SIPLAS Management Plan

Siargao Islands Protected
Landscape and Seascape

Management
Plan
Strengthening Climate Change
Resilience through Improved
Watershed and Coastal Resources
Management in Protected Areas
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Siargao Islands Protected Landscapes
and Seascapes
MANAGEMENT PLAN
November 2015
With Technical Assistance from:
Orient Integrated Development Consultants, Inc.
University of the Philippines Los Baños Foundation, Inc.

Strengthening Climate Change Resilience through Improved Watershed and Coastal Resources Management
in Protected Areas in Peñablanca and Siargao
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Legal Basis for Protected Area Management in the Philippines ..................................... 1
1.2 Background and Continuing Relevance of SIPLAS as a Protected Area ........................... 2
1.3 The Process of Updating the SIPLAS Plan ........................................................................ 2
2.0 PROTECTED AREA PROFILE .......................................................................................... 5

2.1 Geo-Political and Physical Profile .................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Area, Location and Access .................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Topography and Slope ........................................................................................................ 7
2.1.3 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................ 7
2.1.4 Land Classification and Tenure ......................................................................................... 10
2.1.5 Land Cover ........................................................................................................................ 10
2.1.6 Climate.............................................................................................................................. 12
2.1.7 Hazard Areas .................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 SIPLAS Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 13
2.2.1 Terrestrial and FreshwaterBiological Resources ............................................................... 13
2.2.2 Coastal and Marine Biological Resources ......................................................................... 16
2.3 SIPLAS Socio-Economic Profile....................................................................................... 18
2.3.1 Regional, Provincial and Island-wide Economic Development Setting ............................. 18
2.3.2 Demographic and Social Profile ........................................................................................ 19
2.3.3 Resource Uses and Economic Activities ............................................................................ 23
2.4 SIPLAS Institutional and Management Arrangements .................................................. 29
2.4.1 Stakeholder Profile ........................................................................................................... 29
2.4.2 SIPLAS Current Management Structure and Institutional Support ................................... 32
2.4.3 Policy Support ................................................................................................................... 33
2.4.4 PA Financing ..................................................................................................................... 33
3.0 SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS: DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES,

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................... 34
3.1 Bio-physical Issues and Concerns .................................................................................. 34
3.2 Climate Change Issues and Concerns ............................................................................ 35
3.2.1 Vulnerability of Terrestrial Ecosystems............................................................................. 35
3.2.2 Vulnerability of Coastal Ecosystems and Communities .................................................... 47
3.3 Key Policy, Institutional and Financing Management Issues and Concerns ....................... 56
3.4 Development Opportunities .......................................................................................... 56
3.4.1 Eco-tourism ....................................................................................................................... 56
3.4.2 Provincial and Municipal LGU Support ............................................................................. 57
3.4.3 External Assistance ........................................................................................................... 57
4.0 MANAGEMENTPLAN .................................................................................................. 58

4.1 Vision, Missions, Goals and Objectives .......................................................................... 58
4.1.1 Vision ................................................................................................................................ 58
4.1.2 Mission ............................................................................................................................. 58
4.1.3 Goals ................................................................................................................................. 58
4.1.4 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 58
SIPLAS Management Plan i|P a g e

4.2 Management Strategies ................................................................................................ 60

4.2.1 Management Zoning ........................................................................................................ 60
4.2.2 Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Mainstreaming ... 61
4.2.3 Collaborative Management .............................................................................................. 61
4.2.4 Community Based Resource Management ....................................................................... 61
4.2.5 Sustainable Financing ....................................................................................................... 62
4.3 Management Zones and Prescriptions .......................................................................... 62
4.3.1 Terrestrial Management Zone .......................................................................................... 64
4.3.2 Coastal and Marine Management Zone ........................................................................... 67
4.4 Management Programs ................................................................................................. 68
4.4.1 Terrestrial Management Programs .................................................................................. 71
4.4.2 Coastal and Marine Management Program ..................................................................... 76
4.4.3 Cross-Cutting Management Programs ............................................................................. 85
4.4.4 Governance Enhancement and Institutional Strengthening Program .............................. 89
4.4.5 Climate Change Adaptation Measures in SIPLAS: A Summary ......................................... 92
4.5 Management Standards and Guidelines ....................................................................... 92
4.5.1 Biodiversity Management ................................................................................................ 92
4.5.2 Recreation......................................................................................................................... 93
4.5.3 Site Rehabilitation ............................................................................................................ 94
4.5.4 Project Development ........................................................................................................ 94
4.5.5 Wildlife/Fisheries Management ....................................................................................... 95
4.5.6 Road Construction ............................................................................................................ 95
4.5.7 Protected Area Administration ......................................................................................... 95
4.5.8 Livelihood and Economic Development ............................................................................ 96
4.5.9 Information and Education Campaign ............................................................................... 97
4.5.10 Waste Management ......................................................................................................... 97
4.5.11 Management of Hazard Areas Including Micro Catchments Draining Towards Flood-
Prone Areas ...................................................................................................................... 97
5.0 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT ....... 98

5.1 Protected Area Management Board.............................................................................. 98
5.2 Protected Area Superintendent’s Office ....................................................................... 99
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .......................................................................................... 101

6.1 Implementation Schedule............................................................................................ 101
6.2 Financing Requirements .............................................................................................. 105
7.0 MONITORING PLAN.................................................................................................. 109
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 112
SIPLAS Management Plan ii | P a g e

Tables
Table 2.1 Land Area by Municipality ................................................................................................. 5

Table 2.2 Distribution of Areas by Slope Category ............................................................................ 7
Table 2.3 Land Classification ............................................................................................................ 10
Table 2.4 Tenure Instruments Issued Within SIPLAS ....................................................................... 10
Table 2.5 Land Cover Statistics of the Siargao Islands: 2011 ........................................................... 11
Table 2.6 Annual Average Rainfall (mm), Maximum and Minimum Temperature (oC),
and Relative Humidity (%) in Siargao Islands: 2002-2011 ............................................... 12
Table 2.7 Key Biodiversity Areas in Region XIII ................................................................................ 13
Table 2.8 Important Fauna Species in SIPLAS and their Conservation Status ................................. 15
Table 2.9 Mangrove Forest Cover by Municipality .......................................................................... 16
Table 2.10 Summary ofMarine Biological Parameters for the Different Clusters
in Siargao Islands ............................................................................................................. 18
Table 2.11 Development Thrusts of SIPLAS Municipalities ............................................................. 19
Table 2.12 Income Class Population and Estimated No. of Households: 2010 ............................... 20
Table 2.13 Historical Growth of Population of Siargao Islands: 1995 to 2010 ................................ 20
Table 2.14 Area Planted to Coconut by Municipality ...................................................................... 23
Table 2.15 Major Tourism Attractions ............................................................................................. 25
Table 2.16 Tourist Arrivals in Siargao Islands: 2007-2010 ............................................................... 25
Table 2.17 Tourism Facilities ........................................................................................................... 26
Table 2.18 Existing Fisheries Production Areas ............................................................................... 27
Table 2.19 Existing Marine Protected Area (MPA) by Municipality: 2013 ...................................... 27
Table 2.20 Other National Government Agencies with Involvement in SIPLAS Management ....... 29
Table 2.21 IPAF Deposits ................................................................................................................. 33
Table 3.1 Mangrove Cover Change, SIPLAS ..................................................................................... 34
Table 3.2 Observed (historical) and Projected Monthly Mean Temperature for 2020
and 2050 in Surigao del Norte ......................................................................................... 36
Table 3.3 Observed (historical) and Projected Monthly Total Rainfall (in mm.) for 2020
and 2050 in Surigao del Norte ......................................................................................... 36
Table 3.4 Areas Prone to Flooding and Landslides per Municipality and Percentage of
Population Affected......................................................................................................... 38
Table 3.5 Threatened Species of Vertebrates within SIPLAS ........................................................... 45
Table 3.6 Threatened Plant Species within SIPLAS .......................................................................... 45
Table 3.7 Cyclones that Affected Caraga Region, 2008-2014.......................................................... 47
Table 3.8 Summary of the Vulnerability on Coastal Fisheries Using the VA-TURF .......................... 54
Table 4.1 Summary of Criteria Used for Zoning .............................................................................. 60
Table 4.2 Management Zones for Terrestrial Area.......................................................................... 64
Table 4.3 Area of Coastal and Marine Management Zone .............................................................. 67
Table 4.4 Area of Resource Uses by Municipality............................................................................ 69
Table 4.5 Terrestrial Areas Identified for Biodiversity Protection, Rehabilitation and
Conservation and/or Sustainable Use ............................................................................. 71
Table 4.6 Coastal and Marine Areas Identified for Biodiversity Protection, Rehabilitation
and Conservation and/or Sustainable Use ...................................................................... 77
Table 4.7 Existing and Proposed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in SIPLAS .................................. 78
Table 4.8 MPA MEAT Threshold Indicators ..................................................................................... 79
Table 4.9 MPA Network Activities ................................................................................................... 80
Table 4.10 MPA NEAT Threshold Indicators .................................................................................... 81
Table 4.11 Adaptation Strategies Based on the Output of the VA-TURF Approach........................ 84
Table 6.1 Schedule of Activities for Implementing the Updated Management Plan of SIPLAS .... 101
SIPLAS Management Plan iii | P a g e

Table 6.2 Five-Year Budget Requirements of the SIPLAS Management Plan Implementation ..... 106
Table 6.3 Estimated Annual Revenues from Various Sources (in Php) ......................................... 108
Figures
Figure 1.1 The PA Plan Updating Process .......................................................................................... 4

Figure 2.1 Location Map of SIPLAS .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.2 Slope Map of Siargao Islands ............................................................................................ 8
Figure 2.3 Soil Map of Siargao Group of Islands ................................................................................ 9
Figure 2.4 Green Sea Turtle Rescued by Local DENR in Siargao ...................................................... 17
Figure 2.5 Map of Currently Existing Infrastructure and Utilities in Siargao Islands ....................... 22
Figure 2.6 Administrative and Settlement Map of Siargao Islands ................................................. 24
Figure 2.7 Tourism Attractions in Siargao Islands ........................................................................... 28
Figure 2.8 SIPLAS Management Structure ....................................................................................... 32
Figure 3.1 Framework of Vulnerability Assessment to Climate Change ......................................... 35
Figure 3.2 Flood-Prone Areas of Siargao Islands ............................................................................. 37
Figure 3.3 Potential Impact of Flooding on Agriculture in Siargao .................................................. 39
Figure 3.4 Potential Impact of Flooding on Built-up Areas in Siargao Islands ................................. 40
Figure 3.5 Map showing the Lack of Adaptive Capacity of Households in the Municipalities
of Siargao Islands ........................................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.6 Vulnerability of Siargao Islands to Flooding ................................................................... 42
Figure 3.7 Potential Impact of Landslide on Agricultural Lands of Siargao ..................................... 44
Figure 3.8 Vulnerability of Siargao Islands to Landslide .................................................................. 46
Figure 3.9 Vulnerability to <0.5 m Sea Level Rise of Siargao Islands ............................................... 48
Figure 3.10 Coastal and Marine Areas in Siargao Islands Exposed to Wind Stress ......................... 50
Figure 3.11 Vulnerability of Siargao Islands to Storm Surge ........................................................... 51
Figure 3.12 Vulnerability to Tsunami of Siargao Islands.................................................................. 52
Figure 3.13 Multi-Hazard Vulnerability Map of Siargao Islands ...................................................... 53
Figure 3.14 Map for Vulnerability of Coastal Fisheries in Siargao Islands ....................................... 55
Figure 4.1 Management Zone for Siargao Islands Protected Landscapes and Seascapes .............. 63
Figure 4.2 Proposed Resource Uses / Subzones in the Multiple Use Zone (MUZ) of
Siargao Islands ............................................................................................................... 69
Figure 5.1 Management Structure for Implementing the SIPLAS Plan ........................................... 98
Figure 6.1 Five-Year Financing Requirement, by Program ............................................................ 106
Figure 7.1 SIPLAS Results Framework ............................................................................................ 110
Annexes
Annex 2.1 List of trees and other plant species tallied in the transects
Annex 2.2 Plant diversity assessment of Del Carmen Watershed, SIPLAS
Annex 2.3 Photos from transect walk in SIPLAS
Annex 2.4 Enumeration of faunal species recorded from different localities in SIPLAS
Annex 2.5 VA-TURF Maps
Annex 4.1 Proposed Resource Uses/Subzones in the Multiple Use Zone (MUZ) by Municipality
SIPLAS Management Plan iv | P a g e

ACRONYMS
A and D - Alienable and Disposable

ADP - Area Development Plan
ADZ - Area Development Zone
AFFLA - Agro-Forestry Farm Lease Agreement
CADT - Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
CCC - Climate Change Commission
CCA - Climate Change Adaptation
CENRO - Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
CI - Conservation International
CLUP - Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CORVA - Coral Reef Visualization and Assessment
CPA - Conservation Priority Area
CPPAP - Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Project
CRMP - Community Resource Management Plan
CSC - Certificate of Stewardship Contract
DA - Department of Agriculture
DAO - Department Administrative Order
DENR - Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DENRO - Deputized Environment and Natural Resources Officer
DOT - Department of Tourism
DPWH - Department of Public Works and Highways
DRRM - Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
DSWD - Department of Social Work and Development
DTI - Department of Trade and Industry
ECC - Environmental Compliance Certificate
EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment
EMB - Environmental Management Bureau
ExeCom - Executive Committee
FARMC - Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council
GGGI - Global Green Growth Institute
GIS - Geographic Information System
GMPS - General Management Planning Strategy
IBA - Important Bird Area
IEC - Information, Education and Communication
IP - Indigenous People
IPAF - Integrated Protected Area Fund
IPAS - Integrated Protected Areas System
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature
KBA - Key Biodiversity Area
LGU - Local Government Unit
LWG - Local Working Group
masl - meters above sea level
MDGs - Millennium Development Goals
MEAT - MPA Effectiveness Assessment Tool
MENRO - Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Officer
MPA - Marine Protected Area
SIPLAS Management Plan v|P a g e

MUZ - Multiple Use Zone

NAMRIA - National Mapping and Information Resource Authority
NEAT - Network Effectiveness Assessment Tool
NEDA - National Economic and Development Authority
NGO - Non-government Organization
NGP - National Greening Program
NIA - National Irrigation Administration
NIPAS - National Integrated Protected Areas System
NRA - Natural Resource Assessment
NSCB - National Statistical Coordination Board
PA - Protected Area
PACBRMA - Protected Area Community-Based Resource Management Agreement
PAGASA - Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services
PAMB - Protected Area Management Board
PAR - Philippine Area of Responsibility
PASu - Protected Area Superintendent
PAWB - Parks and Wildlife Bureau
PhilCCAP - Philippines Climate Change Adaptation Project
PO - People’s Organization
PPDFP - Provincial Planning and Development Framework Plan
PSA - Philippine Statistics Authority
PSDN - Philippine Sustainable Development Network
PSSD - Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development
RD - Regional Director
SCREMP - Sustainable Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Program
SIIT - Siargao Island Institute of Technology
SIKAT - Sentro para sa Ikauunlad ng Katutubong Agham at Teknolohiya
SIPLAS - Siargao Islands Protected Landscapes and Seascapes
SLR - Sea Level Rise
SNCST - Siargao National College of Science and Technology
SPZ - Strict Protection Zone
SRPAO - Survey and Registration of Protected Area Occupant
SSCT - Surigao State College of Technology
SST - Sea Surface Temperature
SWM - Solid Waste Management
TURF - Tool for Understanding Resiliency of the Fisheries
VA - Vulnerability Assessment
WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature
WWM - Waste Water Management
SIPLAS Management Plan vi | P a g e

in Protected Areas in Peñablanca and Siargao Islands
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Protected area establishment in the Philippines was institutionalized when the National Integrated
Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act or Republic Act (RA) 7586 was passed in 1992 by the Philippines
Congress. Siargao Islands, then classified as a wildlife sanctuary, was included as an initial
component of the protected area (PA) system. Its selection as one of the ten priority PA sites for
conservation eventually led to its declaration on October 10, 1996 through Presidential
Proclamation No. 902 as Siargao Islands Protected Landscapes and Seascapes (SIPLAS).
SIPLAS is characterized by a unique combination of terrestrial, wetland, and marine ecosystems.

It covers a total area of 278,914 hectares. The two main islands (Siargao Island and Bucas Grande
Island) and the islets around them have a total land area of 62,796 hectares. The remaining
216,118 hectares which comprise 76% of SIPLAS are marine areas.
SIPLAS is one of the 128 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) in the Philippines. Located within the Mindanao
Biogeographic Zone, SIPLAS is one of the country’s 117 Important Bird Areas (IBAs); it is also one of
the 206 Conservation Priority Areas (CPAs) identified through the Philippine Biodiversity Conservation
Priority-setting Program. It boasts of having a contiguous mangrove stand of more than 4,000
hectares in the municipality of Del Carmen; the overall mangrove cover of the Siargao group of
islands is approximately 7,768 hectares. The most striking physiographic feature of SIPLAS is its
limestone formations. The presence of lagoons and ponds amid the hills and beaches make them
rather unique.
SIPLAS’ unique landscapes and seascapes, and its wildlife are, however, under continuous threat
of destruction and degradation which could result in biodiversity losses. The major threats are
destructive resource extraction, unsustainable fishing and farming practices, conversion of
mangroves and forests into agricultural lands, and settlements, and inappropriate development
directions. Low income, poor access to basic social services, lack of environmental awareness,
weak law enforcement, and lack of livelihood alternatives have all contributed to the increasing
difficulty of protecting SIPLAS. Climate change also threatens the stability of the island
ecosystems and its ability to sustainably provide ecosystem goods and services.
Vulnerability Assessments
The vulnerability assessment done on SIPLAS looked at the vulnerability of its ecosystems and
communities to increases in temperature, flooding and rain-induced landslides, sea level rise,
storm surge and tsunami. The latter hazard is due to the proximity of the islands to the Philippine
Trench. PAGASA projections show temperature rise by 1.0oC in 2020 to 1.5oC in 2050. Not only
will dry months become drier and wet months wetter but the rainfall pattern will also be erratic
through time. Temperature increase will have serious implications on the biodiversity resources
of SIPLAS. Being an island ecosystem with relatively low elevation, affected species are inhibited
from shifting or moving to elevated zones that approximate their former habitat conditions thus
local extinction of plants and non-volant animals can be expected to be faster.
Majority of the areas in SIPLAS are vulnerable to floods due to their relatively low elevation. The
type of flooding in SIPLAS is mostly due to swells and surge in estuaries and coastal areas, with
floods usually extending upstream to the swamp areas, agricultural lands and built-up areas.
Settlements in coastal areas and low-lying communities are also highly prone to storm surges
caused by more intense typhoons. Should a storm surge reaching 4 meters occur, close to 20% of
SIPLAS Management Plan ES-1 | P a g e

the built up areas in SIPLAS will be at high risk particularly those facing the Pacific Ocean.
Mangrove forests and other natural forests, and agricultural areas near these areas will also be at
high risk of being destroyed, including their biodiversity resources.
Even assuming a conservative scenario of 0.5 meter rise in sea level rise, close to one third of the
built up areas in Siargao Islands will be inundated and about 80% of the existing mangroves will
be submerged. Overall, this will impact food production, infrastructure, livelihood and properties
of local communities. This will also adversely affect biodiversity resources in mangrove
ecosystems. The multi-hazard mapping exercise that was developed for SIPLAS shows that all
municipalities in SIPLAS, except San Isidro and Del Carmen, have at least 50% of their barangays
vulnerable to multiple hazards.
A supplementary assessment on the vulnerability of coastal fisheries that is highly dependent on

reef ecosystems was undertaken using the Tool for Understanding Resiliency of the Fisheries
(TURF). Considering sea level rise, wave action or storm surge and sea surface temperature, the
coastal fisheries of Burgos, San Isidro, Pilar and General Luna are highly vulnerable.
Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies
The SIPLAS management plan envisions Siargao Islands as a protected paradise, that is capable to
sustain livelihood systems and is inhabited by resilient communities, with picturesque landscapes
and seascapes, high biodiversity and species endemicity, and rich natural resources collectively
managed by ecologically conscious stakeholders with a capacitated PAMB and PA management
personnel.
The following goals and objectives support the vision of the management plan:
Goals Objectives
1. Sustain the provision of  Establish and implement conservation measures for terrestrial and coastal and
ecosystem goods and marine areas with high biodiversity and economic values
services through improved  Raise awareness of PA stakeholders on ecosystem services provided by SIPLAS
management of terrestrial as a protected area and measure to ensure that such ecosystem services are
and coastal and marine continuously provided;
resources, particularly of  Identify existing natural habitats, the extent of their biodiversity and
important habitats for appropriate management interventions;
biological diversity  Identify seascapes and watershed areas for restoration and protection, and
implement activities towards sustainable rehabilitation of these areas; and
 Identify areas for sustainable use and establish threshold capacity (e.g.,
maximum capacity of SIPLAS to accommodate tourism arrivals and physical
developments) and needed policy measures.
2. Increase resiliency of  Mainstream climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR)
SIPLAS ecosystems and its strategies in SIPLAS management
stakeholders, primarily the  Increase capability of PA stakeholders, particularly the PASu Office and LGUs
communities, to threats of (municipal and barangay levels)to integrate climate change considerations into
disaster and climate change PA and LGU planning, operations, and monitoring and evaluation;
 Put in place mechanisms to respond and cope with impacts of disasters and
climate change; and
 Establish the necessary physical development and structural measures as
defense to disaster and climate change impacts.
3. Strengthen stakeholder  Increase accountability and buy-in of stakeholders in the management of SIPLAS
participation in the  Increase awareness of LGUs on benefits gained from SIPLAS and secure their
management of SIPLAS continuing commitment to support SIPLAS through regular budget allocation for
through community SIPLAS, harmonized zoning , policy and enforcement support, among others;
empowerment and  Solicit support from the private sector for conservation promotion and financing;

Goals Objectives
increased investments of  Provide assistance to qualified PA occupants in securing land tenure; and
LGUs and the private sector  Develop and implement community-based protected area management
in natural resource trainings and activities, e.g., conservation farming, Information, Education and
management and Communication (IEC), enforcement, and biodiversity monitoring, among others.
conservation
 To significantly increase management effectiveness of SIPLAS
 Promote collaborative management of SIPLAS through inter-LGU alliances and
partnerships forged through Memorandum of Agreement (MOAs);
 Provide capacity-building interventions for SIPLAS PAMB members and PASu
Office staff to improve performance of tasks particularly on planning,
coordination, monitoring, resource mobilization and financial management,
among others;
 Increase functionality and competency of PAMB, particularly the Executive
Committee, on informed decision-making;
 Establish coordination, monitoring and evaluation, and feedback mechanisms
among SIPLAS stakeholders;
 Formulate policies, both at the protected area and municipal levels, that will
support more effective and efficient implementation of the PA Management
Plan;
 Put in place enforcement system both for terrestrial and coastal and marine areas;
and
 Establish sustainable financing mechanisms for additional resources to
implement the PA Management Plan.
4. Promote equity among  Develop and implement incentive system and biodiversity-friendly alternative
local communities through livelihood sources for communities
sustainable livelihoods,  Design, establish and implement Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) to
social services and broader encourage communities acting as on-site resource managers to sustain their
benefit-sharing good practices;
mechanisms  Introduce biodiversity-friendly alternative livelihood sources for communities to
reduce dependence on resources and increase households’ income; and
 Develop and implement community-based ecotourism projects.
To attain these goals, the key management strategies are: (1) management zoning; (2) climate
change adaptation and disaster risk reduction mainstreaming; (3) collaborative management (4)
community-based resource management; (4) sustainable financing mechanisms; and (5) climate
change adaptation. The strict protection zone (SPZ) in the terrestrial area includes those 1,000
meters above sea level (masl), closed canopy forests, mossy forests and known habitats of rare
and endangered species of flora and fauna. In the coastal and marine areas, the SPZ consists of
coral reefs with high percentage of coral cover and other coastal habitats identified for strict
protection. The SPZ of SIPLAS constitutes only 3% of its total area.
All other areas are multiple use zones (MUZs) with sub-zones that consider actual and potential
land uses and their unique characteristics. The identified sub-zones are: water conservation
areas, ecotourism areas, forest plantations, agroforestry, agricultural areas, settlement areas,
quarry areas, white beaches, lagoons, marshlands, and mangrove areas (where tourism activities
may be allowed), aquaculture/mariculture areas, municipal fishing areas, and special use areas.
Management standards and prescriptions are described in detail in the plan to serve as guide to
zone management planning and enforcement.
Guided by the results of the vulnerability assessments, climate change adaptation (CCA)
measures were formulated to increase resilience of ecosystems and communities. Collaborative
management will be extensively pursued. This will be achieved through stakeholder partnerships,
inter-LGU alliances and networks, co-management of areas with willing stakeholders, and improved
coordination and feedback mechanisms. LGUs, national government agencies, people’s

organizations, water districts, tourism operators and the private sector will be encouraged to forge
agreements with the PAMB for the management of specific portions of SIPLAS. Budget allocation for
SIPLAS by LGUs in their Annual Investment Plans (AIPs) and the adoption of management zoning and
climate change adaptation measures in their Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) and Zoning
Ordinances will boost the sustainability of SIPLAS management. Barangay residents and officials, and
people’s organizations will be mobilized to participate in all stages of resource management. This
strategy recognizes the fact that management of natural resources with strong community
involvement is both efficient and cost effective.
The development and establishment of sustainable sources of financing to support SIPLAS

activities will be accorded priority attention because of limited financial resources available to the
Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) and the PA Superintendent (PASu) Office. There is a
need to assess the different resources available in the PA, the uses and users of these resources,
and determine the appropriate fees for their uses. A system for payment of ecosystem services
(PES) and resource use fees, and the mechanism for the allocation and disbursement of the
Integrated PA Fund (IPAF) will be established by the PAMB.
Management Programs
The resulting management programs for implementation have four components: (1) terrestrial
management program, (2) coastal and marine management program, (3) cross-cutting
management programs, and (4) governance enhancement and institutional strengthening
program. Both the terrestrial and coastal and marine management programs provide for
biodiversity protection, conservation and rehabilitation; biodiversity research and monitoring;
and social and economic development activities. Important targets under these two programs
are:
 1,040 ha of natural forests for restoration and rehabilitation

 13,0957 ha for agroforestry development
 4,296ha of water conservation areas for rehabilitation and protection
 193 ha for wood and fuelwood production
 30 marine protected areas (total of 1,821 ha) for effective management
 7,768 ha of mangroves for protection, rehabilitation and conservation
Programs that cut across the terrestrial and the coastal and marine management include: (1)
ecotourism development; (2) waste management; (3) disaster risk reduction planning; (4)
information, education and communication; and (5) sustainable financing. The governance
enhancement and institutional strengthening program addresses the functionality and effectiveness
of the PAMB.
The climate change adaptation measures are embedded in the SIPLAS management plan. To
enhance climate resiliency, the vulnerability of the PA to the adverse effects of climate hazards
have to be reduced. This means that the three factors that determine the vulnerability of
SIPLAS have to be looked into: (1) type and magnitude of Exposure to climate hazards; (2)
Sensitivity of the exposed system; and (3) Adaptive Capacity to cope with the hazard. The CCA
measures described in the plan are summarized as follows:

To reduce Exposure To minimize Sensitivity To increase Adaptive Capacity

• Reduce the area of vulnerable • Diversify crops; introduce/ • Enhance biodiversity of
areas by zoning and restricting promote hazards-tolerant through effective management
development in high hazard crops/trees, conservation and protection of critical
areas farming habitats
• Relocate affected or • Protect and manage water • Increase forest areas;
vulnerable communities production areas for water enforcement; on-farm
• Rehabilitate mangrove forests security production of wood and fuel
to provide natural protection • Promote water and soil wood
to coastal communities; conservation measures in • Effectively manage Marine
restrict conversion of production systems Protected Areas (MPAs)
mangroves • Enforce coastal management
• Stabilize slopes to reduce Other possible complementary LGU and fishery laws; harmonize
occurrence of landslides actions: fishery ordinances
 Adopt structural measures to
• Regulate water extraction; protect shorelines.
• Raise awareness of
water quality monitoring (for  Retro –fit existing water ways, communities of potential
salinity) channels, etc. hazards and their vulnerability
• Harmonize PA management  Improve design standards for • Capacity building through
plans with CLUP; integrate infrastructure to cope up with trainings, seminars, workshops
DRR and climate change climate hazards. • Provide alternative, sustainable
adaptation to CLUPs livelihood opportunities to
• Strengthen LGU and communities.
community disaster
management program; disaster
readiness
Investment Requirements
The first five years of SIPLAS plan implementation will lay down the groundwork for succeeding
years of protection, rehabilitation and effective on-site management of the protected area. The
total budgetary requirement for the first five years amounts to Php 220.81 million. The
distribution by component is as follows:
Estimated Cost % of Total

Program
(Php M) Estimated Cost
Terrestrial Management Program 152.57 69%
Coastal and Marine Management Programs 20.19 9%
Cross-Cutting Management Programs 9.90 5%
Governance Enhancement and Institutional Strengthening 2.40 1%
General Administration & Management 35.75 16%
Total 220.81 100%

Implementation of the SIPLAS Plan will be funded primarily by the DENR, through its various
programs (e.g., National Greening Program, eco-tourism, others), and the contributions and
related programs of the nine LGUs (i.e., mandated functions related to agriculture and fisheries
management, solid waste management, DRRM). The Provincial Government, other national
agencies and barangay LGUs are also expected to contribute to the funding requirements of the
management plan. The PAMB and the PASu Office are to explore all sources of funding, including
grants and donations from development assistance from donors, private companies and
individuals. They are to find ways to enhance revenue generation activities of SIPLAS to sustain
the activities identified in the plan particularly potential revenues from payment of
environmental services, permit fees and penalties.
PA Management Structure
The current PAMB has a membership of 156 members of which 132 represent all the barangays
of the nine LGUs. It is proposed that the current structure which provides for an Executive
Committee (ExeCom) be maintained but that three LGU cluster committees be created for the
decentralized review and discussion of issues, project and policy proposals and applications for
permits. The committees will also be tasked to monitor the implementation of the plan within
their areas of jurisdiction. The recommendations of cluster committees will be elevated to the
ExeCom or the PAMB en banc for confirmation and adoption.
To enhance the functionality of the PAMB, it is proposed that there be a continuing education
program to build the capacity of its members starting with the orientation on laws and policies
relevant to PA management and on the updated management plan and vulnerability assessment
results. As technical secretariat of the PAMB, the PASu Office would also benefit from similar
capability building activities and exposure to national and international best practices in PA
management. There will be need to build the capability of both the PAMB and the PASu Office
and install systems and mechanisms for coordination and management, resource generation and
mobilization. The PAMB will have to develop its policy agenda, starting with those raised during
PA planning, and provide its recommendations on the various policy issues that are affecting
SIPLAS management.
Monitoring and Evaluation
The Monitoring and Evaluation (M and E) system for the updated management plan gives
emphasis on the expected results of the implementation of the updated management plan. The
indicator system for M and E are based on a results framework that has been developed from the
goals, objectives and strategies in the management plan and which shows the progression of
results from project activities to major outputs, outcomes and impacts. A detailed M and E plan
serves as an accompanying document to the management plan. It contains the suggested
indicators for each level of results with the definitions and data collection methods described for
the outcome indicators, making use of some monitoring tools that are available. It also serves as
a guide to the development of a SIPLAS database.

