version: 01 Feb. 2011
The MPA MEAT is a harmonized version of the MPA Report Guide of the Coastal
Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc. (CCEF,White et al. 2004) as modified
by the Philippine Environmental Governance Project 2 (EcoGov2), (Arceo et al. in prep),
facilitated by the MPA Support Network (MSN) through the CTI (Coral Triangle
Initiative) Support Partnership or CTSP. Some elements are incorporated in the MPA
MEAT to gauge and highlight important threshold indicators and processes that help
promote and achieve MPA management effectiveness outputs and outcomes.
The MPA MEAT was initiated by the:
What is the MPA MEAT?
e MPA MEAT aims to assess governance in terms of enforcement,
implementation and maintenance. However, MPA management in the
context of governance approaches in the Philippines is not limited to
the physical management of the MPA only but also includes direct and
indirect uses, threats, people, and the systemic interaction between
people and resources.
What is an eectively managed MPA?
IUCN
IUCN denes management eectiveness as the degree to which
management actions are achieving the goals and objectives of a
protected area (Hockings et al., 2000). Management eectiveness is
dened, in the context of the MPA MEAT, according to four dierent
levels: (1) established, (2) strengthened, (3) sustained, and (4)
institutionalized. MPA eectiveness, on the other hand based on
several criteria and/or governance indicators in combination with the
bi
biophysical and socioeconomic impact indicators.and socioeconomic
impact indicators.
Where to use the MPA MEAT?
MPA MEAT is a management tool to help measure MPA eectiveness
using simplied tools allowing an objective evaluation of MPAs. It can
be applied to locally-managed MPAs and marine areas declared under
the National Integrated Protected Area System Act (RA 7586). It can
be implemented through an assisted self-evaluation or key informant
interviews. Documents provide proof of completion of targets. For
NIPAS marine areas, consider only the areas within the seascape that
ar
are directly managed or linked to the PAMB.
How to use the MPA MEAT?
e 48-item modication of the CCEF rating to incorporate other
indicators and weighted importance values takes into account the
suggestion of the WB score card (Staub and Hatziolas 2004) and of
certain threshold governance processes (EcoGov2 in prep., Arceo et
al.) to help gauge some outputs/outcomes and dene eectiveness
(Hockings et al. 2000).
E
Each level in the MPA MEAT have criteria and activities that need to
be satised as described in the guide questions. e thresholds
indicated with an asterisk (*) are given higher points. e minimum
score including all the scores of the thresholds should be satised to pass the level. For levels 3 and 4, the age of the
MPA is considered also as a prerequisite for proving sustainability and institutionalization.
e levels in this tool are sequential. e highest level, which the MPA being assessed has satised the minimum
score, is its Management Level. e cumulative score is used to measure the MPA management rating. e
minimum number of years of MPA operation in Levels 3 and 4 should be satised in order to pass these levels.
MPA MEAT
BACKGROUND
MPA MEAT AS
BENCHMARKING TOOL FOR
CTI NPOA GOAL ON MPAS
e benchmarking of Marine
Protected Area (MPA) management
eectiveness is a crucial part in
improving functionality of
governance and management of
MPAs in the Philippines. It serves as
a baseline for the monitoring of the
Co
Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI)
Philippines National Plan of Action
(NPOA) areas and dovetails with
tracking of commitments to the
Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD).
e MPA Management Eectiveness
Assessment Tool (MPA MEAT) was
developed as a benchmarking tool as
a result of considerable cooperative
work between several institutions
and individuals working to help
establish and sustain MPA as an
im
important strategy to adaptively
manage the coastal and marine areas
of the Philippine Archipelago.
It is envisioned that the MPA MEAT
will be implemented widely to help
pursue the goal of improving
eectiveness of MPAs in the
Philippines as part of the CTI (see
CTI Goal on MPAs). It can be used
as a minimum set of standards for
co
compliance to the CTI NPOA.
MPA MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS
ASSESSMENT TOOL
MPA Type:
Locally-managed MPA
NIPAS Seascape (for NIPAS sites, please skip this page and proceed to the next)
MPA information for single MPAs or locally-managed MPAs (provide maps if available)
MPA Name:
Complete Name
Short Name
Location:
Sitio, Barangay(s)
Municipality(ies)
Province
Boundary
Coordinates
(Latitude &
Longitude)
Corner / Point Longitude Latitude
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
Point 6
Point 7
Point 8
Size
Hectares
Sanctuary/Reserve/Combination
MPA Type:
Ecosystems
Protected:
Coral reef, mangrove, seagrass, etc.
