Objectives

 Improve the protection and management of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs)

 Know the biodiversity importance of the area
 Determine the problem and issues in the area, and make solution on it

Result

1.Context

They got the highest rating on context the BWWFR. Overall, the context score given for the PA is
75%. Only six participants gave this variable a perfect score of 3, given that there is already a law
(Republic Act) which declares it as protected area. As shown in the BWWFR Management Plan. The
Baua-Wangag watershed was placed under the NIPAS Law as mandated by RA7586 in 1992.

2.Planning

The six indicators of planning includes the ff.

 PA regulations
 PA objectives
 PA design
 Management plan
 Regular work plan
 Planning for adjacent land and water use

BWWFR collected only an average of 15.25, which is equivalent to a score of 59%. PAMB members
gave a general average of 2 for the indicators, except for the presence of regular workplan to which
they gave a score of 1.

Regarding to PA regulations evaluation of the participants says that the policies and regulations are
already in the area. But the equipment and facilities are lacking. One of the respondents commented
that the regulations are not enough and those existing are not strictly implemented.

3.Inputs

Input indicators

 law enforcement
 resource inventory
 staff numbers
 staff training
 current budget
 security of budget
 equipment and fees
Out of the 25 total points for this variable, BWWFR got an average score of 8.54 or an equivalent score
of 35%. ). Among the aforementioned indicators, only staff training got a score of 2 while equipment
got a score of 0. The rest of the indicators got a score of 1.

The problem regarding to input is the poor number of staff assigned to bWWFR. Based on the KII, the
only PA staffs in the BWWFR are the PASUs assigned to each watershed. According to the Philippine
Agenda 21, there should be one forest guard for every 300 hectares of forest to be protected. The total
area of BWWFR is 15,987 ha (Baua = 8,995 ha + Wangag = 6,992 ha), ideally it should have 76 forest
guards. But as the two PASUs lamented, they do not have any staff dedicated to the BWWFR.
According to them the budget for the BWWFR is still another issue. BWWFR is under the jurisdiction
of the CENRO Aparri in Cagayan. According to the BWWFR PASu, the budget given to the CENRO
is shared among the three PAs, namely: Magapit Protected Landscape, Baua and Wangag Watershed
Forest Reserves and the Palaui Island Protected Landscape and Seascape. Thats why BWWFR have
lack of equiment and facilities.

4. Process

There were 11 indicators to measure the process variable. Out of the 36 maximum total points possible,
BWWFR garnered an average point of 15.17 equivalent to a score of 40% (Figure 5). Nine of the
indicators got a score of 1, one indicator got a score of 2, and two got a score of 0.The indicator
“maintenance of equipment” is not applicable because the BWWFR has no equipment at all. In
addition, there are no commercial tourist operators in the BWWFR. From the process assessment some
concerns can be highlighted: (1) not all the boundaries of the PA are marked; (2) manpower and
logistics are inadequate to implement protection system; (3) inadequate survey/research results are
presented to the PAMB and (4) commercial tourism is untapped. As early as 2008 (Annual
Accomplishment Report 2008), potential ecotourism destinations in the BWWFR have been identified
which include the Bagsang Falls and Matagray Falls, among others.

5. Output

Output indicator

 visitor facilities

BWWFR got the lowest rating on this variable with an average point of 0.29, equivalent to a score of
10% As brought out during the KII with the PASUs, there are no visitor facilities in the BWFFR.

6. Outcome

BWWFR got the second highest score (70%) on this variable. In general, the participants gave a score
of 3 on the economic benefit and 2 on the condition of values. There were no comments provided but
this score implies that there is a major flow of economic benefits to the local communities.

Summary and Conclusion

Overall the BWWFR got an management effectiveness score of 47.79 out of 105 points, which is
equivalent to a 46% average score. The participants rated the management of the BWWFR highly in
context (75%), outcomes (70%) and planning (59%) .
Regarding to context , the majority of the participants were aware of Presidential Proclamation No.107
and No. 108 dated May 3,1978 which covers the BWWFR. The PA was placed under the NIPAS Law
as mandated by RA 7586 in 1992. As regards the Outcomes, the general feeling of the participants was
there was a major flow of economic benefits to the local communities. Next to outcome is planning
(59%). The PA has regulations, objectives, design, and regular work plan but all these are not fully
utilized in the management of the BWWFR due to funding constraints. As borne out in the interview
with the PASUs the PA has no permanent allocation. Meanwhile, the lowest three in the assessment
ranking were process (40%), input (35%) and output (10%). As regards Process, there is a need to do
the following: mark the PA boundaries so that the local users will know them, provide additional
budget for the PA so that it can acquire equipment and facilities and hire more staff to implement forest
protection. Given these logistics and personnel, the BWWFR Management Plan can be fully
implemented and adequate monitoring and evaluation can be done. There is also a need to improve the
local people’s participation in the PA management, particularly the local communities including the
indigenous people. The issues on Input, namely, inadequate staff, lack of equipment and facilities and
security of budget all boil down to the inadequacy of budget allocation for the BWWFR. The same
reason accounts for the very low score on Output. Despite that several potential ecotourism sites were
already identified in 2008, up to the present there are no visitor facilities in the PA yet. Based on the
validation, there is high threat from illegal cutting and wood harvesting; and hunting, killing and
collecting terrestrial animals in the BWWFR. The medium threats include annual and perennial non-
timber crop production; and habitat shifting and alteration particularly in Sitio Bagsang due to slash
and burn cultivation. Others were considered low threats, namely, fishing, killing and harvesting of
aquatic resources; housing and settlement; gathering of non-timber products; utilization of portions of
PA to upland vegetables and other agricultural crops; livestock farming and grazing; fire; introduced
genetic material; and erosion and siltation/deposition especially during heavy rains.

Recommendation

1. BWWFR should give importance about the regular funding for the implementation of the
management plan to secure the success of the advocacy factors identified in the plan for adapting the
conservation, management and development strategies.

2. Lack of facilities, equipment, and staff should be prioritized and immediately take action in the area
for the better of BWWFR protected area.

3. Rules and regulations should be strictly implemented and followed by the residence to obtained the
ordinance and also for forest protection.

References

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299425487_Threats_assessment_and_management_of_the_B
aua-
Wangag_Watershed_Forest_Reserve_in_Gonzaga_Cagayan_Province_Philippines/figures?lo=1&utm_
source=google&utm_medium=organic