from the experiences of other conservation experts and practitioners from other parts of the ASEAN and international organizations.

2 PROCEEDINGS

Durban Action Plan: During the World Parks Congress V in Durban, South Africa in September 2003, the participants crafted the Durban Action Plan as a priority response to the global environmental social and economic challenges of the modern world to PA management. Priority targets under the Durban Action Plan included a strengthened role for PAs in implementing the CBD through a participatory mechanism and in full compliance of the rights of indigenous peoples and youth population. The management of all PAs would also be reviewed to determine if links exist with all the world’s ecosystems. The World Heritage List would be drawn up in all sites whose biodiversity values are outstanding and universal. Support would be generated for effective systems of management and communication and education strategies.

Convention on Biological Diversity: The CBD was adopted by 189 countries and the European Community in 1992. It is the most important legal instrument addressing PAs through national and multinational PoW on PAs. The Conference of Parties (CoP) of the CBD was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2004, a few months after the World Parks Congress. The priorities in the Durban Action Plan and the targets

in the Durban Accord were used as reference by the CBD and brought about the PoW on PAs. The PoW moves the global agenda farther and sets ambitious targets for the Parties to the Convention towards better PA management.

Both the Durban Action Plan and the PoW on PAs of the CBD were vital to the formulation of the Regional Action Plan for ASEAN Heritage Parks and Other Protected Areas during the 2nd AHP Conference.

Objectives of the ConferenceThe overall objectives were to:

1) identify regional actions for the PAs in ASEAN Member States in meeting the targets in the Durban Accord and the commitments to the PoW on PAs of the CBD and the AHP Programme; and

2) strengthen the management of the network of PAs with special focus on the AHPs.

The specifi c objectives were to: 1) assess the status of PA management in

the ASEAN region; 2) share and document best practices and lessons

in PA management;

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM • Tasek Merimbun National Park

CAMBODIA • Preah Monivong (Bokor) National Park • Virachey National Park

INDONESIA • Leuser National Park • Kerinci Seblat National Park • Lorentz National Park

LAO PDR • Nam Ha Protected Area

MALAYSIA • Kinabalu National Park • Mulu National Park • Taman Negara National Park

MYANMAR • Alaungdaw Kathapa National Park • Inlay Lake Wildlife Sanctuary • Indawgyi Lake Wildlife Sanctuary

• Khakaborazi National Park • Lampi Marine National Park • Meinmahla Kyun Wildlife Sanctuary

PHILIPPINES • Mt. Apo National Park • Mts. Iglit-Baco National Park

SINGAPORE • Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve

THAILAND • Ao-Phangnga – Mu Koh Surin – Mu Koh Similan Marine National Parks • Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex • Khao Yai National Park • Tarutao National Park

VIET NAM • Ba Be National Park • Chu Mom Ray National Park • Hoang Lien Sa Pa National Park • Kon Ka Kinh National Park

Table 1. List of ASEAN Heritage Parks


Table 2. Distribution of Participants

3) present the outcome and progress report of the 1st AHP Meeting held in 2004; and

4) formulate specific regional actions for the conservation and management of the AHP.

MethodologyThe Conference was officially opened by key

officials from the ASEAN and the EU. Keynote address was given by Datuk Lamri Ali, Director of Sabah Parks.

Representatives from Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam presented their country reports that highlighted the unique biodiversity reources, status of implementation of the CBD PoW on PA and the current issues and challenges on PA management.

Conference papers on terrestrial and marine PAs specifically on gap analysis, management effectiveness, capacity development, data sharing and monitoring, and initiaives of NGOs, TNC and UNEP were also reported. An open forum and critiquing followed every presentation.

Participants and other experts were grouped for the parallel sessions to discuss situations/issues, lessons learned and recommendations on how

Country Government NGO International Organization Academe TOTAL

Brunei Darussalam 2 - - - 2

Cambodia 7 4 - - 11

Indonesia 15 10 4 - 29

Malaysia 57 19 - 3 79

Myanmar 7 2 - - 9

Lao PDR 1 0 - - 1

Philippines 11 20 10 3 44

Singapore 4 2 - 1 7

Thailand 14 4 3 1 22

Vietnam 11 3 - - 14

Australia - - - 1 1

Japan - 1 - - 1

Switzerland - - 1 - 1

United Kingdom - - 1 - 1

United States - 1 - - 1

129 66 19 9 223

to move forward in relation to the PoW on PAs timeline. Highlights of each group discussion were presented during the plenary sessions.

These reports were used as discussion papers during the plenary sessions. The outputs of these sessions then formed the basis for the formulation of the Regional Action Plan for ASEAN Heritage Parks and Other Protected Areas in the ASEAN.

ParticipantsThe workshop-conference had a total of 223

participants composed of Protected Area Managers of the AHPs and other parks in the ASEAN, conservation specialists in marine and terrestrial PAs, and heads and staff of PA agencies of the ASEAN. Malaysia sent 79 participants; the Philippines – 44; Indonesia -29; Thailand -22; Vietnam -14; Cambodia -11; Myanmar -9; Singapore -7; Brunei Darussalam-2 and Lao PDR -1. There were also participants from Japan, Europe, North America, Australia and USA.

Of the total, 58 percent represented government institutions working in the PA sector; 30 percent, NGOs; 8 percent, international organizations and 4 percent from the academic institutions. The distribution of participants is presented in Table 2.

The directory of participants and resource persons and guest is shown on page 68.

4 PROCEEDINGS

SYNTHESIS OF THEOPENING PROGRAMME

Offi cials from the State Government of Sabah, the European Delegation to the Philippines;

the Australian Embassy in Malaysia; the IUCN - the World Conservation Union, and the Birdlife International formally opened the Conference with messages.

Welcome Addresses

Paulus BasintalAssistant Director, Sabah ParksKota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

Mr. Basintal welcomed the participants and expressed deep appreciation for being given the opportunity to host the back-to-back conference. He also gave a brief background on the protected areas in Sabah, Malaysia. Mt. Kinabalu Park started as a protected area and the fi rst park ever gazetted in Sabah back in 1964. After 43 years, there are now seven national parks - three terrestrial and four marine parks - covering 3.6 percent of the total land area of Sabah.

Each park is considered to hold “Sabah’s natural heritage” since these have been selected for their “unique scenic and geographical or geological features through outstanding examples of fl ora and fauna”.

He concluded his report by mentioning the diffi cult task of protecting or managing these areas but also stressed the importance of owning this task for the benefi t of future generations.

Mike Rands CEO of BirdLife International (Message was read by Dr. Calvin Loh, Executive Director, Malaysian Nature Society,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)

BirdLife International is a partnership of over 100 national conservation NGOs that are cooperating to “save species, protect sites, conserve habitats and empower people for the purpose of conserving biodiversity”. To this end, BirdLife International has been active in various efforts supporting the

Convention on Biological Diversity Programme of Work in order that “implementation of the Convention is further advanced”.

The Birdlife partnership in Asia has identifi ed over 2000 globally Important Biodiversity Areas (IBA) in the region, out of which 43 percent still lack “any formal PA status”. These information are contained in the country IBA books that describe the identifi ed sites containing remarkable biological diversity using birds as indicator of overall diversity. A recent addition to this collection is the IBA book for Malaysia prepared by the Malaysia Nature Society, which identifi ed 55 sites covering 4.4 hectares as key sites for conservation. The documentation of key conservation sites in the country through the IBA programme allows for the identifi cation of gaps in PA coverage and strengthening of existing efforts for protected area management.

The IBA approach has helped pioneer the Key Biodiversity Area approach, which has been developed together with other conservation organizations around the world. This approach is also used for gap analysis for protected areas and is currently being fi eld-tested around the world.

Birdlife works with the IBA local conservation groups in implementing activities at the site to ensure that the IBAs are “maintained as community conservation areas”. This approach “seeks to foster genuine partnership with local communities to achieve conservation in important sites for biodiversity”.

Kari Markku LahtiProgramme Offi cer, IUCN Programme on Protected AreasGland, Switzerland

Mr. Lahti, in his opening statement on behalf of the recently appointed Director General of IUCN-World Conservation Union, Julia Marton-Lefevre, expressed his hope for a focused and successful conference. He also extended the apologies both of of the chair of the World Commission of Protected Areas (WCPA) Nikita Lopoukhine, and the Head of the Programme, David Sheppard, who could not make it to the Conference


due to overlapping commitments.He expressed his pleasure in seeing the 2nd ASEAN

Heritage Parks and 4th Protected Areas Conference develop into a very signifi cant conservation event within the region.

Mr. Lahti introduced IUCN and the areas of relevance for IUCN and, in particular WCPA, in Southeast Asia and how it draws its membership from governments and non-government organizations which enables it to act as a “neutral forum” to discuss key conservation issues. The IUCN, with its networks of volunteers organised into six Commissions, gets its sources of technical expertise and advice from more than 10,000 Commission members from around the world. Most ASEAN nations are state members or members of IUCN, and have been associated in one way or another with most of the regional conferences on nature conservation and protected areas.

The IUCN takes the lead in striking a balance between the conservation of nature and sustainable development, using scientific evidence for their actions to infl uence decisions and policy actions.

The regional meetings and workshops are of great importance in the implementation of the thematic areas of WCPA especially the CBD PoW for PAs since there have been too little efforts on the local side when compared to the global approach.

He expressed IUCN’s wish to see that the Conference will provide guidance and will be a facilitator for future cooperative actions that will bring together the most active range of players in PAs. The outcome of the Conference will lead to actions that will be mainstreamed into the broader agendas of the ASEAN nations.

Penny WilliamsAustralian High Commission in Malaysia(The message was read by Ms. Anabelle Plantilla, Executive Director, Haribon Foundation, Philippines)

The Australian Government’s commitment to support biodiversity conservation through the Regional Natural Heritage Program (RNHP) is ”designed to support projects that help conserve biodiversity hotspots in Southeast Asia and the Pacifi c”. Under the RNHP, the Australian Government

has released over $9million to support 51 projects in Southeast Asia and the Pacifi c. The RNHP aims to “maximize the impact of the biodiversity conservation work by focusing its efforts and resources in areas with high concentrations of endemic species and high rates of habitat destruction”.

Juan EchanoveEnvironmental Adviser and Project Offi cer for the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity, EC Delegation to the Philippines

Mr. Echanove enumerated the reasons for the “immense importance” attributed to Southeast Asia with respect to biodiversity and the increasing global concern for its current state. Thus, in support of the ASEAN governments’ thrust to address issues on biodiversity loss at the regional level, the European Union funded the ASEAN Regional Center for Biodiversity Conservation (ARCBC) Project in the mid-1990s to promote knowledge sharing and best practices and common efforts on biodiversity. One major output of the Project is the Guidelines and Criteria for the Establishment of the ASEAN Heritage Parks, which was eventually approved by the ASEAN Ministries of Environment. The Project has also been involved in the process for the Standardization of Habitat Classification for ASEAN and the preparatory process of the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Access to Biological and Genetic Resources.

Upon completion of the Project, the stakeholders felt the need to create a permanent institution to “strengthen the capacity of the ASEAN Member States in the formulation and coordination of biodiversity-related policy, strategy and action, fulfi ll relevant treaty obligations and promote and advance common positions on matters related to biodiversity conservation, management and sustainable use of natural resources.” Thus, in 2005, the EC provided fi nancial assistance to the ASEAN Secretariat for the creation of the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity.

Mr. Echanove shared that the “EC support to ACB refl ects our strong commitment to biodiversity conservation” and in strengthening the partnership with ASEAN.

6 PROCEEDINGS

Keynote Address

Datuk Lamri AliDirector, Sabah ParksSabah, Malaysia

Mr. Datuk Lamri Ali expressed his gratitude to the organisers for choosing Sabah to host the event. He welcomed all the delegates to the auspicious gathering of conservation experts from Southeast Asia and other parts of the globe and briefed them on the Sabah concept of a PA. The concept of protected areas is not alien to Sabah as the local people of Sabah protect their water catchment and spring areas and also prohibit fishing in certain areas in a practice called ‘bombon’ or ‘tagal’. The local people also keep the forest areas and its adjacent areas intact as these are considered sacred. Thus, during the time of gazetting of forest reserves and state parks, the process was “readily embraced by the people”. The local people’s regard for conservation contributed to the highly successful efforts on Nature Conservation and Protected Areas in the State.

Sabah has one of the best systems and networks of PAs in the region as reflected in the JICA-funded paper prepared by WWF-Malaysia entitled, “Masterlist of Sabah Protected Areas, Recommended List with Background Discussion and Justification,” released in December 2006. The report shows that the 93 PAs identified in the study cover over 1.1 million hectares, which is equivalent to 15.95% of Sabah’s total land area. In Sabah, “not only is the percentage of coverage extensive but the habitats and species covered and the management effectiveness are impressive as well.”

Conference Overview

Cristi Nozawa Vice-Chair of the IUCN-WCPA–SEA and Partner Development Offi cer of BirdLife International in Asia

Ms. Nozawa discussed the importance of working together and having a back-to-back conference of the AHP and regional PAs. She emphasised the importance of the rich biodiversity of the Southeast Asian (SEA) region, which hosts 20% of the world’s biodiversity, and the signifi cance of the region’s rich and diverse cultures.

Out of the region’s 1,000 protected areas, there are only 27 AHPs, a fi gure that falls way below the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Program of Work target. The 27 AHPs are starting points for more heritage parks that would represent the biodiversity of the region. Thus, the PoW for PAs challenges all state parties to the CBD to go beyond the AHPs.

At the World Parks Congress held in 2003 at Durban and attended by over 3000 people, SEA was under represented in sharing lessons and best practices in PA management. This is a poor showing of the region compared to the 400+ participants from South America.

The ASEAN initiative and the World Parks Congress have both a commitment to share lessons across the region and “if there is a chance to share among the 27 AHPs then there should be a chance to share beyond it.” There is room for “better coordination, learning from each other and joint actions under the ASEAN”.

Ms. Nozawa explained the fl ow of the Conference and cited the CBD PoW and timelines as the bases for the session topics.


SYNTHESIS OF CONFERENCE PAPERS

Report on the 1st ASEAN Heritage Parks Conference

Roland Yap

Acting Executive Director (2006-May 2007)

ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity

Philippines

The results of the 1st AHP Conference held in Khao Yai, Thailand as well as the overall strategies and the AHP programme components were discussed.

ASEAN Heritage Parks are “protected areas of high conservation importance preserving in total a complete spectrum of representative ecosystems at the ASEAN level”. In December 2003, the ASEAN signed the Declaration of Heritage Parks where 27 parks across the region were declared as ASEAN Heritage Parks.

The fi rst AHP Conference was held in September 2004 where it sought to determine common cooperation to conserve and manage AHPs and develop and implement regional action plans complementary to and supportive of national initiatives. In the conference, the major strategies

and outputs were discussed. The full report is in Annex A1.

Programme of Work on Protected Areas: Progress and Prospects

Peter Shadie

Coordinator, Regional Protected

Areas Programme

IUCN Asia Offi ce

Bangkok, Thailand

The context for the Programme of Work (PoW) on Protected Areas (PAs) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Articles in the CBD containing the PA provisions, and the 2010 targets adopted in 2006 were discussed.

Figure 1 shows the PoW on PAs Timeline.The PoW on PAs provides a comprehensive

framework for PA action. Current initiatives across the globe as well as future prospects geared towards the implementation of the PoW were also discussed.

For Southeast Asia, the issues and challenges are the following: exceptionally rich biodiversity

Figure 1. CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas

8 PROCEEDINGS

– nature’s infrastructure; competition for access to finite land and resources in the face of rapid socioeconomic growth; degradation and over exploitation of natural resources through a range of change factors and threats; signifi cant gaps in protection of key ecosystems, habitats and species specially in marine environment; increasing pressure from tourism; trade in wildlife; lack of human and financial capacity to effectively manage existing PAs; inadequate considerations to livelihood issues resulting in variable and, at times, antagonistic relations between local communities and PAs; poor awareness and appreciation of the values and benefi ts of PAs; and increasing international attention and transboundary efforts.

The focus areas suggested include: optimizing regional approaches to build an ASEAN Heritage Site concept – scaling up and out; moving away from ‘business as usual’ to region-wide commitment to accelerate actions under PoW; making the region a global showcase for marine PA establishment and conservation; creating the conditions that enable a variety of PA governance mechanisms to support participatory management; and implementing an evaluative matrix to set baselines and measure toward the targets under the PoW.

The full report is in Annex A2.

Country ReportsThe country reports were presented by country

representatives, mostly Heads of the Protected Areas

Management Authority. Their reports described their respective countries, highlighting the unique biodiversity in their areas, status of implementation of the CBD’s PoW on PAs and the current issues and challenges being confronted by each country. Among the issues and concerns dicussed during the open forum are the following:

• Recognition of the role of indigenous peoples (IPs) in PA management

• Provision of technical and financia support for IPs to conduct cultural and environmental impact assessment monitoring;

• Management of wastes generated from tourism activities in the PAs;

• Marketing and promotion of AHPs;• Use of ACB (ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity)

indicators by countries for PA management effectiveness;

• Need for regional cooperation/mechanisms;• Strengthening of the capacity building

program for PA management;• Holding at least three regional activities

annually that address regional concerns in terms of PA management; and

• Adopting the regional certification on logging, wildlife trade and destructive fishing methods as necessary tools for PA better management.

The summary of the reports is presented in Table 3.



Tabl

e 3.

Sum

mar

y of

Cou

ntry

Rep

orts

Coun

try

Biod

iver

sity

Res

ourc

es

Man

agem

ent A

utho

rity

Stre

ngth

s Th

reat

s an

d Ch

alle

nges

Brun

ei D

arus

sala

m

By: M

r. S

amha

n Bi

n Ny

awa,

Park

Man

ager

of T

asek

M

erim

bun

Natio

nal P

ark

/ Cu

rato

r of N

atur

al H

isto

ry,

Brun

ei M

useu

ms

Depa

rtmen

t, M

inis

try o

f Cu

lture

, You

th a

nd S

ports

Tase

k M

erim

bun

Herit

age

Park

Ra

re a

nd e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s pr

otec

ted

by C

ITES

an

d Na

tiona

l Wild

life

Prot

ectio

n Ac

t: 8

horn

bills

; Ne

ofel

is n

ebul

osa;

Hel

arct

us m

alay

anus

; Hyl

obat

es

mul

lerii

; Tar

sius

ban

canu

s; N

yctic

ebus

cou

cang

; Ar

gusi

anus

arg

us; H

elia

eetu

s le

ucog

aste

r; Tr

ogon

opte

ra; T

roid

es s

pp. e

tc.;

Nepe

nthe

s am

pulla

ria; N

. bic

alca

rata

, N. g

raci

lis, N

. mira

bilis

, Aq

uala

ria b

ecca

riana

, Gon

ysty

lus

mai

ngay

i.

Curr

ent i

nven

tory

sho

ws

the

num

ber o

f spe

cies

of

the

follo

win

g:

Faun

a: f

resh

wat

er fi

sh (5

0), m

amm

als

(68)

, bird

s (1

48),

herp

etof

auna

(54)

, Lep

idop

tera

(181

), Od

onat

a (d

rago

nflie

s an

d da

mse

lflie

s (5

4) s

uch

as

one

ende

mic

spe

cies

of d

amse

lfly

(Eup

haea

amee

ka) a

nd th

e bi

gges

t - T

etra

cant

hagy

na p

lagi

ata

- and

the

smal

lest

- Na

nnop

hya

pygm

aea

- dr

agon

fly s

peci

es.

Flor

a: 8

00 p

lant

spe

cies

rec

orde

d su

ch a

s fo

ur

pitc

her p

lant

spe

cies

(Nep

enth

es a

mpu

llaria

, N.

mira

bilis

, N. b

ical

cara

ta a

nd N

. gra

cilis

), on

e sp

ecie

s of

Aga

r woo

d or

Gah

aru

(Aqu

alar

ia b

ecca

riana

), th

e m

ost t

hrea

tene

d sp

ecie

s; a

nd o

ne s

peci

es o

f Ram

in

(Gon

ysty

lus

mai

ngay

i).

Brun

ei M

useu

ms

Depa

rtmen

t, M

inis

try o

f Cu

lture

, You

th a

nd S

ports

De

partm

ent o

f For

estry

�

Min

istry

of P

rimar

y In

dust

ries

Man

agem

ent a

nd c

onse

rvat

ion

prog

ram

s in

pla

ce;

Adeq

uate

fund

ing

for a

ctiv

ities

as

�bl

ack

gold

stil

l flo

win

g;

No fi

rear

ms

sinc

e 19

62;

Man

y an

imal

s ar

e c

onsi

dere

d un

heal

thy

to e

at;

Tabo

o to

kill

cer

tain

wild

an

imal

s as

thes

e ar

e ei

ther

sa

cred

or c

ould

brin

g m

isfo

rtune

; and

St

rictly

no

logg

ing

with

in th

e pr

otec

ted

area

Pers

iste

nt g

athe

ring

of a

gar

woo

d/ g

ahar

u (A

qual

aria

becc

aria

na);

Wild

pla

nts

and

othe

r wild

life

are

illeg

ally

col

lect

ed;

Virtu

ally

no

Park

Ran

gers

Pol

ice

are

depl

oyed

to d

eal w

ith

pers

iste

nt v

iola

tors

.

Cam

bodi

a

By: M

r. D

arav

uth

Hong

Di

rect

or o

f Phn

om K

ulen

Na

tiona

l Par

k an

d Di

rect

or

of C

lust

er P

rote

cted

Ar

eas,

M

inis

try o

f Env

ironm

ent

Vira

chey

Nat

iona

l Par

k Fl

ora

(con

serv

atio

n st

atus

) Fa

una

(con

serv

atio

n st

atus

)

Prea

h M

oniv

ong

(Bok

or) N

atio

nal P

ark

Habi

tat T

ypes

: eve

rgre

en a

nd s

emi-e

verg

reen

fore

st

with

sm

alle

r are

as o

f mix

ed d

ecid

uous

and

de

cidu

ous

dipt

eroc

arp

fore

st; g

rass

, shr

ubs,

ba

mbo

oFl

ora:

(con

serv

atio

n st

atus

) ex.

Bur

retio

dend

ron

hsie

nmu

Faun

a: (c

onse

rvat

ion

stat

us)

Wild

life

Cens

us: A

d ho

c w

ildlif

e m

onito

ring

in

conj

unct

ion

with

NGO

s

Depa

rtmen

t of F

ores

try,

Min

istry

of A

gric

ultu

re

Depa

rtmen

t of P

rote

cted

Ar

eas,

Min

istry

of

Envi

ronm

ent

Man

agem

ent a

nd c

onse

rvat

ion

prog

ram

s ar

e in

pla

ce;

Prot

ecte

d ar

eas

are

esta

blis

hed;

Pr

esen

ce o

f int

erna

tiona

l or

gani

zatio

ns p

rovi

ding

te

chni

cal a

nd fi

nanc

ial

supp

ort;

and

Abun

dant

bio

logi

cal r

esou

rces

Parti

cipa

tion

in P

A M

anag

emen

t is

lim

ited;

In

adeq

uate

pol

icy

and

law

en

forc

emen

t in

certa

in p

rote

cted

ar

eas;

In

adeq

uate

num

ber a

nd le

ss

qual

ified

sta

ff;In

adeq

uate

or l

ack

of p

rogr

am to

im

plem

ent t

he p

olic

y to

inte

grat

e pe

ople

into

the

PA m

anag

emen

t sy

stem

.

10 PROCEEDINGS

Coun

try

Biod

iver

sity

Res

ourc

es

Man

agem

ent A

utho

rity

Stre

ngth

s Th

reat

s an

d Ch

alle

nges

Indo

nesi

a

By:M

r. N

oor H

iday

atDi

rect

or o

f Are

as

Cons

erva

tion,

Di

rect

orat

e Ge

nera

l of

Fore

st P

rote

ctio

n an

d Na

ture

Con

serv

atio

n,

Min

istry

of

Fore

stry

Lore

ntz

Natio

nal P

ark

Flor

a: A

nt h

ouse

pla

nts

- Myr

mec

odia

and

Le

cano

pter

is m

irabi

lis (f

ern)

- an

d ca

rniv

orou

s pi

tche

r pla

nts

- Nep

hent

es s

pp,

Casu

arin

a,

Dacr

ydiu

m, P

odoc

arpu

s, T

rista

nia,

Eug

enia

, Da

cryd

iu, P

odoc

arpu

s, T

rista

nia,

Eug

enia

, Sy

zygi

um; P

anda

nus;

Fre

ycin

etia

spp

, Sty

phel

ia

suav

eole

ns, P

apuz

illa

laet

eviri

dis,

Cys

topt

eris

sp,

Te

tram

olop

ium

klo

sii,

Rhac

omitr

ium

cris

pulu

m,

Bryu

m c

f. ru

gico

llum

and

Dis

tichu

m c

apill

aceu

m,

Styp

helia

sua

veol

ens

and

Vacc

iniu

m c

f. co

elor

um.

