mett catspa

Introduction Effective monitoring and evaluation, knowledge based on data management system is in place to assess progress and to inform policy decision, is the project objective of the Catalyzing sustainability of Thailand’s Protected Area Systems (Output1.3) . The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tools (METT) is the effective monitoring and evaluation approach and has been recommended and appeared in project document, used at the individual protected area and at the system level as a whole. METT has been monitored and evaluated each pilot site, the first during project formulation in 2008, secondly in 2014 after the recommendation of mid-term review. So that this report it the third monitoring and evaluation, nearly the end of the CATSPA project. The pilot sites of Catalyzing Sustainability of Thailand’s Protected Area System (CATSPA) are;

1. Khao Chamao – Khao Wong National Park. 2. Doi Intanon National Park. 3. Tarutao National Park. 4. Khlong Lan National Park. 5. Huay Khakhaeng Wildlife Sanctuary.

The working process, the scores were provided by a consensus of protected area staff and Protected Area Committee (PAC) at each site, discussion, comments and next steps for protected area threats and assessment form. The reasons for any changes in 2008 and 2014, there were difference explanation were recorded and compared. The reasons, comments and next steps of any changes appear in this report, especially more information details from each protected area.

Hope that this report will meet the project output and can do in policy decision, and thank you to all CATSPA staff who worked on the METT monitoring and evaluation of the CATSPA Project.

(Dr. Songtam Suksawang) CATSPA Project Director

Data Sheet 1: Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites

Please indicate your answer

here Notes

Name, affiliation and contact details for person responsible for completing the METT Mr.Porntep Jareanseubsakul 4 Staff , 4 PACDate assessment carried out 24-Jun-16 Month DD, YYYY (e.g., May 12, 2010)

Name of protected area Doi Inthanon national ParkWDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/)

Designations(please choose 1-3) 1

1: National

2: IUCN Category

3: International (please complete lines 35-69 as necessary )

Country THAILocation of protected area (province and if possible map reference) Chiengmai

Date of establishment 21830

Ownership details (please choose 1-4) 1

1: State

2: Private

3: Community

4: Other

Management Authority DNPSize of protected area (ha) 48,240 haNumber of Permanent staff 74Number of Temporary staff 96

Annual budget (THB) for recurrent (operational) funds – excluding staff salary costs

Annual budget (THB) for project or other supplementary funds – excluding staff salary

What are the main values for which the area is designated

List the two primary protected area management objectives in below:

Management objective 1 forest protectionManagement objective 2 tourism

No. of people involved in completing assessment 8

Important: Please read the Guidelines posted on the GEF website before entering your data

Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Projects in GEF-3, GEF-4, and GEF-5

Objective 1: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

SECTION II: Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas

Note: Please complete the management effectiveness tracking tool for EACH protected area that is the target of the GEF intervention and create a new worksheet for each.

Structure and content of the Tracking Tool - Objective 1. Section II:

The Tracking Tool has two main sections: datasheets and assessment form. Both sections should be completed.

1. Datasheets: the data sheet comprises of two separate sections:

2. Assessment Form: the assessment is structured around 30 questions presented in table format which includes three columns for recording details of the assessment, all of which should

be completed.

Including: (please choose 1-8) information is based on discussion among all

stakeholder 1-78

1: PA manager

2: PA staff

3: Other PA agency staff

4: Donors

5: NGOs

6: External experts

7: Local community

8: Other

Information on International Designations

UNESCO World Heritage site (see: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list)

Date Listed

Site name

Site area

Geographical co-ordinates

Criteria for designation (i.e. criteria i to x)

Statement of Outstanding Universal Value

Ramsar site (see: http://ramsar.wetlands.org)

Date Listed

Site name

Site area

Geographical number

Reason for Designation (see Ramsar Information Sheet)

UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves (see:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-

Date Listed

Site name

Site area Total, Core, Buffe, and Transition


Criteria for designation

Fulfilment of three functions of MAB conservation, development and logistic support

Please list other designations (i.e. ASEAN Heritage, Natura 2000) and any

supporting information below

Name

Detail

Name

Detail

Name

Detail

1.1 Housing and settlement 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

1.2 Commercial and industrial areas 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.1a Drug cultivation 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.2 Wood and pulp plantations 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.3 Livestock farming and grazing 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

3.1 Oil and gas drilling -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

3.2 Mining and quarrying -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

Data Sheet 2: Protected Areas Threats (please complete a Data Sheet of threats and assessment for each protected area of the project).

Please choose all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are

those threats having some negative impact and those characterised as low are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not

applicable in the protected area.

1. Residential and commercial development within a protected area

Threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint

2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area

Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, mariculture and aquaculture

3. Energy production and mining within a protected area

Threats from production of non-biological resources

3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

4.3 Shipping lanes and canals -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

4.4 Flight paths -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a

result of human/wildlife conflict)1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

5.3 Logging and wood harvesting 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

6.1 Recreational activities and tourism 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality

4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area

5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area

Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes

hunting and killing of animals)

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area

Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources

6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle use, artificial

watering points and dams)1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected area staff and

visitors-

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) 3

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3 Increased fragmentation within protected area 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3a Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without effective

aquatic wildlife passages)1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3b Other ‘edge effects’ on park values 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3c Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc) 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) 3

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes

7. Natural system modifications

Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions

Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following

introduction, spread and/or increase

8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms) 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality

discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution)-

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.4 Garbage and solid waste 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.5 Air-borne pollutants 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc) 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

10.1 Volcanoes -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

10. Geological events

Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to

disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these changes may be limited.

9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area

Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources

10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed changes) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

11.2 Droughts 3

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

11.3 Temperature extremes 3

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

11.4 Storms and flooding -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

12.1 Loss of cultural links, traditional knowledge and/or management practices -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

12.2 Natural deterioration of important cultural site values -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

12.3 Destruction of cultural heritage buildings, gardens, sites etc -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

1. Legal status: Does the protected area have legal status (or in the case of private

reserves is covered by a covenant or similar)? 3

0: The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted

1: There is agreement that the protected area should be

gazetted/covenanted but the process has not yet begun 2:

The protected area is in the process of being gazetted/covenanted but

the process is still incomplete (includes sites designated under

international conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such

as community conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal

Comments and Next Steps

11. Climate change and severe weather

Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation

12. Specific cultural and social threats

Assessment Form

2. Protected area regulations: Are appropriate regulations in place to control land use

and activities (e.g. hunting)? 3

0: There are no regulations for controlling land use and activities in the

protected area

1: Some regulations for controlling land use and activities in the

protected area exist but these are major weaknesses

2: Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area

exist but there are some weaknesses or gaps

3: Regulations for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the


3. Law

Enforcement: Can staff (i.e. those with responsibility for managing the site) enforce

protected area rules well enough?2

0: The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected

area legislation and regulations

1: There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce

protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol

budget, lack of institutional support)

2: The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected

area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain

3: The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area

legislation and regulations


4. Protected area objectives: Is management undertaken according to agreed

objectives?3

0: No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area

1: The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed

according to these objectives

2: The protected area has agreed objectives, but is only partially

managed according to these objectives

3: The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet

these objectives


5. Protected area design: Is the protected area the right size and shape to protect

species, habitats, ecological processes and water catchments of key conservation

concern?

2

0: Inadequacies in protected area design mean achieving the major

objectives of the protected area is very difficult

1: Inadequacies in protected area design mean that achievement of

major objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being taken

(e.g. agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife corridors or

introduction of appropriate catchment management)

2: Protected area design is not significantly constraining achievement of

objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with respect to larger scale

ecological processes)

3: Protected area design helps achievement of objectives; it is

appropriate for species and habitat conservation; and maintains

ecological processes such as surface and groundwater flows at a

catchment scale, natural disturbance patterns etc


6. Protected area boundary demarcation:

Is the boundary known and demarcated? 2

0: The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management

authority or local residents/neighbouring land users

1: The boundary of the protected area is known by the management

authority but is not known by local residents/neighbouring land users

2: The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management

authority and local residents/neighbouring land users but is not

appropriately demarcated


authority and local residents/neighbouring land users and is



7. Management plan: Is there a management plan and is it being implemented? 2

0: There is no management plan for the protected area

1: A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not

being implemented

2: A management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented

because of funding constraints or other problems

3: A management plan exists and is being implemented


7.a Planning process: The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key

stakeholders to influence the management plan 1

0: No

1: Yes


7.b Planning process: There is an established schedule and process for periodic

review and updating of the management plan 1

0: No

1: Yes


7.c Planning process: The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely

incorporated into planning 1

0: No

1: Yes


8. Regular work plan: Is there a regular work plan and is it being implemented 3

0: No regular work plan exists

1: A regular work plan exists but few of the activities are implemented

2: A regular work plan exists and many activities are implemented

3: A regular work plan exists and all activities are implemented


9. Resource inventory: Do you have enough information to manage the area? 2

0: There is little or no information available on the critical habitats,

species and cultural values of the protected area

1: Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and

cultural values of the protected area is not sufficient to support planning

and decision making


cultural values of the protected area is sufficient for most key areas of

planning and decision making


cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support all areas of



10. Protection systems:

Are systems in place to control access/resource use in the protected area? 2

0: Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are not

effective in controlling access/resource use

1: Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling

access/resource use

2: Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling

access/resource use

3: Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access/


11. Research: Is there a programme of management-orientated survey and research

work?2

0: There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area

1: There is a small amount of survey and research work but it is not

directed towards the needs of protected area management

2: There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed

towards the needs of protected area management

3:There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and

research work, which is relevant to management needs


12. Resource management: Is active resource management being undertaken? 3

0: Active resource management is not being undertaken

1: Very few of the requirements for active management of critical

habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural values are being

implemented

2: Many of the requirements for active management of critical habitats,

species, ecological processes and, cultural values are being

implemented but some key issues are not being addressed

3: Requirements for active management of critical habitats, species,

ecological processes and, cultural values are being substantially or fully

implemented


13. Staff numbers: Are there enough people employed to manage the protected area? 1

0: There are no staff

1: Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities

2: Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management

activities

3: Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the

protected area


14. Staff training: Are staff adequately trained to fulfill management objectives? 2

0: Staff lack the skills needed for protected area management

1: Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected

area

2: Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to

fully achieve the objectives of management

3: Staff training and skills are aligned with the management needs of the

protected area


15. Current budget: Is the current budget sufficient? 2

0: There is no budget for management of the protected area

1: The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and

presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage

2: The available budget is acceptable but could be further improved to

fully achieve effective management

3: The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management

needs of the protected area


16. Security of budget: Is the budget secure? 1

0: There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is

wholly reliant on outside or highly variable funding

1: There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not

function adequately without outside funding

2: There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular operation of the

protected area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside

funding

3: There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management


17. Management of budget: Is the budget managed to meet critical management

needs?2

0: Budget management is very poor and significantly undermines

effectiveness (e.g. late release of budget in financial year)

