Acknowledgements:

Asian Development Bank, Conservation International, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmBH, Energy Development Corporation, Foundation for the Philippine Environment, Haribon Foundation, International Fund for Agricultural Development, Koalisyon ng mga Katutubong Samahan ng Pilipinas, Philippine Association for Intercultural Development, Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Foundation, Philippine Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation, Tanggol Kalikasan, United Nations Development Programme, United States Agency for International Development – Philippines, UPLB College of Forestry and Natural Resources, World Bank, World Wildlife Fund – Philippines, and government agencies including NEDA, DENR Policy and Planning Office, Mines and Geosciences Bureau, Forest Management Bureau.

Published by the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), in partnership with the Ateneo School of Government (ASoG) and the support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) - Global Environment Facility (GEF).

For more information, contact the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife Center, Quezon Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

Tel No: (63)2 9246031-35Webpage: www.pawb.gov.ph; www.newcapp.org Email: director@pawb.ph; newcapp.info@yahoo.com

© Copyright 2012 by the United Nations Development Programme

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without express permission from UNDP-GEF, PAWB and ASoG.

In all documentation, information, signage and written oral communication, this publication will be referred to by the title “Communities in Nature: State of Protected Areas Management in the Philippines.” This publication is funded by a grant from the GEF.

Printed in the Philippines

2012

Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, DENRand the Ateneo School of Government,

with the support of UNDP-GEF

2012

Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, DENRand the Ateneo School of Government,

with the support of UNDP-GEF

ADMP Ancestral Domain Management Plan

ADSDPPs Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection

Plans

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BASEL The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary

Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CBFM Community-Based Forest Management

CCBS Climate Community and Biodiversity Standards

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora

CPPAP Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Project

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

FPIC Free, Prior, and Informed Choice

GEF Global Environmental Facility

GIS Geographic Information Systems

ICCA Indigenous Community Conserved Areas

ICM Integrated Coastal Management

IPAF Integrated Protected Areas Fund

IPRA Indigenous People’s Rights Act

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

KALAHI-CIDSS: KBB Kapit Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-

Comprehensive Intergated Delivery of Social Services;

Kaunlaran at Kapangyarihan sa Barangay

KBA Key Biodiversity Areas

Acronyms and Abbreviations

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LCA Local Conservation Areas

LGU Local Government Unit

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution

from Ships

MPA Marine Protected Area

NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

NIPAP National Integrated Protected Areas Programme

NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System

NWAPP National Wetland Action for the Philippines

PA Protected Areas

PACBRMA Protected Area Community Based Resource Management

Agreements

PAMB Protected Areas Management Boards

PAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau

PDP Philippine Development Plan

PES Payment for Environmental Services

RAMSAR The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance

SSME Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USAID United States Agency for International Development

Executive Summary 1Introduction 5 Objectives of the Report 5 Conserving biodiversity through protected areas 6 Biodiversity in the Philippines 6 Protected Areas Management 8Evolution of Conservation Practices in the Philippines 11 Chronology of milestones in laws and 12 policies on natural resources management and biodiversity conservation National Integrated Protected Areas System 17 Progress in Protected Areas Management 18 Implementation Challenges in Protected Areas Management 23Beyond NIPAS: New foundations for protected areas management 29 The role of the international community 29 Recognizing and valuing ecosystem services 30 Addressing the drivers of biodiversity and habitat loss 3 1 Addressing poverty and open access 32 Sustainable financing and paying for ecosystem services 33Working together to conserve protected areas 35 National integrated strategy of sustainable economic growth 35 Communities are part of the protected area 38 Expanding governance options for the system of protected areas 40 Challenge of adapting to a changing environment 42 What policy makers can do 44 Personal actions, community actions, 46 demand for good governance.Conclusion 48

Greetings for a greener earth!

We proudly bring to our people and to the world this first ever State of the Protected Areas Report, COMMUNITIES

IN NATURE, State of the Protected Areas Management in the Philippines, through the DENR’s Protected Areas

and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) and the New Conservation Areas in the Philippines Project (NewCAPP), the Global

Environment Facility (GEF) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Philippine Tropical Forest

Conservation Foundation (PTFCF), and the Ateneo School of Government (ASoG).

This Report underscores the DENR’s vision of a nation sustaining its natural resources for a cleaner and healthier

environment, and our mission of mobilizing the citizenry in protecting, conserving, and managing the environment

and our precious natural resources.

The past two decades have seen us in vigorous pursuit of goals for biological diversity and conservation. An early

milestone was our country’s signing of the Convention on Biological Diversity, on the very day we celebrated

our 96th Independence Day on the 12th of June 1992; this was well ahead of the completion of the Convention’s

ratification process on 8 October 1993, which allowed the Convention to come into force on 29 December 1993. On

29 June 1992, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS)

Act of 1992 were promulgated by the DENR through Department Administrative Order No. 25.

This year, we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the passage of the NIPAS law – the first 20 years of our solidarity

with the global community in integrating conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity in national strategies,

plans, and programs. Along the way, we have established a system of protected areas for biodiversity conservation,

and we have rehabilitated and restored degraded ecosystems.

This State of the Protected Areas Report reflects the commitment of the administration of President Benigno S.

Aquino III to deliver a greener future, as enunciated in the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) for 2011 to 2016. The

PDP goals for the environment and natural resources sector seeks to improve not just the conservation, protection,

and rehabilitation of natural resources, but also the quality of the environment, which must be made cleaner and

healthier. The PDP also aims to enhance the resilience of natural systems and improve the adaptive capacities of

human communities to cope with environmental hazards, including climate-related risks.

For their hard work in producing this landmark publication, I commend the PAWB and the ASoG, and acknowledge

with gratitude the support of the PTFCF and NewCAPP, through the GEF and UNDP. Many thanks also to our other

partners and fellow stakeholders in biodiversity conservation, for their most valuable inputs and contributions in

the crafting of this opus. This Report will serve as a reference point for many years to come, making it a vital part of

our people’s environmental heritage. Read on then, and put this treasury of knowledge to productive use.

RAMON J.P. PAJEDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources

Greetings from the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). We are honored to be at the forefront of the publication of COMMUNITIES IN NATURE, State of the Protected Areas Management in the Philippines, in partnership with the Ateneo School of Government (ASoG) and the Philippine Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation (PTFCF). The production of this Report was made possible through the support of the New Conservation Areas in the Philippines (NewCAPP) Project, with funding support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Fresh from its publication, we have finally realized our vision for the State of the PAs Report as a window of opportunity and an avenue for advocacy to generate stronger local and international support for the national protected areas system in the country. As a vital mechanism for transparency and accountability, this Report is a product of the collaborative and participative inputs and contributions of our partners and stakeholders. It presents a report to the public on how we have fared so far in the establishment and management of representative protected areas in the Philippines. As a first report, this document was produced from exiting studies and researchers in the implementation of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS), and documents the Philippine initiatives to accelerate biodiversity conservation efforts through the recognition of new governance regimes. It is therefore by no means comprehensive, but sufficient enough to describe where we are in terms of meeting both national targets and goals; as well as international targets and commitments. We hope future reports will be informed by studies on the outcomes and impacts of protected areas in the Philippines.

The Environment and Natural Resources component under the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016 of the Aquino administration envisions an environment that is healthy, ecologically balanced, sustainably productive, climate change resilient, and one that provides for present and future generation of our countrymen. In particular, its goal for improved conservation, protection, and rehabilitation of natural resources highlights not just the need for sustainable forest and watershed management, biodiversity conservation and protection, enhanced coastal and marine resources management, and improved land administration and management. There is also the view to have a more equitable use of mineral resources, and to develop and implement environment-friendly enterprise and livelihood opportunities.

As reflected in this Report, among the key actions on biodiversity conservation under the PDP 2011-2016 is assessing the management effectiveness of all protected areas under the 1992 NIPAS Act, and strengthening the management of PAs in partnership with local communities through the issuance of security of tenure and the provision of alternative livelihood. Other key biodiversity actions under the five-year Plan include preparing PA management plan that incorporates the vulnerabilities and adaptabilities of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, and developing and implementing a national integrated coastal management program to include principles, strategies, and action plans.

By the year 2020, as part of the Philippine progress in meeting ecosystem services and biodiversity targets laid out in the Japanese prefecture of Aichi, at least 17 percent of terrestrial and inland waters and 10 percent of coastal and marine areas would have been conserved through a system of protected areas that is effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative, and well connected. With PAWB and the other bureaus under its wing, DENR has envisioned the perpetual existence of biological and physical diversities in a system of protected areas and other important biological components of the environment, managed by a well-informed and empowered citizenry for the sustainable use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The realization of this Report helps enshrine the development of participatory, ecologically representative, and effectively managed national and regional systems of PAs.

In this Report, we also put special emphasis on respecting, preserving, and maintaining the important knowledge, innovations, and practices of the indigenous and local communities in embodying traditional lifestyles, relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The Report highlights promoting wider indigenous or traditional application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations, and practices, encouraging the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from their usage through the local and global recognition of what we call Indigenous Community Conserved Areas or ICCAs in the Philippines.

The publication of this groundbreaking Report, itself a trove of treasures, is indeed a major moment and milestone showcasing the work we have done the past 20 years. We hope this Report will galvanize efforts among our legislators, the general public, development organizations, advocacy and environmental organizations, academe, private sector and other stakeholders; to strengthen support to biodiversity conservation in the Philippines

THERESA MUNDITA S. LIMDirector, Protected Areas and Wildlife BureauNational Project Director, NewCAPP

We are honored and pleased to partner with the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Department of Environment

and Natural Resources in preparing this pioneering report: Communities in Nature: State of Protected Areas

Management in the Philippines.

The Ateneo School of Government is actively engaging with government in developing policies and regulations in a

number of key environmental issues, including protected areas management, mining, climate change and disaster

risk reduction and management. In all these engagements, the School has been supportive, but also candid in

sharing insights and lessons.

It is in this spirit that we approached the challenge of facilitating preparation of this report with Director Lim

and her staff. We recognize the tremendous efforts of the national government, local governments, civil society,

indigenous and local communities, private sector and donors in conserving our natural wealth – especially

biodiversity. However, we also note the challenges and barriers to improving governance of conservation

areas – including protected areas. In consultation with experts and stakeholders in this sector, we identified key

recommendations in the report.

Many of us in the School have worked in government, including my own service as Undersecretary for Legal and

Legislative Affairs of the DENR from 1996 to 1998. We take pride in celebrating with PAWB and DENR the progress

we have achieved so far in protected areas management – from national policies that streamline the establishment

process, rationalize land-use decisions in key biodiversity areas, strengthen the rights of indigenous and local

communities, to the heroic work of many unnamed staff and volunteers in the sites.

In the years to come, we assure our partners of our continued support, especially in further refining the governance

mechanisms for managing our natural heritage and ensuring that the benefits flowing from the sustainable use of

these resources are equitably shared by all Filipinos and valued by the world community.

ANTONIO G.M. LA VIÑA, J.S.D.Dean

Communities in Nature: First State of the Protected Areas Report

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is pleased to support the development and publication

of this Report which highlights the evolving role of local communities, especially the indigenous peoples, in

conserving the Philippines’ biodiversity resources. This report is unique in that it is not the usual “statistical report”

but graphically shows the “human side” of protected area management.

The Philippines is globally known not only for its rich biodiversity but also for pioneering community-based

biodiversity conservation practices. The widespread acceptance of these practices is a tacit acknowledgment of

the critical importance of the role of local communities in conserving the country’s biodiversity and other natural

resources. The role of indigenous peoples is of crucial importance as they reside in areas with high biodiversity.

Out of the 128 identified key biodiversity areas, approximately, 96 (75%) are within the ancestral domains of the

indigenous peoples. Cognizant of this IP and local communities’ potential for effective biodiversity conservation,

UNDP is supporting the Philippine government’s initiative, “New Conservation Areas Project in the Philippines

(NewCAPP)”, which aims to expand governance options of protected area management in the country, to include

IP and LGU-managed conservation areas.

Protected areas have been conventionally viewed as no-touch zones. However, we believe that they should not

remain as such but should be considered productive assets that can contribute to poverty alleviation. Protected

areas can showcase that conservation and sustainable use by dependent communities like IPs, are not mutually

exclusive. Sustainably managed, PAs can continuously provide ecosystem goods and services vital to human

welfare and development. We are glad that this Report has systematically dissected these issues. It is able to

demonstrate that biodiversity conservation within a protected area context that puts value on the contribution of

local communities like IPs, is a more effective strategy in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on

poverty alleviation (MDG1) and achieving environmental sustainability (MDG 7).

We commend the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) and its partners for coming out with this Report,

the first ever in the country. I hope it will inspire all the stakeholders to work harder to conserve the remaining

gene pools of the country through a robust and dynamic protected areas system. Rest assured that UNDP will

continue to support the development of capacities not only for this end but the improvement in the quality of life of

communities dependent on natural resources.

Again, congratulations for a job well done!

RENAUD MEYERUNDP Country Director

The Philippines is endowed with rich biological resources – a heritage that benefits not only the present and future

generations of Filipinos, but all of humanity as well. While our biodiversity is threatened, the country has taken

concrete steps towards protecting and conserving this heritage. A key strategy has been the establishment of

protected areas.

The State of Protected Areas Management in the Philippines Report marks two decades of the implementation

of Republic Act No. 7586, the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (NIPAS Act) and charts new

approaches for protecting and conserving biodiversity. Being a people-oriented policy, NIPAS provided the

framework for harmonizing the ecological and the socio-economic dimensions of natural resource management.

With NIPAS, we are able to protect endangered species and their habitats with the participation of indigenous

peoples groups, forest dependent communities, and local governments.

In addition to recognizing the role of the indigenous and local communities in natural resource conservation, the

Report references the multilateral environmental agreements of which the Philippines is a signatory and situates

natural resource conservation in the framework of national development.

True to the sense that natural resource conservation and management involves engaging diverse stakeholders, this

Report, correspondingly, reflects a collaborative partnership among such stakeholders. We congratulate the DENR

- PAWB and its diverse partners for the effort and resources to produce this Report, as well as the indigenous and

local communities who have been the partners in conserving the Philippine protected areas.