SIARGAO ISLANDS PROTECTED LANDSCAPES AND

SEASCAPES MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Environmental stability and sustainable development are among the important concerns under
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in view of threats to the environment posed by (a)
rapidly increasing population that is exerting pressure on natural resources to meet the growing
demand for basic human needs such as food, shelter, livelihood, and settlements; (b) unregulated
urbanization resulting to expansion of settlement areas and the unsustainable use of land and
water resources; (c) land use and land cover changes including land conversion of forest lands to
agricultural and non-agricultural purposes. These threats have resulted in forest and land
degradation, soil loss and fertility depletion, water quality deterioration, and loss of biodiversity
resources. Added to these threats are the consequences of climate change which add pressure
on the environment and adversely affect ecosystems and communities in numerous ways.
A strategy adopted by the Philippine Government for achieving ecological stability towards
sustainable development and inclusive growth is the establishment of protected areas. This
strategy gives emphasis to the importance of biodiversity conservation. Establishing a protected
area is considered an important measure to arrest the alarming rate of biodiversity loss resulting
from the destruction of terrestrial, freshwater and coastal habitats. (Brumer, et. al., 2001).
1.1 Legal Basis for Protected Area Management in the Philippines
Protected area establishment in the Philippines was institutionalized when the National Integrated
Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act or Republic Act (RA) 7586 was passed in 1992 by Congress. The
law provides for the establishment and management of a comprehensive system of integrated
protected areas in order to secure for the present and future generations the existence of all flora and
fauna necessary for maintaining various ecological processes that are of importance to humans and
for the stability of the environment. Furthermore, the NIPAS Act provides for: a) identification of
protected area categories; b) establishment of standard planning process; c) NIPAS administration by
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Protected Area Management
Board (PAMB), a multi-sectoral body mandated to decide on matters related to protected areas
management; d) recognition of ancestral rights; and e) institutionalization of environmental impact
assessment. Pursuant to this law, “all areas or islands in the Philippines proclaimed, designated or set
aside, pursuant to a law, presidential decree, presidential proclamation or Executive Order as national
park, game refuge, bird and wildlife sanctuary, wilderness area, strict nature reserve, watershed,
mangrove reserve, fish sanctuary, natural and historical landmark, protected and managed
landscape/seascape as well as identified virgin forests before the effectivity of this Act are hereby
designated as initial components of the System.”
The protected areas under NIPAS are categorized and managed as: (a) strict nature reserve, (b)
national park, (c) natural monument, (d) wildlife sanctuary, (e) protected landscapes and
seascapes, (f) resource reserve, (g) natural biotic areas, and (h) other categories established by
law, conventions or international agreements consented to and ratified by the Philippine
Government. For each of these categories, there are prescribed sets of permissible as well as
prohibited human activities.
SIPLAS Management Plan 1|P a g e

1.2 Background and Continuing Relevance of SIPLAS as a Protected Area
The biodiversity and economic significance of Siargao Islands have been recognized way before it
was proclaimed as a protected area under NIPAS. In March 13, 1939, it was included as part of
the Surigao Mineral Reservation under Proclamation No. 391 but in July 9, 1970, through
Presidential Proclamation No. 721, it was taken out from the reservation. Several years after, in
December 29, 1981, Presidential Proclamation Nos. 2151 and 2152 were issued declaring the
islands of Siargao, Poneas, Dahican, Tona, Liaonan, Abanay and Bancuyo as wilderness areas, and
the islands of Siargao, Bucas Grande, Middle Bucas and East Bucas as reserves.
Following the enactment of NIPAS Act, Siargao Islands was included as an initial component of
the Integrated Protected Areas System I (IPAS-1). It was then classified as a wildlife sanctuary
owing to its 8,600 hectares of mangrove area which was then the healthiest and most extensive
in Mindanao. It was selected as one of the ten priority PA sites for conservation which led to its
declaration through Presidential Proclamation No. 902 on October 10, 1996 as Siargao Islands
Protected Landscapes and Seascapes (SIPLAS).
The biodiversity richness of SIPLAS was given further emphasis when in 1996 it was identified as one
of the 128 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) in the Philippines. Coded as KBA No.94, trigger species
identified for SIPLAS included one critically endangered, one endangered, seven vulnerable and
twenty-two restricted range species. Located within the Mindanao Biogeographic Zone, SIPLAS is one
of the 117 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) identified for the country by Haribon Foundation and Birdlife
International, and is one of the 206 Conservation Priority Areas (CPAs) identified through the
Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priority-setting Program. (CI, DENR and PAWB, 2006).
1.3 The Process of Updating the SIPLAS Plan
The initial SIPLAS Management Plan was formulated in 2001 in accordance with the requirements
of the NIPAS Act. The 5-year plan was prepared through an iterative process of consultations with
local government units (LGUs) and other agencies and organizations operating in the area. The
management plan was formulated to guide
the PAMB in achieving the goals, and
objectives for which Siargao Islands was
declared a protected area and included
under NIPAS.
The recent revision of the SIPLAS

Management Plan was undertaken under the
auspices of the Philippines Climate Change
Adaptation Project (PhilCCAP). The updating
was to consider recent developments in the
protected area and take into account various
climate change challenges that threaten the
ability of SIPLAS to sustain the ecosystems
goods and services it provides. The climate
proofing of the SIPLAS plan is in accordance
with RA 9729 or the Climate Change Act of
2009.

The updated plan incorporates the results of the vulnerability assessments done on SIPLAS and
identifies the climate change adaptation measures that may be pursued to protect SIPLAS from
the adverse effects and impacts of climate hazards. In updating the plan, enhancements were
introduced to the PA planning process provided under Rule 10 of DAO 2008-26. Refer to Figure
1.1 for the specific enhancements introduced (in red italics).The SIPLAS Local Working Group
(LWG)1, with guidance from the Technical Assistance (TA) Team, participated actively in the
planning process particularly in the zoning of the entire SIPLAS as such zones need to be
harmonized with the Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) of the LGUs.
As shown in Figure 1.1, the first crucial step in updating the PA plan was the collection of updated
thematic maps, biodiversity studies and other biophysical and socio-economic information.
Additional data on climate scenarios as well as land cover and hazards maps were collected from
the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) and
the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) of DENR. Resource uses and users or stakeholders
were also identified including institutions involved in the management and regulation of resource
uses within the SIPLAS. The overlay of thematic maps and the analysis of data led to the
identification of issues, concerns and opportunities in the PA.
The vulnerability assessment of SIPLAS focused on such climate hazards as flooding, landslides,
sea level rise and storm surge. A general assessment was included on the effects of increasing
temperature particularly to biodiversity. Vulnerability of southeastern coastal areas to the
occurrence of tsunami was also included in view of the island’s proximity to the Philippine Deep
(or Philippine Trench), which is one of the deepest portions of the world. The analyses led to the
identification of specific barangays, particularly in downstream and coastal areas, that are highly
susceptible to one or multiple hazards. Based on the vulnerability assessment and the identified
issues, concerns and opportunities, the LWG formulated the vision, goals and objectives for the
SIPLAS management plan which incorporate the need to enhance the resiliency of ecosystems
and communities and livelihoods to climate change impacts. Strategies to achieve the vision,
goals and objectives were then formulated and fleshed out. A key strategy is the delineation of
the strict protection zone (SPZ) and multiple use zones (MUZ), with resource management
prescriptions that considered biodiversity conservation concerns, livelihood and socio-economic
needs of local communities, and the vulnerability of both ecosystems and communities to climate
change. The protection and conservation, and investment programs developed for the SPZ and
MUZ highlight how these mitigate climate change impacts or enable ecosystems and
communities to adapt to climate change.
Among the support implementation strategies introduced are intensive awareness raising, the
development of sustainable financing schemes for specific management programs such as the
payment for environmental services (PES); the adoption of a results-based M and E system to
capture the final major outputs and outcomes of the various interventions and investments; and
the strengthening of governance arrangements through capability building, partnerships
between the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) and stakeholders, linkages with support
institutions, and effective policy support.
1
The LWG was formed under PhilCCAP to participate in the updating of the SIPLAS Management Plan. Other than the PASu Office, the
members of the LWG consisted of key officers and ABC president from the nine municipal LGUs in SIPLAS, the Provincial LGU,
representatives from NGAs, NGOs/CSOs and the academe.

At different points during the plan preparation period, the draft management plan was presented
to the LGUs and members of the PAMB. The draft plan was also presented to the technical staff
of the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB). Following a number of consultations and
presentations, the plan was finalized and presented to the PAMB en banc last October 16, 2015
during which the SIPLAS Updated Management Plan: 2016-2020 was approved.
Figure 1.1 The PA Plan Updating Process

2.0 PROTECTED AREA PROFILE
2.1 Geo-Political and Physical Profile
2.1.1 Area, Location and Access

SIPLAS, one of the three protected areas in Region XIII or the Caraga Region, is located in the
northeastern part of Mindanao, specifically within Dinagat Sound. It is composed of 48 islands and
islets, with Siargao Island and Bucas Grande Island as the two biggest islands.2 Along the
southeastern coast of SIPLAS is the Philippine Deep, the known deepest part of the world at 11,094
meters below sea level.
Found within Surigao del Norte Province, SIPLAS covers Table 2.1 Land Area by Municipality
nine municipalities, namely, Burgos, Dapa, Del Carmen,
Municipality Area (ha)
General Luna, Pilar, San Benito, San Isidro, Santa Monica
Burgos 1,938.3
and Socorro. There are a total of 132 barangays. Of the
nine municipalities, only Socorro is located in Bucas Dapa 8,993.3
Grande Island. Del Carmen 15,066.1
General Luna 5,500.6
The nine municipalities within SIPLAS are accessible from Pilar 6,112.1
Butuan City and Surigao City. There are four major ports San Benito 4,410.7
within SIPLAS which are utilized by commercial vessels. San Isidro 4,527.3
These are in Del Carmen, Dapa, Socorro and Santa Socorro 12,593.7
Monica. Boats and passenger ferry vessels traverse Sta. Monica 3,654.0
between Surigao City in the mainland and the
Total 62,795.8
municipality of Dapa. Other ports provide inter-island Sources: Natural Resource Assessment (NRA),
motor vessel services. An airport is located in barangay Ecotown Project, 2011; PhilCCAP-
Sayak, Del Carmen, with daily commercial flights to and generated map
from Siargao Island to Cebu City.
There are public and private conveyances, and motorbikes locally known as habal-habal for travel
within the islands of Siargao and Bucas Grande. Coastal and island barangays are dependent on
motorized and non-motorized boats that ply between the small islands and the two main islands.
2
In this management plan, SIPLAS and Siargao Islands are used to refer to the same area. Siargao Islands include the two main islands,
Siargao Island and Bucas Grande and all the other islands associated them.

Figure 2.1 Location Map of SIPLAS

2.1.2 Topography and Slope
The highest elevation in the island is at 283 meters above sea level (masl). There is no significant
surface drainage system since surface stream flows are diverted into underground channels.
The terrain is moderately rolling to steep. The area distribution according to slope is given in
Table 2.2 and is shown in Figure 2.2. Almost 80% of the area is below 8% slope.
Table 2.2 Distribution of Areas by Slope Category

Slope Category Description Area (ha) % to Total
0-3 percent Level to nearly level 28,516.57 45.41%
3-8 percent Gently sloping to undulating 21,208.48 33.77%
8-18 percent Undulating to rolling 11,913.06 18.97%
18-30 percent Rolling to moderately steep 1,002.85 1.60%
30-50 percent Steep 17.94 0.03%
Outlier 137.10 0.22%
Total 62,796.00 100.00%
Source: Slope map of Siargao Islands
2.1.3 Geology and Soils
The most striking physiographic features of SIPLAS are its limestone areas, particularly in
Kangbangyo and Poneas Islands. These display a typical karst terrain of haystack hills which
appear to be a combination of the Chocolate Hills of Bohol and the limestone formations in El
Nido of Palawan. The presence of ponds and lagoons amid the hills and beaches make them
rather unique. Collapsed roof of caverns and galleries due to erosion and dissolution could have
led to the formation of these ponds and lagoons.
Sapao formation composed of volcanic rocks is found in the center of the island, exhibiting a
rolling to moderately steep topography with more or less uniform slope. The alluvium is located
in the central portion and the coastal areas of the island. These areas developed due to the
deposition both from land and the sea.
The soil cover of the islands is 86% Bolinao clay, 6.92% Jamoyaon clay loam, 4.06%
undifferentiated mountain soil, 1.65% steep phase Bolinao clay and 0.42% rock land. Soil erosion
is observed in the steep slopes and denuded areas. Gullies have been formed where flow of
water is strong. The soil map is shown in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.2 Slope Map of Siargao Islands

Figure 2.3 Soil Map of Siargao Group of Islands

2.1.4 Land Classification and Tenure
SIPLAS has approximately 24,337 hectares classified as alienable and disposable (A and D) lands,
and 38,459 hectares of timberlands or forestlands. See Table2.3. Out of the 132 barangays
comprising SIPLAS, 42 barangays are located within forestlands.
Table 2.3 Land Classification

Land Classification Hectares % to Total
Alienable and Disposable (A and D) Land 24,337 39%
Timberland/ Forestland 38,459 61%
Total  62,796  100%

Source: Land Classification Map, DENR 13; Ecotown Project (2011)
A total of 1,077 household-occupants of forestlands Table 2.4 Tenure Instruments Issued Within
which occupy around 2,134 hectares were previously SIPLAS
awarded with Certificates of Stewardship Contract
Tenure Area (ha)
(CSCs). The most recent tenure instruments issued by
ISF/CSC 2,134.00
DENR are Protected Area Community-Based Resource
Management Agreements (PACBRMAs) covering 1,112 PACBRMA 1,334.54
hectares and 222.54 hectares in the municipalities of Total 3,468.54
Socorro and Dapa, respectively. Source: DENR CENRO Dapa
2.1.5 Land Cover
The land cover data used in this plan was taken from various sources. Although the 2010 land cover
map of the Philippines has been officially released by DENR and the National Mapping and
Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA), the LWG decided to adopt the 2011 land cover data of
the Ecotown Project of the Climate Change Commission. The 2010 land cover map of NAMRIA
shows that there are no more natural forests in Siargao Island. In Socorro, for instance, large areas
of natural forests that still exist are shown in the NAMRIA map as shrublands, possibly because
these forests are generally stunted due to their exposure to wind coming from the eastern
seaboard. In Bucas Grande, natural forests are dominated by the important and rare Philippine iron
wood or mancono which are usually less than 5 meters in height and therefore are mistaken as
shrub lands. In the map of the Ecotown Project, the NAMRIA map was “corrected” to reflect the
results of field validation that was done and the field observations of local communities.
The 2011 land cover data of Ecotown Project (Table 2.3) reveals that 7,514.2 hectares or 12% of
Siargao Islands’ total land cover are natural broadleaved forest. These are mostly found in
Socorro (36%), Dapa (29%) and Del Carmen (26%). Mangrove forest covers approximately 7,768
hectares or 12% of total land cover. Most of the mangrove forests are located in Del Carmen
(4,295 ha or 55%), Pilar (1,217 ha or 16%) and San Benito (1,010 ha or 13%).
About 39,878 hectares or 64% of the land cover, however, are croplands most of which (32,230
hectares) are planted with perennials such as coconut. The croplands of Del Carmen comprise
21% of total croplands in Siargao Islands. Second to Del Carmen in terms of crop production is
Dapa which has 13% of total croplands.
SIPLAS Management Plan 10 | P a g e

Table 2.5 Land Cover Statistics of the Siargao Islands: 2011

General Sta. %
Land Cover Burgos Dapa Del Carmen Pilar San Benito San Isidro Socorro Total
Luna Monica Share *
Closed forest, broadleaved 12.4 234.8 1,915.7 122.8 543.6 11.7 2,143.4 4,984.5 8.0%
Open forest, broadleaved 1,937.7 51.5 540.4 2,529.7 4.0%
Mangrove forest - 698.9 4,295.0 111.4 1,216.8 1,009.8 160.4 195.2 81.1 7,768.6 12.4%
Other wooded land, shrubs 9.3 14.6 3.7 1,109.5 1,137.1 1.8%
Other wooded land, wooded
1,440.6 1,440.6 2.3%
grassland
Other lands, annual crop 119.5 945.0 1,359.0 785.4 718.8 68.9 764.8 2,507.2 378.3 7,647.0 12.2%
Other lands, perennial crop 1,701.3 4,217.6 7,135.9 4,196.2 3,631.6 2,588.6 3,496.5 2,221.5 3,041.3 32,230.5 51.6%
Other lands, grassland 23.6 554.5 0.9 0.6 7.1 1.5 8.2 2,161.0 60.1 2,817.5 4.5%
Other lands, built-up area 47.4 255.4 252.6 152.8 92.7 122.6 61.0 171.2 77.7 1,233.4 2.0%
Other lands, barren land 5.6 37.5 2.7 2.2 3.3 5.8 57.0 0.1%
Other lands, marshland 13.3 13.3 0.0%
Inland water 0.2 143.8 69.5 128.7 56.5 60.9 8.3 97.7 9.0 574.7 0.9%
Inland water, inland water
11.3 5.9 9.4 4.5 31.1 0.0%
pond
Inland water, fishpond 22.4 2.1 24.5 0.0%
Inland water, inland water
11.3 5.9 9.4 4.5 31.1 0.0%
pond
Outlier 306.8 306.8
Total 1,938.3 8,993.3 15,066.1 5,500.6 6,112.1 4,410.5 4,527.3 12,593.5 3,654.1 62,796.2 100.0%
Source: Natural Resource Assessment (NRA), Ecotown Project, 2011; PhilCCAP-generated map
* Excluding outlier.

2.1.6 Climate
Climate in SIPLAS falls under Corona’s Type II which characterized by having no dry season with a
very pronounced rainy season from November to January. It is affected mostly by winds coming
from the northeast and southwest although winds may be variable during several months.
Amihan or the Northeast Monsoon during the months of October to February produces high
waves, surf and breakers along the eastern coastline, which attract many surfing enthusiasts.
Siargao Islands receive the highest amount of rainfall during December while June is the driest
month. Temperature ranges from a low of 26.6oC in February to a high of 28.4oC during May and
June. In 2010, Siargao Islands had an average relative humidity of 80.6%. The annual climatic
variables (rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature, and relative humidity) for the period
2002-2011 are summarized in Table 2.6.
o
Table 2.6 Annual Average Rainfall (mm), Maximum and Minimum Temperature ( C), and Relative Humidity
(%) in Siargao Islands: 2002-2011
Maximum Minimum
Rainfall Relative Humidity
Temperature Temperature
(mm) 0 0 (%)
( C) ( C)
2002 3,606.9 31.5 24.1 81.4
2003 4,916.8 31.2 24.6 82.7
2004 2,831.6 31.6 25.3 80.8
2005 3,808.6 31.3 25.2 82.8
2006 3,751.3 31.4 25.3 81.4
2007 3,682.6 31.6 24.6 82.9
2008 5,153.0 31.3 24.3 82.8
2009 4,251.8 31.3 24.3 81.8
2010 2,797.9 31.8 23.9 80.6
2011 5,758.7* 31.4* 23.4* 79.9
Average 4,055.9 31.4 24.5 81.7
* January to November only; December 2011 data missing.
Source of data: PAGASA
2.1.7 Hazard Areas
Siargao Islands are threatened by both geologic hazards and climate change-related hazards.
Geologic hazards include earthquakes from seismic activity along the Philippine Deep which could
trigger a tsunami. The climate-related hazards that the islands are exposed to include
temperature increase, erratic rainfall patterns (see Table 2.6), sea level rise, and more intense,
extreme events such as floods, droughts, landslides, and storm surges associated with strong
typhoons. These hazards are expected to have profound effects and impacts on agriculture and
food production systems, human settlements, livelihoods, ecosystems, and biodiversity. The
vulnerability of SIPLAS to these hazards is further discussed in Section 3.

2.2 SIPLAS Biological Resources
The biodiversity richness of SIPLAS cannot Table 2.7 Key Biodiversity Areas in Region XIII
be underestimated. Out of the 10 KBAs in
KBAs in Region XIII Area, in has %
Region XIII which have a total area of
Mt. Kambinliw and Redondo 28,524 3.4%
835,648 hectares, SIPLAS comprises 33.4%
Siargao Islands PLS 278,914 33.4%
of these. SIPLAS also compose 21.7% of
Carrascal Bay 2,823 0.3%
the total area of all Mindanao KBAs (3.843
Consuelo and General Islands 2,530 0.3%
million hectares). Endemism of its Mt. Hilong-Hilong 240,240 28.7%
terrestrial faunal diversity is noteworthy. Cagwait 1,886 0.2%
SIPLAS is home to 21 mammal species of Mt. Diwata Range 93,798 11.2%
which 14 are endemic to the Philippines, Hinatuan Bay 17,268 2.1%
85 bird species of which 55 species (or Bislig 154,829 18.5%
65%) are endemic to the country and nine Agusan Marsh Wildlife
endemic species of frogs. 14,836 1.8%
Sanctuary
Total 835,648 100.0%
The coastal and marine biodiversity of
SIPLAS, on the other hand, is evidenced by
eight species of seagrasses which is half of all species found in the Philippines and South-East
Asian region, and 59 species of seaweeds representing 37% of the total number of benthic
seaweeds recorded in the Philippines. The marine fauna is composed of some 106 species of
fishes (recorded from a single reef), 38 genera of corals and 137 species of mollusks. Some of the
noteworthy rare and endangered marine animals in the area are: sharks (Rhincodon typus);
Dugongs (Dugong dugon); Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata); Green Turtle (Chelonia
mydas) and Saltwater Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus). The latter also inhabits the wetlands of
SIPLAS. (Philippine Sustainable Development Network/ PSDN).
2.2.1 Terrestrial and Freshwater Biological Resources
Habitats
There are the terrestrial habitats found in Siargao Islands.
1) Closed and Open Forest. The remaining closed forest in Siargao as of 2011 is estimated at
4,986 hectares while only 2,530 hectares remain as open forest. As shown in Table 2.3,
patches of these forests can be found in all municipalities of Siargao, except in Santa Monica.
Socorro accounts for the biggest area of closed forest, with about 2,143 hectares or 43% of
total closed forest. The remaining natural forests are dominantly occupied by the rare
mancono (Xanthosthemum verdugonianus) and other dipterocarps, such as yakal, lauan and
gisok. It has enough saplings of flora and assemblage of avefaunal species.
2) Ultramafic Forest. This habitat is characterized by igneous rock formations which originated
from volcanic residues. Siargao has approximately 1,137 hectares of ultramafic forest mostly
covered with stunted and premium tree species, including the mancono. This type of habitat
is found in Bucas Point, Bucas Grande Island, and parts of San Benito and Santa Monica. Soil
fertility in this type of forest is loam barren and acidic due to the presence of mineral deposits
like cobalt, copper, silver, manganese, chromite and gold.

3) Limestone Forest. This is characterized

by karst stone formations dominantly
occupying the islets. Some unique rock
formations are found in Kangbangyo
Point in Maribojoc, San Benito, the
hilltop lakes, the popular Suhoton Cave
in Socorro, and the skull-like formation
in Magpupungko, Pilar.
4) Beach Forest. This type of forest is

covered by species of talisay, bitaug
and, dap-dap along stretches of fine
white sand beaches particularly in Daku Island, Suyangan, Anajawan, La Janusa, Pansuqian of
the municipality of General Luna; Kambiling Naked Island and Barangay Alegria of Sta. Monica;
Caridad and Magpupungko, Pilar; Bitaug and Baybay, Burgos; Pacifico, San Isidro, islands of
Kankangon and Pagbasayan and Barangay Maribojoc, San Benito; islets at Dona Helen and
Puyangi, Socorro; Kawhagan and Tagbuyakhaw, Caub, Del Carmen and Union, Don Paulino,
Corregidor and Monserat of the municipality of Dapa The beach forest is the habitat of 23 bird
species and endangered turtle species including the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas.
5) Caves. There are 564 caves recorded in SIPLAS, twenty of which are considered major caves
(Protected Area Suitability Assessment, 1994). Caves serve as the center of bat colony in the
islands. They provide habitat for fruit-eating bats and other invertebrate species. Several
species, swiftlets and invertebrates depend on the cave ecosystem. Cave species act as
important pollinators and seed dispersers, and play a vital role in maintaining diversity in the
forest ecosystem. There has been no major survey/study conducted on these caves yet to
firmly establish their location and status or condition.
6) Streams and Rivers. There are few visible streams and small rivers in Siargao Islands. Lakes,
lagoons and other fresh water ponds however exist. Recent land cover analysis shows that there
are around 575 hectares of inland fresh waters composed mainly of small streams, ponds, lagoons
and lakes. One of the most popularly known lakes is the Poneas Hilltop Hidden Lake in San Benito.
It is a mountain top lake which is home to different species of freshwater fish.
7) Marshes and Swamps. These are considered as freshwater ecosystems that serve as water
basins and thus help prevent flooding in the islands during heavy rains. Large marshes are
dominantly covered by kaatu-an bangkal and are located in Matin-ao, Burgos; Jaboy, Pilar;
Consuelo, General Luna; Cancohoy, Del Carmen; Union and Osmeña in Dapa; and Pelaez and
Buhing Kalipay, San Isidro. Mudfish is the most common species caught in these areas.
8) Agriculture areas. Approximately 39,877 hectares are devoted to agricultural production.

Coconut covers 32,229 hectares or 81% of the total agricultural area. It is Siargao’s main
agricultural crop. The area planted to annual crops like palay, corn, rootcrops and other cash
crops constitute only 7,647 hectares or 19% of the agricultural area. About 4,128 hectares or
10% of the agricultural production area are planted with palay.
9) Shrubland and Grassland. Siargao has 4,258 hectares of grasslands and shrublands, which are
largely unproductive. These areas cover some acidic portions of Siargao and Bucas Grande and
include areas in the western part of Bucas Grande that were further destroyed by grassfire.
These have become barren and dominantly colonized by cogon grass and ferns (locally known
as agsam).

Flora
Siargao Islands is home to the mancono (iron wood), payuspos (an endemic species in the island),
and some dipterocarps like white lauan and yakal. The recorded flora in the island, based on the
inventory conducted by the Ecotown Project in 2012 using established transect plots, are found
in Annex 2.1. The proportion of endemic flora in Siargao is relatively high at 46.3%. These include
the species of anislag, ipil, mancono, Maribojoc pine and Sudjang (CPPAP Resource Inventory,
1998).
During a rapid field assessment of the watershed area of the Del Carmen Water District in
September 12, 20133, additional primary data on plant diversity of this area were obtained (see
Annex 2.2 and Annex 2.3). This quick survey yielded a total of 112 taxa consisting of 110 flowering
plants (Angiosperm), one Gymnosperm species and one mushroom species. Noteworthy among
these plants are the white lauan (Shorea contorta, Dipterocarpaceae), Philippine oak (Quercus
philippinensis, Fagaceae), tubli (Derris philippinensis, Papilionaceae), alopaying gubat
(Homalomena philippinensis, Araceae), panaon (Alpinia elegans, Zingiberaceae), tagbak (Alpinia
philippinensis, Zingiberaceae), climbing pandan (Freycinetia negrosensis, Pandanaceae), and niog-
niogan (Ficus pseudopalma, Moraceae). These are all endemic to the Philippines.
Fauna
High fauna endemicity was also recorded for Siargao Islands. There are 85 bird species with 65%
endemicity, nine amphibian species with 33% endemicity, 21 mammal species of 67% endemicity
in the islands (CPPAP Resource Inventory, 1998). Important bird species found in SIPLAS are the
Philippine cockatoo, Dinagat gymnure and golden crown flying fox. SIPLAS is also home to the
endangered tarsier (Tarsius syrichta). Species of birds found in mangrove areas include the oriole,
telik, sewit, tiko, and takray.
A faunal survey conducted in three locations in SIPLAS (Jaboy, Pilar; Lagoon Tiktikan, Barangays
Sudlon and B. San Roque, Socorro; and Del C armen) recorded numerous birds, amphibians,
reptiles and mammals (volant and non-volant). Refer to Annex 2.4 for the listing. In the said
faunal survey, two island endemics were recorded, namely: Pseudogekko siargao (lizard) and
Platymantis siargao (frog).
Table 2.8 Important Fauna Species in SIPLAS and their Conservation Status
Species Common Name/Local Name Conservation Status
Cacatua haematuropygia Philippine cockatoo Critical
Podogymnura aureospinula Dinagat gymnure Endangered
Acerodon jubatus Golden-crowned flying fox Endangered
Pteropus pumilus Little golden-mantled flying fox Vulnerable
Urogale everetti Mindanao tree shrew Vulnerable
Megapodius cumingii Philippine Scrubfowl Near-threatened
Buceros hydrococrax Rufous Hornbill Near-threatened
Penelopides panini Tarictic Hornbill Near-threatened
Anas luzonica Philippine Mallard Near-threatened
Crocodylus porosus Estuarine Crocodile Lower Risk
Source: 1998 CPPAP Resource Inventory
3
Undertaken by Dr. William Sm Gruezo, Biodiversity Specialist of the OIDCI-UPLBFI Technical Assistance Team.

2.2.2 Coastal and Marine Biological Resources
Habitats
1) Mangroves. Expansive mangrove stands are dominated by Rhizophora (Rhizophora apiculata).

Mangrove forest is bordered by an ecotone of mixed species of beach forests and other
mangrove associates.4
The historical record on the mangrove cover of Siargao Islands indicates a declining trend from
1988 to 2011. The total mangrove area decreased by 2,011 hectares, or 20.6%, within the
period. The annual rate of decline within 2003 -2011 is the same as in 1988-2003 period. As
mentioned earlier, about 55% of the remaining mangrove areas (7,768 hectares) are in Del
Carmen while 16% are in Pilar and 13% are in the municipality of San Benito.
Table 2.9 Mangrove Forest Cover by Municipality

Mangrove cover (hectares)
Municipality
1988* 2003^ 2011**
Dapa 619.1 517.3 698.9
Del Carmen 5,547.6 4,406.8 4,295.0
Socorro no data 239.7 195.2
San Benito 1,421.1 1,191.7 1,009.8
Pilar 1,786.2 1,563.3 1,216.8
San Isidro no data 161.2 160.4
Sta. Monica no data 92.8 81.1
Gen. Luna 405.3 239.0 111.4
Burgos na na Na
Total 9,779.3 8,411.8 7,768.6
Average Annual % (1.0%) (1.0%)
Increase (Decrease)
na=not applicable)
Source: * -DENR Land Cover Map (based on 1988 spot satellite image)
^-EcoGov Project 2004 based on 2003 satellite imagery; and
**EcoTown Project 2011
It should be noted that different methods were used to estimate the mangrove cover shown
in Table 2.9 thus data reliability may differ. The decline in the estimates for different time
periods may be partly attributed to the change in the estimation method. However, in some
municipalities such as Pilar, the significant reduction in mangrove cover was evident as it was
the result of the LGU decision to allocate certain mangrove areas for other development
activities including human settlements.
2) Coral Reefs. Historical data as of 1991 showed that about 38 coral genera are found in SIPLAS.
The estimated coral cover then ranged from poor to good. Available data for 2012 show that
Sta. Monica and Del Carmen had the highest average percentage coral cover (Ecotown Project
2012). While there seemed to be a higher percentage of coral cover, the overall quality has
declined. The coral reefs were also observed to have a relatively high algal cover, ranging from
40% to 70%.
4
The data was validated during the conduct of a rapid biodiversity assessment in September 2013 by the PhilCCAP project led by Dr.
William Gruezo, Biodiversity Specialist, in selected watersheds in Siargao.

3) Seagrasses. The analysis of species richness of the seagrass community along the Pacific
seaboard placed Siargao Islands at the bottom margin of the moderate level of species
richness category. The number of species ranging from 8 to 6 species (Licuanan et al. 2011).
Extensive cover of seagrass beds can still be found though in Del Carmen, San Benito, Pilar and
Gen. Luna. These beds serve as the haven and refuge of marine fauna. Large vertebrate
animals residing or visiting the area are dugongs and marine turtles.
Fauna
Marine biodiversity of SIPLAS is also rich. SIPLAS Figure 2.4 Green Sea Turtle Rescued by
coastal and marine area is home to endangered marine Local DENR in Siargao
fauna, including the hawksbill turtle (Erythmochelys
imbricate), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and oliver
ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea). The vastness of
the mangrove cover and their pristine ecological
condition allow the survival of marine crocodiles. One of
the country’s largest extant salt water crocodile of the
species Crocodylus porosus (known locally as kibol), is
known to inhabit the mangrove forest of the island. One
of the country’s largest salt water crocodile has been
recorded in Del Carmen. Other equally important
marine species sighted in the area include dolphins and
the threatened dugong.
On reef fish species diversity, 106 species of reef fishes

were reported in 1991. (UP Marine Science Institute,
1991). Data for 2012 show a total of 214 species or a
projected species richness of 238. (Ecotown Project,
2012). However, this does not mean that species
richness increased through time. Varying data
Photo by E. Camacho
presented are dependent on the number of transect
surveyed. It should be noted that the Philippines has the highest diversity of butterfly fishes
(Chaetodontidae) per unit area (Nanola, 2012). Based on the accumulated number of transects
surveyed in Surigao Provinces since 2001 (Licuanan et al. 2011; Nanola et al. 2011), a total of 31
species of butterfly fishes have been recorded. This represents 67% of the total number of
butterfly fishes recorded for the country (Nanola 2012).
Using cluster analysis of benthic cover and reef fish information, Siargao Island can be divided
into three clusters, namely: the northwest cluster (east of Del Carmen, San Benito, Sta. Monica);
northeast cluster (Burgos, San Isidro, Pilar, Gen Luna); and southern cluster (Dapa, Socorro,
south of Del Carmen) clusters. Based on this classification, northwest and northeast clusters have
better total fish (~11 mt/km2) and herbivore (3 to 4mt/km2) biomass composition compared to
the southern cluster which only has around 4 mt/km2 and less than 2 mt/km2 of total fish and
herbivore fish biomass composition, respectively (Table 2.10). The information on percentage
coral cover cannot be compared because of the absence of coral data for the southern cluster.
To note, herbivorous reef fishes promote reef resilience by trimming down algal biomass. Current
trends indicate that at least 10 mt/km2 of herbivores are needed for a reef to be resilient. With a
herbivore biomass of around 5 mt/km2, reefs can still be resilient if the herbivore biomass is fully
protected.