Percent live coral cover (include year)
Coral Cover
indicate units (kg/ha. or individual/ha.)
Fish biomass /
density
Based on legal document
Year
Established:
Name and code of ordinance / R.A.
Legislation:
mm/dd/yyyy
Evaluation date:
Name Affiliation Email address(es) Contact number(s)
Evaluator(s) details:
* The third biennial MPA Awards and Recognition (Para El MAR 2011) will be using this form as a nomination form.
If you wish to nominate your MPA, kindly mail or email your form to the secretariat (contact details at the end of this document)
version: 01 Feb 2011
Reset Form
MPA Information for MPAs under NIPAS Act
(provide maps if available)
NIPAS Name:
Complete Name
Short Name
Encompassing:
Municipality(ies)
Province
Boundary
Coordinates
(Latitude &
Longitude)
Corner / Point Longitude Latitude
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
Point 6
Point 7
Point 8
Percent live coral cover (include year)
Coral Cover
Indicate units (kg/ha. or individual/ha.)
Fish biomass /
density
Based on legal document
Year
Established:
Name and code of ordinance / R.A.
Legislation:
mm/dd/yyyy
Evaluation date:
Name Affiliation Email address(es) Contact number(s)
Evaluator(s) details:
marine area (hectares)
Size
land area (hectares)
Size
For each management zone or MPA in the NIPAS Seascape
(provide additional pages if necessary; provide maps if available)
Management zone
or MPA name
Complete name
Hectares
Sanctuary, reserve, etc.
Boundary
Coordinates
(Latitude &
Longitude)
Corner / Point Longitude Latitude
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
Point 6
Point 7
Point 8
Year
Established:
Legal document name
Legislation:
Size
Zone/MPA type:
Based on legal document
For each management zone or MPA in the NIPAS Seascape
(provide additional pages if necessary; provide maps if available)
Management zone
or MPA name
Complete name
Hectares
Sanctuary, reserve, etc.
Boundary
Coordinates
(Latitude &
Longitude)
Corner / Point Longitude Latitude
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
Point 6
Point 7
Point 8
Year
Established:
Legal document name
Legislation:
Size
Zone/MPA type:
Based on legal document
LEVEL 1 - MPA IS ESTABLISHED (17 Items, 27 Points)
Criteria / Guide Questions
Allowable
Points
Actual
Points
Remarks / Means of verification
1.1 Establishment based on Participatory Process (5/5)
MPA established with the participation of the community based on informed decisions
1.1.1 MPA concept explained to stakeholders 0 or 1
Was the MPA concept explained to the stakeholders?
Affected stakeholders have been oriented on MPA concepts and benefits
Minutes of consultations & public
hearings
Activity report / proceedings of
the consultation
1.1.2 MPA accepted and approved by the community or local government 0 or 1
Was the MPA accepted by the community (for local MPAs) or local governments (for NIPAS seascapes)?
Public consultation on site selection should be conducted in order to gain community approval and acceptance
Resolution(s)
Minutes of meeting
1.1.3 BASELINE ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED * 0 or 3
Were the stakeholders engaged in baseline assessment using standard methods / any acceptable methods?
Baseline assessment survey includes biophysical assessment and community profile
Biophysical assessment report
PCRA/PRA report
Technical reports of consultants
BMS (for NIPAS seascapes)
Names of local participants
1.2 Adoption of a Legitimate Management Plan (6/6)
Management plan is adopted and legitimized by the LGU or Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) or similar legal body
1.2.1 Management Plan Drafted 0 or 1
Has the management plan been drafted?
Any draft of management plan
1.2.2 MPA plan prepared in a consultative and participatory manner 0 or 1
Was the MPA/NIPAS plan prepared in a consultative and participatory manner?
Documentation of public consultation
about the MPA plan
1.2.3 Functions of MPA management body explained through IEC 0 or 1
Were the functions of the MPA management body and benefits from the MPA explained through initial IEC activities? IEC materials
1.2.4 MANAGEMENT PLAN ADOPTED * 0 or 3
Has the management plan been finalised and adopted?