The Philippine Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation, Inc., will continue to support actions and programs for

protected area conservation and community conserved areas guided by the findings and recommendations of

this Report. We look forward to collaborative efforts by communities, the DENR-PAWB, funding institutions, the

donor community, and the private sector for the conservation of protected areas and the preservation of our living

heritage.

DR. PACIENCIA P. MILANProfessor Emeritus, Visayas State UniversityChairperson, PTFCF Board of Trustees

Executive Summary

The Philippines has one of the most diverse biological

resources among all countries in the world, including

the most varied marine living resources. These

biological resources are of global significance because

of their uniqueness and richness; these are also

important for the well-being of the Filipino people.

Filipinos and the rest of the world have a stake in

making sure that the Philippines’ biological resources

are conserved for the benefit of present and future

generations.

Long before recorded history, the indigenous peoples

of the Philippines lived in harmony with nature,

following unique customary practices that linked

nature, spirituality and community livelihood. When

the Spaniards and Americans came, they introduced

centralized, state-led management to exploit and

protect the country’s rich natural resources. The

centralized control approach was generally adopted

by the government of the young Philippine Republic,

where conservation areas were largely off-limits to

people, and productive areas were opened for private

ownership or concessions. However, by the 1970s,

government policies began to shift to acknowledge

that: (1) the natural resources were quickly being

exhausted, even in areas designated for conservation,

and (2) communities are part of the conservation

areas, with an important role in the utilization and

management of these areas. The people-oriented

conservation policies evolved in the 1980s and 1990s

to strengthen shared management responsibilities

between the government, and indigenous and local

communities over protected areas. The evolution

of protected areas management and the roles

of indigenous and local communities paralleled

the developments in international discussions.

The experiences in the Philippines have informed

negotiations and development of international

norms, especially on indigenous people’s rights and

community-based approaches to conservation of

biological resources.

In 1992, as the international community assembled

for the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, the Philippines

enacted the National Integrated Protected Areas

System (NIPAS), which was a major milestone in the

evolution of conservation policies in the Philippines.

NIPAS provided a standardized system of delineating

and managing priority areas for conservation. It

recognized, for the first time, the rights of indigenous

peoples living in these areas, as well as that of other

local communities dependent on the rich resources for

livelihood. Following the trend of community-focused

and decentralized protected areas management,

NIPAS is now attempting to balance the need for

conservation and improving the lives of poor people

dependent on the natural resources, while at the

same time facilitating multi-sectoral responsibility for

protecting these priority areas for conservation.

Throughout the history of customary practices

and formal legislated norms for protecting natural

resources, including twenty years of implementing

NIPAS, the Philippines has identified 240 protected

areas covering 5.4 million hectares of land and sea, or

about 13.6% of the total land area, but only 0.64% of

the vast marine territory. Several of these sites have

global and regional significance as ‘heritage sites.’

However, based on current scientific information,

designated protected areas cover only 34.82% of the

total Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) identified for the

country. Considerable resources have been invested in

protected areas management over the past decades

– by the government, local people, bilateral and

multilateral partners, civil society and private sector.

But during times of economic hardships, investments

in conservation decline, while the pressures to cash in

on the protected areas resources increase.

1

Over the years, the country has developed some best

practices and gained valuable insights in protected

areas management that takes into consideration the

increasing pressure of drivers of biodiversity loss and

the meager resources available for PA management.

The Philippines has learned important lessons

especially in participatory PA management planning,

addressing socio-economic issues, and developing

sustainable financing mechanisms. The next stage

of protected areas management will revolve around

two themes that are intended to sustain the gains

from experiences and best practices: integration of

conservation into mainstream development planning,

and broadening further the base of governance of

protected areas.

Key recommendations

Link protected area to the wider landscape

Protected areas management must handle social and

political, not just technical, issues. In the Philippines,

despite the record of degradation, protected areas

still provide valuable ecosystem goods and services

that people need. Protected areas conservation must

be seen in the broader landscape where the natural

wealth continues to provide for the needs of the

people. Part of the socio-economic considerations

of PA management is ensuring equitable access to

opportunities, especially for the poor and marginalized

communities who are almost entirely dependent on

natural resources for their livelihood. If the interests of

IP and local communities, entrepreneurs, consumers,

local and national government are aligned and met by

linking protected areas to the landscape where people

live and make a living, and by equitable allocation of

access to the land and natural resources, there will be

less competition over the resources that are set aside

for conservation.

Build broader stakeholder support for Protected Areas

and management objectives

The biological resources of the Philippines are very

important to the global community because of their

abundance, diversity and uniqueness. However, there

is very little information available to the public on what

is there, what their values are for people, how much

people will invest to conserve them, and perhaps pay

to offset or replace the loss of those they’d rather use.

The government has to invest more in an accurate

information system, and effective communication

tools to inform stakeholders about the resources

and their values, so that they can make informed

decisions. Accurate reporting of progress also

ensures governance transparency and accountability.

Rekindling the people’s natural and traditional

affinity to the environment through information

and knowledge sharing will facilitate conservation

programs.

Work together, with common goals but different roles

The Philippine Development Plan (2012-2016) outlines

how environmental protection and natural resources

conservation are critical to inclusive economic growth.

In order for inclusive, sustainable growth to be

achieved, economic planners, environmental managers,

entrepreneurs, consumers, indigenous communities,

school teachers, prosecutors, judges – everyone – must

have a shared commitment to the common goal, even

while pursuing their sectoral interests and priorities.

The diversity of stakeholder groups means that each

may have a different perspective of the importance

of protected areas, priority actions and the roles

that stakeholders play. However, there should be a

common interest in conserving the natural heritage. A

lot of the protection objectives can also be achieved,

not only through NIPAS, but by other expanded options

2

for natural resources management complementing

NIPAS that recognizes the roles of other actors such

as IP and local communities, local governments and

private sector.

Build capacity for Protected Areas management

The Philippines currently has an abundance of talent

and expertise in all the technical aspects of protected

areas management (biophysical sciences, economics,

community development, politics and governance).

However, the experts are in the academe, private

sector or in the central offices of government agencies.

It requires extraordinary leadership and consensus

building skills to bring together and orchestrate multi-

disciplinary tasks that require integration of various

disciplines and skills coming from different groups

with different priorities. In the specific protected

areas, the PAMB and protected area staff must

provide such leadership. In the long term, it is crucial

that the caliber of site-based protected area staff be

elevated through skills training and clear occupational

standards. The PAMB should also strengthen its

institutional/organizational and financial capacity

to complement enhancements in technical capacity.

There is enormous potential to raise revenues from

ecosystem services especially since most people

are willing to pay, for as long as the management

institution is capable and trustworthy.

Maintain Protected Areas for the future through sound

science and policy

Many scientists have expressed the concern that

despite the significant gains in protected areas

management, the Philippines is still losing its

remaining forest and coastal ecosystems at an

alarming rate. In other words, the country is either not

effective in conserving its resources, or not fast enough

in protecting ecosystems at risk. Clearly, government

has to rationalize the designation of PAs to cover all

KBAs, which it is doing though a more rigorous review

process of PA designation. The government should

also broaden the policy and regulatory framework to

address the drivers of biodiversity and ecosystems

loss through proper valuation and resource/land-use

allocation.

3

4

Objectives of the Report

The Philippines is celebrating twenty years of the

National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS),

which was established by law in June of 1992.

NIPAS was created to rationalize the designation

and protection of “outstanding remarkable areas

and biologically important public lands,”1 following

decades of different priorities and programs that

tried to maximize the economic benefits from the

country’s natural wealth. In the past two decades, the

Philippines has faced tough challenges and learned

many lessons in conserving its remaining natural

resources, particularly its rich and unique biological

diversity. The conservation of biological resources

through protected areas is a national priority in the

Constitution and related laws. The current trend in

policy is to weave conservation into the fabric of

overall development planning for the country.

After twenty years of NIPAS, the Philippines is taking

stock of its conservation record, documenting and

consolidating the lessons learned, to ensure that the

next generation of resource managers has a baseline

to refer to in their effort to address future challenges.

This report is the first attempt to share to the public,

in a candid and transparent manner, the state of

protected areas management, highlighting successes

and challenges and presenting summary data.2 The

report draws insights and lessons from the evolution

of conservation policies and programs throughout

history and through NIPAS implementation, to guide

future programs and to encourage broad stakeholder

support in these programs.

This year, the world is also celebrating twenty years

of the historic United Nations agreements signed in

Rio de Janiero during the 1992 Earth Summit. It is

fitting that the Philippines is taking stock of protected

areas management now, since NIPAS was enacted

at the same time as, and as a response to the goals

articulated in, the Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD). Therefore, the report will also track how the

country has developed and implemented policies that

are consistent with its commitments under the CBD.

The world is now made acutely aware of the impacts

of climate change. Policy makers are cautioned

that there is a risk that the conservation efforts

that governments invest in now cannot ensure that

the natural resources being protected will remain,

threatened as these already are. Climate change is

expected to aggravate other stresses on ecosystems

such as habitat fragmentation, loss and conversion,

over-exploitation, invasive alien species and pollution.3

This report reflects current thinking in considering

the impact of climate change on ecosystems and

biodiversity, and in harmonizing programs for

biodiversity conservation and climate change, echoing

the developments in the international negotiations

under both the CBD and the Framework Convention on

Climate Change.

The Philippines is known for its pioneering

environmental conservation framework that is

community-focused and where decision-making is

participatory and multi-sectoral. This is a reflection of

the fact that, in the Philippines, communities are so

closely linked to the environment. This is a strength

that policy makers can count on - to be able to call

on stakeholders to participate in conservation - given

the enormity of the challenges, the limits of available

resources and the risks that everyone faces should we

fail to conserve the biological diversity that everyone

depends on and is a part of. Thus this report is

dedicated to, and entitled, Communities4 in Nature, to

emphasize the connection.

1 The NIPAS Act, Republic Act No. 7586, Sec. 22 a comprehensive and detailed assessment is not feasible at this time

because of lack of data and resources.3 See for example: CBD Secretariat, 2009

4 Understood broadly at two levels: IPs and local communities living in protected areas; all stakeholders dependent on ecosystem services provided by protected areas.

Introduction

5

Biodiversity in the Philippines

Simply put, biodiversity refers to both the totality and

variety of all living things within a given area. The CBD

defines biological diversity as “the variability among

living organisms from all sources including, inter alia,

terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and

the ecological complexes of which they are part; this

includes diversity within species, between species and

of ecosystems.”

The diversity of living things naturally varies

depending on the location on Earth, because of the

specific conditions in the area, such as temperature,

precipitation, altitude, soils, and the presence of other

species. There is generally higher biodiversity in the

tropics, including the Philippines – which is among

the “Megadiverse” countries in the world that host

the most number of different species. The long and

complex geological history of the Philippines is the

primary driver of diversification of ecosystems that

gave rise to very high levels of endemicity among

many groups of animals and plants. In the Philippines,

there is a wide variety of ecosystems that give rise

to the richness in biodiversity, from tropical forests,

freshwater and oceanic areas. Although none of the

Philippine islands is unusually species-rich, so many

separate islands have different endemic species, which

collectively makes the archipelago have a large species

total in relation to its size.6

The Philippines has identified 228 key biodiversity

areas7 covering 7.6 million hectares, including 128

terrestrial and 100 marine sites. The KBAs are habitats

of 209 globally threatened species, 419 endemic

species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and

freshwater fishes, and 62 congregatory birds species.8

This covers 7,610,943 hectares equivalent to 25% of

total land area. Of these, 117 are terrestrial and 11 are

marine areas.

The Philippines is popularly referred to as the global

center of marine biodiversity, or the ocean counterpart

of the Amazon River Basin, because of the rich variety

of life in its marine ecosystems.

The Verde Island Passage holds the record of the most diverse coral and shorefish species in the world. (Map source: Conservation International)

5 The Philippines is one of the countries identified by Conservation International (1998) as having the most diverse biological resources in the world; The Philippines is also a member of the Group of Like-Minded Megadiverse countries (formed in Cancun in 2002) that cooperate in international negotiations relevant to conservation of biodiversity.

6 See for example: Ricart, et al 2010, Posa and Sodhi (2005) 7 The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines KBAs

as “places of international importance for the conservation of biodiversity through protected areas and other governance mechanisms.6

Conserving biodiversity through protected areas

Biodiversity is also a measure of the health of

ecosystems - as when certain natural or human

causes (such as pollution, land-use change, drought,

storm surge, etc.) result in changes in the number and

distribution of populations, and in interactions among

species (for example, disruption of the food chain, loss

of habitats).

Biodiversity is important because living things provide

ecosystem services. For example: cleaning the air,

regulating climate, purifying water, pollination, and

preventing erosion. It is also very important to human

health. A significant proportion of modern drugs are

derived, directly or indirectly, from plants, animals, and

microorganisms. Indigenous and local communities,

depend on traditional medicines from nature for

primary healthcare.

Biodiversity and climate change are closely linked

issues that directly affect human well-being – many of

the anticipated risks of climate change are associated

with changes in biodiversity (changes in populations

and distribution of disease vectors, scarcity of fresh

water, impacts on agricultural biodiversity and food

resources etc.). Climate change and extreme weather

can also destroy ecosystems.

Extreme rainfall during a super typhoon caused

massive landslides in the Sierra Madre Mountains.

7

Protected Areas Management

Protected areas are places designated or set aside

for conservation because of their recognized natural,

ecological and/or cultural values. Protected area

designation and management are essential for

biodiversity conservation, and often make up the

pillars of conservation strategies of countries and the

international community. In protected areas, human

activities are regulated in order to maintain functioning

natural ecosystems. These areas become sanctuaries

for species and places to maintain ecological processes

that otherwise would not survive or continue under

intense human disturbance.

Definition of ‘protected area’:

CBD - A geographically defined area that is designated or protected and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives.

IUCN - A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.

NIPAS Act - Identified portions of land and water set aside by reason of their unique physical and biological significance, managed to enhance biological diversity and protected against destructive human exploitation.

The concept of having “protected areas” is not new.

Indigenous peoples often delineate “sacred grounds”

where human activities are prohibited, and designate

zones where activities are strictly regulated.

