THE IMPORTANCE OF TENUREIN

COMMUNITY FORESTRY

Highlights from the Philippines

Edited byDr. Karen Lawrence

DRAFT

Southeast Asian SecretariatEnvironmental Science for Social Change

May 1998

CONTENTSCO-MANAGEMENT....................................................................................................................................................2

CO-MANAGEMENT........................................................................................................................................................4National Parks And Community Involvement.............................................................................................................20Issues............................................................................................................................................................................21

1

1. The Context for Community Forest Management.

In national plans throughout Asia, Central governments have relied upon upland watersheds as a source of raw materials and power. Mechanisms and agencies were developed to ensure extraction was carried out as efficiently as possible. Very little concern was taken to ensure that these resources were replenished. The people within those areas, if not seen merely as obstacles, were used as a cheap labour. As a result of this approach development of the lowlands has taken place on a much wider scale, and the Philippines is a typical example. A fundamental assumption was the common perception that the uplands were a vast wilderness, with no people and rich in resources. (The countries’ piggy bank). Once the uplands were opened up, pressures from migrants seeking better lives and the availability of land have combined with unregulated commercial extraction practices to remove forest cover and to reduce the natural regenerative properties of the forest systems. As a consequence the development of the lowlands has proceeded much more rapidly than that of the uplands. There is an overwhelming disparity in the resource flow from the uplands down, to the lowlands. This pattern is repeated in the levels of disparity of social opportunity between the uplands and lowlands.1 See chart 1

In the Philippines for example, although upland projects existed even during the Marcos era, a conscious policy focus on greater equity has only really come in the ’87 constitution, where it acknowledges the rights of indigenous peoples, IPs and Filipino communities to the joint management of the resources. A substantial part of the project funds for development were channeled to the uplands through administering organisations such as Government Agencies [GA]. In reality their development projects have had minimal impact on increasing the resource base or on enhancing the natural regeneration processes. The benefits normally went as far as the end of the road, which is to the formal unit, the Barangay. The alternative has been to place this responsibility in the hands of the private business sector. The GA, located so far from the resource base itself, has a very limited awareness of the real results of commercial resource management. Only when the ecosystems started to show signs of failure and weakening and the lowlands began to feel the impact in the form of unpredictable power, water and timber supplied, did some in government begin to acknowledge a need to review this resource flow inequity. Contradictions still exist. The passing of the mining act recently could be potentially the biggest threat yet to national resource stability.

Many of the GAs, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources [DENR] for example, were originally set up to regulate resource extraction rates and to make sure that fines, levees, fees and taxes were paid to the government. The bureaucratic structures, procedures and authority soon developed. Often in response, control mechanisms were set up to minimise internal corruption. Protection and controlled resource use activities that optimise resource regeneration, are in conflict with the original intent and with the systems that support the present authority structure and the financial systems that back them. If you reduce the levels of resource extraction, you also reduce the taxes for both local and national government as well as fees paid to GAs. An attempt to give greater responsibility to the people is currently underway through the Local Government Unit [LGU] code. The Barangay unit and municipal governments were given the power to make more decisions concerning local development, but they are not yet sufficiently empowered to respond to the needs of communities. The authority system still favours commercialisation, companies are considered more experienced and are indicators of economic development, a sign of civilisation.

2

Chart 1. Resource Flows.1

Chart 2. Authority Flows.2

3

The Local Government Code envisions resource management decisions being increasingly made at the Barangay, and Municipal level. Unfortunately as is typical of many areas far from central government, in the Mindanao context, after years of resource exploitation the Barangays are also far removed from the forest itself. Only the far flung Sitios and traditional settlements that are located at the edge of or inside the forest are people still able to interact with the resource base. It is the level of interaction that people have with their resource base that gives them the experience they need to gain a perception of the level of resource abundance in an area.

The decisions made by these primary forest dependants reflect the depth of this rich knowledge base. At the Sitio and settlement group level their experiences are acknowledged and shared, regardless of their standard of literacy. The many informal groups, Tribal Council, resource user groups or religious groups, provide opportunities for leadership skill development. If primary forest dependants are represented then decisions affecting the resource base made by these informal institutions are made with a full understanding of the status of the resource base. Whether this is reflected at the Barangay level depends upon how representative and empowered the sitio officer is within the formal institutional structure of the Barangay. How much weight is given to the forest based experience in the Barangay context in comparison with a formal educational attainment as well as the ability of the Sitio representative to express the real situation in the Sitio, are factors that influence the decisions made at the Barangay level. How well a Barangay council can manage different inputs from GAs, Aid Agencies, NGOs as well as balance the need for revenue from taxes remains to be seen. The assumption at the Barangay level is that there is representation of the minority groups and accountability through the elected officials. However the reality is different as those far from Barangays centres, often do not get the opportunity to vote. There are not enough forms provided, or if informed at all, there is not enough time for them to get to the voting booth. They remain even now, silent keepers of the national heritage.

The Barangay system is often only accountable to an elite few, who are near its centre and have access to the resources provided. Barangays are just as likely to benefit from over exploitation of the resource base as those in the towns and cities, without being downstream enough to experience the negative impacts. It is only at the sitio level where primary forest dependants have respect and partake fully in decision making processes, that can be assured of sustained resource management practices. It is in the longterm commercial interest that the access and control of resources to be given to an empowered group of representative community leaders. This is especially true for high value resources such as rattan, timber, almaciga, bamboo and essential oils.

However, many communities are taking action because of concerns over deteriorating natural habitats and declining water, wood, food and other forest generated resources. This is being felt in several Municipalities where the environmental changes in micro climate, brought about by a local reduction in forest cover is adversely affecting the availability of drinking water. LGUs are also noticing the difficulty in obtaining materials for infrastructure development. Forest protection and management is increasingly perceived as an essential task necessary to ensure the quality of life and continued residence in the area. Community forest protection represents a positive adaptive social response to increasing population pressures on the resource base. All over Asia there is a shift from loose, broad systems of use and control to more intensified access controls that are being driven by small, local resource user communities.1

The purpose of this paper is to explore how the tenure instruments are evolving with an emphasis on the Philippine situation where the legal system has produced an array of possibilities.

4

However, its important to stress that no one country has all the answers to the many problems that are common throughout the region. By looking in more depth at the approaches used in the Philippines, others can connect and see what is appropriate in their own cultural context. Ideally, we should be able to learn from the experience of others. The following provides a summary of similar issues facing both communities and governments across the Asia region.

.Key Policy Implementation Issues Common to Many Countries in the Region3

Who is the community? The use of community mapping and other participatory tools in identifying primary forest users and in motivating communities.

Communal forests To find ways to overcome legal limitations and to acknowledge traditional forms of ownership and tenure.

Cultural knowledge The use of science to verify, validate and acknowledge what is known by traditional communities and increase awareness where there are gaps.

Community Empowerment What is needed for empowerment? The role of federations and networks, and other strategies that communities use to get a response.

Regeneration and reforestation Understand community management systems that use the regenerative capacity of the forest and their effectiveness in improving quality and extent of forest cover.

Fire Management Cost of control vs management: what are the systems available and how can communities pay for the costs internally?

Co-management agreements Finding strategies that devolve power and responsibilities to local government and communities.