Management Plan
Resolution or ordinance
1.3 Legislations (Municipal Ordinance / Presidential Proclamation / Republic Act) (5/5)
Management plan is adopted and legitimized by the LGU or Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) or similar legal body
1.3.1 Legal instrument declaring the MPA has been drafted 0 or 1
Has the legal instrument declaring the MPA been drafted?
For locally-managed MPAs: The Barangay Ordinance is in place and the Municipal Ordinance has been drafted.
For NIPAS seascapes: a Republic Act has been drafted
Draft or final ordinance / resolution
Draft Republic Act (for NIPAS)
1.3.2 Consultations on legal instrument with stakeholders conducted 0 or 1
Were there public hearings / community consultations on the legal instrument declaring the protected areas?
Minutes of public consultations
Resolutions of endorsement
1.3.3 LEGAL INSTRUMENT APPROVED * 0 or 3
Has the legal instrument establishing the MPA or NIPAS been approved?
For locally-managed MPAS: a Municipal Ordinance declaring the MPA should have been enacted
For NIPAS seascapes: a Republict Act should have been enacted by Congress
Municipal Ordinance declaring the MPA
for the locally-managed MPAs
Republic Act (for NIPAS)
LEVEL 1 - MPA IS ESTABLISHED (17 Items, 27 Points)
Criteria / Guide Questions
Allowable
Points
Actual
Points
Remarks / Means of verification
1.4 Management body formed and functional (11/11)
MPA established with the participation of the community based on informed decisions
1.4.1 Management body determined and identified 0 or 1
Have the members of the management body been determined and identified?
The management core group should have been identified (e.g., BFARMC, MFARMC, or PAMB)
List of members of PAMB or
management body; management
structure; appointment papers
1.4.2 MANAGEMENT BODY FORMED AND ROLES CLARIFIED * 0 or 3
Has the management body been formed and have their roles been clarified?
Minutes showing committees
Organizational chart with clear
roles
Enabling documentation (e.g.,
appointment papers)
1.4.3 BUDGET ALLOCATED FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR * 0 or 3
Has the budget for at least one (1) year of MPA implementation been allocated?
Approved Work and Financial Plan
Document appropriating funds from the
General Appropriations Act (for NIPAS
seascapes) or from the LGU (for locally-
managed MPAs)
1.4.4 IEC activities coordinated by the management body? 0 or 1
Have Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) activities been coordinated by the management body? Are
signboards / billboards posted along the coastline / shoreline and visible to key stakeholders?
IEC plan or similar document
Minutes showing IEC activities
Reports on IEC activities
Photographs of billboards / signboards
and IEC materials
1.4.5 MPA boundaries delineated 0 or 1
Are the MPA's boundaries properly delineated in the most appropriate manner and boundary markers installed?
When possible, the MPA boundaries should be marked by anchor buoys made with appropriate and sturdy materials.
For large areas like NIPAS seascapes, information materials (e.g., banners, billboards, posters) that clearly show the boundaries of
the protected area and zones established should be accessible and visible to key stakeholders.
Photograph of marker buoys showing
status
Maps on billboards, banners, posters
1.4.6 MPA enforcers identified 0 or 1
Have the MPA enforcers already been identified?
Document showing names of enforcers
(e.g., Bantay Dagat, PNP Maritime
Group, Coast Guard, etc.); appointment
papers
1.4.7
Biophysical monitoring activities coordinated by the management
body
0 or 1
Are the biophysical monitoring activities coordinated by the management body?
Biophysical monitoring report
Resolutions approving monitoring
activities
TOTAL SCORE FOR LEVEL 1 27
Thresholds are in BLOCK CAPITALS. Minimum score of 18 points and all Thresholds should have been met to pass this Level.
LEVEL 2 - MPA MANAGEMENT IS EFFECTIVELY STRENGTHENED (9 Items, 15 Points)
Criteria / Guide Questions
Allowable
Points
Actual
Points
Remarks / Means of verification
2.1 The MPA is effectively strengthened (15/15)
2.1.1 Enforcement plan, or its equivalent, in place 0 or 1
The MPA should have a clear and feasible enforcement plan
Enforcement plan (i.e., schedules, SOP,
etc)
2.1.2 Marine enforcement group trained 0 or 1
Have the marine enforcement team members been trained on enforcement procedures and protocols? (e.g., apprehension,
para-legal, use of GPS, safety, etc.)