Table 2.10 Summary of Marine Biological Parameters for the Different Clusters in Siargao Islands
Cluster
Biological Parameters
Northwest Northeast Southern
Reef fish species richness (jackknife estimates) 161 (n=10) 170 (n=6) 138 (n=6)
Total fish estimated biomass (mt/km2) 11.09±1.81 11.15±1.65 4.02±1.17
Herbivore fish estimated biomass (mt/km2) 3.43±0.93 4.08±0.80 2.18±0.74
(Legend: n = number of transects surveyed, nd = no data); (data from Ecotown Project 2012).
2.3 SIPLAS Socio-Economic Profile
2.3.1 Regional, Provincial and Island-wide Economic Development Setting
The economic activities in SIPLAS are largely influenced by the development plans and programs
of the individual LGUs, of Surigao del Norte Province and of the various development agencies
which cover Caraga Region. In 2000, the Mindanao Development Framework Plan identified
Caraga Region as one of Mindanao’s seven Area Development Zones (ADZs), given its potential to
become the timber corridor and eco-tourism center of the country. This was translated
operationally in the Caraga Regional Physical Framework Plan for 2004 to 2030 which explicitly
aims to transform the region into an agri-fishery, mineral and eco-tourism center.
The Caraga Region’s tourism thrust was affirmed in 2006. The national government created cross-
regional clusters with strategic themes and priority directions. Siargao Islands, though part of
Surigao del Norte, was included in the Central Philippines Tourism Super Region together with
Bicol Region (Region V), Western Visayas (Region VI), Central Visayas (Region VII), Eastern Visayas
(Region VIII) and the Provinces of Palawan and Romblon. This strategy paved the way for the
acceleration of tourism development in Siargao Islands. Since then, a number of tourism projects
have been initiated, and projects on tourism-related facilities and infrastructures are in the
pipeline as proposed by municipal LGUs, the Province, and concerned government line agencies.
The Provincial LGU has identified major tourist areas in SIPLAS as priority development areas. These
include the 27 km stretch of white sand beaches located in General Luna and other areas in Siargao
Islands, cascading waterfalls, unique rock formations, enchanting caves, vast mangrove forests,
marine parks and huge waves for surfing. To strengthen its potentials for tourism, the province also
aims to pursue agro-fishery development.
With support from the Provincial LGU and NEDA Regional XIII, the Siargao Islands Area Development
Plan (Siargao ADP) for 2011 to 2016 was formulated. This is geared towards developing the area into
a “world class tourism destination, offering the finest experience with its diverse attractions and
adventures while preserving environmental integrity sustained by strong partnership among
stakeholders.”
Table 2.11 presents the development thrusts of each municipality within SIPLAS based on their
CLUPs and other development plans.

Table 2.11 Development Thrusts of SIPLAS Municipalities

Municipality Development Thrusts
Burgos  Marine Protected Area (MPA) management, agro-forestry and crop development, forest and
watershed management
Dapa  Agro-forestry, watershed, MPA/fish sanctuary management, urban management, tourism
Del Carmen  Forestry/watershed management, mangrove/ aquasilviculture, tourism, agri-production,
fisheries management
General Luna  Agricultural development (coconut and rice production), forest and watershed management,
Marine sanctuary/fishery reserve management, tourism, urban settlement management
Pilar  Agriculture development (coconut and rice production), tourism, marine sanctuary and
mangrove protection and management, urban settlement management.
San Benito  Agri-production, marine sanctuary management, forest and watershed management, tourism,
waste management (establishment of sanitary landfill or SLF)
San Isidro  Forest and watershed management, agri production (rice and coconut), mangrove protection
and management, agro-forestry, agri-fishery, tourism, urban settlement management
Santa Monica  Agri-production (rice and corn), forest and watershed management, mangrove, MPA
(Sapao) management, tourism
Socorro  Mangrove protection and management, tourism, agri production, agro-forestry, watershed and
water sources protection and management, agri-tourism , forest protection, agro-industrial
development, MPA management
Source: CLUPs; Municipal Profiles and Community-based Monitoring System
2.3.2 Demographic and Social Profile
Income status, population and population growth rate
Surigao del Norte ranked second among the four provinces of the Caraga Region in terms of
poverty incidence. In 2012, it was reported that 34.6% of the households in the province were
considered poor. Nine of the top twenty poorest barangays in Surigao del Norte Province are in
Siargao Islands. Based on the Natural Resource Assessment (NRA) household survey report, the
average household income per month in Siargao Islands ranged from Php 4,947 to Php 21,267.
San Isidro had the highest average monthly household income and Burgos had the lowest
average monthly household income. SIPLAS municipalities belong to the 4thto 6thincome classes.
The total population of the Siargao Islands in 2010 was recorded at 110,653 persons (or 22,131
households). The population of the nine LGUs comprises nearly 25% of the total population of the
Province. Among the SIPLAS municipalities, those with the largest population are Dapa (21% of
total population), Socorro (18%) and Del Carmen (16%). These municipalities are the major
commercial and trading centers in the island. General Luna, which is popular for surfing, only had
14% of the total population of Siargao Islands.
The historical population data for Siargao Islands shows a steadily increasing trend since 2000.
Among the LGUs, the fast-growing ones, from 2007 to 2010, were Pilar (5.6 % average annual
growth rate), Del Carmen (4.8%) and General Luna (3.9%). These growth rates are way above the
national average of 1.4%.

Table 2.12 Income Class Population and Estimated No. of Households: 2010
Relative Proportion
Estimated No. of to Total Population
Municipality Income Class 2010 Population
HHs of Surigao del Norte
Province (%)
SIARGAO ISLAND 110,653 22,131 25%
Burgos 6th 4,058 812 4%
Dapa 4th 23,492 4,698 21%
Del Carmen 5th 17,136 3,427 16%
Gen. Luna 5th 15,014 3,003 14%
Pilar 5th 9,456 1,891 8%
San Benito 6th 5,505 1,101 5%
San Isidro 5th 6,973 1,395 6%
Santa Monica 5th 8,715 1,743 8%
Socorro 4th 20,304 4,061 18%
SURIGAO DEL NORTE 442,588 88,518
Source: NSCB
Table 2.13 Historical Growth of Population of Siargao Islands: 1995 to 2010

1995 2000 2007 2010
Annual Annual Annual Annual
Municipality
Pop’n Growth Pop’n Growth Pop’n Growth Pop’n Growth
Rate Rate Rate Rate
SURIGAO DEL NORTE 442,203 0.7 374,465 (3.3) 409,468 1.8 442,588 2.6
SIARGAO ISLANDS 85,105 0.8 93,354 1.8 100,588 1.1 110,653 3.2
Burgos 2,785 1.2 3,043 1.8 3,851 3.4 4,058 1.8
Dapa 16,435 (1.5) 19,508 3.5 22,184 1.9 23,492 1.9
Del Carmen 12,316 0.0 13,558 1.9 14,892 1.3 17,136 4.8
Gen. Luna 12,554 1.8 12,347 0.3 13,385 1.2 15,014 3.9
Pilar 8,299 3.1 8,401 0.2 8,023 (0.7) 9,456 5.6
San Benito 4,498 0.9 4,750 1.1 5,275 1.5 5,505 1.4
San Isidro 5,791 2.4 6,058 0.9 6,229 0.4 6,973 3.8
Santa Monica 7,219 0.1 7,757 1.4 7,916 0.3 8,715 3.3
Socorro 15,208 1.7 17,932 3.3 18,833 0.7 20,304 2.5
Source: PSA Census 2010, NSCB. Growth rate is computed based on PSA census data.
The majority of the residents in Siargao Islands are Surigaonons. Others are Cebuanos, Leyteños,
Samareños, Hiligaynons and Tagalogs.
Literacy rate
The functional literacy rate in SIPLAS municipalities is reported at 80%. While participation rate
from 2006 to 2011 at the elementary level is quite satisfactory, that for secondary education is
alarming at an average of 52%. Using selected performance indicators for education, the gross
enrollment rate posts a relatively higher figure for Siargao Islands, but cohort survival rate and
completion rate are in a very dismal condition. This indicates a proliferation of out-of-school
youth in the islands.

Health services
SIPLAS municipalities are served by four district hospitals. These are in Del Carmen, Pilar, Dapa
and Socorro. Sta. Monica has a municipal hospital. These hospitals have a bed capacity of 105
and bed to population ratio of 1:1,075 indicating insufficient accommodation capacity of hospital
services.
Potable water systems
About 17% of Siargao’s household population is currently served by Level III water systems
managed by local water districts. There are four water districts servicing the municipalities of
Dapa, Del Carmen, Sta. Monica and Socorro.
About 49% of households are served by Level II water sources, i.e., piped water from a borewell
or spring system to a communal water point. The remaining 34 % is served by Level I water
supply systems, such as hand pumps, shallow wells and rainwater collectors or buy water from
water suppliers.
The above figures suggest that very few households do not have access to water. Safe or potable
water supply however still seems to be a serious problem in the islands. In fact, one of the
leading causes of morbidity in the Island is diarrhea (SIPLAS Strategic Master Plan, cited in the
2012 Ecotown report).
Power and communication services
The Siargao Electric Cooperative supplies the electricity needs of Siargao Island, deriving its
power from the mainland Mindanao Grid through a submarine cable. All nine municipalities are
being served with a high 98% house connection, including those located in seven isolated
barangays which are powered by generating sets.
Communication facilities are available in the island through Globe and Smart telecommunication
companies. Other communication facilities include local radio stations. Mail services are available
through the municipal postal offices.
Road network
According to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), of the 145.863 kilometers
of secondary road managed and maintained by the agency, only 57 kilometers or 39% are well-
paved with cement. About 89 kilometers or 61% are unpaved all-weather roads. Figure 2.5 shows
the infrastructures and utilities currently existing in Siargao Islands.

Figure 2.5 Map of Currently Existing Infrastructure and Utilities in Siargao Islands
Source: PhilCCAP, 2013

2.3.3 Resource Uses and Economic Activities
Land Uses
 Agriculture
Farming is the primary source of income in Table 2.14 Area Planted to Coconut by Municipality
SIPLAS. An estimated 30% of PA occupants
Municipality Area Planted (Has)
benefit from agricultural activities. About Burgos 2,568.00
39,877 hectares (or 64% of the total land area Dapa 5,901.00
of Siargao Islands) are being utilized as Del Carmen 5,504.00
production area for the economic sustenance General Luna 4,532.00
of the local communities. Out of this Pilar 5,901.00
production area, 34,229 has (or 81%) are San Benito 2,588.00
planted with coconut, Siargao Islands’ main San Isidro 2,079.00
Sta. Monica 2,198.00
crop. The municipalities of Dapa, Del Carmen
Socorro 3,058.00
and Pilar have more than 5,000 hectares each
Total 34,229.00
planted to coconut, followed by General Luna Source: CEnergy, 2012, Resource Assessment for
with 4,532 hectares and Socorro with 3,058 Renewable Energy in Siargao Island.
hectares (Table 2.14).
Only 4,128 hectares (10% of the total

production area) are utilized for rice
production and more than 75% of these rice
lands are rainfed. This means that the rice
production cycle is highly dependent on the
onset of the rainy season. It is therefore highly
vulnerable to the erratic rainfall pattern
brought about by climate change.
There are some local rice farmers though who

use lagoon and natural ponds as small water
impounding system for crop irrigation. These
small irrigation systems exist in the
municipalities of in Del Carmen, Burgos and San Isidro.
 Settlement
Built-up or settlement areas constitute

1,233 hectares, distributed among 132
barangays in Siargao Islands. Most of
the larger settlements are in coastal
areas. The municipalities of Del
Carmen and Dapa have the biggest
built-up areas followed by Socorro and
Gen. Luna. See Table 2.5 on page 11.
The settlement map of Siargao is
presented in Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6 Administrative and Settlement Map of Siargao Islands
Source: PhilCCAP, 2013

 Tourism
The tropical climate gives the islands high tourism value. Its location and exposure to strong winds
from the Pacific Ocean producing waves from 6 to 12 feet making the area, particularly Gen. Luna
municipality, one of the best surfing destinations in the country. The thick limestone deposits in
small islands systems explain why white beaches abound in SIPLAS.
With SIPLAS being promoted as a major eco-tourism destination, different eco-tourism sites and
activities have been developed (Table 2.15).
Table 2.15 Major Tourism Attractions

Del Carmen Mangrove Forest
General Luna Daku Island
Guyam Island
Mamon Island
Surfing Spots
Pilar Magpupungko Pool
Marshland
San Benito Naked Island
Poneas Hidden Lake
Santa Monica Alegria Beach
Taktak Falls
Socorro Bucas Grande Islands and Sohoton Cave
Total tourist arrivals in SIPLAS have been increasing through the years; however, they only
comprise 6% to 8% of total tourist arrivals in the Caraga Region.
Table 2.16 Tourist Arrivals in Siargao Islands: 2007-2010

Tourist 2007 2008 2009 2010
Foreign 3,250 6,358 7,778 5,808
Domestic 21,857 19,447 29,435 29,051
Others/Unspecified 645 387 711 371
Total Tourist Arrivals in Siargao Islands 25,752 26,192 37,924 35,230
Total Tourist Arrivals in Caraga 380,408 419,989 456,933 518,770
Percent share of Siargao tourists to Tourist Arrival 6.8% 6.2% 8.3% 6.6%
in Caraga Region
Source: Department of Tourism, Caraga Region/ Siargao Island Area Development Plan, 2011-2016
At present, there are a number of resorts and restaurants in SIPLAS most of which are located along
the coast. Around 70% of the tourism facilities, mainly beachfront resorts, hotels, restaurants, and
home stay, are operating in the municipality of General Luna (Table 2.17). Many of these facilities
were established and are being managed by expatriates.

Table 2.17 Tourism Facilities

General Luna Burgos
889 LH Bry Lodge Matanjak Homestay Municipal Tourism Reception Center
Bayod Resort Ocean 101 Beach Resort Dapa
Bianney's Homestay Ocean Pacific Inn D' Islanders Ville Pension Hauz
Boardwalk on Cloud 9 Ocean Ridge MNRB Pension Hauz
Buddha's Surf Resort Paglaum Hostel MEMS Pension Hauz & Restaurant
Cabontog Pagoda Resort Paradise in the Pacific
Cherinicole Beach Resort Palm Paradise Island Resort Del Carmen
Chillact Siargao Bar and Beach Resort Pansukian Beach Resort Romy Laosinguan Home Stay
Daku Resort Patrick on the Beach Bakhaw Bed & Breakfast Hotel
Dedon Island Siargao, Inc Pesangan Lodge Sta. Monica
Drift Wood Surf Shop Pesangan Surf Camp Alegria Paradise
Eddie's Beach Resort & MJ's Bar Point 303 Resort Banday Beach Resort
Emerald House Rambeau Pagaran Lodging House
Epefania C. Petajo Homestay Reef Beach Houses Platil Lodging House
Gemelina Resort Romantic Beach Villas SOS
GL Provincial Training Center Ronaldo's Inn & Resto Bar Sta. Monica Parish
Gubaton Residence Rutchel M. Alipayo Homestay Pilar
Honda Pacific Beach Resort Sagana Resort Cometa Residence
Hotspot Shat's Guest House Hiyasmin Gonzales Residence
Isla Cabana Siargao Bleu Resprt and Spa Lucod Beach & Hotel
Jade Star Lodge Siargao Inn Beach Resort Santiago Gonzales Residence
Jing Gurabat Homestay Siargao Island Emerald House Solloso Residence
Jungle Reef Surf Resort Siargao Residence San Isidro
Kalinaw Resort Tiki Bungalows and Bar Bamboo Resort
Kawayan Resort Traveler's Pension Hauz & Beach Big Waves Resort
Resort
Kawili Beach Resort Turtle Surf Camp Bollox Bar
Kermit Surf and Dive Camp Villa Maya Homestay Jafe Camp Surf & Sail Resort
Kesa on Cloud 9 Resort Villa Solaria Sailfish Bay Garden
Kokai Resort Wave Cave Lodge Socorro
La Luna Island Resort Wayfarers Cloud 9 Restaurant and Hidden Island Resort
Residences
Mahogany Resort Yanyan's Small Hut Club Tara Resort
Coastal and Marine Uses
 Fisheries
Fishing is second to farming as income source. About 24% of the population of Siargao Islands is
dependent on fishing. Siargao Islands supply more than half of the region’s demand for fish. In
Socorro alone, there exists about 784 hectares of fish farms and aqua-mariculture areas in six
barangays (see Table 2.18). San Benito has identified about 1,500 hectares devoted to
aquaculture and marine sanctuary.

Table 2.18 Existing Fisheries Production Areas

Municipality Barangay Fisheries Management Areas Area (ha)
Socorro Sering Fish Farming/Aqua-Mariculture 10.37
Salog Fish Farming/Aqua-Mariculture 398.52
San Roque Fish Farming/Aqua-Mariculture 139.21
Bangus Fry Gathering Area 25.52
Dona Helene Fish Farming/Aqua-Mariculture 167.05
Sering Fish Farming/Aqua-Mariculture 24.5
Sudlon Fish Farming/Aqua-Mariculture 18.95
Total 784.12
Source: Socorro, 2013
 Marine Protected Areas
There are ten LGU-managed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in SIPLAS with a total area of
approximately 996 hectares. These were established through local ordinances some of which
date back to the 1990’s.
Table 2.19 Existing Marine Protected Area (MPA) by Municipality: 2013

Area Year
No. Municipality Barangay Habitat Legal Instrument
(ha) Established
1 Burgos Poblacion 1 Coral reef; sea grass 28 2010 Municipal Ordinance
2 San Benito Maribojoc Coral reef; mangrove 33 2008 Local Ordinance
3 Dapa Corregidor Coral reef 75 1990's Local Ordinance
4 Del Carmen Caub Coral reef 13 2014 Municipal Ordinance
5 San Fernando Coral reef 33 2014 Municipal Ordinance
6 General Luna Daku Coral reef 500 2010 Local Ordinance
7 Pilar Centro, Punta, Asinan, Coral reef; mangrove; 114 2013 Municipal Ordinance on-
Pilaring (CPAP) Sea grass process
8 San Isidro Tigasao Coral reef 28 2014 -
9 Santa Monica T. Arlan Coral reef; sea grass 118 2014 Barangay Ordinance
10 Socorro Pamosaingan Coral reef; mangrove 54 1990's Local Ordinance
Total 996
Source: SCREMP, 2015
 Tourism and recreation
Surfing and sports fishing are major attraction in Siargao Islands. A surfing competition is held in
Gen. Luna annually while Pilar hosts an annual international sport fishing competition. Figure
2.7 presents the various coastal and marine tourism activities in SIPLAS.
Other Economic Activities
Other sources of income of households in SIPLAS are forest products gathering, livestock raising,
provision of manual labor services (including manual work in quarry operations), operation of
businesses, and private and public sector employment. Forest products being harvested and
classified as non-timber forest products include orchids, honey bee, rattan and native bamboo.

Figure 2.7 Tourism Attractions in Siargao Islands
Source: Tourism Map, DOT Caraga, Butuan City, 2010

2.4 SIPLAS Institutional and Management Arrangements
2.4.1 Stakeholder Profile
This section discusses the stakeholders of SIPLAS which include (a) those agencies and
organizations within or outside the PA which have mandates related to the management of the
protected area, (b) those households, communities and entities located within SIPLAS which
benefit from the protected area’s resources, and (c) external organizations and individuals who
likewise benefit from SIPLAS resources such as tourists, consumers of fish and other products
from Siargao Islands. Those stakeholders which fall under (a) and (b) are identified below.
 Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
The DENR is the primary government agency that administers the NIPAS. The DENR Regional
Director (RD) for the Caraga Region serves as the Chair of the SIPLAS PAMB. It assigns the
Protected Area Superintendent (PASu) to SIPLAS who serves as the DENR Chief Operating Officer
in the PA and who provides secretariat support to the PAMB. It allocates an annual budget for the
operations of the PASu and PAMB and assigns staff support to the PASu. It was only until recently
that a full time PASu was designated for SIPLAS.
The Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) is also an important stakeholder of SIPLAS as

tourism development activities are expected to boom in the coming years. EMB has to ensure
that there is strict compliance among tourism and other establishments to the requirements of
the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System since Siargao Islands is a protected area. Solid
waste management and waste water management are also the concerns of EMB.
 Other National Government Agencies
There are other national government agencies which are concerned about the sustainable
management of SIPLAS and the socio-economic condition of its population. These agencies are
presented in table below.
Table 2.20 Other National Government Agencies with Involvement in SIPLAS Management
NGAs Stake/Concern at SIPLAS
Department of Interior and Local  Compliance with land use planning requirements
Government (DILG)  Support and assistance to the formation and strengthening of inter-LGU alliance in
SIPLAS, e.g., MPA Network
 Monitoring of the performance of LGUs based on DILG indicators
 Recognition of LGU performance and awarding of Good Housekeeping Seal which
has as a criterion good environmental management
5
Climate Change Commission  Follow up support to its Ecotown initiatives in four LGUs
(CCC)  Monitoring the compliance of LGUs to the requirements of the Climate Change Act
Department of Tourism (DOT)  Support to Province and LGUs in the promotion of Siargao Islands as tourist
destination
 Development of tourism plan and tourism products
 Linking SIPLAS with other tourism hubs in the Region and whole of Mindanao
5
The Climate Change Commission (CCC), with funding support from the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) spearheaded the
vulnerability and adaptation assessment of the municipalities of Del Carmen, Pilar, San Benito and San Isidro.

NGAs Stake/Concern at SIPLAS

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic  Support and assistance to LGUs in the enforcement of fisheries laws and policies,
Resources (BFAR) provision of training to LGUs on enforcement
 Assistance to LGUs in the implementation of sustainable fishing practices
 Assistance to coastal communities on fisheries-related livelihoods
Department of Agriculture (DA)  Support and assistance to LGUs and farming organization on the adoption of
climate smart and sustainable agricultural practices
 Provision of assistance in the development of small irrigation systems appropriate
to SIPLAS conditions
 Promotion of crop diversification
National Irrigation Association  Assessment and assistance in the development of irrigation facilities for SIPLAS
communities
Department of Trade and  Provision of skills training and livelihood support to communities
Industry (DTI)
Department of Social Welfare  Provision of livelihood support and community facilities from its various projects
and Development (DSWD)
 Local Government Units
Since the nine municipalities are within the protected area and are members of the PAMB, it is
part of their mandate to share in the responsibility for resource management and biodiversity
conservation in SIPLAS. The Surigao del Norte Provincial LGU is expected to provide oversight to
the implementation in SIPLAS of Siargao’s Area Development Plan and the Provincial Physical
Development Framework Plan that includes Siargao islands. The Provincial LGU can provide
financial support to SIPLAS management through the provision of annual budget allocation in its
Annual Provincial Investment Plan.
Municipal LGUs for their part are required under different laws and policies to prepare
Comprehensive Development Land Use Plans (CLUP), Annual Investment Plans, Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Plans, and Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Plans. In
fulfilling these requirements, they should take into account the thrusts and objectives of SIPLAS
and be aware of the PA management requirements under the NIPAS. The provision of socio-
economic services to their constituents, particularly those that support livelihood development,
will be a basic concern of the LGUs.
 Resource managers
They are the stakeholders, other than the LGUs, who are assigned or given the responsibility to
manage specific areas of the protected area. These include Peoples’ Organizations (POs) who are
holders of PACBRMA or are managers of marine protected areas. These POs are directly
dependent on the resources within the area tenured to them, and this provides the incentive for
them help protect and manage SIPLAS. These POs will have to undergo orientation, training,
exposure, and workshops on the different areas and aspects of PA management. Some members
are actively involved as part of environmental brigades for the protection, conservation and
management of forest and coastal resources. Some POs are engaged in eco-tourism activities and
livelihood enterprises that are related to the natural resource use.

Also among the resource managers are the water districts and other water utilities or
organizations which are dependent on water production areas for their water supply. In return
for the use of water resources, they are expected to protect and manage their respective water
production areas so that water supply is sustained. Four water districts exist in SIPLAS and there
are a number of Level II systems that are operational. Most of them however have yet to fully
exercise their resource management responsibilities.
 Non-government organizations (NGOs), academic institutions and foreign-assisted projects
There is only one non-governmental organization (NGO) working in Siargao Islands, the Sentro
para sa Ikauunlad ng Katutubong Agham at Teknolohiya (SIKAT), Inc. Recent activities of SIKAT
include the organization of vulnerable groups in the coastal communities of Del Carmen and
provision of initial capital and capacity building training. Livelihood projects, such as mudcrab
fattening, production of dried danggit (i.e., siganids), have been introduced as a strategy to
promote social enterprises, particularly for women, that could wean the community from
pursuing non-environment friendly livelihood activities (e.g., charcoal making from cut
mangroves or forest trees). SIKAT has also assisted Del Carmen LGU in the conduct of mangrove
assessments. It likewise facilitated the preparation of the Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate
Change Adaptation Plan for the LGU and selected barangays.
Two institutions provide college-level education. The Siargao National College of Science and
Technology (SNCST) - Del Carmen Campus, which is part of the Surigao State College of
Technology (SSCT) in Surigao City, offers bachelor courses in education, industrial technology,
computer engineering and information technology. The Siargao Island Institute of Technology
(SIIT) has programs for a bachelor degree in office administration, criminology, education and
information technology. These institutions can play a role in awareness raising as well as
participate in project monitoring and evaluation. The SNCST was part of those who participated
in the mangrove assessment activity in Del Carmen.
There are several special projects that are being implemented in Siargao Islands, among them: a)
SCREMP or Sustainable Coral Reef Ecosystem Management Program of DENR; b) CORVA or Coral
Reef Visualization and Assessment of DENR; c) EcoFish or Ecosystem Improved for Sustainable
Fisheries of USAID; d) Ecotown of the Climate Change Commission;(e) Philippines Climate Change
Adaptation Project (PhilCCAP), and RARE. PEMSEA or Partnership in Environmental Management
for the Seas of East Asia has indicated interest to support livelihood related activities in the area.
These projects are potential sources of technical assistance and funding for some activities that
are prioritized in the management plan.
The National Greening Program (NGP) of DENR has listed SIPLAS as one of the target areas in
Caraga Region particularly for mangrove planting. For 2014, the implementation of NGP focused
on Bucas Grande, specifically in the municipality of Socorro. The NGP will be an important source
of funding for some of the site development activities in forestlands.
 Resource users
These include all households, groups, and establishments that can be considered terrestrial and,
coastal and marine resource users in SIPLAS. Specifically, they include farmers, fisher folks,
commercial establishments, operators of tourism facilities/enterprises, and tourists. Their main
interest would be able to access and enjoy over the long term the goods and services that the
SIPLAS ecosystems can provide.

2.4.2 SIPLAS Current Management Structure and Institutional Support
 Protected Area Management Board (PAMB)
The NIPAS Acts provides for the setting up of a functional Protected Area Management Board
which will serve as the governing body of the protected area. The PAMB is a multi-sectoral body
composed of representatives of the local government units (LGUs) at municipal and barangay
levels, peoples’ organizations, NGOs, and government agencies involved in PA Management. As
stipulated in the NIPAS Act, PAMB decides on matters affecting the development and protection
of the protected area through the issuance of specific policies and regulations. Any conflicting
decision is resolved democratically by the principle of majority vote. The PAMB is expected to
harmonize the various interests of its members, and decide fairly with primary consideration
given to achieving the purpose of the PA and promoting the welfare and interests of the various
stakeholders.
At present, the SIPLAS PAMB en banc has 156 Figure 2.8 SIPLAS Management Structure
members; 22 members compose the
Executive Committee (Execom). This
Committee is further divided into sub-
committees: Site Development/Resource
Management; Socio-Economic Management
and Livelihood; Fund Review; and Project
Management and Institutional Strengthening.
PAMB operates based on its existing Manual
of Operations.
 Office of the Protected Area

Superintendent
The PASu Office is currently composed of 3

job order personnel, with two Assistant PASus
and the PASu. The PASu, who serves as the
PAMB Secretariat, is responsible for
overseeing the day to day operations in the
protected area, including enforcement
activities.
At present, the major activities being led by PASu Office are the periodic conduct of biodiversity
monitoring and patrolling activities. Biodiversity monitoring is done in selected barangays.
 LGU participation in PA management
The representation of LGUs in the PAMB is the major venue for these local governments to
participate in PA management. LGUs undertake livelihood projects and environmental projects
that include Clean and Green projects and resource rehabilitation and restoration activities.
Fisheries management has been devolved to LGUs and thus forms part of its programs. Given the
eco-tourism potential of SIPLAS, eco-tourism development has been included among the focus
programs of the Province and most of the municipal governments.

 Private sector participation in PA management
The private sector in SIPLAS plays a significant role in the provision of tourism services. There is
increasing private sector investments in this sector. In view of this, the private sector must be
encouraged to support responsible and sustainable tourism. Tourism investment plans must be
in accordance with the prescriptions laid out in the management plan.
2.4.3 Policy Support
Policy support for SIPLAS has been limited to the issuance of PAMB Resolutions when there are
urgent issues raised during PAMB meetings. Most of the “policy initiatives” have been reactive
and deal mainly with issuance of permits and operational issues. The updated management plan
provides the PAMB with a policy agenda linked to the programs and investment directions set out
in the plan.
2.4.4 PA Financing
The operation of SIPLAS is currently funded mainly by Table 2.21 IPAF Deposits
the national government. However, the current level IPAF Revenues,
Year
of funding for the PA is considered insufficient in pesos
compared to the protection and rehabilitation 2005 300
activities that have to be implemented in SIPLAS. To 2006 38,529
2007 -
supplement government funding, the PASu Office has
2008 25,650
initiated the collection of fees for the use of resources 2009 -
within SIPLAS. Available data on the Integrated 2010 -
Protected Area Fund (IPAF) collections since 2005 2011 -
show that despite the potentials of Siargao Islands, 2012 785,550
inflows in the last 9 years have been low and irregular. 2013 -
Total 850,029

3.0 SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS: DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES,

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
3.1 Bio-physical Issues and Concerns
Current issues and concerns
One of the most evident challenges being encountered in SIPLAS is the decreasing mangrove forest
cover. Based on available data, largest decrease in terms of percentage of mangrove forest cover lost
happened in General Luna where 72.5% (or 294 ha) of its mangrove area in 1988 was recorded to
have been lost by 2011. In terms of total area, Del Carmen still registered the largest area of
mangroves lost at 1,252 hectares (Table
3.1). Mangrove denudation has been Table 3.1 Mangrove Cover Change, SIPLAS
caused by conversion of mangrove areas Mangrove cover (hectares) % Increase/
Municipality
to other uses, including settlements and 1988* 2011** Decrease
fishponds. Mangrove cutting for Dapa 619.1 698.9 12.9%
fuelwood is also rampant in the area. Del Carmen 5,547.55 4,295.00 -22.6%
Socorro no data 195.2
San Benito 1,421.12 1,009.80 -28.9%
Apart from loss of mangrove forests,
Pilar 1,786.16 1,216.80 -31.9%
other important forest species are also San Isidro no data 160.4
threatened due to widespread tree Sta Monica no data 81.1
cutting for housing, fuelwood and Gen. Luna 405.29 111.4 -72.5%
charcoal making. Specifically, the Burgos na na
ironwood (mancono) has become rare Total 9,779.20 7,768.60 -20.6%
because of excessive and uncontrolled Source: * -DENR Land Cover Map (based on 1988 spot satellite image);
**-Natural Resource Accounting 2011
harvesting of this species.
Illegal fishing and overfishing are also urgent issues which need to be addressed. Dynamite
fishing is a common practice in the area. Some coral reefs are destroyed by blast and cyanide
fishing practiced by both local and migrant fishermen. Poaching by commercial fishing boats,
locally known as liba-liba, and “superlight” trawl, also contribute to further degradation of the
reef habitat. Over-fishing is also considered a major reason for the poor catch of artisan
fishermen. There are reports on the illegal collection of marine turtle eggs and the slaughter of
adult marine turtle individuals.
Prospective issues and concerns
One issue that should be looked into is the probability of water pollution from farming and
improper waste disposal practices. Use of fertilizers in agriculture could increase the likelihood of
contaminating ground water and nearby bodies of water.
With the booming tourism industry in the area, there is expansion of settlement areas and
proliferation of commercial establishments and tourism establishments along the coast. Most of
these areas are considered high risk areas as they are vulnerable to a number of climate hazards.
Increasing population and settlement development also pose solid waste and wastewater problems
in SIPLAS which will further contribute to the pollution of water sources and destruction of coastal
habitats. It is necessary that proper solid waste and wastewater management practices be
promoted and that the appropriate facilities are established in Siargao Islands.

