Assessing vulnerability is a crucial step in order to identify the risks and come up with appropriate solution.  Siargao’s revised Siargao Island Protected Landscape and Seascape Plan takes into consideration the geologic hazards, climate change related hazards as well as the hazards brought about by illegal fishing, unregulated cutting of mangroves and other destructive practices. The farming and fishing communities of Siargao Island are highly dependent on available natural resources and coastal villages in particular are exposed to climate related hazards. There is therefore a pressing need for Siargao to develop a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of climate change, both on the environment and on its socio-economic development, as well as measures to manage these impacts. 

Understanding the risks  and vulnerabilities is also necessary in identifying the organizations and people who have the technical skills and capability to assist in the identification of adaptation strategies.  Sentro Para sa Ikauunlad ng Katutubong Agham at Teknolohiya (SIKAT), for example, was identified because of their significant experience in community-based coastal resource management and in community-based disaster risk management. 

The municipality of Del Carmen showed that it is serious in the implementation of fisheries law and ordinances when it organized the fish wardens and the People's Organizations (POs) in all its villages.  The local government and the Center for the Development of Indigenous Science and Technology or locally known as SIKAT, a non-government organization and a member of the Locally Managed Marine Area (LMMA) Network,  provide the fish wardens support in form of training, honorarium and provision of supplies.  The fish wardens , in partnership with law enforcers, are instrumental in the apprehension of illegal fishers and illegal mangrove cutters and in significantly lowering down the number fishermen practicing said illegal activities.  The people’s organizations were also trained and deputized by the LGU and were instrumental in the protection of designated protected areas. Sugba Lagoon likewise became a “no-fishing” zone. These efforts helped in slowly restoring the marine resources of Sugba Lagoon, and of Del Carmen.

Through community consultations, the LGU  and non-government organizations regularly update the communities on policies and reminds them of the possible impact if the lagoon is degraded.  Dialogue on issues and discussions on solutions happen during these community consultations.  Information,  Education and Communication materials in brochure form are handed out and posters are placed in strategic locations. 

To empower the people's organisations, government, NGOs and private entities shard their expertise and provided them technical support. The LGU, government agencies and NGOs trained them to be able to manage their own organisations, practice community based management, and the technical skills on how to manage tourism activities.  SIKAT, an NGO with significant years of experience in community-based coastal resource management program implementation also provided them with training on basic ecology and training and technical support in Marine Protected Area Management.

The active participation of organized community groups like DECATPOA , a People's Organization (PO) from Caub village where the lagoon is, and BACAMA, a PO composed of fisherfolk is crucial in this community-based venture.  Both POs were registered with the Security and Exchange Commission, were trained and deputized by the LGU to do environmental management, particularly management of marine protected areas. SIKAT, a non-government organization with significant years of experience in community-based coastal resource management trained them on basic ecology and provided them training and support on Marine Protected Area Management. Both POs have clearly defined organizational set-up, system of rules, defined roles and clear objective on sustaining resource management.  

Although the MPA quickly recovered and livelihoods began to improve part of the management plan was to introduce other non-fishing based enterprises in an attempt to achieve a self-sustainable solution. Initially, outside funding had to be sourced to enable this to happen, and various grants were forthcoming. Initially, a tourism business taking advantage of the improvement of coral and biodiversity within the MPA attracted visitors. This produced training opportunities, created steady employment to fishers improving their livelihood and taking pressure off the marine resource. The youth were trained in furniture making from old dhows, honey was produced, sustainably caught fish sold to restaurants, vegetables and crops grown and sold, various aquaculture projects are underway, and the women group have various enterprises including tailoring and a craft shop selling products made from driftwood and natural soaps. A loan scheme allows the members to finance other projects. A portion of the profit goes towards community welfare needs like water, health and sanitation. Beach waste is collected and sold to recycling companies. A school education programme educates the children on the importance of sustainable use of resources, and we provide trips within the MPA. 

Since KCWA initiated the first MPA in Kenya, the policy that regulates the recognition of a Locally Managed Marine Area was not clear. KCWA engaged other stakeholders like the East African Wildlife Society who helped with legal frameworks and policy advocacy. The recognition of this area under the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) secured fishers rights to manage their area and paved the way for the 20 other community projects that have sprung up following the KCWA movement.

This new legislation recognised the fisher’s effort for a collaborative governance model for the management of the marine territory. A 5-year adaptive management plan was drawn up drawing from local knowledge of the area with the help of other strategic partners. Rules and governance of the project were set out in a constitution document.

Community recognition that action was needed to improve dwindling fish stocks was followed by the identification of various stakeholders to help us achieve our goals. Communication, outreach and awareness building programmes were set up and a visit to a similar project in Tanzania went ahead in 2004, and encouraged the community to use local marine resources sustainably.

A democratic decision to close an agreed lagoon area was agreed. Legal and policy frameworks were put in place, and the first LMMA in Kenya was approved in 2006 under the National Environmental Management Authority. Following this, a collaborative governance model has emerged under Beach Management Units (BMU's), where fishers and government work together towards sustainable fishing and improved livelihoods. In setting up the MPA, we went through various phases; conceptualisation; inception; implementation; monitoring; management and ongoing adaptive management.

Awareness raising campaigns were conducted in each of the 9 cantons. They covered the following elements:

1. field to discuss about FLR and the planning of potential activities
2. local meetings with 77 villages, to share findings from field visits
3. radio programs in local languages
4. exchange sessions with the prefectural director for environment,
5. design & development of signboards for each village

After the participative mapping and inventory findings were shared with the communities by the installation of synoptic tables in the villages themselves, visible and accessible for everyone. This triggered community internal discussions and allowed to identify one or two low-cost restoration options per village to be implemented by the communities themselves under the technical supervision by forest service staff. The continuous information provision via various awareness raising formats and participatory meetings to identify FLR priority options in each of the cantons, led to a high momentum and legitimacy in the communities to engage in restoration.

Results of the participatory mapping and forest inventory allowed to assess forest resources and identify concrete priority options for landscape restoration in 4 zones.

Criteria for selecting priority options:

1. promote the restoration of natural forests, fragile and specific ecosystems,
2. achieve societal goals and objectives related to the conservation of biodiversity and human well-being,
3. to be implemented in the framework of existing projects in different land tenure types (protected areas, community or village forests, sacred sites),
4. limiting the fragmentation of forest areas and maintaining the connection of natural habitats.

Restoration options include the following:

1. Densely populated land (forest land, farmland, settlements): forest enrichment, agroforestry, river bank restoration)
2. Agricultural land: improved community forest management, enrichment of agroforestry systems, buffer zones around water bodies, wood energy forests
3. Dense forest, shrubland, riparian forests & savannahs: restoration of swampy savanna, riverbanks & community forests, fallow enrichment, improved pasture management
4. Wetlands, marshes, mangroves, grasslands: wetland & mangrove restoration