Training report with names of
participants
Certificate of attendance to
training(s)
Deputization ID
2.1.3 PATROLLING AND SURVEILLANCE CONDUCTED REGULARLY * 0 or 3
Are patrolling, surveillance, and other violation detection measures (e.g., watchtowers, radars, community
reporting, etc.) being conducted regularly?
Attendance of patrollers
Patrol logs
Back to office reports (after patrols)
Mission order
2.1.4 VIOLATIONS DOCUMENTED * 0 or 3
Are violation reports / apprehensions being documented properly?
Even if there are no violations observed, these should be reported as "no observed violations" .
Back-to-office report of patrol team
Logbook of apprehensions / report
violations
Police blotter
2.1.5 CASES FILED OR VIOLATORS PENALIZED * 0 or 3
Are cases filed for apprehended violators or are they penalized (e.g., administrative fines)?
Violators are at least required to pay administrative fines or other penalties provided for in the ordinance or any enabling law.
Confiscation of gears can also serve as a form of sanction as well as undergoing a seminar for first time violators.
Case reports
Legal documents
List of violators penalized
Logbooks
Record of fines collected
List / pictures of gears confiscated
2.1.6 Funds accessed and used 0 or 1
Allocated funds should have been accessed and used for MPA management. Funds can also come from other sources (e.g.,
donors, projects, etc.)
Expenditure reports
Financial statements
2.1.7 Infrastructures maintained 0 or 1
Are the MPA billboards, boundary markers, anchor buoys, guardhouse, boats, or other infrastructures for MPA management
being maintained?
Photograph of infrastructures showing
their condition
Expenditure reports on maintenance of
infrastructures
2.1.8 IEC program conducted to sustain public awareness and compliance 0 or 1
Is the IEC program being implemented to sustain public awareness and compliance?
Documentation of IEC activities
IEC materials
2.1.9 Participatory biophysical monitoring in the last 3 years 0 or 1
Biophysical surveys should have been conducted at least in the last three (3) years. Surveys should be properly documented,
with the data kept safely for review and updating purposes. For NIPAS seascapes, Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS) or other
monitoring methods should have been done and reported at least over the last three years.
Data or report over the last three years
TOTAL SCORE FOR LEVEL 2 15
Thresholds are in BLOCK CAPITALS. To achieve Level 2, Level 1 requirements must have been passed and a minimum of 11 points obtained from Level 2 with all Thresholds met.
LEVEL 3 - MPA MANAGEMENT IS EFFECTIVELY SUSTAINED FOR AT LEAST 5 YEARS (11 Items, 21 Points)
Criteria / Guide Questions
Allowable
Points
Actual
Points
Remarks / Means of verification
3.1 The MPA management is effectively sustained for at least 5 years (21/21)
3.1.1 Management plan and ordinance reviewed and updated 0 or 1
Has the MPA management plan reviewed or updated in response to emerging needs and challenges?
Updated management plan or
amendments to the plan
Minutes of meeting that reviewed the
plan
3.1.2 FUNDS GENERATED OR ACCESSED FOR LAST 2 YEARS * 0 or 3
Are financial sources generated or accessed for the last 2 or more consecutive years? (e.g., budget from LGU / IPAF or from
external sources)
Audited expenditure report for the last 2
years
3.1.3
Management body able to supervise management activities of the
MPA and access technical assistance, if necessary
0 or 1
Management body is fully functioning and has shown capacity to locate and access technical assistance to improve MPA
management and status
Letters with reply from partner for
technical assistance
Reports with other partners
Minutes of meetings w/ action points
3.1.4
ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM FULLY OPERATIONAL IN THE LAST FIVE
CONSECUTIVE YEARS *
0 or 3
The enforcement plan is fully implemented. Patrolling activities, violations reporting and apprehension, and sanctioning of
violators should have been on-going over the last five years.
Logbook with records of patrolling
apprehensions
Annual enforcement reports (for 5 years)
3.1.5 IEC program enhanced 0 or 1
IEC materials are regularly reproduced or updated and disseminated
IEC Program progress reports (including
dissemination details)
Updated IEC materials
3.1.6
PERFORMANCE MONITORING OF THE MANAGEMENT BODY
CONDUCTED REGULARLY *
0 or 3
Performance monitoring of the management body should be done regularly as defined in the management plan or at least every 2
years. Management evaluation tools such as the MPA MEAT can be used to assess management performance.