1: Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness

2: Budget management is adequate but could be improved

3: Budget management is excellent and meets management needs


18. Equipment: Is equipment sufficient for management needs?1

0: There are little or no equipment and facilities for management needs

1: There are some equipment and facilities but these are inadequate for

most management needs

2: There are equipment and facilities, but still some gaps that constrain

management


19. Maintenance of equipment: Is equipment adequately maintained? 2

0: There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities

1: There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and facilities

2: There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities

3: Equipment and facilities are well maintained


20. Education and awareness: Is there a planned education programme linked to the

objectives and needs?2

0: There is no education and awareness programme

1: There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme

2: There is an education and awareness programme but it only partly

meets needs and could be improved

3: There is an appropriate and fully implemented education and

awareness programme


21. Planning for land and water use: Does land and water use planning recognise the

protected area and aid the achievement of objectives?3

0: Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account the

needs of the protected area and activities/policies are detrimental to the

survival of the area

1: Adjacent land and water use planning does not takes into account the

long term needs of the protected area, but activities are not detrimental

the area

2: Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into account the

long term needs of the protected area

3: Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into account the long

term needs of the protected area


21a. Land and water planning for habitat conservation: Planning and management in

the catchment or landscape containing the protected area incorporates provision for

adequate environmental conditions (e.g. volume, quality and timing of water flow, air

pollution levels etc) to sustain relevant habitats.

1 0: No

1: Yes


21b. Land and water planning for habitat conservation: Management of corridors

linking the protected area provides for wildlife passage to key habitats outside the

protected area (e.g. to allow migratory fish to travel between freshwater spawning

1 0: No

1: Yes


21c. Land and water planning for habitat conservation: "Planning adresses

ecosystem-specific needs and/or the needs of particular species of concern at an

ecosystem scale (e.g. volume, quality and timing of freshwater flow to sustain

1 0: No

1: Yes


22. State and commercial neighbours:Is there co-operation with adjacent land and

water users? 3

0: There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official or

corporate land and water users

1: There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or

corporate land and water users but little or no cooperation


corporate land and water users, but only some co-operation

3: There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official

or corporate land and water users, and substantial co-operation on

management


23. Indigenous people: Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident or regularly

using the protected area have input to management decisions?3

0: Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions

relating to the management of the protected area

1: Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions

relating to management but no direct role in management

2: Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some relevant

decisions relating to management but their involvement could be

improved

3: Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant

decisions relating to management, e.g. co-management


24. Local communities: Do local communities resident or near the protected area

have input to management decisions?3

0: Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the

management of the protected area

1: Local communities have some input into discussions relating to

management but no direct role in management

2: Local communities directly contribute to some relevant decisions

relating to management but their involvement could be improved

3: Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating

to management, e.g. co-management


24 a. Impact on communities: There is open communication and trust between local

and/or indigenous people, stakeholders and protected area managers1

0: No

1: Yes


24 b. Impact on communities: Programmes to enhance community welfare, while

conserving protected area resources, are being implemented 1

0: No

1: Yes


24 c. Impact on communities: Local and/or indigenous people actively support the 1 0: No


25. Economic benefit: Is the protected area providing economic benefits to local

communities, e.g. income, employment, payment for environmental services?3

0: The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to local

communities

1: Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise these

are being developed

2: There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities

3: There is a major flow of economic benefits to local communities from


26. Monitoring and evaluation: Are management activities monitored against

performance?2

0: There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area

1: There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall

strategy and/or no regular collection of results

2: There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation

system but results do not feed back into management

3: A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented

and used in adaptive management


27. Visitor facilities: Are visitor facilities adequate? 2

0: There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need

1: Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of

visitation

2: Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of

visitation but could be improved


28. Commercial tourism operators: Do commercial tour operators contribute to

protected area management?3

0: There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators

using the protected area

1: There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is

largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters

2: There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism

operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area

values

3: There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators

to enhance visitor experiences, and maintain protected area values


29. Fees: If fees (i.e. entry fees or fines) are applied, do they help protected area

management?3

0: Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected

1: Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the protected area or

its environs

2: Fees are collected, and make some contribution to the protected area

and its environs

3: Fees are collected and make a substantial contribution to the

protected area and its environs


30. Condition of values: What is the condition of the important values of the protected

area as compared to when it was first designated?3

0: Many important biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being

severely degraded

1: Some biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely

degraded

2: Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially

degraded but the most important values have not been significantly


30a: Condition of values: The assessment of the condition of values is based on

research and/or monitoring1

0: No

1: Yes


30b: Condition of values Specific management programmes are being implemented

to address threats to biodiversity, ecological and cultural values1

0: No

1: Yes


30c: Condition of values: Activities to maintain key biodiversity, ecological and

cultural values are a routine part of park management1

0: No

1: Yes


TOTAL SCORE 82 Pls add up numbers from assessment form (questions 1 to 30)

METT Comments on CATSPA Pilot Site of Doi Inthanon National Park. By 1. Mr. Tawee Nootong Protected Area Management Advisor, CATSPA Project.

2. Miss Kunsuree Yimsalee CATSPA Project. 3. Miss Supranee Kongthab CATSPA Project.

We participated in the updating of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) for Doi Inthanon National Park, one of at the five pitot sites of CATSPA on June 24,2016. The scores were provided by a consensus of 4 senior staff and 4 Protected Area Committee (PAC). We offered comments for protected areas threats the Assessment Form.

We were interested to understand the reasons for any changes in scores between the exercise and the baseline made in 2014, and there was a difference explanation, are indicated in the comments as followings.

DATA SHEET 2 : Protected Area Threats. 1. Residential and commercial development within a protected area.

No.1.1 and No.1.3 : No comments. No.1.2 : Change in number, the commercial quite low.

2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area. The activities are very low, Organic plants are planted by the farmers are in increasing, they fences the area to protect the

domesticated species. 3. Energy production and mining within a protected area.

The reason is the same in 2014, Still there are 5 small energy generations by waterfall with small effected, but good for protected area because when communities had power that lead to reduce wood harvest. 4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area.

There are decreasing incidence of road-killed animals, because of the strict on regulation of driving. 5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area.

No Comments.

-2-

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area. The number of tourists is increasing; the management/regulation were used.

7. Natural system modifications. There are increasing fire hotspots, due to the hard drought this year, water management became a real problem, in some

communities. 8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes.

The bitter bush / Siam weed still invasive along the road. There has not been reports on pathogens. 9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area.

There are increasing of waste water treatment and waste materials by the regulations, public awareness and cooperation. 10.Geological events.

There have been some incidences of landslides during hard draught and heavy rain. 11.Climate change and severe weather.

This year shows increasing droughts. Temperature between day and night has become more extreme and serious. 12.Specific cultural and social threats.

There are more traditional way for conservation natural resources and the way of life in local communities.

ASSESSMENT FORM 1. Legal status : completed, no comments and next steps. 2. Protected area regulations.

Comments: Regulations sufficient to implement the national park legislation. But the area of the park is very complex site, with multiple occupants from numerous agencies. Cooperation and local regulation of local community is quite well.

Next steps: consider seeking an external, review of the management of the numerous interests that are residents in the park, with a views to streamlining collaboration among the numerous occupants.

-3- 3. Law Enforcement.

Comments: The area of the park is complexity of local communities and institutions involved, need to cooperate closely. Next steps: Seek cooperation with other residents and government agencies to support the law enforcement.

4. Protected area objectives. Comments: The park is being managed according to its agreed objectives, but the strategic management plan has many

activities that need to be addressed, forcing choices to be made. Next steps: Prepare a business plan which will identify the key unfunded priorities from the strategic management plan

and prepare project proposals for their funding. To establish a trust fund to support the effort will be an important element to ensure that funding is available. 5. Protected area design.

Comments: The design of the park is reasonable of the area, given it’s many challenges due to so many occupants. Next steps: The park should consider establishing a strict management area, special areas and strict protection.

6. Protected area boundary demarcation. Comments: The boundary is complex, with boundaries around the outside and other boundaries inside, including the

32 villages that are located within the park, the villages, they do not know the park boundaries. Next steps: While demarcating the boundaries, the staff of the park should also help the villagers to understand the

demarcation boundaries and to understand their responsibilities for the park management. 7. Management plan.

Comments: The current management plan is comprehensive, but contains fare more activities than it is possible to implement with existing funding.

Next steps: Prepare a Business Plan, to focus funding-raising support for key activities. 7a. Planning process (stakeholder involvement). Comments and Next Steps: Especially PAC are involved in management plan.

-4-

7b. Planning process (review and updating). Comments and Next Steps: The management plan is still new, the ways of reviewing and updating are include. 7c. Planning process (m+e plus research). Comments and Next Steps: Research has been carried out on agriculture within the park (by the Royal Project.). More

is underway on forests, watershed, biodiversity and visitors. 8. Regular work plan.

Comments and Next Steps: No comments. 9. Resource inventory.

Comments: The resources are highly complex, including biodiversity, scientific values, cultural values and impact of infrastructures.