3.2 Climate Change Issues and Concerns
As an island ecosystem, SIPLAS is more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. This section
discusses the findings on the vulnerability assessments that were conducted for terrestrial, and
coastal and marine ecosystems.
3.2.1 Vulnerability of Terrestrial Ecosystems
Figure 3.1 Framework of Vulnerability Assessment to Climate Change
Source: IPCC 2007; Allison et al. 2009
The framework of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the assessment of
vulnerability to climate change hazards considers three aspects, namely: Exposure to climate hazards;
Sensitivity of exposed element to the hazard; and the Adaptive Capacity to cope with the hazard
(Figure 3.1). Climate change caused by anthropogenic activities threatens the sustainability of SIPLAS.
Climate change hazards such as increased ambient and sea surface temperature, erratic rainfall
patterns, sea level rise, and more intense extreme climatic events such as typhoons, floods and
droughts including storm surges are expected to increase over time. This will affect not only the
population but also the economic sectors in SIPLAS. Increase in precipitation and temperature, sea
level rise and storm surges are expected to reduce crop yield, thereby, may increase health risks and
damage to sources of livelihood, e.g. farming, fisheries, aquaculture and business enterprises.
The vulnerability assessment conducted for SIPLAS for its terrestrial ecosystem adopted the
above framework. The major findings of the assessment are as follows:
 An increase in ambient temperature, specifically the monthly mean temperature, will be

experienced, i.e., by about 1.0 oC in 2020 and rising to 1.5oC in 2050
This means that dry months will become drier and wet month wetter. This is based on climate
change projections undertaken by PAGASA in 2011 for Surigao del Norte Province, including
Siargao Islands.

Table 3.2 Observed (historical) and Projected Monthly Mean Temperature for 2020 and 2050
in Surigao del Norte
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Observed 28.4 26.3 26.7 27.6 28.4 28.4 28.1 28.3 28.2 27.7 27.1 26.6
2020 29.2 27.1 27.5 28.5 29.2 29.3 29.0 29.2 28.9 28.6 29.0 27.3
2050 29.8 27.7 28.3 29.4 30.1 30.4 30.0 30.2 29.9 29.4 28.7 28.1
Source: PAGASA, 2011
 Erratic rainfall patterns will be observed through time
For the same period, i.e., 2020 to 2050, Table 3.3 shows rainfall projection for Surigao del Norte.
Table 3.3 Observed (historical) and Projected Monthly Total Rainfall (in mm.) for 2020 and 2050
in Surigao del Norte
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Observed 603.4 428.6 369.8 203.1 132.6 148.6 170.7 136.9 165.7 267.9 510.8 510.8
2020 736.8 481.2 438.9 169.8 125.3 195.8 187.8 160.8 201.5 235.5 606.0 562.7
2050 615.1 426.3 281.7 141.8 119.6 148.0 144.9 145.8 170.5 337.6 604.4 721.1
Source: PAGASA, 2011
It should be noted that the estimated erratic rainfall pattern will affect the hydrologic
characteristics of SIPLAS, particularly its water yield through time which is relative to rainfall
events.
 Siargao Islands are vulnerable to flooding and rain-induced landslides
Majority of the area in SIPLAS is vulnerable to floods due to their relatively low elevation as
shown in Figure 3.2. The areas mostly affected are located in San Isidro, San Benito, Del Carmen,
Pilar, Dapa and Gen. Luna (Table 3.4). The types of flooding in Siargao are mostly due to swells
and surge in estuaries and coastal areas. The floods usually extend upstream to the swamp areas
and sometimes stay for as long as two weeks especially during southwest and northeast
monsoons. The municipalities of San Isidro and Pilar are usually flooded during the southwest
monsoon while San Benito and Del Carmen experience flooding during the northeast monsoon
(Ecotown Project, 2012).

Figure 3.2 Flood-Prone Areas of Siargao Islands

Table 3.4 Areas Prone to Flooding and Landslides per Municipality and Percentage of Population Affected
Flooding area % of population Landslide area % of population
Municipality
(hectares) affected (hectares) affected
Burgos 119.70 31 563.43 61
Dapa 3,046.10 69 3,934.27 58
Del Carmen 8,705.60 61 2,917.99 31
General Luna 2654.70 88 1,395.02 45
Pilar 3,051.15 71 445.14 11
San Benito 1,918.50 80 1,392.30 68
San Isidro 1,482.50 28 1,231.01 30
Santa Monica 609.00 52 1,542.86 55
Socorro 919.60 16 6,408.01 47
Source: Flooding Map, PAGASA, 2013; Rain-Induced Landslide Map, Provincial Planning Development Office, Surigao
del Norte, 2013; PSA Census, 2010
The potential impact of flooding in Siargao Islands to agriculture is presented Figure 3.3. More
than 30% of its agricultural lands (10,885 hectares) are highly impacted by flooding. These areas
are mostly located in San Isidro, Del Carmen, Pilar, Gen. Luna and Dapa, affecting most of their
rice lands. Assuming 50% damage due to flooding in at least 70% of the irrigated lands of Siargao
Islands, and at an average rice production of 3.53 tons per hectare, the potential loss in rice
production during flooding is about 1,225 metric tons. This is a significant loss for an area that
imports most of its rice requirements from neighboring Surigao provinces in the mainland.
Apart from agriculture, flooding also affects settlements. Approximately 66% of the built up
areas in the nine municipalities of Siargao Islands (487 hectares) are exposed to flooding which
impact on the lives and properties of local communities. (Figure 3.4).
To determine the areas vulnerable to flooding, the map on potential impact of flooding on agriculture
and on settlements was overlaid with the adaptive capacity map of Siargao. For this analysis, the
average monthly household income in each municipality was used as proxy indicator for the adaptive
capacity of communities. The assumption is that with lower household income, communities will be
more vulnerable to the impacts of flooding as they lack the capacity to cope with it. Inversely,
communities with higher household income have the capacity to easily adapt to the potential impacts
of flooding, therefore, their lack of adaptive capacity is low. The adaptive capacity map of Siargao
Islands that is based on average monthly household income is shown in Figure 3.5.
Combining the map on lack of adaptive capacity and the map on potential impacts of flooding on
agriculture and settlements, the vulnerability map to flooding SIPLAS was generated as presented
in Figure 3.6. As indicated in the map, the municipalities of Sta. Monica, San Benito, Del Carmen,
Dapa, Gen. Luna and Pilar are highly vulnerable to the flooding hazard. With more rains expected
during the rainy season, problems associated with flooding will be aggravated.

Figure 3.3 Potential Impact of Flooding on Agriculture in Siargao
[Type a
quote
from the
docume
nt or the
summar
y of an
interesti
ng point.
You can
position
the text
box
anywher
e in the
docume
nt. Use
Figure 3.4 Potential Impact of Flooding on Built-up Areas in Siargao Islands
[Type a
quote
from the
docume
nt or the
summar
y of an
interesti
ng point.
You can
position
the text
box
SIPLAS Management Plan anywher 40 | P a g e
e in the
docume
Figure 3.5 Map showing the Lack of Adaptive Capacity of Households in the Municipalities
of Siargao Islands
[Type a
quote
from the
docume
nt or the
summar
y of an
interesti
ng point.
You can
position
SIPLAS Management Plan the text 41 | P a g e
box
anywher
Figure 3.6 Vulnerability of Siargao Islands to Flooding

 Landslides will also negatively impact a large part of Siargao’s population as well as its
biodiversity resources
Roughly 67% of the total agricultural lands of Siargao (20,908 hectares) are exposed to landslide
(Figure 3.7). The potential impact of landslide on agriculture is high in around 6,783 hectares
(22% of total agricultural lands); moderate in 8,576 hectares (27%) and low in 5,550 hectares
(18%). The agricultural lands under high potential impact to landslide are mostly located in Sta.
Monica, San Benito, Del Carmen, San Isidro, Dapa and Socorro.
The potential impact on 60 hectares (8%) of built up areas is high and will be moderate on about
80 hectares.
Landslide will also affect biodiversity resources. The analysis indicates that the potential impact
on loss of biodiversity is high in about 10,800 hectares of mostly natural forests and brushes/
shrubs. The occurrence of landslide in these areas will destroy the associated biodiversity of
these ecosystems.
Combining the potential impact of landslides on agriculture, settlement and on biodiversity with
the adaptive capacity map, the vulnerability map of Siargao Islands to landslide was developed
and is presented in Figure 3.8. The vulnerability map indicates that most of the areas in the nine
municipalities of Siargao are highly vulnerable to landslide.
 With the projected climate change hazards, particularly the projected increase in
temperature of up to 1.5°C, local extinction of plants and non-volant animals is also
possible
Worse for the terrestrial biodiversity in SIPLAS, local extinction of plants and non-volant animals
is expected to be faster due to its being an island ecosystems. Table 3.5 lists some of the species
of vertebrates threatened by climate change. It should be noted that biological systems have the
ability for adaptation. As an example, because of the increase in temperature, the general
adaptation of terrestrial plants is to shift or move to elevated zones that approximate former
habitat conditions. However, the island characteristics of SIPLAS could inhibit this function.

Figure 3.7 Potential Impact of Landslide on Agricultural Lands of Siargao
[Type a
quote
from the
docume
nt or the
summar
y of an
interesti
ng point.
You can
position
the text
SIPLAS Management Plan box 44 | P a g e
anywher
e in the
Table 3.5 Threatened Species of Vertebrates within SIPLAS

Conservation Status*
Scientific Name Common Name
IUCN DAO No. 2004-15
Animals (12)
1. Birds
a. Alcedo argentata Silvery Kingfisher VU VU
b. Cacatua haematuropygia Philippine Cockatoo CR CR
c. Eurylaimus steerii Mindanao Broadbill VU VU
d. Mimizuku gurneyi Giant Scops-owl VU VU
2. Mammals
a. Acerodon jubatus Golden-crowned fruit bat EN EN
b. Cynocephalus volans Flying Lemur VU OTS
c. Dugong dugon Philippine Dugong VU CR
d. Podogymnura aureospinula Dinagat gymnure EN VU
e. Sus philippinensis Philippine warty pig VU VU
f. Tarsius syrichta Philippine Tarsier OTS
3. Reptiles
a. Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle EN EN
b. Erythmochelys imbricata Hawksbill turtle CR CR
Reference: Philippine Eagle Foundation, Conservation International-Philippines, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources 2008; Eastern Mindanao Biodiversity Conservation Framework. Davao City, Philippines,
pp 41-45, 2008.
*VU – vulnerable; CR – critically endangered; EN – endangered; OTS – other threatened species
Table 3.6 Threatened Plant Species within SIPLAS

Conservation Status*
Scientific Name Common Name
IUCN DAO No. 2004-15
Plants (11)
a. Anisoptera costata Mindanao palosapis EN EN
b. Canarium ovatum Pili VU OTS
c. Dendrobium schuetzei Orchid CR CR
d. Guioa bicolor Kaninging VU OTS
e. Hopea brachyptera Mindanao narek CR CR
f. Kibatalia puberula Paslit-mabolo EN EN
g. Medinilla surigaoensis Eastern Mindanao medinilla EN EN
h. Nepenthes merrilliana Mindanao giant pitcher plant VU CR
i. Palaqulum luzoniensis Red Nato/Naato VU VU
j. Shorea ovate Tiaong EN EN
k. Xanthostemom verdugonianus Mancono, "Iron wood" VU EN
Reference: Philippine Eagle Foundation, Conservation International-Philippines, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources 2008; Eastern Mindanao Biodiversity Conservation Framework. Davao City, Philippines,
pp 41-45, 2008.
*VU – vulnerable; CR – critically endangered; EN – endangered; OTS – other threatened species

Figure 3.8 Vulnerability of Siargao Islands to Landslide

3.2.2 Vulnerability of Coastal Ecosystems and Communities
A recent study of the World Bank (2013) on global sea level rise has shown that sea level in the
Philippines can rise from 0.9 -1.1 m. under the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 climate
scenario. Even assuming a conservative scenario of 0.5 meter rise in sea level, about 2,263
hectares of agricultural lands and close to one third of the built up areas in Siargao Islands (205
hectares) will be completely submerged. In addition, crop production in adjacent agricultural
lands could decrease significantly due to salt water intrusion. Sea level rise will also inundate and
drown close to 80% of the existing mangroves (6,070 hectares). This will adversely affect
biodiversity resources associated with mangrove ecosystems. Overall, this will impact food
production, infrastructures, livelihood and properties of local communities. Considering the
adaptive capacity of local communities, the overall vulnerability map to 0.5 meter sea level rise is
presented in Figure 3.9. The municipalities which are highly vulnerable to a 0.5 meter sea level
rise include Del Carmen, San Benito, the eastern sections of Pilar and Gen. Luna as well as some
of the southern areas of Dapa.
 Settlements in coastal areas and low-lying communities are highly prone to storm surges
caused by more intense typhoons
Based on the data from PAGASA, tropical cyclones in the region usually occur within the months
of November to April. Within the period 2008 to 2014, there were 15 tropical cyclones of various
types, including Typhoon Yolanda and Typhoon Pablo, which hit the Caraga Region and affected
Siargao Islands (Table 3.7).
Table 3.7 Cyclones that Affected Caraga Region, 2008-2014

Caraga
Year Philippines
No. Type (Name) Date
2008 21 4 Tropical Storm (Ambo) April 2008
Tropical Depression (Rolly) November 2008
Tropical Storm (Quinta) November 2008
Tropical Depression (Tonyo) November 2008
2009 22 2 Tropical Depression (Bising) February 2009
Tropical Depression (Urduja) November 2009
2010 11 - - -
2011 19 1 Tropical Storm (Sendong) December 2011
2012 17 2 Tropical Storm (Ofel) October 2012
Typhoon (Pablo) December 2012
2013 25 2 Typhoon (Yolanda) November 2013
Tropical Depression November 2013
(Zoraida)
2014 19 4 Tropical Depression January 2014
(Basyang)
Tropical Depression (Caloy) March 2014
Tropical Storm (Queenie) November 2014
Tropical Storm (Seniang) December 2014
134 15
Note: Tropical Depression = with maximum sustained winds of up to 61 kph

Tropical Storm = with maximum wind speed of 62 kph to 88 kph
Typhoon = maximum wind speed of 118 kph to 220 kph

Figure 3.9 Vulnerability to <0.5 m Sea Level Rise of Siargao Islands

Close to 20% of the built up areas in SIPLAS (134 hectares) will be at high risk to storm surges of
up to 4 meters, particularly those communities facing the Pacific Ocean or the eastern seaboard.
Agricultural areas near these communities, estimated to cover 967 hectares, will also be affected
by storm surges. In addition, mangrove forests and other natural forests near coastal areas
covering about 839 hectares will be at high risk of being destroyed, including their biodiversity
resources, should a storm surge reaching 4 meters occur.
The western side of Siargao Islands has generally low wave exposure while the eastern seaboard
of Socorro and Dapa has medium wave exposure (Figure 3.10). The impact area of the storm
surge on agriculture, settlements and biodiversity resources total to around 2,000 hectares
(Figure 3.11). These are mostly located in San Benito, Sta. Monica, Burgos, Pilar, Gen. Luna, Dapa
and Del Carmen.
 Another hazard faced by coastal communities of SIPLAS is tsunami
The potential impact of this hazard is high in around 4,008 hectares of agricultural lands (13% of
total agricultural area) and in 230 hectares of built up areas (or 31% of total built up areas).
About 2,345 hectares of mangroves and other natural forests will also be affected by tsunami
which has the potential of destroying the associated biodiversity resources in these ecosystems.
Combining the potential impacts of tsunami on agriculture, built up areas and biodiversity, and
considering the adaptive capacity of communities indicate that the highly vulnerable areas to
tsunami are situated in the eastern seaboard of Pilar, Burgos and General Luna and on some
portions of Dapa, Socorro and Sta. Monica (Figure 3.12)
 A large number of barangays are vulnerable to multi-hazards
To determine areas which are highly vulnerable to combination of hazards, a multi-hazard

analysis was conducted. In this case, the analysis was conducted at the barangay level by
overlaying the barangay boundary map with the vulnerability map for each hazard. Assuming that
each hazard is equally important, a multi hazard vulnerability index was derived for each
barangay and the corresponding multi hazard map was developed as presented in Figure 3.13.
Accordingly, the LGUs most vulnerable to multi hazards are Pilar and San Benito where 83% and
80% of their barangays are highly vulnerable to multi-hazards. The other municipalities which
have high percentage of barangays vulnerable to multi-hazards are Dapa and Gen. Luna (79% of
barangays); Sta. Monica (73%) and Burgos (66%). The least vulnerable is San Isidro where only
8% of its barangays are highly vulnerable to multi hazards. Del Carmen and Socorro have 30%
and 50% of their barangays, respectively, which are highly vulnerable to multi hazards.

Figure 3.10 Coastal and Marine Areas in Siargao Islands Exposed to Wind Stress

Figure 3.11 Vulnerability of Siargao Islands to Storm Surge

Figure 3.12 Vulnerability to Tsunami of Siargao Islands

Figure 3.13 Multi-Hazard Vulnerability Map of Siargao Islands

 Coastal fisheries of municipalities of Sta. Monica, Burgos, San Isidro, Pilar and General Luna
are highly vulnerable
Coastal fisheries of Socorro, on the other hand, are moderately vulnerable while that of San
Benito, Del Carmen and Dapa municipalities have low vulnerability. These findings are based on
the Tool for Understanding Resiliency of the Fisheries (TURF) (Mamauag et al, 2013) conducted
for SIPLAS. The tool helps identify barangays or municipalities that are vulnerable to sea level
rise, wave action or storm surge and sea surface temperature. The various components examined
are fisheries, reef ecosystem and socio-economic conditions. In summary, if a large part of the
population is highly dependent on fishing, particularly on coral reefs, and the reefs occupy a small
area (in terms of hectares) and are highly exposed to wave action, then the population is highly
vulnerable.
Table 3.8 Summary of the Vulnerability on Coastal Fisheries Using the VA-TURF
Component Vulnerability
Reef ecosystem Socio-economic
Municipality
Wave Fisheries (F) (RE) (SE) Overall
Exposure PI AC PI AC PI AC F RE SE score
Sta. Monica H H M H H M L H M H H
San Benito L M M M H L L M L M L
Del Carmen L M M M H L L M L M L
Dapa L L M M H L H L L L L
Socorro M H H H H L L M M M M
Burgos H H M H L M L H H H H
San Isidro H H L H L M L H H H H
Pilar H H M H H M L H M H H
Gen Luna H H M H H M L H M H H
PI=potential impact, AC=adaptive capacity, F=fisheries component, RE=reef ecosystem component, SE=socio-economic
component; L=low (green), M=medium (yellow), H=high (red).
To elaborate further, highly vulnerable coastal fisheries have high risks of impacts, thus, these
areas will have to improve or enhance their ecological (coral reefs), fisheries and socio-economic
adaptive capacities. Among the three components, the socio-economic component can be
influenced most easily, e.g., reducing dependence of fisher folks on fishing. Parallel to this, other
components must be also improved through the establishment of MPAs to enhance the reef
ecosystem component and strict implementation of fisheries ordinance to cause positive changes
in the fisheries component.
The result of the overall assessment is presented in Figure 3.14 and the detailed maps are shown
in Annex 2.5.

Figure 3.14 Map for Vulnerability of Coastal Fisheries in Siargao Islands

3.3 Key Policy, Institutional and Financing Management Issues and Concerns
The manpower resources of the PASu Office have been insufficient to attend to the increasing
demand of SIPLAS for improved and effective management. The staffing required for the daily
operations of the PA need to be reassessed and the requisite training established. It is important
that staff is given proper training on PA planning, implementation and, monitoring and
enforcement. Currently, the enforcement system is limited to the conduct of patrol activities
which is insufficient to control illegal activities in forestlands and coastal and marine areas.
The capacity of the PAMB to act as the primary governance body that is accountable for SIPLAS
management needs to be enhanced. The inability of the PAMB to respond to issues and problems
requiring immediate attention and decision will have to be analyzed and addressed. Exposing the
SIPLAS PAMB to good PA management practices will help them become more innovative and
responsive to PA management requirements.
The level of awareness and understanding of LGUs on the impacts of climate change on SIPLAS is low.
Their appreciation of the integrated ecosystem management approach also is limited. The shift
from individual LGU-based planning to integrated ecosystem based planning and management
should lead to the harmonization of the updated PA management plan with the updated CLUPs
of LGUs, and to the integration into the CLUP of climate change adaptation planning and disaster
risk reduction and management.
On financing, there are many opportunities to generate funding for conservation activities in
SIPLAS considering its growing tourism industry and increasing development activities such as the
construction of hotels and tourism facilities and business establishments. In the light of these,
there is need to harmonize fees and charges collected by the various municipalities, barangays
and the DENR to eliminate duplication and competition. The establishment of partnerships and
co-management activities with different stakeholders and innovative financing schemes should
be explored. The PAMB policies and Manual of Operations may need to be revisited to update
policies, procedures and processes that relate to resource mobilization and allocation for SIPLAS
management.
3.4 Development Opportunities
3.4.1 Eco-tourism
The major development opportunity of SIPLAS is in eco-tourism. Endowed with a beautiful

landscape and rich biodiversity, SIPLAS can offer more eco-tourism products and sites. Among
those which can be further developed and promoted are:
 Mangrove tour and kayaking
 New surfing sites
 Snorkeling in PO-managed marine sanctuaries
 Guided tours in marshland
New game fishing sites
Community-based eco-tourism has a big potential in Siargao. The growing private investments in
tourism will help improve employment in the area.

3.4.2 Provincial and Municipal LGU Support
The support of provincial and municipal LGUs to the pursuit of sustainable eco-tourism
development as a key development thrust in Siargao Islands is key to the harmonization of
interests and strategic directions of the different LGUs. This common interest will pave the way to
promoting equity in benefits received from SIPLAS resources.
3.4.3 External Assistance
There is increased attention given to Siargao Islands by national agencies and foreign-funded
projects. The DENR/PASu Office and PAMB should be able to direct the technical assistance to
areas/activities that will give the LGUs, PASu Office and PAMB useful learning and planning and
decision-making tools, improved information on the PA, and financing for critical management
activities.

4.0 MANAGEMENTPLAN
4.1 Vision, Missions, Goals and Objectives
4.1.1 Vision
This is the shared vision of key stakeholders of SIPLAS:
We envision Siargao as a protected paradise that is capable to sustain livelihood systems and is
inhabited by resilient communities, with picturesque landscapes and seascapes, high biodiversity
and species endemicity, and rich natural resources collectively managed by ecologically conscious
stakeholders with a capacitated PAMB and PA management personnel.
4.1.2 Mission
It is the mission of the PAMB and partner LGUs to attain resiliency and enhanced adaptive
capacity under a system of good governance and with unified aspirations for equitable and
sustainable growth through collective and complementary efforts of nine dynamic municipalities.
4.1.3 Goals
The four goals for SIPLAS are:
 To sustain the provision of ecosystem goods and services through improved management
of terrestrial and coastal and marine resources, particularly of important habitats for
biological diversity;
 To increase resiliency of SIPLAS ecosystems and its stakeholders, primarily the
communities, to threats of disaster and climate change;
 To strengthen stakeholder participation in the management of SIPLAS through
community empowerment and increased investments of LGUs and the private sector in
natural resource management and conservation; and
 To promote equity among local communities through sustainable livelihoods, social
services and broader benefit-sharing mechanisms
4.1.4 Objectives
Objective 1. To establish and implement conservation measures for terrestrial and coastal and
marine areas with high biodiversity and economic values.
Specific objectives:
 To raise awareness of PA stakeholders on ecosystem services provided by SIPLAS as a
protected area and measure to ensure that such ecosystem services are continuously
provided;
 To identify existing natural habitats, the extent of their biodiversity and appropriate
management interventions;

 To identify seascapes and watershed areas for restoration and protection, and
implement activities towards sustainable rehabilitation of these areas; and
 To identify areas for sustainable use and establish threshold capacity (e.g., maximum
capacity of SIPLAS to accommodate tourism arrivals and physical developments) and
needed policy measures.
Objective 2. To mainstream climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR)
strategies in SIPLAS management
 To increase capability of PA stakeholders, particularly the PASu Office and LGUs
(municipal and barangay levels) to integrate climate change considerations into PA and
LGU planning, operations, and monitoring and evaluation;
 To put in place mechanisms to respond and cope with impacts of disasters and climate
change; and
 To establish the necessary physical development and structural measures as defense to
disaster and climate change impacts.
Objective 3. To increase accountability and buy-in of stakeholders in the management of SIPLAS
 To increase awareness of LGUs on benefits gained from SIPLAS and secure their
continuing commitment to support SIPLAS through regular budget allocation for SIPLAS,
harmonized zoning , policy and enforcement support, among others;
 To solicit support from the private sector for conservation promotion and financing;
 To provide assistance to qualified PA occupants in securing land tenure; and
 To develop and implement community-based protected area management trainings and
activities, e.g., conservation farming, Information, Education and Communication (IEC),
enforcement, and biodiversity monitoring, among others.
Objective 4. To significantly increase management effectiveness of SIPLAS
 To promote collaborative management of SIPLAS through inter-LGU alliances and
partnerships forged through Memorandum of Agreement (MOAs);
 To provide capacity-building interventions for SIPLAS PAMB members and PASu Office
staff to improve performance of tasks particularly on planning, coordination, monitoring,
resource mobilization and financial management, among others;
 To increase functionality and competency of PAMB, particularly the Executive
Committee, on informed decision-making;
 To establish coordination, monitoring and evaluation, and feedback mechanisms among
SIPLAS stakeholders;
 To formulate policies, both at the protected area and municipal levels, that will support
more effective and efficient implementation of the PA Management Plan;
 To put in place enforcement system both for terrestrial and coastal and marine areas; and
 To establish sustainable financing mechanisms for additional resources to implement the
PA Management Plan.

Objective 5. To develop and implement incentive system and biodiversity-friendly alternative

livelihood sources for communities
 To design, establish and implement Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) to encourage
communities acting as on-site resource managers to sustain their good practices;
 To introduce biodiversity-friendly alternative livelihood sources for communities to
reduce dependence on resources and increase households’ income; and
 To develop and implement community-based eco-tourism projects.
4.2 Management Strategies
SIPLAS will anchor its management strategies on management zoning, climate change adaptation,
collaborative management, community-based resource management, and sustainable financing.
4.2.1 Management Zoning
Foremost among the strategies that SIPLAS will uphold is management zoning. Spatially defined
PA zones will provide direction to environment and development management interventions.
These PA zones will define the limitations to the nature and degree of resource use as well as the
resource users who will be allowed in the area. These zones will also determine the necessary
policies, enforcement system, institutional support and resources that have to be invested in the
area by the DENR/PASu Office, LGUs and other external technical assistance providers.
The proposed zoning map for SIPLAS was established through map overlays using criteria derived
from existing policies. Thus, areas above 1,000 meter above sea level, closed canopy forests,
mossy forests, known habitats of rare and endangered species of flora and fauna, major caves
and some areas highly vulnerable to hazards have been categorized as strict protection zones.
The remaining areas outside the strict protection zones have been designated as multiple use
zone. Table 4.1 summarizes the criteria used in zoning the SIPLAS into strict protection zone and
multiple use zone. Figure 4.1 presents the proposed zones within SIPLAS.
Table 4.1Summary of Criteria Used for Zoning

Criteria Strict Protection Zone Multiple Use zone
Elevation 1,000 masl <1,000 masl
Vegetative Cover Closed canopy forests Other vegetative cover except closed
canopy forests
Other features Known habitats of rare and endangered Outside strict protection zone
species of flora and fauna
Major caves
High hazard areas

4.2.2 Climate Change Adaptation(CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

Mainstreaming
With the intention of being pro-active to shield ecosystems and communities from the impacts of
climate change, the management of SIPLAS will continue to integrate climate change adaptation
and disaster risk reduction into its management interventions. Increased awareness of PA
stakeholders of their roles in combating climate change will be targeted in the short-term.
Increasing competency of LGUs, specifically barangay LGUs, in responding to climate change and
disaster impacts and enhancing community preparedness will be primary objectives under this
strategy. Among the important climate change adaptation measures are mangrove protection,
conservation and rehabilitation; development and protection of water sources; establishment of
marine protected areas (MPAs) and MPA networks; and development of fuelwood plantations.
4.2.3 Collaborative Management
Collaborative management will be pursued in SIPLAS through strengthened stakeholder partnerships,

increased LGU participation, inter-LGU alliances and networks, improved coordination and feedback
mechanisms, and co-management with willing stakeholders. In line with this strategy, active LGU
participation in PA management activities, e.g., rehabilitation of degraded terrestrial and coastal
habitats, patrol activities and in the conduct of biodiversity monitoring, will be sought. Annual budget
allocation for SIPLAS by LGUs in their Annual Investment Plans (AIPs) and mainstreaming PA
Management Plan strategies (i.e., management zoning and climate change adaptation) in their land
use and local development plans will also be major targets within the plan period.
Operationally, management agreements will be forged by the PAMB with LGUs, Peoples
Organizations, Water Districts, operators of tourism facilities and other private investors for the
management of specific portions of the protected area. The PASu Office shall identify the
management areas of these potential resource managers and upon clearance from the PAMB,
negotiate with them on the terms of the agreements emphasizing sustainable use, and
protection and conservation of biodiversity resources. However, this will only apply to multiple
use zones where use of resources is regulated. For tenured migrants within SIPLAS, community
tenure instrument via the protected area community based resource management agreement
(PACBRMA) may be issued by the PAMB consistent with existing policies. The collaborative
approach will allow stakeholders to understand the link between the resources used and the
conservation and sustainable use of these resources.
4.2.4 Community-Based Resource Management

The protection and conservation of terrestrial and marine resources in SIPLAS is a priority
concern of the PAMB, PASu Office and the LGUs. Realizing the inherent constraints and
limitations of national agencies such as the DENR, community- based resource management will
be adopted. This will enable the mobilization of barangay residents and officials, and peoples’
organizations to participate in different aspects of resource management. Community residents
are the primary custodians and beneficiaries of the natural resources in their areas thus their
involvement in PA management is crucial. This strategy recognizes the fact that management of
natural resources with strong community involvement is both efficient and cost effective.

Strengthened community participation in sustainable management of SIPLAS is also expected to

be achieved through development and implementation of biodiversity-friendly livelihood
activities. Degradation of resources in SIPLAS is mostly due to unsustainable activities such as fuel
wood gathering, kaingin making, and illegal fishing practices. Thus, there is a need to provide
alternative sources of livelihood to local communities which are environmentally sustainable.
Eco-tourism will be a major strategy that will be adopted in SIPLAS. In developing a community-
oriented eco-tourism program, stakeholder partnerships will be forged to make this feasible.
PAMB/DENR in partnership with other institutions, including Department of Tourism (DOT),
LGUs, academic and research institutions will assess tourism-based livelihoods to provide
alternatives to unsustainable activities of some households in the PA.
4.2.5 Sustainable Financing

The development and establishment of sustainable sources of financing to support SIPLAS
activities will be given priority attention. The implementation of past plans has been constrained
by limited financial resources made available to the PAMB and the PASu Office. The NIPAS Act
and its implementing rules and regulations provide for the establishment of the integrated
protected area fund (IPAF). This provision however has not been fully harnessed. There is a need
to study the different resources available in the PA, identify the uses and users of these
resources, and develop a portfolio of appropriate user fees and collection systems. Following this,
a system for payment of ecosystem services (PES) and resource use fees and the mechanism for
the allocation and disbursement of the IPAF will be established by the PAMB. Setting-up and
sustaining PES will specifically be pursued. Budget counterparts from LGUs as well as grants will
also be sought. Public-private partnerships, specifically with those in the tourism sector, will also
be explored.
4.3 Management Zones and Prescriptions

Zoning as a management tool is aimed at addressing critical biodiversity conservation issues on
one hand, and livelihoods and socio-economic development needs, on the other hand.
Figure 4.1 shows the proposed management zones based on consensus reached during
consultations with the Local Working Group (LWG) and other stakeholders. SIPLAS has been
divided into two zones: strict protection zone (SPZ) and multiple use zone (MUZ). The strict
protection zone which encompasses both terrestrial and marine areas constitutes only 3% of the
protected area. The multiple use zone, on the other hand, comprises about 97% of the protected
area. Each of these zones has its own management prescriptions as described below.

Figure 4.1 Management Zone for Siargao Islands Protected Landscapes and Seascapes

4.3.1 Terrestrial Management Zone
Table 4.2 presents the management zone for Table 4.2 Management Zones for Terrestrial Area
the terrestrial area of SIPLAS.
Area
Ecosystem Management Zones
(in has)
Strict protection zone Terrestrial Strict Protection Zone 5,984
This covers areas with high biodiversity value Multiple Use Zone 56,949
and will be closed to all human activities Total 62,934
except for scientific studies. This zone shall
therefore be for conservation and protection only. This consists of the remaining closed and open
forests, including limestone, ultramafic and lowland forests, and swamps; critical hazard areas
and major caves under Class 1 classification.
Management prescriptions:
 This is designated to be strictly a no-take zone;
 Only PAMB-approved non-extractive, non-manipulative, non-disruptive biophysical
monitoring activities and scientific research are allowed;
 This will be properly demarcated with markers and signage; and
 Introduction of exotic species is strictly prohibited.
Multiple-use zone
These are areas where settlements, traditional and/or sustainable land use, including agriculture,
agroforestry, extractive activities and other income generating or livelihood activities are allowed
consistent with the updated management plan.
 All existing activities and developments should conform with protected area conservation
principles, policies and guidelines;
 Use of resources in MUZ will be strictly regulated and monitored following the PA
Management Plan and PAMB Resolutions;
 Only sustainable food production activities and technologies will be allowed in the area;
 Only physical development activities with Environmental Compliance Certificates and
PAMB endorsement will be allowed in this zone;
 Establishment of fuel wood production areas/productive reforestation will be allowed
but shall follow prescriptions indicated in this plan;
 Quarry areas for domestic use will be designated through PAMB endorsement of areas
deemed suitable for the activity;
 Productive reforestation can use exotic species that are considered locally-adapted.
However, exotic wild flora may only be allowed if it has been scientifically proven to
cause no significant harm to the ecology of SIPLAS;
 Specific management plans will be developed by tenure holders and other designated
resource managers for each of the identified land use sub-zones within the multiple use
zone; and
 All PA-wide policies will apply to this management zone.