Faun

a (c

onse

rvat

ion

stat

us) :

Ab

out 1

23 o

f Pap

ua�s

172

mam

mal

s ar

e kn

own

or

are

expe

cted

to o

ccur

with

in th

e re

serv

e; 4

11 o

f 643

sp

ecie

s of

bird

s w

ith m

any

ende

mic

form

s (P

etoc

z,

1989

).Lo

rent

z Na

tiona

l Par

k co

vers

two

ende

mic

Bird

Ar

eas

(EBA

) with

a to

tal o

f 45

rest

ricte

d ra

nge

bird

sp

ecie

s an

d 9

ende

mic

bird

spe

cies

con

fined

to th

e Su

dirm

an ra

nge

and

the

Sout

h-Pa

puan

low

land

s EB

A.

Littl

e is

kno

wn

abou

t the

div

ersi

ty o

f am

phib

ians

but

ex

perts

est

imat

e th

e Pa

rk to

hou

se a

bout

150

sp

ecie

s of

am

phib

ians

and

rept

iles.

(Mom

berg

, M

amba

i, va

n No

ord;

199

8).

Gunu

ng L

euse

r Nat

iona

l Par

k Es

tabl

ishe

d as

a B

iosp

here

Res

erve

by

UNES

CO

Give

n AH

P st

atus

in 1

981

Al

ong

with

Ker

inci

Seb

lat a

nd T

N. B

ukit

Baris

an,

rece

ived

reco

gniti

on fr

om U

NESC

O in

200

4 as

a

Trop

ical

Rai

nfor

est H

erita

ge o

f Sum

atra

. Fa

una:

350

bird

spe

cies

; 36

of 5

0 �S

unda

land�

ende

mic

bird

spe

cies

; alm

ost 6

5% o

f 129

spe

cies

of

mam

mal

s, e

ither

big

or s

mal

l, in

Sum

atra

is

reco

rded

in L

euse

r.

Dire

ctor

ate

of F

ores

t Pr

otec

tion

and

Natu

re

Cons

erva

tion,

Min

istry

of

For

estry

Dire

ctor

ate

Gene

ral F

ores

t Pr

otec

tion

and

Natu

re

Cons

erva

tion,

Min

istry

of

Fore

stry

Gove

rnm

ent p

olic

ies

are

in

plac

e as

rega

rds

the

follo

win

g:

Com

batin

g ill

egal

lo

ggin

g;re

habi

litat

ion

and

cons

erva

tion

of fo

rest

re

sour

ces;

stre

ngth

enin

g th

e ec

onom

y an

d em

pow

erin

g of

loca

l co

mm

unity

;m

anag

emen

t ef

fect

iven

ess

of

prot

ecte

d ar

eas,

and

Pa

rtici

pant

s to

in

tern

atio

nal

cons

erva

tion

netw

orks

Man

agem

ent a

nd

cons

erva

tion

prog

ram

s ar

e in

pl

ace.

Fu

ndin

g fo

r man

agem

ent

impl

emen

tatio

n re

gula

rly

com

es fr

om c

entra

l go

vern

men

t, an

d si

nce

2006

, ad

ditio

nal f

undi

ng h

as b

een

prov

ided

by

the

Wor

ld

Herit

age

Cent

er a

nd th

e Sp

anis

h Go

vern

men

t (th

roug

h UN

ESCO

).

Com

plex

ity o

f PA

in te

rms

of

scal

e, n

umbe

r and

set

ting

(div

ersi

ty o

f cul

ture

s an

d ec

osys

tem

s);

Lim

ited

staf

f (nu

mbe

r and

ca

paci

ty);

Li

mite

d ac

cess

to in

form

atio

n te

chno

logy

;Li

mite

d ef

fect

iven

ess

in

com

mun

icat

ion

and

coor

dina

tion.

Stra

tegi

c pr

oble

ms

in th

e Pa

rk

can

be c

lass

ified

into

two.

Firs

t, lo

ggin

g in

Ace

h Te

ngga

ra h

as

encr

oach

ed in

to th

e Pa

rk. S

econ

d,

land

cla

ims

and

encr

oach

men

t for

sm

all-s

cale

and

big

-sca

le o

il pa

lm

plan

tatio

n in

Bes

itang

are

a,

Lang

kat D

istri

ct.

Tota

l deg

rade

d ar

ea is

est

imat

ed

at 2

2,00

0 he

ctar

es.


Coun

try

Biod

iver

sity

Res

ourc

es

Man

agem

ent A

utho

rity

Stre

ngth

s Th

reat

s an

d Ch

alle

nges

Indo

nesi

aKe

y fa

una

spec

ies

incl

ude

Sum

atra

n El

epha

nt

(Ele

phas

max

imus

sum

atra

nus)

, Tig

er (P

anth

era

tigris

sum

atra

e), R

hinc

eros

(Dic

eror

hinu

s su

mtre

nsis

) and

Ora

ngut

an (P

ongo

abe

lii) a

s w

ell a

s Ow

a(H

ylob

ates

lar)

, Ked

ih (P

resb

ytis

thom

asi)

and

othe

rs.

Flor

a: M

ore

than

4.0

00 fl

ora

spec

ies,

incl

udin

g 3

of

15 p

aras

ite p

lant

s, R

affle

sia,

and

the

talle

st fl

ower

in

the

wor

ld A

mor

phop

halu

s tit

aniu

m; a

hab

itat o

f m

any

med

icin

al p

lant

s.

Kerin

ci S

ebla

t Nat

iona

l Par

k (K

SNP)

lo

cate

d in

Sum

ater

a Is

land

, Ind

ones

ia a

nd

cove

rs 1

,389

,509

ha.

Th

e Pa

rk is

par

t of B

ukit

Baris

an M

ount

ain

Rang

e.at

leas

t 4 ty

pes

of e

cosy

stem

repr

esen

ted:

lo

wla

nd fo

rest

, hill

fore

st, m

ount

ain

fore

st

and

wet

land

.

Flor

a an

d Fa

una:

Mor

e th

an 4

,000

spe

cies

of

flora

, 80

spec

ies

of m

amm

als,

376

spe

cies

of

bird

s, 9

spe

cies

of p

rimat

es, 5

6 sp

ecie

s of

am

phib

ians

, and

50

spec

ies

of re

ptile

s ha

ve b

een

iden

tifie

d in

the

Park

. En

dang

ered

spe

cies

incl

ude

the

Sum

atra

n Ti

ger a

nd S

umat

ran

Rhin

o.

Dire

ctor

ate

Gene

ral F

ores

t Pr

otec

tion

and

Natu

re

Cons

erva

tion,

Min

istry

of

Fore

stry

Supp

ort t

o la

w e

nfor

cem

ent

has

been

giv

en b

y th

e M

inis

try o

f For

estry

, Pol

ice

Head

quar

ter O

ffice

, as

wel

l as

the

Polic

e at

the

prov

ince

and

di

stric

ts.

Fund

ing

for m

anag

emen

t im

plem

enta

tion

of K

SNP

regu

larly

com

es fr

om th

e ce

ntra

l gov

ernm

ent,

with

ad

ditio

nal f

undi

ng (f

rom

199

6 to

200

2) fr

om G

EF �

Wor

ld

Bank

thro

ugh

the

ICDP

pr

ogra

m.

Stro

ng s

uppo

rt fro

m th

e lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent,

loca

l pol

ice,

NG

O�s,

and

loca

l com

mun

ities

in

pro

tect

ing

the

park

.

Othe

r iss

ues

incl

ude

the

lack

of

tech

nica

l cap

abili

ty a

nd

infra

stru

ctur

e, li

mite

d op

erat

ion

fund

ing

supp

ort,

as w

ell a

s la

ck o

f st

rong

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

of P

ark

perfo

rman

ce.

Prob

lem

s fa

ced

by K

SNP

man

agem

ent a

re o

ften

inte

rrel

ated

an

d oc

cur d

ue to

com

bina

tions

of

man

y fa

ctor

s, s

uch

as th

e fo

llow

ing:

la

ck o

f con

serv

atio

n aw

aren

ess

amon

g th

e lo

cal p

eopl

e, th

e lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent,

and

also

the

natio

nal

gove

rnm

ent.

th

e ec

onom

ic a

nd p

oliti

cal c

rises

ha

s al

so a

ggra

vate

d th

e si

tuat

ion

by e

ncou

ragi

ng p

eopl

e to

exp

loit

park

reso

urce

s an

d cr

eatin

g a

situ

atio

n of

law

less

ness

.

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

hav

e no

t st

reng

then

ed la

w e

nfor

cem

ent i

n th

e Pa

rk b

ecau

se th

ey la

ck

awar

enes

s of

the

long

-term

ec

onom

ic c

osts

of f

ores

t de

stru

ctio

n.

the

six

maj

or th

reat

s to

the

Park

ar

e: e

ncro

achm

ent;

illeg

al lo

ggin

g,

whi

ch is

esp

ecia

lly h

ard

to d

eal

with

bec

ause

ther

e is

ofte

n a

lack

of

pol

itica

l will

to e

nfor

ce th

e la

w;

12 PROCEEDINGS

Coun

try

Biod

iver

sity

Res

ourc

es

Man

agem

ent A

utho

rity

Stre

ngth

s Th

reat

s an

d Ch

alle

nges

Indo

nesi

a

poac

hing

; the

ft of

non

-tim

ber

fore

st p

rodu

ct (N

TFP)

suc

h as

ra

ttan,

nes

ts o

f sw

iftle

t spe

cies

, ho

ney,

and

gah

aru;

sm

all s

cale

ill

egal

min

ing

of g

old;

and

road

co

nstru

ctio

n (p

oses

a v

ery

serio

us th

reat

to p

ark

inte

grity

be

caus

e it

can

impr

ove

acce

ss fo

r ill

egal

act

iviti

es s

uch

as il

lega

l lo

ggin

g, p

oach

ing,

and

en

croa

chm

ent.

Lao

PDR

By:S

avan

hCh

anth

akou

mm

ane

Head

of N

aito

nal P

A Un

it M

inis

try o

f Agr

icul

ture

and

Fo

rest

ry D

epar

tmen

t of

Fore

stry

20 N

atio

nal P

rote

cted

Are

as (N

PA) c

over

ing

3.4

mill

ion

ha o

r 14

% o

f the

tota

l lan

d ar

ea o

f Lao

PDR

. Se

ven

(7) h

abita

ts th

at a

re o

f hig

h in

tern

atio

nal

cons

erva

tion

sign

ifica

nce:

1)

Ever

gree

n Fo

rest

of t

he S

ai P

hou

Luan

g an

d Fo

othi

lls;

2)Ce

ntra

l Ind

ochi

na L

imes

tone

Kar

st;

3)Dr

y Di

pter

ocar

p Fo

rest

s in

the

Mek

ong

plai

n;4)

Boliv

en P

late

au;

5)No

rther

n Hi

ghla

nds;

6)

Mek

ong

Rive

r, an

d

7)Ot

her r

iver

s an

d st

ream

s

Spec

ies

dive

rsity

: 8,1

00 s

peci

es o

f flo

wer

ing

plan

ts; 1

66 s

peci

es o

f rep

tiles

and

am

phib

ians

; 430

sp

ecie

s of

bird

s; 9

0 sp

ecie

s of

bat

s; o

ver 1

00

spec

ies

of la

rge

mam

mal

s an

d 87

fam

ilies

of f

ish.

Min

istry

of A

gric

ultu

re

and

Fore

stry

Dep

artm

ent

of F

ores

try

NPA

man

agem

ent s

trate

gies

: Pa

rtici

pato

ry P

A m

anag

emen

t;

Co-m

anag

emen

t of P

As;

Land

use

pla

nnin

g an

d la

nd

allo

catio

n in

side

NPA

s;

Inte

grat

ed c

onse

rvat

ion

and

deve

lopm

ent;

and

Ec

otou

rism

.In

tern

atio

nal c

oope

ratio

n an

d pa

rtner

ship

with

the

Swed

ish

Inte

rnat

iona

l Dev

elop

men

t Co

oper

atio

n Ag

ency

, Dan

ish

Inte

rnat

iona

l Dev

elop

men

t Ag

ency

, Can

adia

n In

tern

atio

nal D

evel

opm

ent

Agen

cy, t

he In

tern

atio

nal

Unio

n fo

r the

Con

serv

atio

n of

Na

ture

, TRA

FFIC

, Wor

ld

Wild

life

Fund

for N

atur

e,

Wild

life

Cons

erva

tion

Soci

ety,

W

orld

Ban

k, a

nd o

ther

s St

rong

coo

pera

tion

with

ne

igbo

urin

g co

untri

es a

nd a

t bo

rder

che

ckpo

ints

to p

reve

nt

wild

life

trade

.

Hab

itat d

egra

datio

n du

e to

ag

ricul

ture

pra

ctic

es

Live

stoc

k gr

azin

g es

peci

ally

du

ring

the

dry

seas

on

Illeg

al tr

ade

of w

ildlif

e; ra

mpa

nt

com

mer

cial

hun

ting

and

fishi

ng

for r

are

spec

ies,

and

as

a re

sult

som

e sp

ecie

s su

ch a

s rh

ino

and

som

e tu

rtles

hav

e al

mos

t di

sapp

eare

d fro

m L

ao P

DR;

Co

mm

erci

al-s

cale

har

vest

ing

of

non-

timbe

r for

est p

rodu

cts

Ill

egal

logg

ing;

and

De

velo

pmen

t Pro

ject

s -

Hydr

opow

er g

ener

atio

n ca

n be

bo

th a

thre

at a

nd a

ben

efit

to

biod

iver

sity

. The

floo

ding

of l

arge

tra

cts

of la

nd fo

llow

ing

dam

co

nstru

ctio

n de

stro

ys h

abita

ts

and

plan

t pop

ulat

ions

and

di

spla

ces

wild

life.


Coun

try

Biod

iver

sity

Res

ourc

es

Man

agem

ent A

utho

rity

Stre

ngth

s Th

reat

s an

d Ch

alle

nges

Mal

aysi

a (P

enin

sula

r)

By: M

r. Z

ainu

ddin

AB

Shuk

orDi

rect

or, P

rote

cted

Are

a Di

visi

onW

ildlif

e De

partm

ent

Peni

nsul

ar M

alay

sia

Tam

an N

egar

a Na

tiona

l Par

k. T

he lo

wla

nd

dipt

eroc

arp

fore

st c

onst

itute

s ab

out 5

7.6

% o

f the

pl

ants

. Mer

anti

(Sho

rea

spp)

and

Ker

uing

(D

ipte

roca

rpus

spp

) are

com

mon

and

freq

uent

ly

occu

r in

asso

ciat

ion

with

the

tall,

but

tress

ed

Tual

ang

(Koo

mpa

ssia

exc

elsa

), th

e ta

llest

tree

in

Sout

hEas

t Asi

a. C

ultiv

ated

frui

t tre

es in

clud

e w

ild

duria

n(D

urio

spp

), pe

tai (

Park

ia s

pp),

tera

p (A

rtoca

rpus

spp

.), la

ngsa

t (La

nciu

m s

pp.),

ram

bai

(Bac

caur

ea s

pp.),

ram

buta

n (N

ephe

lium

spp

.),

mac

ang

(Man

gife

ra s

pp.),

man

gost

een

(Gar

cini

a sp

p.),p

utat

(Bac

caur

ea g

rifith

i), a

ra (F

icus

spp

.), a

nd

jam

bu(E

ugen

ia s

pp.).

Unde

rsto

rey

trees

and

shr

ub: E

upho

rbia

ceae

, Ru

biac

eae,

Ann

onac

eae,

with

Mem

ecyl

on s

pp.,

Helic

ia s

pp.,

Euge

nia

spp.

, Gar

cini

a sp

p., a

ndGi

ronn

iera

spp

. bei

ng ty

pica

l gen

era.

Ep

iphy

tes

incl

ude

pucu

k pa

ku (A

thyr

ium

escu

lent

um);

bird�s

nes

t fer

n (A

sple

nium

nid

us) a

nd

stag

horn

fern

(Pla

tyce

rium

cor

onar

ium

).

High

er e

leva

tion

spec

ies:

oak

s (F

agac

eae

spp.

) and

so

me

coni

fers

(Dac

rydi

um s

pp; P

odoc

arpu

s sp

p.,

and

Agat

his

spp.

); th

e sh

rub

laye

r: ra

ttan

and

dwar

f pa

lm s

peci

es (A

rega

spp

. and

Lic

uala

spp

.).Er

icac

eous

spe

cies

(R

hodo

dend

ron

and

Vacc

iniu

m

spp.

) pre

dom

inat

e at

the

sum

mit.

Rip

aria

n sp

ecie

s in

clud

e ne

ram

(Dip

tero

carp

us o

blin

gifo

lius)

,m

empe

ning

(Lith

ocar

pus

wal

linch

ianu

s), a

nd

bera

ngan

(Cas

tano

psis

spp

.).

Min

istry

of N

atur

al

Reso

urce

s

Colla

bora

tion

in P

A m

anag

emen

t acr

oss

natio

nal

boun

dary

; D

evel

opm

ent a

nd

impl

emen

tatio

n of

PA

Mas

ter

Plan

; Id

entif

icat

ion

of b

iom

es;

Es

tabl

ishm

ent o

f new

PAs

;De

velo

pmen

t of N

atio

nal

Ph

ysic

al P

lan

- man

datin

g th

e in

tegr

atio

n of

pro

tect

ed a

reas

in

to la

ndsc

apes

and

sea

scap

es

and

sect

oral

inte

rest

.

Dem

arca

tion

of b

ound

arie

s of

PAs

on

the

grou

nd;

Inte

grat

ion

of P

As in

to v

ario

us

phys

ical

pla

ns;

Man

dato

ry E

IA fo

r act

iviti

es w

ithin

an

d ad

jace

nt to

PAs

; Ca

paci

ty d

evel

opm

ent f

or

plan

ning

, est

ablis

hmen

t and

m

anag

emen

t of P

As;

Dev

elop

men

t of m

ultid

isci

plin

ary

appr

oach

in P

A m

anag

emen

t;

Inte

grat

ion

of c

onse

rvat

ion

into

Co

mm

unic

atio

n, E

duca

tion

and

Publ

ic A

war

enes

s (C

EPA)

of t

he

coun

try; a

nd

Eva

luat

ion

of e

ffect

iven

ess

of P

A m

anag

emen

t.

14 PROCEEDINGS

Coun

try

Biod

iver

sity

Res

ourc

es

Man

agem

ent A

utho

rity

Stre

ngth

s Th

reat

s an

d Ch

alle

nges

Mal

aysi

a (S

abah

)

By:M

r. P

aul B

asin

tal

Assi

stan

t Dire

ctor

, Sa

bah

Park

s

Gunu

ng M

ulu

Natio

nal P

ark:

(W

orld

Her

itage

Site

) Fl

ora

One

of th

e ric

hest

site

s in

the

wor

ld fo

r pal

ms �

111

spec

ies

1700

spe

cies

of l

iver

wor

ts/m

osse

s 44

2 sp

ecie

s of

spo

re p

rodu

cing

pla

nts

4000

spe

cies

of f

ungi

Fa

una

81 m

amm

als,

270

bird

s, 8

3 re

ptile

s, 7

6 am

phib

ians

, 50

fish,

est

imat

ed 2

0,00

0 in

verte

brat

es

28 s

peci

es o

f bat

s �

3 m

illio

n co

lony

20

0 ca

ve fa

una

/ 41

enda

nger

ed

40 s

nake

s 27

liza

rds

Fore

stry

Dep

artm

ent,

Stat

e of

Sar

awak

PA

pol

icie

s an

d pr

ogra

ms

in

plac

e;Pa

rtici

patio

n to

inte

rnat

iona

l PA

net

wor

k;

Colla

bora

tion

with

PA

acro

ss

stat

e /n

atio

nal b

orde

r;

Prot

ectio

n - l

ack

of p

ublic

aw

aren

ess

and

larg

e ar

eas

of P

As;

Lack

of e

xper

tise

of s

taff

in P

A m

anag

emen

t; Co

nflic

t of i

nter

est i

n th

e de

velo

pmen

t of P

As; a

nd

Fin

anci

ng o

f man

agem

ent

activ

ities

Mya

nmar

By: U

Htu

n Pa

w O

o Di

rect

orNa

ture

& W

ildlif

e Co

nser

vatio

n Di

visi

on,

Fore

st D

epar

tmen

t, M

inis

try o

f For

estry

Six

AHPs

: Ala

ungd

aw K

atha

pa N

atio

nal P

ark;

Kh

akab

oraz

i Nat

iona

l Par

k; L

ampi

Mar

ine

Natio

nal

Park

; Ind

awgy

i Wild

life

Sanc

tuar

y; In

le W

ildlif

e Sa

nctu

ary;

and

Mei

nmah

la K

yun

Wild

life

Sanc

tuar

y W

ildlif

e:

11,

800

Spec

ies

of v

ascu

lar p

lant

s of

G

ymno

sper

ms

and

Angi

ospe

rms;

2

51 M

amm

al s

peci

es

1,0

27 B

ird s

peci

es

Re

ptile

s

1

53 S

nake

spe

cies

87 L

izard

spe

cies

36

Tur

tle a

nd T

orto

ise

spec

ies

2 C

roco

dile

spe

cies

Am

phib

ians

79

Fro

g sp

ecie

s

2 C

aeci

lians

1 S

alam

ande

r

310

Fres

h w

ater

fish

spe

cies

465

Mar

ine

wat

er fi

sh s

peci

es

84

1 M

edic

inal

pla

nt s

peci

es

9

0 Ba

mbo

o sp

ecie

s

Ende

mic

spe

cies

: Sta

r Tor

tois

e; L

eaf D

eer;

Whi

te-

brow

ed N

utha

tch;

Gol

den

Deer

Fore

stry

Dep

artm

ent

Polic

ies

and

prog

ram

s ar

e in

pl

ace;

and

Pa

rtici

patio

n to

inte

rnat

iona

l pr

otec

ted

area

net

wor

k.

Rura

l pop

ulat

ion

heav

ily d

epen

ds

on fo

rest

s an

d fo

rest

pro

duct

s;

PA a

re lo

cate

d in

rem

ote

area

s;

shor

tage

of q

ualif

ied

staf

f;

Mec

hani

sm fo

r col

labo

ratio

n am

ong

law

enf

orce

men

t age

ncie

s an

d th

e Fo

rest

ry D

epar

tmen

t; an

d La

nd u

se c

onfli

ct in

the

abse

nce

of c

lear

land

use

pol

icy.


Coun

try

Biod

iver

sity

Res

ourc

es

Man

agem

ent A

utho

rity

Stre

ngth

s Th

reat

s an

d Ch

alle

nges

Phili

ppin

esBy

: Ms.

Nor

ma

M.

Mol

inya

we

Supe

rvis

ing

Ecos

yste

ms

Man

agem

ent S

peci

alis

t/ Ch

ief,

Prot

ecte

d Ar

eas

Man

agem

ent D

ivis

ion,

Pr

otec

ted

Area

s an

d W

ildlif

e Bu

reau

-De

partm

ent o

f En

viro

nmen

t and

Nat

ural

Re

sour

ces

Mt.

Apo

Natu

ral P

ark

Habi

tat t

ypes

are

low

land

fore

sts:

gra

ssla

nds,

m

ossy

fore

sts,

and

lake

s;

126

reco

rded

spc

ies

of fl

ora;

27

2 sp

p. o

f bird

s, 4

0% a

re e

ndem

ic to

Mt.

Apo;

53 s

pp o

f mam

mal

s;

17 s

pp o

f am

phib

ians

; and

36

spp

of r

eptil

es;

Note

: Rat

ed a

s Ex

trem

ely

High

Urg

ent f

or

biod

iver

sity

con

serv

atio

n

Mts

. Igl

it-Ba

co N

atio

nal P

ark

Habi

tat t

ypes

: gra

ssla

nd &

ev

ergr

een

fore

st

The

mos

t im

porta

nt fa

una

is th

e ta

mar

aw

(Bub

alou

s m

indo

rens

is)

Depa

rtmen

t of

Envi

ronm

ent a

nd N

atur

al

Reso

urce

s

Polic

y an

d la

ws

on P

A m

anag

emen

t and

con

serv

atio

n ar

e in

pla

ce;

Spec

ies

reco

rds

cons

tant

ly

upda

ted

and

used

as

basi

s in

pr

ogra

m fo

rmul

atio

n;

Parti

cipa

tion

of in

tern

atio

nal

cons

erva

tion

inst

itutio

ns in

de

velo

ping

and

impl

emen

ting

cons

erva

tion

prog

ram

s;

Parti

cipa

tion

of s

take

hol

ders

in

PA

man

agem

ent t

hrou

gh

the

Prot

ecte

d Ar

eas

Man

agem

ent B

oard

(PAM

B);

Fina

ncin

g fo

r PA

activ

ities

as

sure

d th

roug

h th

e In

tegr

ated

Pro

tect

ed A

rea

Fund

(IPA

F), a

lbei

t lim

ited.

Conf

lictin

g la

nd u

ses �

min

ing

and

timbe

r pro

duct

ion

over

bi

odiv

ersi

ty c

onse

rvat

ion

area

s;

Sust

aina

ble

finan

cing

; and

Hu

man

pop

ulat

ion

grow

th a

nd

limite

d ec

onom

ic o

ppor

tuni

ties

outs

ide

PA b

ear p

ress

ure

on it

s re

sour

ces.

Sing

apor

eBy

: Ms.