Re-orientation of GA Changing roles from regulators to service providersLinking with local governments To overcome problems of the local elite and to ensure CFM

activities are transparentNational Parks, protected areas and people Management solutions beyond a doughnut approach that

acknowledge forest occupants as key participants in management of forest resources.

Donor coordination Government strategies to make outside assistance effectiveSpread mechanisms Understanding the strategies communities employ to take project

supported innovations beyond the project zone

5

Chart 3. Community Pressure Flows.2

2. TENURE SECURITY.

The key issue in terms of any tenure instrument is: Who or which group is defined by it as legitimate? The choice often lies between those with access to education, money and political support, and can often be self-proclaimed leaders, or those that are still living traditional lifestyles. Usually this last group are far from political centres and without access to formal education, but they interact with the forest and its resources on a daily basis in ways similar to their ancestors. Even with the best of intentions if the process is not clear from the start, seemingly innovative government initiatives can be merely an additional pressure. As chart 3 shows, in the Philippines, the pressures on these marginalised, often simple people are increasing. Evidence from the landscape shows that the combined effect can cause them to weaken their former control mechanisms, changing their behaviour to that of exploiter. Providing them once again with a level of resource security is seen by many, both inside and outside these communities as a key step in reversing this spiral of degradation.

.The Traditional Tenure Systems.

Traditionally over time, these communities have developed their own tenure system that has provided support for longterm management activities. The resources provided by the forest were sufficient to meet the community needs. These primary forest dependants living together in community settlements have developed cultural mechanisms to ensure the transfer of knowledge, policies and practices, that maintain their strong relationship with the resource base. Leaders were identified by means of informal organizations, which were developed to optimise the meeting of community needs. Over a period of time, the combination of the resource flow inequities supported by formal authority structures that were designed to support elite groups, have resulted in pressures being exerted on these forest communities. Chart 3. The effect of these pressures has stretched the skills of traditional leaders and weakened many of the cultural mechanisms that controlled the use of the resources. Extraction levels then get set to respond to market demand rather than to the needs of the community. As a consequence both the environment and physical health of these communities have deteriorated. Re-establishing tenure security is the key to halting the processes of degradation. It can provide the community with a means of restoring longterm management practices that respond to the regenerative capacities of their resource base.4

It is essential that any proposed tenure instrument process must acknowledge these already marginalised communities, as the instrument will be the key to restoring their tenure rights for an area. Under certain circumstances, it could be a tool for further marginalisation rather than empowerment. What type of tenure instrument is appropriate? Several options are being explored at the moment in the Philippines and in the rest of Asia. Most are considering some sort of shared management strategy, co-management. This can provide various levels of community involvement. In many respects Nepal has gone a step further than most and has tried to provide tenure to identified primary user groups.5

Another strategy being employed by communities is the formation of federations or networks. These are performing important functions, such as; facilitating coordination among small management units, mediating conflicts and representing collective concerns and needs to government agencies1. In regions were local government representatives are unresponsive to the needs of small forest user groups they provide a new mechanism for social and political organising, Northern Farmers Network in Chiang Mai Thailand is a typical example 7. However

1

the following discussion can apply to both single communities and recognised federations or groups. Either way, the important factor is the process for establishing the legitimacy of the representative organisation and whether the organisation has adequate mechanisms to ensure it remains relevant to the communities living on the forest fringe.

. CO-MANAGEMENT2.1.1. Definition and Examples.

Several examples of co-management of natural resources already exist in Asia, whether it is for natural forest reserve areas or national parks and protected areas. It can be defined as when some or all of the relevant stakeholders in an area with natural resources, are involved in a substantial way in management and activities6. The government agency can be said to have entered into a partnership with local stakeholders.

In some countries, agreements have been made informally between local government agency staff and communities residing in forest reserve areas or protected areas, but with increasing outside pressures from other users, these agreements do not adequately protect the communities. There is an increasing awareness by communities that these have to be formalised so that the agreements can be acknowledged by all government agencies and other potential resource users. The question is: How can this be done if there is not yet an adequate legal framework to support it? In many countries statute law has to be passed to allow the government agency to enter into a formal contract with local stakeholders.

Co-management is itself a process of defining the partnership roles and responsibilities. As such there is not a single all defining instrument that can be developed and copied to fit all situations. However there are elements of the process that need to be discussed and agreed upon by representatives of all parties with an interest in the resources and area concerned, such as government agencies, various community interest group representatives, village leaders, NGOs and local government representatives6.

Partnership agreement or contract

Government Agency

Stakeholders, community groups, LGU etc.

Only since November 1997, with the passing of a new constitution, did Thailand create the legal basis for communities to have the right, duty and responsibility to manage their natural resources, with the passing of the new constitution. Questions still arise in terms of the type of agreement being sought and the type of area under contention. There is a willingness on the part of government to enter into agreements with communities to assist in the rehabilitation of degraded lands, but government is less willing to consider co-management agreements with communities in terms of sharing management responsibilities for protected areas.7

2

When is co-management appropriate?Some form of co-management has been found to be appropriate for areas when6;

Elements to be considered in the Partnership6.

The locality of the area concerned and its boundary (conflicts can be more easily managed if the boundary is defined for areas of resource use, for example by community mapping, CM).

The range of functions and sustainable uses it can provide The recognised stakeholders in the area Functions and responsibilities of each stakeholder. Specific benefits and rights granted to each stakeholder. An agreed set of management priorities drawn from understanding the management issues

and concerns of all stakeholder groups. A management plan developed through participation of all stakeholder groups. Procedures for conflict resolution, negotiation and collective decisions. Procedures for enforcement. Specific rules for monitoring, evaluating and reviewing the partnership agreement and

relative management plan as appropriate. Sources of financial support, stakeholder counterparts, budgets, and transparent accounting

and timely payment procedures.

There are people residing in the area, even if they are with or without official titles. Access to the natural resources in the area is essential for local livelihood security and

cultural survival. Sections of local communities have historically enjoyed traditional or legal rights

over the area Local interests will be strongly affected by the way in which the area is managed There are conflicts of interest over how the resources should be managed for an area The agency’s previous management strategy has failed to produce the expected

results. Various stakeholders in the area are ready to collaborate, and either request to do so

or have set up mechanisms to do so. There is enough time to use negotiation processes that can respect community

process.

3

Areas that are suitable could include all types of forest or natural resources, including protected areas. In all cases consultation and seeking a consensus of stakeholders in management would be necessary, including the case when an area is under extreme threat and requires a decision to stop the fast ecological deterioration. However, this minimum step is unlikely to be seen by many as co-management as the authority in management is not shared. The transition between the different degrees of co-management are vague. The results can be unexpected, when various stakeholders have seats in a decision-making body like a management board, many local demands are still left unmet. However the original intent was to ensure that these local stakeholders had representation6.

Types of co-managementThe following schematic diagram represents the various types of co-management, where there is a sharing of influence and control, as seen from the perspective of the agency in charge of natural resource management6.