Today these areas are recognized as Indigenous

Community Conserved Areas (ICCA) – areas

traditionally managed by the community following

customary law and tradition.

The Talaandig of Bukidnon call sacred grounds “Panubaran.” Datu Migketay (Victorino Saway) explained the concept of protection and conservation in an interview conducted by Stella Estremera (2011):

Everything done in the forest by the indigenous peoples, Datu Migketay (Victorino Saway) said, was done with sustainability in mind. “Indigenous forest management always involves a sanctuary. In the hunting grounds of the forests, our ancestors have long staked out sanctuaries where hunting is absolutely prohibited. Our ancestors from the different tribes have all agreed on these because a hunter is also responsible for the protection and preservation of game animals,” Datu Migketay said.

With regard to fishing, since they only have freshwater waterways in Bukidnon, a two-week break is observed after every fish harvest from streams. Datu Migketay described that the old way of fishing is damming a portion of a stream, after which the full-grown fish are gathered. The dam is removed and the rest of the fish are allowed to go free. The tribes also respect prior claims to a stretch of the stream. No one dams a stream and harvests from an area where someone else has already been harvesting fish.

Only full-grown dipterocarp species too are cut for making houses. Trees that bear nuts and fruits are left to live on for as long as these continue to bear fruit.

8

Many protected areas are allocated primarily for

species and habitat conservation, but protected areas

are also important for conserving sites of cultural

or indigenous importance such as the Ifugao Rice

Terraces (World Heritage Site), and lately for their

value in disaster risk reduction and conservation of

carbon stocks (See Page Imugan).

In modern legal systems, there are several kinds of

protected areas, which vary by level of protection

depending on the enabling laws of each country or

the regulations of the international organizations

involved. The term “protected area” also includes

marine protected areas that cover coastal or ocean

ecosystems.

Under Philippine law, Protected Areas (capitalized

here for distinction) are synonymous and often

exclusively refer to components of NIPAS. However,

in this report, ‘protected area’ (small letters) is not

limited to the components of the NIPAS (consistent

with international usage of the term), but all areas

designated and managed for biodiversity conservation,

including local government- and IP-managed areas

outside of NIPAS, and marine protected areas.8 The

indigenous community conserved areas may fall under

any of the IUCN or NIPAS categories, depending on

the focus of the customary conservation/utilization

activities allowed by the particular indigenous people.

The comparability of protected areas classification

is important especially in reporting progress to the

international community, such as under the AICHI

Biodiversity Targets and the Plan of Work for Protected

Areas.

IUCN NIPAS (Sec. 3 and 4) Comment

Ia. Strict Nature Reserve

III. Natural Monument

IV. Habitat/Species Management Area

V. Protected Landscape/Seascape

VI. Managed Resource Protected Area

II. National Park

Ib. Wilderness Area

(a) Strict Nature Reserve

(c) Natural Monument

(d) Wildlife Sanctuary

(e) Protected landscape/seascape

(f) Natural Biotic Area

(b) Natural Park

Most restrictive category under NIPAS that allows only scientific use for the area

Essentially the same

Essentially the same

NIPAS emphasizes opportunities for recreation and tourism

NIPAS emphasizes the preservation of indigenous culture associated with the area

Essentially similar definition, but “national park” is a term used in the Philippine Constitution to designate a particular category of public lands that includes all PAs, which is why it is not used as a category

Included in strict nature reserve

8 In agriculture, the law created a ‘network of protected areas for agriculture and agro-industrial development’ covering highly productive and ecologically sensitive farmlands and marine sanctuaries.

9

Philippines at a glance

Archipelago with more than 7,100 islandsLand area: 298,170 km2

Terrain: mostly mountainous with narrow to extensive coastal lowlandsForest cover: 7.67 M ha (76,700km2) (FMB 2010) Renewable water reserves: 479 km3 Coastline: 36,289 km.Marine Waters (including EEZ): 2.2M km2

(Palma 2009)

Natural hazards: astride typhoon belt, usually affected by 20 cyclonic storms per year with average of 7 to 9 making landfall; landslides; active volcanoes; destructive earthquakes; tsunamis (NDCC 2007)

Population: 103,775,002 (July 2011 est); 61.1% 15-64 y.o., 34.6% 0-14y.o.Population growth rate: 1.9% (2011 est.)Birth rate: 24.98 births/ 1000 population (July 2011est.)Death rate: 4.98 deaths/ 1000 populationInfant mortality: 18.75 deaths/ 1000 live birthsLife expectancy: 71.94 years (2011 est.)Urban population: 49% (2010); Rate of urbanization: 2.3% annual rate of change (2010-15 est.)

Government: RepublicAdministrative divisions: 81 provinces, 122 cities, 1512 municipalities

Economy:GDP (PPP): US$389.8B (2010 est.)GDP (official exchange rate): US$216.1B (2011 est.)GDP per capita: US$3500 (2010 est.)GDP by sector (2011 est.): agriculture 33%; industry 15%; services 55.7%.

Unemployment rate: 7% (2011 est.)Population below poverty (as of 2009): 26.5% (NSCB 2010)

10

The indigenous peoples of the Philippines lived

close to nature and practiced traditional methods of

using natural resources that closely associated their

spirituality with their livelihood.

When the Spaniards first came to the Philippines

in the 16th century, over 90% of the land (almost

30 million hectares) was covered with forests. The

Spanish colonizers used the timber to build ships for

the galleon trade. In 1863, the first Forestry Service,

Inspeccion General de Montes, was established by

Royal Decree, to determine the extent of the country’s

forest resources and oversee their proper utilization.

Through the next four decades, the Forestry Service

conducted surveys on the suitability of the timber

for civil and naval purpose, assessed the actual

condition of the forest, check and prevent trespass

and unauthorized encroachment into the forest

and prevent illegal cutting of timber. The Spaniards

introduced a permit system for forest use and were

first to ban kaingin11 in 1874 – under the principle that

all the lands and natural resources belonged to the

Crown and people who wish to use the resources must

get permission.

The Americans converted the Inspeccion to the

Forestry Bureau in 1900. In 1904, the US Government

in the Philippines also passed a forest law that

remained the basis of forest regulation until 1975.

During this period, timber extraction

grew exponentially and peaked

in the 1960s, through large-scale

commercial operations. The

Philippines was a major supplier

of logs in the region, especially to

Japan. By 1969, forest products

constituted 33% of total export

revenues, while at the same time

local and international foresters

were warning of the inevitability of

the harvest diminishing if there was

not a significant change in policy.

The pinugo or muyung is an indigenous system of forest management unique to the people of Ifugao, in the Cordillera region (Northern Luzon), practiced since time immemorial.9

The pinugo/muyung are woodlots or forests located above the rice terraces, which are both owned by clans. The pinugo/muyong is a source of food, fuel, lumber for housing and woodcarving, medicinal plants, botanical pesticides, and other products that may be traded. It also provides irrigation, water for the household and prevents soil erosion. The pinugo/muyung is governed by a set of customary laws and values intrinsic to the Ifugao people that reflects their ties to the land and environment. The muyung system can be viewed from different perspectives, either as a forest conservation strategy, a watershed rehabilitation technique, a farming system or an assisted natural regeneration (ANR) strategy.10

In other parts of the Cordillera, similar community forest management customs exist, such as: tayan or batangan in Mountain Province; lapat in Abra and Apayao (that includes water bodies); imong in Kalinga; and kidjuhan or kijuwan in Benguet.

9 See video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUzOQEG9-zc produced by Kadioan Inc. with the support of Growing Forest Partnership, IEED, and International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests.

10 Camacho et al. 2009 describes many of the indigenous practices of the Northern indigenous communities.

11 Swidden farming; shifting cultivation

Evolution of ConservationPractices in the Philippines

Communal forests ensure water supply for the rice terraces in Battad, Ifugao.

11

1863 1874

197519761978

1985

2006 2007

1987

19982001

2003

1894 1900 1904

---

Inspeccion Generalde Montes,

the first Forestry Service created

Kaingin (strifting cultivation) first banned

in forest land

Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines

(P.D. 705)

Establishment of Environmental Impact

System

Creation of Marine Parks Task Force

Establishement of Apo, Pamilacan, and Balicasag Island as no-take Marine

reserves

Integrated Coastal Management Policy

(E.O. 533)

Issuance of Revised NIPAS Implementing Rules

and Regulation (DAO 2008-26)

Creation of Forest Management Bureau, and Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau under DENR that

separated once more the functions of forestry and PA management.

Fisheries Code (R.A. 8550) mandating 15% of municpal waters as fish santuaries and reserves

Wildlife Resources and Conservation Act

(R.A. 9147)

Caves and Cave Resources Management and

Protection Act (R.A. 9072)

Drafting of the Philippine Sustainable Archipelagic Development Framework

Forest Laws and Regulation for the

Philippine Forest Service approved by Spain

First Forest Legislation by the U.S. Gov’t in the

Philippines

Forest Act, whichcontained the Philippine

Forest Policy

Indigenous forest and coastal management

practices

Chronology of milestones in laws and policies on natural resources management and biodiversity conservation.

12

1972

2009 2010 2011 2012

1988 1990 1991

199319951997

1992

1974

1940

1953

1932 1933

Creation of Bureau of Forest Development,

merging forestry, parks and wildlife and reforestation function

Enactment of Climate Change (R.A. 9729)

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act

(2011)(R.A. 10121)

National Greening Program (E.O. 26)

Mining Policy (E.O. 79) and Implementing Rules

Preparation of the Master Plan for Forestry

DevelopmentEnactment of the Local

Government Code of the Philippines (R.A. 7160)

Establishment of Coastal Environment Program

Adaptation of CBFM as National Strategy (E.O.

263)

Enactment of Indigenous Peolple’s Rights Act, or

IRRA (R.A. 8371)

NIPAS Act(R.A. 7586)

Establishment of Sumilon Island Cebu, as first

working municipal marine reserve

Creation of Parks and Wildlife Commission with

the primary function of administration National

Parks and conserving wildlife

First National Parks Law (R.A. 3195)

Establishment ofMt Arayat as one of

the first National Park

Establishment of Hundred Islands, Lingayen Gulf as

National Park

Establishment of Tubbataha Reefs, Sulu Sea, as first national

marine park

13

The first National Parks law was passed in 193212.

During the American period, the government

established several national parks for the conservation

of natural resources. Among the earliest national parks

were: Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve (1933), Mt. Arayat

NP (1933), Mt. Data NP (1936), Biak-na-Bato NP (1937),

Pagsanjan Gorge NP (1939) and Hundred Islands

NP (1940). At that time, the centralized concept of

conservation was to prohibit extractive activities

and to relocate residents to areas outside the park

boundaries, consistent with the experience of America

with its national parks. The government created the

Parks and Wildlife Commission in 1953 with primary

function of administering and maintaining National

Parks and conserving wildlife. A Reforestation

Administration was also created in 1960 that was

tasked to reforest and afforest bare and denuded

forest lands especially critical watersheds. By 1975, the

government passed the Forestry Reform Code of the

Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 705) that merged

its forest conservation and utilization functions under

one agency as it remains today.

In the coastal and marine sector, the same pattern

emerged. The Philippines was considered a major

source of fisheries products because of its rich fishing

grounds in the Sulu-Celebes Sea, South China Sea

(now referred to as West Philippine Sea), and Pacific

coasts. The government policy was to maximize

fisheries output for its strategic contribution to

exports. Marine ecosystem conservation had its early

roots with the establishment in 1940 of the Hundred

Islands National Park in Lingayen Gulf. However,

major programs in conservation of coastal and marine

ecosystems began with Silliman University establishing

a fish sanctuary in Sumilon Island in Cebu Province in

1974. During the 70s and 80s, collaboration between

universities, NGOs, and communities led to the

establishment of hundreds of marine sanctuaries or

marine protected areas under the community-based

coastal resources management (CBCRM) approach.

When the Local Government Code (1991) and Fisheries

Code (1998) were passed, the powers of local

government units over coastal resources and fisheries

management were strengthened. All over the country,

community-based initiatives began to receive the

support of local governments in establishing legally

delineated marine sanctuaries. Many of the major

sites of community-based marine protected areas later

became part of NIPAS, such as the famous Apo Island

in Negros Oriental.

With the resurgence of democratic institutions after

the EDSA Revolution in 1986, environmental and

human rights groups began to focus on rationalizing

the environmental policies of the country. The 1987

Philippine Constitution created a new category of

public domain – the national park – highlighting its

importance. Establishing a system of protected areas

(or national parks) became a priority, encouraged

by support from donor institutions to conduct basic

scientific and policy studies. The research findings

and recommendations led to Congress enacting the

National Integrated Protected Areas System Act in

1992, which provided the framework for assessing,

establishing and managing Protected Areas important

for biodiversity conservation. At present, specific

laws and regulations protecting wildlife, fisheries,

cave resources, and genetic resources, and ensuring

biosafety complement NIPAS.

12 Act No. 3915, An Act Providing for the Establishment of National Parks, Declaring such Parks as Game Refuges, and for other Purposes

14

NIPAS marked a turning point in recognizing the rights

of indigenous peoples to their land and traditional

practices. Five years later, in 1997, the Philippines

passed a landmark law recognizing and protecting

the rights of indigenous peoples, especially over their

ancestral domains and ancestral lands. Under the law,

indigenous peoples have the primary responsibility,

as owners, for protecting their ancestral domains,

which often are part of protected areas. Several NIPAS

Protected Areas, such as Mt. Kitanglad Natural Park

and Coron Island Protected Area, have developed

working mechanisms to harmonize the roles and

interests of indigenous peoples, local governments and

national agencies.

For areas outside of protected areas, community-based

forest management (CBFM) evolved in the late 70s and

80s, borrowing from lessons in communal irrigation

and CBCRM, where local communities are charged

with protecting the resources on which they are

dependent for their livelihood. In 1995, then President

Fidel V. Ramos issued a major policy adopting CBFM

as the national strategy to ensure the sustainable

development of the country’s forestland resources.

NIPAS later also adopted the same framework in

developing tenure instruments for community-based

management of multiple-use and buffer zones in

protected areas.