Ng

Sock

Lin

g As

sist

ant D

irect

or

Sung

ei B

uloh

Wet

land

Re

serv

e

Sung

ei B

uloh

Wet

land

Res

erve

Ke

y Ha

bita

t typ

es: M

angr

oves

and

mud

flats

; Br

acki

sh W

ater

and

Fre

shw

ater

Pon

ds

Impo

rtant

Flo

ra: M

angr

oves

Im

porta

nt F

auna

: Mig

rato

ry S

hore

bird

s; R

esid

ent

Bird

s; M

amm

als,

Rep

tiles

, Fis

h

Natio

nal P

arks

Boa

rd

Polic

ies,

pro

gram

s in

pla

ce;

Colla

bora

tion

with

cor

pora

te

fund

ing

sour

ces;

and

W

ell-t

rain

ed a

nd d

edic

ated

st

aff.

Lim

ited

site

and

hab

itat (

only

m

angr

ove

); an

d Pr

oxim

ity to

farm

s.

Thai

land

By: D

r. S

ongt

am

Sukw

asan

gDi

rect

or o

f Nat

iona

l Par

ks

Rese

arch

Div

isio

n,

Depa

rtmen

t of N

atio

nal

Park

, Wild

life

and

Plan

t Co

nser

vatio

n

Khao

Yai

Nat

iona

l Par

k -T

haila

nd�s

old

est n

atio

nal p

ark

-Nom

inat

ed a

s a

Wor

ld H

erita

ge S

ite

-Fau

na:

7

1 sp

ecie

s of

mam

mal

s

38

rept

ile s

peci

es

2

3 am

phib

ian

spec

ies

>

318

bird

spe

cies

>21

5 in

sect

spe

cies

Natio

nal P

arks

, Wild

life

and

Plan

t Con

serv

atio

n De

partm

ent,

Min

istry

of

Fore

stry

Polic

ies

and

prog

ram

s fo

r co

nser

vatio

n an

d m

anag

emen

t ar

e in

pla

ce;

Inte

grat

ion

of p

rote

cted

are

as

into

bro

ader

land

scap

es a

nd

seas

cape

s se

ctor

s so

as

to

mai

ntai

n ec

olog

ical

stru

ctur

es

and

func

tions

;

Peop

le li

ving

insi

de n

atio

nal

park

s;Ef

fect

ive

cont

rol o

f tou

rist i

nflu

x;

Inad

equa

te c

omm

unity

pa

rtici

patio

n in

par

ks

man

agem

ent;

Uncl

ear P

A bo

unda

ries

lead

s to

co

nflic

ts w

ith lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es;

16 PROCEEDINGS

Coun

try

Biod

iver

sity

Res

ourc

es

Man

agem

ent A

utho

rity

Stre

ngth

s Th

reat

s an

d Ch

alle

nges

Thai

land

Taru

tao

Natio

nal P

ark

Faun

a: >

100

Bird

spe

cies

; lan

gur,

mac

aque

;

M

ouse

deer

; wild

pig

; fis

h se

a tu

rtle;

co

ral

Kaen

g Kr

acha

n Fo

rest

Com

plex

Es

tabl

ishe

d in

198

1 as

the

28th

Nat

iona

l Par

k in

Th

aila

nd.

The

larg

est n

atio

nal p

ark

in T

haila

nd, w

ith

2,91

4.70

squ

are

kilo

met

ers

of fo

rest

in th

e w

ater

shed

s of

the

Phet

chab

uri a

nd P

ranb

uri

river

s.

Som

e of

the

valu

able

tree

s of

Kae

ng K

rach

an

incl

ude

mak

ham

ong

(Afz

elia

), ta

khia

n (H

opea

),ch

anth

ana

(Tar

ena)

, yan

g (D

ipte

roca

rpus

), ta

back

(Lag

erst

roem

ia),

prad

u (P

tero

carp

us),

and

krits

ana

(Aqu

ilaria

).Li

ke th

e pl

ant c

omm

unity

, the

ani

mal

s of

Kae

ng

Krac

han

repr

esen

t bot

h As

iatic

and

Mal

aysi

an

spec

ies.

Ove

r 400

bird

spe

cies

and

57

mam

mal

sp

ecie

s ar

e kn

own

to o

ccur

with

in th

e Pa

rk�s

bo

unda

ries.

Lar

ger m

amm

als

incl

ude

elep

hant

, ga

ur, s

amba

r dee

r, ba

nten

g, s

erow

, and

bea

r,

Indo

-Chi

nese

tige

r, bo

th c

omm

on a

nd F

ea�s

m

untja

c. M

alay

an ta

pir,

whi

te-h

ande

d gi

bbon

, du

sky

and

band

ed la

ngur

s, A

sian

wild

dog

, ot

ter,

and

wild

boa

r. Am

ong

the

bird

s re

cord

ed

in th

e pa

rk a

re s

ix s

peci

es o

f hor

nbill

s, re

d ju

ngle

fow

l, bo

th K

alij

phea

sant

and

gre

y pe

acoc

k-ph

easa

nt, w

oolly

-nec

ked

stor

k, a

nd

blac

k ea

gle.

The

ratc

het-t

aile

d tre

epie

, firs

t see

n he

re b

y m

embe

rs o

f the

Ban

gkok

Bird

Clu

b (B

ird

Cons

erva

tion

Soci

ety

of T

haila

nd) i

n 19

91, h

as

not b

een

reco

rded

any

whe

re e

lse

in T

haila

nd.

Esta

blis

hmen

t and

m

aint

enan

ce tr

ansb

ound

ary

prot

ecte

d ar

eas

and

colla

bora

tion

with

nei

ghbo

ring

prot

ecte

d ar

eas

acro

ss

natio

nal b

ound

arie

s;

Prov

idin

g in

tern

atio

nal

assi

stan

ce to

nei

ghbo

ring

coun

tries

in c

apac

ity

deve

lopm

ent;

and

Tour

ism

rece

ipts

as

sour

ce o

f fu

nds.

Inad

equa

te s

taff;

W

eak

publ

ic re

latio

ns o

f PA

staf

f an

d la

ck o

f aw

aren

ess

of lo

cal

peop

le; a

nd

Conf

licts

of l

and

uses

ope

rpay

.


Coun

try

Biod

iver

sity

Res

ourc

es

Man

agem

ent A

utho

rity

Stre

ngth

s Th

reat

s an

d Ch

alle

nges

M

u Ko

Sur

in N

atio

nal P

ark:

Fa

una:

23

mam

mal

spe

cies

; 94

bird

spe

cies

;

9

Rept

ile s

peci

es; 1

26 M

arin

e fa

una;

5 B

ird

spec

ies

and

2 Re

ptile

spe

cies

are

en

dang

ered

Mu

Ko S

imila

n Na

tiona

l Par

k:

Faun

a: 2

7 m

amm

al s

peci

es; 6

6 bi

rd s

peci

es;

an

d 11

0 m

arin

e sp

ecie

s

Ao P

hang

Nga

Nat

iona

l Par

k:

- the

larg

est m

angr

ove

fore

st in

Tha

iland

- F

auna

: 14

mam

mal

spe

cies

; 120

bird

sp

ecie

s; 1

8 re

ptile

spe

cies

; 4 a

mph

ibia

n

spec

ies;

and

70

mar

ine

spec

ies

Viet

Nam

By

:Dr.

Tra

n Ng

oc C

uong

Dep

uty

Dire

ctor

of N

atur

e Co

nser

vatio

n Di

visi

on o

f VE

PA,

Viet

Nam

Env

ironm

ent

Prot

ectio

n Ag

ency

(VEP

A

Phon

g Nh

a-Ke

Ban

g Na

tiona

l Par

k Ko

n Ka

Kin

h Na

tiona

l Par

k Ho

ang

Lien

Sa

Pa N

atio

nal P

ark

Ba B

e Na

tiona

l Par

k

Biod

iver

sity

sig

nific

ance

: Vi

etna

m is

rank

ed 1

6/25

in th

e w

orld

Fo

rest

- 37

%

Wet

land

s �

30 ty

pes

Mar

ine �

20 ty

pica

l mod

els

Dive

rsity

of n

ativ

e sp

ecie

sFl

ora:

11.

458

spec

ies,

Fau

na: 2

1.01

7 sp

ecie

s,

mic

ro-o

rgan

ism

: 3.0

00 s

peci

es).

Gene

tic re

sour

ce d

iver

sific

atio

n �

dom

estic

atio

n (o

ne o

f 12

orig

in p

lace

s of

pla

nt s

eeds

and

an

anim

al d

omes

ticat

ion

cent

re in

the

wor

ld)

Fore

st P

lann

ing

Depa

rtmen

t, M

inis

try o

f Ag

ricul

ture

and

Rur

al

Deve

lopm

ent

Polic

ies

and

prog

ram

s fo

r the

m

anag

emen

t and

con

serv

atio

n of

PAs

are

in p

lace

; In

tern

atio

nal f

undi

ng

inst

itutio

ns p

rovi

de a

ssis

tanc

e in

the

cons

erva

tion

and

man

agem

ent o

f PAs

; and

Pe

ople

Pro

vinc

ial C

omm

ittee

s ha

ve d

irect

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

in

coor

dina

ting

with

nat

iona

l lin

e ag

enci

es in

the

inte

grat

ion

of

biod

iver

sity

pro

gram

s an

d ac

tiviti

es a

t the

loca

l co

mm

unity

leve

l.

Ecol

ogic

al s

yste

ms

are

serio

usly

af

fect

ed w

ith d

egra

datio

n in

sp

ecie

s an

d ge

netic

reso

urce

s;

Plan

ning

and

man

agem

ent i

n w

etla

nd a

reas

lack

ing;

M

arin

e bi

odiv

ersi

ty s

erio

usly

th

reat

ened

; Tr

ade

in w

ild a

nim

als

and

plan

ts

wid

espr

ead;

In

vasi

ve s

peci

es a

re o

n th

e ris

e;

and

Acce

ss a

nd b

enef

it sh

arin

g to

ge

netic

reso

urce

s an

d lo

cal

know

ledg

e ha

ve y

et to

rece

ive

due

atte

ntio

n.

18 PROCEEDINGS

Gap Analysis Workshop Results: National and Regional Action Points

Ma. Consuelo GarciaDirector, Biodiversity Information Management ASEAN Centre for BiodiversityLaguna, Philippines

The Workshop was organized in collaboration with the National Parks Board of Singapore, UNEP-WCMC and Birdlife International, and held in Singapore from 11 to 13 April 2006. UNEP-WCMC provided the maps and documents that were used in the workshop.

The Workshop reviewed and analyzed the existing information on ecosystems, habitat and species in the region; coverage of protected areas; and conservation priorities, and identifi ed representation gaps of the Region with limited consideration to two other gaps: ecological gaps and management gaps.

The fi rst part of the presentation dealt on the CBD Programme of Work (PoW) on PA timeline followed by the guiding principles for gap analysis and the key steps. The three types of gaps discussed were: representation; ecological; and management. The recommended action points made at the national level highlighted the presentation. Gaps in terms of resources that were given to each AHP were raised during the discussion. It was suggested that ACB should rank how much funds are allocated by governments for the management of AHPs and that the key biodiversity areas in the gap analysis should be integrated.

The regional and national action points presented during the workshop are shown below.

Proposed Regional Action Points • Promote economic and social benefits of PAs

to wider communities in the ASEAN region. • Share PA data at the regional level and

optimize benefits to data sources (and build their capacities).

• Ensure adequate representation of all major ecological units in the PA system by conducting regular regional gap analysis.

• Escalate the value of AHPs and promote the importance of PAs for ecotourism.

• Build capacity for PA management through continued adoption of the ASEAN Competence Standards, technical exchanges and other mechanisms.

• Establish sustainable financial mechanisms to support PA management in ASEAN Member States (AMS).

• Promote cooperation and collaboration among AMS in PA management

National Action Points of the ASEAN Member States

1. Brunei DarussalamWith regard to representation and ecological

gaps, the Forestry Department feels that there is no urgent need to conduct a gap analysis. In terms of management gaps however, the Forestry Department needs to:

• Be assisted in capacity building, basically on how to conduct gap analysis for PAs.

• Strengthen government to government cooperation for information sharing and identify whether there are any new gaps that require urgent establishment of new PAs.

• Establish cooperation and collaboration with local research agencies in the country, in particular University Brunei Darussalam to gather information relevant to PA management.

• Strengthen human resource capacity in the areas of research, and GIS.

• Explore the possibility of transboundary conservation cooperation in line with the “Heart of Borneo – three countries-one conservation vision” initiative.

2. CambodiaAction points (support needed are in brackets)

that need to be addressed from 2007-2010 by the Department of Nature Conservation and Protection and the Ministry of Environment are:

• Build capacity on PA management and monitoring (national and international experts, financial support).

• Enhance public awareness on the importance of the PA system (national and international experts, financial support).

• Establish multi-sectoral mechanism for PA management (government’s will and commitment, finance).

• Promote stakeholder participation in PA management through livelihood improvement programs (national experts, educational materials, finance).

• Establish a financial mechanism (human resources and external support).

• Conduct research and identify new sites for PAs (sufficient data/information, human resources, finance).


3. Indonesia• Improve the management skills and capacity

of PA personnel.• Establish communication, networking and

collaborationamong different agencies and other stakeholders in PA management.

• Fill the representation gaps in the eastern part of Indonesia, particularly Sulawesi and Maluku.

• Identify Key Biodiversity Areas in other islands of Indonesia (besides Sumatra).

• Develop national park models to find best practices for the effective management of PAs.

4. Lao Peoples Democratic Republic• Promote economic and social benefits of PAs

to wider communities; review of PAs • Improve institutional arrangements.• Draft PA management master plan.• Enhance PA management skills of PA staff.• Strengthen transboundary PA management.

5. Malaysia• Evaluate and revisit (in Sabah and Sarawak)

representation and ecological gaps in Malaysia’s PAs (incorporating existing and new information, e.g. KBAs, IBAs etc.).

• Evaluate and revisit management gaps of existing PA in Sabah and Sarawak.

• Update existing information and assign current status on the IUCN PA management categories (Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia).

• Promote and/or enhance efforts on transboundary PAs.

• One country > three systems (need for better communication – initiate a regular platform, e.g. forum/national workshop, PA authorities in Malaysia to meet, discuss and share information/knowledge and experiences to improve our PA work.

6. Philippines• Enhance the capability of PA staff, PA

Management Board (PAMB) and major stakeholders in biodiversity conservation and PA management.

• Introduce an innovative sustainable financing mechanism to manage PAs;

• Streamline the processes/procedure for easy access to the Integrated Protected Areas Fund.

• Conduct valuation studies on the resource uses

within PAs.• Update/manage biodiversity information

within PAs.• Strengthen the Philippine Clearing House

Mechanism.• Conduct assessments/scientific studies to

determine populations of threatened wildlife species, status of habitats, and socio-economic data.

• Develop indicators for monitoring biodiversity to address the 2010 targets.

• Enhance existing Biodiversity Monitoring System to respond to the ground condition e s p e c i a l l y i n m o n i t o r i n g h a b i t a t changes.

• Update existing management plans and preparation of plans for other Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs).

• Provide legal status for the identified KBAs to determine the extent of their boundaries and corresponding management strategies.

• Promote/implement co-management scheme to protect and manage identified KBAs, e.g. partnership with Local Government Units (LGUs), private sectors, NGOs.

• Strong advocacy to both Congress and Senate to promote PA management and biodiversity conservation.

7. Singapore• Upgrade database management system.• Direct more applied research at management

questions.• Conduct analysis of PA area information.• Enhance monitoring programmes

8. Thailand• Set specified objectives for PAs, i.e. percentage

of each ecosystem to be protected (terrestrial and marine ecosystems) according to the Trisurat (2007) gap analysis.

• Revise PA system.• Set PA policy at national and departmental

levels.• Include governance and people participation

in relevant PA legislation.• Enhance capability of regional offices in PA

management.• Address gap analysis in all levels of management

(site, regional, departmental, national).• Set up mechanism for 30 per cent PA coverage

with relevant agencies.

20 PROCEEDINGS

9. Vietnam• Build capacity in biodiversity conservation,

research, management and development.• Regularly monitor and evaluate the status and

activities in PAs.• Promote better living conditions and awareness

of local people within and outside PAs.• Solve the conflict in different management levels

among central and local authorities and PAs.• Improve the links among PAs by sharing

knowledge, information, experience and even human resources.


Report on the Capacity Building Series 2: Management Effectiveness Assessment

Paul BasintalAssistant Director, Sabah ParksSabah, Malaysia

The report on Management Effectiveness Assessment (MEA) included a brief introduction on the rationale and objectives of the workshop conducted and a discussion on the concept and basic principles and operations of MEA. The MEA aims to help the managers to effectivelt manage and allocate resources better by promoting accountability and transparency. The involvement of the local community was also seen as a very important factor to help build consituency and promote PA values.

Management Effectiveness Evaluation as defi ned in the WCPA Guidelines (2006) is “....the assessment of how well a protected area is being managed – primarily the extent to which it is protecting values and achieving goals and objectives.” The evaluation considers design issues; the adequacy and appropriateness of management systems and processes; and the delivery of PA objectives including conservation of values.

The Workshop on Management Effectiveness Assessment (MEA) of Protected Areas was held from 21 to 23 March 2007 at Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. A total of 46 participants from nine ASEAN member countries and from Australia attended the workshop that was jointly organised by the ACB, the Birdlife International, the IUCN-WCPA-SEA and WWF International.

The full report is in Annex A5.Figure 2. Process for Developing Occupational Standards for Protected Areas in the ASEAN

The ASEAN Guidelines on Competence Standards for PA Jobs: A Tool for Developing Capacity Building Programmes for AHP Staff

Monina T. Uriarte Capacity Development SpecialistASEAN Centre for BiodiversityLaguna, Philippines

The ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation (ARCBC), the predecessor of the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), developed the ASEAN Guidelines on Competence Standards for Protected Area (PA) Jobs. Figure 2 describes the step-by-step development of the PA Job Standards.


The ASEAN Guidelines are recommendations for the skills and knowledge ideally required for 24 key PA jobs, divided into 17 technical categories and fi ve levels. The standards is a non-prescriptive tool to assist PA management authorities, training and educational organizations and conservation projects to improve human resources development staff performance and training.

Among the issues and concerns raised after the presentation were the capacity building for the different levels to include indigenous peoples and other stakeholders in the programme and the need for translation to local languages. The participants also agreed that there is a need to determine the actual use and impact of the competency standards in the fi eld. There was also a suggestion to identify AHPs that will serve as models or learning laboratories for other AHPs or PAs.


ACB’s Biodiversity Information Management: Moving Information Forward in 2007

Ma. Consuelo D. GarciaDirector, Biodiversity Information ManagementASEAN Centre for BiodiversityLaguna, Philippines

The current databases of ACB and the proposed design of databases /information management and data sharing were discussed. The results of the Needs Assessment Survey conducted by ACB for data management for ASEAN were also discussed.

After the report, the participants felt the need to include information on indigenous peoples, policies, programmes and the CBD in the ACB dataset. There was also a concern to incorporate competence standards in the information set of ACB and the threats to biodiversity such as encroachment and land use confl icts.

It was suggested that ACB should make available satellite maps in the dataset and include NGOs amd other stakeholders in ACB’s training programme for database management.


Sabah and Its Protected Areasand Introduction to the Field Trips

Jamili NaisAssistant Director, Sabah ParksSabah, Malaysia

The participants were briefed and informed about several aspects of Sabah and its protected areas. The five major issues faced by Sabah Parks are: establishment; governance, participation; equity and benefi t sharing; and sustainability.

Kinabalu National Park is one of the four protected areas under the jurisdiction of Sabah Parks. The other national parks are Crocker Range, Tungku Abdul Rahman and Tawau Hills.

Kinabalu National Park, which is considered the beacon of biodiversity in Malaysia, is located about 92 km from Kota Kinabalu, and lies at the northern end of Crocker Range. The National Park has an area of 753.7 sq km, and its main feature is Mount Kinabalu, the highest peak in Malaysia at 4,085 meters high. In 1964, Kinabalu was established as a National Park in recognition of its grandeur, geographical and geological signifi cance, and wealth of fl ora and fauna. Today, management and research is directed at conserving this magnificent mountain and its remarkable biodiversity.

Crocker Range was established as a National Park in 1984. It is Malaysia’s largest park, covering 1,399 sq km of forest-covered mountain range that stretches in a south westerly direction from Gunung Kinabalu towards the Sabah-Sarawk border. It separates the coastal plains from the remainder of the state. Frequently shrouded in rain clouds, the peak rises to between 1200 to 1800 meters above sea level.

Tunku Abdul Rahman Park, popularly known for its historic islands, is a state park located in Gaya Bay, three kilometers offshore from Kota Kinabalu. Named after Malaysia’s fi rst Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman was gazetted in 1974 as Sabah’s second National Park. The Park covers an area of about 50 sq km that includes fi ve islands. Geologically, the islands are part of the Crocker Range but became isolated from the mass, when sea levels rose after the last ice age.

22 PROCEEDINGS

The names of the islands are symbolic of their history and early discoverers: Pulau Gaya (big), Manukan (fi sh), Mamutic (for shell collection), Sapi (the sound of a mowing buffalo), and Sulug (commemorating the ancestry of the Sulu peoples of Sabah).


Scaling up: Protecting the Global Centre of Marine Biodiversity in the Coral Triangle

Safi ra Warili DjohaniCountry Director, The Nature ConservancyBali, Indonesia

Coral reefs cover a mere 0.2% of the ocean fl oor, yet support an estimated 25% of all marine life. The global asset value of coral reefs has been estimated at nearly US$800 billion over a 50-year timeframe. More than 500 million people depend on reef resources, and one billion people worldwide are direct benefi ciaries of coral reef goods and services.

The Coral Triangle is the global centre of marine biodiversity and one of the world’s top priorities for marine conservation. Spanning eastern Indonesia, parts of Malaysia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste and the Solomon Islands, the Coral Triangle covers an area of 2.3 million square miles (5.7 million km2), the equivalent to half of the entire United States. It is home to over 600 reef-building coral species, or 75% of all species known to science, and more than 3,000 species of reef fi shes.

Over 150 million people live within the Coral Triangle, of which an estimated 2.25 million fi shers are dependent on marine resources for their livelihoods. The Nature Conservancy is working with a range of partners to protect the coastal and marine ecosystems of this vast area by addressing key threats, such as over-fi shing, destructive fi shing, and mass coral bleaching. The Nature Conservancy’s Coral Triangle Center in Bali, Indonesia works in the following sites: Komodo, Raja Ampat, Wakatobi, and Derawan.


Status of Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia

Loke Ming ChouProfessor, Department of Biological SciencesNational University of SingaporeSingapore

The status of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) in Southeast Asia (SEA) was discussed. Out of the total

number of MPAs in the region, only 10% of all MPAs are effectively managed; 88% coral reefs are under threat, 8% of the coral reefs are within MPAs and only 1% within MPAs are effectively managed.

The MPAs that are of special signifi cance are: (a) World Heritage Sites (WHS) (4 MPAs); (b) ASEAN Heritage Sites (6 MPAs); and (c) Biosphere Reserves (6 MPAs). The priority areas of Outstanding Universal Value and for WHS consideration are as follows: (1) the Spratly Islands; (2) Cagayan Ridge; (3) North Borneo/Balabal/Turtle Islands; (4) Samporna/Tawi tawi; (5) Berau Islands; (6 ) Rajah Ampat; (7) Banda and Lucipara. Figure 3 shows the priority MPAs of outstanding universal value.

The identifi ed gaps are as follows: management effectiveness (and transboundary management; representation (effective connectivity network); prioritization and identifi cation of sites of global/ regional signifi cance (to preserve biodiversity); and coordination (share information, combine resources and capacity building).

A synergy between ongoing and past initiatives to optimize resources should be developed thru the following process: formulate policy and regional guidelines to draw from larger platform activities; identify gaps for future focus; enhance capacity for management; and rationalize MPA protection to facilitate poverty alleviation.


Integrating Fisheries and Habitat Management in the UNEP/GEF Habitat Demonstration Sites

Vo Si TuanSenior Expert, UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project Coordinating UnitBangkok, Thailand

Dr. Vo Si Tuan reported that the South China

Sea Project was participated in by 14 government agencies, 16 universities and research institutes and one NGO as Executing Agency, from 7 countries: Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam.

The demonstration sites were in four major ecosystems/habitat types: (a) mangrove sites; (b) coral reef sites; (c) sea grass sites; and (d) wetland areas sites. These sites act as: (1) implementers and experimenters of new management models and methods; (2) producers of knowledge, experiences and good practices; and (3) node of regional learning network for South China Sea.


One of the common strategies devised so far is the Fisheries Refugia Approach. Under this approach, fisheries and habitat management are integrated into a spatially and geographically defi ned coastal or marine area in which specifi c management measures are applied to sustain important species (fi sheries resources) during the critical stages of their life cycle for their sustainable use.


Sulu-Sulawesi Seascape: Securing Globally Important Marine Ecosystems

Sheila G. VergaraSenior Marine Biodiversity SpecialistConservation InternationalQuezon City, Philippines

As reported by Dr. Vergara, the Sulu-Sulawesi

Program is one of three programmess in the Region: Asia: Eastern Tropical Pacifi c, Papuan Birds Head and

the Sulu Sulawesi Seascape (SSS). The components of the SSS Program are the Marine Conservation Corridors (Verde Passage; Cagayan Ridge), and the Balabac Strait Tri-National Marine Turtle Project.