Full agency control Shared control and authority by the agency in charge and other stakeholders. Full control by other stakeholders

3. CO-MANAGEMENTIgnore the interests and capacities of other stakeholders & minimize their relationship with the area.

Inform the stake-holders about relevant issues and decisions

Actively consult stakeholders about issues and decisions

Seek their consensus on issues and decisions

Negotiate on an open basis to develop specific agreements(Involving them in decision making)

Sharing authority and responsibility in a formal way(Via seats on a management board)

Transferring authority and responsibility to one or more stakeholders

Authority and responsibility is transferred permanently through awarding ownership rights for the area

No interference or contribution from other stakeholders

Increasing expectations of stakeholders

Increasing contributions, commitment and accountability of stakeholders

No interference or contribution from the agency in charge.

Increasing re-orientation of agency towards servicing

Critical Watersheds CADC areas CADC areas

Protected area buffer zone.Functional watersheds

NIPAP and other protected areas, under the NIPAS.

Reforestation areas

(Lease agreements, CBFMA or IFMA

Indigenous Peoples Rights Act-CADT

Nation Power Corporation, management of watersheds for the production of hydro-electricity

Gov. projects and programmes, Highways,

Mining companies, commercial developments

DENR-Protected Areas and Wildlife Management Bureau

Protected Area Management Board-PAWMB, DENR NIPAS-national integrated protected area system.

Joint management Agreements with PPDO and LGU.

CBFMA Community organisation is given lease.IFMA Company is given lease, DENR provides advice or training. It retains regulatory powers

Limited title is given to indigenous communities, allowing them to transfer ownership within members of the same IP community.

Taking the Philippines as an example, the supporting policy and legislative tools are placed in the scheme as well. Ownership in all cases remains with the state, under the Regalian Doctrin. This

4

pattern of ownership, state or private is common in the legal systems throughout the region and more often than not reflects a colonial heritage. In many countries, traditional communal property rights still exist that have been developed over centuries of a community interaction with its resource base, but these are not supported by law. Often a fundamental difference is found in the perception of ownership itself. Many communities did not consider it possible to own the resources, merely be responsible for their management and receive benefits as a consequence of diligent practice.

Both current policy developments of Community Based Forest Management [CBFM] and the National Integrated Protected Areas System [NIPAS] have evolved from less participative forms of co-management. The Indigenous People Rights Act [IPRA] would fall under the last section, however under certain circumstances, it could move to the left. This would be where for instance the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title CADT is in a Protected Area. Potentially the authority over the area could be shared through entering voluntary management agreements with the park authority (PAMB) as in many areas in Europe, this could be formalised by a Memorandum Of Agreement [MOA]. Financial incentives and compensation could be provided in return for agreed work or management practices. Land use changes would be controlled in part by the park authority, but farming activities would generally remain outside these controls. As the model shows in the Philippine learnings from field context need to be shared across various government agencies so that the experiences of trying to operationalise a particular co-management strategy can have a broader impact in terms of influencing other policies. Different situations arise in other countries. However the more flexible legal framework operating in the Philippines, currently allows for a greater diversity in the type of co-management agreements being implemented.

The effectiveness of co-management in achieving particular goals is not guaranteed there are certain risks involved. When control is fully in the hands of local institutions, these may be co-opted by powerful individuals for their private interests, which may win over the interests of the management goals of the national and local communities. However, when control is fully in the hands of public agencies, local knowledge and skills in resource management can go unrecognized6. In many cases ecological degradation of an area increases as a result of the removal of people form a given area.

Basic assumptions and consequences of co-management6.

The various stakeholders have different capacities and management experiences a partnership agreement stresses and builds on the complementarity of their distinctive roles. – It requires a situation where more is to be gained by collaboration than competition.

Different interests will be harmonised while responding, to some extent to all of them. Relevant people responsible for management over the agreed area are treated with respect and equity – Trust exists between the parties that they are all working for the common good.

The partnership agreement links rights and responsibilities. – management authority and responsibility for different resources or areas are assigned to the same institutions.

An equitable partnership provides a guarantee for the interests and rights of stakeholders, in particular the less powerful- Broader society is organised in a way that responds to variable conditions and is able to assume increasingly important roles and responsibilities.

The partnership as described by the co-management agreement is capable of responding to varying needs in an effective way. – It requires a feedback mechanism for review and improvement.

Co-management depends on the commitment of one or more individuals and/or on the presence of dedicated projects. – There is a political willingness to support individuals within an agency to develop commitment to the effective management of an area.5

Benefits and costs of co-management6

It is the very nature of co-management is to find a compromise between the different goals and objectives of the various stakeholders to bring about effective management for an area. As such there are benefits and costs which in part help define the type of partnership that government agencies are willing to work with.

BENEFITS COSTSThe legally recognised document increases the sense of security and stability, which leads to greater commitment to the area.

Process takes time, especially at the preparatory phase and developing the agreement.

Resource exploitation by non-local interests is controlled through an alliance between state agency and local stakeholders.

Professionals with uncommon skills are required.

Management responsibilities are shared and so the burden on the agency is less.

Opposition by an agencies or individuals to share authority with others.

All parties involved receive specific negotiated benefits. Opposition by stakeholders with an agenda of their own.Management effectiveness is increased through the application of local knowledge and skills.

Opposition by local residents that see various government resource management strategies as depriving them of development potential.

Resource management capacities are enhanced for both the agency representatives and other stakeholders, through enhanced communication and dialogue.

Certain original management goals may be compromised.

Trust between state agencies and stakeholders increases. The agreement might not be maintained due to unforeseen circumstances or problems.

Ownership of the management process and the commitment to implement joint decisions increases.Voluntary compliance of rules and regulations reduces the enforcement expenditure.Resources are saved as problems and conflicts are less likely to occur due to the increased understanding among groups.There is less likelihood of damage to the environment because of the increase in public awareness.Conservation and sustainable landuse practices are more integrated into social, economic and cultural issues and agendas.Participatory processes are more integrated into the larger political framework if feedback mechanisms can draw the learnings.

6

The Process

There is no prescribed way to develop a right co-management agreement. However, the strength of the agreement is often as strong or as weak as the process that developed it.6 It is assumed:

Where appropriate the use of participatory tools would be recommended. In the case of the Philippines this would be community mapping (CM) as drawn on plastic with pens.

Possible steps in the co-management process would be6:

Preparing for the partnership

Assess available resources, appoint a co-management team, with community mapping capabilities (CM)Preliminarily identify the main stakeholders – CMReview land and resource uses and identify existing conflicts and management issues – CMAssess the need and feasibility of developing a co-management agreement, Merge the community data onto a technical map and integrate it with other available technical data on erosion susceptibility, and existing tenure instruments or programmes.Begin a stakeholder analysis, identify criteria to distinguish among them.Contact the stakeholders and carry out community mapping activities to identify needs, concerns and issuesSupport stakeholders to organize, identify their representatives and develop an internal consensus on their interests and concerns regarding the area.

Developing the agreement

Appoint and independent facilitatorHold a first procedural meeting among stakeholdersHold a series of consultations and or planning meetings among stakeholders.By integrating data from different sectors and with the geophysical data, support the negotiation, mediation or arbitration of conflicts, using CM to draw out the issues.Reach a basic consensus and or common vision and agreement (MOA), and a management plan with zoning arrangements, specific functions, rights and responsibilities of the various stakeholders.Publicize the consensus or agreement, hold a ceremony to underline its importance.