More specific management prescriptions for particular land uses within the multiple use zones
are as follows:
Water Conservation areas

 Cutting/ harvesting of trees is not allowed;
 New settlements will not be permitted;
 Use of pesticides and inorganic fertilizers will be gradually phased out;
 Agroforestry and soil and water conservation measures will be adopted in cultivated
areas;
 Burning as a farming practice will not be allowed;
 A watershed management plan will be prepared for each identified water conservation
area; and
 Rehabilitation of degraded areas will use indigenous species of trees and fruit trees.
Eco-tourism Areas
 Community-based eco-tourism will be promoted;
 Activities should not disturb or lead to deterioration of natural resources and ecosystems
specially the endangered and vulnerable species and ecosystems;
 Proper waste management should be an integral part of any eco-tourism and tourism
program/project.
 An eco-tourism plan shall be developed in coordination with the provincial and municipal
tourism office;
 Limited structures may be allowed in mangrove areas such as board walk, view deck and
guard house. Floating sheds (built from indigenous materials from legal sources) with
capacity of 5-10 persons may be allowed in designated areas. These however should not
obstruct navigational lanes;
 Stilt restaurants are not allowed in mangrove areas;
 No structures will be allowed within 20 meters from shore line; 20 meters in agricultural
lands and 3 meters from river banks in urban areas;
 Cutting of trees will not be allowed; and
 In Socorro, no settlements will be allowed on both sides of the existing road traversing
the strict protection zone.
Forest Plantations (Fuelwood and Woodlots)

 Indigenous species will be promoted and the use of exotic species is discouraged;
 Exotic species may be used if scientific studies prove that they are not invasive and have
long adapted to the area;
 Selective cutting/compartmental harvesting of planted trees will be promoted; and
 Use of pesticide and inorganic fertilizers will be discouraged.
Agroforestry
 Planting of fuelwood species along boundaries of individual farms will be encouraged;
 Tree components should be limited to indigenous species;
 In developed coconut plantations, interplanting of coffee, cacao and other fruit trees will
be encouraged;
 Use of organic fertilizers will be promoted;
 Soil and water conservation (SWC) measures will be integrated into the farming system;
 Farmer cooperators within timberland will be organized into POs and provided with
secured land tenure such as PACBRMA; the PO may issue agreements with individual
farmers covering their agroforestry area;

 "Naturalized" tree species or other species may be used if scientific studies prove that
they are not invasive and have long adapted to the area;
Agricultural Areas
 Use of organic fertilizers will be promoted;
 Intensive IEC will be undertaken to promote gradual shift to organic farming; and
 Integrated pest management will be promoted.
Settlements
 Structures should be consistent with the building code (including the correct design and
construction of septic tanks) and related LGU ordinances;
 Use of sanitary toilet facilities shall be promoted.
Hazard Areas
 No new settlements will be allowed;
 Resettlement of communities will be encouraged;
 Mangrove planting/rehabilitation will be undertaken in coastal areas susceptible to storm
surge and tsunami;
 An early warning system and disaster preparedness plan will be introduced; and
 IEC on hazards will be undertaken.
Quarry Areas
 Limestone quarrying will be allowed only in areas to be designated by the PAMB.
White Beaches
 40 meters easement will be maintained; for titled lots, the easement will be 20 meters;
and
 Additional permanent structures will not be allowed.
Lagoons
 Tourism activities may be allowed including fisheries;
 Existing wood structure in Sugba lagoon will be maintained; no additional structures will
be permitted;
 In San Benito, aquaculture will not be permitted; only structures of light materials will be
permitted; only foot trails will be allowed to be constructed (1 meter width) with rest
areas; a floating shed may be allowed; trekking and kayaking will be allowed; and
 Tiktikan in Socorro will be designated for eco-tourism but no permanent structures
(concrete)will be allowed.
Marshlands
 May be used for tourism and biodiversity conservation; and
 In Pilar, the marshlands will have a core zone/strict protection zone as crocodile habitat
but with buffer areas for eco-tourism where boating may be permitted.
Other Special Use Areas

 Allowable activities include cell site establishment, and wind mill, solar and other
renewable energy facilities.

4.3.2 Coastal and Marine Management Zone
The total area for coastal and marine management zone is presented in Table 4.3.
Strict protection zone Table 4.3 Area of Coastal and Marine Management
Zone
This consists of the stretch of coral reefs Ecosystem Management Zones Area(in has)
with high percentage of coral cover (i.e., Coastal Strict Protection Zone 3,850
>20% live hard coral cover), ideally with a
Multiple Use Zone 212,268
minimum fish biomass level of 15mt/km2.
Other areas that can be considered part of Total 216,118
this management zone are the established
marine protected areas, critical habitats
within mangroves and seagrass beds. Coastal habitats in some barangays in San Benito, Santa
Monica and General Luna and about 12 areas in Socorro belong to the Strict Protection Zone.
Multiple use zone
These are areas outside the strict protection zone where fishing and other fisheries activities,
tourism and navigation are allowed consistent with the updated management plan.
Mangrove areas
 Cutting of mangrove trees is strictly prohibited;
 The following activities may be allowed: navigation, tourism, aquaculture; shell collection
and fishing (using legal methods);
 Eco-tourism activities that may be allowed viewing, kayaking, boating, photography, zip
line, filming, as duly approved by PAMB; sustainable eco-tourism will be promoted;
 The construction of boardwalks and viewing decks may be allowed upon approval of the
PAMB, provided there will be no destruction of mangrove stand during construction.
 This management zone should be properly demarcated with markers and signage.
 Navigational lanes must be delineated as described in municipal ordinances and following
PAMB Resolutions;
Other Multiple Use Areas
 Navigational, tourism, capture fisheries, mariculture, aquasilviculture and gleaning (shell
gathering) are allowed;
 Sustainable eco-tourism will be promoted;
 Seaweed farming activities are allowed following the prescriptions indicated in fisheries
ordinances of municipalities.
 Fishing gears allowed to be used in SIPLAS waters will follow enacted municipal fisheries
ordinances.
 Fisheries management activities such as open-close season, fishing gear restriction and
catch quota, among others, can be implemented following prescriptions in fisheries
ordinances.

4.4 Management Programs
The SIPLAS management plan uses the integrated ecosystem management approach in the
identification and development of management interventions. This approach calls for an
integrated land and water resources management program that will continuously provide
adequate and good quality water to Siargao Islands residents as well as prevent land resources
degradation. It also calls for the complementation of terrestrial and coastal and marine
management programs as the two ecosystems are closely interlinked and the livelihoods of
SIPLAS communities are highly dependent on both. Under this approach, resource management
areas transcend LGU administrative boundaries. However, for effective and sustainable
management, it is critical that the PA management plan is harmonized with the Comprehensive
Land Use Plans (CLUPs) and other development and investment plans of the LGUs.
Discussed below are the proposed programs that are designed to address the identified
problems, and issues within the protected area. The programs are focused on the protection and
conservation of terrestrial and coastal and marine biodiversity resources, improving the socio-
economic condition of PA communities, and strengthening the PA governance system. The
proposed programs are organized into four: (a) terrestrial management program; (b) coastal and
marine management program; (c) cross-cutting management programs; and (d) governance
enhancement and institutional strengthening program.
The proposed management zones and sub-zones that are essential components of the terrestrial
and coastal and marine programs are shown in Figure 4.2. The specific zoning or resource use
maps for each municipality in SIPLAS are attached as Annex 4.1. The area of each major resource
uses per municipality is summarized in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Area of Resource Uses by Municipality
Area (hectares)
Type of resource uses General Santa
Burgos Dapa Del Carmen Pilar San Benito San Isidro Socorro Total
Luna Monica
TERRESTRIAL 1,929.43 8,722.29 14,648.38 5,606.98 6,218.21 4,816.10 4,530.03 3,709.13 12,615.45 62,796.00
Agricultural Area 1,466.65 5,690.77 4,656.06 2,917.82 1,332.24 1,105.78 2,383.07 2,522.31 1,939.44 24,014.14
Agroforestry 85.31 1,166.53 3,848.83 308.81 2,862.88 69.22 1,349.66 9.39 5,236.40 14,937.03
Commercial Areas 21.53 21.53
Eco-Tourism 3.82 24.93 119.15 909.64 78.74 73.91 5.29 247.33 250.08 1,712.89
Fuelwood Production 43.62 51.66 28.1 64.62 188.00
Infrastructure 92.61 0.12 1.19 5.01 98.93
Mangrove Areas 769.47 4,585.99 635.97 1,243.96 1,338.19 136.92 49.25 434.11 9,193.86
Marshland 42.45 10.29 20.15 5.51 78.40
NGP/ Restoration sub zone 1,038.19 1,038.19
Quarry 0.34 10.29 1.86 3.3 15.79
River 347.87 347.87
Settlements 64.58 126.97 115.86 57.59 52.77 31.46 61.05 79.88 110.11 700.27
Water Source 1.31 17.17 4.66 14.46 37.60
Watershed Management 16.28 469.25 286.47 514.75 66.3 1,274.86 279.61 743.39 776.21 4,427.12
Strict Protection Zone 248.69 403.29 891.75 251.99 185.2 850.35 291.16 31.04 2,830.91 5,984.38
MARINE 129.21 1,254.16 197.29 616.61 21.27 156.88 49.75 1,063.71 488.57 3,977.45
Marine Areas for Fisheries Mgt/Cage,
121.76 4.36 0.93 127.05
Navigation, Seaweed Production
Strict Protection Zone 81.08 755.78 53.72 616.61 21.27 98.14 49.75 472.74 179.01 2,328.10
Strict Protection Zone - Buffer 48.13 376.62 143.57 58.74 586.61 308.63 1,522.30
Grand Total  2,058.64 9,976.45 14,845.67 6,223.59 6,239.48 4,972.98 4,579.78 4,772.84 13,104.02 66,773.45

Figure 4.2 Proposed Management Zones in the Multiple Use Zone (MUZ) of Siargao Islands

4.4.1 Terrestrial Management Programs
Biodiversity conservation program
The focal areas for the biodiversity conservation program of the terrestrial areas are those zoned
as strict protection zones. This covers approximately 5,984 hectares. These areas will be given
the highest form of protection from destructive and illegal activities since these are the areas
with high biodiversity value. The ultimate desired result of the program would be the enhanced
resiliency of these biodiversity areas to climate change.
Found in Table 4.5 are specific areas that were initially identified by the LGUs for biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use. These areas will undergo further evaluation and will be
prioritized under this program.
Table 4.5 Terrestrial Areas Identified for Biodiversity Protection, Rehabilitation and Conservation and/or
Sustainable Use
Municipality Barangay Features of the Area
Dapa Lobo, Cataba-an, Osmeña and Alimbungog Natural forest
Consolacion Laksohon Cave,
Consolacion Magkahoyog Falls
Bagakay and Hagimit Catabaan Watershed
Socorro Sudlon, Mahambong, Calangugan Natural Forest
So. Del Pilar Forest Park
Dona Helene, Sohoton Limestone Forest
Kabayao Gene Bank of Ironwood
Sohoton Gamay Caves
Buajjahan Crystal and Inland Lakes
San Benito San Juan, Talisay Watershed
Bongdo, Nuevo Campo Forest
Maribojoc, Talisay, Santa Cruz, San Juan Patch Reef
Maribojoc Poneas Lake
Del Carmen Jamoyaon, Bagacay, Cancohoy, Katipunan, Esperanza, Watershed
Mahayahay, Tuburan, Antipolo
Caub, Poneas Island and Tona Natural forests and fauna
Tuburan Marshland
Pilar Jaboy, Mabuhay, Katipunan Marshland
San Roque, Jaboy Patch forest
Magpupungko, Pilaring Beach forest
Datu Cave
San Isidro Sta. Paz, Macapagal, Roxas, Sto. Nino Natural Forests and fauna
San Miguel, Buhing Kalipay, Del Pilar Marshland
Del Pilar and Pacifico Cave
Tigasao, Pacifico Beach forest
Buhing Kalipay, San Miguel, Pelaez, Roxas, Tigasao Ponds/Marshland
Santa Monica Mabini, Libertad Forest
Mabuhay, Bailan, Rizal, Magsaysay, Tangbo, Alegria, Garcia, Watershed
Libertad
Tangbo (Danjug), Libertad (Bat Sanctuary) Cave
General Luna Malinao, Sta. Cruz Beach area/forest
Libertad Underwater Cave (Blue
Cathedral)


Consuelo, Malinao, Corazon Natural Forest and Fauna, Cave
Malinao, Corazon, Tawin-Tawin Marshland
Burgos San Mateo, Matin-ao Marshland
Patag, Poblacion 2, Poblacion 1(Mag-aso), Baybay, Matin-ao Caves
Poblacion 1, Baybay, Kugiton, Bitaug, San Mateo Natural forest
The program will have four component activities: (a) ground demarcation of management zones,
(b) biodiversity research, documentation and monitoring; (c) habitat restoration and
rehabilitation; and (d) community-based forest protection and law enforcement.
 Demarcation of management zones
Ground demarcation of the boundaries of the SPZ and the MUZ will facilitate effective
enforcement of the management zones. Signages will be installed in appropriate locations to
clearly mark the SPZ as biodiversity protection and conservation areas. These will forewarn the
public that human activities are prohibited in these areas, except those related to research.
Community consultations will be undertaken prior to actual ground demarcation to validate the
proposed boundaries of the strict protection zones. As much as possible, natural features such as
ridges, rivers/ creeks, mountain peaks and roads will be used as boundaries. Alternatively,
planting of conspicuous species such as bamboo, dapdap, anonang, kakawate, etc. may be done.
The defined zones will have to be integrated into the Barangay Development Plans, and the CLUP
and zoning ordinance of the LGU so these can be enforced. The final boundaries that are
demarcated on the ground will have to be plotted into an official SIPLAS map.
The PASu and the LWG will lead the effort to determine the investment requirements for ground
demarcation, to identify potential sources of funding, and to prepare the necessary funding
proposals which will have to be endorsed by the PAMB to the DENR/BMB. As funding is made
available, they will also be responsible for planning, organizing and supervising the ground
demarcation activity.
 Biodiversity research, documentation and monitoring
The information on the biodiversity resources of Siargao Islands has not been updated in recent
years. For purposes of improving the design of conservation activities and monitoring of the
status of biodiversity in the protected area, it is imperative to have an updated inventory of flora
and fauna in the PA every five years. The PASu Office shall establish linkages with academic and
research institutions in Siargao Islands, the Caraga Region and other Mindanao regions for any
recent studies undertaken or for any interest to undertake biodiversity studies in Siargao Islands.
The PASu Office will have to develop the protocols for collaborative researches within SIPLAS. At
the same time, the PASu Office, with support from BMB, shall prepare proposals for external
funding for conducting inventory of flora and fauna in SIPLAS.
The strict protection zone which contains rich biodiversity resources will be prioritized as study
areas to identify key species for protection, conservation and propagation, and key species that
are considered good indicators of ecosystem health and/or climate change. The scope of study
may include population, habitat requirements, biology, and food and feeding habits.

The PAMB shall sign a partnership agreement with the interested research institutions which will
be encouraged to involve a PO, barangay LGU and other interested stakeholders in their field
activities. Results of the researches and technical assistance activities will be required to be
presented to the PAMB and other stakeholders with appropriate recommendations for policy
formulation, action/implementation, further validation or replication.
This activity can contribute significantly to enrich the information base of SIPLAS. The Biodiversity
Monitoring System (BMS) used by BMB will be reviewed and redesigned/enhanced to fit SIPLAS
conditions and monitoring requirements. For one, it will be made to include key indicator species
for ecosystem health and climate change. The PASu Office will ensure that BMS results are
analyzed and utilized for decision-making. Periodic monitoring of biodiversity resources within
the protected area will be sustained through the provision of regular budgets and formal linkages
with relevant institutions.
 Habitat restoration and rehabilitation
Critical habitats of flora and fauna which need immediate rehabilitation will be identified by the
PASu Office in collaboration with communities as well as academic and research institutions.
Many of these are in the areas listed in Table 4.5. For each of these areas, the PASu Office will
lead the preparation of a plan and budget that will serve as a guide for those who will be involved
in their actual rehabilitation. It is important that the PASu Office involve the concerned offices of
the provincial and municipal governments, and the DENR in formulating the appropriate
restoration and rehabilitation plans for specific habitats.
Natural forests will be rehabilitated by adopting rainforestation technology which uses

indigenous species. The National Greening Program (NGP) of the DENR may be tapped to
support this. Initially, the 1,040 hectares developed under the NGP are set aside as restoration
areas.
 Community-based forest protection and law enforcement
Community-based forest protection and law enforcement will be adopted in SIPLAS by mobilizing
barangay LGUs, PA communities and POs (especially the tenure holders) in forest protection
activities. At least eight barangay Bantay-Gubat teams, with at least three members per team,
will be organized in strategically located upland barangays. Members of these teams will be
oriented and trained by DENR on forest protection and law enforcement and will be issued
deputation orders as Deputized Environment and Natural Resources Officers (DENROs). The
chairpersons of the Committees on Environment and Natural Resources of the Barangay Councils
shall supervise the operations of the Bantay-Gubat teams in coordination with LGUs’ MENROs
and the PASu.
The Bantay-Gubat teams, supported by the Barangay Council and DENR field staff, shall
undertake regular foot patrolling and shall establish check points in strategic areas considered
hotspots of illegal activities. Patrol operations will follow an enforcement plan and reporting
protocols agreed upon by the PASu, barangay LGU and the Bantay-Gubat team. Incidents and
findings on illegal activities, encroachment, and forest fires, and other relevant on-site
observations, including sightings of important flora and fauna, will be properly documented,
preferably geo-tagged and with photo-documentation. Apprehension of violators, confiscation of
illegally harvested products, documentation and filing of cases in court against violators will be

pursued following set protocols and guidelines. The PASu Office and LGUs will consider the
provision of support for the filing of cases.
To strengthen the forest protection effort, the municipal and barangay LGUs will be encouraged
to enact local ordinances. They will also be encouraged to provide monetary or non-monetary
incentives to the DENROs to recognize and compensate them for their time and services.
Socio-economic development
Programs under this component are designed to improve the socio-economic condition of
communities within SIPLAS. This will include projects related to livelihood and social services
including securing water sources and land tenure security which are also important support to
livelihood.
 Provision of land tenure security to legitimate PA claimants
The PASu Office together with the LGU MENRO staff will identify legitimate claimants within the
protected area who may be considered for issuance of land tenure instruments. Their land
claims will be validated and delineated/ demarcated on the ground. Priority will be given to those
located near “hotspot” areas where unsustainable economic activities are being undertaken.
These claimants will be organized into people/community organizations and will be assisted to
apply for issuance of appropriate tenure instruments, such as the PACBRMA. The PASu Office will
facilitate processing and issuance of PACBRMA and once approved, shall assist PACBRMA holders
in formulating their Community Resource Management Plans (CRMPs).Technical assistance will
also be provided in the implementation of these plans.
Related to this, the PASu Office will complete the Protected Area Survey and Registration of
Protected Area Occupants (SRPAO) in SIPLAS and maintain and update this as permanent record
of tenured migrants in SIPLAS.
Periodically, the PASu and the LGUs will organize a periodic assessment of the performance of
the tenure holders based on the conditionalities in the tenure agreement and the activities set
out in their management plans.
 Development of agroforestry farms
With increasing tourism activities in Siargao Islands, demand for food, particularly fruits and
vegetables, will correspondingly increase. Since there is a very limited alienable and disposable
(A and D) lands, it is expected that there will be increasing pressures to use existing forestlands
for agriculture and plantations. In anticipation of this situation, suitable areas for agroforestry
development will be identified within the multiple use zones. Forest occupants and/or upland
farmers in these areas (as well as in A and D lands) will be supported in developing fruit orchards
and vegetables which would cater to the demands of both residents and tourists.
Agroforestry farmers will be trained on agroforestry practices and helped in preparing their
individual farm plans which should integrate into their farming system soil and water
conservation measures to minimize soil erosion and reduce pollution of coastal areas. They will
be assisted in sourcing quality seedlings particularly of fruit trees and will be guided and closely
monitored during the development of their farms. The PASu will have to seek the advice of the
Department of Agriculture in identifying the fruit trees and vegetables that would grow well in

Siargao Islands, on the technologies that farmers may adopt and the potentials of these crops for
processing. Demonstration farms may have to be established to showcase integrated farming
systems. The technical and financial assistance that will be extended to farmers will depend on the
funding that can be mobilized by the PASu Office and the LGUs for this program from municipal and
provincial LGUs, the NGP, private sector and other donor-funded projects in SIPLAS.
Approximately 13,095 hectares are planned for agroforestry development, including areas that
may be covered by PACBRMA. In these tenured areas, an agreement between the PO and the
individual members will be executed for the use rights of the PO members. This will effectively
recognize individual occupancy within PACBRMA areas and thus address security of tenure
concerns of individual farmers.
 Protection and rehabilitation of water production areas
Being an island ecosystem, water is a critical resource for Siargao Islands. The demand for water
in the island, both for irrigation and domestic use, is expected to increase because of the growing
population and tourism industry. However, existing and potential water sources is increasingly
being threatened by unsustainable forest-based economic activities, pollution from domestic
sources, unregulated extraction, and by climate change, particularly increasing temperature.
To secure water sources, the PASu Office, in collaboration with municipal and barangay LGUs
shall jointly undertake the following:
 Inventory (location and functionality) of all water sources in SIPLAS, both for domestic
water supply (Levels 1, 2 and 3) and irrigation, and identify other potential sources. The
inventory done for the national Listahang Tubig initiative of the National Water
Resources Board (NWRB) can be revisited;
 Assess the condition of the water production area/watershed and the water quality of all
existing and potential sources of water, and prioritize;
 Demarcate on a map and on the ground the priority water production areas for
protection, rehabilitation and management;
 Identify the appropriate on-site managers for these water production areas (i.e., water
districts, barangay LGU, rural water associations, private establishments such as large
resorts) and hold discussions and negotiations with them on the sustainable use and
management of the water production areas;
 Facilitate the signing of agreement between the PAMB and the on-site managers for the
management of the water production areas;
 Assist on-site managers in the preparation of water production area management plans
and submit to PAMB for approval; and
 Assist on-site managers manage and rehabilitate the watersheds per the approved
management plan.
The water conservation areas are estimated to cover about 5,296 hectares. Initially, watershed
rehabilitation and protection will focus on catchment areas that support the Level 3 systems of
four water districts and the water sources of barangays. For barangay water production areas,
the PASu Office and MENRO shall provide the needed training on enrichment planting,
agroforestry, and soil and water conservation, and assist barangays set up nurseries (when
needed) for their seedling requirements.

 Development of fuel wood plantations and woodlots
Fuel wood plantations will be developed to address the fuel wood requirements of the residents
of Siargao Islands and consequently reduce fuel wood gathering in mangroves and forest areas.
The woodlots are to provide for the wood needs of the local populations which also should result
in the reduction of timber poaching from SIPLAS forests. About 101 hectares have been identified
initially for fuelwood plantation while 92 hectares are allocated for woodlots.
The PASu and the LGUs shall validate the proposed areas to ensure that these are within the
multiple use zones. Actual occupants/ claimants of these areas will be identified and will be
provided financial and technical support in planning and establishing the fuelwood and tree
plantations, including the sourcing of appropriate planting materials. The PASu Office will seek to
include this in the NGP and prioritize these areas for development, using indigenous and/or
locally adapted exotic species.
 Strengthening of people’s organizations for enterprise development
People’s organizations that are currently engaged in community enterprises or livelihood

activities will be assessed in terms of their skills and training needs. Based on these assessments,
skills enhancement trainings on enterprise development and management, leadership and
resource assessment, business planning, and financial management will be organized. Where
appropriate and depending on availability of funds, cross visits to communities with successful
livelihood projects will be organized. The PASu Office and the LGUs will lead this activity and will
jointly source out funding for the training and other requirements to enhance the viability of
existing livelihood activities and improve or expand their operations. LGU support will be sought
to assist organized communities establish links with other agencies (e.g., Provincial LGU, DTI) and
the private sector for product development and marketing.
Parallel to this activity, the PASu Office and the LGUs will identify other livelihood opportunities
that will create more employment and diversity income sources of local communities. These may
be related to the agroforestry, fisheries management and tourism programs. Market/feasibility
studies will be initiated as well as fund sourcing.
4.4.2 Coastal and Marine Management Program
Coastal habitat and species conservation program
About 3,850 hectares of marine and coastal areas are zoned as strict protection zone. This
consists of marine protected areas, habitat areas within mangroves, seagrass beds and other
zones considered as habitats of endangered marine species.
This program will have five component activities: (a) demarcation of management zones (b) improved
MPA management; (c) coral rehabilitation; and (d) mangrove protection and rehabilitation.
 Demarcation of management zones
The LGUs areas that have been identified initially by LGUs as coastal and marine biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use areas are listed in Table 4.6. These areas will have to be further
assessed to establish their current biodiversity value and to determine their conservation
requirements.

Table 4.6 Coastal and Marine Areas Identified for Biodiversity Protection, Rehabilitation and Conservation
and/or Sustainable Use
Dapa Corregidor Marine sanctuary
Bagakay, Union, Uno, Monserat, Cabawa, Cambas-ac, Patch Reef
Consolacion, Buenavista, San Carlos, San Miguel
Socorro Pamosaingan, San Roque, Dona Helen, Santa Cruz, Eight (8) Marine Protected Areas
Sudlon, Lawigan (Salog), Mating-ob (Kanlanuk Bay), San
Roque (Mangroves)
Markaa, Kanlunis, Poblacion, Pamosaingan Patch Reef
Sohoton Gamay Caves
San Benito Talisay, Maribojoc Marine Sanctuary
Bongdo, Talisay Mangrove Forest
Maribojoc, Talisay, Santa Cruz, San Juan Patch Reef
Del Carmen Mabuhay, San Jose, Del Carmen, Cancohoy, Katipunan, Mangrove forests and fauna
Esperanza, Lobogon, Sayak, Antipolo, Cabugao, Bitoon,
Domoyog, San Fernando
Hali-an, Caub, San Fernando Marine Sanctuaries
Caub, Tagbuyakhaw, Mapuya, Yaonan, Masag-a, Patch Reef
Domoyog, San Fernando, Halian, Kawhagan, Tona
Pilar Asinan, Pilaring, Dayaohay, Maasin (crablets), San Roque, Mangrove forests and Fauna
Datu, Mabini, Salvacion, Katipunan, Consolacion
CPAP Marine Sanctuary
Magpupungko, Pilaring Beach forest
Caridad (Cathedral) Patch Reef
San Isidro Tigasao, Pacifico Beach forest
Del Carmen, San Miguel, Del Pilar Mangrove
San Isidro- Del Carmen Mangrove Sanctuary
Pacifico Patch Reef
Santa Monica Rizal, T Arlan, Magsaysay, Abad Santos Mangrove and Fauna (migratory
birds like egrets and herons, bats )
Rizal, Tangbo, , Garcia, Abad Santos, Magsaysay MPAs
Garcia, Alegria, Tangbo Nesting sites of marine turtle
Alegria, Tangbo Nesting sites of coconut crab
“Tatus”
Kambiling, Tangbo, Garcia, Rizal, Alegria Patch Reef/Seagrass Beds
General Luna Malinao, Sta. Cruz Beach area/forest
Tawin-Tawin, Malinao, Magsaysay, Santa Cruz, Libertad, Mangrove forest and fauna
Catangnan, Cabitoonan (tarsier)
Sta. Fe and Sta. Cruz, Libertad (Pangitlogan Island) Nesting sites of marine turtle
Poblacion, Daku, Malinao, Suyangan, Anajawan Marine Sanctuary
Libertad Underwater Cave (Blue Cathedral)
Tuazon Reef Poot-poot
Pansukian, Guyam, Daku Patch reef
Burgos Lakyajon (Pob.1), Bayud (Pob.2), Kugiton City MPA
Baybay, Bitaug, Poblacion 1, Poblacion 2 Patch Reef
Poblacion 1 Coconut crab “Tatus” sightings

Part of the assessment exercise is to identify specific mangrove areas and seagrasses that should
belong to the core zone. Mangroves and seagrass beds serve as nursery grounds for reef fishes
and other invertebrates. Part of the life cycle of many reef fishes (e.g. groupers, snappers,
emperors, parrotfishes, rabbitfishes, goatfishes) happen in mangroves and/or seagrass beds. If
these are not protected and are lost or destroyed, there will be a significant reduction in the
fishes that will be “recruited” as young adults on the reefs. Their population could continuously
decline until such time that there will be localized extinction or extirpation of these species. The
habitat areas of threatened species and breeding/nursing areas of fishes within the mangrove
forests should therefore be identified through scientific researches for conservation and
protection purposes. Similarly, an inventory of sea grass beds will be undertaken to identify
critical areas for conservation. The PASu and the MENROs will spearhead this assessment with
assistance from the DENR and a relevant research institution in Mindanao.
All areas that are confirmed as conservation areas will have to be demarcated and mapped so
these can be protected and subjected to continuing biodiversity monitoring. Signages will be put
up to ensure that these areas are not disturbed. Site-specific protection and conservation plans
will have to be prepared jointly by the PASu and LGUs, and approved by PAMB for these sites.
 Improved MPA management
Improved MPA management is one of the priority management interventions that will be
implemented for the coastal and marine area. The interventions will be at two levels: (a)
individual MPAs; and (b) MPA networks.
Individual MPAs
There are currently 10 existing MPAs in SIPLAS and eight of the nine LGUs have plans to establish
20 more MPAs within the plan period.
Table 4.7 Existing and Proposed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in SIPLAS
Existing Proposed* Total
Municipality
No. Ha. No. Ha. No. Ha.
1. Burgos 1 28 1 30 2 58
2. San Benito 1 33 1 25 2 58
3. Dapa 1 75 1 69 2 144
4. Del Carmen 2 46 2 78 4 124
5. Gen Luna 1 500 3 277 4 777
6. Pilar 1 114 1 114
7. San Isidro 1 28 1 34 2 62
8. Sta. Monica 1 118 4 182 5 300
9. Socorro 1 54 7 130 8 184
Total 10 996 20 825 30 1,821
* Including previously identified MPAs that were not sustained are proposed to be re-established.
Sources: SCREMP; Results of LGU Consultations on SIPLAS Management Zones; Provincial Agriculture and Fisheries
Office, Surigao del Norte, 2015
For the existing MPAs, the following will be targeted within Year 1:
 Validation and mapping of the technical coordinates of all the MPAs;

 If resources are available, demarcation of the MPA boundaries with buoys;
 Completion/updating of the respective MPA Plans;

 Review, and enhancement of the local MPA ordinance to reflect correct technical
coordinates, management arrangements and annual operating budgets;
 Creation of a functional management body for the MPA.
All these activities will be undertaken through a participatory process that will involve the
concerned communities, and municipal and barangay officials. These activities will be led by the
LGU officer who has responsibility over the coastal resource and fisheries management program
of the LGU.
Similar activities will be initiated and targeted for the proposed/new MPAs within Years 1 to
3.That area for the proposed/new MPAs however will still require further validation with
stakeholders to ensure that there is consensus on the use of these areas and the available
resources to be managed as these will be the main basis for designating them as MPAs. It is
important that stakeholders understand the purpose of establishing an MPAs, the implications of
this on their fishing practices and their responsibilities as managers of the resource.
The management plans for each MPA will have to be legitimized by the concerned LGU and
endorsed to the PAMB for final approval. Each MPA will have a local management body which
will be accountable for the MPA. The local ordinances that will support these MPAs will define
the responsibilities and accountabilities of these management bodies, provide regular budget
support from the municipal or barangay LGU for the implementation of MPA Plan, and put in
place an enforcement and monitoring system. The MPA ordinances shall also identify the
prohibited activities within the MPA and the corresponding fines and penalties to be imposed on
violators.
Subsequent to the establishment of these MPAs, the PASu Office and the LGUs will periodically
monitor the management performance of the existing MPAs using the MPA Monitoring
Effectiveness Assessment Tool or MEAT (National CTI Coordinating Committee, 2011). The MEAT
provides indicators that will guide the development of MPAs across four levels of management
effectiveness: Level 1=established; Level 2=strengthened; Level 3=sustained; and Level
4=institutionalized. Refer to Table 4.8 for the prescribed indicators per level.
Table 4.8 MPA MEAT Threshold Indicators

Level 1. Established Level 2. Strengthened Level 3. Sustained Level 4. Institutionalized
(Year 1) (Year 5) (Year 7) (Year 7 onwards)
 Baseline assessment  Patrolling and  Funds  MPA/NIPAS Management
conducted surveillance conducted generated/accessed for Plan incorporated in
 Management plan regularly last two years broader development plans
adopted  Violations documented  Enforcement system  Ecological and
 Legal instrument  Cases filed/violators fully operational socioeconomic impact
approved penalized  Performance assessment conducted
 Management body monitoring of the  Performance monitoring ad
formed and roles management body evaluation linked to an
clarified conducted regularly incentive system
 Budget allocated for  Regular participatory  IEC sustained over five years
at least one year monitoring  MPA/NIPAS financially self-
 Violators prosecuted sustaining
and sanctioned

The yearly targets of SIPLAS for MPA strengthening within the plan period will therefore revolve
around meeting the prerequisites and threshold indicators. Individual MPAs should strive to
reach Level 1 (established level) within one year from establishment, and attain Level 2
(strengthened level) towards the end of the plan period. MPAs should then target reaching Levels
3 and 4 in the succeeding SIPLAS management plan.
MPA Network
To strengthen inter-connectivity of MPAs and, increase efficiency, complementation and

collaboration among different MPA management bodies and the LGUs, the nine LGUs in SIPLAS
have agreed to form an MPA network and a MOA which includes the Provincial LGU and the PAMB
Chair/DENR is in the process of being signed by the latter.
The SIPLAS MPA network will work towards further improving MPA management. Its
interventions however will focus mainly on shared concerns of LGUs: coastal law enforcement, M
and E, and IEC. Table 4.9 provides specific activities that will be undertaken through the MPA
network arrangement. The Network is expected to prepare an action plan that will complement
the efforts of the individual MPA management bodies. The MPA network will provide the venue
for sharing of resources, harmonization of MPA management policies, sharing of experiences and
good practices, and the overall assessment of the MPA program. Annually, it will hold an MPA
Forum where good practices and lessons from MPA management experiences and MEAT results
will be presented as inputs to the next year’s action plan.
Table 4.9 MPA Network Activities

Enforcement M and E Advocacy and IEC
 Creation of enforcement group/team  Creation of M and E group/team  Creation of IEC group/team
or Coastal Law Enforcement  Setting-up of joint M and E  Development of strategies and
 Agreement with external agencies  Establish protocols for key communication
(e.g., PNP, Coast Guard) for effective administrative, socio-economic and messages/IEC plan
policing and enforcement of fishery biophysical M and E  Community IEC
and PA laws and ordinances  Training on participatory coral and  Advocacy for support of key
 Law enforcement and paralegal fish surveys, and MEAT stakeholders and private
training; formulation of enforcement  Analysis of M and E findings on sector
plan representative sites within network  Promotion of responsible
 Deputizing Bantay Dagat and fish  Periodic MPA network forum for tourism in local areas
wardens feedback of M and E results and
 Development of community action planning
involvement in reporting violations
The implementation targets of the network will follow criteria and thresholds that are similar to
the MEAT. The relevant assessment tool for the MPA Network is the Network Effectiveness
Assessment Tool (NEAT). Using this tool, the MPA network will be assessed across four levels:
Level 1=established; Level 2=strengthened; Level 3=sustained; and Level 4=institutionalized.
There are specific threshold indicators for each level (see Table 4.10). The threshold indicators
can also be categorized into the following management areas: (a) formal agreement/legislation;
(b) management body; (c) financing and fund management; (d) joint activities; (e) expansion
activities; (f) monitoring and evaluation; and (g) feedback mechanisms.

