SUBJECT

ADOPTING THE MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

TRACKING TOOL (METT) FOR ASSESSING AND

MONITORING MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF

PROTECTED AREAS

Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7586 or the National Integrated Protected Areas

System (NIPAS) Act of 1992 as amended by the Republic Act No. 11038 also

known as the Expanded NIPAS Act of 2018, and in line with the Aichi Target 1 1 of

the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Target 12 of the Philippine

Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan which states that, "By 2028, capacity for

biodiversity conservation of public and private sector groups in terrestrial and

marine PAs/KBAs will be strengthened'", the Management Effectiveness Tracking

Tool (METT) is hereby adopted to assess and monitor management effectiveness

of protected areas particularly those under the NIPAS.

Section 1. Rationale and Objectives

The establishment of protected areas under the NIPAS aims to protect and

conserve the rich and diverse biological resources in the country. However, the

management of protected areas can be challenging as it includes threats to

biological resources at varying levels. Hence, effectiveness of management

interventions which include inputs and the delivery of protected area objectives

need to be evaluated, assessed and monitored. This Technical Bulletin aims to

provide guidance for the assessment, evaluation and monitoring of management

effectiveness of protected areas using the METT, the institutionalization of which

is prescribed by the CBD Program of Work on Protected Areas.

Section 2. Scope and Coverage

This shall apply to all protected areas proclaimed by the President and/or

legislated by Congress under the NIPAS. Other conservation areas may refer to

this Guide in evaluating and assessing the effectiveness of their management

interventions.

Section 3. Elements of PA Management Effectiveness

Protected area management consists of inputs and actions needed to

manage a protected area that include staffing, infrastructure, and equipment,

training, communication, capacity building, enforcement, and related governance

aspects Management effectiveness reflects design issues relating to protected

areas, adequacy and appropriateness of management systems and processes, and

delivery of protected area objectives including conservation values. The

evaluation of management effectiveness involves the assessment of how well the

protected area is being managed - primarily the extent to which it is protecting

values and achieving goals and objectives.

The framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas

was developed by the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), which

adopts six distinct elements of an effective protected area management, as

follows:

Section 4.

The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

A. Respondents

To ensure representation of majority of the stakeholders, at least 50% +

1 of the members of the Management Board of the protected area shall

accomplish the METT forms, preferably during the PAMB meeting,

B. Accomplishing METT Forms

Key informant interview (KI) will be the primary means of

administering the METT. The respondents will be briefed about the

protected area and its objectives, METT procedures, various elements

and related processes. A technical staff from the Region's Conservation

and Development Division shall brief the respondents on the objectives

of the Management Effectiveness Assessment and provide guidance in

accomplishing the forms.

The METT will be administered by the Protected Area Superintendent

(PASu) together with his/her staff.

The METT has two main sections: (1) Data sheets of key information on

the protected area and (2) Assessment Form (Annexes A and B).

B.1. Data sheet comprises two sections: Data Sheet 1 records the basic

information about the site while Data Sheet 2 provides lists of

threats the protected area may be facing. The METT's Data Sheet 2

contains list of generic threats classified in terms of residential and

commercial development, agricultural and aquaculture activities

within the protected area, biological resource use within the

protected area, climate change and severe weather condition, and

socio-cultural threats, among others. The respondents will be asked

to identify threats, rate and rank their impacts to the protected area.

High degrees of threats will be assigned a score of 3, while medium

and low will have scores of 2 and 1, respectively. Threats, which are
perceived not to be present nor applicable will be assigned a sco

of 0; while threats with no available information or knowledge of

existence will be left blank.

B.2. Assessment Form contains 30 questions that deal with the six (6)

elements of management effectiveness, namely, 1) Context, 2)

Planning, 3) Input, 4) Process, 5) Output, and 6) Outcome. The

Assessment Form will be scored individually by the respondents

but will be accomplished in plenary. The respondents are

encouraged to clarify each question and discuss among themselves

while the PASu provides supporting information.

The table below shows the various parameters for each of the

elements. The different elements and parameters will be evaluated

by assigning a score ranging from 0 (poor) to 3 (excellent).

Remarks/Explanations for providing such score and corresponding

next steps will also be provided by the respondents through the

assistance of the PASu and his/her staff as facilitators.

C. Data Analysis

C.1. Analysis of Data Sheet

Significance/Values/Key features of the protected area based on the KIl

will be used to validate the information provided in the Management Plan

and profile of said prote cted area. Threats/Stressors identified using

Data sheet 2 will be ranked based on their impacts to the protected area.

Management interventions to address the threats shall be validated using

the Resolutions issued by the PAMB and other supporting documents.

C.2. Analysis ofAssessment Form

The scores provided by the respondents will be tallied and summarized

using the automated spreadsheet that can be accessed at the

http://bmb.gov.ph/elibrary/mainmenu-policies-52359/technical-

bulletin/tb-2 018. Average scores provided by the respondents will be

computed (Refer to Annex C for computation instructions). Overall rating

of the protected area denotes the following management effectiveness

status:

Section 5. Reporting and Monitoring

Management Effectiveness Assessment shall be conducted every three years in

line with the pre-, mid- and post-assessments of the implementation of the PA

Management Plan. Results of the METT shall be discussed among the members of

the PAMB and appropriate strategies and management interventions shall be

identified and implemented (Refer to Annex D for some of the suggested

management interventions and policy guidance). A summary of the METT results

which include charts, recommendations and plan of action shall be submitted by

the PASu to the Office of the Secretary through proper channels and the

Biodiversity Management Bureau (Refer to Annex E for the METT Report

template). Results of the METT shall be considered in updating PA Management

Plans. When necessary, appropriate resolutions should be issued by the PAMB to

address management gaps, issues and concerns gathered from the assessment.

The DENR Regional Office shall support the conduct of PA management

effectiveness assessment, particularly in terms of facilitating the activity,

gathering of relevant information, reviewing of the results and addressing

management gaps, issues and concerns. The Regional Office shall also maintain

the database of protected areas within their regional jurisdiction.

The BMB shall provide inputs and when necessary, monitor and review the

results of management effectiveness assessment of protected areas consistent

with existing laws, rules and regulations.

Effectivity

Section 6.

This Technical Bulletin shall take effect immediately and shall be circulated for

the information and guidance of all concerned.