The program uses the following strategies: 1) Gather biophysical, socio-economic and

institutional information that will serve as foundation for rectifying existing MPA, and establishing new MPA and networks in the corridor;

2) Improve management effectiveness in existing MPAs;

3) Determine necessary levels to support enforcement: fisheries, oil and gas and ecotourism laws and regulations;

4) Develop sustainable support mechanisms for MPA; and

5) Improve stakeholders’ awareness of the economic and ecological importance of MPA and MPA networks


Figure 3. Priority Marine Protected Areas of Outstanding Values

24 PROCEEDINGS

SYNTHESIS OFPARALLEL SESSIONS

Presentations in the parallel sessions provided a venue for the discussion of various concerns

relevant to the AHP Program, Durban Accord and the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas.These enabled the participants to actively discuss and interact on various topics that are of common interest, resulting in regional action points.

The regional action points became the basis for the formulation of the Regional Action Plan for ASEAN Heritage Parks and Other Protected Areas that was subsequently adopted by the Conference.

1. Communication and Community Relations in Protected Area Management

Chair: Chumpon Sukaseam Director, National Parks Offi ce Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plants Bangkok, Thailand

Co-Chair: Anabelle E. Plantilla Executive Director, Haribon Foundation Quezon City, Philippines

1.1 Communication and Community Relations in Singapore’s Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve

James Gan Senior Conservation Offi cer, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve National Parks Board Cresent, Singapore

Mangroves, freshwater marsh and grassland, and lowland forest characterize the Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve (SBWR). The reserve engages the community in nature conservation by providing information, encouraging action, supporting community participation, and strengthening environmental stewardship. Programmes include guided walks, bird watching, mangrove planting activities, prawn harvesting demonstrations, arts and crafts, as well as an Adopt-A-Park Program.

The SBWR has projects for all kinds of stakeholders who share the same interest in educating the youth to help in the development of a sustainable natural environment. Individual volunteers can contribute by lending their skills and time in activities such as bird census, fi eld surveys, photography, guiding, and painting. Projects with schools include mural paintings, student guide-led tours, fundraising and clean-up projects. Government agencies provide assistance by participating in World Environment Day celebrations. Funding and other activities have also been undertaken with corporate partners such as the HSBC and Toyota, as well as NGOs such as the Nature Society of Singapore.

1.2 ASEAN Heritage Parks: The Best Practices and Lessons in Protected Area Management Ratana Lukanawarakul Senior Offi cer, National Parks Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department Thailand

Communication and community relations strategies in Thailand focus on enforcement, strengthening community relations and services. In the ASEAN region, law enforcement is particularly signifi cant since encroachment on PAs and wildlife poaching are major concerns. To combat these concerns, PA boundaries have been clearly demarcated and task forces have been properly trained and equipped to patrol these areas. Special use zones have been identifi ed for the use of the local communities. Some of the activities that have been undertaken to strengthen community relations in Thailand include outreach programs, discussions between local people, non-government agency and PA staff, and workshops on nature conservation and art training for the youth and children and on PA management. Surveys conducted in local communities show that poverty and lack of livelihoods are major concerns among residents, who are traditionally engaged in poultry farming, mushroom culture, fi sh and crab culture and vegetable gardening.


1.3 Communication and Community in Kaeng Krachan National Park

Kritsana Kaewplang Director, Bird Conservation Society of Thailand Thailand

Kaeng Krachan is Thailand’s largest national park, encompassing 2,900 sq. km. The Park is patrolled by 400 rangers who also man 33 ranger stations. Aside from being an Important Bird Area, it is also a Tiger Conservation Landscape. The Park is home to many globally threatened species such as the gaur, stump-tailed macaque, Asian elephant, banteng, Asian wild dog, Malayan tapir, Asiatic black bear and serow. Threats to the Park and the wildlife such as poaching, land encroachment and human-elephant confl ict are addressed through a Wildlife-based Strategy for the

Conservation of Kaeng Krachan National Park 2005-2008. This strategy aimed to establish data for key wildlife species, reduce key threats and develop an effective management plan for the Park.

A survey was conducted among villagers of communities adjacent to the Kaeng Krachan NP to address issues on PA management. Some of the issues identifi ed include the lack of communication between the local community and park staff, lack of community participation in management, unclear park boundaries, and limited manpower. Recommendations to address these and other concerns include strengthening capabilities of park staff, involving the local community in park management, establishing an awareness and education program and facilitating a sustainable livelihood management project.

Table 4 shows the Regional Action Points for the session.

Table 4. Regional Action Points: Communication and Community Relations in PA Management

• Provide diagnosis and assessment of situation.

• Identify benchmarks of a model PA.• Identify change interventions

for awareness, appreciation and motivation for sustainable communications and community relations for one model PA for each country (including the development of a communication plan that refl ects the perception of target sectors such as IPs, youth, within the short term).

• Adopt the Singaporean CEPA model (Sungei Buloh).

• Formulate measures to facilitate the formulation of consistent thrusts between national and local governments.

• Sabah Environmental Education Network.

• Conduct Teachers’ training.• Environmental Action Committee

– NGOs are members; supported by the Ministry.

• Environmental School competitions – started since 2003 in Sabah, Sarawak last year; West Malaysia to do it soon.

• Cleanest district competition (federal and state levels).

• Sarawak: press releases of interventions and activities.

• Singapore: Sungei Buloh awareness campaign activities for the youth.

• Volunteer program.

Situation/Issue Lessons Learned Targets Addressed Recommendations

• Goal: Strengthen communication, education and public awareness.

• Target: Public awareness, understanding and appreciation of the importance and benefi ts of protected areas are signifi cantly increased.

• Encourage co-management (micro and macro) of PAs.

• Develop care and interest volunteers.

• Maintain focus on communication objectives.

• Reach out to communities using appropriate communication channels.

• Integrate livelihood development to relieve pressures on the PA.

• Create community fund to support conservation-related activities of local communities.

• Recognize traditional practices and culture.

• Promote environmental values formation at a young age.

I. Land use confl ict

26 PROCEEDINGS

2. Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas

Chair: Victor Ramos Former Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines Co-Chair: Puspa Dewi Liman Indonesia

2.1 Land Use Confl ict Management in Samar Island Natural Park, Philippines

Clarissa C. Arida Programme Manager-Environment United Nations Development Programme-

Philippines

The Samar Island Natural Park (SINP), which was declared a protected area in August 2003 through Executive Proclamation 442, covers 360,000 hectares of natural forest including 120,000 hectares of old-growth forest. This old-growth forest represents 25% of the national total of remaining old-growth forest and is the largest contiguous lowland tropical rainforest in the Philippines. Samar Island is one of the 200 ecoregions of the world characterized by high biodiversity and high rate of endemism. It has one of the biggest limestone formations in the country and has vast networks of caves which include the Sohoton and Calbiga caves. Other outstanding biophysical features include lush mangrove forests and 25 river systems. Samar Island is one of the 18 Centers of Plant Diversity in the country, with a total of 974 species of fl owering plants (18% of the Philippine total) including 12 trees listed in the World List of Threatened Trees. It is one of nine Endemic Bird Areas and is included in the mammals priority conservation sites in the Philippines.

Samar Island also has the largest bauxite (alumina) mineral deposit in the region. There are presently 40 bauxite mining applications in Samar Island. A large number of mining applications fall within the core zones or the forest section of the SINP. In December 2002, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) approved two Mineral Processing and Sharing Agreements falling within the old growth forest and buffer zone. Until 1989, there were 15 logging concessions operating across the three provinces of the Island. Two of the logging concessions had permits until 2007.

Samar people have a tragic history of environmental disasters, including a massive flood in 1989 that caused the deaths of thousands and destroyed crops and properties. People now also have to contend with massive degradation brought about by the abandoned mine site in Bagacay. As a result, residents have shown a strong opposition to mining and logging activities. The Government has then made pronouncements for a temporary suspension of logging operations and ordinances have been passed to ban mining and logging activities in Samar Island. The Protected Area Management Board of SINP also adopted the Management Plan for SINP upholding protection of the existing biodiversity and forest resources of the Island. Continued dialogue both at the national and local levels must be pursued immediately to engage all sectors, government, civil society, private sector, legislators and the communities to ensure a sustainable development path for Samar Island and its people.

2.2 Land Use and Natural Resources Confl ict: The Case of Suku Kulawi, Marena, Central Sulawesi Provinsi

NxenLumba AMAN JI. Rawa Banbu/13/4 Jakarta, Indonesia Suku Kulawi is located in three regencies

and its culture is defined by relationships with people, nature and their God. The prevailing ownership system recognizes both individual and communal ownership. Tensions arose when community rights to access and manage natural resources were restricted in 1982. Almost half of the Adat Kulawi, Marena territory became part of the Lore Lindu National Park (TNLL) in 1993. Community members also cited the repressive approach by TNLL officials, lack of information and communication, and illegal logging and harvesting of non-timber forest products by other villages. These have resulted in a loss of livelihood for the local community, loss of control over Adat territory, as well as forest destruction and poverty. Attempts to address these issues have been undertaken and measures include the strengthening of the Adat institution, participatory mapping of Adat territory, enforcement of Adat law and court, as well as draft consensus on natural resource management and utilization in Adat territory.


2.3 Traditional Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas in Virachey National Park, Kok Lak Commune

Phouy Bun Nyok Indigenous Internship, NTFP P.O. Box 2509 Phnom Penh, Cambodia

The Virachey National Park in Cambodia was designated a PA in 1993 and covers 337,723 ha. Ethnic groups who live adjacent to the Park include a high percentage of Kreung, Kavet, Brao, Loa and Lun, and a small percentage of Tampuen, Kachok, ethnic Chinese, Khmer and Vietnamese groups. Land in the Park is generally used for village settlements, swidden agriculture, forest gathering and hunting, wet-fi eld rice agriculture and conservation. Traditionally, land is passed on to generations and families often work on four to fi ve plots for shifting cultivation and one to two hectares for rice. The nearby Kok Lak Commune, which consists of around 2,000 people in four villages, has been encouraged by the government over the past several years to move down to lowland areas. Their food security situation has been precarious, and many families have returned to upland swidden farming. This has resulted in tension between the Park and the local Kavet communities over the use of the Park’s local resources. To resolve these issues, discussions are now ongoing between the communities, Park staff and the Ministry of Environment to establish fi ve Community Protected Areas (CPAs) within VNP with support from the Biodiversity Protected Area Management Project/World Bank. Some tourism benefi t sharing activities have also begun. There are also recommendations to provide comprehensive training for national and provincial PA system staff

and rangers in conjunction with local communities in several areas such as: local cultures, potential linkages between biodiversity conservation and indigenous resource management systems, forest collection activities for local livelihoods; and other communication skills. Indigenous peoples’ rights to use and protect forest products that have been closely associated to their culture for centuries should also be recognized.

2.4 Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas in The Land of Papua: Lorentz National Park

Sangthong SouthammakothSangthong Southammakoth Department of Forestry Department of Forestry Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Indonesia Indonesia

Lorentz National Park, the largest protected area in Southeast Asia, is home to 1,200 of 20,000 species of plants, 118 species of mammals, 403 species of birds, and 48 species of reptiles and amphibians. More than six tribes live within the vicinity of the Park. Confl icts between community members and Park management stem from mining activities; illegal hunting, fi shing and logging; tourism activities; road construction; harvesting of non-timber forest products; and land rights/tenure. Confl ict resolution can be facilitated by strengthening local institutions, supporting formal policies, identifying needs of stakeholders, developing a mediator or conflict resolution team, initiating reconciliation in the level of customary people around Lorentz National Park, developing a management plan using the multi-stakeholder approach, and increasing management effectiveness.

Table 5 shows the Regional Action Points for this session.

Table 5. Regional Action Points: Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas

• Arrange cross-visits for start-up PAs to more mature parks. Such visits will open the eyes of PA management to more options in solving the usual land use confl icts.

• Provide a facility or “clearing house” on the Internet for the free exchange of information on cases of land use confl icts.

• Provide training on basic skills in confl ict resolution to PA managers and members of the management board.


• Effective mechanisms for identifying and/or mitigating the negative impacts of key threats;

• Participation of indigenous and local communities;

• Appropriate policies • Provision of supportive

enabling environment;

.• State policies are generators of confl icts. Being sectoral, most laws are often in confl ict with each other. Local institutions are needed to synchronize these confl icting laws on the ground.

I. Some protected areas were declared without much regard for the communities living in those areas, causing land use confl icts.

28 PROCEEDINGS

• Advocate for the recognition of customary rights and practices.

• Provide funds for the inventory of biodiversity in every PA; Make sure that the information is used to attract public support and develop sustainable funding. Also, these are useful tools to counter proposals for mining, logging and other negative impacts inside the parks.

• Develop a system of career service for park managers in countries where their roles are not yet appreciated; provide scholarships for further studies, e.g. a masters program on biodiversity management, to develop a corps of qualifi ed managers in the region.

• Encourage transboundary cooperation and joint action programs through regular contacts among PA managers in the ASEAN.


• Public awareness, understanding and appreciation; and

• Development and adoption of standards, criteria and best practices.

• Confl icts among stakeholders could have been avoided if the CBD’s recommendation on the “ecosystem approach” was used in establishing protected areas.

• Recognition of customary laws and land rights, poverty reduction, empowerment of communities and their involvement in park management are necessary requisites to solving confl icts

• A management plan covering multiple uses in protected areas is needed to prevent confl icts of interests among stakeholders.

II. Some protected areas are so unwieldy in size and beset not only with land use confl icts but also insurgency issues – problems beyond the capacities of PA managers to solve; limited resources alloAcated for them

III. Land use confl icts are prevalent among protected areas. Problems range from simple encroachments to more complex confl icts of interests between the economic elite and the local people.

IV. If not addressed sooner, the confl icts may cause unnecessary and preventable damage to biodiversity and lost opportunities to get the support and participation of local communities.

• Frameworks for monitoring, evaluating and reporting; and

• Review and revision of policies.





• Land use confl icts have better chances of being resolved if locally specifi c solutions are actively explored and done on the grassroots level rather than from above.

• Ecotourism, while encouraged, must be kept within the carrying capacity of park facilities.

• Research on biodiversity and their dollar valuation are potent tools in convincing authorities to give priority to conservation instead of utilizing forest and mineral resources inside the parks.

• PA managers need to develop support from NGOs and other credible facilitators in mediating land use confl icts.

V. PA managers admit their limitations in resolving land use confl icts, requiring more support

from a management board. Ensure that all stakeholders are included in the board.

VI. State policies are slow in recognizing the customary land rights of indigenous people living inside the parks, thus losing not only their support but also their endemic knowledge on biodiversity conservation

VII. Problems of pollution and poaching were observed in popular ecotourism spots.

VIII. No mechanisms for confl ict resolution are in place in some protected areas, allowing problems to fester.

IX. In some cases, protected areas have to report to more than one agency. Lack of cooperation and collaboration among such agencies add to the problems.


30 PROCEEDINGS

3. Information Sharing and Knowledge Management on Protected Areas

Chair: Ma. Consuelo D. Garcia Director, Biodiversity Information Management ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Laguna, Philippines

Co-Chair: Peter Shadie Coordinator, Regional Protected Areas Programme, Asia, IUCN-Thailand Bangkok, Thailand

3.1. World Database on Protected Areas Calvin Loh WDPA / Malaysian Nature Society Kuala Limpur, Malaysia

The WDPA was established in 1981 in partnership with the IUCN. It is the only comprehensive inventory of the globe’s protected areas. Since 2002, it provided regular statistical and analytical information for the Millennium Development Goal, Millennium Ecosystems Assessment and the CBD processes. The data comes through the following: UN List processes; targeted requests for country data; convention secretariat and advisory bodies for international PAs, including World Heritage Sites and Man and the Biosphere (MAB). It now contains 117,000 records and is the foundational dataset for conservation decision-making.

Updating of data comes from three levels: national – UNEP-WCMC and national government agencies; regional – European Environment Agency; and international – consortium of cooperative stakeholders. Most recent use of WDPA dataset is in the gap analysis process of the CBD.

Future site information of WDPA would include attributes specifi c to marine PAs, tracking of changes on features and attributes, recording of multiple management zones, and specialized information modules such as management effectiveness, which are linked to the site levels.

3.2. Protected Area Learning Network Peter Shadie Coordinator, Regional Protected Areas Programme, Asia, IUCN-Thailand Bangkok,Thailand

The PALNet is an interactive, web-based knowledge management tool for park managers and other stakeholders. It is a premier learning site for protected areas (PAs) and provides the right knowledge to the right people at the right time. This is a user-driven tool for the exchange of information and of experience that serves as a professional networking tool supporting a community of practice, and functions as a gateway to the wealth of other sources of information and knowledge on PAs. The PALNet was developed through the Ecosystems PAs and People (EPP) Project and was launched in 2003. It is integrated with the IUCN Knowledge Management Strategy and has links to the Species Information System, Ecolex (environmental law) and the World Database on PAs. PALNet features include existing databases on ‘Documents’, ‘Experts’ and ‘Projects’; search by keyword; browse by region, theme, biome; and knowledge extraction. Users can also upload information once registered with a login. The system is undergoing improvements to allow posting of broader content, tighten user controls, extract background on login users, enhance personalized pages, provide wider administrative access, and enable interface with the WDPA.


4. Gap Analysis for Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia

Chair: Rili Djohani Country Director, The Nature Conservancy Bali, Indonesia

Co-Chair: Kenneth Kassen Marine Coordinator WWF-Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia

4.1 Marine Protected Areas: Inputs to the Gap Analyses for the Southeast Asian Region

Porfi rio M. Aliño Professor / CRM Sector Leader Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City Philippines

Mangroves, seagrass beds and coral reefs protect the coasts from erosion and strong waves and provide economic benefi ts for fi sheries, fi shers and tourism. In the Philippines, marine biogeographic areas



• Agree on standard indicators and standards for data sharing between countries.

• Identify the lead national agency to coordinate data collection.

• Agree on data sharing protocols.• Provide a process to collect

data from various sources – government, NGOs, academia, indigenous peoples (IPs), local communities, and the private sector.

• Invest in the capacity of IPs, local communities and park managers to input data.

• Ensure that ACB acts as a CHM for ASEAN countries and supports MEAs and partners (WDPA, WCPA).

• Ensure that the ACB database is consistent with the WDPA.

• Recognize that there are specifi c marine indicators and standards for data sharing between ountries.

• Preferable to have one database for marine and terrestrial PAs given land-sea links but noting the need for different data fi elds.

I. Land-based database information.

II. Marine database information.

Short Term• Conduct a Workshop for ASEAN

countries to agree on data standards including indicators and data sharing protocols. Identify focal point agencies; identify mechanisms to source data from a wider range of stakeholders; and identify selected countries as pilot sites for the ACB database.

• Develop an MoU between ACB, WCMC and WCPA to formalize collaboration on standard data indicators, data collection processes and validation.

Long Term• Complete a comprehensive resource

assessment for both terrestrial and marine systems and a gap analysis for terrestrial PAs across all ASEAN countries.

• Establish a fully functioning ASEAN data sharing platform.

Long term• Complete a gap analysis for marine

PAs across all ASEAN countries.

• Development and adoption of standards for data sharing; and

• Framework for monitoring, evaluating and reporting.

include the South China Sea, Sulu Sea, Visayas region, Northeastern Pacifi c Seaboard, Southeastern Pacifi c Seaboard and the Celebes Sea. It would take nearly 100 years to be able to fully protect the country’s marine protected areas (MPAs) unless effectiveness is improved, larger areas are protected and conservation mechanisms are enhanced. There is a need to link initiatives in governance, ecoregions and marine corridors and operational functionality, and address data gaps in MPAs particularly in those shared by two or more countries. Some of the measures to address such gaps include the development of a Monitoring, Evaluation, Response and Feedback System through adaptive management; inter-disciplinary Marine Biodiversity Conservation Programs; investigations and networking to produce synergistic and accelerated impacts; and coordinated actions facilitated by national and regional laws, and initiatives. Measures that have been undertaken to support MPAs include integrated MPA programs; incentives for good performance; development of marine corridors and

ecoregions that ensure connectivity and resilience of biophysical and social resources; and increased efforts in coastal and marine governance.

4.2 Status of Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia - What Next?

Loke Ming Chou Professor, Department of Biological Sciences National University of Singapore Singapore

The network of MPAs should effectively manage and conserve marine biodiversity, habitat health and fi sheries. There are varying reports as to the number of existing MPAs, but experts agree that only 10 percent of all MPAs are effectively managed. Cheung et al 2002, reported that the “present MPA system is extremely ineffective for marine biodiversity conservation and an increase in physical coverage of the MPA system alone will not improve marine

Table 6. Regional Action Points: Information Sharing and Knowledge Management on Protected Areas

32 PROCEEDINGS


• The economic benefi t from the value of coral reefs in the Philippines was quantifi ed at $4 million. It will take 100 years to fully protect the needed 10% of coral reef areas.

• The presence or absence of sharks and other large predators can be used as quick indicators to quantify fi sh resources in marine areas.

• Gains have been achieved through the marine support network in terms of MPA management, enforcement strategies and cooperation with fi sher groups and local government units.

• The FISH-BE model has been considered as a useful tool for MPA management in determining incentives and equitable allocation of benefi ts.

I. Very few of SEA’s reefs lie within MPAs and reefs of the region are under-managed.

II. Depletion is refl ected by the fact that only seven have high priority values.

III. In certain areas like Sarawak, no protection has been established.

IV. SEA is also lagging behind on certain global agreements on marine biodiversity.

• Replicate the areas of excellence on protection such as Turtle Islands between the Philippines and Malaysia.

• Work toward improving effectiveness of MPAs, declaring larger areas, and using a combination of feasible management efforts such as mixing ecosystems and species conservation strategies.

To remedy the lack of basic information, the following were suggested:

• Monitoring, Evaluation, Response and Feedback system through adaptive management;

• Inter-disciplinary marine biodiversity conservation programs;

• Investigations and networking to produce synergies and accelerated impacts; and

• Meeting the challenges via convergent and coordinated action.

• In prime sites suffering from depleted resources, suggested measures include restocking and stock enhancement.

• Improvement of effectiveness of PA management

• Provision of enabling policy, and socioeconomic environment for PAs

conservation”. In Southeast Asia, although 88 percent of coral reefs are under threat, only 8 percent of these reefs lie within MPAs, and only 1 percent of MPAs in SEA are effectively managed. Some of the initiatives done to protect MPAs include the review of MPAs in the region undertaken by the ASEAN Regional Centre on Biodiversity Conservation; development of the ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks; identifi cation of coral reefs worthy of WHS status by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; study in genetic connectivity in the South China Sea by the WorldFish Center; review of coastal/marine living resources, national legislation, and management by the UNEP/GEF South China Sea Project; and the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion Project. Gaps

in the MPAs network revolve around management effectiveness (particularly in transboundary MPAs), representation (to ensure effective MPA connectivity), prioritization and identifi cation of sites of global/regional significance (to preserve biodiversity), and coordination (to enhance information sharing, combination of resources, and capacity building). These gaps can be addressed by developing a synergy between ongoing and past initiatives (to optimize resources), drawing up policies and regional guidelines; enhancing capacity for management; and increasing marine biodiversity protection to facilitate poverty alleviation.


Table 7. Regional Action Points: Gap Analysis for Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia


5. Indigenous Peoples in Protected Area Management

Chair: Jannie Lasimbang Secretary-General Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) Chiang Mai, Thailand Co-chair: Angie Cunanan National Coordinator UNDP-GEF Small Grants Programme, Philippines Makati, Philippines

5.1. Engaging Indigenous People in Protected Area Development, Functioning and Management: Case Study – Hoang Lien Son Project

Lam Hoang Hoang Lien Son Project Coordinator Flora and Fauna International-Vietnam Programme Hanoi, Vietnam

The Case Study represents the efforts of the Community-Based Conservation of Hoang Lien Mountain Ecosystem Project (Hoang Lien Son Project – HLSP) in engaging indigenous peoples (IPs) in protected area (PA) development, operations and management to determine the feasibility of the co-management approach in the Hoang Lien Mountains. This project supported local stakeholders – the Lao Cai, Yen Bai, and Son La Forest Protection Departments – in setting up community-based monitoring groups that would include IPs, to help local governments and PA authorities monitor, patrol, and conserve PAs, and communicate messages of biodiversity value to the local community.

Although IPs are involved in the PA development process, they are not included in management decision-making. For it to become a new model of co-management for Viet Nam where IPs can be involved in PA management, and which in the future can be applied to other PAs, the Project supported the Mu Cang Chai Species/Habitat Conservation Area (SHCA) in establishing an advisory body – the Forest Protection Council. The Council is composed of local representatives from communes around the PA.

By involving indigenous peoples in managing PAs, this Project is piloting a model to achieve a ‘win-win’ scenario for both local livelihood improvement and biodiversity conservation. Conserving natural forests and habitats will achieve much more success with the involvement of IPs in management.

5.2. From the Ground Up: Documenting Subsistence Pattern in Buayan-Kionop Community Use Zone, Crocker Range Park, Sabah

Yassin Miki, Assistant Field Coordinator and Agnes Lee Agama, Regional Coordinator SEA Global Diversity Foundation Sabah, Malaysia

Crocker Range, a long mountainous range,

stretching from north to south of Sabah and one of the most biologically important conservation and water catchment areas in the state, was declared a protected area in 1984. Subsistence activities are allowed in the Community Use Zones (CUZs) established inside the Park for the use of the local community. A CUZ may not provide ownership of lands inside the Park, but it recognizes local communities as the rightful stewards of the area. The Buayan-Kionop area, located in a remote part of the Crocker Range, is the largest CUZ where community members carry out subsistence agriculture (hill and wet rice), gather forest products, hunt and fi sh. They have an intricate knowledge of their surrounding natural landscapes, which is crucial for building an understanding about the entire area used and accessed by the community.

The Global Diversity Foundation and other environmental organizations worked with the Buayan-Kionop community to document key ethnobiological resources used by the community; study agricultural practices of the community; and examine subsistence hunting and fi shing practices. Community members will be trained in qualitative and quantitative ethnobiological methods and drive the process of documenting subsistence patterns in Buayan-Kionop. Results will be used to formulate the Buayan-Kionop CUZ collaborative management strategies.


34 PROCEEDINGS


• Make IPs subject of PA management, not objects.

• Involve IPs in the whole process of decision-making, from planning to implementation and evaluation.

• Use customary laws to strengthen conservation.

• Recognize customary laws, which are changing and changeable and may negatively impact protected areas.

• Draw on other laws and the Constitution that recognize IPs to strengthen claims for pro-IP policies.

• Although policy for participation exists, the interests of the State can still hamper implementation e.g. Mining Act vs. Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) in the Philippines.

• Many communities living within and around PAs have been protecting and managing pockets of areas.

• CCAs signifi cantly sustain the livelihoods of IPs.

• UNDP SGP-GEF proposals can be prepared in the form of videos for projects on biodiversity conservation and capacity building of IPs.

• Ensure accountability and transparency of projects by establishing clear criteria and guidelines for funding.

• IPs can develop networks with other NGOs.

• Regional initiatives such as the CMLV SEA show that sites can maximize learning and fundraising efforts.

I. Ensuring participation of IPs in PA management becomes part of policy framework.

II. Including Community Conserved Areas in the national PA system.

III. Funding for IPs in PA management.

• Recognize and affi rm indigenous peoples’ rights.

• Harmonize confl icting laws and provisions, and amend PA laws to allow effective participation of indigenous peoples in PA management.

• Involve IPs in PA decision-making process, not merely in PA work, e.g. patrolling, biodiversity monitoring.

• Provide capacity building for IPs and PA managers.

• Use customary laws and traditional knowledge to strengthen onservation.

• Allow PA managers to voice oncerns with appropriate government agencies to achieve policy change.

• IUCN to include CCAs as a new PA category (areas and sacred sites governed and managed by IPs).

• Fallback is to adopt governance types that allow communities to continue to manage areas found within existing PAs.

• Map CCAs and include in the total size of PAs in any particular country.

• Use fi nes/penalties to fund community use zones/PA management activities.

• Direct funding to IPs in PA management.

• Participation in PA planning,

establishment, governance and management.

• Recognition of Community Conserved Areas.

• Incentives that support PA and involvement of IPs.

Table 8. Regional Action Points: Indigenous Peoples in Protected Area Management


6. Sustainable Financing for Protected Areas

Chair: Avi Mahaningtyas National Coordinator, GEF-SGP Indonesia

Co-Chair: Joseph D’ Cruz Regional Technical Advisor, UNDP-GEF, Bangkok, Thailand

6.1 Sustainable Financing for Protected Areas

Narong Manhannop Protected Area Manager, Khao Yai National Park, Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Nakannratchasrima, Thailand

The presentation revolved around the defi nitions, objectives and sources of financial support for protected areas. Some of the fi nancial problems in PA management include a lack of capacity for management effectiveness, inappropriate fi nancial support, lack of continuous financial support, inappropriate activities, as well as ineffective payment schemes. Some of the measures suggested to generate funding include conducting a forum to obtain cooperation from various sectors; mobilizing funding through fees and trust funds; optimizing

management capacity; encouraging stakeholder participation in PA management; formulating good management plans; campaigning with the private sector; promoting transparency in the accounting of expenses; strengthening management of fi nancial and physical assets, as well as exercising better fi scal and budget control.

6.2 Papua Civil Society Support Foundation

Maria Latumahina Executive Director, PCSSF Gedung Kadin Papua, Lantai Satu Jayapura-Papua, Indonesia

The Papua Civil Society Support Foundation (PCSSF) is a grant facility to support civil society development initiatives. It supports civil society and community-based organizations through small grants, and by facilitating and sharing lessons learned, which help shape local policy and decision-making. The vision of the PCSSF is to enhance Papuans’ livelihood and basic rights by supporting local community organizations. Main programs include economy and governance, empowerment of women and community in natural resource management, improving access to information, policy and legal advocacy for Adat Rights Protection and biodiversity conservation.


Table 9. Regional Action Points: Sustainable Financing for Protected Areas


• Sabah put together a proposal with a good justifi cation for the National government to allocate a budget to cover some aspects of PA management.

• Sabah has its own statutory status for the park authorities as public servants. They stay within the institutions. Sabah Park has a master plan for the whole system that is still actively developed and adjusted to allow corrective actions to be made.

I. Need for proper legal infrastructure to guarantee accountability and mecha-nisms for sustainable funding.

• Start a discussion on the possibility of a revolving fund between neighboring countries to tackle cash fl ow and costs of PA management (Thailand, Cambodia and Myanmar).

• Ensure fi nancial sustainability of PAs and national and regional systems of PAs involvement of IPs.

36 PROCEEDINGS


• Sabah suggests putting together a proposal that justifi es the inclusion of PA management in the national budget.

• Sabah National Park provides clean water supply for indigenous and local peoples for daily use. Private sector pays 900 RM/year for water use and community is FOC.

• Generating a trust fund for PAs and HPs is not necessarily easy and sustainable as the amount of endowments will have to be signifi cant and needs an agreeable decision making mechanism on the use of the revenues derived from the trust fund.

• The UNDP/GEF has the experience of piloting a trust fund but this did not materialize in Mongolia.

• In Myanmar, there is an issue about collecting money for PAs because the local culture dictates that donations and gifts should be given to the shrine and temples as part of homage. The costs for conservation from the revenue of donation cannot cover the needs for maintenance of services.

II. Need for better awareness for people to understand the costs of PA maintenance and willingness to share the osts. What is the meaning of costs?

III. Mechanisms to determine “entry fees” and other fees to ensure the state of good social, cultural and ecological services of PAs and HPs.

IV. Need higher leverage and position for Park Authority to enforce the protection function of this body in facing threats that extract resources in PAs and HPs.

V. Need to defi ne mechanisms for “carbon trading” and include the costs of managing PAs as part of carbon sink/supply that shall be paid by polluters.

• Roundtable dialogues among related highlevel government agencies in ASEAN countries to educate and pin down commitments to include the costs of PA and HP maintenance in the national budget (e.g. Ministry of Finance, National Planning Agencies, Ministry of Marine, Forestry and Environment, etc.).

• More debates and discussions among related stakeholders in the country and the region to discuss the fi nancial sustainability and commitments to maintain PAs and HPs.

• An agreement should be made with the private sector to respect the efforts of park authorities to sell the education and tourism components of PAs and HPs.

• Investment in pursuing the fi nancial sustainability of PA management will need capacity building for human resources and local institutions, baseline data, planning and actual management and will take a long period to reach break even point.

• Establish a proposed benchmark and guidelines for fee equation and policy for charging visitors among ASEAN countries. To be deliberated in the 2008 CBD-COP9 in Spain.

• Organize workshops and training on fundraising and fund management as well as park management skills among ASEAN PA managers (Senior Managers).

• Public awareness, understanding and appreciation

• Mechanism for the equitable sharing of costs and benefi ts


7. Capacity Development for Better Protected Area Management

Chair: Noor Hidayat Director, Areas Conservation Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, Ministry of Forestry Jakarta, Indonesia

Co-Chair: Ng Sock Ling Assistant Director, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve, National Parks Board Singapore

7.1 Training Course on Biodiversity – BIOTROP Training and Information Centre Experience

Syah Indrawati Azron General Manager, SEAMEO-BIOTROP Training and Information Center Jawa Barat, Indonesia

The BIOTROP Training and Information Centre in Bogor, Indonesia offers a course on Biodiversity Information Systems, which aims to enhance human resources and develop information facilities to support the establishment of a database networking system.

Specifi cally, the course aims to provide insight and technical ability to manage, analyze and produce electronic information, as well as enhance the capability of each node on the effort of technology transfer and human resource development.

7.2 Master in Public Management, Major in Biodiversity Management in the Philippines

Josefa R. Bautista Faculty/Program Coordinator, Masters in Public Management, Development Academy of the Philippines, Pasig City, Philippines

The Philippines is home to some of the world’s most notable biological resources, which are constantly threatened by habitat destruction, over-exploitation, chemical or environmental pollution and biological pollution. To counter these threats, the country developed the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) through Republic Act No. 7586 passed in June 1992. The law required the creation of protected area (PA) management boards and management offi ces for national parks. However, there has been a lack of systematic preparation to handle the huge challenges of managing PA sites or developing PA programs.

Thus the Philippines’ Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Development Academy of the Philippines launched the Master in Public Management major in Biodiversity Conservation and Management (MPM-BCM) Program on 15 July 2004. This program aims to provide foresters, biodiversity experts, and marine scientists with the necessary training to synergize their technical know-how with the daily requirements of planning, interfacing with communities, local government officials, donors, preparing and defending budgets, keeping staff productive motivated and all the other strategic as well as day to day management tasks.


Table 10. Regional Action Points: Capacity Development for Better Protected Area Management


• Good information needs targeted delivery to maximize its use.

• Besides serving as a guide to AHP managers on job requirements, these Competence Standards can also serve as a framework for training institutions to design their capacity building programs, to better support capacity-building needs in PAs.

I. ACB’s Competence Standards Manual is not widely used due to issues with language, distribution and diffi culty level. Needs to be translated in other

• ACB can spearhead the translation of the Competence Standards Manual into national languages of the ASEAN, and in a manner that is practical and easy to understand.

• ACB to identify specifi c levels of authority and/ or ongoing programs to target marketing of the Competence Standards. ACB to identify lead partners in each country – a country agency that can lead the work in that country.

• Helped build capacity for the planning, establishment and management of PAs.

• Comprehensive capacity building programmes and initiatives implemented

38 PROCEEDINGS


• There are a number of training institutions that already offer a number of courses relevant to PA managers, e.g. Biotrop (Indonesia), DAP (Philippines), RECOFTC (Thailand). However, because PA managers are unaware of these training providers, some training institutions are unable to get adequate trainees, and managers do not tap these institutions for their training needs.

• Many fi eld practitioners in ASEAN still lack formal qualifi cations but their natural capabilities and local knowledge should not be discounted.

• Cost of training is an issue that slows down the progress of capacity development in ASEAN countries. When training is done overseas, the cost of sending staff to attend these trainings can be prohibitive. It may not necessarily be the most effi cient use of resources either.

• As we seek to engage the local community/ indigenous people in protecting our biodiversity, they too, should receive capacity development training to better equip them as partners in conservation.

• On the other hand, the local community/ indigenous people have rich local knowledge of the land and traditional practices, which could add to existing knowledge, but is as yet not documented.

languages, made more easier to understand, and more widely distributed.

II. There are inadequate links between AHP managers requiring training and training resources (training institutions, internet resources etc).

III: Lack of formal qualifi cations of fi eld staff to embark on further capacity development, e.g. Cambodia.

IV. Financing of trainees is an issue. Countries with unfavorable currency exchange rates tend to send fewer participants to attend overseas workshops or conferences.

V. Capacity development of indigenous / local people is lacking. This could lead to loss of local knowledge that could add to the body of information on biodiversity and culture, as undocumented local practices die out.

• Organize orientations/ short trainings for park managers/ relevant institutions on how to use the Competence Standard guidelines (especially for Myanmar).

• Link ACB website to training providers, e.g. Biotrop, DAP, RECOFTC, etc. Networking among training providers, with ACB website as central focus.

• ACB has a training arm, which can host workshops that bring together trainers to share training programs and identify competency gaps.

• Get buy-in from big players (e.g. IUCN, WWF, etc) that have already developed toolkits and other materials and engage them in a virtual learning centre.

• Do a gap analysis to see which competences training are available and which are lacking.

• Form a group of experienced trainers to share their existing programs and provide available training materials.

• Institutions should accredit relevant work in assessing qualifi cations for higher training, to allow staff without formal qualifi cations to have opportunities to progress.

• Conduct short training courses to accredit staffs who lack formal training (validation).

• Hold more in-country training. It is more cost effective to bring the trainer to the country needing the training (incountry training) than to fl y numerous participants overseas for training.

• Provide training for local communities. Broaden experiences of local communities to see positive examples of other indigenous communities (‘centres of excellence’).

• Staff exchange between parks/ institutions.

• Document fi eld-based practices that are not yet well-documented to add to the body of biodiversity/cultural knowledge.

• Establishment and strengthening of regional network

• Helped build capacity for the management of PAs

• Ensure fi nancial sustainability of PAs, and national and regional systems of PAs.

• Enhance and secure involvement of indigenous and local communities, and relevant stakeholders.



• As AHP managers link up and hope to learn best practices from one another, they are hampered by the lack of information on “centres of excellence” for the various aspects of AHP management.

• Decision-makers often do not understand the issues behind biodiversity conservation. This limitation impacts on the chances of making good decisions based on informed choices.

• When impacts/outcomes of training are not consistently monitored and documented, it is impossible to determine if the training has been effective. This impedes the ability to take stock

VI. Lack information on “centres of excellence” that are willing to share knowledge.

VII. Decision-makers (e.g. local governments) lack awareness of biodiversity issues.

VIII: Inconsistent monitoring of impacts/outcomes

• Make an initiative to identify and make known “centres of excellence” that are willing to share knowledge for purpose of staff exchange/capacity building.

• Organize study tours to observe ‘centres of excellence’ for capacity building.

• Improve awareness for decision-makers, e.g. through forum for decision makers where peers and trusted informants share experience/developmen ts on topics of interest. These should be very structured, conducted by eminent facilitators (e.g. RECOFTC, DAP programmes) and may be facilitated through ACB’s awareness program for leaders.

• ACB to spearhead initiative to identify key indicators to monitor impacts of training, e.g. through periodic surveys.

• Develop, apply and ransfer appropriate technologies for PAs.

• Strengthen communication, education and public awareness.

• Build capacity for the planning, establishment and management of PAs.

8. Biodiversity Monitoring for Terrestrial PAs

Chair: Steven Ryan Swan Project Team Leader FFI - Vietnam Programme Hanoi, Vietnam

8.1 Monitoring Asia’s IBAs

Belinda Dela Paz Advocacy Offi cer Haribon Foundation Quezon City, Philippines

Important Bird Areas (IBAs) are sites that provide habitats for species that are globally threatened, have restricted range, are members of congregations that represent 1% of a biogeographic population and are biome-restricted. These IBAs should be monitored to measure progress towards international and national conservation targets, guide conservation actions as well as provide scientifi c information for advocacy, fundraising and policy review purposes.

Three types of indicators are studied in basic IBA monitoring: pressure (threats to IBAs), state (status of biodiversity) and response (actions). Detailed IBA monitoring contributes to national, regional and global indices as well as guide adaptive management.

In Africa, the Birdlife Africa Partnership adopted the IBA framework in 2002, and IBA monitoring is now underway in more than 10 countries.

The key problem is sustainability and as such monitoring schemes should be institutionalized, simple, robust and inexpensive. Based on lessons from the African experience, the key principles of an Asian IBA monitoring framework require that it be simple, compatible with other monitoring initiatives, fl exible, relevant and sustainable.

A national IBA status and trends report should highlight any signifi cant positive or negative changes at particular sites, give a detailed health check for any sites assessed as needing urgent conservation action, and include a clear list of management recommendations based on monitoring outcomes.

8.2 Biodiversity Monitoring System in Protected Areas in the Philippines

Angelita P. Meniado Supv., Ecosystems Mgt. Specialist Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources North Ave., Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

Biodiversity monitoring is important to assess

the status of biodiversity, determine and address

40 PROCEEDINGS

threats, establish impacts of current management as well as check if local communities benefit from the conservation of protected areas. The Philippines’ Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS) in Protected Areas is a standardized monitoring system that aims to improve the information available for decision-makers in PAs through the regular collection of data on natural resources and their utilization. Results will be used to improve the participation of the PA community and other stakeholders in PA management. The BMS is largely cost-effective and simple; requires minimum training and operational resources; includes local communities as active participants and resource managers; and keeps decision-makers focused on conservation and sustainable use. BMS methods include the use of a field diary, photo documentation, focus group discussion and the transect method. The BMS is now being used in 36 PAs in the country. Its implementation has resulted in the formulation by the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) of management resolutions, local ordinances and other initiatives; improved participatory PA management; enhanced technical capabilities of staff in PA monitoring and community relations; increased communication on PA management between stakeholders; and developed awareness and appreciation of communities on PA management and biodiversity conservation.

8.3 Towards Site Level Monitoring in Lao PDR

Savannh Chanthakoummane Head, National PA Unit Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Department of ForestryLao PDR

Site-level monitoring refers to the systematic, f ield-focused or office-based acquisition of information for use in management planning and effectiveness assessment. Management programs that would benefit from field observations or monitoring include law enforcement, boundary demarcation, resource inventory and research, resource management, education and awareness, and determining the role of indigenous peoples. Site-level monitoring has been conducted at the Dong Hua Sao National Protected Area in Lao PDR, which covers 1,100 square kilometers. The Park is characterized by numerous wetlands and upland evergreen forests, and provides habitats for 62 mammal and 291 bird species. The Park is protected by a patrolling unit and four to eight staff members are assigned to monitor Park activities. Some of the recommendations that are results of regular monitoring include the creation of a standard but flexible and adaptable approach to site-level


• All PAs have effective management using participatory and science-based site planning processes that incorporate clear biodiversity objectives, targets, management strategies and monitoring programs, drawing upon existing methodologies and a long-term management plan with active stakeholder involvement.


I. Community involvement in monitoring.

II. Insuffi cient capacity/ limited skilled human resources to conduct monitoring

• Encourage effective participation of local communities where appropriate and provide incentives.

• Ensure regional coordination in biodiversity data collection and management particularly transboundary PAs.

• Increase capacity of biodiversity monitors such as government rangers, park staff, community rangers, NGOs, and academic institutions.

• Enhanced and secured involvement of indigenous and local communities

• Establishment and strengthening of regional networks

• Framework for monitoring and reporting

• Ensure fi nancial sustainability

Table 11. Regional Action Points: Biodiversity Monitoring for Terrestrial Protected Areas






III. Need for a “tool box” of methods to monitor specifi c species.

IV. Monitoring outputs for PA management, policy and advocacy.

V. Insuffi cient fi nancial resources allocated for monitoring.

• Develop and test a “tool box” of standardized methods to monitor status of species and ecosystems and sustainable use.

• Promote the use of monitoring data to inform decision/policymakers.

• Increase fi nancing for monitoring in PAs.

9. Managing World Heritage Sites in Southeast Asia

Chair: Jamili Nais Assistant Director, Sabah Parks Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

Co-Chair: Kari Lahti Programme Offi cer IUCN Programme on PAs, Gland, Switzerland

9.1 World Heritage Sites in Southeast Asia: Strengthening Integrated Conservation and Development at the Regional Level

Koen J.M. Meyers Technical Adviser for Environmental Sciences UNESCO World Heritage Sites Jakarta, Indonesia

World Heritage Sites (WHS) are areas with outstanding universal cultural and natural values, with exceptional characteristics that transcend national boundaries and are decreed to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. Inscription on the World Heritage List is a catalyst to raising awareness about heritage preservation on the part of governments and citizens alike. Heightened awareness, in turn, leads to greater consideration and a general rise in the level of protection and conservation afforded to heritage sites. There are currently 644 WHS in 138 countries all over the world. The World Heritage Convention and its Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention provides the standards to ensure the protection of WHS, including the establishment of management systems, as well

monitoring for testing in a variety of PAs in the region; development of capacity and expertise within the region; and the production of materials and analytical tools necessary for implementation.


42 PROCEEDINGS

as periodic reporting and monitoring processes. In the case of serial or transboundary properties, a management system or mechanism for ensuring the coordinated management of separate components is essential. Regional cooperation is particularly important to ensure support for WHS. Site support and improvement can be achieved through joint research, technical training, site visits, sharing of expertise and capacity building projects at the regional level. Partnerships with WHS and ASEAN Heritage Parks need to develop and embrace broader partnerships with member states, multilateral and bilateral institutions, NGOs, local communities and private sectors.

9.2 Komodo National Park (A World Heritage Site), Indonesia

Tamen Sitorus Head, Komodo National Park Authority, Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation Indonesia

The Komodo National Park is an exceptional storehouse of both terrestrial and marine biodiversity with global signifi cance. The terrestrial area covers 407 square kilometers while the marine component covers 1,325 square kilometers. The Park is characterized by mountainous islands with massive volcanic rocks such as sandstone, limestone, sandy shale and clay. Savanna, monsoon and quasi-cloud forests provide habitats for around 250 plant species, 32 mammals, 128 birds and 37 reptiles, including the Komodo Dragon, which is the world’s largest reptile. Coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds provide habitats for 1,000+ fish species and 385 coral species.

Established as a National Park in 1980, Komodo is managed by the Balai Taman Nasional Komodo (Komodo National Park Authority). Major threats to the Park include poaching of deer, invasive species, human encroachment, and use of unsustainable fi shing methods. Long-term effective management of the Park is detailed in the Komodo Collaborative Management Initiative, which emphasizes collaborative

management, conservation management, promotion of ecotourism and stimulation of the local community and economy. Park management aims to strengthen law enforcement and stakeholder participation to achieve its goal in making Komodo a world class National Park.

9.3 The Evolving Management of the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras: Focus on the Ifugao Rice Terraces

Melissa Malingan-Sapdoy Manager, Environmental Management

Division John Hay Management Corporation Baguio City, Philippines

The Ifugao Rice Terraces was declared a national landmark through Presidential Decree No. 260 in 1973 and was declared a World Heritage Site in 1995. The Ifugao Rice Terraces has five clusters in four municipalities, all of which have an average slope of 700-800 meters above sea level and slopes that are more than 50 percent. In 1999, the terraces become one of the 100 most endangered World Monuments. The Rice Terraces Ecosystem is characterized by communal forests, privately-owned forests, swidden farms, communal grassland, cane grassland, rice ponds/terraces, settlement areas and rivers. The rice production cycle has two phases, four seasons, 15 periods, 22 events, as well as 23 rituals and sub-rituals. Challenges to the sustainability of the rice terraces include dispersed locations, ancestral claims, leadership concerns and development challenges such as loss of interest in culture, diminishing biodiversity, land use conversion, erosion and siltation, and a decreasing farm labor force. Local communities and government have worked together to protect this cultural heritage by repairing eroded terrace walls, providing technical assistance for traditional rice production, continuing marketing support for “heritage rice”, conducting an inventory of fl ora and fauna, and continuing documentation of traditional and indigenous knowledge systems.



Table 12. Regional Action Points: Managing World Heritage Sites in Southeast Asia


• Inscription in the WHS list is not just a badge of honor; it is also a bundle of responsibility.

• The WHS can eventually be elfsustaining, with appropriate strategies and programs, ecotourism, appropriate legislation and initial support from government, civil society,

I. The nomination process is not fully understood at the regional level. There should be better understanding of the identifi cation of sites, technical help in the nomination process, emphasis on cluster nomination, and transboundary parks nomination.

II. Benefi t sharing sites and communities do not have direct benefi ts from revenues generated from tourism and other activities in the sites.

III. After inscription, the role of UNESCO is unclear.

IV. Communications and networking - urgent need for regional networking (intercountries, intracountry, inter-sites).

• Review the criteria for AHP and compare with WHS criteria.

• Coordinated network regarding reporting (due 2008).

• Start inter-site linkages (including staff exchange).

• Develop guidelines in identifying and sharing benefi ts.

• Create guidelines for the nomination of clustering transboundary PAs.

• Prepare cluster marine nomination (prepare nomination for Indonesia, prepare platform for the region).

• After inscription, there is support from UNESCO, IUCN, ASEAN through increased presence and visibility, regular and systematic fora or platforms and promotion of regional tourism. The WHC also produces a video on WH sites like the one produced for the AHP – The ASEAN Dream.

• An ASEAN member country should have a seat in the World Heritage Committee.

• Establish and strengthen transboundary PAs and other forms of collaboration between neighboring PAs across national boundaries and regional networks, to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, implement the ecosystem approach, and improve international cooperation.

• Create a common platform for all heritage sites: Website, egroups, working groups, other clear channels of communication.

• Standards, criteria, and best practices for planning, selecting, establishing, managing and governance of national and regional systems of PAs are developed and adopted.

• Equitable sharing of both costs and benefi ts.

• Participation of indigenous and local communities.