At the turn of the 21st century, environmental policies

have focused on climate change and disaster risk

reduction and management, with the enactment of

laws that created the institutional frameworks for

addressing climate change and reducing the adverse

impacts of natural disasters, often associated with

extreme weather. At the local level, this meant that

Protected Areas Management Boards and local

governments have to consider disaster risk reduction

and management, and climate change mitigation

and adaptation in their plans, to reduce the adverse

impacts on local communities.

15

16

The NIPAS Act, Republic Act No. 7586, was designed

as a “framework” law that would rationalize the

designation and management of various conservation

areas in the country. Act No. 3915 approved in 1932

defined national parks as “any portion of the public

domain which, because of its panoramic, historical,

scientific, and aesthetic value, should be dedicated

and set apart for the benefit and enjoyment of the

people of the Philippine Islands”. As a result, there

were overlapping laws, proclamations and executive

orders setting aside national parks that include

historical or memorial parks, tourist attractions, along

with conservation areas. Worse, the 1932 concept of a

national park banned all settlements and hunting. Any

area declared a national park was designated as some

fortress that no person is allowed to do anything in

except administer park duties.

With the establishment of the Protected Areas and

Wildlife Bureau under the Department of Environment

and Natural Resources in 1987, the policy direction

of the government was to put all these different

conservation areas together under a common

framework, establishment process, and governance

mechanism to comply with the Constitutional mandate

to delineate national parks as a new category of public

domain.

NIPAS was pioneering in many ways. Before the law

was crafted, there were extensive studies, including

identification of priority sites conducted by experts

in the academe and civil society and supported by

multilateral donor agencies. NIPAS does not create a

specific protected area, but provided a process wherein

existing and newly proposed sites are evaluated and

categorized under a standard system that roughly

parallels the categories under the IUCN classification.

With this system, the priority conservation areas

became more consistent with international standards

for protected areas. Congress then enacts a law

specific for each site, taking into consideration the

evaluation of the site under the System.

The law followed the trend of participatory, multi-

sectoral decision-making by convening a Protected

Area Management Board (PAMB) for each protected

area. The PAMB membership includes DENR, relevant

national government agencies, all local governments

with jurisdiction over a part of the Protected Area,

civil society, and indigenous and local community

representatives. With PAMB as the focal point,

delineation, planning and management follows a

democratic and consultative process.

The initial implementation of NIPAS was greatly

enhanced by three major projects supported by

multilateral donors: The GEF supported ten priority

sites through The World Bank under the Conservation

of Priority Protected Areas Project (CPPAP, 1994-

2002); the European Union supported an additional

eight priority sites under the National Integrated

Protected Areas Programme (NIPAP, 1995-2003);

and UNDP-GEF funded the Samar Island Biodiversity

Project (2000-2012).

National IntegratedProtected Areas System

Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park in Palawan - a Ramsar and World Heritage Site

17

Progress in Protected Areas Management

PAWB was tasked to provide the strategies and

mechanisms to manage the protected areas now

under NIPAS, to be implemented on the ground by

DENR field offices, and protected area staff of each

site. With NIPAS, PAWB’s first task was to assess all

these ‘initial components’ and reclassify them into the

internationally recognized categories that defined the

strategy to protect these sites. PAWB also conducted

a parallel process of assessing whether the initial

components matched the key biodiversity areas of the

country.

As of today, NIPAS counts two hundred forty (240)

Protected Areas covering around 5.44 million hectares,

one hundred seventy (170) areas covering 4.06 million

hectares are terrestrial ecosystems while seventy

(70) areas covering 1.38 million hectares are marine

ecosystems. The total Protected Area system of the

Philippines is supplemented by a total buffer zone

area of 0.22 million hectares comprised of 0.20 million

hectares and 0.02 million hectares terrestrial and

marine zones, respectively. However, it is noted that

not all PAs have delineated buffer zones.

Sixty-three (63) of the 170 terrestrial PAs and nineteen

(19) of the 70 marine PAs are within key biodiversity

areas. This coverage is only 34.82% of the total key

biodiversity areas of the country.

The Philippines has designated three important

terrestrial biodiversity corridors - Sierra Madre,

Palawan and Eastern Mindanao – as well as marine

eco-regions that includes bioregions in the South China

Sea (West Philippine Sea), Sulu-Sulawesi Sea, Visayan

Sea, and the Pacific Ocean.

Apart from the number of Protected Areas established

and the fulfillment of legal requirements (surveys,

reports, plans, agreements, laws and regulations,

etc.) there is no overall systematic data on impacts -

whether there is improvement in biophysical condition

of PAs, quality of life of communities, or increased

benefits to the country.

To be sure, there are a number of successes in

specific sites, which are noted in this report. DENR

has developed tools for measuring the impacts of

protected areas management, but these are still in the

early stages of implementation. There are clear policy

trends that move the focus of management from the

protection of particular species or habitat to large

ecosystem and landscape approach, where the whole

range of ecological, social and economic issues can be

taken into account.

•NaturalParks/NationalParks(61)

•ProtectedLandscapes(35)

•ProtectedLandscapesandSeascapes(21)

•ProtectedSeascapes(8)

•NaturalMonument/Landmark(4)

•ResourceReserves(2)

•NaturalBioticAreas(4)

•GameRefugeandBird/WildlifeSanctuaries(14)

•WatershedForestReserves/Areas(56)

•WildernessAreas(12)

•MangroveSwampForestReserves(23)

The Philippines’ 240 protected areas are classified such as follows:

18

Map source: Philippine PoWPA Action Plan https://www.cbd.int/protected/implementation/actionplans/country/?country=ph

19

By the time NIPAS was established, the Philippines

had extensive experience in community-based natural

resources management and in recognizing the right

of communities to live in harmony with nature.

Consistent with the policy, NIPAS recognized that

indigenous and local communities can live within

protected areas, without compromising conservation

goals. Indigenous and local communities are seen

as stewards of the protected areas, where they can

continue with livelihood activities in designated

multiple-use zones, while keeping strict protection

zones largely untouched.

Community involvement in the management of

forestlands and natural resources goes back to

community forestry policies in the 80s. People-

oriented forestry programs such as Certificate of

Stewardship Contract (CSC), Integrated Social

Forestry Program (ISFP), and Community Forestry

Program (CFP) have since been consolidated under

the Community-based Forest Management Program

(CBFMP), which has been identified as the national

strategy for managing forest lands.

Following the CBFM framework, the DENR developed

the Protected Area Community Based Resource

Management Agreements (PACBRMA) specifically

targeting organized tenured migrant communities

or indigenous peoples in protected areas and buffer

zones. PACBRMAs are intended to provide security

and incentives to develop, utilize, manage, conserve

designated areas for as long as 50 years. A total of 62

PACBRMAs have been awarded; most of these are in

Region 2 (Northeastern Luzon) with 22 PACBRMAs.

There are also 77 CBFMA is the NIPAS areas and

associated buffer zones.

Portions of the forest lands are covered by ancestral

domain claims. According to the National Commission

on Indigenous Peoples, as of 2011, 156 Certificates of

Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) have been approved,

covering about 4.3 million hectares and almost 1

million rights holders.

Six indigenous peoples - Manobos, Bagobo, Ubos, Atas, K’Iagans and the Tagacaolo consider Mt. Apo Natural Park (left) as their ancestral domain and their home. Lake Sebu Watershed Forest Reserve (below) is home to the T’boli and Ubo indigenous peoples.

20

NIPAS complements the management of ancestral

domains through harmonization of the Protected

Areas Management Plan and the Ancestral Domain

Sustainable Development and Protection Plans

(ADSDPPs). Indigenous peoples have primary

responsibility for managing natural resources in their

area following traditional knowledge systems and

often supported by modern technical methods (such

as participatory GIS mapping).

Coron Island is wedge-shaped limestone island situated in the Calamianes group of Islands in the Municipality of Coron, in northern Palawan. The island, its inland lakes and surrounding waters is home to the Tagbanua. The Tagbanua believe in panyain or spirits that dwell in nature, including the lakes, trees and the seas. They hold to various sacred and/or conservation-related practices relating to resource use. For example, certain areas are protected as fish sanctuaries or sacred sites where the panlalabyut (a giant, human-like octopus) are believed to dwell, and which may bring harm on anyone who trespasses in the area.

Coron is very rich in endemic birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Its waters are also abundant in fisheries, attracting commercial fishing boats from other parts of the country. Coron Island has very high potential for ecotourism because of its pristine environment. Because of the rich natural environment, many people have attempted to gain control over the area for exploitation of the resources (such as the prized ‘bird’s nest’) and development of tourist facilities. While the Tagbanua believe that Coron is their rightful home, the legal framework (before IPRA) did not recognize their customary rights, but treated the land and resources as state property that can be awarded to qualified users. With the influx of ‘outsiders’ who want to exploit the island’s resources, the Tagbanua, with the help of civil society groups, embarked on a legal process to stake and document their rights.

In 1985, the indigenous communities established the Tagbanua Foundation to address the resource-use issues in the area and applied for a Community Forest Stewardship Agreement (CFSA) with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). This agreement entitles communities to use and develop the forestland and resources for a 25-year period on the condition that they protect these resources. Five years later, the DENR returned all the clan-caves to the Tagbanua while rescinding all the tax declarations issued for the islands of Coron and Delian. But this was like getting permission to enter your own property. However, in 1993, DENR issued a new policy that recognized ancestral domain rights of indigenous peoples, following its first recognition in NIPAS in 1992. The Tagbanua sought and received a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) by which the state recognizes (note: the state does not grant, but recognize a pre-existing right) the historical and preferential rights of indigenous communities over their ancestral domain.

But because of concerns for overexploitation of the area, DENR also issued regulations requiring the formulation of their Ancestral Domain Management Plan (ADMP) governing all claimed areas. This regulation could work to the advantage or disadvantage of the community: it is an opportunity to codify customary laws, belief, and practices to support their claim and demonstrate management capacity, but it was also a tedious bureaucratic process.

With the enactment of the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) 1997, the country’s laws further strengthened the policy of recognizing ancestral domain and requires that all activities of on-IPs need to secure a free, prior informed consent (FPIC) from the community prior to implementation. Again, the law required IPs to prepare an ADSDPP to substantiate their capacity to manage the area sustainably. Local governments and national agencies have exerted efforts to complement the IP planning and management system with their own planning and governance mechanisms. In Protected Areas, the ADSDPP and PA management plan are assessed together for consistency, and the management institution (PAMB) recognizes traditional leadership. In recognizing their rights, the indigenous people have been able to define an appropriate management system in their own terms. (Capistrano 2010)

21

In implementing NIPAS, the government is also

aligning its strategies, programs and actions to its

commitments under international agreements, such

as the CBD. Under the CBD Programme of Work on

Protected Areas, the Philippines is on track to meet its

targets.

Status of key actions of the Programme of Work on Protected Areas Status

• Progressonassessinggapsintheprotectedareanetwork(1.1) 3

• Progressinassessingprotectedareaintegration(1.2) 2

• Progressinestablishingtransboundaryprotectedareasandregionalnetworks(1.3) 2

• Progressindevelopingsite-levelmanagementplans(1.4) 3

• Progressinassessingthreatsandopportunitiesforrestoration(1.5) 2

• Progressinassessingequitablesharingofbenefits(2.1) 2

• Progressinassessingprotectedareagovernance(2.1) 2

• Progressinassessingtheparticipationofindigenous 2

andlocalcommunitiesinkeyprotectedareadecisions(2.2)

• Progressinassessingthepolicyenvironmentfor 3

establishingandmanagingprotectedareas(3.1)

• Progressinassessingthevaluesofprotectedareas(3.1) 2

• Progressinassessingprotectedareacapacityneeds(3.2) 2

• Progressinassessingtheappropriatetechnologyneeds(3.3) 1

• Progressinassessingprotectedareasustainablefinanceneeds(3.4) 2

• Progressinconductingpublicawarenesscampaigns(3.5) 2

• Progressindevelopingbestpracticesandminimumstandards(4.1) 2

• Progressinassessingmanagementeffectiveness(4.2) 3

• ProgressinestablishinganeffectivePAmonitoringsystem(4.3) 2

• Progressindevelopingaresearchprogramforprotectedareas(4.4) 2

• Progressinassessingopportunitiesformarineprotection 3

• Progressinincorporatingclimatechangeaspectsintoprotectedareas 2

Status:0=nowork,1=juststarted,2=partiallycomplete,3=nearlycomplete,4=complete(Insert notes as appropriate)

1. Ramsar Sites

• AgusanMarshWildlifeSanctuary

• TubbatahaReefsNaturalPark

• NaujanLakeNationalPark

• OlangoIslandWildlifeSanctuary

2. World Heritage Sites (Natural)

• TubbatahaReefsNaturalPark

• PuertoPrincesaUndergroundRiver

National Park

3. ASEAN Heritage Sites

• Mt.ApoNaturalPark

• Mts.Iglit-BacoNaturalPark

• Mt.KitangladRangeNaturalPark

• Mt.MalindangRangeNaturalPark

4. Biosphere Reserves

• WholeProvinceofPalawanasGame

Refuge and Bird Sanctuaries

22

Implementation Challenges in Protected Areas

Management

Conservation and equitable access

The unique challenge that the country faces is that

protected areas, whether in the uplands or on the

coasts, host communities - even entire municipalities.

Therefore, protected areas management has to involve

the people, who are actually part of the ecosystem.

Large-scale destruction of the forest and coastal

resources can often be traced to lack of tenure and/

or inability to enforce property rights. While the State

owns and controls natural resources, the State is

largely an absentee landlord. In the absence of clear

property rules, a de facto open access regime prevails,

where everyone scrambles to extract as much benefit

as quickly as possible before s/he is deprived of access

to the resources, either by those who have more

power, or by arbitrary application of law enforcement.

Much of the policy development since the 1980s

has been reforms to tenure issues. With consent

from government, private individuals, community

organizations and private business entities may

have possession and use of forestland for traditional

forestry, pasture, fisheries, agriculture, ecotourism and

other purposes under short-term permits and long-

term leases. In designated NIPAS areas, the DENR

implements a special Protected Area Community-

Based Resource Management Agreement (PCBRMA)13

that allows qualified occupants to use delineated

zones for livelihood and settlement, compatible with

the conservation of the protected area.

