Developing pro-poor markets for environmental services in the ...

group representative, the mayor of Dauin, the barangay captain of Apo Island, the PA
Superintendent, and the PAMB collection officer were each interviewed regarding the
economic and ecological impacts of PA management on the island and its residents.
Appendix H 40 contains a matrix of guide questions used, and the relevant set of respondents
for each question. Meanwhile, Appendix C-1 41 shows the interview schedule conducted on
the island.
Households were randomly selected on the island. The survey covered both male and female
respondents, to make an adequate representation with respect to gender. Furthermore, males
were usually the main income earners in the household, while females usually worked in the
home. The mayor and the PG representative were members of the former management body
of the PA prior to its being declared as a NIPAS site. The NGO, barangay captain and the
PAMB officials represented the present management body of the PA. For purposes of tallying
the survey results, the PAMB superintendent and collection officer were considered as only
one vote. They gave exactly the same answers to the survey questions, and they represented
the same office, both coming from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Region VII office.
From the questions and survey responses, the following indicators were derived:
Institutional/process indicators:
• Proper consultation with, and approval sought from the community on: implementation of
the economic instrument (EI) revenue disbursements, i.e. programmes and projects change
in PA management from MMC to PAMB.
• Transparency with respect to: hiring for employment opportunities created by the EI
amount of revenues collected; effective enforcement of PA laws and regulations; fair
representation of all stakeholders in the PAMB.
Impact indicators – economic:
• employment generated;
• increase in incomes;
• increase in revenues for government programme;
• increase in the number of community development programmes;
• increase in the number of environmental programmes
• increase in population due to in-migration;
• change in local exports;
• change in local imports; and
• increased fish catch.
Impact indicators – social and biophysical:
• coral reef enhancement/ increase in fish yield;
• cultural traditions preserved; and
• conservation practices adopted.
Results of the survey are summarised in Table 4.4. On the one hand, as far as the process
indicators are concerned, key informants seem to be dissatisfied with how PAMB is handling
40 Available at http://www.iied.org/eep/.
41 Available at http://www.iied.org/eep/.
66