Next steps: Seek broader collaboration to make a more comprehensive resource inventory (for example, universities, research institutions). 10. Protection systems.

Comments: With so limit of staff and equipments in the park, for controlling access and resource use, requiring collaboration from the many stakeholders or any agencies to support activities.

Next steps: Seek clearly stakeholders, and specify their responsibilities to contribute to resource protection (for example, volunteers from local communities). 11. Research.

Comments: Much of the most research have little to do with the objectives and park management. Next steps: Specify the research priorities for the park management and need to have in the Business Plan, some of the

highest priorities that are not being funded. Also seek to promote more actively the use of the park as a research site by university researchers.

-5- 12. Resource management.

Comments: Resource management is a high priority in the management plan, and much is being done, the site is so large and complex that it is very difficult to carry out all the necessary activities. To solve these problems, the park staff works closely with local communities, DI-PAC and volunteers.

Next steps: The issues on resource management should appeared in Business Plan, can identify priorities for external funding. 13. Staff number.

Comments: The permanent staff have limited in numbers, cannot work for increasing of park polices (excluding appeared in master plan) by higher level.

Next steps: Seek support from other resident stakeholders to assume responsibility for some activities that are normally in the hands of the park. 14. Staff training.

Comments: The staff numbers are high and the management is complex, this requires better training, directed specifically at enhancing the activities that will be assigned to the person trained, especially new technologies of management.

Next steps: Training could be provided in collaboration with other agencies or private sector interests in the park management. 15. Current budge.

Comments: The annual budget is increased in some activities, but the increasing demand for maintenance of the infrastructure quite low. Although the budget from fee (20%) cannot support all activities.

Next steps: The proposed Business Plan could help address at least some of the additional priority items. The ecosystem services provided by the park could identify opportunities for payments for these, by trust fund supported.

-6- 16. Security of budge.

Comments and Next Steps: The recurrent budget and budget for salaries are secure, but the budget for management of the park quite inadequate. 17. Management of budget.

Comments and Next Steps: No comments. 18. Equipment.

Comments: Doi Inthanon is considered by its staff to suffer from a shortage of equipment, such as vehicles (out of date). Next steps: Provision of some kinds of equipment, is suitable for including in projects submitted to external funders

(Trust Fund) as important part of the Business Plan. 19. Maintenance of equipment.

Comments and Next Steps: No comments. 20. Education and awareness.

Comments: Since the large number of visitors, the potential of education and awareness materials need to increasing. Next steps: To Seek their own education and awareness materials from other funders to support the objectives of the

park management. 21. Planning for land and water use.

Comments: It is challenging for the park management to devote their scarce management time to issues outside the site. Next steps: Linking the park to adjacent protected areas in a complex will make this unit impossible to ignore by

planners of regional land and water use. Have to quantify how much water is produced by Doi Inthanon National Park, especially during the dry season.

21.a Land and water planning for water management. Comments and Next Steps: No comments.

-7-

21.b Land and water planning for corridors. Comments and Next Steps: No comments.

21.c Land and water planning for species concern. Comments and Next Steps: Cooperation with stakeholders were increased for management of the park. 22. State and commercial neighbors.

Comments and Next Steps: The Most important of PAC, conservation network, land-users are increasing collaborated with the park staff, and park management. 23. Indigenous people.

Comments: Doi Inthanon contains of 32 villages, mostly classified as indigenous people, they are represented on the PAC and cooperation seem promising. Their population is increasing and it is possible that to enlarge the villages for living.

Next steps: Consider ways of limiting the growth of villages located within the park, to help the residents to understand their responsibilities. 24. Local communities.

Comments and Next Steps: Local communities are represented on PAC and have established sub-committees on land, forest fire, water and tourism management. 24.a Impact on communities. Communication and trust.

Comments and Next Steps: Representation on PAC seems to be working. 24.b Impact on communities. Enhance community welfare.

Comments and Next Steps: Communities inside the park, they are increasing their population, therefore their impact on the park.

24.c Impact on communities. Enhance community welfare. Comments and Next Steps: Communities are seen to support the park through the improving communications on

the responsibilities in the park management, such as avoiding fires, avoiding grazing, etc.

-8-

25. Economic benefit. Comments: The economic benefits are substantial, though perhaps under appreciated. Next steps: Have to identify the benefits, especially in terms of ecosystem services, and a view of delivering some of

benefits to the park. 26. Monitoring and Evaluation.

Comments and Next Steps: Smart patrolling has been implemented, and provides a basis for monitoring and evaluation. 27. Visitor facilities.

Comments and Next Steps: The visitor facilities in some parts are quite good, some have to improve, upon on the budget. 28. Commercial tourism operators.

Comments and Next Steps: Commercial tourism operators have had a limited contribution to management. 29. Fees

Comments and Next Steps: Entrance fees currently contribute to the park only 20% for activities in the park. 30. Condition of values.

Comments and Next Steps: The condition is judged by staff and PAC to rate a score of 3, The pressures are increasing slowly. 30.a Condition of values, based on research and management.

Comments and Next Steps: To continue research to assess conservation values is indicated to be the priority in the management plan or Business Plan. 30.b Condition of values, based on specified management programs.

Comments and Next Steps: Already commented in 30.a 30.c Condition of values, activities to maintain key biodiversity.

Comments and Next Steps: The area is a high priority for conserving biodiversity and cultural values.



here Notes

Name, affiliation and contact details for person responsible for completing the METT Mr.Sustha kultong 28 staff and 17 PAC

Date assessment carried out June 10-15 , 2016 Month DD, YYYY (e.g., May 12, 2010)

Name of protected area Khlong Lan national parkWDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/)


1: National

2: IUCN Category


Country THAILocation of protected area (province and if possible map reference) Kampangpet

Date of establishment 25 Dec. 1982


1: State

2: Private

3: Community

4: Other

Management Authority DNPSize of protected area (ha) 30,000 haNumber of Permanent staff 57Number of Temporary staff 36

Annual budget (THB) for recurrent (operational) funds – excluding staff salary costs 6704180Annual budget (THB) for project or other supplementary funds – excluding staff salary 2267148



Management objective 1 protected area & researchManagement objective 2 tourism









2. Assessment Form: the assessment is structured around 30 questions presented in table format which includes three columns for recording details of the assessment, all of which should

be completed.



stakeholder 1-78

1: PA manager

2: PA staff


4: Donors 5: NGOs 6:

External experts 7: Local community 8: Other



Date Listed

Site name

Site area





Date Listed

Site name

Site area

Geographical number


UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves (see: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-

sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/

Date Listed

Site name





Please list other designations (i.e. ASEAN Heritage, Natura 2000) and any supporting

information below

Name

Detail

Name

Detail

Name

Detail






0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation 0

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.1a Drug cultivation 0

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.2 Wood and pulp plantations 0

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.3 Livestock farming and grazing 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture 0

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

3.1 Oil and gas drilling 0

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

3.2 Mining and quarrying 0

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High







0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

4.3 Shipping lanes and canals 0

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

4.4 Flight paths 0

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High



0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High






watering points and dams)-

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


visitors-

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without effective

aquatic wildlife passages)-

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc) 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High




Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity

8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High



0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

10.1 Volcanoes -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High




Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

11.2 Droughts 3

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High



0: The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted 1: There

is agreement that the protected area should be

gazetted/covenanted but the process has not yet begun

2: The protected area is in the process of being

gazetted/covenanted but the process is still incomplete (includes

sites designated under international conventions, such as Ramsar,

or local/traditional law such as community conserved areas, which

do not yet have national legal status or covenant)





Assessment Form



0: There are no regulations for controlling land use and activities in

the protected area



2: Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected

area exist but there are some weaknesses or gaps

3: Regulations for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in

the protected area exist and provide an excellent basis for


3. Law



0: The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce

protected area legislation and regulations

1: There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to

enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills,

no patrol budget, lack of institutional support)

2: The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce

protected area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies

remain

3: The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected


4. Protected area objectives: Is management undertaken according to agreed objectives? 3






3: The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to

meet these objectives




concern?

3




major objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being

taken (e.g. agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife

corridors or introduction of appropriate catchment management)

2: Protected area design is not significantly constraining

achievement of objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with respect

to larger scale ecological processes)






0: The boundary of the protected area is not known by the

management authority or local residents/neighbouring land users


authority but is not known by local residents/neighbouring land

users

2: The boundary of the protected area is known by both the

management authority and local residents/neighbouring land users

but is not appropriately demarcated




1: A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but

is not being implemented

2: A management plan exists but it is only being partially

implemented because of funding constraints or other problems




stakeholders to influence the management plan 1 0: No 1: Yes


7.b Planning process: There is an established schedule and process for periodic review

and updating of the management plan 1 0: No 1: Yes



incorporated into planning 1 0: No 1: Yes




1: A regular work plan exists but few of the activities are

implemented






1: Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes

and cultural values of the protected area is not sufficient to support



and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient for most key

areas of planning and decision making


and cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support all







access/resource use


access/resource use



work?3

0: There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected

area



2: There is considerable survey and research work but it is not







habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural values are

being implemented

2: Many of the requirements for active management of critical

habitats, species, ecological processes and, cultural values are

being implemented but some key issues are not being addressed







activities




1: Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the

protected area

2: Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further

improved to fully achieve the objectives of management

3: Staff training and skills are aligned with the management needs




1: The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs

and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage

2: The available budget is acceptable but could be further improved

to fully achieve effective management





0: There is no secure budget for the protected area and

management is wholly reliant on outside or highly variable funding



2: There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular operation of

the protected area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant

on outside funding


17. Management of budget: Is the budget managed to meet critical management needs? 2








0: There are little or no equipment and facilities for management

needs

1: There are some equipment and facilities but these are inadequate

for most management needs

2: There are equipment and facilities, but still some gaps that











1: There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness

programme

2: There is an education and awareness programme but it only

partly meets needs and could be improved





0: Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account

the needs of the protected area and activities/policies are

detrimental to the survival of the area

1: Adjacent land and water use planning does not takes into

account the long term needs of the protected area, but activities are

not detrimental the area

2: Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into account

the long term needs of the protected area


21a. Land and water planning for habitat conservation: Planning and management in the

catchment or landscape containing the protected area incorporates provision for


1 0: No

1: Yes


21b. Land and water planning for habitat conservation: Management of corridors linking

the protected area provides for wildlife passage to key habitats outside the protected

area (e.g. to allow migratory fish to travel between freshwater spawning sites and the