Performance evaluation reports for the
management body
3.1.7 REGULAR PARTICIPATORY MONITORING CONDUCTED * 0 or 3
Biophysical surveys should have been conducted at least in the last five (5) years. Surveys should be properly documented, with
the data kept safely for review and updating purposes. For NIPAS seascapes, the Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS) should have
been reported at least every three years.
Monitoring data showing trends
Attendance sheets showing names of
locals who participated in monitoring
activities
3.1.8 Socioeconomic monitoring conducted regularly 0 or 1
"Regular" as defined in the management plan or at least annually. Minimum socioeconomic data which may be used by the
management body to adjust management plans & strategies include: income, livelihood activities, population, resource use, fish
catch, etc.
Socioeconomic data showing trends
3.1.9 Sustainable financing strategy established 0 or 1
Is there an internally generated revenue scheme?
Resolution or ordinance imposing fees
Financial guidelines
Private-public partnership agreements
3.1.10 VIOLATORS PROSECUTED AND SANCTIONED * 0 or 3
Are the prosecution process requirements, if any, satisfied by the MPA management body?
Appearance in court or court decision
Other sanctions implemented
3.1.11 Feedback system in place (for monitoring) 0 or 1
Is there a feedback system in place?
Minutes of public hearings /
presentations
TOTAL SCORE FOR LEVEL 3 21
Thresholds are in BLOCK CAPITALS. To achieve Level 3, Level 1 & 2 requirements must have been passed and a minimum of 16 points obtained from Level 3 with all Thresholds
met.
LEVEL 4 - MPA MANAGEMENT IS EFFECTIVELY INSTITUTIONALIZED FOR AT LEAST 7 YEARS (11 Items, 21 Points)
Criteria / Guide Questions
Allowable
Points
Actual
Points
Remarks / Means of verification
4.1 MPA management effectively institutionalized for at least 7 years (21/21)
4.1.1 Political support from the provincial council or LGUs 0 or 1
The Provincial Council (for locally-managed MPAs) or local governments (for NIPAS seascapes) have committed to give the MPA
institutional support to strengthen enforcement and collaboration. Political support = budget, manpower, or technical
Contracts / MOA / MOU
Annual Investment Plan (for NIPAS)
SP Resolution committing/providing
support
4.1.2
MPA MANAGEMENT PLAN INCORPORATED IN BROADER
DEVELOPMENT PLANS *
0 or 3
The MPA or NIPAS seascape is incorporated within the long-term LGU or provincial development plans (e.g., Comprehensive Land
Use Plans, Provincial Development Plans, etc.)
Higher level plans where the MPA is
integrated
4.1.3 Management body capable of outsourcing funds 0 or 1
Is the management body able to get funds for the MPA / NIPAS seascape from external sources?
Proposals submitted (received copy)
Grant agreements entered into by the
management body
4.1.4
Coordination with LGUs and other groups clearly defined and
formalized
0 or 1
Is the coordination with appropriate national & local agencies on CRM / MPA policies and with other LGUs achieved? Are the
accountabilities and working relationships among collaborating institutions clearly defined and formalized?
Memorandum of Agreement
Partnership contracts / documents
4.1.5
ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
CONDUCTED *
0 or 3
Assessment of resource status and long-term trends should be conducted together with an assessment of benefits obtained from
the MPA by stakeholders. Impacts should also be assessed vis-a-vis the overall objective of the MPA or NIPAS seascape.
Trends and temporal assessments of
ecological & socio-economic impacts
Impact assessment report
4.1.6
PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM LINKED
TO AN INCENTIVE SYSTEM *
0 or 3
Recognition / awards are regularly being given to outstanding members, law enforcers, etc. Incentives can also include granting of
available loans or supplementary livelihood opportunities.
Awards / Recognition received
Announcement of competition /
performance incentives
4.1.7 IEC SUSTAINED OVER SEVEN YEARS * 0 or 3
Has the IEC program for the MPA been sustained over the past seven years?