Implementing the agreement

If applicable, set up a relevant co-management institution, council or an extended management body.Carry out management activitiesAs needed, clarify the responsibilities and rights of stakeholders, management conflicts and enforce the agreement.Monitor activities and results.Possibly, experiment with more complex technical activities and more widespread application of the agreement.On the basis of the agreement and monitoring results, hold regular reviews with all relevant stakeholders.If necessary, carry out required changes and/or go back to developing a new agreement.

Who moves the Process?

It is found that enthusiastic individuals are the prime movers of a co-management process. These can be either community leaders, local government officials, provincial governor or those from within the government agency.6

The government agency has legal ownership over the areaThe agency is willing and ready to develop a management partnershipThe rough unit of area and its location has already been chosen, either by the community/stakeholder or the government agency.

Concerns6

The Government agency is itself a major stakeholder, and problems have been found to arise when they also assume the role of process facilitator, which can often take the form of chairman of the management body, committee or board.

Management committees or boards need to be selected to review and implement the agreement Problems arise when they are predetermined and appointed before the agreement has been reached. In the process of reaching the agreement the functions of the implementing body can be defined.

7

Communities are complex. Differences in ethnic origin, class, status, caste, gender, religion, and wealth can create profound differences in interests, capacities and willingness to invest in the management of natural resources.

The internal differences and conflicts within communities need to be recognized, as well as the necessity for negotiation.

Communities change, especially when under the influence of markets, education, religion, authority, political processes and the media. Knowing the major historical events that shaped present allegiances within communities and with their neighbours can be critical in resolving conflicts or responding to outside initiatives that promote a particular co-management agreement.

Questions that are common and that can be identified through community mapping.8

Who are the community or the representative group within the community that have the most to loose if the forest resources of the area are degraded? Different groups, including women, within a community will vary as to the depth of information drawn on their map or the extent of the area. This information and these conflicts are easier to understand if the boundaries are discussed after the resources have been drawn.

Who are those in the community that have specialist knowledge? Those with special knowledge on resources will be identified if those other than the community leader are allowed to participate in the drawing exercise.

How to solve resource use conflicts? There will be conflicts. These can be drawn on the management issues layer. By drawing the conflicts spatially, most incidences will show the area of conflict. This is often much smaller than perceived through discussion alone. Once it is clear what and where the conflict is and who it affects, focused discussions can be directed to find the potential compromise solution.

How to motivate communities? In certain cases where the area has been predetermined as a project, such as a national park, then communities need a process to encourage their participation. Community mapping can identify clearly those willing to participate and can stimulate interest and lively discussions within communities.

What are the needs of the community? Livelihood stability is often the most critical concern for communities, CM issues can draw out where they are having problems and with what resource. If the problem is not covered by the terms of the agreement, then other agencies or NGOs can be contacted to respond. However, a process of response needs to be worked on.

Are there other government concerns, projects and programmes that could affect the area? It is valuable to repeat the CM process with all stakeholders, including government agency representatives and local government. For those with a technical background, CM on a technical map could be more appropriate. If the facilitator is flexible, it’s not a problem. Other data from the same government agency or others can be collated and put on other data layers using GIS.

8

Some conflicts cannot be resolved and an amicable compromise must be found that will not further marginalise the disadvantaged.

Some communities may require assistance first in order to get organised so that they can be represented in the negotiations and participate in developing the management agreement.

Time needs to be given to allow for community processes, whether in terms of developing an organisation or arriving at a consensus.

Are the stakeholders representative of those with interests in the resources of the area? CM is a tool that can be used to organise communities. The very process of identifying the resources and understanding the management needs can bring about a community organisation. If communities are organised around management issues rather than for political or economic gain, they tend to be more representative and more stable.

The following examples will try to examine different approaches to co-management based on the Philippine situation, or when appropriate, from another country. However first it might be helpful to highlight the two potential processes of policy evolution

9

Policy Time Line For the Philippine9

1881 Royal decree prohibits shifting cultivation.1894 Spanish Maura law claims 2/3rds of

Philippines as public forest land.1897 First Philippine Constitution, which classifies

land of the public domain as agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Only agricultural may be alienated. Regalian Doctrin is used as the premise that all land belongs to the state.

1898 US Administration Established.1940s’ Japanese occupation during WW21946 Liberation from Japanese by USA 1950s’ Heavy logging Luzon Plain,

Laural Langly agreement: US imports for natural resources swap.

1965 Marcos is elected1971 Kaingin permits issued for forest dwellers.1972 Marshal Law declared1975 PD 705: Forest reform code legitimizes

forest dwellers’ use of uplands1979 Marshal Law is lifted.

Renewable 25 year communal tree farms introduced.Family reforestation programme initiated.

1981 Green Revolution Policy1982 Integrated social forestry programme begins

LOI 1260:1983 Nino Aquino Assassinated.1986 Edsa Revolution: Cory Aquino is elected.

National reforestation Programme initiated.1987 New Constitution: Articles II, S10,16, XIV,

S17.DENR created: EO 1921st community ISF issued to the Mangyans

1988 People Orientated Forest Programme, EO 192, DAO1

1989 DAO 123,DAO 04, Rattan resource extraction guidelines.DAO 04-1: Special concession is given to Cultural communities.PD 865: Ban on the export of logs. Some provinces institute a local log ban.Secretary Factoran initiates community forestry program.

1990 People orientated forest land management expandedPrinciples of IP rights, ancestral lands and domains recognition established.

1990 RA 7160: LGU code; devolves some DENR functions to local governments.1st Certificates of Ancestral land claims issued in Baguio.

BRINGING ABOUT CHANGES IN POLICY10.

Process of policy development in the Philippines.The Philippines is known for having a very innovative policy that has given rise to several types of co-management agreements. It is helpful to understand how these have evolved. Community Based Forest Management Programme (CBFMP) is rooted in community involvement in reforestation and other forms of social forestry. Initial mechanisms to review policy came from the Upland Development Working Group (UDWG) that started in 1981 and involved those from the GA, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, [DENR] as well as Academe, Donors and NGOs. An offshoot support mechanism developed specifically for NGOs, UNAC. These groups brought about critical developments in community reforestation by reviewing what was happening on the ground as well as trying out new ideas through implementing pilot projects. Support also came to develop a formal policy review programme within the DENR in 1990. This resource programme [NRMP] specifically focused on developments in community forestry, with an emphasis on reforestation and rehabilitation.

The Philippine Working Group11 was initiated and made functional at the AFN meeting in Hawaii 1994. Perhaps the biggest difference between this group and others preceding it, is that it did not try to implement pilot projects. The PWG members simply went to a specifically chosen site to understand how communities, Local Government and local DENR representatives were dealing with resource management issues in their area. The PWG looks at the policy implementation problems and the initiatives being taken at all levels to overcome local difficulties. Where members of the group feel it appropriate, they offer advice and clarifications and on occasion also offer to follow up on certain issues.

10

1991 DAO 24: Logging no longer allowed in old growth forest.DAO 04: revised regulations for social forestry program, ISF

1992 President Ramos is electedDAO 30: guidelines for the transfer of DENR functions to local government.DAO 25:7586, NIPAS act is signed.