1 0: No

1: Yes


21c. Land and water planning for habitat conservation: "Planning adresses ecosystem-

specific needs and/or the needs of particular species of concern at an ecosystem scale

(e.g. volume, quality and timing of freshwater flow to sustain particular species, fire

1 0: No

1: Yes


22. State and commercial neighbours:Is there co-operation with adjacent land and water

users? 3

0: There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official

or corporate land and water users





3: There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring

official or corporate land and water users, and substantial co-


23. Indigenous people: Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident or regularly using

the protected area have input to management decisions?2



1: Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into

discussions relating to management but no direct role in

management

2: Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some

relevant decisions relating to management but their involvement

could be improved


24. Local communities: Do local communities resident or near the protected area have

input to management decisions?2







3: Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions

relating to management, e.g. co-management



and/or indigenous people, stakeholders and protected area managers1 0: No 1: Yes



conserving protected area resources, are being implemented 1 0: No 1: Yes


24 c. Impact on communities: Local and/or indigenous people actively support the 1 0: No 1: Yes




0: The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to

local communities

1: Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise

these are being developed


3: There is a major flow of economic benefits to local communities



performance?3






3: A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well

implemented and used in adaptive management



0: There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified

need

1: Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels

of visitation



28. Commercial tourism operators: Do commercial tour operators contribute to protected

area management?2

0: There is little or no contact between managers and tourism

operators using the protected area

1: There is contact between managers and tourism operators but

this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters


operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected

area values

3: There is good co-operation between managers and tourism



management?2


1: Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the protected

area or its environs

2: Fees are collected, and make some contribution to the protected

area and its environs





0: Many important biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are

being severely degraded

1: Some biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being

severely degraded

2: Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being

partially degraded but the most important values have not been


30a: Condition of values: The assessment of the condition of values is based on research

and/or monitoring1 0: No 1: Yes


30b: Condition of values Specific management programmes are being implemented to

address threats to biodiversity, ecological and cultural values1 0: No 1: Yes


30c: Condition of values: Activities to maintain key biodiversity, ecological and cultural

values are a routine part of park management1 0: No 1: Yes



METT Comments on CATSPA Pilot Site at Khlong Lan National Park. By Mr. Khomchedtha Charungphan Senior Forest Officer

……………………………………………………………………………………….

We participated in the updating of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) for Khlong Lan National Park, one of the five pilot sites of CATSPA on July 10-15 June 2016. The scores were provided by a consensus of 28 staff and 17 Protected Area Committee (PAC). We offered comments for protected area threats and Assessment Form. We were interested to understand the reasons for any changes in scores between the exercise and the baseline made in 2014 and there was a difference explanation, are indicated in comments as followings; DATA SHEET 2 : Protected Areas Threats . 1. Residential and commercial development within a PA.

1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 The scores remain 0, no comments. 2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a PA

2.1, 2.1a, 2.2 and 2.4; The scores remain 0, no comments 2.3: The scores is decreased, the staff of the park collaborated with villagers to conserve the nature of the park.

3. Threats from production of non-biological resources. 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3: The scores remain 0, no comments.

4. Transportation and service corridors within a PA. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4: The scores remain 0, no comments.

5. Biological resources use and harm within a PA. 5.1 and 5.2: The scores are decreased, because of effectiveness on smart patrolling. Hunting and collecting non forest timber tound

in buffer zone areas or the areas closed to boundary. 5.3 and 5.4: The scores remain the same, no comments.

-2-

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a PA. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.5: The scores remain the same, but 6.4: The score is decreased, the answer does not have any construction in the park.

7. Natural system modifications. 7.3, 7.3a and 7.3b: The scores remain the same, no comments 7.1 and 7.3c: The scores are increased, because of hardly drought this year. 7.2: The score is decreased, because of the cooperation and management with the villagers.

8. Invasion and other problematic species and genes. 8.1a, 8.1b and 8.2: The scores remain 0, no comments. but 8.1: There are some weeds in the park.

9. Pollution entering or generated within a PA. 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 and 9.6: The scores remain 0, no comments. but 9.1a; The waste water from protected area facilities, such as toilets.

10. Geological events. 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4: The scores remain 0, no comments.

11. Climate change and severe weather. 11.3 and 11.4: The scores remain 0, no comments. 11.1 and 11.2: The scores are increased, according to the hardly draught.

12. Specific cultural and social threats. 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3: The scores remain 0, no comments.

-3-

ASSESSMENT FORM 1. Legal status:

Comments and next steps: No comments. 2. Protected area regulations:

Comments and next steps: Regulations provide the basic for protection, increasing smart patrolling in the park. Next steps: No comments.

3. Law enforcement. Comments and next steps: staff possible to enforce legislation and regulations. Next steps: No comments.

4. Protected area objectives. Comments and next steps: No comments.

5. Protected area design. Comments and next steps: Staff and PAC are satisfied with PA design. Next steps: No comments.

6. Protected area boundary demarcation. Comments and next steps: The boundary of the park is fully demarcated, and accepted by local villagers and stakeholders. Next steps: No comments.

7. Management plan. Comments and next steps: The management plan in the process of working by the superintendent. Next steps: No comments.

-4-

7a: Planning process (Stakeholder involvement) Comments and next steps: PAC is well involved, representing the main stakeholders.

7b: Planning process (review and updating) Comments and next steps: Since the new management plan is in the process. No comments on review and updating.

7c: Planning process (m & e, plus research) Comments and next steps: see 7b.

8. Regular work plan. Comments and next steps: see no. 7.

9. Resource inventory. Comments and next steps: Design the resource inventory is carry on the next management plan, further improvement should be expected. Next steps: The staff resources are needed to be trained in resource inventory.

10. Protection systems. Comments and next steps: The protection systems are only moderately effective. Next steps: A detailed assessment of the problems of the protection systems and to take the steps for improvements.

11. Research. Comments and next steps: The research is not being applied to the park management. Next steps: Research program is in next management plan toward the park management.

12. Resource management. Comments and next steps: the same comments appeared in No. 11.

-5- 13. Staff numbers.

Comments and next steps: The total staff resources have decreased slightly; the member of staff should be increased in the next master plan. The staff are directed primarily to the park management, with sufficient staff for park management, resource management, communication and awareness and protection.

Next steps: No comments. 14. Staff training.

Comments and next steps: The rating is considered unsatisfactory by the staff. Funds provided for training is inadequate and training does not meet the purpose the park management.

Next steps: DNP have to consider how to provide the necessary training. 15. Current budget.

Comments and next steps: The current budget is reasonable for regular operation but could not achieve the effective development, the management plan is one of requires additional budgets.

Next steps: Should prepare a Business Plan that will enable fundraising from external sources. 16. Security of budget.

Comments and next steps: Khlong Lan National Park need to continue improving and require outside sources of funding. Next steps: As indicated in No.15, prepare a Business Plan is needed.

17. Management of budget. Comments and next steps: No comments.

18. Equipment. Comments and next steps: Shortage of equipment seem to be a problem, such as GPS units for smart patrolling, vehicles, camera

trap, communication wireless and field equipments. Next steps: No comments.

-6-

19. Maintenance of Equipment. Comments and next steps: The equipment that is available is being better maintained.

20. Education and Awareness. Comments and next steps: The appropriate education and awareness program are in the next master plan. Next steps: Such the priority of activities should appeared in the Business Plan.

21. Planning for land and water use. Comments and next steps: Planning for land and water use should be meet the objectives for the park management, in long term activities.

21a. Land and water planning for water management. Comments and next steps: Water management should be in the Master Plan for effectiveness or sustainable management of

wildlife and their habitats. Next steps: No comments.

21b. Land and water planning corridors. Comment and next steps: No comments.

21c. Land and water planning for species of concern. Comment and next steps: No comments.

22. State and Commercial Neighbors. Comments and next steps: This seems to be working well, collaboration with stakeholders, specially on management basis. Next steps: No comment.

23. Indigenous people. Comment and next steps: The activities of indigenous people are concerned with park management as well as serving on PAC.

-7- 24. Local communities.

Comments and next steps: The relations with local communities has been satisfactory, the villagers continue to support some the park activities.

Next steps: The park staff should work closely with communities through active outreach, and a priority in Business Plan. 24a. Impact on communities: Communications and trust.

Comments and next steps: The park staff have good relations with local communities. 24b. Impact on communities: Enhance communities welfare. Comments and next steps: The park staff supported the activities of local communities and concerned with park management. 24c. Impact on communities: Active support to the PA

Comments and next steps: See 24b. 25. Economic benefits.

Comments and next steps: Khlong Lan National Park is directly benefit to local communities and the tourists such as ecosystem services, and some villagers will be the workers of the park. 26. Monitoring and Evaluation.

Comments and next steps: Monitoring and evaluation are regular work on the management site. Next steps: Systematic approach on monitoring and evaluation should be on effectiveness, such as METT.

27. Visitor Facilities. Comments and next steps: The facilities for supporting the visitors are sufficient. Next steps: No comments.

28. Commercial Tourism Operators. Comments and next steps: Collaboration between the superintendent and tourism business in the quality of tourism conservation

and protection of the park. Next steps: No comments.

-8- 29. Fees.

Comments and next steps: The score reflects from desire of superintendent to retain of the income form the gate fee, but this fee cannot supported the activities of the park (only 15%).

Next steps: No comments. 30. Condition of values.