• Establishment and strengthening of regional networks, collaboration and other transboundary PAs

• Framework for monitoring and reporting PA management effectiveness

44 PROCEEDINGS


• Public awareness, understanding and appreciation of the importance and benefi ts of PAs have signifi cantly increased.

V. The need for capacity building for national leaders, park managers and other stakeholders regarding the values and importance of the heritage sites.

• Capacity building with technical assistance/ guidance from WCPA, UNESCO and other groups to park managers on monitoring, reporting.

• Training on various aspects of PA management.

• Awareness programs on the values and importance of the heritage sites for leaders and policy makers.

• Building capacity for the planning, establishment and management of PAs.

10. Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas in Southeast Asia

Chair: Marc Hockings Senior Lecturer and Vice-Chair, IUCN-WCPA, Australia School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, University of Queensland, Catton Campus, Queensland, Australia

Co-Chair: Paulus Basintal Assistant Director, Sabah Parks Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia

10.1 Introduction to Management Effectiveness Evaluation

Marc Hockings IUCN-WCPA, Australia

The 2006 WCPA Guidelines defi nes management effectiveness evaluation as “the assessment of how well a protected area is being managed – primarily the extent to which it is protecting values and achieving goals and objectives”. Management effectiveness is a major issue since management defi ciencies are major threats to PAs. Management effectiveness evaluations must be strengthened to improve PA management, ensure effective resource allocation, promote accountability and transparency, as well as involve the community, build constituency and promote PA values. Currently, an ongoing effort aims to produce a global review of management effectiveness evaluations of PAs. Over 4,000 management effectiveness studies in 80 countries have been entered in a database to learn about the range of methodologies used for different situations and PA systems. Results can be compared across systems to determine global trends in effective PA management.

10.2 Policy Challenges to the Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas

Ben S. Malayang III President, Silliman University Philippines

Management Effectiveness Assessments (MEAs) are important to ensure the good delivery of services; achieve complementation and harmony in the management of PAs; and meet the cascade of global to local expectations on PAs. Three preconditions to good MEAs include the high public values of PAs, high public values of MEAs, and wide and robust technical base of MEAs. MEAs are management techniques and tools. Their use and adherence to doing them will likely depend upon how much PAs are valued by their constituency and by society in general. PAs and MEAs should acquire high political value to ensure high policy investments. MEAs are crucial to improving PAs, so these should be mainstreamed among layers of PA stakeholders and management organizations.

10.3 MPA-Management Effectiveness: A Case Study from Viet Nam

Tham Thi Ngoc Diep Senior Marine Programme Offi cer WWF Greater Mekong Program Hanoi, Viet Nam

A Guidebook on Marine Protected Areas is currently being used in several sites in Vietnam to determine effective MPA management. One of the sites is the Nui Chua National Park, which was designated a National Park in 2003 and covers 7,000 marine hectares. Issues faced by the MPA include coral reef degradation, diminishing fi shery yields, threats to marine turtles, lack of economic


resilience, management capacity and tourism. MPA management aims to effectively manage and conserve the nationally-unique and globally-signifi cant marine biodiversity at the park, improve the livelihoods of local communities, and help increase opportunities for sustainable income-generation. Some of the lessons that have been learned in the course of PA management include the need to simplify abstract indicators, as well as add new goals and objectives for effective management.

10.4 The Application of RAPPAM Tool in Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas

Rahimatsah Amat WWF-Malaysia, Borneo Programme and Surin Suksuwan WWF-International Gland, Switzerland

The Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation of Protected Areas Management (RAPPAM) Tool was developed by WWF International and is questionnaire-based. Its main assessment elements are Context, PA Design and Planning, Inputs, Management Processes, Management Outputs and Outcomes. RAPPAM is an

effective tool since it is comprehensive and outcome-focused; relatively quick, cheap and efficient to undertake; provides clear and repeatable criteria and indicators of good protected area management; links country level PA assessment with the WCPA/IUCN framework, thereby allowing comparisons of results across countries; and encourages cooperation and partnerships between government, NGOs and other stakeholders.

In Malaysia, RAPPAM was used to assess 18 out of 24 existing terrestrial National and State Parks and involved fi ve different management agencies. The objectives of the assessment were to update existing data on national and state parks in Malaysia; review strength and weaknesses; identify and analyse the main pressures and threats to national and state parks; and formulate appropriate recommendations to further improve management effectiveness. Results of the study showed that management effectiveness was quite strong overall but there are some weaknesses. Major concerns include land-use disputes, lack of landscape linkages between PAs, and inadequate boundary demarcation; lack of up-to-date management plans; need for more research on key ecological and sociological issues; and low park user fees.


Table 13. Regional Action Points: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas in SEA


• There has been some work done primarily by international NGOs and international organizations (FAO, UNDP, etc.).

• Need to engage governments, management authorities, communities, institutions and others in this work.

• Need to develop understanding of PA agencies and staff concerning MEE as an issue and MEE tools.

I. Relatively little work done on Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) in SEA.

• Translate key MEE documents into SEA languages (IUCN-WCPA Guidelines, RAPPAM, WWF/World Bank Tracking Tool [revised version of METT and Marine Tracking Tool], Enhancing our Heritage workbook). Translation can be undertaken by ACB and the IUCN. Cost should be shouldered by each AMC.

• Prepare proposal (from IUCN/ ACB) to UNESCO World Heritage Centre and ACB/ADB/EC for the establishment of an indepth MEE for all SEA natural World Heritage sites and all ASEAN Heritage sites (35 sites) between now and 2010. This should be undertaken by IUCN and ACB. Costs may amount to $900,000.

• Seek action of ASEAN countries to implement CBD target of conducting MEE in 30% of PAs. This should be the responsibility of relevant ASEAN Ministers and organizations.

• Provision of enabling policy, institutional and socio-economic environment for PAs

46 PROCEEDINGS


• There is a need to develop capacity of PA staff, indigenous local communities and other stakeholders to undertake monitoring and assessments.

• Most ASEAN states share similar problems in relation to capacity so there is an opportunity for cooperative action.

• NGOs have experience and interest in this work and could partner with government agencies to assist agencies in capacity development.

• In the absence of agency/government commitment, there can be problems in implementing changes to management resulting from MEE fi ndings.

• Science for doing good MEE is one thing but the policies to mainstream MEE in PA management is another.

• Policies have the potential to enable the development of the science to undertake MEE.

II. Lack of regional capacity to undertake MEE and site-level monitoring.

II. Need to improve effectiveness of communication among staff, with the public and stakeholders in relation to PA management and MEE.

IV. Need to use information arising from MEE to improve management of PAs.

V. Need to develop policies that promote and institutionalize the conduct of good MEE.

VI: Need to mmediately address key threats shared across the region.

• Implement National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA) recommendations (responsibility and cost already designated in NCSA recommendations).

• Use WCPA network to compile information on existing site level monitoring and evaluation as a fi rst step in promoting more effective monitoring and evaluation within ASEAN countries.

• Encourage countries to develop work plans for management effectiveness monitoring and evaluation (and the training needed to implement these work plans).

• Promote degree programs for biodiversity conservation and management and promote inclusion of information on monitoring and evaluation within these programs.

• Establish a regional mentor network to assist countries in implementing MEE (responsibility – regional training institutions such as RECOFTC and ACB).

• Make results of MEE activities available to staff, other agencies, stakeholders and the public.

• Develop reporting systems to communicate results of site level monitoring and MEE through an appropriate regional clearing house mechanism.

• Commitment at highest level would be key and recommendations from this meeting would go to the ASEAN ministers for discussion.

• Ensure senior management/governmen t support and commitment to MEE programs.

• Identify the policies needed to support MEE (responsibility – ACB).

• Strengthen policies and their enforcement and public sector investments on the policies.

• Include requirement on comprehensive management plan and MEE work plan for approval of new PAs.

• Strengthen laws and legislation.• Increase enforcement

mechanisms including transboundary cooperation.

• Building and strengthening capacity for the planning, establishment and management of PAs

• Framework for identifying, monitoring, and reporting.

• Development, application and transfer of appropriate technologies

• Development, review, and/or revision of policies.

• Effective mechanism for identifying, preventing and/or itigating the negative


11. Biodiversity Monitoring for Marine Protected Areas

Chair: Shiela G. Vergara Senior Marine Biodiversity Specialist Conservation International - Philippines Quezon City, Philippines

Co-Chair: Calvin Loh Executive Director Malaysian Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

11.1 Building Community-Based Marine Protected Area Monitoring

Tiburcio Fernando, National President, Benjamin Dellosa PAMANA KA sa Pilipinas, San Salvador, Masinloc, Zambales, Philippines Gregorio de la Rosa Jr Research Assistant Jose Ma. Antonio Bringas Haribon Foundation 2nd Flr. Santos & Santos Bldg., 973 Aurora Blvd. Quezon City 1109, Philippines

Amidst serious small fisherfolks’ misery and coastal marine ecosystem degradation, support to the establishment and management, particularly enforcement of a significant number of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the coastal municipalities in the country is imperative. Philippine reefs are highly threatened due to siltation from deforestation, coastal land development, industrial pollutants, use of destructive fi shing methods, and overfi shing. Moreover, studies by Licuanan (2002) indicate that 70 percent of coral reefs in the Philippines are in poor condition, and only 5 percent are in excellent condition. To this end, PAMANA Ka Sa Pilipinas was formally organized by Haribon Foundation in 1999, with the aim of protecting, managing and enriching marine sanctuaries and coastal resources to respond to the needs of the future generations. With an initial membership of 33, PAMANA Ka Sa Pilipinas to date has a total membership of 122. According to Alcala (2001), one of the components to attain CB-MPA

sustainability was to have a standardized monitoring system. During the implementation of the PAMANA project, the project decided to gather community developed monitoring experiences to develop a standard monitoring protocol on all PAMANA member sites. Lessons learned from the four sites sampled during the gathering were the following: successful monitoring protocols were those initiated by peoples organizations and supported by local government; methods must be simple, scientifi cally sound, and community accepted; monitoring should be participatory in nature to attain sustainability. Emerging issues include the following: a large number of CB-MPAs in the Philippines still have no monitoring, sustainability of monitoring initiatives, and the need to develop a standard monitoring protocol. Future directions include: development of a support group for monitoring, building/strengthening of bay-wide alliance to maximize and share skills, and logistical needs.

11.2 Monitoring Stakeholder Perceptions to Improve Effectiveness of MPA Management

Abdul Halim Policy and Finance Manager The Nature Conservancy-Coral

Triangle Center JI. Pengembak No. 2 Sanur-Denpasar Bali, Indonesia

The Coral Triangle in Indonesia is among the most diverse coral reef systems on earth. Monitoring on Coral Triangle Center (CTC) sites focuses on coral health, fi sh spawning, and resource use. Community perceptions are also monitored to measure community needs and attitudes about marine conservation and sustainable resource uses; improve adaptive marine protected area (MPA) management by reflecting stakeholder needs; and improve outreach programs to support MPA management. Some research and monitoring results in the CTC sites show that communities are very supportive of the idea of developing MPAs and compliance and awareness on regulations are positively correlated. Major threats to conservation include blast and cyanide fishing. Recommendations to reduce threats and strengthen support include conducting awareness campaigns among the local community, developing outreach materials rooted in the local context and presented in the local language.

48 PROCEEDINGS

11.3 Biodiversity Monitoring of Marine Protected Areas

Annadel Salvio Cabanban Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion Manager WWF-Malaysia

Marine protected areas should be monitored to honor the implicit agreements with primary stakeholders; demonstrate benefi ts of protection; convince policy-makers for sustainable development; and evaluate interventions. According to the Status of Coral Reefs by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, general gaps in MPAs include a lack of clear management goals and capacity, as well as high management costs. Specifi cally, gaps focus on

inappropriate monitoring, varying methods used, as well as insuffi cient monitoring. Some organizations, such as Reef Check and the ASEAN-Australia Living Coastal Resources, have developed substantial assessment and monitoring tools that can be adopted by others.

The Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion Programme has sought to address gaps through the Sulu-Suluawesi Marine Ecoregion Conservation Plan, which was validated in June 2003 and ratifi ed by participating countries in 2005. Programs of work on tri-national sea turtle conservation, tri-national fisheries management, and network of MPAs have already been developed to ensure effective management of the area.


Table 14. Regional Action Points: Biodiversity Monitoring of Marine Protected Areas


• Needs support from local government.

• Lack of organized communities.

I. Coastal land development; growing population, over fi shing/illegal fi shing practices/encroachment by illegal fi shermen.

II. Lack of support for CBMPAs.

III. Inform/educate policy makers/implementers.

• Conduct mandatory EIA (both during and post project monitoring) for siltation and impact.

• Introduce alternative livelihood programs (e.g. micro-credit) to reduce demands on natural resources.

• Implement Family Planning Program and monitor population growth; propose “Population, Health and Environment” program.

• Increase enforcement and monitor and map incidences of violations.

• Monitor impact of overfi shing/ illegal fi shing practices.

• Implement the “notake” zone policy.

• Organize communities with representatives from major stakeholder groups.

• Use monitoring to demonstrate benefi ts of protection; convince policy makers and implementers.

• Train, empower and fund local community to be enforcers and strengthen monitoring.

• Encourage tourists to contribute to funds for enforcing and monitoring e.g. visitors pay conservation fees.

• Provide incentives to participants in conservation.

• Strengthening of communication, education and public awareness.

• Develop, apply and transfer appropriate technologies

• Involvement of indigenous people, local communities, and other stakeholders.



IV. Lack of clear management goals, effective implementation and stakeholder involvement. Sometimes monitoring methodology is not appropriate, inconsistently implemented or insuffi cient.

• Use IUCN “Ecosystem Approach” to assess PA management effectiveness and promote adaptive management.

• Link monitoring indicators/subjects to MPA objectives.

• Adopt a common, consistent and participatory monitoring system for biophysical and socioeconomic monitoring.

• Analyze monitoring data then present to PA managers, policy makers, researchers, stakeholders and local communities.

• Develop system of peer delivery of information among local community stakeholders.

• Framework for monitoring and reporting PA management effectiveness.

12. Sustainable Livelihood and Equity in Relation to Protected Areas

Chair: Veronica Villavicencio Executive Director, Peace and Equity Foundation Quezon City, Philippines

Co-Chair: Anthony de Silva Thailand Program Coordinator The World Conservation Union Bangkok, Thailand

12.1 The Segama Conservation Area – A Case for Stewardship

Laurentius Ambu Deputy Director, Sabah Wildlife Department Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia

The state of Sabah covers 73,700 square kilometers and is characterized by a tropical rainforest climate. Its immense biodiversity has been protected by a number of projects, including the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation (BBEC) Programme that aims to establish a comprehensive and sustainable approach for biodiversity conservation and jointly implemented by the Sabah State Government, academic institutions and NGOs. Its four components are Research and Education, Park Management, Habitat Management, and Public Awareness. Program outputs include an enhanced monitoring system that integrates program components for comprehensive conservation; an appropriate research and education model for conservation; effective

management options; integrated approach to habitat management for important species; model to change behaviors of target groups towards biodiversity conservation; and a more permanent framework as a basis for comprehensive conservation that is modeled from BBEC.

The principal strategy of the program is that local people are the best guardians of their environment. When people realize the benefi ts of conservation, they tend to support and participate in conservation activities. As such, management programs need to incorporate activities of people. Integrating society in conservation is one of the solutions for a workable conservation initiative.

12.2 Sustainable Tourism and Protected Areas – Thailand Ramesh Boonratana Mahidol University Thailand

Sustainable tourism development meets the needs of present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing opportunities for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life-support systems.

Ecotourism embraces the principles of sustainable tourism, but distinguishes itself by actively contributing to the conservation of natural and cultural heritages. Ecotourism includes local and indigenous communities in its planning, development,

50 PROCEEDINGS

and operation, and contribute to their well-being; interprets the natural and cultural heritage of the destination to visitors; and lends itself better to independent travelers, as well as to organized tours for small groups.

Ecotourism is about connecting conservation, communities, and sustainable travel. It is the preferred type of tourism in protected areas (PAs) and is an acceptable alternative way of income generation. However, tourism development can impact on local environments and cultures through infrastructure construction and tourism activities. Hence, whether tourism development harms or complements the PA will depend on the commitment to the principles both of sustainable tourism and, of ecotourism.

12.3 Achieving Conservation Through Community Participation and Poverty Reduction: Nha Trang Bay Case Study

Bui Thi Thu Hien Marine and Coastal Program Manager IUCN-The World Conservation Union- Vietnam Hanoi, Vietnam

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are established to ensure the long-term health of marine habitats and species diversity, and protect depleted, threatened,

rare or endangered species, and their habitats. MPAs also aim to improve community wealth, increase local environmental awareness and strengthen capacity for local communities to participate in marine management.

In Viet Nam, MPAs face a range of issues involving economic benefits, management structures and capabilities, community participation and support, monitoring and evaluation, and law enforcement. The Nha Trang Bay MPA in Viet Nam covers 16,000 hectares and provides habitats for 350 species of coral, 22 species of fi sh, and 112 species of crustaceans. The MPA also aims to enable local island communities to improve their livelihoods and serve as a model for collaborative MPA management. Alternative income-generating activities include environment friendly activities such as handicrafts production, ecotourism, livestock-raising and aquaculture.

12.4 Livelihood Inputs as a Tool to Deliver on Conservation Objectives at the Natmataung National Park

Khin Ma Ma Thwin General Secretary, Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Association (BANCA) Yangon, Myanmar

The Natmataung National Park is situated in the Eastern Himalayan Range Endemic Bird Area (EBA)


Table 15. Regional Action Points: Sustainable Livelihood Livelihood and Equity in Relation to PAs


• Stakeholder community involvement: information, education; valuing, pride, appreciation of biodiversity/resources.

• Provide basic needs and infrastructure (water, roads, energy, shelter).

• Alternative income generating/livelihood activities.

• Appropriate technology.• Credit systems.• Monitoring livelihood and

resource impact.• Involvement of community in

decision-making (e.g. zoning, planning, resource use rules).

• Equity in Benefi ts and shared sustainability.

• Tourism as alternative livelihood can be double-edged – benefi t or threat.

I. Communities in PAs suffer from poverty (lack of basic needs) and unsustainable agriculture, harvesting, and resource use practices. There is a need to increase income and improve livelihoods.

II. Balance conservation objectives and community needs (PA Management). There is a need to resolve land tenure issues, lack of funds for zone planning and management, livelihood opportunities, effectiveness of sharing PA revenues, and fees for community needs.

• Synthesis and Sharing of Lessons and Best Practices of Zoning Management and Livelihoods, among practitioners, supported by networks.

• Use training programs, organizations for capacity building of all stakeholders (based on needs assessments).

• Encourage more focused discussions on issues of Sustainable Livelihoods and linkages with other sectors/thematic discussion of PA management.

• Ensure that marketing, the language of business, is well understood.

• Involve the local, smallscale businesses in conservation and livelihood programs.

• Ensure that marketing, the language of business. Is understood.

• Involve the local, smallscale businesses in conservation and livelihood programs.

• Identify funds for PA zoning and management considering livelihood activities.

• Identify other sources – in business, check corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs.

• CDM (carbon mechanism).• Review current PA fees/revenues

and their use in supporting community and sustainable livelihood activities – to encourage community support for PA conservation.

in Myanmar. It is the home of the White-browed Nuthatch (Sitta victoriae), an endemic bird and several restricted range bird species. The area plays a critical role in the water supply and agriculture of the country and provides habitats for globally important fl ora and fauna. Threats to the Park include forest clearing for shifting cultivation, wildlife poaching, and collection of wild orchids.

The Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Association (BANCA) and Birdlife Indochina started a conservation program that included livelihood inputs and basic support such as food, water storage tanks, and school equipment. Environmental awareness

workshops have also been conducted for children and villagers. The successful implementation of the project has resulted in requests for project replication in other villages, increased awareness of environmental issues as well as the development of trust between villagers and Park staff. Still, many challenges have to be faced, such as funding, climate, accessibility to project site and others, but the success of the project shows the signifi cance of integrating livelihood inputs in conservation programs to generate the support of the local community.


52 PROCEEDINGS

13. Issues Relating to Application of IUCN Categories for Protected Areas

Chair: Nigel Dudley IUCN-WCPA Categories Task Force United Kingdom

Co-Chair: Latsamay Sylavong IUCN, Lao PDR

13.1 Application of IUCN Categories for Protected Areas in Sabah, Malaysia

Junaidi Payne Senior Adviser, WWF-Malaysia Borneo Programme

Jamili Nais Assistant Director (Research and Education), Sabah Parks

Laurentius Ambu Deputy Director, Sabah Wildlife Department

Protected area laws in Sabah cover land use, forests, wildlife and national parks. Some of the projects on protected area management include the Bornean Biodiversity and Ecosystems Conservation Programme (2002-2006), the 2005 Sabah PA Master List and the 2006 Study on Government Response and Workshop. Areas that are clearly defi ned as protected areas include land reserves for nature conservation, protection forest reserves and virgin jungle reserves, wildlife areas and parks. Areas that are not defi ned as PAs include native reserves, recreational parks, and pre-1936 bird sanctuaries. Some areas are still being debated for declaration as PAs, including river and shore reserves declared under the Water Law, and river reserves under the Land Law.

13. 2 IUCN Protected Area Categories

Latsamay Sylavong IUCN, Lao PDR

A protected area is an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. IUCN has six categories of protected areas, defi ned by their

management objective. The original aims of the categories were to help reduce confusion about names, to encourage international standards for management and to provide a framework for handling data. The categories are a key tool that encapsulate the IUCN philosophy of protected areas. A task force has now been established to update and revise the categories in light of 10 years’ experience with their application and changing approaches to the way in which categories are used. The task force is working closely with IUCN’s Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy to look at both categories and governance models. It is also running regional meetings to ensure that the diverse cultures and geographies represented by IUCN have a chance to contribute to the revision of the categories.

13.3 The National Integrated Protected Areas System in the Philippines and the IUCN Categories

Annabel Plantilla Haribon Foundation Cubao, Quezon City Philippines

The National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act defines the classification and administration of all designated protected areas to maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems, preserve genetic diversity, ensure sustainable use of resources and maintain their natural conditions to the greatest extent possible. PAs are identified portions of land and water set aside by reason of their unique physical and biological significance, managed to enhance biological diversity and protected against destructive human exploitation. PA categories in the Philippines - which include strict nature reserves, natural parks, natural monuments, wildlife sanctuaries, protected landscapes and seascapes, resource reserves and natural biotic areas - follow those set by the IUCN. Some of the issues in PA management include the length of the process before inclusion in the PA system, settlements with PAs, overlapping protection status with other agencies and exclusion of internationally PAs from the PA system. The challenges faced by PA managers include an assessment of the NIPAS system and its management objectives, awareness-raising on the categorization process, and capacity building among stakeholders.


13.4 Protected Area Categories in Thailand

Peeranuch Dulkul Kappelle Forest Offi cial, National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department Thailand

There are currently 276 protected areas (PAs) in Thailand, covering 18 percent of the total land area of the country, while 47 national parks and wildlife sanctuaries are still being processed for inclusion in the PA system. PAs are categorized into national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, forest parks, non-hunting areas and botanical gardens/arboretum. The agencies

involved in PA management are the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE) and the National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department (DNP).

Some of the issues faced by the agency and other stakeholders include overlapping categories of PAs, lack of flexibility in PA categories, and the applicability of various laws in the PA system. To address these matters, an effective PA system plan must be set in place to harmonize laws, facilitate effective management, transfer policy into action, strengthen capacity of managers and enhance cooperation between relevant agencies.


Table 16. Regional Action Points: Issues Relating toApplication of IUCN Categories for Protected Areas


Confusion

Lack of cooperation cre-ated the problems

Different objectives and defi nitions by some countries (7 in the Philippines, 3 in Myanmar, 4 in Thailand).

Changing conditions within protected areas

What “counts” as a protected area (e.g Sabah, Thailand, Brunei, Indonesia) - in particular forest reserves, community forests, and ancestral domains.

What minimum size “counts” as a protected area?

Range of different government agencies handling protected areas - e.g problems in consolidating information

Data collection

Public perception - bad im-pression of “protected areas”

ASEAN interpretation of protected area categories - (1-2 years) - includ-ing guidance about what counts or may count (with special attention to timber production forests) as a protected area

Minimum size of a protected area by category?

Region-specifi c interpretation of the categories

Case studies from the region

Need advice from IUCN

One agency per country should com-pile data on protected areas

Develop regional data collection (3-year target)

Increase awareness raising

Goal: To integrateprotected areas into broader landscapes and seascapes so as to maintain eco-logical structure and function.

All protected areas and protected area systems are inte-grated into the wider landscapes and sea-scapes, and relevant sectors, by applying the ecosystems approach and taking into account ecologi-cal connectivity and the concept, where appropriate, of eco-logical networks.

Goal: To provide an enabling policy, institutional and socio-economic environment for protected areas

Goal: To strengthen communication and public awareness activities

54 PROCEEDINGS

THE REGIONAL ACTION PLANFOR ASEAN HERITAGE SITESAND OTHER PROTECTED AREAS

The Regional Plans of Action for each of the parallel sessions were discussed during the

plenary sessions, then subsequently adopted by the Conference. From these action plans, the Conference made its fi nal recommendations that became the basis for the formulation of the Regional Action Plan for ASEAN Heritage Parks and Other Protected Areas. The Regional Action Plan would complement and support national conservation initiatives toward the conservation and management of PAs.