1993 DAO 02: Secretary Alcala signs CADC/CALCDAO 22: Revised guidelines for community forestry programme.DAO 23: Forest land management programme initiated. Certificate of stewardship granted.DAO 60:

1994 Social Reform Agenda- SRA is launched.1st CADCs are issued.

1995 EO 263: CBFM declared as strategy for sustainable forest management.Mining act is signed, limiting rights of communities to control commercial extraction of their mineral resources, only consensus community agreement is required.

1996 IRR 96-29: CBFM implementing guidelines are written and include community mapping as part of the process.DAO 24: Socialised IMFAs are brought in.DAO 34: Management guidelines for Ancestral domain are written.Partnership between LGU and DENR to promote CBFMAs is developed. IRR of the mining act are written.DOA 96-30: integrates CBFMP and POFP into DENR regular structure.

1997 1 million hectares of CADC have been awarded.DAO 4: implementing guidelines for SIFMA are written.DMC 97-12: guidelines for the CBFM plan, community resource management framework and annul workplan are written.IPR Act: Gives right of title to AD and land claims. New National Commission for Indigenous peoples is set up. All previous DENR functions relating to IPs are given to the Commission.

1998 Securitised forest agreements are proposed.IRR for IPRA is written.

Part of the reason why it has been such an effective body is the way in which policy can evolve in the Philippine context. See chart 4.

The Philippines provides a model where innovative policy leads ground level implementation. Policy review mechanisms provide an effective and necessary means of understanding how the innovative policy is being interpreted at the different levels. An ultimate indicator of the effectiveness of policy is the lack of fragmentation and quality of forest cover as a percentage of the landscape. Once these learnings from the ground are passed back up the line, policy adjustments can be made. The legal framework needs to be highly flexible and given the combination of statute and case law, the system in the Philippines is able to respond. However, at the same time the lack of strong innovation coming from the grassroots is an indication that communities are not empowered. Questions then arise as to how ready are some of these communities, or local government for that matter, to take on the broader responsibilities of resource management that are being given to them by these policies. How can they be made ready?

Process of policy development in Thailand.Not all countries share the same policy evolution strategies as the Philippines. The opposite model, where community innovation pushes policy is most evident in Thailand. See chart 5. The Thai legal framework has less flexibility in some ways as it relies solely on statute law. Therefore, understandably there is reluctance on the part of legislators to change unless they are sure the new policy works. It is also indicative of the highly centralised mode of government, which is a characteristic shared by several governments in the region. Although official policy is very restrictive, the government agency, Royal Forestry Department

[RFD] through developing a project site with its own rules and regulations, can provide the flexibility to implement new ideas. Innovation from communities in terms of developing effective forest management practise is very evident. Highly effective traditional communication mechanisms provide the basis for the innovations to spread across and within communities. The

11

quality of local leadership is critical and has been maintained either through traditional mechanisms or through training provided by their local forest monasteries.

Chart 4: Process of Policy Development in the Philippines

Chart 5: Process of Policy Development in Thailand

12

No of Sites No of HH No of HectaresPhilippines: CBFMP 671 100,102 3,570,802Thailand: official CF committees 4,952Thailand: Unofficial CFC 15,000

In some ways this second model makes it more difficult to find an effective mechanism that can assist in policy evolution. Things are made increasingly difficult when you combine it with a highly authoritarian policy approval process. In some cases frequent government changes exacerbate the difficulties. Which mode of policy evolution is more successful is debatable, in comparing results from Thailand and the Philippines:

In Thailand, a community forest established through reforestation, and protection activities, can be anything from 32.4 ha (200 rai), to 162 ha (1000 rai). Those that are traditional to the community or established on their own, usually through combining protection and regeneration, tend to be larger areas, from 81 ha to 405 ha. The area covered by the CBFMP sites also includes settlements and farmlands. The real impact is indicated by the amount of forest cover maintained. However, as adequate mechanisms are not being used in either country to monitor changes and infrastructural developments continue to have unmonitored impact, other social factors such as peace and order, commercial exploitation and illegal logging combine to make direct comparisons nearly impossible at this time12.

DEVOLVING MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES THROUGH CO-MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS,

Reforestation Areas and Local Government.

Much of the co-management advancements in the Philippines are towards devolving responsibility for natural resource management to the local government. This has been a slow process, in part because the LGUs weren’t ready and also because the Local DENR were concerned in terms of their technical capabilities to take over old reforestation areas. However it is being attempted in several areas. In order help make the connections between LGU and DENR, both the Philippines Political Structure, chart 6 and DENR Bureaucratic structure, chart 7 are given.

From both it is at the province level that local government and local DENR have direct counterparts and can start making effective agreements and coordinate activities. In part they are able to meet informally in the same locality and have a shared understanding of local needs and concerns. A critical factor however is whether the local government considers the environment an important factor that can be seen as benefiting economic development rather than slowing it down. This has been a prime consideration in Nueva Viscaya, where recently the Provincial government and DENR negotiated an agreement where they share management responsibilities for an area of forest. Appendix 1, Chart a, and b show the details of this MOA, for the lower Magat reforestation project. Map 1 shows the location of the reforestation area13.

13

Chart 6: Philippine Political Structure.Chart 7: DENR Bureaucratic Structure.

14

The legislation to support this type of co-management has been in place since 1990 with the local government code. However, local governments have been slow to take on these new responsibilities and local DENR have been slow in volunteering the old reforestation areas that should be under the management of the LGU. Only a few local governments have assigned their environmental and natural resource officer ENRO. Nueva Viscaya was one of the few provinces that was involved in a project to built local government capabilities. In other regions of the Philippines, the Mayor can be a key change facilitator in terms of developing environmental management strategies. Pueta Princesa in Palawan is a prime example; in this case the local government manages the National Park, St Pauls14.

In Thailand the empowerment of the local Tambon council [OBT] in terms collecting and spending local taxes is seen by many as being an appropriate organisation to increase the level of official community involvement in the management of local natural resources. Increasingly, where local watershed units have developed an effective watershed network of protection committees, these are now influencing their OBT. In Nan province, where there is a strong local awareness in terms of the importance of the forest and water, the OBT are taking up these rules and regulations to apply to areas beyond forest reserve12.

Forest Reserve Areas And Communities.

In the Philippines is took a constitutional shift in 1987 to acknowledge the rights of community to benefit from the national resources as well as to acknowledge the rights of IPs to self determination. The key policy support came in the form of a Department Administration Order; DAO 02. This acknowledged the right of occupancy of IPs in forest reserves, protected areas and watersheds and tried to establish a process to determine the legitimacy of a group claiming the rights over an area. The Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim [CADC], as it was called, did not provide any right of ownership, only the right to use the resources in a traditional way. Chart 8. The process of obtaining a CADC is shown in Appendix 2 Chart a.

The other main tenure instrument that has made advancements in terms of co-management is the Community Based Forest Management Agreement [CBFMA]. This programme is the umbrella for all previous forms of social forestry and can be used in combination with protected area legislation, NIPAS. The main thrust is to promote sustainable forest management strategies that are developed by the communities themselves. The benefits are shared between the community and government, but with the understanding that some of the profits from approved resource use strategies will be used for community development.