Comments and next steps: Comparing the score, it appears that reflecting better conservation, the indicator, show that the tiger have returned to the site.

Next steps: No comments. 30a. Condition of values, based on research and management.

Comments and next steps: Values of the park are evaluated from date collection and monitoring. Next steps: No comments. 30b. Condition of values, based on specific management programs.

Comment and next steps: based on effective management programs for decreasing the threats or biological conservation. Next steps: No comments.

30c. Condition of values: Activities to maintain key biodiversity. Comments and next steps: These activities are on the process of improving. Next steps: Improving.

.



here Notes

Name, affiliation and contact details for person responsible for completing the METT Sompoch ManeeratDate assessment carried out 16-30 June 2016

Name of protected area Huai kha khaeng Wildlife

Sanctuary WDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/)


1: National

2: IUCN Category


Country THAILANDLocation of protected area (province and if possible map reference) Tak, Uthaithani

Date of establishment


1: State

2: Private

3: Community

4: Other

Management Authority DNPSize of protected area (ha) 278,014 Number of Permanent staff 120Number of Temporary staff 127

Annual budget (US$) for recurrent (operational) funds – excluding staff salary costs 13667100Annual budget (US$) for project or other supplementary funds – excluding staff salary

What are the main values for which the area is designated biodiversity and wildlifeList the two primary protected area management objectives in below:

Management objective 1 protected wildlifeManagement objective 2 public awareness


Including: (please choose 1-8) 8

1: PA manager

2: PA staff


4: Donors

5: NGOs

6: External experts

7: Local community

8: Other



here






UNESCO World Heritage site (see: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list) 591Date Listed 1991

Site nameThungyai-Huai kha Khaeng

wildlife Sanctuaries Site area 622,200 ha

Geographical co-ordinates N15 19 59.988 E98 55 0.012

Criteria for designation (VII)(IX)(X) (i.e. criteria i to x)



Date Listed

Site name

Site area

Geographical number




Date Listed

Site name





Please list other designations (i.e. ASEAN Heritage, Natura 2000) and any supporting

information below

Name

Detail

nrh

Name

Detail

Name

Detail

1.1 Housing and settlement -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

1.2 Commercial and industrial areas -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High





1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.1a Drug cultivation -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.2 Wood and pulp plantations -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.3 Livestock farming and grazing -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High








0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

4.4 Flight paths -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High



0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

6.1 Recreational activities and tourism -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


watering points and dams)-

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


visitors3

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High



Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of





0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High



0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread



9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High



0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.4 Garbage and solid waste -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.5 Air-borne pollutants -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

10.1 Volcanoes -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance.



11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

11.2 Droughts 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High






2: The protected area is in the process of being gazetted/covenanted but


international conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such

as community conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal





protected area



2: Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected

area exist but there are some weaknesses or gaps




Assessment Form

3. Law



0: The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected

area legislation and regulations




2: The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected

area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain



4. Protected area objectives: Is management undertaken according to agreed objectives? 3










concern?

3




major objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being taken

(e.g. agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife corridors or

introduction of appropriate catchment management)






ecological processes such as surface and groundwater flows at a

catchment scale, natural disturbance patterns etc









management authority and local residents/neighbouring land users but

is not appropriately demarcated






being implemented

























and decision making













access/resource use


access/resource use

3: Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling

access/ resource use



work?3












habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural values are being

implemented


species, ecological processes and, cultural values are being

implemented but some key issues are not being addressed



implemented






activities

3: Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the

protected area





area








2: The available budget is acceptable but could be further improved to

fully achieve effective management










protected area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on

outside funding


needs


17. Management of budget: Is the budget managed to meet critical management needs? 2












management

3: There are adequate equipment and facilities






















long term needs of the protected area, but activities are not detrimental

the area






21a. Land and water planning for habitat conservation: Planning and management in the

catchment or landscape containing the protected area incorporates provision for


pollution levels etc) to sustain relevant habitats.

1 0: No

1: Yes





sea, or to allow animal migration).

1 0: No

1: Yes





management to maintain savannah habitats etc.)"

1 0: No

1: Yes


22. State and commercial neighbours:Is there co-operation with adjacent land and water

users? 3







3: There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official

or corporate land and water users, and substantial co-operation on

management


23. Indigenous people: Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident or regularly using

the protected area have input to management decisions?2





2: Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some

relevant decisions relating to management but their involvement could

be improved












3: Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating

to management, e.g. co-management




0: No

1: Yes




0: No

1: Yes


24 c. Impact on communities: Local and/or indigenous people actively support the

protected area1

0: No

1: Yes





communities

1: Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise

these are being developed



activities associated with the protected area



performance?3









27. Visitor facilities: Are visitor facilities adequate? 2 0: There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need


visitation


visitation but could be improved

3: Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of

visitation


28. Commercial tourism operators: Do commercial tour operators contribute to protected

area management?2






operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area

values

3: There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators



management?2


1: Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the protected area or

its environs


and its environs







severely degraded


degraded



30a: Condition of values: The assessment of the condition of values is based on research

and/or monitoring1

0: No

1: Yes



address threats to biodiversity, ecological and cultural values1

0: No

1: Yes



values are a routine part of park management1

0: No

1: Yes



METT Comments on CATSPA Pilot Site at Huay Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary

By Mr.Khomchedtha Charungphan Senior Forest Officer

We participated in the updating of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) for Huay Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, one of the five pilot sites of CATSPA on 16 -30 June 2016. The scores were provided by a consensus of 22 staff and 14 protected area committee (PAC). We offered comments for the protected area threats and Assessment Form. We were interested to understand the reasons for any changes in scores between the exercise and the baseline made in 2014. And there was a difference explanation, are indicated in the comments as followings;

DATA SHEET 2 : Protected Areas Threats 1. Residential and Commercial development within a PA,

1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 : The scores remain 0, no comments. 2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a PA. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 : The scores remain 0, no comments. 3. Energy production and mining within a PA. 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 : The scores remain 0, no comments. 4. Transportation and service corridors with a PA. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 : The scores remain 0, no comments. 5. Biological resource use and ham within a PA. 5.2 : The score remain 0, no comments. 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4 : The scores are decreased. Smart Patrolling is intensive practice, and collaborated with stakeholders in the buffer zone for World Heritage Site.

- 2 -

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a PA. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 : The scores remain 0, no comments. 6.5 : The score is decreased, the staff of Huay Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary can working closely with villagers in the buffer zone along the border, also closely with PAC. 7. Natural system modifications. 7.2, 7.3, 7.3a and 7.3c : The scores remain 0. No comments. 7.1 and 7.3b : The scores are decreased, the staff cooperated with the villagers in the buffer zone along the border of the sanctuary, especially during hard drought this year for fire suppression and unburned in the farmlands. 8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes. 8.1, 8.1a, 8.1b and 8.2 : The scores are decreased, the recommendation all invasive plants or invasive animals, pathogens or introduced genetic material are ineffective to the sanctuary. 9. Pollution entering or generated within PA. 9.1, 9.2 and 9.6 : The scores remain 0, no comments. 9.1a, 9.3, 9.4 and 9.5 : The scores are decreased, pollution control is very important to wildlife sanctuary, the staff restricted on this matters. 10. Geological events. 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 : The scores remain 0, no comments. 11. Climate change and severe weather 11.1 and 11.4 : The scores are decreased, no comments. 11.2 and 11.3 : The scores has slightly change, especially the hard dry season, last year. 12. Specific cultural and social threats. All 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 : The scores remain the same, no comments.

- 3 -

ASSESSMENT FORM 1. Legal Status.

No comments and next steps. 2. Protected area regulations.

Comments and next steps : Smart Patrolling has been implemented and the staff are better prepared to implement the regulations. 3. Law enforcement.

No comments and next steps. 4. Protected area objectives.

No comments and next steps. 5. Protected area design.

Comments and next steps : The management of the site has improved, the implementation of the design has been managed for conservation wildlife and their habitats, especially the ranger stations are located in the part of disturbance areas. 6. Protected area boundary demarcation.

Comments and next steps : The score has remained high, indicated the staff and PAC are satisfied the boundary demarcation. 7. Master Plan.

Comments and next steps : The score has increased because the implementation followed the management plan. Next steps : Should preparation of a Business Plan to help raise external sources of funding.

7a. Planning process. (Stakeholder involvement) Comments and next steps : PAC has been involved. 7b. Planning process. (Review and updating) Comments and next steps : The ability of the superintendent usually updated the master plan. 7c. Planning process. (M&E, plus research) Comments and next steps : The results of research, monitoring and evaluation, that data will use for PA management.

- 4 -

8. Regular work plan. Comments and next steps : Overall improvement of management has improved, Smart Patrolling is very important to the sanctuary.

9. Resource inventory. Comments and next steps : The sanctuary is quite large, with the dynamics of habitat protection posing new challenges, it is essential

that more resources be applied to assessing changes, such as tiger population, etc. Next steps : Should preparing project proposals to support better inventory.

10. Protection systems. Comments and next steps : Because improved patrolling has revealed, the boundary has some leakage, so patrolling remains a

challenge and pressures from surrounding lands are still growing. Enter to the sanctuary is strict control and effectiveness. Next steps : no comments.

11. Research. Comments and next steps : Research remain an important objective for the sanctuary, biodiversity, wildlife and plant species are

needed for sanctuary management, especially tiger population dynamics, prey and habitat management. 12. Resource management.

Comments and next steps : As the increasing of populations grow in the surrounding lands and external poachers driven by the increased wildlife populations become a growing problem, Resource management issues is the priorities for investment, such as non-forest timber, etc. 13. Staff member.

Comments and next steps : As the demands of management have increased but the staff have increased slightly. They can do only important activities, that still the problem of management.

- 5 -

14. Staff training. Comments and next steps : Some of staff have skill to work and trained, but some of them cannot be trained under the policy of the

government, especially the employees (TOR) have limited regulation on training. Next steps : The staff who works in the sanctuary management should get training for capacity building and effectiveness.