Both the priorities set forth in the Durban Action Plan and the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas were also vital to the formulation of the Regional Action Plan. The Durban Action Plan recommended a strengthened role for PAs in implementing the CBD through a participatory mechanism and in full compliance of the rights of indigenous peoples and the youth population. The management of all PAs would be reviewed to determine if links exist with all the world’s ecosystems. The World Heritage List would be drawn up in all sites whose biodiversity values are outstanding and universal. On the other hand, the CBD used the priorities of the Durban Accord as reference for the Programme of Work for PAs that moves the global PA agenda farther and sets ambitious targets for the Parties to the Convention towards better PA management.

Thus, one of the objectives of the Conference was to identify regional actions for the protected areas of

Southeast Asia in relation to meeting the targets in the Durban Accord and the commitments to the PoW for PAs of the CBD and the ASEAN Heritage Parks Programme.

The key areas for action proposed for the ASEAN Region are the following:

• Establishment and strengthening of national and regional systems of PA management ;

• Establishment and strengthening of regional networks, thereby promoting equity and benefit sharing;

• Promotion of improved site-based PA planning and management, and capacity building of PA staff through appropriate technology transfer.

• Assessment, monitoring and evaluation efefctiveness of PA management and devlopment and adoption of minimum standards and best practices for national and regional PAs, and ensuring that scientific knowledge contributes to the effectiveness of PA systems;

• Enhancement and securing involvement of indigenous and local communities in PAs and strengthening communication; and

• Ensuring financial stabilityTable 17 shows the Regional Action Plan for

Protected Areas.

Table 17. Regional Action Plan for ASEAN Heritage Sites and Other Protected Areas

Goals Action Agenda

GOAL 1: Establish and strengthen national and regional systems of PAs integrated into a global network as a contribution to globally agreed goals Goal 1.1: Integrate PAs into broader land and sea scapes

• Establish more PAs at the local level and community level and under various forms of governance other than national government.

• Set up regional systems of PAs using scientifi c information such as on ecological connectivity particularly for important marine biodiversity areas.

• Urge the mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for developmental projects with potential negative environmental impacts on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

• Implement a family planning program, as lower population brings with it corresponding decline in demand for natural resources.

• Consider inter-relationships of population, health and environment (Philippine Program on Population Resources and Environment).

• Recognize other PAs under other jurisdictions, e.g., private / community management.

• Conduct regional assessments for WHS nominations.


Goals Action Agenda

Goal 1.2: Establish and strengthen regional networks of PAs

Goal 1.3: Substantially improve site-based PA planning and management

GOAL 2: Promote equity and benefi t-sharing in the PA system

Goal 2.1: Enhance and secure involvement of indigenous and local communities and relevant stakeholders

GOAL 3: Build capacity of PA managers, stakeholders, and benefi ciaries

Goal 3.1: Develop, apply and transfer appropriate technology for PAs

Goal 3.2: Promote fi nancial sustainability

Goal 3.3: Strengthen communication, education and public awareness

• Strengthen regional coordination in biodiversity data collection and management, particularly transboundary PAs.

• Strengthen ACB support coordination among countries pertaining to PA management such as establishing the regional Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) for the ASEAN.

• Strengthen regional cooperation for trans-boundary enforcement.• Call for cluster WHS nominations of important sites located in multi-countries.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of managing AHPs and PAs and translate these into adaptive management actions at the site and system levels.

• Assess cost and benefi t implications of maintaining and establishing PAs for communities and indigenous peoples (IPs) living in and around the PAs.

• Ensure good governance in all PAs.• Ensure participation of the IPs in PA management, particularly in the planning

and decision-making process.• Harmonize existing PA laws and IPs’ rights and customary laws.• Include new category on Community Conserved Areas (CCAs), and areas and sacred sites governed and managed by IPs.• Lobby for the recognition by national government of CCAs as a legitimate part

of the PA system.

• Conduct capacity-building across all areas with focus on the following: Management effectiveness evaluation (MEE) Fund raising and fund management among ASEAN PA managers• Generate and share critical data on PAs among IPs and local communities.• Establish degree programs for PA management and/or include PA management

into the formal curriculum.• Empower local communities to resolve land use confl icts; provide PA managers

with basic skills on confl ict resolution.• Conduct more capacity-building initiatives at the regional level such as

increasing capacity for AHP and WHS management, through support from UNESCO, ASEAN and IUCN.

• Establish a mechanism or a common platform to share technologies/best practices on existing sustainable livelihoods within the PAs.

• Seek alternative ways of generating income for PAs in Southeast Asia (SEA), as national budgets (mostly trust funds) for PA management and operation and related activities are inadequate.

• Establish benchmark and guidelines for fee collection and policy among ASEAN countries for use and conservation of PAs.

• Obtain the commitment of national leaders to provide budget for the operation and management of the PAs and AHPs.

• Establish sustainable fi nancing mechanisms within SEA to support PA management.

• Promote sustainable tourism.

• Review and establish mechanisms to measure if the countries’ public education programs have been effective in communicating the basic biodiversity values of PAs.

• identify change interventions for awareness, appreciation and motivation for sustainable communications and community relations for one model PA for each country; Include the development of a communication plan to target specifi c sectors such as IPs, youth, within the short term.

• Conduct regional education campaigns across sectors (teachers, students, NGOs, governments-local and national) while maintaining education campaigns on the importance, values and activities being undertaken for PAs in each country.

• Clarify misconceptions on PAs and promote greater awareness of its true meaning and importance; ACB to lead in improving the awareness of high-level decision makers.

• Implement good communication plans that are specifi c for PAs at the regional, national, and local levels.

56 PROCEEDINGS

The following are the details of each major goal and specifi c action plans from the Parallel Sessions of the Conference:

GOAL 1: Establish and strengthen national and regional systems of PAs integrated into a global network as a contribution to globally agreed goals.

1. Issues There is lack of awareness among people in

Southeast Asia (SEA) of what constitutes a PA - from those living in heritage sites and PAs, to policy makers and urban dwellers. While SEA countries have their own lists or networks of PAs in accordance with their own defi nitions and objectives, there may be still other PAs and CCAs, which can be included in the network of PAs. However, due to the limited defi nition of PAs, such areas are not included. Hence, there is a need to have a common international defi nition in identifying and nominating a PA site for inclusion in the global network of PAs. Presently, PA advocates point to the imbalance in the representation of ecosystems in the PA network around the SEA Region, as some of these PAs have not yet been identifi ed and included in the global network of PAs.

Governments in the Region also still lack awareness of the importance of these PAs to

ecology and the history of their nations. Thus, funds allocated are insufficient to protect and maintain these PAs. There is a need to promote awareness of the importance of PA among governments as prelude to having these PAs identified and included in the network of PAs in the Region. Increased awareness will enable these PAs to secure regular and bigger maintenance and enhancement budgets from governments.

Due to lack of support, site-based planning activities of these PAs are not undertaken. Data base pertaining to various facets of PAs is an important ingredient to site-based planning. This can include population living in the PAs, number and name of species, land area, soil type, and many others. Hence, there is a need to conduct comprehensive resource-based analysis as basis for planning of the PAs. The database can be developed through surveys, secondary data collection from relevant agencies/ institutions, and through rapid rural appraisal of the area.

This goal has three major components: (a) to integrate PAs into broader land and sea scapes; (b) to establish and strengthen regional networks; and (c) to substantially improve site-based PA planning and management.

2. Action PlanThe following are the issues and the major critical

activities to achieve this goal:

Goals Action Agenda

GOAL 4: Develop and adopt minimum best standard and best practices for national and regional PAs

Goal 4.1: Evaluate and improve the effectiveness of PA management

Goal 4.2: Assess and monitor PA status and trends

Goal 4.3: Ensure that scientifi c knowledge contributes to the establishment and management effectiveness of PAs and PA systems

• Identify the policies needed to support Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE). ACB, and IUCN to be able to assist in developing and implementing MEE programs adaptable to the SEA situation.

• Identify the best practice approaches for PA management especially AHPs and WHS.

• Enhance regional capacity to undertake site capacity at the regional level.• Develop work plans for effective MEEs of PAs at the local, national and regional

levels.• Prepare proposals to undertake MEE for AHPs and natural WH sites.

• Adopt a common and participatory monitoring system for marine PAs.• Consider monitoring mechanisms based on IUCN Categories.

• Share scientifi c knowledge to policy and decision makers for an effective PA and PA system.

• Ensure that scientifi c data is incorporated in the establishment and management of PAs.

• Conduct more scientifi c researches to address PA management needs.


Issues Activities / Action Points

Need for a common defi nition of a PA and the establishment of a regional network of PAs and CCAs

Lack of recognition by governments of the critical role of pas in the country. Need to integrate pas into broader land and seascapes

Inadequacy of present regional network, and the need to establish a stronger and active regional network for exchange of information.

Lack of comprehensive database and other information for the preparation of an improved site-based PA planning and management.

• Agree on a common defi nition of a PA • Identify PAs in each country using the agreed standard defi nition of what

constitutes a protected area.• Conduct a comprehensive resource analysis of each country as basis for

identifying PAs.• Establish more PAs at the local/community and national levels based on the

standard defi nition.• Enroll PAs per country and prepare a list of network of PAs in the region. • Establish and strengthen transboundary PAs, and other forms of collaboration

between neighboring PAs across national boundaries and regional networks.• Implement an ecosystem approach, and improve international cooperation to

enhance the conservation and sustainable use of resources .• Include a new category on CCAs and other areas and sacred sites governed and

managed by IPs as part of the PAs.

• Undertake information, education, and communication (IEC) activities on the importance of PAs among governments of ASEAN countries, as well as among civil society.

• Advocate the inclusion of PAs into the broader land and seascapes to enable integration into the overall physical development planning of a country.

• Set up regional systems of PAs using scientifi c information on ecological connectivity particularly for important marine biodiversity areas.

• Strengthen regional coordination of bodies involved in PA identifi cation, conservation and coordination.

• Identify, list and map PAs and CCAs per country, and provide a region-wide network mechanism for information exchange.

• Protect CCAs and PAs through policy and legislation, and information and advocacy of the importance of these areas, particularly to leaders of governments.

• Replicate the areas of excellence on transboundary marine protection like the Turtle Islands between the Philippines and Malaysia.

• Conduct comprehensive resource assessment for the region. • Establish database after the conduct of a comprehensive resource assessment.• Conduct survey and evaluation and undertake gap analysis of PAs and

conservation sites in the areas of planning and management effi ciency, capacity and cost-benefi t analysis.

• On the establishment and management of data base as part of site-based PA planning, the following are the action points: Short term: Conduct workshop for ASEAN countries to agree on data

standards including indicators and data sharing protocols; identify focal point agencies; identify mechanisms to source data from a wider range of stakeholders; and select countries as pilot sites for the ACB database.

Short Term: Develop a Memorandum of Understanding between ACB, WCMC and WCPA to formalize collaboration on standard data indicators, data collection processes and validation.

Long Term: Complete a comprehensive resource assessment for both terrestrial and marine systems, and a gap analysis for terrestrial and marine PAs across all ASEAN countries.

Long Term: Establish a fully functioning ASEAN data sharing platform.

GOAL 2: Promote equity and benefi t-sharing in the PA system.

1. Issues Most PAs and heritage sites are inhabited by IPs.

Yet, these IPs do not gain any benefits from the PAs, which they inherited from their forefathers. Also, their involvement in planning and management is minimal. Although most ASEAN countries are signatories to international conventions recognizing

indigenous peoples’ rights, the IPs’ rights to their land still lack due recognition in terms of existing laws and present practices. There are conflicting laws and problems between national laws and IPs relating to boundary disputes, conflicting land claims, illegal occupation and entry of refugees among others. It is difficult for countries to economically progress and develop if there are conflicts among its peoples, thus, the need to promote equity in the use of resources.

58 PROCEEDINGS

GOAL 3: Build capacity 0f PA managers, stakeholders and benefi ciaries.

1. IssuePark managers and stakeholders still lack the

technical expertise to manage PAs, CCAs and other critically important environmental areas. They are constrained by inadequate training, equipment and infrastructure support, information and science-based technology to effectively manage the environment. In addition, the absence of management plans and the overlapping jurisdiction in some areas have affected the effi ciency of managers and stakeholders in the conservation and management of these conservation areas.

Hampering the effective management of PAs is the lack of cooperation and collaboration among agencies involved in PA management. In some cases, PAs have to report to more than one agency. There is also lack of information about centers of excellence that other PA managers can learn from.

Another critical problem is the lack of fi nancial support and investment in conservation and PA management. Adequate funding is vital to addressing

problems in conservation and PA management, and ensuring the protection and conservation of these sites. Another problem is the insuffi ciency of institutional and legislation support for continued biodiversity conservation and protection of these areas.

Complicating the problem of managing PAs is how to balance the needs of local communities to earn income from the natural resources within the PA versus the need to protect it for ecology and long-term environmental gains. Thus, while PA management recognizes the needs and the important role of local communities, the conservation and protection of these resources should as well be a priority consideration.

The sub-goals under this major goal are to: (a) develop, apply and transfer appropriate technology for PAs; (b) promote fi nancial sustainability; and (c) strengthen communication, education and public awareness.

2. Action PlanThe major critical activities to achieve this goal

are as follows:

Included in this goal is the need to enhance and secure involvement of indigenous and local communities and relevant stakeholders.


Need to promote equity and benefi t-sharing of the resources of PAs

Need to enhance and secure involvement of indigenous and local communities and relevant stakeholders, and to recognize indigenous systems in the management of natural resources within PAs.

Existence of confl icts between IP customary laws and government laws

• Recognize and affi rm rights of IPs.• Conduct cost-benefi t analysis of establishing PAs to determine the actions to be

taken to promote equity and benefi t sharing.• Empower IPs to solve land use confl icts through workshops/training on

confl ict resolution and settlement.• Enhance and use community funds to support conservation-related activities of

local communities. • Involve IPs in PA decision-making process, not merely in PA work, e.g.,

patrolling, biodiversity monitoring• Provide in-house skills training for local communities and encourage them to

aspire for higher education

• Undertake a holistic survey of needs of IPs inside and outside of PAs.• Ensure the participation of IPs and other stakeholders in PA policy framework,

management, conservation and decision-making.• Use customary laws and traditional knowledge to strengthen conservation.• Conduct capacity building for IPs and PA managers.• Provide training for local communities.• Broaden experiences of local communities to see other positive examples of

indigenous communities “centres of excellence” and to provide opportunities to present themselves/ make themselves known.

• Harmonize existing laws on PAs and IP rights and customary law.• Undertake research on customary laws on confl ict resolution.• Organize research teams and undertake legal research to determine how laws

on IPs and PAs can be harmonized. • Conduct a study of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Free and Prior

Informed Consent (FPIC) systems in different countries and the whole region and assess effects on the population.

2. Action PlanThe following are major critical activities to

achieve this goal:



Lack of support to PA managers in terms of appropriate technology, equipment, data, personnel etc.

Need to develop, apply and transfer appropriate technology within and among PAs of different countries.

Lack of fi nances to support long-term sustainability of the parks.

Need to develop a more aggressive and effective IEC campaign to increase public awareness of the importance of conserving biodiversity and PAs.

• Provide further training for park managers, such as study visits to other countries as well as on park management skills.

• Introduce best practices to PA managers and staff through cross posting or cross visits.

• Encourage more investments in capacity-building activities of PA managers and other stakeholders.

• Provide training on basic skills in confl ict resolution to PA managers and members of the management board.

• Develop a system of career service for park managers and staff in countries where their roles are not yet much appreciated.

• Provide scholarships for further studies, e.g. Masters’ Degree Program on Biodiversity Management, to develop a corps of qualifi ed managers in the Region.

• Organize workshops and training on fund raising and fund management for ASEAN PA managers.

• Arrange cross-visits for start-up PAs to more mature parks so they learn more options in solving the usual land use confl icts.

• Encourage trans-boundary cooperation and joint action programs through regular contacts among PA managers in the ASEAN.

• Conduct synthesis and sharing of lessons and best practices of zoning management and livelihoods, among practitioners, supported by networks.

• Replicate areas of excellence as a means of increasing public awareness of the importance of PAs.

• Replicate the areas of excellence on transboundary marine protection like the management of the Turtle Islands between the Philippines and Malaysia.

• Improve fi nancial sustainability as capacity building will only be possible with adequate budget.

• Organize fund raising workshops and come up with a strategy to solicit more support for PA and WHS management.

• Convene a round table of ASEAN governments for their commitment/support.• Use fi nes/penalties to fund community use zones/PA management activities.• Provide direct funding to IPs in PA management• Undertake an IEC campaign on biodiversity parallel to funding raising

campaign. • Establish the benchmark and guidelines for fee equation and policy for charging

visitors among ASEAN countries.• Conduct dialogues among related high level decision-making agencies in

ASEAN countries to ensure commitments for the maintenance costs of PAs and AHPs in the national budget (e.g. Ministry of Finance; National Planning Agencies; Ministry of Marine; Forestry and Environment).

• Discuss the possibility of a revolving fund between neighboring countries to tackle cash-fl ow and costs of PA (Thailand, Cambodia and Myanmar).

• Tap tourists in fund generation, e.g., visitors to pay entrance fees for the conservation and maintenance of PAs.

• Intensify the use of various channels of communication such as the website and publications to raise the awareness of people on the importance of conservation, and to encourage more investments on protection and conservation.

• Integrate PA management in the formal educational curriculum.• Publish and distribute scientifi c knowledge to end users and organize a series

of training and workshops to transmit the information.• Embark on a strong media education campaign on biodiversity and the PA

system to raise awareness of the benefi ts in investing in biodiversity programs, specifi cally PA management.

• Document current efforts, experiences and best practices and present the fi nished products to groups from different countries.

• Organize forums and infl uences and conduct awareness programs where PA offi cials and staff share their experiences/ developments on the values and importance of the Heritage Sites.

• Create a common platform for all Heritage Sites: Website, e-groups, working groups, clear channels of communication.

60 PROCEEDINGS

GOAL 4: Develop and adopt minimum best standard and best practices for national and regional PAs.

1. Issues The protected areas and heritage sites in Southeast

Asian countries are beset with common problems that threaten environmental integrity. The exploitation of resources through illegal activities such as poaching, logging and wildlife trade is exacerbated by the absence or lack of economic opportunities outside the protected areas. The impact of mining and tourism activities, dam building and infrastructure also has adverse effects on the environment. Conversion of forest lands to agriculture and introduction of alien species has also contributed to the changing landscape and biodiversity.

Proper and effective management can help address these various problems. Countries excelling in managing their PAs and are known to have the “best practices” in managing their PAs should disseminate their know-how and expertise on PA management among their neighboring Southeast Asian (SEA) countries. There should be a minimum best standard and/or best practices type of management that SEA countries should adhere to.

Among the problems PA managers face are the possible conflicting interests between local government and PA management. Local governments usually desire to earn money from the PAs while PA managers are more concerned with protection and conservation. Managers also have to harmonize land use conflicts between contrasting needs of stakeholders and PA managers. At present, there is no mechanism in place for such confl ict resolution.

Presently, traditional practices and culture are not yet well recognized vis a vis modern PA management. These local cultural practices in natural resource management are good sources of information that are vital to the sustainable management of the PA. Thus, this indigenous body of information on biodiversity and culture should also be documented and included in PA management systems and procedures.

Among the sub-goals of this major goal are to: (a) evaluate and improve the effectiveness of PA management, (b) assess and monitor the status and trends of PAs, and (c) ensure that scientifi c knowledge contributes to the establishment and management effectiveness of PAs and the PA system.

2. Action PlanThe major critical activities to achieve this goal

are as follows


Lack of scientifi c knowledge to assist in the establishment of effective PAs and PA systems

Need to improve effectivenessof PA management

• Identify and document best practices in managing PAs and disseminate it to the network.

• Continue conducting scientifi c researches to address PA management needs and establish a “tool box” of methods to monitor specifi c species.

• Apply scientifi c knowledge in establishing effi cient management of PAs. • Organize a regional fair on sustainable livelihoods in PAs with exhibits on best

practices.• Use a combination of feasible management efforts such as mixing ecosystems

and species conservation strategies in PAs.• Translate the ASEAN Guidelines on Competence Standards for PA Jobs into

national languages of the ASEAN, and in a manner that is practical and easy to understand.

• Organize orientation training for PA managers/ relevant institutions on how to use the ASEAN Guidelines.

• Translate key MEE documents into SEA languages (IUCN-WCPA Guidelines, RAPPAM, WWF/World Bank Tracking Tool (revised version of METT and Marine Tracking Tool), Enhancing our Heritage workbook).

• Conduct more in-country training.• Identify and make known “centres of excellence” that are willing to share their

knowledge with other PAs.• Organize study tours to observe “centres of excellence” for capacity building.• Promote staff exchange between PAs/ institutions.

• Evaluate management effectiveness of PAs and communities to determine gaps/needs.

• Provide appropriate technology and its transfer and application to conservation sites.

• Establish a common forum/facility to share technologies on sustainable • Focus on three layers of concern: (a) site level, (b) policy and decision makers,

and (c) the general public, in managing the PAs.



Need to monitor and assess status of PAs

• Involve the local, small-scale businesses to be part of the conservation and livelihood programs in the PAs.

• Coordinate and undertake regional cooperation, such as for trans-boundary enforcement.

• Prepare proposals (from IUCN/ ACB) to submit to UNESCO World Heritage Centre and ACB/ADB/EC for the establishment of in-depth management effectiveness evaluation for all SEA natural World Heritage sites and all ASEAN Heritage sites.

• Undertake a gap analysis to determine competency training courses that are required.

• Promote degree programs for biodiversity conservation and management and promote inclusion of information on monitoring and evaluation within these programs.

• Conduct mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of all projects being proposed near or within PAs as basis for deciding to allow the project.

• Require the formulation of a comprehensive management plan for all PAs.• Provide alternative livelihood programs (e.g. micro-credit) to reduce demand

on the natural resources. • Increase enforcement mechanisms including trans-boundary cooperation• Provide technical support and fi nancial assistance for PAs to achieve effective

management.

• Evaluate, monitor and assess management of PAs in different countries.• Establish a common and participatory monitoring and assessment system for

PAs. • Enhance capacity of biodiversity monitors such as government rangers, PA

staff, community rangers, NGOs, academic institutions.• Establish regional coordination in biodiversity data collection and management. • Develop and test a “tool box” of standardized methods to monitor status of

species and ecosystems and sustainable use.• Use the WCPA (World Commission on Protected Areas) network to compile

information on existing site level monitoring and evaluation as a fi rst step in promoting more effective monitoring and evaluation within ASEAN countries.

• Encourage countries to develop work plans for management effectiveness monitoring and evaluation.

• Establish a regional network of mentors to assist countries in implementing MEE. Disseminate results of MEE to the public.

• Develop reporting systems to communicate results of site level monitoring and MEE – through an appropriate regional clearing house mechanism.

• Train, empower and fund local communities to become effective enforcers and part of the monitoring team.

• Monitor and map incidences of violations.

62 PROCEEDINGS

CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

Southeast Asia is rich in biodiversity. It boasts of natural scenic sites whether forest, rivers,

oceans or other wildlife incomparable in beauty and uniqueness, terrestrial and marine life rich in biodiversity not to mention people with beautiful and diverse culture and heritage. All these have to be protected and sustained.

The Regional Action Plan for ASEAN Heritage Parks and Other Protected Areas should thus be implemented for the protection and conservation of PAs, CCAs, and AHPs. The Regional Action Plan would protect ecology, biodiversity, prevent disappearance of critical species, and allow indigenous communities to continue to live in their natural habitat while protecting their rights to the PAs. It will also go a long way in delaying and minimizing global warming, making available forest water and other natural resources for future generations.

Regional cooperation and networking of PAs and heritage parks is a must because each country can learn from the experiences of other countries. No one has exclusive knowledge, skills and expertise on how best to protect and sustain these critical areas. Also, since ASEAN countries are geographically located in one region, adjacent and close to each other, any activity or utilization of natural resources has an effect on the other adjacent neighboring country.

In view of the above considerations, ASEAN countries are urged to review their commitments to international agreements pertinent to and relating to biodiversity conservation and the recognition of rights of indigenous peoples to their land. Furthermore, ASEAN countries are encouraged to come up with a policy to mandate the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of any development project that would be implemented near or within conservation sites, if this has not been yet adopted in their countries.

Indigenous and local people are inherent to conservation sites and therefore must be involved, and if possible be allowed to lead in the conservation, protection and sustainable utilization of these protected sites. Capability building of PA managers, stakeholders including and especially the IPs should be undertaken to improve their skills and knowledge in enhancing biodiversity and protecting/sustainable heritage sites. This should be done with full support from the government and international financial and development multilateral and bilateral institutions.