The CBFM programme is process orientated, and has the flexibility to combine with local government land use plans as well as to strengthen the management plan developed for a CADC, ADMP. The Ancestral Domain Management Plan, [ADMP] is for the community, however, if they want to extract resources in commercial volumes then approval is sought from DENR through CBFMP. The process can be simplified if the ADMP development workshops include representatives from other sectors in the community and follow the criteria of the Community Resource Management Framework, [CRMF], which is defined under a CBFMA. This process of combining the two instruments is shown in Chart 1015. However, it can be just as easily the other way round, CBFMA first and then a CADC.

15

Chart 8: Rights and Responsibilities of CADC.

Chart 9: The Rights and Responsibilities of a CBFMA.Chart 10: The Process of Combining a CADC and CBFMA.

16

17

18

Part of the reason for the flexibility of CBFMP is the use of community mapping that draws out the local understanding of management issues and resources8. Appendix 3, Chart a gives the CBFMP implementation framework integrated with the community mapping process used8. The principals behind it are summarised by:

In practice, among Indigenous People [IP], there is a preference for obtaining the CADC first and then getting commercial user rights through CBFMP. This is how the instruments were combined in the Dupinga watershed, Nueva Ecija15. By working through the process in this manner it was easier to establish that the IP group has a larger stake in the watershed. The more detailed knowledge possessed by the IPs and their long association with the watershed was accepted by other sectors16. The IPs in Dupinga, the Dumagats, are similar to many other IP group in that they have very little formal education and lack the organisational and financial management skills of other stakeholders. The other stakeholders are usually migrants who coming from the lowlands, had better access to education and to markets. In this case if CBFMA had come first, then the IPs would most likely have been given equal representation on the registered peoples organisation. However, given their socio-economic and political disadvantages this could have resulted in further marginalisation as they could not compete equally. By seemingly favouring the IPs and putting the CADC and, therefore the CBFMA in the name of their PO representative, the other sectors are still able to contribute to the process by developing the management plan. The responsibility of management is weighted in favour of those with the biggest stake in the watershed. Because the tenure instrument is in the hands of the primary forest user, even with shifts in the dynamics of the communities, they will not be further marginalised.

There are problems and delays in the above process, which seem to be the result of conflicts from assigning the CADC to the wrong communities. Some of the areas claimed under CADC and CBFMA have been for large areas, some more than 50,000 has. When management plans are to be developed problems arise due to the sub-groups that exist in these large areas. Often if the tenure instrument is given to a group located in the lowlands away from the resource base, or to an individual, it results in problems. Increasingly it has been found that in these cases the marginalised members living in the large area are further disenfranchised from decisions concerning resource management activities. The sub-grouping even among IPs of the same tribe is not recognised by the local DENR so that this process of further marginalsation can result from more educated IPs, usually more aligned with the dominant lowland culture. Unfortunately, what has made the situation even more problematic is that the success for DENR is measured by the number of hectares under a programme. Therefore it is more important to award one large CADC rather than five small ones. Budget allocation is also based on similar indicators of success.17

Things are made more complex due to the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act18 [IPRA], passed in November 1997. It tries to provide greater security for communities, by providing legally recognised communal property rights. The legal framework of the Philippines is not yet ready.

Participatory, PO lead process Multi-use of forest resources for effective overall management of an area. Resource sustainability Integrated planning. The acknowledgement of IP rights and practices. Awareness of gender difference in terms of resources used and functions within the community. Effective use of non timber forest products. Re-investment of the money and benefits into community development and poverty alleviation.

19

Only two forms of ownership are recognised, ownership by the state or by an individual. Therefore there are occasions when IPRA could facilitate fragmentation of the indigenous land. If IPRA is ratified with the legal system as it now stands, it will be subject to registration under the Torrens titling system. If there exists a Native Title (the land was given to the IPs during the Spanish times and not reclaimed by the state in the meantime), or if Ancestral Land Title [CALT] is claimed for an area not covered by a certified ancestral domain title[ CADT], then the registered title is governed by the same civil law as other forms of property.

However, if the CADT (or a CALT under a CADT) is registered for an IP group that has been occupying an area in the public domains since time immemorial, then the ownership is governed by the provisions stated under IPRA. The intent of the law is to give IPs a legal basis for self determination and have full participation in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of management activities of all national, regional and local development plans programmes and polices which may affect them. What is critical for the law to be effective is that time is given to strengthen the cohesiveness of communities and that they are organised using processes that empower them. See appendix 4 for the Key Points of IPRA.

An area of increasing complexity and conflict in the Philippines as in other countries of the region is the balance between local needs and national concern. This is most apparent in the case of communities and protected areas, when it comes to securing water supplies, ecological stability or biodiversity. The usual solution is that the local communities are asked to sacrifice access and use to their resources for the Nation. However, few mechanisms currently exist to adequately compensate them or protect their interests (under IPRA this has been addressed for protect areas that will be declared as such after its enactment, whether IP rights will be respected in areas already identified is not yet clear). Often the tension that results from this inequity can lead to increased rates of degradation in these critical areas. It is therefore helpful to consider current strategies being employed and the concerns being raised.

.National Parks And Community Involvement

Can the objectives of conservation and communities be reconciled? Some say they cannot. Strict protectionist models have been tried in several countries, but with usually poor results in terms of maintaining habitat cover and quality. Many of the policy decisions made were based on the erroneous assumption that there were no communities using the forest resources in these areas. Understaffed government agencies have designated areas for protection using table top surveys made in the office and these were based on slope calculations and other official secondary data sources, such as aerial photos, satellite imagery and official location of settlements.

These decisions have repeatedly failed to take account of the dynamic relationship between villagers and their natural environment. When policies formulated at the desk are implemented at the local level conflict can arise when the protected overlaps with other programmes or when rules are suddenly imposed on communities. Communities are thrown into a state of confusion and uncertainty when they are asked to stop using their traditional resources or change the way they farm. When communities were found to be within the boundary itself, they can still be relocated outside the boundary. However in several countries, Vietnam, Thailand and Philippines, it has been found that relocated forest dwellers often continue to reenter parks and sanctuaries because of their traditional reliance on the forest as a source of subsistence and cash income. It has become

20

increasingly evident that forest dependent communities need to be included in management if there is to be effective regulation of local use practices19.

Two types of model seem to have been developed as a strategic response to the issue of people and protected areas; one is exclusive the other inclusive.20

USA- Exclusive, assumes a wilderness area: No participation in management planning or total relocation out of the areaWestern Europe-Inclusive: It assumes human residence within the park. Therefore, private ownership in the park is allowed and or people actively participate in management planning processes.

Initially in Asia the USA model was adopted. Often a centralised government would set aside vast wilderness areas and assign various management rights to those areas. However, it has become increasingly clear that protected areas do not remain in an untouched state if people are ignored or relocated. The integration of local communities into the design and management of protected areas is more increasingly a part of the debate/discussions and practice in South and Southeast Asian countries. How to go about integration in practice is still at an exploratory stage; many issues have yet to be clarified.19

The two approaches that seem to be emerging are;

Biosphere reserves21 and restricted practice, as we find in Thailand, Vietnam. Community involvement in management is only sought in the buffer zone. The communities are relocated from the other zones into the outer zone. The size of the zones are pre-determined by policy.1. Inner protection zone.2. Limited resource use and extraction zone.3. Bufferzone for sustainable agricultural practice.