15. Current budget. Comments and next steps : Score remains at 1. because the budget increase has not been sufficient to support a World Heritage Site. Next steps : Prepare a detailed in Business Plan that identifies priorities for investment, includes project proposals designed for various

donors and make stronger case for an increased budget from DNP to reflect the national and international importance. 16. Security of budget.

Comments and next steps : The DNP budget is very secure and has increased, but external support remain insecure and requires following the priorities, external sources of funding, such the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Sueb Nakasathien Foundation, etc.

Next steps : The Business Plan is an essential tool to seek increased external funding and show the value of the area to reflect it World Heritage Status. 17. Management of the budget.

Comments and next steps : Stays at 2. always room for improvement. 18. Equipment.

Comments and next steps : Stay at 1. The management of equipment, vehicles needs have to increased, including for more sophisticated equipment such as cameras, camera traps, GPS and guns.

Next steps : This issue should be in the Business Plan. 19. Maintenance of Equipment.

Comments and next steps : Only basic maintenance, depend on DNP budget.

- 6 -

20. Education and Awareness. Comments and next steps : The score remain 2. Because a wildlife sanctuary receives fewer visitors than national park, but scope needs

for improvement. Next steps : To ensure that this issue is well reflected in the Business Plan, with

a particular emphasis on awareness in the surrounding villages or buffer zone. 21. Planning for land and water use.

Comments and next steps : The score remain 2. working with other PAs in WEFCOM to further improve collaboration between the sites and reaching out to other ministries who have an interested in the WEFCOM region. 21a. Land and water planning for water management. Comments and next steps : Improvement existence of the plan, for conservation of habitat both plant and wildlife. 21b. Land and Water planning for corridors. Comments and next steps : As part of WEFCOM, Huay Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary shares a long border with Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary, which is part of the same World Heritage Site. 21c. Land use and water planning for species of concern Comments and next steps : Already covered in previous comments. 22. State and Commercial Neighbors.

Comments and next steps : Cooperation has focused on neighboring villages, village meetings and discussions on boundaries and especially government agencies

Next steps : It is important to recognize the buffer zone, which may include community forests, could become more productive habitat the benefit for local villagers and attract predator more wildlife, discussions with villagers and management the boundaries of sanctuary and perhaps lead to conflict with local villagers. 23. Indigenous people.

Comments and next steps : no comments.

- 7 -

24. Local communities. Comments and next steps : The score has increased despite some significant activities in local village in order to cooperate with the

staff. 24a. Impact on communities : Communication and Trust. Comments and next steps : The superintendent and staff are in better communications with villagers. 24b. Impact on communities : Enhance community welfare . Comments and next steps : There are specific project designed to benefit the local villages, with support sanctuary conservation, such as planting commercial crop and check dams. 24c. Impact on communities : Active support to the PA. Comments and next steps : Local communities or villagers has improved the relation to support the conservation of wildlife sanctuary. 25. Economic benefits.

Comments and next steps : The score remain at 2. The sanctuary still brings economic benefits to this region. Although tourism benefits are minor, but more benefits from ecosystem services. 26. Monitoring and Evaluation.

Comments and next steps : The score has increased, the monitoring and evaluation based on Smart Patrolling, that conducted by the sanctuary staff. Research and inventory are conducted by Wildlife Research Center, in the sanctuary, but some can implement on the management. 27. Visitor facilities.

Comments and next steps : Huay Kha Khaeng receives few visitors, and those who do come are school groups, groups of learning the natural resource conservation, do not require much in the way of facilities. TAO would support the budget for repairing the road inside sanctuary, but could not be done, it is area of World Heritage Site.

- 8 -

28. Commercial tourism operators. Comments and next steps : The score remains 2. With discussions about potential future development of tourism, have to discuss

among superintendent and stakeholders on conservation and tourism. 29. Fees.

Comments and next steps : As a wildlife sanctuary, few payment visitors. Most visitors are students, school children, who are admitted free of change. 30. Condition of values.

Comments and next steps : The score is 3. Indicated that is remain in view of significant improvement. 30a. Condition of values, based on research and management. Comments and next steps : Already above. 30b. Condition and value, based on specific management programs. Comments and next steps : Should have management plan for conserving biodiversity and threat management. 30c. Condition of values : Activities to maintain key biodiversity. Comments and next steps : Quite good progress on biodiversity conservation, especially special focus on tigers (landscape species)

.

Data Sheet 1: Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites Please indicate your answer Notes

Name, affiliation and contact details for person responsible for completing the

METT (email etc.)Sampan Polpo (PA Manager)

30 staff and 18 PAC

Date assessment carried out July 12,2016

Name of protected areaKhao Chamao - Khao wong

national park

WDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/)


1: National

2: IUCN Category


Country THAI

Location of protected area (province and if possible map reference) Rayong

Date of establishment 31 Dec. 1975


1: State

2: Private

3: Community

4: Other

Management Authority DNP

Size of protected area (ha) 8,368ha

Number of Permanent staff 33

Number of Temporary staff 37

Annual budget (THB) for recurrent (operational) funds – excluding staff salary 5085900

Annual budget (THB) for project or other supplementary funds – excluding staff

salary costs1900000










area.

2. Assessment Form: the assessment is structured around 30 questions presented in table format which includes three columns for recording details of the assessment, all of which

should be completed.


Management objective 1 Biodiversity reserve

Management objective 2 Tourism



stakeholder 1-77

1: PA manager

2: PA staff


4: Donors 5: NGOs 6: External

experts 7: Local community 8: Other



Date Listed

Site name

Site area





Date Listed

Site name

Site area

Geographical number


UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves (see:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-

sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/

Date Listed

Site name

Site area Total, Core, Buffer, and Transition






Name

Detail

Name

Detail

Name

Detail


Please choose all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium


1.1 Housing and settlement - 0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

1.2 Commercial and industrial areas -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High






4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

4.4 Flight paths -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals

as a result of human/wildlife conflict)1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

5.3 Logging and wood harvesting -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

6.1 Recreational activities and tourism 1 0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High








0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle use,

artificial watering points and dams)-

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected area staff

and visitors-

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without

effective aquatic wildlife passages)-

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High






0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels

etc) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water

quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other

pollution)

-

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.5 Air-borne pollutants -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

10.1 Volcanoes -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High




Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

11.2 Droughts 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

11.3 Temperature extremes -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High




Assessment Form

1. Legal status: Does the protected area have legal status (or in the case of

private reserves is covered by a covenant or similar)? 3




2: The protected area is in the process of being gazetted/covenanted but


international conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such as

community conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal status or


2. Protected area regulations: Are appropriate regulations in place to control

land use and activities (e.g. hunting)? 3


protected area

1: Some regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected

area exist but these are major weaknesses

2: Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area

exist but there are some weaknesses or gaps


protected area exist and provide an excellent basis for management


3. Law

Enforcement: Can staff (i.e. those with responsibility for managing the site)

enforce protected area rules well enough?3

0: The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area





2: The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area

legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain





objectives?3




2: The protected area has agreed objectives, but is only partially managed




5. Protected area design: Is the protected area the right size and shape to

protect species, habitats, ecological processes and water catchments of key

conservation concern?

3



1: Inadequacies in protected area design mean that achievement of major

objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being taken (e.g.

agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife corridors or introduction

of appropriate catchment management)




3: Protected area design helps achievement of objectives; it is appropriate

for species and habitat conservation; and maintains ecological processes

such as surface and groundwater flows at a catchment scale, natural

disturbance patterns etc








2: The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management

authority and local residents/neighbouring land users but is not



authority and local residents/neighbouring land users and is appropriately

demarcated





being implemented








7.b Planning process: There is an established schedule and process for periodic

review and updating of the management plan 1 0: No 1: Yes


7.c Planning process: The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are

routinely incorporated into planning 1 0: No 1: Yes









0: There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species

and cultural values of the protected area



and decision making










0: Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are not effective

in controlling access/resource use


access/resource use



11. Research: Is there a programme of management-orientated survey and

research work?3











1: Very few of the requirements for active management of critical habitats,

species, ecological processes and cultural values are being implemented


species, ecological processes and, cultural values are being implemented

but some key issues are not being addressed



implemented


13. Staff numbers: Are there enough people employed to manage the protected

area?1




activities





area



3: Staff training and skills are aligned with the management needs of the

protected area






2: The available budget is acceptable but could be further improved to fully

achieve effective management

3: The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs

of the protected area








protected area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside

funding


needs



needs?2












management

3: There are adequate equipment and facilities








20. Education and awareness: Is there a planned education programme linked

to the objectives and needs?2






awareness programme


21. Planning for land and water use: Does land and water use planning

recognise the protected area and aid the achievement of objectives?2





long term needs of the protected area, but activities are not detrimental the

area






21a. Land and water planning for habitat conservation: Planning and

management in the catchment or landscape containing the protected area

incorporates provision for adequate environmental conditions (e.g. volume,

quality and timing of water flow, air pollution levels etc) to sustain relevant

1 0: No 1: Yes


21b. Land and water planning for habitat conservation: Management of corridors

linking the protected area provides for wildlife passage to key habitats outside

the protected area (e.g. to allow migratory fish to travel between freshwater

spawning sites and the sea, or to allow animal migration).

1 0: No 1: Yes


21c. Land and water planning for habitat conservation: "Planning adresses

ecosystem-specific needs and/or the needs of particular species of concern at

an ecosystem scale (e.g. volume, quality and timing of freshwater flow to

sustain particular species, fire management to maintain savannah habitats etc.)"