Table 4.10 MPA NEAT Threshold Indicators

Level 1. Established Level 2. Strengthened Level 3. Sustained Level 4. Institutionalized
 Formal agreement  Harmonized CRM-related  Review and updating of  Provincial/regional/
(MOA) signed and ordinance approved MOA, protocols, congressional support
notarized  Regular meetings (at strategic plan and/or  Incorporation of network
 Operational protocols least quarterly) ordinances strategic plan into
finalized and approved  Management body  Regular meetings (at broader development
 Management body trained and skilled least quarterly) for the plans
formed with regular  Performance assessment last five years  Regular meetings (at
meetings initiated  Funds consistently least quarterly) for the
 Budget allocation for at  Regular allocation, allocated, accesses and last seven years
least one year access and utilization of used in the last five years  Performance M and E
 Financial management funds  Fund sourcing activities linked to an incentive
system finalized  Sustainable financing regularly conducted system
 Network action plan plan prepared  Expansion activities  Expansion activities
drafted  Discussions with external initiated conducted
 Initial joint activities groups for possible  Regular performance  Financial sustainability
conducted assistance monitoring (both internal and
 Network strategic plan  Feedback system in place external sources)
approved  Benefits from joint
 Joint activities conducted activities observed in
regularly member barangays/
 Regular reporting and municipalities/cities
feedback mechanisms
conducted
 Monitoring system
established
An MPA network will be realized through the signing of a MOA by nine LGUs with the PAMB. This
MOA will signify the commitment of the LGUs to jointly and effectively manage and protect
SIPLAS waters through MPA networks. Through consensus-building, the MOA will indicate the
responsibilities of the networked member LGUs and of the PAMB, the network structure and the
budget for MPA management activities of the network. It should be noted that the budget for
the MPA network will be different from the allocation for the management of individual MPAs.
The SIPLAS MPA Network MOA proposes to form a single network for the entire protected area.
The LGU-members however may still opt to form clusters. A suggested basis for clustering is the
biological characteristics of corals and reef fishes which are observed to differ between the eastern
and western parts of SIPLAS. On the basis of this the clusters could be
 Northeast cluster composed Burgos, San Isidro, Pilar and General Luna; and
 Southwest cluster: composed of Sta. Monica, San Benito, Del Carmen, Socorro and Dapa.
This clustering proposal coincides with the vulnerability of the areas to strong winds from the
Pacific Ocean that has impacts on the type and condition of their coral reefs.
 Coral rehabilitation
Coral rehabilitation activities will be undertaken in close consultation with the LGUs and MPA
management bodies, particularly in the identification of coral areas for rehabilitation. Substrates
for the attachment or settlement of corals will be increased by placing artificial reefs modules in
areas that no longer have hard substrates for corals to settle on.

Coral rehabilitation will be executed in areas that are fully protected or inside the identified no-
take zones of MPAs. Placing them outside the core zone will make the entire activity futile and
will result in the exploitation of reef fishes that will seek shelter in the artificial reefs.
The PASu Office and the concerned LGUs will have to prepare a more detailed plan for coral
rehabilitation and a funding proposal for this activity when the sites have been identified. The
plan and the proposal will have to be prepared in consultation with groups or organizations who
have expertise and have had successful experiences in coral rehabilitation and who can provide
technical assistance to this activity.
 Mangrove protection and rehabilitation
Recognizing the roles of mangroves in sustaining resources for fishing communities and as natural
defenses to climate change impacts such as storm surges, mangrove protection and rehabilitation
will be a priority undertaking of SIPLAS. Through this effort, about 7,768 hectares of mangroves
will be protected, rehabilitated and conserved. Enforcement activities in mangrove areas will be
strengthened with the active participation of barangay LGUs.
The PASu Office and the concerned LGUs will have to identify and delineate the mangrove areas
for rehabilitation. The recent assessment of the mangroves in Del Carmen that was assisted by
SIKAT Inc. will be an important input to this. Coastal communities will be mobilized to assist in
planting mangrove seedlings and in establishing mangrove nurseries so that there will be sources
of seedlings for mangrove planting activities. The selection of species for planting will consider
the salinity of the water and other conditions in the area. Partnerships on mangrove protection
and rehabilitation with the private sector, including coastal and tourism establishments, and
schools will be established.
Fisheries management
The focus of fisheries management will be the strengthening of fisheries law enforcement
through the following actions:
 Forging of an inter-LGU Fisheries Enforcement MOA. This will strengthen commitments

of LGUs to harmonize their ordinances, adopt uniform enforcement protocols and
mechanisms, and allocate regular budgets for enforcement.
 Reactivation and strengthening of municipal and barangay Fisheries and Aquatic
Resource Management Councils (FARMCs) in all LGUs.
 Acquisition of equipment and tools for law enforcement, i.e., boats and communications
equipment for patrol activities.
 Creation or strengthening of Bantay Dagat teams which will do regular patrol activities.
Enforcement trainings will be organized, with support from the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and other enforcement bodies such as the Philippine National
Police and the Coast Guard. Bantay Dagat team members will be deputized as enforcers.
 Adoption of harmonized or unified fisheries registration and licensing systems. This will
establish the number of fishers who are allowed to operate in the area and the fishing
gears they will be allowed to use in SIPLAS waters. This will also establish the fines and
penalties for violations as well as any incentives that will be provided to those who
participate in enforcement activities.

 Enactment of local ordinances to control destructive fishing activities in the area. Such
ordinances will also cover practices that are not covered in the Fisheries Code but are
observed in SIPLAS (e.g., fishing for abalone which disturb and is destructive to coral reefs).
The LGUs in the northeastern part of SIPLAS need to consider a system for declaring “closed
season” for fishing during the spawning period of major species. To implement this, the species
of importance must first be identified. Initial species can include surgeonfishes and parrotfishes,
both of which promote reef resilience. From available literature, these species spawn during the
calmer periods (April- May) or during the inter-monsoonal periods (July-October). Guided by a
marine biologist who is knowledgeable on reef fisheries, the LGUs and local communities will
have to agree on the period for the necessary “closure” of fishing for these species. The supply
chain must be considered so as not to affect drastically the income of the fishers. It is important
that both fishers and consumers realize the considerable positive impact or contribution the
temporary fishing closure can have to the ecosystem and eventually to their livelihoods.
Socio-economic development
Under this component, the focus will be to assist and encourage fisherfolks to engage in alternative
livelihoods (not fisheries related) or further develop existing mariculture or aquaculture activities
such as fish farming using fish cages. Grants for aquaculture enterprises that are available from
BFAR and other organizations can be tapped.
Providing organizations of fisherfolks with seed capital as start-up resources for non-fishery
related enterprises will be crucial in providing incentive to shift to or pursue other income
generating activities. The objective of this is to reduce the fishing effort and thus address over-
fishing issues. Trainings can be provided to fisherfolks to include coco-sugar making, fruit/food
processing, mat weaving, poultry, piggery, and aquasilviculture technologies. Fisherfolks can also
be trained for services that will be required in coastal eco-tourism.
Coastal communities/fisherfolks however will have to be formally organized and trained on

enterprise development, leadership and financial management. The support of LGUs, other
national agencies and the private sector on this will be solicited.
In summary
The entire coastal and marine management program described above can be summarized in
relation to the results of the vulnerability assessment using the TURF for the northwestern and
southeastern clusters of LGUs. See Table 4.11 below. The interventions provide the details to the
climate change adaptation strategies that are recommended for fisheries, reef ecosystem and the
socio-economic components of the program.

Table 4.11 Adaptation Strategies Based on the Output of the VA-TURF Approach
Component Potential Impact Adaptive Capacity Adaptation Strategies Specific Measures
A. Southwestern Cluster (Del Carmen, San Benito and Sta. Monica)
Fisheries Dominant catch Change in catch Fish size restriction; Banning of all destructive fishing
composition regulation of fishing gears (Municipalities of San
effort and fishing gear Benito, Del Carmen)
types
Gear dependence Habitat condition Fishing gear 1) Strengthening of MPAs (two in
restrictions San Benito, three in Del
Carmen)
2) “Coral rehabilitation” in San
Benito and Del Carmen
3) Mangrove reforestation in San
Benito and Del Carmen
Reef ecosystem Abundance of Extent of habitats Establishment of Strengthening of all MPAs and to
wave tolerant MPAs (e.g. coral include corals, mangroves and
species reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds as no-take zones
seagrasses) (e.g. Sta. Monica, Del Carmen, San
Isidro)
Socio-economic Fisheries Increase percentage Reduction of fishing Encourage intercropping farming
ecosystem of fishers with effort system to have whole year farming
dependency alternative livelihood; Close and Open activities in San Benito, Del
increase income from season Carmen and Sta. Monica)
other sources not
related to fishing
A. Northeastern Cluster (Burgos, San Isidro, Pilar, Gen Luna)
Fisheries Dominant catch Change in catch Fish size restriction; Banning of all destructive fishing
composition regulation of fishing gears (Municipalities of San
effort and fishing Benito, Del Carmen)
gear types
Catch rate Size and amount of Establishment of Close season during spawning
fish caught catch quota period
Gear dependence Habitat condition Fishing gear 1) Strengthening of Bantay Dagat
restrictions 2) Conduct regular seaborne
patrol
3) Law enforcement and paralegal
training
Reef ecosystem Abundance of wave Extent of habitats Establishment of Strengthening of all MPAs
tolerant species MPAs (e.g. coral including the mangrove sanctuary
reefs, mangroves, in San Isidro
seagrasses)
Habitat quality Presence of adjacent Expansion of MPAs 1) Coral rehabilitation in Pilar
habitats to include other 2) Mangrove reforestation in Pilar
habitats (e.g. coral and Gen Luna
reefs, mangroves,
seagrasses)
Socio-economic Fisheries ecosystem Increase percentage Reduction of fishing Provide alternative livelihood
dependency of fishers with effort programs (e.g. coco-sugar, mat
alternative webbing, poultry, piggery, post-
livelihood; increase harvest production e.g. processed
of income from fruits) and aquasilviculture
other sources
besides fishing

4.4.3 Cross-Cutting Management Programs
Eco-tourism development
Siargao Islands is envisioned to be a major eco-tourism destination in Mindanao and in the country
thus, eco-tourism development is a major thrust of the SIPLAS Management Plan. Approximately
1,674 hectares of marine, coastal and terrestrial areas in SIPLAS are designated as eco-tourism
areas. To provide direction to this effort, a consensus-building session among LGUs will be
conducted to identify and evaluate areas in SIPLAS that will be priority for eco-tourism investment,
development and promotion; and to harmonize eco-tourism efforts of different sectors particularly
infrastructure development, use regulations, user fee systems and promotion. An organized study
of the caves in SIPLAS will fall under this program. The assessment of eco-tourism sites should
include even those eco-tourism areas which are currently frequented by tourists to determine if the
physical development and the promotion of these areas are in harmony and advance the
conservation goals of the SIPLAS management plan. This activity should involve and perhaps be
funded by the Provincial LGU and/or the Department of Tourism (DOT).
This suggests that the SIPLAS Eco-tourism Development Plan will be revisited and made to reflect
the agreed prioritization and promotion strategies. For each eco-tourism site included in the
plan, a development and management plan, with a corresponding business plan, will be
prepared. These management plans should give due importance to the conservation of
biodiversity resources and promote responsible tourism. Those who will be managing these eco-
tourism sites, whether LGUs, communities or private entities, will need to sign a formal
agreement with the PAMB. The management plans for eco-tourism sites will be also be subjected
to review and approval by the PAMB. The performance of these eco-tourism site managers vis-à-
vis plans will be periodically monitored.
Community participation in eco-tourism activities will be increased. Specific activities where

communities can be involved will be identified and community organizing and capacity-building
trainings will be programmed and conducted for these communities. It will help if current
practices in existing tourism sites (e.g., Sohoton Cove where PO members serve as boatmen, tour
guides) are studied to improve on the arrangements and to learn lessons from the experiences of
communities.
The Provincial LGU and DOT are expected to support the promotion of Siargao Islands as eco-
tourism destination. Linkages with the Mindanao Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and
national and regional tourism organizations will be strengthened.
Waste management
With the increasing number of resorts and other recreational facilities in Siargao Islands, and the
influx of local and foreign tourists, it is imperative that efficient solid waste management (SWM)
and wastewater management (WWM) systems be implemented. The LGUs will have to comply
with the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act and the Clean Water Act.
The SWM plans that are required of LGUs will be revisited. The PAMB may tap the assistance that
DENR-EMB Region 13 and the Provincial Government for the updating of LGU SWM plans and
planning for a cluster sanitary landfill (i.e., a common facility for a cluster of LGUs) and cost-
efficient waste diversion and collection systems. Planning for a cluster sanitary landfill will require
the evaluation of alternative sites for the sanitary landfill; consensus building among LGUs on the

management arrangements (i.e. hosting of the facility) and user fees; signing of a formal
agreement among the concerned LGUs; and the engineering design of the facility. LGUs will be
expected to enact supporting ordinances, provide incentives and intensify campaigns to
encourage segregation of solid waste at source, waste diversion through on-site composting and
collection of recyclables, and the proper disposal of plastic materials. Interim arrangements will
have to be considered for the disposal of solid waste (not in open dumpsites) while the proposed
cluster disposal facilities are being planned and constructed. The PASu and the LGU MENROs will
need to develop the proposal and source out the funding for this.
On WWM, a rapid assessment of public and private facilities that generate significant volume of
wastewater should be undertaken to determine current wastewater disposal practices and to
estimate the volume of wastewater generated by these sources. The assessment will cover public
markets, slaughterhouses, hospitals, schools and large tourism establishments and hotels. The
appropriate decentralized or shared wastewater treatment facilities will be prescribed for these
facilities and establishments. Technical assistance for a wastewater management specialist may
be required for the training of the engineering staff of the LGUs on the design of these facilities,
for the assessment of the sites for these facilities and the review of the engineering designs, and
for the supervision of the construction of these facilities. The PASu and the LGU MENROs will
again need to develop the funding proposal for this.
For households, the LGUs should actively promote and support the establishment of sanitary
toilets and the correct design and construction of septic tanks. Households, collectively, are the
major source of wastewater. This effort will aim to reduce the risk of polluting water bodies and
contaminating groundwater resources.
User fee systems will be established for both SWM and WWM. Revenues from the organized
collection of solid waste, tipping fees, fines and penalties should be able to partially or fully
support the provision of these services.
Disaster risk reduction planning
LGUs are required to prepare disaster risk and reduction management (DRRM) plans and are
mandated to annually allocate funding for DRRM. Given the results of the SIPLAS vulnerability
assessment, municipal and barangay officials and local communities shall be engaged in formulating
specific actions that they can take to avoid loss of lives and minimize damages to property, livelihoods
and infrastructure due to climate hazards such as flooding, landslides, and storm surges. Those LGUs
with DRRM plans such as Del Carmen will be assisted in reviewing and refining their plans in the light
of the vulnerability assessment; those LGUs which have yet to formulate their DRRM plans will be
assisted in preparing these plans following existing guidelines from the national government and
considering as well the SIPLAS vulnerability assessment. These plans can be best be done at the
barangays level. Barangays that are highly vulnerable to multiple hazards will be priority for assistance
in DRRM planning. The experience of some barangays which have undergone the process of
preparing DRRM plans will be considered in developing the design of training and technical assistance.
DRRM encompasses disaster prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, and

rehabilitation and recovery. The DRRM planning exercise will give particular focus to disaster
prevention, mainly to reduce the exposure of settlements and livelihoods to climate hazards.
Measures will include land use zoning through which restrictions can be imposed on further
development and expansion of settlements in areas that are exposed to hazards. This measure is
included as a prescription for coastal settlements. What will be required is the translation of the

prescription into an ordinance and the enforcement of this. Other measures are the relocation of
settlements that are susceptible to the hazards, slope stabilization to prevent occurrence of
landslides; mangrove protection and rehabilitation to protect coastal communities from storm
surge; and disaster readiness. DRRM necessitates intensive IEC.
Disaster readiness will also be given emphasis. Interventions will include awareness raising,
putting place an early warning system and safe evacuation centers, formulation of evacuation
protocols, conduct of drills and training of volunteers.
Information, education and communication
In order to realize the goals and objectives stipulated in the PA management plan, there is a need
for an organized and intensive information and education campaign (IEC) that is designed to
reach most, if not all, stakeholders of SIPLAS. The overall objective of the IEC is to generate a
higher level of awareness on SIPLAS and its significance, and to create interest among
stakeholders to participate and contribute to conservation, protection and management efforts.
The IEC programs may include broad topics related to SIPLAS management such as: biodiversity
significance of SIPLAS, ecosystems services of SIPLAS, strategies and priority programs in the
SIPLAS Management Plan; integrated ecosystem management approach to SIPLAS management;
climate change and the vulnerability of SIPLAS to climate hazards; zoning and land use
prescriptions in the management plan; DRRM, collaborative management, community-based
participation, and sustainable financing. On the other hand, the program can also promote very
specific practices such as the protection of specific species or composting of biodegradable
waste. In view of the broad range of IEC messages that need to be communicated and the large
number of audiences that are targeted, it will be necessary to formulate a full-scale
communications plan for SIPLAS that is anchored on the management plan. Such a plan will
define the different levels of IEC targets, the action and behavior change that are desired from
them, the different types of IEC activities that can be undertaken and the different
communication media that will be used. The IEC program may include, for example, a series of
executive forums for LGU executives and PAMB members. SIPLAS IEC modules can be integrated
into schools activities or into relevant trainings, seminars, workshops organized for different
stakeholders. Information campaigns may be conducted for local stakeholders including teachers,
student/youth leaders, POs, NGOs, and owners/operators of resorts and other business
establishments. IEC materials such as pamphlets, references and slide/video presentations,
among others, may be developed and disseminated. A pool of resource persons/communicators
will be formed to spearhead IEC activities for different stakeholders or target groups
The PASu Office, with the communications teams of the LGUs and DENR, will be responsible for
the initial development of the communications plan. The academe (Department of Education and
local colleges), local media (in Siargao Islands and in the Province) and other groups may be
tapped to help develop specific campaigns.
In addition to a SIPLAS-wide IEC program, individual LGUs may launch their own IEC campaigns
focusing on specific concerns of the LGUs. It may initiate, for example, a massive information
campaign to inform communities about the extent of the LGU’s vulnerability to climate hazards
and what they can do about it. In addition to telling them what the hazards are, the impacts of
these hazards to communities, agriculture and livelihood will have to be explained to them
together with measure to reduce disaster risks. The development and distribution of IEC
materials will have to be complemented with barangay assemblies and pulong-pulong to ensure

that messages and the roles that they can play in climate change adaptation and DRRM are
understood.
The PAMB may consider declaring a SIPLAS Week to commemorate the establishment of SIPLAS.
Activities within that week can be organized in such a way that they revolve around the resources
and conservation needs of SIPLAS. It is important to note however that a healthy working
collaboration between the PAMB and the LGUs is essential for the successful implementation of a
SIPLAS IEC program.
Awareness raising activities may be extended beyond SIPLAS boundaries to generate external
interest on and support to the sustainable development of a small, biodiversity-rich island
ecosystem such as SIPLAS that is threatened by climate change. Targets for this will include
provincial LGU decision-makers; regional and national agencies; Mindanao investors and business
establishments; and various donors and donor-funded projects.
Sustainable financing
Because of inadequate funds allocated from the government, it is necessary for SIPLAS to explore
other sources of financing for the implementation of the management plan. SIPLAS has to
generate internally funds that will augment the budget allocations it receives from DENR and will
sustain protection, conservation and rehabilitation of the protected area beyond the plan period.
Following this, a study will be undertaken at the early part of plan implementation period to
assess all potential sources of funds for the PA.
The PASu Office will need to advocate for support from the LGUs for specific interventions carried
out in their respective territories. It also needs to identify external sources of funds like donations
and grants, and prepare funding proposals consistent with the PA management plan for
submission to grant-giving agencies, private investors and donor organizations.
For purposes of generating more funds for conservation activities, the following initiatives may
be pursued:
 Various on-site PA stakeholders (PASu Office, municipalities, barangays) should clarify their
respective roles and responsibilities in relation to specific user fees collected for PA
management. Revenue-sharing mechanisms among them will be explored.
 Establish a transparent and efficient fee collection system.
 Collect environmental management fees from tourism establishments and tourists who
are using natural resources for recreation and enjoying the services provided by LGUs.
User fee determination studies may be done to help establish these fees. The plow-back
of part of the revenues for the protection and management of natural resources will be
integrated into the scheme.
 With the increase in construction and business development activities due to the tourism
boom in Siargao Islands, the PAMB shall ensure that the applicable development,
resource use, concession, and conservation fees are levied on the entities associated with
developments in tourism.
 Explore joint ventures or the use of private and public partnership (PPP) mechanisms for
tourism development in the area.
 Actively encourage the public and private sectors to employ local residents in the service
segment of tourism development. This will provide long-term and sustainable livelihood
solution.

 Payment for ecosystems services, such as that for the use water, will be explored as a
sustainable funding mechanism. The PASu will have to negotiate with water districts and
other major water users such as large resorts to provide funding support for the
management of water protection areas. The price of the resource can be established
through resource valuation studies. Alternatively, the operating Water Districts and other
water users can just be assigned to manage parts of or the entire watersheds and water
sources using their own financial resources.
 Other opportunities for PES will also be explored. The PES process will start with the
assessment of the ecosystem services being provided by the PA, and the identification of
the uses and beneficiaries of these services. The value of the resource will then be
determined and the corresponding fees established. Negotiations for appropriate PES
arrangements have to be facilitated by the PASu. All PES schemes will warrant PAMB
approval. A LGU ordinance may also be necessary.
 Solicitation of funds from big companies which have corporate social responsibility (CSR)
programs to be used in livelihood or PA management projects.
 The Integrated Protected Area Fund (IPAF) will be maximized. IPAF systems for the
collection, deposit, and availment, and reconciliation of funds will be reviewed and
streamlined. PA staff will be given orientation on new protocols that may be adopted.
The PAMB shall also work for the approval of the bill establishing the SIPLAS. The legislation of
this bill will provide regular funds for the PA and augment the existing PASu Office staff.
4.4.4 Governance Enhancement and Institutional Strengthening Program
Since SIPLAS covers nine LGUs, the current PAMB has a membership of 156. Different sectors and
different interests in SIPLAS are well-represented in PAMB. To improve the governance of the PA,
an immediate concern is to strengthen the individual and collective capability of the PAMB
members to enhance the functionality of the PAMB, and establish mechanisms that will allow it
to operate more efficiently.
Knowledge and capability building
As the policy-making body for SIPLAS, PAMB members have to have a deep and common
understanding of the entire PA, its resources, its local/national/global significance, its potentials
and its vulnerabilities. The PASu Office has to make sure that all members of the PAMB are
provided a full orientation on SIPLAS. The PAMB, as a body, has to go through a continuing
capacity and knowledge building activity to enhance its effectiveness in policy formulation, PA
planning and decision-making, resource mobilization and allocation, and coordination and
linkages with partner institutions and agencies.
Knowledge and capability building activities can include an orientation on new/proposed laws
and national policies that are relevant to PA management (e.g., proposed expanded NIPAS);
orientation-training on essential weather knowledge for decision-making (e.g., Weather 101 and
Tropical Cyclone 101 sessions that are held by the Weather Phil Foundation);
orientation/exposure to climate change vulnerability assessment tools and methods that are
applicable to PAs; and visits and sharing of experiences with the PAMB of other protected areas.
At least one of these types of activities per year will be programmed and held per year, upon
approval of PAMB.

The periodic reporting to the PAMB of the results of implementation of the SIPLAS Management
Plan will be another source of knowledge for informed decision-making. The reports will not only
present what have been accomplished but should also deepen their understanding and
appreciation of how the performance of SIPLAS.
Other than the PAMB, the PASu Office will likewise be a target for capability building. As the
technical secretariat to the PAMB, the PASu and staff have to be exposed to relevant
developments at the national and international scene, and learn about the approaches to PA
management. One particular skill that should be developed within the PASu Office is on the
organization of SIPLAS data, synthesis of reports and analysis of data, and to present information
in such a way that such will be useful for PAMB deliberations and decision-making. Exposure to
best practices, mentoring and actual work experience or practice remains as the best capability
building methods that can be adopted.
Collaboration and resource mobilization
The possible areas for collaboration between PAMB and other SIPLAS stakeholders cover a broad
range of PA management activities. The most important ones are listed below:
 Protection, rehabilitation and management of conservation areas -- municipal and

barangay LGUs, tenure holders, other agencies and organizations
 Development of production forestlands- municipal and barangay LGUs, individual
farmers, holders of PACBRMA, private sector
 Protection, rehabilitation and management of mangroves and marine protected areas - =
DA/BFAR, municipal and barangay LGUs, coastal people’s organizations
 Management of water production areas - , municipal and barangay LGUs, water districts
and private establishments which have water supply systems
 Management of eco-tourism sites = municipal and barangay LGUs, people’s
organizations, Department of Tourism, operators of tourism establishments
 IEC and advocacy - municipal and barangay LGUs, other agencies (e.g., DepEd), academic
institutions, youth organizations, non-government organizations
 Livelihood development - municipal and barangay LGUs, other agencies (e.g., DSWD) and
organizations, private sector.
Through agreements with PAMB, stakeholders such as LGUs, water districts, PACBRMA holders
and POs can be assigned as resource managers for specific management units. The agreements
should therefore establish clear responsibilities and accountabilities of all parties, including
systems and mechanisms for sustainable financing and performance evaluation.
The PASu and the LGUs will have to agree on a system for the periodic assessment of the
performance of tenure holders and co-managers of SIPLAS to ensure effective on-site
management. It is important that there is agreement on the performance indicators that will be
used, on the assessment mechanics, on incentives for good performance and sanctions for poor
performance and non-compliance.

Policy support
The SIPLASPAMB will need to draw up a policy agenda that will support and ensure the
sustainability of the proposed interventions in the PA management plan. In the course of
implementing the preparing the management plan, some policy issues have cropped up. The
PAMB opt to start with these policy issues. A strong policy support is a key ingredient to
governance enhancement.
 Allow planting of selected non-endemic species in specific areas within the multiple use
zone to support fuelwood and timber production initiatives especially if the area has
comparative advantage for these products. Allowing it will enhance livelihood support to
communities.
 Allow harvesting of planted tree species in multiple use zones to provide incentives to
communities to develop and protect degraded areas within these zones.
 Clarify the policy on harvesting non-timber species within the multiple use zone. Some
PAMBs do not permit the harvesting of bamboo, rattan, resin and other non-timber
products inside protected areas.
 Establish a policy for setting up a scheme on payment for ecosystems services with
corresponding fee system for the use of natural resources within SIPLAS. PES will be part
of the strategy to develop sustainable financing for PA operations.
 Clarify possibility of municipal and barangay LGUs getting a share on income from PA
operations (IPAF funds) to encourage it to actively participate in the protection and
conservation of protected areas. Barangay LGUs do not get financial benefits from
protected areas since all income from PAs go to the IPAF.
 Establish policy for the adoption by the LGU of the zoning in PAs and its integration into
the CLUPs
 Establish marine protected areas by LGUs.
 Adopt harmonized fishery ordinances particularly the registration of fisherfolks, boats
and gear, and adoption of close and open seasons.
 Clarify LGU authority to protect and manage marine waters that are beyond the seascape
boundaries but still within the 15 km boundary for municipal waters.
 Establish policy for tenure arrangement for individual farmers.

4.4.5 Climate Change Adaptation Measures in SIPLAS: A Summary
The vulnerability of SIPLAS to climate change is determined by three factors: (a) type and
magnitude of Exposure to climate hazards; (b) Sensitivity of the exposed system; and (c) Adaptive
Capacity to cope with the hazard. The climate change adaptation strategies and measures
described in the earlier sections can be summarized according to the vulnerability element they
address, as follows:
To reduce Exposure To minimize Sensitivity To increase Adaptive Capacity
 Reduce the area of vulnerable  Diversify crops; introduce/ promote  Enhance biodiversity of through
areas by zoning and restricting hazards-tolerant crops/trees, effective management and
development in high hazard areas conservation farming protection of critical habitats
 Relocate affected or vulnerable  Protect and manage water  Increase forest areas;
communities production areas for water security enforcement; on-farm
 Rehabilitate mangrove forests to  Promote water and soil conservation production of wood and fuel
provide natural protection to measures in production systems wood
coastal communities; restrict  Effectively manage Marine
conversion of mangroves Other possible complementary LGU Protected Areas (MPAs)
 Stabilize slopes to reduce actions:  Enforce coastal management
occurrence of landslides  Adopt structural measures to and fishery laws
 Regulate water extraction; water protect shorelines.  Raise awareness of communities
quality monitoring (for salinity)  Retro –fit existing water ways, of potential hazards and their
 Harmonize PA management plans channels, etc. vulnerability
with CLUP; integrate DRR and  Improve design standards for  Capacity building through
climate change adaptation to infrastructure to cope up with trainings, seminars, workshops
CLUPs climate hazards.  Provide alternative, sustainable
 Strengthen disaster management livelihood opportunities to
program; disaster readiness communities.
4.5 Management Standards and Guidelines
The management standards and guidelines for the protected area are park-wide rules and
regulations that have to be observed in the administration of the area. They are subject to revision
to enhance further the attainment or approximation of goals, objectives and expected outputs.
4.5.1 Biodiversity Management
In the management of SIPLAS terrestrial biodiversity, the primary consideration is to promulgate

and adhere to the NIPAS Act and relevant government instruments on biodiversity conservation.
For small island ecosystems like Siargao Islands, local extinction is quite high. In islands where
forests occur in small, sporadic patches, the habitats of both floral and faunal species tend to
diminish daily. On top of the relentless destruction of habitats for plant and animal species,
poaching of wildlife species for illegal commercial trade is a serious threat to remaining
biodiversity of SIPLAS. Thus, serious mitigating measures and strict implementation of ban on
commercial harvesting in certain reservation areas must be enforced.