Multizones and participation in management - Nepal and the Philippines.Other stakeholders are part of the decision making process in zone establishment and management planning. Management objectives and strategies are developed for each zone and specific approaches and technologies identified. Management practices allowed to be implemented are those that will meet the zones objective. Countries differ in the way they designate the various zones and the practices allowed. They also differ in the involvement of communities; some are given assigned responsibilities of park administration, so that communities are employed as guides or in other activities.

. Issues The following were identified as common concerns and learnings by those from countries in AFN.19 In many countries current laws and policies are not yet responsive to community participation,

and do not have the flexibility to respond to site-specific variables.

Clarification of tenure and ownership patterns with respect to land and resource management rights in and around the PA, is urgently required.

21

PA management can be built upon the foundations of existing community practices, knowledge, and institutions, but more documented examples are needed to understand how this can be brought about.

Co-management institutions need to be understood and created at various levels from village to PA to the larger landscape, so that the special needs of socially underpriveleged sections and the endangered species within the PA can be fully considered.

The diverse development programmes of various sectors need to be integrated with the objectives of conservation and of livelihood security in and around PAs.

Given the previous discussion the same learnings apply. Tenure security is a critical concern to communities. Policies for protected areas need to be further developed. These polices must respond more flexibly to this tenure security concern and enable communities to enter into MOAs establishing a co-management agreement. These MOAs should be developed through a process where management plans and zones are developed from the communities themselves by establishing a process similar in nature to ADMP/CRMF. As a result, the communities on the forest fringe will have the means to define their own community forest. If this were followed, negotiations with the GAs that are concerned with protected area management would be more equitable. While much of the park planning is still being carried out in central offices that use technical data and experts to develop management zones, the communities have little means of developing a counter argument in the negotiation process. They are just asked to agree or disagree to the zones presented. However while this present scenario is far from the ideal, it is perhaps helpful to look at actual examples being carried out in two countries, Vietnam and Philippines so that the two models can be better understood.

Vietnamese Example.22

Ba Vi Mountains, one of Vietnam’s leading National Parks was designated as the eighth national park in 1992. The natural forests of Ba Vi were already depleted by earlier commercial logging and swidden farming. While timber extraction has been halted, these endangered ecosystems are under mounting informal pressure from an expanding rural population of 12,000 households residing in the adjacent villages. As in many nations, forestry agency staff have encountered problems protecting the Park from local use. Illegal tree felling, hunting, plant gathering, and swidden farming remain common occurrences.

1. The criteria and processes involved in the conceptualisation, establishment, planning, zoning and categorization of protected areas (PA) need the central involvement of local communities at all stages of decision making.

2. Local community involvement effectively requires that livelihood rights and benefits be built into the PA management plan, along with responsibilities for conservation.

3. Policy needs to be flexible enough to allow management plans to be drawn up that are able to incorporate the diverse ecological and social values of the PA.

4. The planning process needs to be dynamic, responding to the changing social, ecological economic context, especially in its ability to provide alternatives to unsustainable resource use and to ensure that there is equity in decision making and benefit sharing.

22

An initial co-management team comprising of; villagers, park officials, and local NGO representation could focus on four main areas:

1. Understanding Resource Use Patterns. A general description of Dzao resource use

practices around the Park as they relate to current policies and programmes.

Formulate profiles of Dzao resource use patterns by working with key informants from the village as members of the research team

The research team could examine current institutional resource use control systems and problems and develop ideas to enhance natural generation processes.

2. Assessment of natural regeneration patterns and problems.

A joint exploration by villagers and park officials to find ways to accelerate the ecorestoration process through regeneration of forest species including those that are more economically productive.

Collection of ecological information in a time-series of abandoned swidden plants, past logging sites, and burn areas above and below 400 meters.

3. Establishment of rights and regulation for medicinal plant collection.

A dialogue on collection allocations within specific elevational zones.

An exploration of in-situ cultivation trials at different altitudes.

4. Joint Park Administration. With participation of both villagers and park

officials the formulation of recommendations to establish greater community representation in protection and management in all areas of the park.

Establishment of village representation in the Park administration body.

Establishment of community based forest management groups.

In 1990, a buffer zone strategy was created to better meet local economic needs and engage neighbouring communities in forest conservation activities. While some agroforestry projects have effectively supported the introduction of valuable tree crops, forest land allocation to households in the outer buffer zone, has proceeded slowly, and have not always reached the low-income households, most in need of land. Poverty remains a problem, collection of forest resources, both plant and animal, as well as grazing and illegal mining, continues to increase tension between the Park authorities and the local people.

Currently, there are no members of the Yen Son Commune (village) working for the Park. No institutional initiatives have been taken to establish co-management mechanisms that facilitate communication among stakeholders and allow joint management decisions to be made. Sometimes there are training courses for the local people in agricultural and forestry extension, but for the most part, their needs are not addressed in the existing management plan.

In Asia and Africa there is mounting evidence suggesting that forest conservation strategies cannot be separated from the needs and reliance of local peoples on the forest resource base. The experience of Ba Vi indicates that to achieve both the National Park objectives of conservation of flora and fauna and protection of a crucial watershed area, as well as meeting local economic and health needs, an alternative plan based on co-management may be required. A series of informal co-management meetings could lead to the development of formal institutional mechanisms designed to facilitate greater community participation in the management of Park resource combined with a series of practical strategies geared to addressing specific resource problems.Ba Vi National Park presents a valuable opportunity to preserve a unique natural ecosystem, rehabilitate degraded natural forests, and conserve ethnobotanical knowledge while responding to

23

the economic needs of land poor communities. To achieve these multiple goals, a management framework may need to be developed that brings buffer zone communities into the Park’s planning and management processes. Establishing ethnomedicine as an important theme in Ba Vi national Park would give this sanctuary a unique identity among the country’s and the world’s protected areas. Co-management would support the Dzao’s subsistence livelihood, as well as their important role in providing health care services in the regions. Ba Vi administrators will need to work closely, not only with Dzao, but with Kinh and Muong community leaders to meet both national conservation goals and local needs.

Chart 11: The Management zones for Ba Vi National Park and the Community Management Suggestions.

Philippine Case.

The management of protected areas is dictated by the National Integrated Protected Area System, NIPAS act of 1992. Areas that were declared before July 1992, as protected under the previous eight categories,, are automatically covered. Funds to implement the system have come from several donors and include eighteen sights.

Protected area type Area ha Number of sitesNational Parks 459,221 Game Refuge and Bird sanctuaries 947,171Wilderness areas 64,014Watershed areas 1,266,763Marine areas 134,945Total 2,872,114

The protected area and its bufferzone are recommended to be divided into one or more of the categories listed below.1. Strict protection zone: protection of areas with high biodiversity, only scientific studies,

ceremonial or religious use by IPs.2. Sustainable use zone: Natural areas, collection and use of natural resources using

traditional sustainable methods that are not in conflict with biodiversity conservation requirements.

3. Restoration zone: Areas of degraded habitat, assisted natural regeneration of native species, eventually returning to zone 1 type.

4. Habitat management zone: areas with significant habitat and species. Human habitation and current management practices are allowed if they maintain the desired habitat.