1 0: No 1: Yes


22. State and commercial neighbours:Is there co-operation with adjacent land

and water users? 2







3: There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or

corporate land and water users, and substantial co-operation on


23. Indigenous people: Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident or

regularly using the protected area have input to management decisions?-

0: Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating

to the management of the protected area



2: Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some relevant

decisions relating to management but their involvement could be improved




24. Local communities: Do local communities resident or near the protected

area have input to management decisions?1







3: Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to

management, e.g. co-management


24 a. Impact on communities: There is open communication and trust between

local and/or indigenous people, stakeholders and protected area managers1 0: No 1: Yes


24 b. Impact on communities: Programmes to enhance community welfare,

while conserving protected area resources, are being implemented 1 0: No 1: Yes


24 c. Impact on communities: Local and/or indigenous people actively support

the protected area1

0: No

1: Yes





communities

1: Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise these

are being developed





performance?2


1: There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy

and/or no regular collection of results

2: There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system

but results do not feed back into management





0: There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need


visitation

2: Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation

but could be improved








2: There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators

to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values

3: There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators to

enhance visitor experiences, and maintain protected area values



management?2


1: Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the protected area or its

environs


and its environs


30. Condition of values: What is the condition of the important values of the

protected area as compared to when it was first designated?3


severely degraded


degraded




research and/or monitoring1 0: No 1: Yes


30b: Condition of values Specific management programmes are being

implemented to address threats to biodiversity, ecological and cultural values1 0: No 1: Yes


30c: Condition of values: Activities to maintain key biodiversity, ecological and

cultural values are a routine part of park management1 0: No 1: Yes



METT Comments on CATSPA Pilot Site at Khao Chamao - Khao Wong National Park. By Mr. Thammanoon Temehai Senior Forest Officer

………………………………………………………………………………………. We participated in the updating of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) for Khao Chamao – Khao Wong National Park, one of the five pilot sites of CATSPA on July 12,2016. The scores were provided by a consensus of 30 staff and 18 Protected Area Committee (PAC). We offered comments for protected area threats and Assessment Form. We were interested to understand the reasons for any changes in scores between the exercise and the baseline made in 2014 and there was a difference explanation, are indicated in comments as followings;

DATA SHEET 2 : Protected Areas Threats. 2.1 Comments : The households within the park boundary settled before the national park has been gazetted. 5.1 Comments on wildlife, especially wild elephants moving outside the park and damaged the agricultural products of the villagers. 6.1 Comments on Khao chamao – Khao wong is the tourist attraction, especially waterfall and caves. 7.1 Comments on fire suppression, occurred from smoking. 9.4 Comments on garbages are managed by park staff. 10.3 Comments on landslide usually occurred during heavy rainfall.

ASSESSMENT FORM 3. Comments and next steps; law enforcement responsibility for managing only by superintendent of the park. 9. Comments and next steps; Have to add the budget for any research in the park. 12. Comments and next steps; The active resource management in the park, upon the superintendent. 13. Comments and next steps; The staff members are belongs optimum level for management activities. 15. Comments and next steps; The budget is insufficient. 16. Comments and next steps; The same as in no. 15



here Notes

Name, affiliation and contact details for person responsible for completing the METT Mr.Panapol Shewaserichol 6 Senior staff and 3 PAC

Date assessment carried out 28 Jun. 2016 Month DD, YYYY (e.g., May 12, 2010)

Name of protected area Tarutao National Park

WDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/)


1: National

2: IUCN Category


Country THAI

Location of protected area (province and if possible map reference) Satun province

Date of establishment 19 Arirl 1974


1: State

2: Private

3: Community

4: Other

Management Authority DNP

Size of protected area (ha) 149,000 ha

Number of Permanent staff63

The figures provided in the baseline incude all staff

(permanent and temporary).

Number of Temporary staff 60

Annual budget (THB) for recurrent (operational) funds – excluding staff salary costs 10697510

Annual budget (THB) for project or other supplementary funds – excluding staff salary 3679542



Management objective 1

Forest & marine resourcses

protection

Management objective 2 Biodiversity protection

No. of people involved in completing assessment 9Including: (please choose 1-8) information is based on discussion among all

stakeholder 1-77



Date Listed

Site name

Site area










Date Listed

Site name

Site area

Geographical number




Date Listed

Site name







become asean heritage in

2004 together with 4 sites

(Tarutao, Simiran-Surin-Aow

PangNga, Keng kajan, Kao

Name

Detail

Name

Detail

Name

Detail


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High




Please choose all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values;




0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

4.3 Shipping lanes and canals 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High





4.4 Flight paths -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High



0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

5.3 Logging and wood harvesting -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


watering points and dams)1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


visitors1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this







0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High



0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc) 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water 3

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High






discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution)3

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc) 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

10.1 Volcanoes -

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides 1

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed changes) 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High




Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is

11.2 Droughts 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High


0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

11.4 Storms and flooding 3

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

12.1 Loss of cultural links, traditional knowledge and/or management practices 3

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

12.2 Natural deterioration of important cultural site values 3

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High

12.3 Destruction of cultural heritage buildings, gardens, sites etc 2

0: N/A

1: Low

2: Medium

3: High






2: The protected area is in the process of being

gazetted/covenanted but the process is still incomplete

(includes sites designated under international conventions,

such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such as community




0: There are no regulations for controlling land use and

activities in the protected area

1: Some regulations for controlling land use and activities in

the protected area exist but these are major weaknesses

2: Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the

protected area exist but there are some weaknesses or gaps

3: Regulations for controlling inappropriate land use and



Assessment Form

3. Law



0: The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce

protected area legislation and regulations

1: There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to

enforce protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of

skills, no patrol budget, lack of institutional support)

2: The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce

protected area legislation and regulations but some

deficiencies remain

3: The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce



objectives?2


1: The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not


2: The protected area has agreed objectives, but is only

partially managed according to these objectives

3: The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed

to meet these objectives




concern?

2

0: Inadequacies in protected area design mean achieving the

major objectives of the protected area is very difficult

1: Inadequacies in protected area design mean that

achievement of major objectives is difficult but some mitigating

actions are being taken (e.g. agreements with adjacent land

owners for wildlife corridors or introduction of appropriate

catchment management)

2: Protected area design is not significantly constraining

achievement of objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with

respect to larger scale ecological processes)





0: The boundary of the protected area is not known by the

management authority or local residents/neighbouring land

users

1: The boundary of the protected area is known by the

management authority but is not known by local

residents/neighbouring land users


management authority and local residents/neighbouring land




1: A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared

but is not being implemented

2: A management plan exists but it is only being partially

implemented because of funding constraints or other problems














1: A regular work plan exists but few of the activities are

implemented

2: A regular work plan exists and many activities are



0: There is little or no information available on the critical

habitats, species and cultural values of the protected area

1: Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological

processes and cultural values of the protected area is not

sufficient to support planning and decision making


processes and cultural values of the protected area is

sufficient for most key areas of planning and decision making


processes and cultural values of the protected area is




0: Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are

not effective in controlling access/resource use


access/resource use


access/resource use

3: Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in



work?3

0: There is no survey or research work taking place in the

protected area

1: There is a small amount of survey and research work but it

is not directed towards the needs of protected area

management

2: There is considerable survey and research work but it is not





1: Very few of the requirements for active management of

critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural

values are being implemented

2: Many of the requirements for active management of critical

habitats, species, ecological processes and, cultural values

are being implemented but some key issues are not being

addressed




1: Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management

activities

2: Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical




1: Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the

protected area

2: Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further

improved to fully achieve the objectives of management

3: Staff training and skills are aligned with the management




1: The available budget is inadequate for basic management

needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to

manage

2: The available budget is acceptable but could be further

improved to fully achieve effective management

3: The available budget is sufficient and meets the full



0: There is no secure budget for the protected area and

management is wholly reliant on outside or highly variable

funding

1: There is very little secure budget and the protected area

could not function adequately without outside funding

2: There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular

operation of the protected area but many innovations and



needs?2

0: Budget management is very poor and significantly

undermines effectiveness (e.g. late release of budget in

financial year)





0: There are little or no equipment and facilities for

management needs

1: There are some equipment and facilities but these are

inadequate for most management needs

2: There are equipment and facilities, but still some gaps that




1: There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and

facilities


Comments and Next Steps .




1: There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness

programme

2: There is an education and awareness programme but it only

partly meets needs and could be improved

3: There is an appropriate and fully implemented education




0: Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into

account the needs of the protected area and activities/policies

are detrimental to the survival of the area

1: Adjacent land and water use planning does not takes into

account the long term needs of the protected area, but

activities are not detrimental the area

2: Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into

account the long term needs of the protected area

Comments and Next Steps21a. Land and water planning for habitat conservation: Planning and management in the catchment

or landscape containing the protected area incorporates provision for adequate environmental

conditions (e.g. volume, quality and timing of water flow, air pollution levels etc) to sustain relevant

habitats.

- 0: No

1: Yes





1 0: No

1: Yes





management to maintain savannah habitats etc.)"

1 0: No

1: Yes


22. State and commercial neighbours:Is there co-operation with adjacent land and

water users? 2

0: There is no contact between managers and neighbouring

official or corporate land and water users

1: There is contact between managers and neighbouring

official or corporate land and water users but little or no

cooperation

2: There is contact between managers and neighbouring

official or corporate land and water users, but only some co-

operation


23. Indigenous people: Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident or regularly

using the protected area have input to management decisions?2

0: Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into

decisions relating to the management of the protected area

1: Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into

discussions relating to management but no direct role in

management

2: Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to

some relevant decisions relating to management but their

involvement could be improved




0: Local communities have no input into decisions relating to

the management of the protected area

1: Local communities have some input into discussions


2: Local communities directly contribute to some relevant

decisions relating to management but their involvement could

be improved

3: Local communities directly participate in all relevant




0: No

1: Yes




0: No

1: Yes


24 c. Impact on communities: Local and/or indigenous people actively support the 1 0: No




0: The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits

to local communities

1: Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to

realise these are being developed

2: There is some flow of economic benefits to local

communities



performance?2


1: There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no

overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results

2: There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and

evaluation system but results do not feed back into

management

3: A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well



0: There are no visitor facilities and services despite an

identified need

1: Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current

levels of visitation

2: Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels




0: There is little or no contact between managers and tourism

operators using the protected area

1: There is contact between managers and tourism operators

but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory

matters

2: There is limited co-operation between managers and

tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain

protected area values



management?2

0: Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not

collected

1: Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the

protected area or its environs

2: Fees are collected, and make some contribution to the





0: Many important biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are

being severely degraded

1: Some biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being

severely degraded

2: Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being

partially degraded but the most important values have not



research and/or monitoring1

0: No

1: Yes



address threats to biodiversity, ecological and cultural values1

0: No

1: Yes



values are a routine part of park management1

0: No

1: Yes



METT Comments on CATSPA Pilot Site of Tarutao National Park, Satun. By 1. Mr. Tawee Nootong Protected Area Management Advisor, CATSPA Project.