In spite of the absence of quantitative assessments

of impacts relative to baselines and conservation

targets, there are a number of successful examples of

communities managing protected areas, where the

grant of tenure rights have created some livelihood

stability and sustainability, and enabled communities

to protect ‘their’ area from further encroachment and

illegal activities.

13 DENR Adminstrative Order No. 2004-32 on the establishment and management of Community Based Program in Protected Areas.

23

Inconsistencies in land-use decisions

One of the key challenges of protected areas

management is stopping land-use change in areas that

have not yet been formally set aside for conservation

– this includes the 4.71-million hectares that are

considered KBAs but are not part of the NIPAS. Many

of these key biodiversity areas are also highly valued

for agriculture, mining, urban development and other

uses. At present, the sectoral approach to decision-

making (i.e., mining, agricultural or urban development

decisions are made independent of protected areas

designation), results in a race to which land-use

interest can stake its claim first. Once development

activities have taken hold, it is almost impossible to set

the area aside later for conservation.

Vegetablefarmingandquarryinginprotected areas in the Cordilleras.

24

Conflict with local autonomy

In the coastal and marine sector, control over fisheries

in nearshore waters has traditionally been given to

local governments, this includes the grant of permits

for various fishing-related activities. The Local

Government Code (1991) and Fisheries Code (1998)

strengthened the role of local governments to manage

the coastal environment for conservation, in addition

to powers to grant fishing rights in municipal waters

(up to 15 kilometers from shore). The Fisheries Code

requires coastal local governments to set aside 15%

of their municipal waters as fish refuge or sanctuary.

This conservation mechanism is very much consistent

with protected areas management. At present, more

than a thousand marine protected areas have been

established, including areas that are highly regarded

tourist areas, such Apo Island in Negros Oriental.

NIPAS also covers coastal and marine areas. Under

the law, once a coastal area is declared part of NIPAS,

its management is removed from the sole control of

the local government and comes under the umbrella

of the national system and managed by the Protected

Area Management Board, where the local government

Apo Island Protected Landscape and Seascape

Before the mid-1990s, Apo Island was often described as one of the world’s best examples of community-based marine management. In the late 1990s, DENR convinced local residends to include Apo Island under NIPAS. Extensive interviewing of islanders has revealed deep misgivings about the move from community management to a centralized regime—the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB). Local stakeholders initially favored NIPAS because of its comprehensive strategy for biodiversity conservation, but they became frustrated because of its exclusion of stakeholders from management and its poor institutional performance. A study by Hind and colleagues (2010) concluded that the implementation of the NIPAS Act highlights the limitations of top-down management, and that there is a need to restore an element of local stakeholder participation in the governance of Apo’s marine protected area (MPA). A system of co-management between community and national state actors is essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of Apo’s marine resources.

is just one of the members. NIPAS includes two of

the largest marine Protected Areas (Apo Reef qnd

Tubbataha Reef, which is a World Heritage site).

Apo Island is a world-famous dive destination. For decades, local communities and local officials (led by former Mayor Rodrigo Alalano

above)tookcareoftheislanduntilitbecameaNIPASPAin1994.

25

Sustainable Financing

It is a well-known fact that government budget

for management of the 240 Protected Areas are

insufficient in both financial and human resources. For

the period 2005-2009, the average annual operating

budgets allocated to PAWB in support of activities

for PA system management is about PhP900,000

(US$ 21,400). The regional offices budgets to support

local capacity building, and supporting the oeprations

of the PAMBs for 2008, exclusive of the budget to

support PA establishment, was only PhP13,381,000

(US$318,600). In a study prepared for DENR, Anda,

Jr. and Atienza estimated that we have a shortfall of

1,478 staff and operating expense of USD8.4 million.

This is a conservative estimate when considering the

low levels of funding and staffing of Philippine PAs

compared to many of its Asian neighbors.

NIPAS created the Integrated Protected Areas Fund

(IPAF). This was intended to solve the problem of

uncertainty in competing for national appropriation

and ensures that the revenues raised from the site will

be invested back to protect it.

In the twenty years of NIPAS implementation, 62% of

all protected areas have established their site-based

sub-fund mechanisms. The remaining 38% are in the

process of establishing the governance mechanism

(PAMB) as a pre-requisite for establishing the sub-

fund. Two-thirds of the areas with sub-funds are

generating income, with only a handful of Protected

Areas generating substantial income (Table), mostly

from entrance fees.

The total collection of IPAF (cumulative over 20 years)

is PHP220 million, mostly coming from the top ten

earning PAs. There are no systemwide studies on the

actual potential for revenue generation, except for

sites that have good potential for tourism and water

supply.

Provincial FundingPhP11,696,000(US$278,500)

13% International Donor,PhP9,836,174

(US$234,000)11%

National DonorPhP450,000(US$10,700)

1%

Private DonorPhP12,000(US$285)

0%Fees &

ConcessionsPhP11,101,282.70(US$264,300)

11%OthersPhP5,097,792(US$121,400)

6%

National Funding for Operations

PhP60,615,574(US$1.4M)61%

Sourceofdata:Anda,Jr.andAtienza2011

NAME OF PROTECTED AREA TOTAL INCOME (PhP) US$

NinoyAquinoParksandWildlife Nature Center

Apo Island Protected Landscape/Sea scape

Hinulugang Taktak National Park

Lower Agno WFR

Upper Agno River Basin

Apo Reef Marine Reserve

Tañon Strait PS

Manleluag Hot Spring

Mt. Pulag National Park

Biak-Na-Bato National Park

78,522,680.00 1,869,587.00

35,420,594.05 843,347.00

13,023,843.00 310,091.00

11,574,963.00 275,594.00

10,625,000.00 252,976.00

10,496,877.00 249,976.00

9,330,454.75 222,153.00

5,111,352.17 121,698.00

4,820,707.53 114,778.00

4,608,975.00 109,737.00

Top ten PAs in revenue generation(cumulativeincomethrough2011)

26

The other side of the financial challenge is the

underutilization of IPAF. Seventy-five percent of the

collected money should be retained in the site, while

the remaining 25% is to be used for System-wide

administration and support for sites that lack funding.

At present, the utilization rate of the sub-funds is

83%, but for the central fund, more than 90% of the

revenues remains unused. No money has been used to

fund activities in non-earning sites. All of the revenues

of IPAF went to fund activities only in the areas where

the money was generated; not even the central fund

was used to support activities in areas that have no

income.

There is big potential to raise revenues in protected

areas. Revenues from water resources alone can be

substantial. Water utility companies have expressed

willingness to pay for watershed/protected area

conservation.

In the Samar Island Natural Park, a study estimating the potential revenues from resource uses – from tourism, to water, to special land uses – showed that, even if only 30% of the potential revenues are collected, the revenues would be more than enough to finance the full implementation of the management plan.

SINP receives an average of about 3,000 mm of rain annually. Estimated available groundwater for SINP Core area is around 999 MCM per year, and 363 MCM per year in the Buffer Zone area.

The Energy Development Corporation operates geothermal facilities close to several NIPAS protected areas. The company has embarked on law enforcement, reforestation and rehabilitation activities to restore the ecological balance in these areas. EDC also works with indigenous and local communities to raise awareness on biodiversity conservation, participate in the management of the protected areas, and generate livelihood activities.

In many of the Protected Areas around the country, the

private sector has actively participated and invested

in management activities that significantly eases the

financial and management burden of the PAMB and

PA staff.

Local governments have provided direct financial and

personnel support for protected areas management,

on top of their mandated role in the PAMB. In Mt.

Kitanglad, the local governments take turns hosting

PAMB meetings and contributing funds to finance

management and enforcement activities. In Negros

Occidental, the provincial government provides

funding and coordinates technical assistance for

local governments and stakeholders to prepare

management plans for existing and proposed

protected areas.

27

28

Beyond NIPAS:New foundations for protected areas management

The role of the international community

NIPAS follows a long national and international

tradition of setting aside significant and critical

natural areas for protection or conservation. The

global significance of the Philippines in biodiversity

conservation is highlighted by the following facts:

• Itharborsmorediverselifeformsthananyother

country on earth on a per hectare basis;

• Ithasmorethan52,100describedspecies,ofwhich

more than one half are found nowhere else on earth;

491 of these are threatened as listed in the IUCN Red

List;

•Morethan1,130terrestrialwildlifespecieshave

been recorded; half of these are endemic; 157 are

threatened; and 128 are threatened endemic species;

• Itisoneofthemostimportantcentersofamphibians

(101 species) and reptiles (258 species) in Southeast

Asia; 68 are endemic;

• Itishometoanastounding576speciesofbirds,of

which 195 are endemic and 126 are restricted range

species, making the Philippines the 4th leading

country in the world in bird endemism;

•With174indigenousmammalianspecies,111ofwhich

are endemic, it has the greatest concentration of

terrestrial mammalian diversity in the world; but it

also ranked 8th among the most threatened;

•Rateofdiscoveryofnewspeciesinthecountryis

one of the highest in the world, with a total of 36

new species of herpetofauna discovered in the last

10 years.

Conserving the Philippines’ rich biodiversity should

not only be the concern or responsibility of the

Filipino people. There is a sensitive line that divides

state sovereignty over its natural resources and the

responsibility of all humanity to protect the Earth. In

international law, the concept of common concern

of humanity evolved as a way to express global

responsibility without encroaching on a sovereign

country’s rights. By definition, a common concern

requires international action and necessitates new

forms of domestic law-making, compliance techniques

and enforcement. Other consequences include the

importance of participation by non-state actors and

management of environmental resources at all levels of

governance. 14

The international community has provided incentives

and impetus for biodiversity rich countries to protect

their resources, by providing knowledge and technical

assistance, financial incentives, support for stopping

illegal activities.

Some sectors worry that with international support

comes many obligations that could restrict the country

in the strategic use of its biological resources, or

impair the rights of indigenous and local communities.

For example, in REDD-Plus, the investments

in reducing deforestation, forest degradation,

sustainable management of forests and carbon-stock

enhancements are intended for reducing carbon

emissions or increasing sequestration of atmospheric

carbon by forests. In practical terms, the forest areas

dedicated for REDD-Plus are restricted from other

uses, or may use methods that maximize mitigation

potentials but are incompatible with conservation of

biodiversity (e.g. reforestation using fast growing non-

indigenous species in key biodiversity areas. This can

potentially affect the livelihoods of forest dependent

communities. In anticipation of these problems, the

REDD-Plus mechanism being developed under the

UNFCCC contain specific governance and biodiversity

safeguards to ensure that achieving the climate

mitigation goals is not made at the expense of IP/local

community rights and loss of biodiversity.

14 Shelton, 2009. http://www.jak.ppke.hu/hir/ias/20091sz/05.pdf

The seas of the Philippines are considered marineequivalentoftheAmazonRiverBasin.

29

Recognizing and valuing ecosystem services

Protected areas produce significant economic benefits

even if they are left alone and ‘set aside.’ To most

people who have access to forest land or coastal areas,

the question is ‘how much can the area produce [of

economic value] if left as is, as compared to if the

area is converted to a farm or fishpond? The answer

seems simple – of course, forest areas converted to

vegetable farms will earn the farmer more money

and will provide goods for more people. Under this

scenario, it is difficult to argue to keep forest lands and

coastal areas in their natural state, if the areas have

the potential to be converted into ‘productive’ use.

On top of that, if the area is designated for protection

and land-use conversion is prohibited, government

will have to spend a lot of resources to enforce the

regulations, faced with the pressure to allow people

in need to make a living on farms. The low productive

value and high cost of enforcement make protected

area designation and protection a real challenge.

However, the truth is that natural ecosystems

produce goods and services that are just as valuable,

if not more valuable, than the benefits derived from

conversion into farms and fishponds. These ecosystem

services are often taken for granted and considered

free – until they become scarce or lost.

In order to make rational decisions on whether to keep

an area undisturbed as protected area or allow it to be

used for other purposes, the true value of ecosystem

services must be accounted for in the cost-benefit

analysis. This issue is not new, and a number of studies

have shown the importance of this analysis. The

challenge is adopting this as mainstream framework in

deciding appropriate land and sea use, as foundation

for directing economic development.

Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL) is a mountain range covering 120,457 hectares in Southern Palawan, Philippines, which was declared a Protected Area in June 2009. Mt. Mantalingahan is home to indigenous Palaw’ans and is a key biodiversity area. According to Conservation International, this largely forested mountain range is critical for providing various ecosystem services that benefits the local communities with an estimated total economic value of US$5.5 billion. These ecosystems services include water, soil conservation, flood control, carbon sequestration, non-timber forest products and the high potential of waterfalls, caves and other areas for tourism. The thirty-three watersheds within MMPL are extremely valuable to the lowland agricultural economy in the area.

30

Addressing the drivers of biodiversity and habitat

loss

Biodiversity and habitat loss can be brought about

by natural and/or human-induced causes. Natural

calamities (for example: earthquakes, typhoons,

warming sea surface temperature) can cause

changes in the environment that affect species

and the ecosystem. Human activities may alter

the environment very significantly such that living

organisms must adapt, move away or die. As a result,

the natural balance changes, including its ability to

deliver the services that the ecosystem produced.

The alteration of the environment are intended to

bring benefits to humans – such as farming, fishing,

housing, mining, energy production, etc. However,

there comes a point where the scale of these changes

surpass the ability of the area to maintain the natural

functions that provide the benefits that humans are

after. When too much of the forests are cut down to

make way for farms, the ability of the forest to absorb

water and prevent erosion is also reduced. This may

result in insufficient water for irrigation of the farms,

loss of fertility of the soils, changes in temperature

that are optimal to the crops - changes that cascade

to reduce productivity of the farms. The demand for

more farm products put pressure to cut down more

trees to convert to farms. Designating protected areas

or watersheds prevent the surpassing of the limits of

what the ecosystem can support to human activities.

This is the same principle that indigenous peoples in

the Cordillera follow in protecting communal forests

above the rice terraces (muyong system).

The inaccurate pricing of goods and services, which

does not account for environmental costs, also drives

biodiversity and habitat loss. It is common to bargain

for the price of fish, crabs, and other wild catch

because these are ‘free’ and the only cost to recover

is the effort of the fisher to bring the catch to market.