The following are the key areas for action proposed for the ASEAN Region:

• Establishment and strengthening of national and regional systems of PA management integrated into a global network as a contribution to globally agreed goals;

• Establishment and strengthening of regional networks, thereby promoting equity and benefit sharing and integrating PAs into broader land and seascapes;

• Promotion of improved site-based PA planning and management, and capacity building of PA staff through appropriate technology transfer;

• Assessment, monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness of PA management and development and adoption of minimum standards and best practices for national and regional PAs, and ensuring that scientific knowledge contributes to the effectiveness of PA systems;

• Enhancement and securing involvement of indigenous and local communities in PAs and strengthening communication, education and public awareness; and

• Ensuring financial stability.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The 2nd ASEAN Heritage Parks Conference was held back to back with the 4th Regional

Conference on Protected Areas in Southeast Asia from 23 – 27 April 2007. These events were coorganized by the State Government of Sabah, Malaysia, ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), Birdlife International and IUCN WCPA SEA with support from the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Haribon Foundation, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the ASEAN and the European Union.

The organizers wish to thank the following:• Datuk Lamri Ali, Calvin Loh, Kari Lahti,

Cristi Nozawa, Peter Shadie, Penny Williams represented by Anabelle Plantilla, Juan Echanove and Roland Yap for gracing the opening ceremony;

• The country representatives who reported their compliance to the Durban Accord and to the PoWPA of the CBD: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam;

• The resource persons who provided invaluable inputs for the parallel sessions: Ma. Consuelo Garcia, Paul Basintal, Monina Uriarte, Jamili Nais, Rili Djohani, Sheila Vergara and Vo Si Tuan;

• The chairs, co-chairs and presenters in the parallel workshops who shared their expertise and ideas: Jannie Lasimbang, Angie Cunanan, Lam Van Hoang, Timuay jose Boy Anoy, Yassin Miki, Jose D. Cruz, Avi Mahaningtyas, Ludi Apin, Narong Mahannop, Maria Latumahina, Tonny Suhartono, Ng Sock Ling, Josefa Rizalina Bautista, Syah Indrawati, Noelle O’Brian, Victor Ramos, Puspa Dewi Liman, Clarissa Arida, Sangthong Southammakoth, Phouy Bun Nyok, Nixen Limba, Kenneth Kassen, Chou Loke Ming, Thammasak Yeemin, Perry Alino, James Gan, Savannh Chanthakoummane, Jatna Supriatna, Angie Meniado, Klaus Berkmuller, Marc Hockings, Rahimatsah Amat, Ben Malayang, Tham Ngoc Diep, Veronica Villavicencio, Anthony de Silva, Bui Thi Thu Hien, Khin Ma Ma Thwin, Ramesh Boonratana, Laurentius Ambu, Koen Meyers, Melissa Malingan, Tamen Sitorus, Chou Hoi, Tiburcio Fernado, Abdul Halim, Anadel Cabanban, Nigel Dudley, Latsamay Sylavong, John Payne and Peeranuch Dulkul Kapelle.

Our heartfelt gratitude for the support and active participation of all participants in the conference.

Special thanks to the staff of Sabah Parks, ACB, IUCN-WCPA, Haribon Foundation and Birdlife International for their help and assistance and for serving as Secretariat in the Conference.

64 PROCEEDINGS

PHOTODOCUMENTATION

Opening Ceremony of the 2nd AHP Conference


Group photos

66 PROCEEDINGS

Paper Presentations

Cultural Show

Filed Trip


Sceneries at Kota Kinabalu National Park

Flora in Kota Kinabalu National Park

68 PROCEEDINGS

DIRECTORY 0F PARTICIPANTS,GUESTS AND RESOURCE PERSONS

Title Last Name First Name Middle Name

Country Organization/Institute

Mr. Abd Sani Samit - Malaysia Sabah Forestry Department Mr ABD. Razak Fazrullah Rizally Malaysia Sabah Parks Mr Abdul Ghan Bin Nasai Jufri Bin Nasai Malaysia Sabah Parks Mr Abdul Hamid Kamarul Azhal - Malaysia Johor National Parks Corporation

Mr. Abu Bakar Mohd Soffian Malaysia Sabah Wildlife Department Dr. Agama Agnea Lee Malaysia Global Diversity Foundation Mr. Agista Dian Indonesia Burung Indonesia Mr. Ahtoi Galus Malaysia PACOS TRUST Ms. Aizura Fitra Malaysia Marine Park Section, Ministry of

Natural Resources and Environment

Mr. Ajimin Mohd Amdy - Malaysia Yayasan Sabah Ajus Alfred Jubili Malaysia Dr Alejar Amie Philippines ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Mr. Alferez Charles Narvaez Philippines DIOPID Committee on Mining

Issues (DCMI) Dr. Alin James M. Malaysia University of Malaysia Sabah Dr. Aliño Porfirio Miel Philippines Marine Science Institute /Philippine

Environmental governance Project

Dr. Amat Rahimatsa Malaysia Mr Ambu Laurentius Nayan Malaysia

(Sabah) Sabah Wildlife Department

Mr Anan Saharudin Bin Malaysia (Peninsular)

Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Peninsular Malaysia

Mr. Angataouran Ebzan Malaysia ZKK Mr. Anoy Jose Alcantara Philippines Apu Manglang Glupa Pusaka Mr. Antaran Bantong Bin Brunei Brunei Museums Department Anupan Poopok Mr Apin Ludi Malaysia

(Sabah) Sabah Parks

Ms Arida Clarissa Cabildo Philippines UNDP Mrs Azron Syah Indrawati Indonesia SEAMEO-BIOTROP Training and

Information Center Mr Basintal Paulus Malaysia

(Sabah) Sabah Parks

Ms. Bautista Josefa Rizalina Morata Philippines Development Academy of the Philippines

Mr. Berkmuller Klaus Thailand Ms. Bolinas Rowena Philippines Haribon Foundation Bongsu Azami Mr. Boonratana Ramesh - Thailand Mahidol University International

College

Abd Razak




Ms. Brown Jessica USA Quebec-Labrador Foundation/ Atlantic Center for the Environment

Ms. Bui Hein Thi Thu Vietnam IUCN Dr. Cabanban Annadel Salvio Malaysia WWF-MALAYSIA Mr. Chan Albert Apollo Malaysia

(Sabah) Sabah Environmental Protection Association

Dr. Chan Lena Singapore National Parks Board Ms. Chan Somaly Cambodia DNCP/MOE Mr. Chanthakoummane Savani Vanh Lao PDR Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry

Department of Forestry Mr Cheong Francis Fook Meng Malaysia Johor National Parks Corporation Mr. Chey Yuthearith Cambodia Ministry of Environment Dr. Chou Loke Ming Singapore National University of Singapore

Department of Biological Sciences

pp gMr. Dudley Nigel Mr. UK IUCN WCPA Ms. Dulnuan Perfecta Philippines LGU - Ifugao Mr. Echanove Juan Jose Echanove Philippines European Commission Faizal Bin Ahmad Malaysia Mr Fuentes Rodrigo Philippines Dr Gabriel Jammy Malaysia EDP Mr. Gampilok Raubin - Malaysia

(Selangor) Sabah Forestry Department

Mr. Gan Wan Ming James Terence Singapore National Parks Board Mr. Gani Robert - Malaysia Gunung Mulu National Park Ms. Garcia Maria Consuelo Philippines ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Mr. Giang De A Vietnam Forest Protection Station of Mu

Chang Chai, Yen Bai, Vietnam Ms. Gonzales Laurinette Philippines BirdLife Asia

Mr. Chumnankid Cholathron Thailand Department of National Parks, wildlife and Plant Conservation

Mr. Chumthong Naruebet Thailand Department of National Parks, wildlife and Plant Conservation

Mr. Clark Brian - Malaysia Gunung Mulu National Park Mr. Cohen Sheldon Indonesia The Nature Conservancy Mr. Crosby Michael John United

Kingdom BirdLife International

Ms. Cunanan Angie Baylon Philippines UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme

Mr. D' Cruz Joseph - Thailand UNDP/GEF Ms. Dalawis Arlene Tiolo Philippines DENR Mr. Dananuphanth Boonkit Thailand Ao-Phangnga NP Mr. de Castro Glen Anunciado Philippines United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP)-SGPDTF Philippines

Mr. de Silva Janaka Anthony Thailand The World Conservation Union - IUCN

Ms Dela Paz Belinda Philippines Haribon Foundation Mr. Dela Rosa Gregorio, Jr Escober Philippines Haribon Foundation Mr. Dien Nong The Vietnam Ba Be NP Mr. Diwa Redante Philippines Mt. Iglit Baco NP

DjohaniDr Safi ra Warik Indonesia The Nature Conservancy

70 PROCEEDINGS

Ms. Gonzales Maria Mithi Laya Santos Philippines Haribon Foundation Ms. Gungab Odrie Joy Philippines ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity



Ms. Ha Nguyen Bich Vietnam Fauna & Flora International Vietnam conservation Support Programme

Mr Haidzer Ali Mohd Fadzli - Malaysia Johor National Parks Corporation

Mr. Haji Yusdi Baharom - Malaysia (Selangor)

Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Selangor

Mr. Halim Abdul Indonesia The Nature Conservancy Mr Hamzah Hasnizam - Malaysia Johor National Parks Corporation

Mr. Hasiholan Waldemar Indonesia Division of Bukit Duabelas NP, Ministry of Forestry

Ms Hawardi Djohani Safira Warili Indonesia The Nature Conservancy Mr. Hidayat Noor Indonesia Ministry of Forestry Mr. Hien Tran Dinh Vietnam Forest Protection Department Mr. Hiep Nguyen Manh Vietnam Forest Protection Department Mr. Hla Khin Mauang Myanmar Forest Department Mr. Hlawnching Famark Burma Chin Human Rights Organization

Mr. Hluangbumroong Somkiat - Thailand National Park Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department

Mr. Hoang Lam Van Vietnam Fauna and Flora International, Vietnam Programme

Dr. Hockings Marc Australia University of Queensland and IUCN-WCPA

Mr. Hong Daravuth Cambodia Ministry of Environment Mr. Htay Than Myanmar Forest Department, Inle Wetland

Wildlife Sanctuary Mr. Htut Ye Myanmar Ministry of Forestry Mr. IGNN Sutedja - Indonesia Ministry of Forestry Mr. Ingan Peter Malaysia Jawatan Kunsa Zon Keguwan

Komuniti Kg Ulu Sanagang Mr Isnain Irwan Malaysia

(Sabah) Sabah Parks

Ms. Istinngsih Vinca Safrani Indonesia ASEAN Secretariat Datuk Jayasuriya Susanna Juliana Malaysia

(Sabah) Perak Forestry Department/ Sabah Environmental Protection Association

Mr Jintoni Christopher Malaysia Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Environment, Kota Kinabalu

Mr. Johari Ariffin Malaysia Sabah Parks Ms. Jumin Robecca - Malaysia WWF-Malaysia Ms. Kaewplang Kritsana Thailand BCST Ms. Kalyan Hou - Cambodia Community-Based Natural

Resources Learning Institure (CBNRM LI)

Ms. Kapelle Peeranuch Dulkul Thailand National Parks, wildlife and Plant Conservation Department

Mr. Kassem Kenneth Ramsey Malaysia WWF-Malaysia Mr. Khowinthawong Chaturathep Thailand Mu Ko Similan National Park,

National Park Wildlife and Plant Department




Mr. Kothari Ashish India Kalpavrikish / TILCEPA Kwa Ma Ma Thwin Kwa Ma Ma Thwin

(Hazel) Myanmar

Mr. Lahti Kari Markku Switzerland IUCN, Programme on Protected Areas

Mr. Lai Hieu Duc Viet Nam Chumomray National Park Mr Lakim Maklarin Malaysia Sabah Parks Mr. Landong Wilfred Stephen Malaysia Sarawak Forestry Mr. Lasimbang Adrian Malaysia PACOS TRUST Ms. Lasimbang Jannie - Malaysia Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact

(AIPP) Ms. Latumahina Maria Elena Papua-

Indonesia Papua Civil Society Strenghtening Foundation/ PCSSF

Mr. Layugan Jovito, Jr. Balabbo Philippines DENR Dr. Letchumanan Raman - Indonesia ASEAN Secretariat Liew Elizabeth Dr. Liew-Tsonis Janie Malaysia University of Malaysia Sabah

(UMS) Ms. Lim Ai Gaik - Malaysia Marine Park Section, Ministry of

Natural Resources and Environment

Dr. Lim Theresa Mundita Philippines DENR- Protected Areas & Wildlife Bureau

Mr. Liwanag Henry Philippines ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Ms. Logmao Alma Philippines ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Dr. Loh Calvin Malaysian Malaysian Nature Society Mr. Luangbamrung Somkiet Thailand Ms. Lukanawarakul Ratana Thailand Department of National Park,

Wildlife and Plant Conservation Mr. Lumba Nixen Antarixa Indonesia AMAN Ms. Mahaningtyas Avi Indonesia GEF SGP Indonesia and Samdhana

Institute Mr Maidin Nasrulhakim Bin Malaysia Sabah Parks Malayang Ben Philippines Mr. Malim Peter Malaysia


Ms. Malingan-Sapdoy Melisa Therese Ngitit Philippines John Hay Management Corporation

Mrs. Maloali Lienche Fransiena Papua-Indonesia

Papua Civil Society Strenghtening Foundation/ PCSSF

Mr. Manhannop Narong Thailand Khao Yai National Park Ms. Maranan Meriden Espiritu Philippines PAWB-DENR Ms. Martinah Haji Tamit Malaysia Mr. Masjhur Aprianto Indonesia ASEAN Secretariat Mr. MEAS Nhim Cambodia Ministry of Environment Dr. Melana Dioscoro Maghinay Philippines Department of Environment &

Natural Resources, DENR Region 7, Banilad, Mandaue city

Ms Meniado Angelita Pancho Philippines Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB)-DENR

72 PROCEEDINGS



Ms. Mesina Sylvia Relampagos Philippines Foundation for the Philippine Environment

Mr. Meyers Koen J.M. Indonesia UNESCO -World Heritage Mr. Miki Yassin Malaysia Global Diversity Foundation (GDF)

Mr. Mirasol Felix, Jr. Siarot Philippines DENR - Mt. Kitanglad PA Mr Mohamed Salleh HJ Abu Bakar - Malaysia Johor National Parks Corporation

Mr. Mohd Basri Abdul Manaf Malaysia Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia

Mr Mohd Top Aziz Malaysia Johor National Parks Corporation

Mr. Mohd. Taufik ABD Rahman

Malaysia Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Peninsular Malaysia

Ms. Molinyawe Norma Mojado Philippines Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB)-DENR

Mr. Murphy Adam Malaysia Global Diversity Foundation Mr. Nababan Gunung - Indonesia Ministry of Forestry Dr. Nais Jamili Facilitator

Res. Person Sabah Parks

Mr Nasri Jufri Participant Sabah Parks Mr. Nawi Samsu Anuar Malaysia

(Selangor) Jabatan Perhutanan Negeri Selangor

Mr. Neou Karun Cambodia Preah Sihanouk & Ream NP Ms. Ng Sock Ling - Singapore National Parks Board Dr. Nguyen Hoi Chu Vietnam Vietnam Institute of Fisheries

Economics and Planning/ASEAN WG on coastal Marine Environment (AWGME)

Ms. Nguyen Tram Thi Thanh Vietnam Vietnam Environment Protection Agency (VEPA)

Mr. Nguyen Tien Thuc Vietnam Kon Ka Kinh NP Mr. NHAL Thoun No Cambodia Ministry of Environment Mr. Nik Mohd Maseri Malaysia WWF-Malaysia Mr Niun Roland Malaysia


Ms Nozawa Cristi Marie Philippines BirdLife International Mr. Nyawa Samhan Bin Brunei Brunei Museums Department Ms. Nyok Phuy Bun Cambodia NTFP Ms. Obon Irene Felicitas Malaysia Sabah Environment Protection

Association Ms. O'Brien Noelle Patricia Thailand RECOFTC Mr. Omar Jimmy - Malaysia

(Sabah)

Ms Ong Je-el Constantino Philippines Haribon Foundation Mr Oo Htun Paw Myanmar Nature & Wildlife Conservation

Division, Forest Department Mr. Oum Pisey Ministry of Environment Mr. Pangkali Lyndon Baines Indonesia WWF Indonesia Mr. Pasaribu Lusman Indonesia Bukit Barisan Selatan National

Park

Rahman

Nhal




Ms. Payne Judayne Thailand Mr. Peng Leong Kwok Singapore Nature Society (Singapore) Ms. Plantilla Anabelle Edrosa Philippines Haribon Foundation Mr. Poopook Anuphan Thailand Deprtment of National Park

Wildlife and Plant Mrs. Purnamaningtyas Nining Ngudi Indonesia Directorate General of Forest

Protection and Nature Conservation

Ms. Quibilan Miledel Christine Carino Philippines Conservation International Philippines

Mr. Ramatha Letchumanan Malaysia Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Ramlah AG. Jalil Malaysia Mr. Ramos Victor Philippines DENR Dato Razani Ujang Malaysia Forestry Department Peninsular

Malaysia Ms. Rehman Rashidah Maqbool Malaysia WWF-Malaysia Repin Rimi Malaysia Sabah Parks Mr. Rivera Leonilo Rapanut Philippines Mt. Apo NP Mr. Rombang William Marthy Indonesia BirdLife Indonesia Mr. Roslan Ariffin Malaysia Perlis State Forestry Department

Ms. Rubis Jennifer Theresa Malaysia EC-UNDP Small Grants Programme for Operations to Promote Tropical Forests

Mr. Ruddy Gustave Ruddy Gustave Indonesia AMAN Mr. Rudyanto Indonesia BirdLife Asia Ms. Salumbre Daisy Magallanes Philippines Haribon Foundation Mr. Saway Victorino Linsahay Philippines Panagtagbo Mindanao Ms. Seiha Ouk Cambodia Ministry of Environment Mr. Sein Tun Myanmar Forest Department Mr. Semasawat Chairat Thailand Maenampachi Wildlife Sanctuary

Mr. Shadie Peter Thailand IUCN Mr. Shukor Zainuddin AB Malaysia Wildlife Department Peninsular

Malaysia Mr. Siman Abdul Wahab - Malaysia

(Sabah) Sabah Parks

Mr. Sitorus Tamen Indonesia Komodo National Park Authority/ Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation

Mr. Soe Lwin Myanmar Forest Department Mr. Soewartono Indonesia Ministry of Forestry Mr. Sophark Chou Cambodia Virachey National Park, MOE Mr. Spait Maipol Participant Sabah Parks Mr. Sugiarto Slamet Widodo Indonesia SEAMEO BIOTROP Training and

Information Centre Dr. Sukasem Chumpon Thailand Department of National Park

Wildlife and Plants Dr. Suksawang Songtam Thailand Department of National Park,

Wildlife and Plant Conservation

O.

74 PROCEEDINGS



Mr. Supranata Awen Indonesia Ministry of Forestry Mrs. Suzue Keiko Japan BirdLife Asia Mr. Swan Steven Ryan Viet Nam Fauna & Flora International Mr. Takunai Ab. Ghaffar Malaysia Sabah Parks Mr. Tan Hang Chong Nature Society (Singapore) Mr. Tatlonghari Rick Jayson Philippines ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Mr. Texon Greg Philippines Mrs. Tham Diep Thi Ngoc Vietnam WWF Greater Mekong Programme

Ms. Thandauthapany Lanashree - Malaysia WWF-Malaysia Mr. Thet Tun Myanmar Forest Department Ms. Thwin Khin Ma Ma Myanmar Biodiversity and Nature

Conservation Association (BANCA)

Mr. Tiburcio Fernando Escalante Philippines PAMANA Ka Sa Pilipinas Dr. Tran Cuong Ngoc Viet Nam Vietnam Environment Protection

Agency (VEPA) Mr. Trono Romeo Baskinas Philippines Conservation International

Philippines Ms. Tumimbang Aireen Gozar Philippines ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Tuwalo Aswan Dr. Uriarte Monina Philippines ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Ms. Vergara Sheila Gorosin Philippines Conservation International Ms. Villavicencio Veronica Philippines Wahol Mohd Zaini A. Wahol Malaysia Sabah Parks Mr. Wamebu Zadrak Indonesia Government/Jayapura Regency

Mr. Wiratno Indonesia Gunung Leuser National Park, DG. Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, Ministry of Foresrty

Ms. Wong Anna Malaysia University of Malaysia, Sabah Mr. Yahaya Yuisuf Malaysia Pahang Forestry Department Mr. Yap Roland Philippines ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity Ms. Yap Wendy Singapore National Parks Board Dr. Yasin Hizamri Mohd Malaysia Forestry Department Peninsular

Malaysia Mr. YBGH. Datuk Lamriali Mr. Yoosomboon Apicha Thailand National Park Wildlife & Plant

Department Mr. Yussop Thomas Malaysia

(Sabah) Sabah Parks

Zahariah Binti Zainal Abidin

Mr.


The full reports / conference presentations, and messages are found in the CD that comes with this publication.

The titles of the paper presentations and messages are:

A. Conference Papers

1. Report on the 1st ASEAN Heritage Parks Conference

2. Programme of Work on Protected Areas: Progress and Prospects

3. Country Reports

4. Gap Analysis Workshop Results: National and Regional Action Points

5. Report on Capacity Building Series 2: Management Effectiveness Assessment

6. The ASEAN Guidelines on Competence Standards for Protected Area Jobs: A Tool

for Developing Capacity Building Programmes for ASEAN Heritage Parks Staff

7. ACB’s Biodiversity Information Management: Moving Information Forward in 2007

8. Sabah and its Protected Areas and Introduction to the Field Trips

9. Scaling Up: Protecting the Global Centre of Marine Biodiversity in the Coral Triangle

10. Status of Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia

11. Integrating Fisheries and Habitat Management in the UNEP/GEF Habitat Demonstration Sites

12. Sulu Sulawesi Seascape: Securing Globally Important Marine Ecosystems

B. Parallel Sessions Papers 1. Communication and Community Relations in Protected Area Management

1.1 Communication and Community Relations in Singapore’s Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve 1.2 ASEAN Heritage Parks: The Best Practices and Lessons in Protected Area Management 1.3 Communication and Community in Kaeng Krachan National Park2. Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas 2.1 Land Use Confl ict Management in Samar Island Natural Park, Philippines 2.2 Land Use and Natural Resources Confl ict: The Case of Suku Kulawi, Marena, Central Sulawesi Provinsi 2.3 Traditional Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas

in Virachey National Park, Kok Lak Commune 2.4 Land Use and Confl ict Management in Protected Areas in The Land of Papua:

Lorentz National Park3. Information Sharing and Knowledge Management on Protected Areas 3.1. World Database on Protected Areas 3.2. Protected Area Learning Network4. Gap Analysis for Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia 4.1 Marine Protected Areas: Inputs to the Gap Analyses for the Southeast Asian Region 4.2 Status of Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia - What Next?5. Indigenous Peoples in Protected Area Management 5.1 Engaging Indigenous People in Protected Area Development, Functioning and Management: Case Study – Hoang Lien Son Project 5.2. From the Ground Up: Documenting Subsistence Pattern in Buayan-Kionop Community Use Zone, Crocker Range Park, Sabah

CONTENTS OF THE CD

76 PROCEEDINGS

6. Sustainable Financing for Protected Areas 6.1 Sustainable Financing for Protected Areas 6.2 Papua Civil Society Support Foundation7. Capacity Development for Better Protected Area Management 7.1 Training Course on Biodiversity – BIOTROP Training and Information Centre Experience 7.2 Master in Public Management, Major in Protected Area Management in the Philippines8. Biodiversity Monitoring for Terrestrial PAs 8.1 Monitoring Asia’s IBAs 8.2 Biodiversity Monitoring System in Protected Areas in the Philippiness 8.3 Towards Site Level Monitoring in Lao PDR9. Managing World Heritage Sites in Southeast Asia 9.1 World Heritage Sites in Southeast Asia: Strengthening Integrated Conservation and Development at the Regional Level 9.2 Komodo National Park (A World Heritage Site), Indonesia 9.3 The Evolving Management of the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras: Focus on the Ifugao Rice Terraces10. Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas in Southeast Asia 10.1 Introduction to Management Effectiveness Evaluation 10.2 Policy Challenges to the Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas 10.3 MPA-Management Effectiveness: A Case Study from Viet Nam 10.4 The Application of RAPPAM Tool in Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas11. Biodiversity Monitoring for Marine Protected Areas 11.1 Building Community-Based Marine Protected Area Monitoring 11.2 Monitoring Stakeholder Perceptions to Improve Effectiveness of MPA Management 11.3 Biodiversity Monitoring of Marine Protected Areas12. Sustainable Livelihood and Equity in Relation to Protected Areas 12.1 The Segama Conservation Area – A Case for Stewardship 12.2 Sustainable Tourism and Protected Areas – Thailand 12.3 Achieving Conservation Through Community Participation and Poverty Reduction: Nha Trang Bay Case Study 12.4 Livelihood Inputs as a Tool to Deliver on Conservation Objectives at the Natmataung National Park13. Issues Relating to Application of IUCN Categories for Protected Areas 13.1 Application of IUCN Categories for Protected Areas in Sabah, Malaysia 13.2 IUCN Protected Area Categories 13.2 The National Integrated Protected Area System in the Philippines and the IUCN Categories 13.4 Protected Area Categories in Thailand

78 PROCEEDINGS

56 • J A N U A R Y - M A R C H 2 0 0 8

ASEAN CENTREBIODIVERSITYFO

R