2. Miss Kunsuree Yimsalee CATSPA Project. 3. Mr. Janerob Chanarawee CATSPA Project.

We participated in the updating of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) for Tarutao National Park, one of the five pilot sites of CATSPA on 28 June 2016. The scores were provided by a consensus of 6 staff and 3 Protected Area Committee (PAC). We offered comments for protected areas threats and the Assessment Form. We wered interested to understand the reasons for any changes in scores between the exercise and the baseline made in 2014, and there was a difference explanation, are indicated in the comments as followings. DATA SHEET 2: Protected Areas Threats. 1. Residential and commercial development within a PA. 1.1 No comments 1.2 The visitor facilities on Koh Lipe is related to number of tourists are increasing. 1.3 based on specific control and regulation. 2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a PA. No comments. 3. Energy production and mining within a PA. No comments. 4. Transportation and service corridor within a PA. No comments. 5. Biological resources use and harm with in PA. The score in 5.1-5.2 and 5.4 were decreased, because the specific control by Department of Fishery and DNP 6. Human Intrusions and disturbance within a PA. Comments on 6.1 based on specific control, management of tourist areas.

- 2 -

7. Natural system modification Comments on 7.3c some species will disappear by whale and shark which eastern for food. 8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes. Comments on 8.1 and 8.1b decreased in these threats, according to specific control on invasive species. 9. Pollution entering or generated within PA. Comments on 9.2 and 9.4 specific control garbages by management and bringing to the main land, public awareness, garbage collection by villagers. Trash Hero Group. Pollution control in management plan of Tarutao National Park, supported by Department of Pollution Control and Chai Pattana Foundation. 10. Geological events. No comments. 11. Climate change and severe weather. Drought occurred in Thailand, last summer, the rich of natural resources both inland and sea. Some species are come into the NP. especially devil ray and sea turtle lay eggs on the seashore. Regulation and control are specific such as fishing trap. The scores quite decrease. 12. Specific cultural and social threats. No comments. Assessment Form 1. Legal Status.

No comments or next steps. 2. Protected area regulations.

The regulation in the marine part of the NP, collaboration with the other agencies in resolution the problems, especially in local areas to enforce the Laws, such as NP Law, Fishery Law and Vessel Law.

Next step: The problems have to solve in the national level, especially cooperation between Thailand – Malaysia.

- 3 -

3. Law Enforcement. Comments and Next steps: The remaining deficiency is in the marine part of the NP, where the staff are unable to enforce the

law in the face of conflict with local fishing communities for their livelihood. A major issue on land part is the substantial tourism development on Koh Lipe, where the law is being interpreted differently by different groups and the staff are unable to enforce the NP regulations.

Next steps: This issue needs a significant review involving international government, government agencies at national, provincial and local level. 4. Protected area objectives.

Comments and Next steps: The objectives are established in site specific objectives; conservation, research, education and tourism management. 5. Protected Area design.

Comments and Next steps: While the design is sufficiently achievement of the objectives. According to another areas are important for biodiversity conservation, excluding the park boundary, they should added to the nation park area. 6. Protected area boundary demarcation.

Comments and Next steps: The boundary on the terrestrial part of the site is not a problem, boundary demarcation in the sea remains difficult, which hampers effective enforcement of regulations. Especially fishing and tourism, but these problems are solved by the NP staff to mark the boundaries in the sea with buoys and cooperation with fishermen and tourism agencies. 7. Management plan.

Comments and Next steps: The plan is not being fully implemented, because of the budget, equipment and manpower are insufficient to fully implement the plan.

Next steps: To begin the process of more effective implementation, convene a working group, such as a working groups of the interests senior government official.

7a – 7c: No comments.

- 4 -

8. Regular work plan. Comments and Next steps: This is working well, within the annual work plan.

9. Resource inventory. Comments and Next steps: No comments.

10. Protection systems. Comments and Next steps: Protection for the terrestrial parts are reasonably effective, the problems affect in the marine

parts, these problems are resolved by NP staff and stakeholders, such as management systems, controlling and specific permission. 11. Research.

Comments and Next steps: Research for management in Tarutao National Park, reasonably effective for management. Next steps: Need more research on terrestrial species and marine species, including behavior, species, landscape species and

ecosystem concerned. 12. Resource Management.

Comments and Next steps: Resources are well being managed in most of the terrestrial parts, but problems remain in the sea. 13. Staff members.

Comments and Next steps: The staff for the protection activities in some parts of the park, need to add more staff. 14. Staff Training.

Comments and Next steps: Staff training has focused on resource protection, using Marine Smart Patrolling. Next steps: Provide training on outreach, marine issues.

15. Current Budget. Comments and Next steps: The budget has increased slightly, the status of Tarutao NP as an ASEAN Heritage Site does not

seem to have led to a budget increase. However the budget for this fiscal year has received an allocation is being used to support management. Some funding is provided by the other government agencies and private sector.

- 5 -

16. Security of budget. Comments and Next steps: The security of the recurrent budget is secure, included in the annual DNP budget, but more

comprehensive budget that includes payment of fees from visitors remains a serious problem. Next steps: The funding for PA sites, should have concerned with private sectors, or foundations but the Tarutao should

prepared in the Business Plan. 17. Management of the budgets.

Comments and Next steps: No comments. 18. Equipment.

Comments and Next steps: The major requirement is for more and better boats, including at least on that can deal with stormy weather.

Next steps: Funding of NP boats could be an attractive part of a Business Plan with clearly identifying the donors. 19. Maintenance of Equipment.

Comments and Next steps: No comments, basic maintenance is based on what they needed. 20. Education and Awareness.

Comments and Next steps: A visitor centre is being established near the part of headquarter on the main land. The signs on the main island of the NP are well done.

Next steps: The signs could be translated into other languages such Chinese or Japanese and seek help from other agencies to ensure that visitor centre contains accurate and interesting displays. 21. Planning for land and water use.

Comments and Next steps: Many other agencies communicated and cooperated with the Tarutao National Park to conserve landscape and seascape, especially Fisheries, Navy and other provincial government agencies.

Next steps: The high – level meeting of the key agencies ( Interior; Fisheries, Navy, TOT, etc.) and private sector interests especially Local Tourism and Transportation (Both land and sea) to discuss the plan and has it can be implemented in the region.

- 6 -

21a. Land and water planning for water management Comments and Next steps: See above. 21b. Land and water planning for species corridors Comments and Next steps: See above. 21c. Land use and water planning for species of concern Comments and Next steps: See above.

22. State and commercial Neighbors. Comments and Next steps: The relations with the tourism sector, government and non-government agencies and local

fishermen working very well, both cooperation and utilization. Next steps: The fundamental problem of park management and responsibilities must to be addressed.

23. Indigenous people. Comments and Next steps: The relations of NP staff with the Urak Lawoi on Adang and Rawi islands seem to be understanding

on park management. They usually are working and meeting reasonably well. 24. Local communities.

Comments and Next steps: The local communities are those on the mainland and islands. The fishermen make the own management decisions, sometimes contrary to NP regulations. On the positive side, the local community also has groups that have provide very significant benefits to the park, especially through the group known as Reef Guardians.

Next steps: A role of the Reef Guardians is very important part of park management, especially resource management, should publicize their status.

24a. Impact on communities: Communications and trust. Comments and Next steps: Good with the Reef Guardians. 24b. Impact on communities: Enhance community welfare. Comments and Next steps: Tarutao National Park is widely seen as an important economic asset in terms of

tourism, numerous tourism agencies in the community are benefitting.

- 7 -

24c. Impact on communities: Active support to the PA. Comments and Next steps: A great from Reef Guardians.

25. Economic benefit. Comments and Next steps: Tarutao National Park is a major source of economic benefit to the province of Satun and many

business including dive shops, transport companies, souvenir sellers, restaurants and many other are benefitting. The link between the effective management of the park and the continuing flow of economic benefits is not nearly as explicit as if should be.

Next step: Conduct a detailed economic evaluation of the costs and benefits of Tarutao National Park, the results with a detailed supporting publicity campaign. Follow up with a fund – raising effort. 26. Monitoring and Evaluation.

Comments and Next steps: Carried out in seeking to implement the Andaman Sea Management Plan but the results to not quite feed back into management, especially on the marine side.

Next steps: Prepare and M&E System especially for Tarutao National Park. 27. Visitor Facilities.

Comments and Next steps: The visitor facilities on the main island. Tarutao are quite good. Those on Lipe are out of control, because the operators do not consider themselves subject to NP regulations. 28. Commercial tourism operation.

Comments and Next steps: The operators who contribute to Reef Guardians are considered a major asset. They well recognize the importance of maintaining the natural values of the National Park.

Next steps: Seek to formalize the relationship between the NP and the tourism operators. 29. Fees.

Comments and Next steps: As indicated above no fees can be collected from many visitors from abroad to Koh Lipe.

- 8 -

30. Condition of values. Comments and Next steps: The terrestrial values are now getting better, though some challenges remain. Many terrestrial

parts of the national park are showing considerable improvement. The Andaman Sea Management Plan has been a big help for management.

30a. Condition of values, based on research and management. Comments and Next steps: No comments. 30b. Condition of values, based on specific management programs. Comments and Next steps: No comments. 30c. Condition of values, Activities to maintain key biodiversity. Comments and Next steps: No comments.

mett catspa

Environment