Perhaps out of need and lack of access to better

deals, the fisher will sell the catch at a low price, but

the fisher will have to catch more and more fish to

meet the basic needs of the family. The fisher will sell

whatever and as much as possible, even if these are

not mature fish or crabs, in order to earn more. This

in turn will result in fewer fish and crabs reaching

reproductive age, which eventually results in the

decline of the catch.

The same issues and principles apply to other

human activities such as mining, urban development,

ecotourism, and others. Demand for products and

services push human activities to larger scales

[reducing the natural areas]. Pricing that does not

account for environmental costs also drive demand up.

The impacts of human activities on ecosystems and

ecosystem services depend on the scale of these

activities and the resilience of the ecosystems in

absorbing the impacts. Even if human activities are

small scale, the location and distribution of these

small-scale activities may also result in habitat

fragmentation that can just have as much adverse

effects as single large-scale human activities.

Addressing the drivers of biodiversity and habitat

loss is not a simple matter of enforcement, but must

be accompanied by creation of the right economic

incentives to and market mechanisms to accurately

account for environmental costs. Enforcement and

market mechanisms work together to influence

behavioral change in consumers.

31

Addressing poverty and open access

The Philippines is among the fastest growing

economies because, among others, of its growing

population and economic development. Population

has grown to more than 100 million, and the

challenge of providing a good quality of life for all is

overwhelming. Most people want to move to urban

centers to find work and get better access to basic

services. This causes a strain on the capacity of cities

to provide for the people; increases demand for

food, water, power, and other services that depend

on natural resources. The people who remain in the

margins of forest and coastal areas also eke out a living

from the meager harvest directly from the forest, river

or sea, or from farms carved out of forests.

Growing urban and rural populations depend on

natural resources, directly or indirectly. However,

there is a prevailing tendency to bargain long-term

benefits for immediate gains. Because of government’s

poor capacity for law enforcement, this is common

occurrence – But people have to make a living – why is

that wrong? Are the trees more important than the life

of poor people? Is this thinking a fallacy?An issue of equity

In Bubong, Lanao del Sur, illegal logging is rampant and publicly acknowledged by the police and local governments. The forest of Bubong is p art of the wateshed of Lake Lanao, which in turn provides water to the Agus hydroelectric power grid. Illegal logging continues because of high demand for lumber [which has become scarce due to logging bans strictly imposed in nearby places]. The forests are also the source of firewood, which is the fuel of choice of the local communities.

In the absence of strict law enforcement and cheaper alternatives to lumber and firewood, the forests of Bubong will continue to be cut. In the meantime, the water level of Lake Lanao has gone low during dry season, causing temporary shutdowns of the hydroelectric plants and consequently causing tremendous economic losses due to power shortage. Even without the accurate numbers, it is obvious that the value of the lumber and firewood, and the benefits these products provide, pale in comparison to the losses in power and economic activities due to the logging operations.

The devastation wrought by typhoon Sendong in Iligan and Cagayan de Oro Cities, where subdivisions and settlements were washed away by flashfloods in December 2011 was attributed to the massive deforestation in upland areas of Lanao.

32

Sustainable financing and paying for ecosystem

services

When natural resources and ecosystem services are

not properly valued, and their costs not included in

cost-benefit analyses, it will be very hard to argue

for their protection. There may be emotional value in

protecting the Philippine Eagle, because of its beauty

and majesty. But when the choice is between keeping

the forests where the Eagle lives and turning that same

forest into profitable plantations that earn millions of

dollars and employ hundreds of people, the ‘practical’

choice seems obvious.

Can a protected area match the income and

employment opportunities of commercial plantations?

Or mining? There are not enough studies to make a

generalized statement. In the absence of convincing

data, the default decision would be to go with what is

tried and tested – profits from farming and mining has

brought jobs and wealth to many people.

But another way of comparing the values is to ask,

what would be the cost if these resources are lost?

TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE

Use Values

Direct use value

Outputs/services

that can be consumed

directly

Consumptive: Capture fisheries

mariculture aquariumtradepharmaceutical

Non- Consumptive: tourism/ recreation research/education

aesthetic use

Physical protection to: *other coastal ecosystems *coastline

*navigation

Global life-support:

*Carbon store*may slow-

down global warming

Biological support to:sea birds

turtles & dugongs fisheries

other ecosystems

*species*habitats

*biodiversity

*species*habitats

*’way of life’connected to

traditional uses

*threatened reef habitats *endangered species *charismatic species *aesthetic reefscapes

Functional benefits enjoyed directly

Future direct and indirect

use

Expected new information

from avoiding irreversible losses of:

Value of leaving use & non-use values to offspring

Value from knowledge

of continued existence based on e.g. moral conviction

Indirect use value

Option value

Quasi-option value

Bequestvalue Existence value

Non-Use Values

In Bukidnon Province, the industrial pineapple and banana plantations have recently complained that the land is drying up – rainfall patterns have changed resulting in extreme rainy seasons and long periods of dry season, unlike in decades past where rainfall was evenly distributed throughout the year. For the companies, the cost of production has increased significantly to source water for the farms; otherwise, productivity has decreased.

Some enlightened commercial farmers, such as John Perine of Unifrutti, have observed that the loss of water and increase in temperature around the area are associated with the loss of the forests in Mt. Kitanglad and Kalatungan (both Protected Areas). These farmers understand the value of restoring the forest cover, and hopefully restore the microclimate around the farms. They are willing to contribute to or pay for protected area management. For several years now, the large commercial farmers near Mt. Kitanglad have been contributing funds to cover PA management activities.

While NIPAS provides a fee system, whereby

revenues in Protected Areas are channeled back to

management activities, most of the beneficiaries of

ecosystem services from protected areas are outside

the boundaries of these protected areas. Therefore,

an expanded system of sustainable financing based

on the payment of ecosystem services is needed to

augment the fee system under the law.

33

34

National integrated strategy of sustainable

economic growth

In almost all assessments of the root causes of loss

of natural resources and biodiversity, governance

problems are highlighted and well-documented. In the

2011 USAID biodiversity and forestry analysis for the

Philippines, which reflects the research and consensus

of policymakers, scientists and civil society, the

problem of biodiversity loss, is presented in a broader

context of economic, socio-cultural, technical and

other factors (See problem tree). Market forces play

an important role in determining people’s decisions

on the level of exploitation of natural resources. If

the environmental costs are not accounted for, the

artificially low price of ecosystem goods and services

could lead to over-exploitation. Changing weather

patterns, natural disasters and climate change impacts

have altered ecosystems and caused significant

damages from droughts, floods, storm surges, rising

sea surface temperatures.

There are 3 main barriers that limit the effectiveness

of the protected areas system of the Philippines in

conserving globally significant areas, namely:

1. Biogeographical representativeness – significant

ecological gaps exist. There is a need to consider

innovative governance of protected areas to fill these

gaps and conserve biodiversity ultimately;

2. Limited capacity for protected area management

– there are limited resources for demarcation;

enforcement is weak; there are deficiencies in

management systems and tools; the structure and

functioning management boards of protected areas

need improvement; and there is no systematized

framework for monitoring and evaluation for keeping

track of the management effectiveness; and

3. Inadequate systems for financial planning, budgetary

management and revenue generation – most of

the protected areas are financed entirely out of

government revenues; systems to capitalize on

alternative revenue streams from ecotourism and

ecosystem services are not fully developed; trust

fund mechanism exists but revenue generation has

been limited

Working togetherto conserve protected areas

PROBLEM TREEIncreased vulnerability

of ecosystem to climate impacts

Increased GHG emission from

deforestation and forest degradation

DEGRADATION OF FOREST RESOURCE AND BIODIVERSITY IN UPLANDS, INLANDS WATER AND COASTAL/MARINE AREAS•Inappropriateconversionofforesttootherusesreducingenvironmentalservices•Migrationtocriticalzonesinforestandcoasts;encroachmentintoconservationareas•Over-harvestinglyextractionofforest/biodivresources•Indiscriminateuseofharmfulchemical;dumpingofindustrial,mining,agriculturalanddomesticwastes•Introductionofinvasivespecies/inappropriatecrops/farmingsystemsthatdestroyhabitatsorreduceenvironmentalservices.

DEMOGRAPHY•Increase

population•Urban

migration•Upland/

Coastal migration

NATURAL•Extreme

weather storm surge

•Earthquakes,volcanic activity

•IncreasedSST, sea-level rise

SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL•Lackscience-

based NRM: Inadequate/Inconsistent data/information/technology for rational decision making

SOCIO-CULTURALInability of community to manage resources:•Lowhousehold

incomes/production•lackaccesstobasic

services•Lackempowermentto

exercise civil/political & economic rights

•Lowawarenesslevelon conservation practices

•Lackincentivestoprotect public goods

ECONOMICIncreased demand for forests/biodiversity products & services, and land for sommercial & agricultural productionIndividuals vs. Macro-economyInability to maximize value income from natural resources•Poorruralinfrastructure•Lowagriculturalproductivity•Pooraccesstomarkets•Under-pricingofnatural

resources•Lackappreciationon

extremalities associated with resource use

•Globaltrade

GOVERNANCE•Ambiguousorconflicting,and

antiquatedlaws&policies•Institutionwithoverlappingmandates•Inappropriateland/seauseplanning•Unsecuredproperlyrights;openaccess•Lackcapacity&resources(operational)•Inadequate/inappropriateallocationof

funds & personnel•Short-sightedplanning&decision-

making• Corruption;politicalintervention•LackintegrationofCCimpactson

policies and plans•BudgetAllocator(Forestryvs.PA)

Increasedfloods,soilerosion, siltation, landslides

Reduced availability of water, timber & other forest

products

Reduced soil fertility & increased vulnerability to

pest/diseases/invasive species

Loss of biodiversity

Polluted water sources

Increased vulnerability of communities to climate

extremes/natural disasters

Reduced agricultural productivity, service areas & food security

Breakdown of norms and traditional/

indigenous knowledge systems

Increasedconflictsonusedofnaturalresources & reduced availability of water for

irrigation/domestic use downstream

Increasedpoverty

Source:USAID2011

35

The PDP has twin goals of economic growth and

poverty alleviation as components of the overall goal

of “inclusive growth.” The Plan recognizes the need

for investing in infrastructure priorities to improve

environmental quality and enhance productivity - such

as irrigation, sanitation and wastewater treatment,

solid waste management, flood control, etc. The ENR

Chapter of the PDP focuses on three major goals –

two of which are directed at conserving remaining

natural resources and preserving a clean and healthy

environment. The third goal emphasizes the need for

climate change adaptation and disaster management.

“The deteriorated state of the country’s environment and natural resources is felt most by the poor, who depend on such resources for their livelihood and are most vulnerable to the consequences of its degradation and depletion. Climate change and risks from natural disasters only amplify the association between poverty and environmental degradation.”

PHILIPPINEDEVELOPMENTPLAN2011-2016GOAL

Inclusive Growthrapid, sustained, creates jobs, draws the majority into the economic and social

mainstream, and continuously reduces mass poverty

VisionforENRSector(Chapter10)An environment that is healthy, ecologically balanced, sustainably productive, climate change resilient and

one that provides for present and future generations of Filipinos

How to achieve goal

Transparent and responsive governance

Strategic Framework

Growth in real GDPof7-8%peryear

Massive investment in physical infrastructure

Employment generation

Complementary strategiesHuman development

Including for:•Climateproofinfradev’t•Watersupply(IWRM)•Irrigation•Sanitation,septageandsewerage mgmt.

GOAL1.Improvedconservation,protectionandrehabilitation of natural resources•Sustainablymanageforestandwatersheds•Improveprotectionandconservationof

biodiversity•Enhancecosatalandmarineresources

management•Improvelandadministrationandmanagement•Manageamoreequitableutilizationof

mineral resources•Developandimplementenvironment-friendly

enterprise and livelihood opportunities

GOAL2.Improvedenvironmentalqualityforcleaner and healthier environment•ReduceairpollutioninMetroManilaand

other major urban centers•Reducewaterpollutiontoimprove

waterqualityinprioirtyriversandothereconomically and ecological important water bodies

•Reducewastesgeneratedandimprovewaste disposal

•Establishahealthierandlivableurbanenvironment

GOAL 3. Enhanced resilience of natural system and improved adaptive capacities of human communities to cope with environmental hazards including climate-related risks•Strengtheninstitutionalcapacitiesof

national and local governments•Enhancetheresilienceofnatural

system for CCA and DRRM•Improveadaptivecapacitiesof

communities

Cross-cutting Strategies•Effectiveenvironmentalgovernance•Continuedinstitutionalstrenghteningandcapabilitybuilding•Research,Development,ExtensionandKnowledgeManagement•EnvironmentandNaturalResourceFinancing

Including in:•tourism•agriculture•fisheries•agroforestry•mining

(including ecological integrity and climate change resiliency inChapter10)

KALAHI-CIDSS: KKB

Conditional Cash Transfer

Povertyincidencereducedfrom33.1%in1991to16.6%by2015orless

Source:USAID2011

36

Some key actions on biodiversity conservation under

the PDP include:

•Targetingtohave15millionhectaresofforested

land, 50 percent of which may be production forest,

the following will be implemented to increase forest

cover by 600,000 hectares by 2016;

•Assesstheeffectivenessofmanagementand

implement adaptive management in all protected

areas proclaimed under the NIPAS;

•Strengthenmanagementofprotectedareasin

partnership with local communities through issuance

of security of tenure and provision of alternative

livelihood;

•Prepareprotectedareamanagementplan

incorporating vulnerability and adaptability of the

sector to disaster risk and climate change

•Preparation/updatingofmanagementplanfor

protected areas and ecologically important habitats

to include climate change adaptation; and

•OperationalizetheconceptofPaymentfor

Environmental Services (PES). PES is a mechanism

in environment and natural resources management

that corrects the flaw in current economic system

whereby the users of ecosystem/environment

services are made to pay the ENR managers

• ImplementtheNationalBiosafetyFramework,

Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources

and the updated National Wetland Action Plan for

the Philippines (NWAPP) as part of the country’s

commitment to the Convention on Wetlands or

Ramsar Convention.