5. Multiple-use zones: areas of settlement, traditional and/or sustainable land use. Land tenure is allowed.

6. Buffer zone: areas outside the PA, but adjoining it and are established by law as being under the management board. Same land use as multiple zone.

7. Cultural zone: areas with significant cultural, religious, spiritual or anthropological value or where practices take place.

8. Recreational zone: areas of high recreational, tourism, educational, or environmental awareness value, where these activities are allowed in the plan.

9. Special use zone: Areas containing existing installations of national significance. 10. Other management zones: Other zones as described in the plan and with approval from the

secretary.

24

* The zoning of a protected area and its buffer zones and management prescriptions within those zones shall not restrict the rights of indigenous communities to pursue traditional and sustainable means of livelihood within their ancestral domain, unless they so concur.

National Integrated Protected Area Programme; NIPAP, eight sights were chosen for funding by European Union; 1. Malampaya Sound, Palawan2. El Nido, Palawan3. Mt. Pulog, Cabayan, Benguet4. Mt Malindang, Osamis City, Misamis Occidental5. Mt. Isarog, Camarines sur6. Mr Guiting-guiting, Sibuyan Island, Romblon7. Coron Island, Palawan8. Mt. Iglit-baco, Mindoro Occidental.

Ten protected areas have been identified and are funded by other agencies such as NORDECO, ADB and WB. NGOs are expected to play a large part in responding to the issues in the parks and advising the implementation of NIPAS. In order to do this they formed a body called, NGOs integrated for protected areas, nipa. The following sites influenced by their body are;1. Batanes Island2. Palanan Wilderness3. Apo Reef Marine Park4. Bataan National Park, Zambales5. Mt Kanlaon National Park, Negros, Panay6. Mt Apo National Park, Davao7. Siargao Island8. Mt Kitanglad National Park9. Agusan Marsh, Agusan, davao10. Turtle Isalands.

25

References.1. AFN No 9 1996: Linking Government With Community Resource Management, What’s Working

and What’s Not. A Report of the 5th Asia Forest Network Meeting, Surajkund, India, December 2-6, 1996. Ed. M. Poffenberger et al. Pp 41-46.

2. ESSC 1997: Rattan Resources, Community Management Capabilities, Cultural Biodiversity Series. ESSC Philippines, Ed. Karen Lawrence. Pp 4-8.

3. AFNews Vol IV, No 2. May 1998. 4. ERD 1994: Upland Philippine Communities, Securing Cultural and Environmental Stability.

Research Report. Ed. Peter Walpole. ERD, Manila Observatory (ESSC) 1994.5. AFN No 9 1996: Linking Government With Community Resource Management, What’s Working

and What’s Not. A Report of the 5th Asia Forest Network Meeting, Surajkund, India, December 2-6, 1996. Ed. Poffenberger et al. Pp 11-13

6. G. Borrini-Feyerabend. 1996: Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context. Research Paper. G. Borrini-Feyerabend, Social Policy Group, IUCN. 1996. Pp 8,9,9,12,16,17,18,19,20.

7. AFN/ESSC 1997: AFN Thailand. Site Documentation, SEA Regional Secretariat, ESSC, 1997. Part 1. Pp 5-6.

8. DENR/ESSC 1998: Community Mapping Manual for Resource Management.1998, Community Based Forest Management Office and the DENR and ESSC 1998.

9. AGM. La Vina 1991: Law And Ecology. A compilation of Philippine Laws and International Document Pertaining to Ecology. 1991. Ed.Atty Antonio GM La Vina. The Legal Rights and Natural Resources Centre. Cacho Publishing House Inc.

10. AFNews Vol IV No 2. Pp 2-3.11. G. Braganza & P Walpole 1998: Empowering Community Managers. Learnings of the Philippine

Working Group on Community Forest Management. G. Braganza & P Walpole. ESSC 1998.12. AFN/ESSC 1998a:Thailand. Site Documentation, Part 2. 1998. SEA Regional Secretariat. ESSC.

1998.13. AFN/ESSC 1998 b:AFN Briefing Kit. Nueva Viscaya. 1998. SEA Regional Secretariat. ESSC.

1998.14. PWG/ESSC 1996a: Documentation of Activities and Notes. Eighth Philippine Working Group Site

Visit. Kayasan, Puerto Princesa, Palawan. June 1996. The Secretariat, ERD-MO (ESSC). June 1996.

15. AFN/ESSC 1998c: AFN Breifing Kit. Dupinga Watershed, Nueva Ejcia. 1998. SEA Regional Secretariat. ESSC 1998.

16. ESSC 1998: Resource Conflict and Culture Management Map. ESSC. 1998. Highlights of Research from Dupinga Watershed, Southern Seirra Madre. G. Tengko et al. ESSC 1998.

17. PWG/ESSC 1996b: Philippine Working Group. Bukidnon. November 1996. Documentation of Activities. PWG Secretariat. ESSC 1996.

18. LRC-KSK 98-122: LRC-KSK Legal Opinion and Memorandum on Matters Relevant to the Interpretation and Implementation of Republic Act No. 8371 (Indignous Peoples Rights Act of 1997). LRC-KSK Legal Opinion No 98-122.

19. AFN 1996: 5 th Asia Forest Network Meeting. Surajkund Dec. 1996. Pannel Discussion 20. West, P.C. and S.R. Brechin 1991: Resident Peoples and National Parks, Ed. PC West & SR

Brechin. University of Arizona Press, Tucson (Arizona), 1991, [in 7].21. UNESCO 1995: “The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves”, Nature and Resources, 31, 2: 2-

10, UNESCO 1995. [in 7].22. M. Poffenberger 1998: Stewards of Vietnams Upland Forests. A Research Report No 10 AFN/FIPI,

M. Poffenberger ed. 1998, p. 71-89 & Figure 11, p 76.

Site Profiles and Problems.

26

Several problems and management issues have been identified in each site, and in some cases are slowing down the implementation process. However, given it is so participatory, this is to be expected.

Management Concerns of Protected Areas.Site Involved Issues/concerns/learningsSt Pauls NP, Palawan MLGU,

Batanes Islands,

Palanan Wilderness

Apo Reef Marine Park

Bataan NP, Zambales

Mt Kanlaon NP, Negros

Mt Apo NP, Davao

Siargao Island

Mt. Kitanglad NP, Bukidnon

Agusan Marsh, Agusan

Turtle Islands

Malampaya Sound, Palawan EU Dynamite and cyanide fishing by outsiders. Conflict with the PCSD.

El Nido, Palawan EU Commercial interests are very strong. Provincial roads are badly mad and are degraded the coral. Oil, and associated infrastructure.

Mt. Pulog, Benguet EU CADC. Commercial vegetable farmers. There is a conflict of interest.Mt. Malindang, Misamis Oc EU PAMB doesn’t meet often, as the areas is too big and holding a meeting for

all involved is too expensive. Mt. Isarog, Camarines Sur EU People seem to be easily influenced.Mt Guiting-guiting, Sibuyan EU Personality difficulties. Local government wants access to timber for local

development projects.Coron Island, Palawan EU People are suspicious that DENR will take the land away.Mt. Iglit-baco, Mindoro Oc EU CADC, people are not in favour of the national park. There is a lack of

understanding about what it does and doesn’t allow you to do.

27