Terrestrial biodiversity management
 Introduction of exotic wild fauna is prohibited;

 Introduction of exotic flora is allowed only if the species to be used have been
scientifically proven to cause no significant harm to the ecology of the protected area;
 Restoration projects that are designed to improve a marginal forestland must use
indigenous species and must follow uneven-age and random distribution pattern to
approximate the succession stage usually occurring in a typical rainforest ecosystem;
 No collection of wildlife is allowed unless results of studies on their population and
distribution show the practicability of engaging in the sustainable management and
development of the economically important species;
 Scientific studies are allowed following the system of control established by the PAMB
and the DENR. At the minimum, trails and patrol roads are to be located and constructed
where there would be least damage to soil, biodiversity and where the best scenic areas
are located; and
 Scientific studies that give priority to identifying the management of indicator species per
zone or habitat type will be encouraged.
Marine, coastal and river biodiversity management
 Major marine habitats (i.e., seagrass beds, mangroves, coral reefs) will be designated as
part of the no-take zone. Furthermore, the areas to be covered must be substantial
enough, in terms of hectares, to protect the targeted organisms;
 For coral reefs, the currently suggested area must not be lower than 20 hectares of core
zone and must be within 10 to 15km from the next protected area;
 A set of three protected areas is the minimum requirement to constitute a network of
protected areas. It is encouraged to protect three major habitats together. In effect, the
total core zone area will reach a total area of around 60 hectares;
 Development of infrastructures in rivers and coastal areas is allowed provided it is 40
meters from the highest waterline; and
 Commercial fishing is prohibited as all marine areas of the protected area are not
municipal waters.
4.5.2 Recreation
 Any recreation activity should maintain the natural beauty of the area. Introduction of
any structure should be kept to a minimum and use as much as possible organic and
locally-available materials. The design of the structures should conform to the character
of the area, e.g. house design should be according to what is practiced in the area;
 Recreation and/or eco-tourism activities should prioritize the involvement and
employment of the local communities;
 Recreation and/or eco-tourism activities may include, where and when appropriate, the
following: trekking/hiking and homestay in a local village dwelling;

 Income from recreation and/or eco-tourism activities should be plowed back to the
community that is implementing the recreation and/or eco-tourism activity through a
sustainable financing mechanism. Studies on sustainable financing mechanisms in Siargao
Islands should be undertaken;
 The preservation of Siargao Islands’ ecosystems must be ensured and that the local
population must be involved in the planning and management of eco-tourism
development. Community-based planning is an important component, even a
prerequisite, of eco-tourism development strategies;
 Public and private partnerships will be promoted to ensure that natural resources are not
sacrificed while working on tourism development;
4.5.3 Site Rehabilitation
Site rehabilitation must be guided by a suitability assessment to ensure appropriateness of

interventions.
 All plants to be introduced to the area should, as much as possible, be indigenous to

ensure survival and enhance the condition of the area;
 Natural openings must be retained as such. Afforestation is not allowed in natural habitat;
 Enrichment planting in marginal residual forest is allowed only if it is ecologically
significant and if the cost is insignificant compared with the rehabilitation needs of other
degraded sites;
 Restoration of forest margins is of higher priority than enrichment planting;
 An approved site-specific rehabilitation plan is required prior to actual work implementation;
and
 Fishing sites and no-take zones must be segregated.
4.5.4 Project Development
Projects and development interventions and new settlements will not be allowed in strict
protection zones. Projects and development interventions introduced to multiple use zones will
include, as appropriate, the following:
 Sustainable financing mechanisms to ensure the maintenance of recreation and/or eco-

tourism activities;
 Livelihood opportunities for local communities as alternatives to destructive or extractive
activities;
 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), especially if the proposed projects will impact
on the protected area’s resources and are not included in the approved management
plan;
 PAMB review and approval, in coordination with the concerned LGUs;
 Appropriate contract or agreement with the PAMB if the existing projects are using the
resources of the protected area;

 Complementation with other plans and programs for PA communities;

 Water permit from the NWRB and ECC from DENR, for water development projects; and
 Within the allowed land cultivation limits, i.e., not to exceed the allowable five hectares
per actual tiller.
4.5.5 Wildlife/Fisheries Management
 The selected indicator species already used for the DENR BMS will be supplemented with
indicator species specifically for the marine BMS;
 Featured species that will be used in economic planning will be identified;
 Research on the natural interspersion of various habitat types will be conducted;
 Habitat (structural) diversity in rehabilitation sites will be maximized;
 There shall be designated wildlife viewing areas where wildlife watchers are allowed to
stay, following certain rules and regulations; and
 Species richness and diversity will be monitored following a standard monitoring scheme.
4.5.6 Road Construction
 Government standards on road construction, environmental impacts and maintenance

must be strictly observed;
 Roads to be constructed must be located where there is least or negligible impact or
damage to the micro-ecosystem;
 An approved ECC and road construction and maintenance plan is required prior to
project start-up;
 Appropriate road signs must be installed at critical sites along the stretch of the road;
 Off-road viewing areas are to be designated; scenic sites are to be selected following a
system of selection;
 Existing regulations pertaining to road construction shall be applied;
 No new roads will be constructed in strict protection zones; and
 Reclamation is not allowed per Executive Order 146.
4.5.7 Protected Area Administration
 The PASu, being the chief executive officer of the DENR for the protected area , shall
ensure that the PAMB approved management plan for the area is implemented;
 The PAMB shall guide the PASu in implementing protected area wide policies, ensuring
that such policies are consistent with national statutes on protected area administration
and environmental management and are complementary to local government plans and
programs;

 An existing manual of operations which provide the protocols and guides to PA personnel
and administrators will be enhanced;
 Protected area infrastructures are to be developed with utmost regard for: (a) security
and safety of personnel and visitors; (b) durability of facility; (c) cost of maintenance; (d)
cost of construction; and (e) environmental compatibility.
4.5.8 Livelihood and Economic Development
 Development of the natural resources of the PA should be subject to the EIA process;
 Harvesting of timber and fuel wood resources for the domestic requirements of
communities will be allowed provided that a community woodlot is established and
maintained and that sustainable harvesting is practiced;
 Implementation of the PACBRMA program, and related types, in the multiple use zone is
encouraged to define the rights and responsibilities of tenure holders in increasing the
productivity of the land;
 The basic principle of “land to the tiller” will be observed in the implementation of the
program;
 Agricultural activities that enhance biodiversity and arrest soil erosion are allowed. Use of
inorganic chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers is not allowed;
 Farmers who are currently involved in the use of these destructive products are given
three years to completely eliminate these destructive practices. Use of these chemicals in
all parts of the PA will be eliminated in coordination with Department of Agriculture;
 A user fees framework will be developed in consultation with the LGUs. This will lay the
foundation for allowing facilities and establishments in designated areas of SIPLAS. The
computed value will be used in developing cooperative agreements between the PAMB
and facility operators;
 The harvesting of non-timber forest products in timberland areas is allowed only after
official scientific studies are able to prescribe the specific zones where these will be
allowed and the sustained yield level for the products. In the absence of these studies, a
temporary volume may be allowed subject to the recommendation of a designated
scientific advisor on the matter and provided further that this is approved by the PAMB;
 Harvesting of agricultural products are allowed in designated agricultural and
agroforestry areas;
 Harvesting of planted tree species is allowed in multiple use zones subject to existing
regulations; and
 All existing facilities or enterprises that benefit directly or indirectly from the PA’s
resources will be required to allot a certain percentage of their revenues for the
protection, maintenance and restoration of the park.

4.5.9 Information and Education Campaign
 An IEC Implementation Plan/Communications Plan will be formulated;

 The production and use of IEC materials will be in English and in the local dialect;
 The IEC program and materials must enable the communities to actively participate in the
management of the SIPLAS in ways that will enhance biodiversity; and
 All plans and programs must be disseminated to all barangay settlements, LGUs and
other stakeholders for appropriate action.
4.5.10 Waste Management
 A solid and liquid waste management program shall be developed and approved by the
PAMB for implementation in all facilities and communities within SIPLAS;
 The solid waste management program must contain specific designs, processes and
options for adoption of participating communities;
 Violators will be charged punitive fees; and
 Training on the development of appropriate and cost effective decentralized water
treatment facility will be provided to encourage communities to participate in water
quality improvement activity.
4.5.11 Management of Hazard Areas Including Micro Catchments Draining Towards

Flood-Prone Areas
Management strategies to be applied in the respective municipalities or cluster of municipalities

should be guided by the results of the vulnerability assessment. In particular, the three aspects,
namely: Exposure, Sensitivity, and Adaptive capacity should be considered. In areas or
municipalities vulnerable to floods, appropriate interventions should already be incorporated in
the CLUPs of the LGUs, which should identify and define the flood-prone areas.
Disaster risk reduction management (DRRM) planning will form part of the climate change
adaptation strategies. DRRM planning will involve the identification of human settlement areas
that are vulnerable to flooding, the areas for the safe evacuation of flood victims, and also
potential drainage areas that can be developed to store the floodwaters.
Climate hazards management plans of LGUs especially for flood management should be harmonized
with those of other LGUs so that floodwaters and drainage can be effectively managed.

5.0 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND INSTITUTIONAL

ARRANGEMENT
The proposed management structure for the SIPLAS is shown in Figure 5.1. This is essentially
similar to what currently exists except for the proposed expansion of its committee system. It is
expected that the change will broaden stakeholder participation and provide for a more effective
decision-making process.
5.1 Protected Area Management Board
According to the NIPAS Law, the PAMB shall have sole responsibility over the site-specific
management of SIPLAS, in accordance with the management plan approved by it. The PAMB
decides on policies, plans, proposals, programs, agreements, budget allocation and matters and
issues pertaining to management plan implementation.
Figure 5.1 Management Structure for Implementing the SIPLAS Plan
DENR
Secretary
PAMB en banc
PAMB Chair
ExeCom
Cluster
Committee
Local Working
PASu
Group
Admin & Finance M&E
Biodiversity Institutional Socio Economic

Conservation Development Development

The SIPLAS PAMB is composed of the following:
a. The Regional Director of the DENR as Chairperson;

b. One representative from each LGU (9 representatives);
c. All the Barangay Chairpersons/representative of the 132barangays covered by PA;
d. The Provincial Planning and Development Officer of Surigao del Norte;
f. Three representatives from POs within the SIPLAS;
g. One representative from the women’s sector;
h. One representative from the resort owners;
i. Representatives from NGOs operating inside the PA;
j. Representative of other National Government Agencies (DOT, DA-BFAR, etc.) and
attached agencies that have regular programs/activities inside the park; and
k. One representative from the academic institution.
Because SIPLAS covers nine municipalities, the SIPLAS PAMB has 156 members.
Within the PAMB, there exists an Executive Committee (ExeCom) to which the PAMB has
delegated some of its powers or functions. The PAMB has the authority to create other
committees within the Board. In line with this, the creation of PAMB cluster committees is being
proposed. An important function of these cluster committees will be to review, deliberate on,
thresh out issues and assess options on issues, concerns, proposals and applications for permits
that fall within the territorial area of the cluster committee. The committee will ensure that
PAMB decisions on these concerns are based on a review process that considers the implications
of the issue or proposed activity on other activities in the cluster. The committees will also monitor
performance in the implementation of the management plan in their respective areas. The
recommendations of cluster committees will be elevated to the ExeCom or the PAMB en banc for
confirmation and adoption.
The PAMB can consider different options for clustering the LGUs. It can be based on the location
and bio-physical features of the LGUs. One option would be group LGUs into a northwest cluster
(Del Carmen, San Benito, Sta. Monica), northeast cluster (Burgos, San Isidro, Pilar and General
Luna) and a southern cluster (Dapa and Socorro).
5.2 Protected Area Superintendent’s Office
The PASu serves as the Chief Operating Officer of DENR for the entire PA. The PASu is directly
accountable to the PAMB and the DENR Regional Director. The PASu shall execute all plans and
programs approved by the PAMB for SIPLAS.
As shown in the structure in Figure 5.1, there will be five units under the PASu, consisting of the
following:
(a) Institutional Development. This unit will spearhead all training and IEC activities to
disseminate the key contents of the SIPLAS management plan. It will also provide
secretariat support to the PAMB and prepare the necessary systems and procedures in
relation to a specific PAMB decision. Key staff will include an IEC cum Training Officer.

(b) Biodiversity Conservation. This unit will handle management zoning, protection and
monitoring, restoration/rehabilitation of degraded habitats and coordination of
biodiversity researches. The staff of this unit will consist of Park Rangers, Protection
Officers, Biodiversity Monitoring and Research Coordinators.
(c) Socio-economic Development. This unit will have responsibility in coordinating

community-based resource management activities such as provision of tenurial
instruments, preparation of CRMP in each barangay, and community organizing. It will
also be responsible in ensuring the establishment of sustainable and environment-
friendly livelihood alternatives. The staff of this unit shall include a Tenure Specialist, a
Livelihood Officer, and four Community Organizers.
(d) Administrative and Finance. This will handle all administrative and financial transactions
of the PASu Office. It will be responsible for personnel concerns, budgeting, collection
and accounting. The PAMB shall designate a Special Collecting Officer (SCO) for the PA
who will be responsible for the collection, deposit and reporting of all revenues
generated and received. The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office shall
be the custodian of IPAF PA accounts and shall provide the necessary accounting and
administrative support in the management of the fund.
(e) Monitoring and Evaluation. This unit will undertake the periodic monitoring and
reporting of the results of implementation activities of concerned agencies and
organizations, adopting performance indicators and methods set out in the M and E plan.
It will organize the conduct of field activities to validate reported results. The SIPLAS
database will be established and made operational. Key staff includes M and E officers.
The staff in this unit will closely collaborate with the LWG specifically the LGU staff
assigned to monitor SIPLAS activities and results in their respective LGUs and maintain
information on LGU performance in relation to SIPLAS performance indicators. With the
LGU staff, periodic reports for the PAMB will be prepared and feedback sessions with
other stakeholders will be organized.
Each unit will have to be staffed by personnel who will have to be trained on the specific
responsibility area of the unit.

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
6.1 Implementation Schedule
Table 6.1 presents the proposed implementation schedule of the updated plan of SIPLAS. The
first year of implementation is focused on preparatory activities such as demarcation of
management zones, biodiversity research (to update past data), formation and training of Bantay
Gubat and Bantay Dagat teams, identification and organization of upland settlers (in the MUZ),
identification and demarcation of water production and production forestry areas, and
orientation of PAMB members on the updated PA plan. On the other hand, site development
activities such as actual rehabilitation activities, habitat restoration and rehabilitation,
agroforestry development, mangrove conservation, fuel wood plantation development and
development of eco-tourism sites are scheduled for full implementation starting the second year.
Between the preparatory activities and actual site development, it is expected that the needed
management plans for critical habitats, agroforestry site, eco-tourism sites, fuelwood plantations,
marine protected areas and other areas for rehabilitation and development will be prepared and
approved by the PAMB.
It is also expected that throughout the period of implementation, the PASu Office will review of
the progress and results of plan implementation and make the necessary adjustments to the plan
and likewise take up the preparation of the workplan for the succeeding five years.
Table 6.1 Schedule of Activities for Implementing the Updated Management Plan of SIPLAS
Implementation Schedule
Strategic Activities
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
A. Terrestrial Management Program
1. Biodiversity protection and conservation
a) Demarcation of management zones
 Community consultations
 Fund sourcing
 Ground demarcation
 Updating of SIPLAS and LGU/barangay maps,
plans and ordinances to reflect established
boundaries
b) Biodiversity research and documentation
(develop research framework and protocols,
execute agreements, conduct research,
develop database)
c) Habitat restoration and rehabilitation
 Identification and mapping of sites for
restoration/rehab; planning and fund sourcing
(e.g., NGP)
 Actual restoration/rehabilitation
d) Community-based resource protection and
enforcement
 Bantay-Gubat formation/ capacity building and
deputation

 Regular patrol and surveillance; documentation
and reporting of violations
 Establishment and maintenance of check points
2. Socio-economic development programs
a) Provision of land tenure security
 Completion /updating of Survey and Registration
of Protected Area Occupants (SRPAO)
 Delineation of land claims in forestlands MUZ
 Organization of eligible claimants into POs
 Processing of tenure instrument (PACBRMA)
 Preparation of management plan for tenured areas
b) Agroforestry farm development
 Identification and assessment of potential agro-
forestry sites and beneficiaries/farmer-cooperators
 Delineation of agroforestry farms; training on
SWC and farm planning; individual agreements
with POs
 Production/procurement of planting materials
 Farm development and maintenance
c) Conservation of water production areas
 Identification and assessment of current and
potential sources of water for domestic use and
irrigation
 Ground demarcation
 Identification of resource managers, negotiation and
signing of agreements with PAMB; application of
permits with NWRB
 Preparation of management plans, with training
on conservation farming (as needed)
 Management and rehabilitation by designated
resource manager
d) Fuelwood plantation and woodlots
development
 Validation of areas; identification of farmer
beneficiaries
 Preparation of farm plans; identification of
funding sources
 Establishment of plantations (with assistance in
sourcing planting materials)
e) Development of other livelihood activities
 Identification and feasibility assessment of
potential community enterprises; identification of
potential funding sources
 Organization and strengthening of PO; training on
enterprise and financial management
 Preparation of business plans; assistance in initial
operations; link with markets and support facilities

B. Coastal and Marine Management Programs
1. Coastal habitat and species conservation
a) Identification of critical habitats and
demarcation of management zones
 Community consultations; identification of critical
habitats
 Fund sourcing
 Demarcation of areas
 Updating of SIPLAS and LGU/barangay maps,
plans, ordinances to reflect established
boundaries
b) Management of MPAs
 Validation of location and areas of individual MPAs
 Participatory preparation of individual MPA
management plans; legitimization and approval
by PAMB
 Protection and management of individual MPAs
to designated MPA managers
 Review/updating of initial MPA Network Action
Agreement and Plan
 Conduct of joint activities: IEC, enforcement and
M and E
 Periodic MPA Network Forum and MPA
effectiveness assessment (MEAT and NEAT)
c) Coral rehabilitation
 Identification and assessment of suitable sites
 Consultation with coral rehab experts;
preparation of coral rehab plan and budget;
source funding
 Rehabilitation, protection and maintenance (with
necessary training)
d) Mangrove protection and rehabilitation
 Identification of areas for rehabilitation
 Establishment and maintenance of nurseries for
seedling production
 Mobilization of communities and
partners/stakeholders for mangrove planting
 Mobilization of communities for maintenance and
protection
2. Fisheries management
 Signing of inter-LGU Fisheries Enforcement MOA
 Reactivation/strengthening of municipal and
barangay FARMCs
 Creation/strengthening of Bantay Dagat teams;
enforcement training
 Enactment of unified fisheries ordinances
 Enforcement of unified registration and licensing
systems; open and closed seasons

3. Other livelihood support programs
 Identification and feasibility assessment of
alternative livelihood activities and funding
sources
 Organization and strengthening of PO; training on
enterprise and financial management
 Assistance in initial operations; link with markets
and support facilities
C. Cross Cutting Management Programs
1. Eco-tourism development
 Review/update of SIPLAS Eco-tourism
Management
 Plan
 Review of current operations, physical
development plan and marketing plans for
current tourism sites; refinement of plans
 Agreements with tourism operators and eco-
tourism site managers on biodiversity
conservation and responsible tourism
 Coordination with DOT and other tourism
organizations for promotion of responsible eco-
tourism
2. Waste management
 Waste characterization; preparation of LGU SWM
and WWM plans
 Training; design of cluster SWM facilities and
appropriate WWM facilities for major point
sources; fund sourcing
 Enactment of ordinances; SWM and WWM
implementation; IEC
3. Disaster risk reduction planning and
preparedness
 Review of LGU DRRM plans
 Training on DRR planning; formulation of
municipal and barangay DRRM plans
 Implementation of disaster readiness programs;
identification and development of safe
evacuation and resettlement sites
4. Information, education and communication
 Development of communications plan supporting
all programs
 Development of IEC materials
 Mobilization of LGU and other partners for LGU-
level and PA-wide IEC
 Organization of SIPLAS Week
5. Development of sustainable financing
schemes
 Inventory all potential funding sources; identify
potential activities for PES
 Review/study user fees: adequacy, collection
systems, collection efficiency; enact ordinances
 Study and establish systems for management and
utilization of IPAF
 Develop and implement PES schemes

D. Governance Enhancement and Institutional Strengthening Programs
1. Knowledge and capability building for PAMB
and PASu Office
 Orientation on PA plan, continuing knowledge
building
 Skills (e.g., coordination, planning, M and E)
training for PASu office
2. Collaboration and resource mobilization
 Agreements with various stakeholders on PA
management
 Conduct of joint activities
3. Policy support
 Development of policy agenda
 PAMB meetings (ExeCom and en banc)
 Implementation monitoring
4. Monitoring and evaluation of plan
implementation
 Baseline establishment; database development
 Monitoring of results
 Impact assessment
6.2 Financing Requirements
The total financing requirement for the five-year period amounts to Php 220.81 million (see Table
6.2). Of the five major programs (including general administration and management), the
terrestrial management program has the largest financing requirement, amounting to Php
152.57 million or equivalent to 69% of the total estimated implementation cost. A significant part
of this specific budget (87%) will support socio-economic development, primarily agroforestry
development and the conservation and management of water sources. While the latter two
component activities will provide for increased incomes and water security for local households,
their contribution to improving forest cover and biodiversity conservation will likewise be
significant.
The coastal and marine management program is second to the terrestrial management program,
with a total requirement of Php20.19 million (or 9% of total financing requirement). About 96%
of the amount is allotted to coastal habitat and species conservation which includes mangrove
protection and rehabilitation, coral rehabilitation and MPA management. It is assumed that the
LGUs will continue to budget for their fisheries management activities (as these are devolved
functions). These will provide supplementary funding to this component.
The cross-cutting management programs which cover eco-tourism, waste management, disaster
risk reduction, IEC and sustainable financing, will require Php9.90 million (or about % of total
required financing). It should be noted that this budget estimate for the program do not cover
the infrastructure and equipment support that comes with the program components particularly
eco-tourism, waste management and disaster risk reduction and management. The construction
of physical facilities in eco-tourism sites; a cluster sanitary landfill, materials recovery facilities

and the appropriate point-source wastewater treatment facilities for waste management; and
relocation and resettlement sites for DRRM are excluded in the cost estimates as these can only
be determined when detailed plans are completed.
The governance enhancement and institutional Figure 6.1 Five-Year Financing Requirement,
development program has the lowest by Program
requirements. This program which is focused
mainly on the continuing capability building of
the PAMB and PASu staff, policy support activities
of the PAMB, and the monitoring and evaluation
activities of the PASu staff, will require a budget
of Php2.40 million (about 1% of total). The
administrative and staff support cost for the
operations of the PAMB is estimated to reach
Php 35.75 million or about 16% of the total
implementation cost. This covers the cost of
personnel, operating expenses and procurement
of essential equipment.
Table 6.2 Five-Year Budget Requirements of the SIPLAS Management Plan Implementation
Estimated Costs (thousand pesos)
SIPLAS Programs/ Activities
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr. 5 Total
A. Terrestrial Management 5,944,001 39,122,001 35,833,357 35,833,357 35,833,357 152,566,073
Program
1. Biodiversity Conservation 4,245,644 4,245,644 3,552,000 3,552,000 3,552,000 19,147,287
 Demarcation of mgmt zones 693,644 693,644 1,387,287
(terrestrial)
 Biodiversity research/ 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000
documentation
 Habitat rehabilitation 3,120,000 3,120,000 3,120,000 3,120,000 3,120,000 15,600,000
 Community based forest 252,000 252,000 252,000 252,000 252,000 1,260,000
protection
 Establishment & maintenance 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 400,000
of checkpoints
2. Socio-economic dev't. 1,698,357 34,876,357 32,281,357 32,281,357 32,281,357 133,418,786
programs
 Provision of land tenure 928,357 928,357 928,357 928,357 928,357 4,641,786
 Agroforestry farm dev't. 100,000 14,493,000 14,493,000 14,493,000 14,493,000 58,072,000
 Conservation of water 70,000 16,560,000 16,560,000 16,560,000 16,560,000 66,310,000
production areas
 Fuelwood plantation & 300,000 2,595,000 2,895,000
woodlot dev't.
 Development of other 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000
livelihood activities
B. Coastal and Marine 4,019,400 4,367,275 4,167,275 3,819,400 3,819,400 20,192,750
Management Programs
1. Coastal habitat and species 3,869,400 4,167,275 3,967,275 3,669,400 3,669,400 19,342,750
conservation
 Identification of critical 200,000 200,000 400,000
habitats in mangroves and
inventory of seagrasses
 Identification and demarcation 297,875 297,875 595,750
of management zones (marine)

Estimated Costs (thousand pesos)

SIPLAS Programs/ Activities
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr. 5 Total
 Management of individual 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 2,250,000
MPAs
 MPA network 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 2,250,000
 Coral rehabilitation 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000
 Mangrove protection 919,400 919,400 919,400 919,400 919,400 4,597,000
 Mangrove rehabilitation 1,750,000 1,750,000 1,750,000 1,750,000 1,750,000 8,750,000
2. Fisheries management 50,000 100,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 350,000
3. Socio-economic development/ 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000
alternative livelihood support
C. Cross-Cutting Management 2,000,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 9,900,000
Programs
1. Eco-tourism dev't 400,000 400,000 400,000 200,000 200,000 1,600,000
2. Waste management 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000
3. Disaster risk reduction 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 1,350,000 6,750,000
planning and preparedness
4. IEC campaign 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000
5. Sustainable financing dev't. 50,000 150,000 150,000 100,000 100,000 550,000
D. Governance Enhancement and 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 2,400,000
Inst'l Strengthening
1. Knowledge and capability 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000
building
2. PAMB meetings/policy support 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 400,000
3. Monitoring and evaluation 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000
E. General Administration & 8,525,822 6,805,822 6,805,822 6,805,822 6,805,822 35,749,110
Management
1. Personnel services 5,960,822 5,960,822 5,960,822 5,960,822 5,960,822 29,804,110
2. Capital outlay 1,720,000 1,720,000
 Office Equipment 20,000 20,000
 Office Vehicle 1,000,000 1,000,000
 Speed Boat 500,000 500,000
 Motorcycles 200,000 200,000
3. MOOE (Office Operating 845,000 845,000 845,000 845,000 845,000 4,225,000
Expenses)
GRAND TOTAL 20,969,223 52,875,098 49,386,454 48,788,579 48,788,579 220,807,933
Table 6.2 also shows the estimated annual budgetary allocation for SIPLAS. The second year will
have the highest requirement as some physical development activities are expected start in some
sites while planning activities are ongoing in others. The requirement for the rest of the
implementation period will be about Php 49.0 million annually or 22% per year of the total
financing requirement.
The approval of PAMB Resolution No. 2014-09 last March 27, 2014 allowed for a rough
estimation of the revenues that can be generated for SIPLAS. If SIPLAS management and the
LGUs are serious about fund generation and fee collection efforts, SIPLAS can expect to generate
potential revenues amounting to a total of Php 8.31 million (net of central IPAF share) within 5
years. See Table 6.3. The revenues constitute income from PES, various fees, permits, fines, and
penalties.

Table 6.3 Estimated Annual Revenues from Various Sources (in Php)
Revenue Sources Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

PES (Water Districts) 1,698,000 280,000 308,000 338,000 372,000 400,000
Conservation Fee 915,000 150,000 165,000 180,000 200,000 220,000
Rentals of facilities 204,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 48,000 48,000
Resource Use Fees -
Quarrying 3,030,000 500,000 550,000 600,000 650,000 730,000
Fish Cages 300,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000
Resorts 1,270,000 210,000 230,000 250,000 280,000 300,000
Development Fees 250,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Concession Fees 1,500,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000
Entrance Fee 1,219,000 200,000 220,000 242,000 265,000 292,000
Permits 100,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Other Income (Fines and
Penalties) 600,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000
Less: Share of Central IPAF (2,771,500) (474,000) (511,000) (549,000) (595,000) (642,500)
Total 8,314,500 1,422,000 1,533,000 1,647,000 1,785,000 1,927,500
This means that the PAMB and the PASu will have to broaden and intensify their resource
generation activities to be able to implement the plan. Other sources of financing for programs
and activities of SIPLAS will be the NGP, DENR, the Province and the 9 LGUS and their barangays.
Based on the programs identified in the plan, proposals can be prepared and submitted to seek
grants and donations from the Overseas Development Assistance donors, private companies, and
individuals.

7.0 MONITORING PLAN

The M and E for the implementation of the updated SIPLAS Management Plan emphasizes the
results or the changes that are expected to come about from the various programs and activities
that are described in the management plan. The results consist of key final outputs, outcomes
and impacts which are to be generated at different points in time over the period of plan
implementation. The results follow a hierarchy that corresponds to the short-term, intermediate
and long-term objectives or goals set out in the management plan. Outputs are produced within
the short-term through activities that use specific project inputs. The continued use and proper
management of the final outputs will produce the desired outcomes (e.g., effective management
of water production areas by water districts assigned as resource manager for these areas will
ensure the longer-term availability of safe water). If the outcomes are sustained, the desired
impact can then be achieved in the long-term (e.g., water security and improved health).
The M and E effort will entail the collection of evidences, and the tracking and measurement of
progress in achieving the different levels of objectives and expected results. The M and E data
should show at least the direction of the change that is taking place, i.e., positive or negative.
Part of the M and E is the development of a SIPLAS database which will serve as a repository of
reliable data that will be collected periodically from various sources. Data will be organized and
structured and stored in spreadsheets and digital files so that they are can be easily be retrieved
for use in periodic reporting and in future evaluation activities.
The M and E system shall be based on the SIPLAS Results Framework (Figure 7.1) which has been
developed based on the goals and objectives statements set out in the management plan. The
different results are presented in a hierarchy that start from outputs leading to outcomes and
finally, to impacts. The outputs and outcomes will be the main interest of M and E. It is proposed
however that efforts to enhance resiliency be examined at specific points in time within the
implementation period to establish the continuing relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of
such efforts.
A detailed M and E Plan has been prepared as an accompanying document to the SIPLAS
management plan (refer to the M and E Plan for SIPLAS, August 2015). The M and E plan contains
suggested indicators that are deemed suitable for each of the outputs identified in the results
framework. At this level, it is suggested that the data for the indicators be derived mainly from
secondary sources on a quarterly basis. The analysis will mainly entail comparisons between
targets and accomplishments, with explanations provided for delays or gaps in performance.
Performance or accomplishments can also be related to the implementation period or the
resources that have been provided. A quarterly reporting system coincides with the plan to hold
quarterly PAMB meetings. Reporting on progress of plan implementation should be a major
agenda item in PAMB meetings.