•Developandimplementthenationalintegrated

coastal management (ICM) program to include

principles, strategies and action plans

•Applytheecosystemapproachtothemanagement

of fisheries and other marine resources, addressing

transboundary policy and regulatory concerns;

•EvaluatemanagementeffectivenessofallMPAs

proclaimed under NIPAS;

• ImplementtheCoralTriangleInitiativeNational

Plan of Action and the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine

Ecoregion (SSME) Conservation Plan which

includes designating priority seascapes across the

Coral Triangle as geographic focus of sustainable

management;

The Philippines’ next steps relevant to protected areas

management in the short term would be to establish

sustainable management mechanisms within each

seascape or biogeographic region and implement local

actions that will redound to achieving coordinated

actions leading to scaled-up synergy at the municipal

(or district) level and at the marine key biodiversity

areas. The next steps in the medium and long terms

would be to achieve significant ecological impacts

and attain sustainable benefits showing impacts

to a reasonable degree, respectively. More specific

recommendations include: (1) having an adaptive

ecosystem based management embedded with a

social reform agenda; (2) facilitating an enabling

learning environment and empowered constituency;

(3) advocating the institutionalization of good

governance; (4) building capacity among stakeholders;

and (5) developing ways to leverage funds to sustain

management.

37

Communities are part of the protected area

What is unique about the challenge of protected

areas management in the Philippines is that these

ecologically critical areas are home to indigenous and

local communities. Early policies on conservation

focused on relocating the people outside of the

national parks. This had some success at that time

when upland population was small, and the Forest

Service had sufficient resources and highly motivated

forest guards. In the 60s, upland population increased

- partly because of displacement in the lowlands,

policies that encouraged expansion of farming in

frontier lands (especially in Mindanao), and opening

up of previously inaccessible areas through logging

roads. The policy of relocation proved ineffective in

controlling the degradation or loss of ecosystems

when population rapidly grew and enforcement

capacity significantly declined. The situation called

for a radical shift in thinking about conservation:

where local communities were previously considered

trespassers, they are now considered partners in

resource management and an integral part of the

ecosystem.

Communities in protected areas have lived in harmony

with nature historically. However, communities do

not live in isolation – exposure to markets, changing

values, increase in population (fertility and migration) –

all contribute to increase pressure on natural resources,

which inevitably result in overexploitation.

However, communities can play an important function

in conservation, if provided with the right incentives

to go back to sustainable practices. This is not easy,

because the reality is, the remaining natural resources

may not be able to sustain dependent communities

(except for highly productive areas with access to

markets).

Participatory management

One of the more significant developments to come out of the implementation of the NIPAS Act is the development of a process known as Participatory 3-Dimensional Modelling. The method integrates participatory resource mapping and GIS methods, and has proven to be a user-friendly and relatively accurate research, planning and management tool. The precision of the final 3D model of the protected area is assured by confirming geo-referenced data with knowledge provided by members of the local community. It also provides stakeholders with a replica of the site where they can actually see and relate to management zones and boundaries. The method has since been institutionalized by the DENR on January 4, 2001 through Memorandum Circular No. 2001-01, which recommended its nationwide adoption in protected area planning and sustainable natural resource management.

18 See Camacho et al 2010

In protecting the environment, indigenous peoples and

local communities perform a vital function that benefit

the larger community of downstream beneficiaries.

Yet, this service largely remains unrecognized and

unpaid. The poor marginalized communities in fact

subsidize conservation efforts for the benefit of all.

38

Northern Sierra Madre law enforcement

Former Isabela Gov. Grace Padaca worked together with forest protection stakeholders from local governments, law enforcement agencies, indigenous peoples groups, nongovernment organizations, and the Church to protect the Sierra Madre biodiversity corridor from rampant illegal timber poaching. The Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park is one of the largest remaining natural forests in the country, covering the provinces of Cagayan, Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, Nueva Ecija, Quezon, Bulacan, and Rizal.

Padaca formed an anti-illegal logging task force in 2004. She said that efforts to curb timber poaching had resulted in the seizure of millions of pesos worth of illegally cut trees and the arrest of several suspects. However, she said that members of the task force are largely untrained and ill-equipped, and operating without sufficient budget.

Nine of Isabela’s 36 towns are located within the Sierra Madre Mountains and most of their residents eke out a living either as hacheros (chainsaw operators) or bugadores (log transporters).

“It pains me to see that many of these people, even in other provinces, lose their source of income,” she said. She asked the national government to help us create livelihood programs and emergency employment to help alleviate the lives of those directly affected by the campaign against illegal logging.

Padaca added that some politicians who are suspected to be behind the illegal activities were harassing members of the task force, and appear to be conniving with the military to conceal the illegal tree cutting activities, because complaints coming from some concerned citizens were ignored. (culled from newsreports)

The pristine forests and waters of the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park (inset) is marred by massive illegal logging operations.

39

Expanding governance options for the system of

protected areas

While it is important for government to continue to

focus on the priority areas included in the NIPAS,

the shortfall in personnel and resources needed to

manage these areas limit the effectiveness of NIPAS.

It is unlikely that government budget for NIPAS will

increase dramatically in the future. However, it is

not only direct investment in NIPAS that can ensure

conservation of key biodiversity areas.

There is growing recognition among policy makers

that indigenous peoples can play a key role in

managing most of the protected areas in the country,

which are covered by ancestral domain claims. The

advantage of engaging IPs in management is that they

already have the tradition of living sustainably with

nature. Recognition of their rights to their ancestral

domains under IPRA has further strengthened their

commitment to protecting their heritage, yet be

consistent with the conservation objectives of the

country and the global community.

Indigenous Community Conserved Areas

The government is promoting the establishment

of indigenous community conserved areas as a

governance option for protected area management.

An ICCA has three defining characteristics:

•specificindigenouspeoplesorlocalcommunities

are more concerned about the area related to them

culturally or because of their livelihood dependence

on the resources in the area;

•theconcernedcommunitiesaremajorplayers,or

have recognized authority (e.g. under IPRA) to

formulate, implement and enforce management

decisions;

•themanagementdecisionsareconsistentwith

conservation goals.

Kalatungan National Park

Mt. Kalatungan is a PA, with an elevation of 2,287m. It is the sixth highest peak in the Philippines, According to a CMU study, there are 109 species of mosses in Kalatungan seven of these are new records from both Mt. Kalatungan and Mt. Matutum. It is also home to the endangered Philippine Eagle. Also common to the area are the Philippine deer and the Philippine wild pig along with several species of mountain rodents. The Talaandig are among the 11 Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) in Mt. Kalatungan who protect the forests as their sacred grounds and who practice substinence hunting and gathering of forest products. Biodiversity loss is attributed to land clearing for mining, migration, indiscriminate mining, illegal logging and over collection of plants and animals. Opportunities for accelerated and effective management of this mountain range exist through the recognition of Mt. Kalatungan as an ICCA – an important complement to the official protected area system as they help conserve critical ecosystems and threatened species, and they are part of the indigenous peoples and local community’s resistance to destructive ‘development’ among others (IUCN).

40

Local Government Conservation Areas

Local governments are often overlooked in natural

resources management because the management role

has traditionally been performed by national agencies.

However, because of scarcity of budget and personnel,

national agencies are barely able to effectively perform

their management functions, including those in

already identified priority areas. In recent years, the

national government has promoted decentralization

of natural resources management through sharing

responsibilities with local governments under a ‘co-

management’ arrangement. DENR provides technical

assistance and capacity building (such as in forest land

use planning) to build consciousness and skills among

local officials to manage the natural wealth from which

most of their constituents derive their livelihood.

Investments by local governments in natural resources

management increased dramatically in cases where

local governments come to realize the value of natural

resources management in their own development

goals.

However, experience with locally managed

conservation (mostly in the coastal sector) show that

local government officials have short terms of office

that lead to changing priorities with every change in

administration. The key to continuity of conservation

programs is continued community support (or

demand) for the conservation programs of local

governments, so that the new administration would

be encouraged to sustain the programs of previous

administrations. The co-management arrangement

with DENR (which is a contractual obligation with the

local government) also helps provide the incentive

for the new local administration to continue with

programs of the predecessor officials.

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

TOTAL:96,287,695.00

CRM

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

ISWM

TOTAL:1,259,478,581.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

TOTAL:351,575,708.00

FFM

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

Data Source: USAID Environmental Governance Project, Phase2.

41

Challenge of adapting to a changing environment

The Climate Change Commission is tasked to

coordinate, monitor and evaluate the programs and

action plans of the government relating to climate

change. The Commission has drafted the National

Framework Plan to address climate change, anchored

mainly on adaptation and complemented by mitigation

activities. Recognizing that the Philippines is among

the most vulnerable countries to natural disasters

(such as extreme weather episodes associated with

climate change), the Commission is testing the

concept of building climate resilient communities that

are ready to adapt to the impacts of climate change

and minimize the economic and human losses of

natural disasters. The “Ecotown” concept is based

on the idea that forest and coastal ecosystems help

minimize the negative effects of climate change – for

example, healthy coral reefs and mangroves protect

coastal areas from storm surges; protected natural

forests prevent floods, landslides and the loss of fertile

soils, at the same time regulate the supply of clean

water.

As the concept of the Ecotown is further developed

through on-the-ground experience, communities

are developing capacity to also monitor the changes

in biodiversity because of climate change and take

action to mitigate biodiversity loss – for example, the

ability of coral reefs to adapt to rising sea levels, sea

surface temperatures and ocean acidification. After

all, resiliency is not only about ecosystems providing

benefits to communities but also about communities

caring for the ecosystems.

42

The Ikalahans of Nueva Vizcaya are known for their pioneering efforts in community-based forest management using traditional practices, but adapting to the modern context. They were the first to obtain formal recognition of their ancestral domain rights from the government, through the modern institutional vehicle of the Kalahan Educational Foundation (KEF). The recognition of their rights gave them control to manage natural resources. KEF also became the institutional foundation for strengthening cultural identity among the young. In turn, the Ikalahan traditional forest management practices have become a role model for community-based forest management (CBFM) in the country.

The Ikalahans have a sophisticated system of forest management where they delineated the forests into different functions, such as conservation, income-generating and environmental service purposes. Among the IP groups in the Philippines, the Ikalahans are distinct because of their strong sense of entrepreneurship. While many ethnic communities continue with traditional practices and knowledge systems, the Ikalahans have adapted their traditions to modern sustainable agroforestry skills. The community members are encouraged and supported to continue their organic farming methods. They also run a food processing unit where they sell harvested fruits from their production forests to generate cash for their basic needs. All these practices were found to be effective in improving the productivity of the land and in enhancing the quality of forest growth.

In recent years, in response to the challenge to mitigate climate change, KEF established long-term carbon monitoring of Ikalahan ancestral forests and are negotiating a pioneering forest carbon agreement with Mitsubishi. With the help of Conservation International-Philippines, KEF recently achieved a certification based on Climate Community and Biodiversity Standards (CCBS) for its reforestation project.

Source: World Agroforestry Centre

KEF facilitates training for forest carbon monitoring in the Ikalahan Ancestral Domain.

43

In 2001 and 2003, a national and regional

(ASEAN) review of field experiences in protected

areas management pointed to key themes and

recommendations to move forward. Many of the

recommendations then have been targeted for

implementation, but can still be enhanced and

instituted. The recommendations are updated here,

following the same themes identified then:

Link protected area to the wider landscape

Protected areas management must handle social and

political, not just technical, issues. In the Philippines,

despite the record of degradation, protected areas

still provide valuable ecosystem goods and services

that people need. Protected areas conservation must

be seen in the broader landscape where the natural

wealth continues to provide for the needs of the

people. Part of the socio-economic considerations

of PA management is ensuring equitable access to

opportunities, especially for the poor and marginalized

communities who are almost entirely dependent on

natural resources for their livelihood. If the interests of

IP and local communities, entrepreneurs, consumers,

local and national government are aligned and met by

linking protected areas to the landscape where people

live and make a living, and by equitable allocation of

access to the land and natural resources, there will be

less competition over the resources that are set aside

for conservation.

Build broader stakeholder support for Protected Areas

and management objectives

The biological resources of the Philippines are very

important to the global community because of their

abundance, diversity and uniqueness. However, there

is very little information available to the public on what

is there, what their values are for people, how much

people will invest to conserve them, and perhaps pay

to offset or replace the loss of those they’d rather use.

The government has to invest more in an accurate

information system, and effective communication

tools to inform stakeholders about the resources

and their values, so that they can make informed

decisions. Accurate reporting of progress also

ensures governance transparency and accountability.

Rekindling the people’s natural and traditional

affinity to the environment through information

and knowledge sharing will facilitate conservation

programs.

What policy makers can do

44

Work together, with common goals but different roles

The Philippine Development Plan (2012-2016) outlines

how environmental protection and natural resources

conservation are critical to inclusive economic growth.

In order for inclusive, sustainable growth to be

achieved, economic planners, environmental managers,

entrepreneurs, consumers, indigenous communities,

school teachers, prosecutors, judges – everyone – must

have a shared commitment to the common goal, even

while pursuing their sectoral interests and priorities.

The diversity of stakeholder groups means that each

may have a different perspective of the importance

of protected areas, priority actions and the roles

that stakeholders play. However, there should be a

common interest in conserving the natural heritage. A

lot of the protection objectives can also be achieved,

not only through NIPAS, but by other expanded options

for natural resources management complementing

NIPAS that recognizes the roles of other actors such

as IP and local communities, local governments and

private sector.

Build capacity for Protected Areas management

The Philippines has an abundance of talent in all the

technical aspects of protected areas management

(biophysical sciences, economics, community

development, politics and governance). It requires

extraordinary leadership and consensus building skills

to bring together and orchestrate multi-disciplinary

tasks that require integration of various disciplines

and skills. In the specific protected areas, the

PAMB and protected area staff must provide such

leadership. It is crucial that the caliber of protected

area staff be elevated through skills training and clear

occupational standards.

Maintain Protected Areas for the future through

sound science and policy

Many scientists have expressed the concern that

despite the significant gains in protected areas

management, the Philippines is still losing its

remaining forest and coastal ecosystems at an

alarming rate. In other words, the country is either

not effective on conserving its resources, or not fast

enough in protecting ecosystems at risk. Clearly,

government has to rationalize the designation of PAs,

which it has done recently through more rigorous

review process of PA designation. The PAMB should

also strengthen its institutional/organizational and

financial capacity to complement enhancements in

technical capacity. There is enormous potential to

raise revenues from ecosystem services especially

since most people are willing to pay, for as long as the

management institution is capable and trustworthy.