IEC program progress reports for 7 years
IEC long-term plan
4.1.8 Management body can adjudicate certain cases 0 or 1
Does the management body adjudicate administrative cases?
Proceedings of adjudications
Letters of complaints
4.1.9 Expansion strategies or resource enhancement programs initiated 0 or 1
MPA coverage or core zones (for local MPAs) expanded. Advance conservation and resource enhancement activities implemented
(e.g., coral reef restoration, mangrove reforestation, giant clam restocking, etc.).
Reports
4.1.10 Support facilities constructed 0 or 1
Facilities to support MPA enterprises or improve conservation efforts are constructed (e.g., guardhouse, visitors' center, education /
training center, watchtowers, etc.)
Photographs of infrastructure
4.1.11
MPA FINANCIALLY SELF-SUSTAINING IN THE LAST SEVEN (7)
CONSECUTIVE YEARS *
0 or 3
Revenues (internally generated and/or obtained from external sources) should be enough to cover operating expenses of the MPA
in the last seven (7) years
Audited financial report for the last
seven years
TOTAL SCORE FOR LEVEL 4 21
Thresholds are in BLOCK CAPITALS. To achieve Level 4, Levels 1 to 3 requirements must have been passed and a minimum of 16 points obtained from Level 4 with all Thresholds
met.
Summary of MPA MEAT Results
Total cumulative score * :
Name of MPA :
Location :
Date accomplished :
MPA level achieved :
MPA Level
Year requirement
met?
Total Score Per
Level
All threshold
questions
satisfied?
MPA level
satisfied?
1 - Established
- At least 1 year
- at least 20 Total Cumulative Score
- all Level 1 Thresholds met
MPA is at
least 1 year
old
2 - Strengthened
- At least 3 years
- at least 31 Total Cumulative Score
- all Level 1 & 2 Thresholds met
MPA is at
least 3 years
old
3 - Sustained
- At least 5 years
- at least 47 Total Cumulative Score
- all Level 1, 2, & 3 Thresholds met
MPA is at
least 5 years
old
4 - Institutionalized
- At least 7 years
- at least 63 Total Cumulative Score
- all Thresholds met
MPA is at
least 7 years
old
TOTAL CUMULATIVE SCORE
out of 84
points *
* Total Cumulative Score: <24 points = "Fair"; 25 to 39 = "Good"; 40 to 61 = "Very Good"; 62 to 84 = "Excellent"
If your MPA does not meet the basic Level 1 category, your MPA is still under the process of establishment. Basic activities should be
conducted soon to fully "establish" the MPA and make it operational.
Management Focus Item Numbers in MPA MEAT Form
Total
Available
Points
Actual Score per
Management
Focus
Actual Score divide by
Total Available Points
Management Plan
1.2.1 + 1.2.2 + 1.2.4 + 3.1.1 + 4.1.2
Management Body
1.2.3 + 1.4.1 + 1.4.2 + 3.1.3 + 3.1.6 + 4.1.1
+ 4.1.4
Legal Instrument
1.3.1 + 1.3.2 + 1.3.3
Community Participation
1.1.1 + 1.1.2
Financing
1.4.3 + 2.1.6 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.9 + 4.1.3 + 4.1.11
IEC
1.4.4 + 2.1.7 + 2.1.8 + 3.1.5 + 4.1.7
Enforcement
1.4.5 + 1.4.6 + 2.1.1 + 2.1.2 + 2.1.3 + 2.1.4
+ 2.1.5 + 3.1.4 + 3.1.10 + 4.1.8
Monitoring & Evaluation
1.1.3 + 1.4.7 + 2.1.9 + 3.1.7 + 3.1.8 + 3.1.11
+ 4.1.5 + 4.1.6
Site Development
4.1.9 + 4.1.10
Remarks :
MPA Management Focus (for each focus, add the points for all the questions in the 2nd column below):
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Developed in partnership with:
The institutionalization of the MPA MEAT is still being processed. In the meantime, you may send your lled-up
MPA MEAT forms to the MPA Support Network c/o:
Prof. Porrio M. Aliño, PhD
The Marine Science Institute
University of the Philippines
Velasquez St., Diliman
QQuezon City 1101
Philippines
Tel / Fax: +63 2 4331806
Email: mpameat@gmail.com
Chrome Web Store
It looks like you haven't installed the Fill Chrome Extension Add to Chrome