Figure 7.1 SIPLAS Results Framework
IMPACTS  Improved socio-economic conditions of upland and lowland/coastal communities

 Increased resilience of ecosystems and communities to threats of climate change
 Sustained ecosystem goods and services, i.e.,
 Biological diversity
 Food
 Water (surface and groundwater)
 Natural protection from hazards
 Aesthetics
OUTCOMES  Effective management of critical habitats
 Improved vegetative cover
 Improved availability of water for domestic water supply and irrigation
 Diversified sources of income and employment of communities
 Reduced exposure of communities in the nine LGUs to natural and climate change related hazards
 Improved PA management effectiveness
OUTPUTS Management of Strict Management of Multiple Use Zone Institutional Strengthening
Protection Zone
 Critical habitats with  Areas under productive  Functional PAMB
approved management development (agroforestry,  Active and effective cluster
plans fuelwood plantations, woodlots) management committees
 Water production areas  Tenured areas in forestlands with  Signed PAMB agreements
with approved approved management plans with stakeholders , research
management plans  Water production areas with and academic institutions
 Marine protected areas approved management plans  Governance-enhanced
(MPAs) established  Eco-tourism areas with approved policies, procedures and
 Active enforcement management and business plans enforcement protocols
bodies (terrestrial and  Community-based enterprises  User fee/PES systems
coastal) established developed
 Areas under  Approved disaster risk reduction  IPAF management system
rehabilitation (including plans for LGUs and highly established
corals) vulnerable communities/barangays
 No-build zones (in high
hazard areas) established
ACTIVITIES Site-Based Management Activities Institutional Strengthening
Activities
 Formulation of detailed  Formulation of management plans  Capability assessment and
management plans for for tenured areas, water production development
critical habitats, and areas  Review, enhancement and
water production areas  Formulation of coral rehabilitation harmonization of policies,
 Training and deputation plans procedures and
of enforcement teams  Formulation of management and enforcement protocols
 Demarcation of SPZ business plans for eco-tourism areas  Joint planning activities
boundaries (terrestrial, (with carrying capacity analysis) (e.g., MPA Forum)
and coastal and marine)  Disaster risk reduction management  Resource valuation/user fee
 Biodiversity research/ (DRRM) planning and disaster determination studies
documentation preparedness at LGU and
 Protection and community/barangay level
rehabilitation  Agroforestry development;
reforestation and rehabilitation;
establishment of fuelwood
plantations and woodlots
 Market studies and business
planning for community enterprises
Cross-cutting activities: Information, education and communication (IEC); enforcement; training
INPUTS Line agency and LGU budgets, staff services, technical assistance inputs, PAMB approved management plan,
inputs of cooperators and other partners

The M and E Plan provides a more substantive and detailed discussion on the outcomes. Each of
the identified outcomes has an indicator that is clearly defined. The sources of the data that will
be collected to measure performance, and the corresponding methods and tools for data
collection, organization and analysis are also identified, including the data that can be used as
baseline. For this level of results, a combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection
methods is suggested. It is proposed that available tools such as the MPA Effectiveness
Assessment Tool (MEAT) and the MPA Network Effectiveness Assessment Tool (NEAT) be
adopted. It is recommended as well that a refined version of the Management Effectiveness
Tracking Tool (METT) be used. Since outcomes manifest or are measureable at different time
periods, the frequency of data collection differs among the indicators. The improvement in
vegetative cover for example can only be reported when new maps are made available by
NAMRIA and validated on the ground by the PASu Office and LGUs. Data on crop diversification,
employment and income improvement may only be available and meaningful a few years after
start of plan implementation. Given these differences, it is suggested that whatever outcomes
data are generated should be reported on a semi-annual or annual basis.
Outcomes will be analyzed by comparing quantities or conditions at a specific time during

implementation with the baseline data or condition. This highlights the importance of
establishing baseline information before or at the early part of plan implementation. The analysis
can also show the trends through time and comparisons across the nine LGUs.
For the impact level, M and E will focus on the resiliency goal of the plan since the SIPLAS
management plan revolves around climate change adaptation. The general process for doing a
qualitative ongoing evaluation of climate change adaptation measures is outlined in the M and E
Plan. This serves as the main premise of the evaluation framework: Vulnerability to climate
change is a function of three factors, namely: (1) types and magnitudes of Exposure to climate
change; (2) Sensitivity of the system to climate hazards; and (3) Adaptive Capacity of the system.
The evaluation will effectively examine how the different interventions have been able to reduce
the vulnerability of the ecosystems and communities. Conclusions and recommendations will
center on the continuing relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of the interventions.
The impacts of climate change on biodiversity will be another area of study in impact evaluation. This
however will require a longer observation or monitoring period for selected indicator species. There
are some plant and faunal species found in SIPLAS that are recommended as frontline indicators for
monitoring the impact of increasing temperature on biodiversity. Among the suggested indicator
species are herbaceous fern, terrestrial and arboreal frogs, monitor lizards and mangroves. The
Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS) of BMB may need to be redesigned or adjusted so it can be
used to provide the information that will be required in this evaluation activity.
The PAMB, the PASu Office and the LGU will be the main users of the information and the reports
that will be generated through various M and E activities. The gathered data and corresponding
analysis and recommendations will be presented in a format that will be useful for decision-
making, planning and budgeting. Use of pictures, maps and charts will be maximized. The reports
presented or submitted to the PAMB will highlight significant findings and the concerns that
require PAMB attention and action will be tagged.
Other users of the information, particularly on outcomes and impacts, would be the DENR-
PENRO, DENR Regional Office, BMB, Provincial LGU, local communities and the academe. The
periodic feedback of monitoring results to local communities (e.g., PO managers of MPAs, PO
tenure holders, enforcement teams) will be an important part of the M and E system and will be
integrated into the SIPLAS communications plan. This activity is deemed important to sustain
their interest and active participation in SIPLAS management activities.

REFERENCES
Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E. and Fonseca, G.A.B. 2001.Effectiveness of Parks in
Protecting Tropical Biodiversity.Science291: 125–128.
Climate Change Act of 2009 (Republic Act 9729). An Act Mainstreaming Climate Change into
Government Policy Formulations, Establishing the Framework Strategy and Program on
Climate Change, Creating for this Purpose the Climate Change Commission, and for other
Purposes
Congress of the Philippines. 1992. Republic Act No. 7586. Quezon City, Philippines
Conservation of Priority Protected Areas in the Philippines. 1998. Resource Inventory.
Conservation International, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and Protected Areas
and Wildlife Bureau.2006. Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priority-setting Program.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1994. Protected Area Suitability Assessment.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2008. DENR Administrative Order No. 2008-
26: Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7576 or the NIPAS
Act of 1992. Rule 10.Quezon City, Philippines.
English S, C Wilkinson, V Baker (Eds.). 1997. Survey Manual for Tropical Marine Resources –
Second Edition. Australian Institute of Marine Science, ASEAN-Australia Marine Science
Project. p 390.
Global Green Growth Institute and Climate Change Commission. 2013. Vulnerability and
Adaptation Assessment: Municipality of Pilar, Siargao Island, Surigao del Norte.
Adaptation Assessment: Municipality of Del Carmen, Siargao Island, Surigao del Norte.
Global Green Growth Institute and Climate Change Commission.2013.Vulnerability and

Adaptation Assessment: Municipality of San Benito, Siargao Island, Surigao del Norte.
Adaptation Assessment: Municipality of San Isidro, Siargao Island, Surigao del Norte.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge
University Press.
Lansigan, F.P. 2011.Responding to changing climate on rice production in the Philippines. In: Asia
Rice Foundation (2011). Adaptation to Climate Variability in Rice Production, Los Baños,
Laguna, Philippines. pp. 32-46.

Mamauag, S.S, Aliño, P.M., Martinez, R. J. S., Muallil, R. N., Doctor, M. V. A., Dizon, E. C.,
Geronimo, R. C., Cabral, R. B. 2013. Chapter 6: Tool for Understanding Resilience of
Fisheries. In: MERF. 2013. Vulnerability Assessment Tools for Coastal Ecosystems: A
Guidebook. Marine Environment and Resources Foundation, Inc.: Quezon City,
Philippines. pp. 104-114.
Nanola, C.L. and Paradela, M.A.C. 2012.The status of coral reefs and its associated fishes in
Siargao and Bucas Grande Islands and its implications on reef management. Technical
Report. Ecotown Project. Climate Change Commission. Manila.
Nanola, C.L. and Paradela, M.A.C. 2014. Coral-algal phase shift: A case study in Siargao Island,
Surigao del Norte, Philippine Pacific Seaboard. Paper presented during the 3rd Asia Pacific
Coral Reef Symposium. Kenting, Taiwan, 23-27 June 2014.
Philippines Climate Change Adaptation Project. August 2015. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for
SIPLAS.
University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute. 2013. A framework for vulnerability
assessment of coastal fisheries ecosystems to climate change—Tool for Understanding
Resilience of Fisheries (VA–TURF). Fisheries Research. v. 147 (2013) pp. 381-393.
Villanoy, C.L., Salamante, E., Cabrera, O. 2013. Chapter 3: Exposure: waves and storm surges. In:
MERF. 2013. Vulnerability Assessment Tools for Coastal Ecosystems: A Guidebook.
Marine Environment and Resources Foundation, Inc.: Quezon City, Philippines. pp. 44-54

Annex 2.1 List of trees and other plant species tallied in the transects
Local Name Common Name Scientific Name Family Name

Timber Species
Adjaw/Alagaw Agdao Premna subglabra Lamiaceae
Anagasi Anagasi Litsea sp. Lauraceae
Anilao Anilau Colona serratifolia Malvaceae
Anislag Anislag Securinega flexuosa Euphorbiaceae
Anonang Anonang Cordia dichotoma Boraginaceae
Antipoyo/Tipoyo Antipolo Artocarpus blancoi Moraceae
Apanang Apanang Neotrewia cumingii Euphorbiaceae
Apuyangi/Puyangi Puyangi Rhizopora sp. Rhizoporaceae
Bago Bago Gnetum gnemon Gnetaceae
Bagotambis Bagotambis Syzygium leytense Myrtaceae
Bagotapay Balat buaia (Sepuleh) Fagraea racemosa Loginaceae
Bagtikan Bagtikan Parashorea malaanonan Dipterocarpaceae
Bakaw Bakauan Gubat Carallia brachniata Rhizoporaceae
Banabat Banaba Lagerstroemia speciosa Lythraceae
Banai-banai Banai-banai Radermachera pinnata Bignoniaceae
Banilad Banilad Streculia comosa Malvaceae
Bato-bato Bato-bato Drypetes littoralis Putranjivaceae
Bayajong Malaipil Afzelia borneensis Fabaceae
Bitanag Bitanghol Calophyllum blancoi Clusiaceae
Bok-bok Dalou Mellicope monophylla Rutaceae
Bujon American Kapok Ceiba pentandra Malvaceae
Bungliw/Hagdan Uwak Malapapaya Polyscias nodosa Araliaceae
Bunot-bunot/Labaw Buntan Trichosperma discolor Malvaceae
Buyakan Ilang-ilang Cananga odorata Anonaceae
Dayakit Balete Ficus balete Fabaceae
Dita Dita Alstonia scholaris Apocynaceae
Dug-an Duguan Myristica philippinensis Myristicaceae
Duyok-duyok Duyok-duyok Gynotroches axillaris Malvaceae
Gibas Gubas Endospermum petatum Euphorbiaceae
Gisok Gisok-gisok Hopea philippinensis Dipterocarpaceae
Hambabayud Bangkal Timonius arboreus Rubiaceae
Hindang Hamindang Macaranga bicolor Euphorbiaceae
Jamoyaon Molave Vitex parviflora Malvaceae
Kalamunggay- Malakamias Ailanthus triphysa Rutaceae
kalamunggay
Caningag Kalingag Cinnamonium mercadoi Lauraceae
Ituman Kamagong Diospyrus blancoi Ebenaceae
Kubi Kubi Artocarpus nitidus Moraceae
Kulipapa Kulipapa Vitex aherniana Malvaceae
Lanete Lanete Wrightia pubescens Apocynaceae
Lanitga Laneteng gubat? Kibatalia gitingensis Apocynaceae
Lapnisan Lapnisan Polyalthea oblongifolia Annonaceae
Lugas Ligas Semecarpus cenuiformis Anacardiaceae
Manga-manga Balinghasai Buchanania arborescens Anacardiaceae
Manggachapui Manggachapui Hopea acuminata Dipterocarpaceae
Mangkono Mangkono Xanthostemon verdugonianus Celastraceae
Mayapis Mayapis Shorea palosapis Dipterocarpaceae
Minunga Binunga Macaranga tanarius Euphorbiaceae
Annex 2.1 1|P a g e

Local Name Common Name Scientific Name Family Name

Pangi-pangi/Bagopangi Pangi Pangium edule Achariaceae
Page-page Page-page Croton sp. Euphorbiaceae
Sabon-sabon Kangko Aphanamixis polystachya Meliaceae
Sagimsim Sagimsim Eugenia macgregorii Moraceae
Sajapo/Tolo Sayapo Trichosperma eriopodum Malvaceae
Sambuyawan Dungau Astronia williamsii Melastomataceae
Sangay Sangay Ficus minahassae Moraceae
Sejutis Malataluto Pterocymbium macrocarte Malvaceae
Suwa-suwa Bangulo Litsea sp. Lauraceae
Tabog/Hagimit Malatibig Ficus satterthwaitei Moraceae
Talisay Talisai Terminalia catappa Combretaceae
Talisay Gubat Talisay Gubat Terminalia foetedissima Combretaceae
Ulingon/Lingon Ulingon Cratoxylum sp Clusiaceae
Lauaan White Lauan Shorea contorta Dipterocarpaceae
Lauaan Red Lauan Shorea negrosensis Dipterocarpaceae
Yakal Yakal Shorea astylosa Dipterocarpaceae
Non-Timber
Palmera Palmera Dypsis lutescens Arecaceae
Pugahan Pugahan Caryota cumingii Arecaceae
Niyog Niog Cocos nucifera Arecaceae
Pandan tinik Bakong Pandanus dubius Pandanaceae
Wakatan Pandan Layugan Pandanus exaltatus Pandanaceae
Udlus (Rattan) Rattan Calamus sp. Palmae
Source: Report on Natural Resources of Siargao: Forest and Water Resources by Dr. AP Carandang, et al, 2011
Annex 2.1 2|P a g e

Annex 2.2 Plant diversity assessment of Del Carmen Watershed, SIPLAS
Local Name Common Name Scientific Name Family No. Assumed Roles/Uses
Bogus Bogus Acalypha indica Euphorbiaceae numerous ornamental
Bayugo Adenanthera sp. Papilionaceae 2 ecological
Balisawsaw Ageratum conyzoides Asteraceae numerous UTI/weed
Putian Alangium chinense Alangiaceae 1 fuelwood
Panaon Alpinia elegans Zingiberaceae numerous ornamental
Panuon Tagbak Alpinia philippinensis Zingiberaceae numerous ornamental
Pinja Pinya Ananas comosus Bromeliaceae numerous edible fruit
Salagisog Pakong kalabaw Angiopteris palmiformis Marattiaceae 1 ornamental
Antipolo Artocarpus blancoi Moraceae 1 landscape
Kubi Anubing Artocarpus ovatus Moraceae 10 landscape
Tugop - Artocarpus treculianus Moraceae 1 landscape
- Milk weed Asclepias curassavica Asclepiadaceae many food item for butterfly
- - Astronia cumingii Melastomaceae 6 ornamental
Lunas Kawayan kiling Bambusa vulgaris Graminae/Poaceae 1 construction
- Carabao grass Brachiaria mutica Graminae/Poaceae numerous Forage/weed
Small rattan Tumalim Calamus discolor Palmae/Arecaceae 4 Cottage industry
- Ilang-ilang Cananga odorata Annonaceae 1 perfumery
- Sili Capsicum frutescens Solanaceae numerous spice
- Papaya Carica papaya Caricaceae numerous edible fruit
- Hagonoi Chromolaena odorata Asteraceae/ numerous poisonous
Compositae
- Calamansi Citrus madurensis Rutaceae numerous sauce; refreshing drink
- Niyog Cocos nucifera Palmae/Arecaceae numerous multiple uses
- Tiwi, Tigbi, Job's Coix lacryma - jobi Graminae/Poaceae 1 Pearl millete
tears
- Gabi Colocasia esculenta Araceaea numerous along river banks
Mayaamagan Anilao Commersonia bartramia Tiliaceae 8 Fuel wood
- Spiral ginger Costus speciosus Costaceae 1 ornamental
- Cytonella Cymbopogon citratus Graminae/Poaceae numerous condiment
Tangyad Tanglad Cymbopogon nardus Graminae/Poaceae numerous condiment
Payau Palau Cyrtosperma merkusii Araceaeae numerous ornamental
Tumalim - Daemonurops mollis Palmae/Arecaceae 5 Cottage industry
(rattan)
- - Davallia sp. Davalliaceae numerous for wreath making
- Tubli Derris philippinensis Papilionaceae 1 Fish poison
Agsam - Dicranopteris lineares Dicranopteridaceae numerous ecological
Koyot - Dioscorea hispida Dioscoriaceae 6 Edible tuber
- Bamban Donax cannaeformis Marantaceae 1 ornamental
- Lamio Dracontomelon edule Meliaceae 1 timber
- - Fagraea racemosa Celastraceae 1 fruiting
- Salisi Ficus benghalensis Moraceae many ecological
- - Ficus guyeri Moraceae many Sand paper substitute
- Hagimit Ficus minahassae Moraceae 1 ecological
- Tibig Ficus nota Moraceae 2 ecological
- Niyog-niyogan Ficus pseudopalma Moraceae 3 young shoopt edible
- Hauili Ficus septica Moraceae many ecological
- Balite Ficus subulata Moraceae 1 Wildlife food
- Tangisang bayawak Ficus variegata Moraceae 1 ecological
- Climbing pandan Freycinetia negrosensis Pandanaceae 5 Cottage industry
- Bago Gnetum gnemon Gnetaceae numerous edible shoot and fruit
- Trompang elepante Heliotropium indicum Heliotropaceae numerous wreath making
- - Homalanthus Euphorbiaceae many for tuli (circumcision
dipterocarpifolia use)
- Alupaying gubat Homalomena philippinensis Araceaeae numerous ornamental
- Botones-butonesan Hyptis rhomboidea Lamiaceae/Lamiatae
Annex 2.2 1|P a g e

Local Name Common Name Scientific Name Family No. Assumed Roles/Uses
- Suag-kabayo Hyptis suaveolens Lamiaceae/Lamiatae numerous whole plant insecticidal
- Cogon Imperata cylindrica Graminae/Poaceae numerous roots cure for UTI/roof
thatch
- - Indigofera suffruticosa Papilionaceae many weed
- Luyang aso Kaempferia galanga Zingiberaceae 3 ornamental
- Amugis Koordersiodendron Anacardiaceae 5 timber
pinnatum
- wild ginger Languas rufa Zingiberaceae 5 ornamental
- Kaliantan Leea aculeata Leeaceae 5 landscape
- Balitantan Leea indica Leeaceae 3 landscape
- Nito Lygodium circinatum Pteridaceae 2 Cottage industry.
- Hamindang Macaranga tanarius Euphorbiaceae 2 pioneer sp.
Kalibre Balinghoi Manihot sculenta Euphorbiaceae numerous rootcrop
- Kabute Marasmius copelandii Agaricaceae growing on carabao dung
Hantutuknaw Tungau-tungau Melastoma polyanthum Melastomaceae numerous ornamental
Uuko Baging hapon, Mikania cordata Asteraceae/ numerous weed
Uoko Compositae
- Makahiyang lalaki Mimosa diplotricha Mimosaceae numerous Weed, N fixer
- makahiya Mimosa pudica Mimosaceae numerous green manure
- Saging matsing Musa balbisiana Mosaceae many food for wildlife
- Saba Musa x paradisiaca Mosaceae many edible fruit
Budjon Budjon Mussaenda anisophylla Rubiaceae numerous ornamental
Hambabayud - Nauclea calycina Rubiaceae 1 landscape
Hambabayud - Nauclea reticulata Rubiaceae numerous landscape
Pacong buaya Pacong buaya Nephrolepis biserrata Davalliaceae numerous Wreath making
- Boracan Operculina turpethum Convolvulaceaee many weed
- Banga Orania palindan Palmae/Arecaceae 3 poisonous fruit
Bannai-banai - Oroxylum indicum Leeaceae numerous landscape
- Bariw Pandanus copelandii Pandanaceae 3 Cottage ndustry
- - Pandanus radicans Pandanaceae 3 Cottage ndustry
- Pandan dagat Pandanus tectorius Pandanaceae 2 Cottage ndustry
- Hagikhik Phrynium philippinense Marantaceae 1 ornamental
- Tintatintahan Phyllanthus reticulatus Phyllanthaceae 8 fuelwood
- Malacamachile Pithecellobium sisso Mimosaceae 6 fuelwood
- Malapapaya Polyscias nodosa Araliaceae 2 fuelwood
- Bayabas Psidium guajava Myrtaceae many edible fruit; antiseptic
- Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinun Tectariaceae numerous Poisonous to livestock
Narra Narra Pterocapus indicus Papilionaceae many lumber, furniture making
- kudzu Pueraria phaseoloides Papilionaceae numerous green manure
- Ulayan Quercus philippinensis Fagaceae 3 timber
Tigbaw Talahib Saccharum spontaneum Graminae/Poaceae numerous forage
- Santol Sandoricum koetjape Meliaceae numerous edible fruit
Daat Daat Scleria scrobiculata Cyperaceae 1 weed
- Kamariang gubat Selaginella jagori Selagineliaceae 7 ornamental
- White Lauan Shorea contorta Dipterocarpaceae 1 timber
- Kamot-kabag Smilax chinensis Smilacaceae 2 ecological
- Kanding-kandingan Stachytarpheta jamaicensis Lamiaceae/Lamiatae numerous weed
Hagnaya Diliman Stenochlaeana palustris Stenochlaeanaceae numerous Cottage industry
- Stenomeris philippinensis Dioscoreaceae 6 ecological
- Fern Tectaria polymorpha Tectariaceae 1 ornamental
- Katmon baging Tetracera scandens Dilleniaceae 1 ornamental
- Balibago Thespesia populnea Malvaceae 2 fuelwood
- Uncaria philippinensis Annonaceae 1 large vine (family of Atis)
- Hagdang-uwak Uvaria suaveolens Annonaceae 1 Edible fruits
Tugas Molave Vitex parviflora Lamiaceae/Lamiatae lumber, furniture making
San Fernando Xanthosoma sagittifolia Araceae 1 Edible corm
Annex 2.2 2|P a g e

Annex 2.3 Photos from transect walk in SIPLAS

Photos by William Sm. Gruezo last September 12, 2013
Photo 1. Smilax chinensis (Kamot-kabag, Smilacaceae) Photo 2. Stenomeris philippinensis (Dioscoreaceaee)
Photo 3. Selaginella jagorii (Kamariang gubat, Photo 4. Nauclea calycina (Hambabayud, Rubiaceae)
Selaginellaceae)
Photo 5. Stenochlaena palustris (Hagnaya/Diliman, Photo 6. Melastoma polyanthum (Hantutuknaw/Tungau-

Pteridaceae) tungau, Melastomataceae)
Annex 2.3 1|P a g e

Photo 7. Chromolaena odorata (Hagonoy, Asteraceae) Photo 8. Fagraea racemosa (Celastraceae)
Photo 9. Derris philippinensis (Tubli, Papilionaceae, Photo 10. Dioscorea hispida (Koyot, Dioscoreaceae,
endemic) endemic)
Photo 11. Pandanus copelandii (Bariw, Pandanaceae, Photo 12. Nephrolepis biserrata (Pakong-buaya,
endemic) Davalliaceae)
Annex 2.3 2|P a g e

Photo 13. Cocos nucifera (Lubi/Niyog-“Albino” mutant, Photo 14. Macaranga tanarius (Hamindang,
Palmae) Euphorbiaceae)
Photo 15. Calamus discolor (Tumalim, Palmae- left) & Photo 16. Hyptis suaveolens (Suag-kabayo, Lamiaceae)
Tetracera scandens (Katmon baging,
Dilleniaceae, right)
Photo 17. Operculina turpethum (Buracan, Photo 18. Gnetum gnemon (Bago, Gnetaceae,
Convolvulaceae) Gymnosperm)
Annex 2.3 3|P a g e

Photo 19. Bambusa vulgaris (Kawaya-kiling, Poaceae) Photo 20. Shorea contorta (White Lauan,
Dipterocarpaceae; endemic)
Photo 21.Artocarpus ovatus (Kubi/Anubing, Moraceae; Photo 22. Homalomena philippinensis (Alopaying
endemic) gubat, Araceae; endemic)
Photo 23. Pandanus radicans (erect pandan, Photo 24. Asclepias curassavica (Milkweed,
Pandanaceae; endemic) Asclepiadaceae)
Annex 2.3 4|P a g e

Photo 25. Commersonia bartramia (Anilao, Tiliaceae) Photo 26. Koordersiodendron pinnatum (Amugis,
Anacardiaceae, saplings)
Photo 27. Angiopteris palmiformis (Pakong kalabaw, Photo 28. Ficus nota (Tibig, Moraceae)
Marattiaceae)
Photo 29. Indigofera suffruticosa (Papilionaceae) Photo 30. Musa balbisiana (Saging matsing/wild
banana, Musaceae)
Annex 2.3 5|P a g e

Photo 31. Leea aculeata (Kaliantan, Leeaceae) Photo 32. Costus speciosus (Spiral ginger, Costaceae)
Photo 33. Xanthosoma sagittifolia (San Fernando, Photo 34. Lygodium circinatum (Nito, Pteridaceae)
Araceae)
Photo 35. Nauclea reticulata (Hambabayud,

Rubiaceae)
Annex 2.3 6|P a g e

Annex 2.4 Enumeration of faunal species recorded from different localities

in SIPLAS
Survey Locality, SIPLAS

Brgy. Jaboy, Lagoon Tiktikan, B rgy. Sudlon 3
Taxon 1 2 Del C armen
Pilar & B rgy. San Roque, Socorro
Count Count Count
1
Birds (total = 19 spp.)
1. Arctitis hypoleucus 1 - -
2. Aplomis panayensis 6 - -
3. Cacomantis cf. menilimus 1 - -
4. Dicaeum austral 3 - -
5. Dicaeum sp. 1 - -
6. Halcyon chloris 3 - 2
7. Hinido tahitica 1 - -
8. Ixobrychus cinnamomeus 1 - -
9. Lanius cristatus 6 - -
10. Lonchura malacca 1 - -
11. Macronotus striaticeps 6 - -
12. Megalurus palustris 2 - -
13. Motacilla cinerea 1 - -
14. Nectarinia jugularis 4 - -
15. Orthotomus castaneiceps 3 - -
16. Phapitreon bucotis 1 - -
17. Pycnonotus urostictus 5 - 5
18. Rhipidura javanica 4 - -
19. Streptopelia chinensis 1 - -
2
Birds (total = 9 spp.) -
1. Collocalia cf. vanikonensis - 5 -
2. Collocalia troglodyles - 1 -
3. Halcyon chloris - 1 2
4. Hypothymis azurea - 1 -
5. Macronotus striaticeps - 3 -
6. Nectarinia sperata - 1 -
7. Orthotomus castraneiceps - 1 -
8. Pycnonotus urosticticus - 5 -
9. Terpsiphone cinnamomea - 1 -
1
AMPHIBIANS
Frogs (total = 11 spp.)
1. Bufo marinus 45 - -
2. Fejervarya vittigera 5 - -
3. Hylarana grandocula 21 - -
4. Limnonectes leytensis 1 - -
5. Kalophrynus pleurostigma 1 - -
6. Kaloula meridranalis 7 - -
7. Platymantis ground 1 - -
8. Platymantis guentheri 4 - -
9. Platymantis siargao 30 - -
10. Rhacophorus appendiculatus 22 - -
11. Rhinella marina 7 - -
Annex 2.4 1|P a g e


Count Count Count
1
REPTILES
Lizards (total = 12 spp.)
1. Bronchocela cristatella 1 - -
2. Cyrtodactylus mamanwa 4 - -
3. Draco bimaculatus 4 - -
4. Draco cyanopterus 4 - -
5. Futropis cf. rudis 1 - -
6. Futropis multicarinata 6 - -
7. Gehyra mutilata 2 - -
8. Hemidactylus frenatus 2 - -
9. Lamprolepis smaragdina 1 - -
10. Lipinia pulchella 1 - -
11. Pseudogekko siargao 1 - -
12. Sphenomorphus coxi 3 - -
Snakes (4 spp.)
1. Chrysipelia paradisi 2 - -
2. Dendrolephis marenae 1 - -
3. Lycodon cf. dumeriji 1 - -
4. Oxyrhabdium modestum 1 - -
Turtle (1 sp.)
1. Coura amboinensis 1 - -
2
Frogs (total = 3 spp.)
1. Limnonectes magnus - 5 -
2. Platymantis ground - 1 -
3. Platymantis siargao - 2 -
2
1. Bronchocela cristatella - 2 -
2. Braco bimaculatus - 10 -
3. Eutropis multicarinata - 2 -
4. Lipinia pulchella - 2 -
5. Sphenomorphus jagori - 3 -
6. Cyrtodactylus mamanwa - 2 -
7. Hemidactylus renatus - 2 -
3
1. Draco ornatus - - 1
2. Lamprolepis smaragdina - - 2
3. Sphenomorphus coxi - - 1
1
Chiroptera (total = 6 spp.)
1. Cynopterus brachyotis + - -
2. Hipposideros diadema + - -
3. Hipposideros obscurus + - -
4. Macroglossus minimus + - -
5. Megaderma spasma + - -
6. Rousettus amplexicaudatus + - -
1
Rodentia (total = 4 spp.)
1. Bullimus sp. + - -
2. Rattus everetti + - -
3. Rattus exulans + - -
4. Sundasciurus philippinensis (tail only) + - -
1
Dermoptera (1 sp.)
Annex 2.4 2|P a g e


Count Count Count
1. Cynocephalus volans + - -
2
1. Cynopterus brachyotis - + -
2. Macroglossus minimus - + -
3. Ptenochirus jagori - + -
4. Rousettus amplexicaudatus - + -
5. Pteropus sp. - + -
6. Emballanura alecto - + -
7. Hipposideros diadema - + -
8. Rhinolophus arcuatus (small) - + -
9. Rhinolophus arcuatus (large) - + -
2
Insectivora
1. Podogymnura truei - + -
2
Rodentia (total = 4 spp.) -
1. Apomys sp. - + -
2. Crunomys sp. - + -
3. Rattus everetti - + -
4. Rattus tanizumi - + -
2
Scandentia (1 sp.)
1. Urogale everett - + -
3
1. Cynopterus brachyotis - - +
2. Eonycteris spelaea - - +
3. Rousettus amplexicaudatus - - +
1
Survey conducted from 15-20 September 2011.
2
Survey conducted from 21-25 September 2011.
3
Survey conducted from 26-29 September 2011
= absent/not observed
+ = present, but no count reported
Annex 2.4 3|P a g e

Annex 2.5 VA-TURF
Wave exposure
Low
Medium
High
Villanoy, C.L., Salamante, E., Cabrera, O. 2013. Chapter 3: Exposure: waves and storm surges. In: MERF. 2013.
Vulnerability Assessment Tools for Coastal Ecosystems: A Guidebook. Marine Environment and Resources
Foundation, Inc.: Quezon City, Philippines.
Annex 2.5 1|P a g e

Annex 2.5 2|P a g e

Annex 2.5 3|P a g e

Annex 2.5 4|P a g e

Annex 2.5 5|P a g e

Annex 2.5 6|P a g e

Annex 2.5 7|P a g e

Annex 2.5 8|P a g e

1. Burgos
2. Dapa
3. Del Carmen
4. General Luna
5. Pilar
6. San Benito
7. San Isidro
8. Socorro
9. Sta. Monica
Annex 4.1 Proposed Resource Maps
Annex 4.1 1|P a g e

Annex 4.1 2|P a g e

Annex 4.1 3|P a g e

Annex 4.1 4|P a g e

Annex 4.1 5|P a g e

Annex 4.1 6|P a g e

Annex 4.1 7|P a g e

Annex 4.1 8|P a g e

Annex 4.1 9|P a g e

SIPLAS Management Plan

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SIPLAS Management Plan

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Siargao Islands Protected

Landscape and Seascape

With Technical Assistance from:

Orient Integrated Development Consultants, Inc.

University of the Philippines Los Baños Foundation, Inc.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

2.0 PROTECTED AREA PROFILE .......................................................................................... 5

3.0 SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS: DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES,

4.0 MANAGEMENTPLAN .................................................................................................. 58

SIPLAS Management Plan i|P a g e

4.2 Management Strategies ................................................................................................ 60

5.0 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT ....... 98

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .......................................................................................... 101

7.0 MONITORING PLAN.................................................................................................. 109

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 112

SIPLAS Management Plan ii | P a g e

Table 2.1 Land Area by Municipality ................................................................................................. 5

SIPLAS Management Plan iii | P a g e

Figure 1.1 The PA Plan Updating Process .......................................................................................... 4

SIPLAS Management Plan iv | P a g e

A and D - Alienable and Disposable

SIPLAS Management Plan v|P a g e

MUZ - Multiple Use Zone

SIPLAS Management Plan vi | P a g e

SIPLAS is characterized by a unique combination of terrestrial, wetland, and marine ecosystems.

SIPLAS Management Plan ES-1 | P a g e

A supplementary assessment on the vulnerability of coastal fisheries that is highly dependent on

Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies

SIPLAS Management Plan ES-2 | P a g e

SIPLAS Management Plan ES-3 | P a g e

The development and establishment of sustainable sources of financing to support SIPLAS

 1,040 ha of natural forests for restoration and rehabilitation

SIPLAS Management Plan ES-4 | P a g e

To reduce Exposure To minimize Sensitivity To increase Adaptive Capacity

Estimated Cost % of Total

SIPLAS Management Plan ES-5 | P a g e

Monitoring and Evaluation

SIPLAS Management Plan ES-6 | P a g e

SIARGAO ISLANDS PROTECTED LANDSCAPES AND

1.1 Legal Basis for Protected Area Management in the Philippines

SIPLAS Management Plan 1|P a g e

1.2 Background and Continuing Relevance of SIPLAS as a Protected Area

1.3 The Process of Updating the SIPLAS Plan

The recent revision of the SIPLAS

SIPLAS Management Plan 2|P a g e

SIPLAS Management Plan 3|P a g e

Figure 1.1 The PA Plan Updating Process

SIPLAS Management Plan 4|P a g e

2.0 PROTECTED AREA PROFILE

2.1 Geo-Political and Physical Profile

2.1.1 Area, Location and Access

SIPLAS Management Plan 5|P a g e

Figure 2.1 Location Map of SIPLAS

SIPLAS Management Plan 6|P a g e

2.1.2 Topography and Slope

Table 2.2 Distribution of Areas by Slope Category

2.1.3 Geology and Soils

SIPLAS Management Plan 7|P a g e

Figure 2.2 Slope Map of Siargao Islands

SIPLAS Management Plan 8|P a g e

Figure 2.3 Soil Map of Siargao Group of Islands

SIPLAS Management Plan 9|P a g e