45

There are success stories and failures in implementing

protected areas management policies and programs,

and government has much more to do. But we can

help government by being vigilant in demanding better

governance, in not contributing to the problem, and

especially in initiating activities that help solve the

problems. Some of these examples are:

1. Stop illegal wildlife trade – the talking mynah,

bleeding heart pigeon and hornbills are beautiful in

a cage, but these are even more impressive if you

see them in their natural habitat; the corals and

shells you take or buy will not look the same in an

aquarium. The syndicates that prey on wildlife and

gullible hobbyists are criminals. They are likely to

be involved in other more serious criminal activities

as well (such as smuggling of explosives used in

dynamite fishing). Report all illegal wildlife trade and

don’t buy from these criminals.

2. Reduce consumption of goods produced with high

environmental costs – the high demand for French

fries, meat, exotic foods is driving the conversion of

forests and coastal areas into farms and fishpens.

Buy only what you can consume to avoid waste;

refrain from ‘upsizing’ to ‘save’ money. Buy locally

produced food to reduce transportation costs and

greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Support eco-friendly businesses – Support

enterprises that are conscious about reducing

wastes and not harming the environment. For

example, do not stay in a resort that severely alters

the beach or mountain landscape, or indiscriminately

disposes of garbage and sewage.

4. Be conscious of and reduce amount of pollution

and wastes –Take only pictures; bring home only

memories…. When visiting a protected area, do not

leave garbage or other pollutants. At the stores,

do not buy over-packaged products that end

up in dumps or washed into rivers and seas. Do

not support companies that do not clean up the

pollution they generate.

5. Support livelihoods of indigenous peoples and

local communities – Indigenous peoples have

lived with nature since time immemorial. Perhaps

their practices have changed today because of

interactions with other cultures and the market.

But we can still learn from their living past, as

we become more aware of our own rich cultural

diversity. Like many IPs, local communities in

protected areas are mostly poor people struggling

to make a living and improve their quality of life. If

we can provide them the security of basic services,

they will be more inclined to live harmoniously with

nature, ensuring that the fragile environments they

live in will provide the ecosystem services that the

rest of us need.

6. Use alternative materials that are reusable or

recyclable – Instead of buying furniture made from

fresh cut hardwood (that may come from primary

forests), buy those that reuse old wood, or those

made from recycled materials, such as chip board.

7. Know where your taxes and environmental fees go

– these fees are incorporated in water and electricity

bills, or are added as surcharge (e.g. for large

vehicles, hotel accommodations), or assessed for

basic services (e.g. garbage collection). However,

the use of the collected money may be as varied

as watershed management, buying garbage trucks,

building offices of regulatory agencies, basketball

courts, etc. Make sure that you support only the

fee systems where money is used directly for

environmental management purposes.

Personal actions, community actions, demand for good governance.

46

47

Conclusion

The Philippines is still a Megadiverse country despite

the tremendous loss of biological resources in the

past decades. The remaining natural resources capital

is still considerable, not only for the conventional

value in logs, other forest products and fisheries,

but increasingly because of the value of ecosystem

services that support economic activities and protect

the well-being of the people.

Protected area management is a key strategy in

conserving biodiversity. In the Philippine context,

protected areas management has evolved from

diverse customary practices of indigenous peoples, to

centralized government control that excluded people,

to people-oriented policies to engage IP and local

communities as partners in management, and now to

diversify options that allow locally led (community or

local government) management. With NIPAS, as focal

policy, protected areas management has evolved to

address not just the conservation of natural resources,

but also to ensure the well-being of communities

directly and indirectly dependent on biological

resources and ecosystem services.

Protected areas provide vital ecosystem services that

underlie the economic growth of the country. In the

pursuit of inclusive growth, the government has to

carefully craft policies that protect key biodiversity

areas and fairly allocate access to the limited benefits

that these areas provide, especially to poor dependent

communities.

Integration of conservation and development goals

is even more urgent as the country faces the impact

of climate change on ecosystems, people and the

economy. Conserving biodiversity will allow the

people to better adapt to impacts of climate change.

However, climate change also poses a threat to

biodiversity. Governance strategy must be able to use

protected areas in adaptation, but also be sensitive

that biodiversity may be more at risk not only because

of pressures of human activities, but also because of

the shifts in a changing climate.

The evolution of governance of protected areas has

shown that shared responsibility works better than

centralized management. While an accountable

agency, the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau,

is needed for overall strategy and direction, actual

management responsibility of the various sites may

be shared with local stakeholders in various modes

that recognize the uniqueness and strength of local

managers – such as Local Conservation Areas (LCA)

and Indigenous Community Conserved Areas (ICCA).

The Philippines has been an active participant in

international discussions on environment and natural

resources conservation. Since the Earth Summit in

1992, the country has successfully aligned its national

policies and strategies with multilateral environmental

agreements, including CBD, UNFCCC, MARPOL,

Ramsar Convention, UNDRIP, Basel Convention,

CITES, among others. Given the limitations of an

emerging economy, with scarce financial resources

but abundant talent, the challenge for the country

is to systematically monitor and communicate its

achievements and lessons learned. This is one area

that the global community can support. The country

is on track in meeting the Aichi Biodiversity Targets,

through strategic policy reforms that sustain its gains

in people-oriented conservation, and in integrating

biodiversity conservation in development planning.

The Philippines has gone a long way in conserving

biodiversity areas – in adapting to the changing

concept of conservation of the areas and the roles

of people within, and in encouraging multisectoral

participation in management. These are also the

lessons learned that the country is proud to share to

the international community.

48

Amoroso, Victor B., Reyno A. Aspiras. Hamiguitan Range: A sanctuary for native flora. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: King Saud University. 2010.

Arcenas, Agustin L. Environmental Health: Economic Costs of Environmental Damage and Suggested Priority Interventions- A Contribution to the Philippines Country Environmental Analysis . Final Report, World Bank, 2009.

Balooni, Kulbhushan, Juan M. Pulhin, Makoto Inoue. 2008. The effectiveness of decentralization reforms in the Philippines. Geoforum 39 (2008) 2122-2131.

Batcagan, Sabado T. Pricing of grassland resource in the Philippines: Rent, grassland degradation and rehabilitation, and alternative land uses. Proceedings from the International Workshop on Environmental and Economic Accounting, Manila, 2000.

Briones, M. Roehlano, Francis Quimba, Jonathan B. Bungcayao, Joseph B. Paglingayen, Ivee Libunao, and Myrna B. Asuncion. 2011. Development Strategies to Achieve the MDGs in Asia: Philippines (Final Report). PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 2011-03, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Bryant, Raymond L. 2002. Non-governmental Organizations and Governmentality: ‘Consuming’ Biodiversity and Indigenous People in the Philippines. Political Studies (2002) Volume 50, 268-292. Oxford, United Kingdom: Political Studies Association.

Bugna, Sahlee C., Tess Blastique. Description and Analysis of the Protected Areas in the Philippines. 2001. ASEAN Biodiversity.

Büscher, Bram. Wolfram Dessler. 2010. Commodity conservation: The restructuring of community conservation in South Africa and the Philippines. Geoforum 43 (2012) 367-276.

Calacademy. 2011. The 2011 Philippine Biodiversity Expedition. http://www.calacademy.org/science/hearst/

Camacho, Leni D., Marilyn S. Combalicer, Youn Yeo-Chang, Edwin A. Combalicer, Antonio P. Carandang, Sofronio C. Camacho, Catherine C. de Luna, Lucrecio L. Rebugio. 2010. Traditional forest conservation knowledge technologies in the Cordillera, Northern Philippines. Forest Policy and Economics 72 (2012) 3-8.

Capistrano, Robert Charles G. (2009) Reclaiming the ancestral waters of indigenous peoples in the Philippines: The Tagbanua experience with fishing rights and indigenous rights. Marine Policy 34 (2010) 453-480. Castillio, Gem, Trina Isorena, Erol Gatumbato, and Eugene Bennagen. 2010. Development of a Framework and Methodology for Ecosystem Spatial Analysis and Spatial Benefit Cost-Analysis of Ecosystem Conservation in the Samar Island Natural Park: Manual on Ecosystem Spatial Analysis and Spatial Benefit Cost Analysis. Submitted to the United Nations Development Programme by the Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc.

Christie, P. A. White, E. Deguit. (2001). Starting point or solution? Community-based marine protected areas in the Philippines. Journal of Environmental Management (2002) 66, 441-454.

Conservation International, DENR-PAWB, Haribon Foundation. 2010. Priority Sites for Conservation in the Philippines: Key Biodiversity Areas.

Cruz, Rex. 2011. Assessing Land Capability. Presentation to the National Economic Development Authority on the Finalization of the Vulnerability Mapping Exercises und the MDGF-1656, Manila.

DENR-PAWB. 2009. Assessing Progress Towards the 2010 Biodiversity Target: The 4th National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Quezon City: PAWB-DENR.

Estremera, Stella. 2011. Legislated Protected Area Management in the eyes of Indigeneous Peoples of Mt. Kitanglad, the Philippines. http://www.growingforestpartnerships.org/sites/growingforestpartnerships.org/files/Philippines%20PA%20report%20received%2029Nov11.pdf

Gjertsen, Heidi. 2004. Can Habitat Protection Lead to Improvements in Well-Being? Evidence from Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines. World Development (2005) Vol. 33, No. 2, 199-217.

Gollin, K. and J. Kho. 2010. After the Romance: Communities and environmental governance in the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Habito, Cielito F. 2010. An Agenda for High and Inclusive Growth in the Philippines. Mandaluyong City: Asian Development Bank.

Hind, E.J., M.C. Hiponia, T.S. Gray. 2008. From community-based tocentralised national management—A wrong turning for the governance of the marine protected area in Apo Island,Philippines? Marine Policy 34 (2010) 54-62.

Israel, Danilo C. 2010. Weather and climate-related disasters: the cost of inaction. PIDS Policy Notes No. 2010-12, Makati City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Lutz, Ernst, Julian Caldecott (eds.). Decentralization and Biodiversity Conservation. The International Bank for Reconstruction. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 1996.

Maliao, Ronald J., Robert S. Pomeroy, Ralph G. Turingan. 2008. Performance of community based coastal resource management (CBCRM) programs in the Philippines : A meta-analysis. Marin Policy 33 (2009) 818-825.

Mendoza, Marlo D., Romeo T. Acosta, Carlo P. Consolacion, Nestor A. Bambalan, and Joel E. Flores. 2010. Global Resources Assessment: A Country Report- Philipppines. FAO.

NEDA. Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016. 2011. Pasig City: National Economic and Development Authority.

Nelson, Gerald C., et al. 2006. Anthropogenic Drivers of Ecoysystem Change: an Overview. Ecology and Society.

NSCB. 1999. Environment and Natural Resources Accounting (ENRA II) Project: Institutionalizaiton of the Philippine Economic-Environmental and Natural Resources Accounting (PEENRA) System. Annual Accomplishment Report, NSCB, 1999.

PAWB-DENR and GIZ. 2011. An in depth review of the NIPAS Law related statutes on the establishment and management of protected areas in the Philippines. Makati, Philippines, ERDP-GIZ

PCIJ and Tanggol Kalikasan. 2011. Warriors of nature: community action in protected areas. Manila: PCIJ and Tanggol Kalikasan. 70pp.

Peterson, A. Townsend, Lisa G. Ball, Kelly W. Brady. Distribution of the birds in the Philippines: biogeography and conservation priorities. Bird Conservation International, Vol 10, No. 2, 149-167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Posa, Mary Rose C., Navjot S. Sodhi. 2005. Effects of anthropogenic land use on forest birds and butterflies in Subic Bay, Philippines. Biological Conservation 129 (2006) 256-270.

Rickart, Eric A. Lawrence R. Heaney, Danilo S. Balete, Blas R. Tabaranza, Jr. 2009. Small mammal diversity along an elevational gradient in northern Luzon, Philippines. Mammalian Biology 76 (2011) 12-21.

Senga, Rafael. 2001. Establishing protected areas in the Philippines: emerging trends, challenges and prospects. The George Wright FORUM 18(2): 56-65. http://www.georgewright.org/182senga.pdf

Subade, Rodelio F. 2006. Mechanisms to capture economic values of marine biodiversity: The case of Tubbataha Reefs UNESCO World Heritage Site, Philippines. Marine Policy 31 (2007) 135-142.

USAID. 2011. Conserving Tropical Forests and Biodiversity for Human Development and Inclusive Growth: 2011 FAA 118/119 Philippine Biodiversity and Tropical Forestry Analysis. Manila: USAID Philippines.

USAID. 2011. Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation. Final Evaluation Report, USAID Philippines.

van der Ploeg, Jan, Andres B. Masipiqueña, Eileen C. Bernardo (eds.). The Sierra Madre Mountain Range: Global Relevance, Local Realities. Papers presented at the 4th Regional Conference on Environment and Development. Cagayan Valley Program on Environment and Development. Philippines: Isabela State University, 2003.

Verburg, Peter H., Koen P. Overmars, Marco G.A. Huigen, Wouter T. de Groot, A. Veldkamp. 2006. Analysis of the effects of land use change on protected areas in the Philippines. Applied Geography 26 (2006) 153-173.

Walters, Bradley B. 2004. Local Management of Mangrove Forests in the Philippines: Successful Conservation or Efficient Resource Exploitation. Human Ecology (2004) Vol. 32, No.2.

Weeks, Rebecca, Garry R. Russ, Alcala, Angel C. Alan T. White. 2008. Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines for Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology (2009).

Selected References

Photo Credits:Aisa LimBadi SamaniegoCuernosDENR-PAODiovane JoseGTZ-DENRGeorge TapanGregg YanHaribonICCA/PAFIDJames KhoJose Ma. Lorenzo TanK.D. Hill

Klaus NiggeL. HeanyLeornardo CoLory TanPastor MalabrigoPAWB-CITES/Wildlife RescuePAWB-CMMOPAWB-PACMANDR. BrownToppX2ValderramaWWF