Part II Community-Based Forest Management Program - ppmrn

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ADEQUATE MONITORING ACTIVITIES PO Name Area per Surviva l DENR Rate Tally Sheet Parcel# DENR COA Pictures OSA Palha, J. 2.37 IAF19 97-98 90% 15% OSA Canete, I. 1.05 IAF4 97-98 89.52% 0% SAHA Magale, S. 5.25 IIAS2 97-98 92.80% 20% The erroneous reporting would have a great impact on the payment of CSD accomplishments and release of retention fee. Consider: • The reported double entry connotes double counting which consequently increased the actual developed area. It must be noted that CSD accomplishments on established plantations were paid on a per hectare basis, thus, double reporting also results in double payment; • Inconsistent reporting of project size also connotes excess payment on CSD contract since as mentioned, payment is on a per hectare basis, hence, the bigger the size, the bigger the payment; • Fictitious areas as manifested by their absence in other reports connotes excess payment as this means payment for something that were not really accomplished; • Any unreasonable increase in project area will affect WASR as bigger areas contribute much in the weighted average rate computation; and • Overstated survival rate in some parcels contributed to the attainment of survival rate benchmark. The inconsistencies of data maintained by DENR manifest unreliable reporting system. As long as these reports remain unreconciled, the actual accomplishments of the POs could not be determined. Management’s Comments Provided by CENRO- Malaybalay While it is true that there were double entries of recording in both M & E and DENR tally sheet of certain PO developer in Reforestation and Agro-forestry component of POs, we Team’s Rejoinder The double entries in the M & E report were not corrected but were also reflected in the DENR validation report. As explained by the CENRO, the validation report was 94
ADEQUATE MONITORING ACTIVITIES Management’s Comments acknowledged that the same was an honest mistake in the recording process especially in the Plantation Register of POs like PO-OSA & PO- SAHA. However, despite this honest lapses there had been no reported increase in areas developed because of validation as basis for payment these areas has not been doubly paid/validated. Provided by CENRO-Malaybalay One parcel located at PO- CEDAMCO under the name of Jacinto Cuñado certainly is only 1.26 hectares under Refo component instead of the alleged 3.01 hectares per Terminal Report of PO- CEDAMCO….On one hand the two parcels at PO-OSA area were indeed an honest mistake. The six parcels of PO-PAGTUKAS with an equivalent area of 19.08 hectares as recorded in the DENR tally sheet, M & E report, Plantation Register were really established in the area as stated therein and these was confirmed by the PO during the verification/dialogue conducted. The PO acknowledge that the plantation exist only that the location was in another site. The reported species on 10 parcels do not match with the actual species planted in the area due to replanting activity by the PO that the seedling species replanted were not the same as originally planted due to scarcity of seedlings. On three parcels equivalent to 3.83 hectares found to have no plantations at all. The three mentioned parcels Team’s Rejoinder used as the basis for payment. It could therefore not be claimed that there was no double payment. Such errors should have been accordingly corrected. This manifests inaccuracy in reporting. The correct location should be indicated in the report. It may be noted that replanting undertaken after final validation were done only in parcels. Hence, surviving original species should be visible within the area inspected by the team which was not so. The consequences of the action should be adequately explained to the owner and that repetition of the act would 95
Page 1 and 2:
Management Services Report No. 2005
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Page Part I Executive Summ
Page 5 and 6:
Part I Executive Summary 1
Page 7 and 8:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On July 19, 1995,
Page 9 and 10:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • POs in all se
Page 11 and 12:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY also forwarded ex
Page 13 and 14:
COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT P
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
PENRO INTRODUCTION The DENR is the
Page 29 and 30:
PENRO ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The
Page 31 and 32:
PENRO BUKIDNON PENR Officer Secreta
Page 33 and 34:
PENRO LOCATION/ PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Part IV Audit Observations 35
Page 41 and 42:
EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING INTR
Page 43 and 44:
EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING live
Page 45 and 46:
EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING Live
Page 47 and 48: EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING The
Page 49 and 50: EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING CBFM
Page 51 and 52: EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING CENR
Page 53 and 54: EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING Mana
Page 55 and 56: SOUND IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANC
Page 87 and 88: ADEQUATE MONITORING ACTIVITIES INTR
Page 89 and 90: ADEQUATE MONITORING ACTIVITIES Prov
Page 91 and 92: ADEQUATE MONITORING ACTIVITIES Prov
Page 93 and 94: ADEQUATE MONITORING ACTIVITIES Mana
Page 95 and 96: ADEQUATE MONITORING ACTIVITIES acco
Page 97: ADEQUATE MONITORING ACTIVITIES Parc
Page 101 and 102: Chapter 4 Appropriate Safekeeping P
Page 103 and 104: APPROPRIATE SAFEKEEPING PROCEDURES
Page 113 and 114: RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS In
Page 115: Submitted in compliance with COA Mn
show all

Part II Community-Based Forest Management Program - ppmrn

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?