Problem overview:

     Policies and measures: In an attempt to finance cost of conservation and maintenance for protected areas, government applied market based instrument policy.

Background in summary:

     Protected Area: In line with the Philippines Constitution of 1987, the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act was enacted in 1992. While allowing developmental and other activities in some of the zones of protected areas, the law provides that, in order to help finance the conservation and management of the protected areas, reasonable fees and charges can be collected from those who derive benefits from them. The law mandated the DENR Secretary to fix and prescribe the fees and charges.

     Determining rate of fees and charges: The team of REECS consultants and their DENR counterparts came up with the "Guidelines and Principles in Determining Fees for Access to and Sustainable Use of Resources in Protected Areas" which was subsequently adopted by the DENR on June 21, 2000. The team identified different fees and charges i.e., entrance, facilities user, resource user, development, concession, and royalty.

     Piloted areas: Mt. Pulag National Park and Hundred Islands National Park (for entrance and facilities user fees), Lake Paoay National park (for resource user fee), and Mt. Kitanglad National Park (for development fee). The Mt. Pulag Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) started implementing its revised fees in 1999, while the Hundred Islands National Park PAMB amended its fees in 2000. Lake Paoay PAMB increased its fees in 1999 and Mt. Kitanglad PAMB started to implement its revised fees in 2001.

     The effects of fees and charges: Reports show that the increased fees and charges did not deter the affected stakeholders from enjoying the amenities and/or using the protected areas. On the other hand, the changes instilled to these users as well as to the local government units who have jurisdiction over these areas in the sense of being responsible for the protection and maintenance of the areas. For FY 2002 alone, the local government units who have joint jurisdiction over the area allotted an amount totaling PhP 3.2 million (US$60,400) from their respective local budgets to help defray the cost of the protection and maintenance of the protected area.

Peer Review Committee Good practice rating: (1 for the best, 5 for the lowest score)
Sustainability		Efficiency
1	Improvement in either the environment of economic condition with no harm to the other.	1	Cost efficient.
2	Sustainable over time (not one-off)	Process
Adaptability		2	Participation of the community
3	Location adaptability (can the project be done in other places?)	2	Participation of resource owners/users
3	Socio-cultural adaptability.	2	Partnerships between various actors (Governments, NGO, Academia, Private)
2	Level of development adaptability.	3	Degree of coordination and cooperation between government departments.
2	Style of government adaptability.	2	Ability to attract political interest/support
3	Degree of decentralization adaptability.	2	Procedures for feedback and review.
Comments on this example:      Pricing based on the user's willingness to pay may not be linked to the carrying capacity of the protected area. For instance, the more people brought into the protected areamore destruction may result. Ideally, pricing should be based on both users' willingness to pay (demand for environmental services), and the carrying capacity of protected area (supply of environmental services).      In the case where the protected area has traditionally been used by local communities for non-timber forest resources, the problem of encroachment may occur because the local communities will lose the access to the area. Establishing buffer zone is measure to minimize the problem. Sustainability of the project:      In this project, there is no major objection from stakeholders since the stakeholders find their benefit in this scheme (users benefit from better maintenance of the area, and local government find revenue for maintenance and preservation activities). Adaptability of the project to other situations:      The concept can be replicated at the national (centralized system) and local (decentralized system) levels. However, implementation at the local level may be preferred to encourage the stakeholders themselves and the local communities to participate in the undertaking. Process of decision making and implementation:      Partnerships between various actors: Participation of LGUs, POs and community and their willingness to contribute to the cause of the Protected Areas' maintenance and protection set the example to the users and made them aware of their responsibility to help conserve and protect the resources from where they draw enjoyment and/or income.      The willingness and cooperation of the users to pay for the use of the resources made it possible for the PAMB to implement the concept easily and enable tehm to collect additional funds that they can use to augment their budgets for the maintenance and conservation of their PAs.      Procedure for feedback and review: The mentoring and continuous monitoring and evaluation of the effort by the consultants and DENR and PAWB central offices staff members provided the PAMBs with the technical know how as well as scientific basis for the imposition of the appropriate fees and charges. Cost efficiency: