Acknowledgements:

Asian Development Bank, Conservation International, Deutsche Gesellschaft

fr 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 9246031-35
Webpage: 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, DENR
and the Ateneo School of Government,
with the support of UNDP-GEF

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
1
Introduction 5
Objectives of the Report 5
Conserving biodiversity through protected areas
6
Biodiversity in the Philippines 6
Protected Areas Management 8
Evolution 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 23
Beyond 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
31
Addressing poverty and open access 32
Sustainable financing and paying for ecosystem services
33
Working 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

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADMP
ADSDPPs

Ancestral Domain Management Plan

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 Peoples Rights Act
IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature
KALAHI-CIDSS: KBB
Kapit Bisig Laban sa KahirapanComprehensive Intergated Delivery of Social Services;
Kaunlaran at Kapangyarihan sa Barangay
KBA
Key Biodiversity Areas

LCA
LGU
M&E
MARPOL

Local Conservation Areas

Local Government Unit
Monitoring and Evaluation
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

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 DENRs 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 DENRs 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 countrys 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 Conventions
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 peoples environmental heritage. Read on then, and put this treasury of knowledge to productive use.

RAMON J.P. PAJE

Department 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. LIM

Director, Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
National 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 VIA, 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 countrys 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 governments 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 MEYER
UNDP 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. MILAN

Professor Emeritus, Visayas State University
Chairperson, PTFCF Board of Trustees

Executive Summary
The Philippines has one of the most diverse biological

community-based approaches to conservation of

resources among all countries in the world, including

biological resources.

the most varied marine living resources. These

biological resources are of global significance because

In 1992, as the international community assembled

of their uniqueness and richness; these are also

for the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, the Philippines

important for the well-being of the Filipino people.

enacted the National Integrated Protected Areas

Filipinos and the rest of the world have a stake in

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

making sure that the Philippines biological resources

evolution of conservation policies in the Philippines.

are conserved for the benefit of present and future

NIPAS provided a standardized system of delineating

generations.

and managing priority areas for conservation. It

recognized, for the first time, the rights of indigenous

Long before recorded history, the indigenous peoples

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

of the Philippines lived in harmony with nature,

local communities dependent on the rich resources for

following unique customary practices that linked

livelihood. Following the trend of community-focused

nature, spirituality and community livelihood. When

and decentralized protected areas management,

the Spaniards and Americans came, they introduced

NIPAS is now attempting to balance the need for

centralized, state-led management to exploit and

conservation and improving the lives of poor people

protect the countrys rich natural resources. The

dependent on the natural resources, while at the

centralized control approach was generally adopted

same time facilitating multi-sectoral responsibility for

by the government of the young Philippine Republic,

protecting these priority areas for conservation.

where conservation areas were largely off-limits to

people, and productive areas were opened for private

Throughout the history of customary practices

ownership or concessions. However, by the 1970s,

and formal legislated norms for protecting natural

government policies began to shift to acknowledge

resources, including twenty years of implementing

that: (1) the natural resources were quickly being

NIPAS, the Philippines has identified 240 protected

exhausted, even in areas designated for conservation,

areas covering 5.4 million hectares of land and sea, or

and (2) communities are part of the conservation

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

areas, with an important role in the utilization and

the vast marine territory. Several of these sites have

management of these areas. The people-oriented

global and regional significance as heritage sites.

conservation policies evolved in the 1980s and 1990s

However, based on current scientific information,

to strengthen shared management responsibilities

designated protected areas cover only 34.82% of the

between the government, and indigenous and local

total Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) identified for the

communities over protected areas. The evolution

country. Considerable resources have been invested in

of protected areas management and the roles

protected areas management over the past decades

of indigenous and local communities paralleled

by the government, local people, bilateral and

the developments in international discussions.

multilateral partners, civil society and private sector.

The experiences in the Philippines have informed

But during times of economic hardships, investments

negotiations and development of international

in conservation decline, while the pressures to cash in

norms, especially on indigenous peoples rights and

on the protected areas resources increase.

Over the years, the country has developed some best

Build broader stakeholder support for Protected Areas

practices and gained valuable insights in protected

and management objectives

areas management that takes into consideration the

increasing pressure of drivers of biodiversity loss and

The biological resources of the Philippines are very

the meager resources available for PA management.

important to the global community because of their

The Philippines has learned important lessons

abundance, diversity and uniqueness. However, there

especially in participatory PA management planning,

is very little information available to the public on what

addressing socio-economic issues, and developing

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

sustainable financing mechanisms. The next stage

people will invest to conserve them, and perhaps pay

of protected areas management will revolve around

to offset or replace the loss of those theyd rather use.

two themes that are intended to sustain the gains

The government has to invest more in an accurate

from experiences and best practices: integration of

information system, and effective communication

conservation into mainstream development planning,

tools to inform stakeholders about the resources

and broadening further the base of governance of

and their values, so that they can make informed

protected areas.

decisions. Accurate reporting of progress also

ensures governance transparency and accountability.

Key recommendations

Rekindling the peoples natural and traditional

affinity to the environment through information

Link protected area to the wider landscape

and knowledge sharing will facilitate conservation

programs.

Protected areas management must handle social and

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

Work together, with common goals but different roles

despite the record of degradation, protected areas

still provide valuable ecosystem goods and services

The Philippine Development Plan (2012-2016) outlines

that people need. Protected areas conservation must

how environmental protection and natural resources

be seen in the broader landscape where the natural

conservation are critical to inclusive economic growth.

wealth continues to provide for the needs of the

In order for inclusive, sustainable growth to be

people. Part of the socio-economic considerations

achieved, economic planners, environmental managers,

of PA management is ensuring equitable access to

entrepreneurs, consumers, indigenous communities,

opportunities, especially for the poor and marginalized

school teachers, prosecutors, judges everyone must

communities who are almost entirely dependent on

have a shared commitment to the common goal, even

natural resources for their livelihood. If the interests of

while pursuing their sectoral interests and priorities.

IP and local communities, entrepreneurs, consumers,

The diversity of stakeholder groups means that each

local and national government are aligned and met by

may have a different perspective of the importance

linking protected areas to the landscape where people

of protected areas, priority actions and the roles

live and make a living, and by equitable allocation of

that stakeholders play. However, there should be a

access to the land and natural resources, there will be

common interest in conserving the natural heritage. A

less competition over the resources that are set aside

lot of the protection objectives can also be achieved,

for conservation.

not only through NIPAS, but by other expanded options

for natural resources management complementing

to complement enhancements in technical capacity.

NIPAS that recognizes the roles of other actors such

There is enormous potential to raise revenues from

as IP and local communities, local governments and

ecosystem services especially since most people

private sector.

are willing to pay, for as long as the management

institution is capable and trustworthy.

Build capacity for Protected Areas management

Maintain Protected Areas for the future through sound
The Philippines currently has an abundance of talent

science and policy

and expertise in all the technical aspects of protected

areas management (biophysical sciences, economics,

Many scientists have expressed the concern that

community development, politics and governance).

despite the significant gains in protected areas

However, the experts are in the academe, private

management, the Philippines is still losing its

sector or in the central offices of government agencies.

remaining forest and coastal ecosystems at an

It requires extraordinary leadership and consensus

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

building skills to bring together and orchestrate multi-

effective in conserving its resources, or not fast enough

disciplinary tasks that require integration of various

in protecting ecosystems at risk. Clearly, government

disciplines and skills coming from different groups

has to rationalize the designation of PAs to cover all

with different priorities. In the specific protected

KBAs, which it is doing though a more rigorous review

areas, the PAMB and protected area staff must

process of PA designation. The government should

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

also broaden the policy and regulatory framework to

that the caliber of site-based protected area staff be

address the drivers of biodiversity and ecosystems

elevated through skills training and clear occupational

loss through proper valuation and resource/land-use

standards. The PAMB should also strengthen its

allocation.

institutional/organizational and financial capacity

Introduction
Objectives of the Report

areas management now, since NIPAS was enacted

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

The Philippines is celebrating twenty years of the

articulated in, the Convention on Biological Diversity

National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS),

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

which was established by law in June of 1992.

country has developed and implemented policies that

NIPAS was created to rationalize the designation

are consistent with its commitments under the CBD.

and protection of outstanding remarkable areas

and biologically important public lands,1 following

The world is now made acutely aware of the impacts

decades of different priorities and programs that

of climate change. Policy makers are cautioned

tried to maximize the economic benefits from the

that there is a risk that the conservation efforts

countrys natural wealth. In the past two decades, the

that governments invest in now cannot ensure that

Philippines has faced tough challenges and learned

the natural resources being protected will remain,

many lessons in conserving its remaining natural

threatened as these already are. Climate change is

resources, particularly its rich and unique biological

expected to aggravate other stresses on ecosystems

diversity. The conservation of biological resources

such as habitat fragmentation, loss and conversion,

through protected areas is a national priority in the

over-exploitation, invasive alien species and pollution.3

Constitution and related laws. The current trend in

This report reflects current thinking in considering

policy is to weave conservation into the fabric of

the impact of climate change on ecosystems and

overall development planning for the country.

biodiversity, and in harmonizing programs for

biodiversity conservation and climate change, echoing

After twenty years of NIPAS, the Philippines is taking

the developments in the international negotiations

stock of its conservation record, documenting and

under both the CBD and the Framework Convention on

consolidating the lessons learned, to ensure that the

Climate Change.

next generation of resource managers has a baseline

to refer to in their effort to address future challenges.

The Philippines is known for its pioneering

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

environmental conservation framework that is

in a candid and transparent manner, the state of

community-focused and where decision-making is

protected areas management, highlighting successes

participatory and multi-sectoral. This is a reflection of

and challenges and presenting summary data. The

the fact that, in the Philippines, communities are so

report draws insights and lessons from the evolution

closely linked to the environment. This is a strength

of conservation policies and programs throughout

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

history and through NIPAS implementation, to guide

on stakeholders to participate in conservation - given

future programs and to encourage broad stakeholder

the enormity of the challenges, the limits of available

support in these programs.

resources and the risks that everyone faces should we

fail to conserve the biological diversity that everyone

This year, the world is also celebrating twenty years

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

of the historic United Nations agreements signed in

dedicated to, and entitled, Communities4 in Nature, to

Rio de Janiero during the 1992 Earth Summit. It is

emphasize the connection.

fitting that the Philippines is taking stock of protected

1 The NIPAS Act, Republic Act No. 7586, Sec. 2
2 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.

Conserving biodiversity through

protected areas
Biodiversity in the Philippines

there is a wide variety of ecosystems that give rise

to the richness in biodiversity, from tropical forests,

Simply put, biodiversity refers to both the totality and

freshwater and oceanic areas. Although none of the

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

Philippine islands is unusually species-rich, so many

defines biological diversity as the variability among

separate islands have different endemic species, which

living organisms from all sources including, inter alia,

collectively makes the archipelago have a large species

terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and

total in relation to its size.6

the ecological complexes of which they are part; this

includes diversity within species, between species and

The Philippines has identified 228 key biodiversity

of ecosystems.

areas7 covering 7.6 million hectares, including 128

terrestrial and 100 marine sites. The KBAs are habitats

The diversity of living things naturally varies

of 209 globally threatened species, 419 endemic

depending on the location on Earth, because of the

species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and

specific conditions in the area, such as temperature,

freshwater fishes, and 62 congregatory birds species.8

precipitation, altitude, soils, and the presence of other

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

species. There is generally higher biodiversity in the

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

tropics, including the Philippines which is among

marine areas.

the Megadiverse countries in the world that host

the most number of different species. The long and

The Philippines is popularly referred to as the global

complex geological history of the Philippines is the

center of marine biodiversity, or the ocean counterpart

primary driver of diversification of ecosystems that

of the Amazon River Basin, because of the rich variety

gave rise to very high levels of endemicity among

of life in its marine ecosystems.

many groups of animals and plants. In the Philippines,

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.

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).

depend on traditional medicines from nature for

primary healthcare.
Biodiversity and climate change are closely linked
Biodiversity is important because living things provide

issues that directly affect human well-being many of

ecosystem services. For example: cleaning the air,

the anticipated risks of climate change are associated

regulating climate, purifying water, pollination, and

with changes in biodiversity (changes in populations

preventing erosion. It is also very important to human

and distribution of disease vectors, scarcity of fresh

health. A significant proportion of modern drugs are

water, impacts on agricultural biodiversity and food

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

resources etc.). Climate change and extreme weather

microorganisms. Indigenous and local communities,

can also destroy ecosystems.

Extreme rainfall during

a super typhoon caused
massive landslides in the
Sierra Madre Mountains.

Protected Areas Management

The concept of having protected areas is not new.

Indigenous peoples often delineate sacred grounds

Protected areas are places designated or set aside

where human activities are prohibited, and designate

for conservation because of their recognized natural,

zones where activities are strictly regulated.

ecological and/or cultural values. Protected area

designation and management are essential for

Today these areas are recognized as Indigenous

biodiversity conservation, and often make up the

Community Conserved Areas (ICCA) areas

pillars of conservation strategies of countries and the

traditionally managed by the community following

international community. In protected areas, human

customary law and tradition.

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 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.

Many protected areas are allocated primarily for

exclusively refer to components of NIPAS. However,

species and habitat conservation, but protected areas

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

are also important for conserving sites of cultural

limited to the components of the NIPAS (consistent

or indigenous importance such as the Ifugao Rice

with international usage of the term), but all areas

Terraces (World Heritage Site), and lately for their

designated and managed for biodiversity conservation,

value in disaster risk reduction and conservation of

including local government- and IP-managed areas

carbon stocks (See Page Imugan).

outside of NIPAS, and marine protected areas.8 The

indigenous community conserved areas may fall under

In modern legal systems, there are several kinds of

any of the IUCN or NIPAS categories, depending on

protected areas, which vary by level of protection

the focus of the customary conservation/utilization

depending on the enabling laws of each country or

activities allowed by the particular indigenous people.

the regulations of the international organizations

The comparability of protected areas classification

involved. The term protected area also includes

is important especially in reporting progress to the

marine protected areas that cover coastal or ocean

international community, such as under the AICHI

ecosystems.

Biodiversity Targets and the Plan of Work for Protected

Areas.

Under Philippine law, Protected Areas (capitalized

here for distinction) are synonymous and often

IUCN

Ia. Strict Nature

Reserve

NIPAS (Sec. 3 and 4)

(a) Strict Nature Reserve

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

Ib. Wilderness Area

Included in strict nature reserve

II. National Park

(b) Natural Park

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

III. Natural Monument

(c) Natural Monument

Essentially the same

IV. Habitat/Species
Management Area

(d) Wildlife Sanctuary

Essentially the same

V. Protected Landscape/
Seascape

(e) Protected landscape/seascape

NIPAS emphasizes opportunities for

recreation and tourism

VI. Managed Resource

Protected Area

(f) Natural Biotic Area

NIPAS emphasizes the preservation of

indigenous culture associated with the
area

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.

Philippines at a glance
Archipelago with more than 7,100 islands
Land area: 298,170 km2
Terrain: mostly mountainous with narrow to extensive
coastal lowlands
Forest 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 population
Infant mortality: 18.75 deaths/ 1000 live births
Life expectancy: 71.94 years (2011 est.)
Urban population: 49% (2010);
Rate of urbanization: 2.3% annual rate of change
(2010-15 est.)
Government: Republic
Administrative 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

Evolution of Conservation
Practices in the Philippines

The indigenous peoples of the Philippines lived

When the Spaniards first came to the Philippines

close to nature and practiced traditional methods of

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

using natural resources that closely associated their

30 million hectares) was covered with forests. The

spirituality with their livelihood.

Spanish colonizers used the timber to build ships for

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

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.

Inspeccion General de Montes, was established by

Royal Decree, to determine the extent of the countrys
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.
Communal forests ensure water
supply for the rice terraces in
Battad, Ifugao.

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

11

---

Chronology of milestones in laws and policies on natural

resources management and biodiversity conservation.

Indigenous forest and

coastal management
practices

1863

1894

1874

1900

Forest Laws and

Regulation for the
Philippine Forest Service
approved by Spain

Inspeccion General
de Montes,
the first Forestry Service
created

Forest Act, which

contained the Philippine
Forest Policy
First Forest Legislation
by the U.S. Govt in the
Philippines

Kaingin (strifting
cultivation) first banned
in forest land

1978

1976

1975

Creation of Marine Parks

Task Force

Establishment of
Environmental Impact
System

Forestry Reform Code

of the Philippines
(P.D. 705)

1985

1987

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

Creation of Forest Management

Bureau, and Protected Areas and
Wildlife Bureau under DENR that
separated once more the functions of
forestry and PA management.

2001

1998

Wildlife Resources and

Conservation Act
(R.A. 9147)

Fisheries Code (R.A.

8550) mandating 15% of
municpal waters as fish
santuaries and reserves

2003
Drafting of the Philippine
Sustainable Archipelagic
Development Framework

12

1904

Caves and Cave Resources

Management and
Protection Act (R.A.
9072)

2006

2007

Integrated Coastal
Management Policy
(E.O. 533)

Issuance of Revised NIPAS

Implementing Rules
and Regulation (DAO
2008-26)

1932

First National Parks Law

(R.A. 3195)

1933

1940

Establishment of
Mt Arayat as one of
the first National Park

Establishment of Hundred
Islands, Lingayen Gulf as
National Park

1974

1972

1953

Establishment of Sumilon
Island Cebu, as first
working municipal marine
reserve

Creation of Bureau of
Forest Development,
merging forestry,
parks and wildlife and
reforestation function

Creation of Parks and

Wildlife Commission with
the primary function of
administration National
Parks and conserving
wildlife

1988
Establishment of
Tubbataha Reefs, Sulu
Sea, as first national
marine park

1990

1991
NIPAS Act
(R.A. 7586)

Preparation of the
Master Plan for Forestry
Development

1992

Enactment of the Local

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

1997

1995

1993

Enactment of Indigenous
Peolples Rights Act, or
IRRA (R.A. 8371)

Adaptation of CBFM as
National Strategy (E.O.
263)

Establishment of Coastal
Environment Program

2009

2010

2011

2012

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

13

The first National Parks law was passed in 193212.

marine protected areas under the community-based

During the American period, the government

coastal resources management (CBCRM) approach.

established several national parks for the conservation

When the Local Government Code (1991) and Fisheries

of natural resources. Among the earliest national parks

Code (1998) were passed, the powers of local

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

government units over coastal resources and fisheries

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

management were strengthened. All over the country,

Pagsanjan Gorge NP (1939) and Hundred Islands

community-based initiatives began to receive the

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

support of local governments in establishing legally

conservation was to prohibit extractive activities

delineated marine sanctuaries. Many of the major

and to relocate residents to areas outside the park

sites of community-based marine protected areas later

boundaries, consistent with the experience of America

became part of NIPAS, such as the famous Apo Island

with its national parks. The government created the

in Negros Oriental.

Parks and Wildlife Commission in 1953 with primary

function of administering and maintaining National

With the resurgence of democratic institutions after

Parks and conserving wildlife. A Reforestation

the EDSA Revolution in 1986, environmental and

Administration was also created in 1960 that was

human rights groups began to focus on rationalizing

tasked to reforest and afforest bare and denuded

the environmental policies of the country. The 1987

forest lands especially critical watersheds. By 1975, the

Philippine Constitution created a new category of

government passed the Forestry Reform Code of the

public domain the national park highlighting its

Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 705) that merged

importance. Establishing a system of protected areas

its forest conservation and utilization functions under

(or national parks) became a priority, encouraged

one agency as it remains today.

by support from donor institutions to conduct basic

scientific and policy studies. The research findings

In the coastal and marine sector, the same pattern

and recommendations led to Congress enacting the

emerged. The Philippines was considered a major

National Integrated Protected Areas System Act in

source of fisheries products because of its rich fishing

1992, which provided the framework for assessing,

grounds in the Sulu-Celebes Sea, South China Sea

establishing and managing Protected Areas important

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

for biodiversity conservation. At present, specific

coasts. The government policy was to maximize

laws and regulations protecting wildlife, fisheries,

fisheries output for its strategic contribution to

cave resources, and genetic resources, and ensuring

exports. Marine ecosystem conservation had its early

biosafety complement NIPAS.

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
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

For areas outside of protected areas, community-based

of indigenous peoples to their land and traditional

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

practices. Five years later, in 1997, the Philippines

80s, borrowing from lessons in communal irrigation

passed a landmark law recognizing and protecting

and CBCRM, where local communities are charged

the rights of indigenous peoples, especially over their

with protecting the resources on which they are

ancestral domains and ancestral lands. Under the law,

dependent for their livelihood. In 1995, then President

indigenous peoples have the primary responsibility,

Fidel V. Ramos issued a major policy adopting CBFM

as owners, for protecting their ancestral domains,

as the national strategy to ensure the sustainable

which often are part of protected areas. Several NIPAS

development of the countrys forestland resources.

Protected Areas, such as Mt. Kitanglad Natural Park

NIPAS later also adopted the same framework in

and Coron Island Protected Area, have developed

developing tenure instruments for community-based

working mechanisms to harmonize the roles and

management of multiple-use and buffer zones in

interests of indigenous peoples, local governments and

protected areas.

national agencies.
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

National Integrated
Protected Areas System
The NIPAS Act, Republic Act No. 7586, was designed

for protected areas. Congress then enacts a law

as a framework law that would rationalize the

specific for each site, taking into consideration the

designation and management of various conservation

evaluation of the site under the System.

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

defined national parks as any portion of the public

The law followed the trend of participatory, multi-

domain which, because of its panoramic, historical,

sectoral decision-making by convening a Protected

scientific, and aesthetic value, should be dedicated

Area Management Board (PAMB) for each protected

and set apart for the benefit and enjoyment of the

area. The PAMB membership includes DENR, relevant

people of the Philippine Islands. As a result, there

national government agencies, all local governments

were overlapping laws, proclamations and executive

with jurisdiction over a part of the Protected Area,

orders setting aside national parks that include

civil society, and indigenous and local community

historical or memorial parks, tourist attractions, along

representatives. With PAMB as the focal point,

with conservation areas. Worse, the 1932 concept of a

delineation, planning and management follows a

national park banned all settlements and hunting. Any

democratic and consultative process.

area declared a national park was designated as some

fortress that no person is allowed to do anything in

The initial implementation of NIPAS was greatly

except administer park duties.

enhanced by three major projects supported by

multilateral donors: The GEF supported ten priority

With the establishment of the Protected Areas and

sites through The World Bank under the Conservation

Wildlife Bureau under the Department of Environment

of Priority Protected Areas Project (CPPAP, 1994-

and Natural Resources in 1987, the policy direction

2002); the European Union supported an additional

of the government was to put all these different

eight priority sites under the National Integrated

conservation areas together under a common

Protected Areas Programme (NIPAP, 1995-2003);

framework, establishment process, and governance

and UNDP-GEF funded the Samar Island Biodiversity

mechanism to comply with the Constitutional mandate

Project (2000-2012).

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

17

Progress in Protected Areas Management

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

biodiversity areas of the country.

PAWB was tasked to provide the strategies and

mechanisms to manage the protected areas now

The Philippines has designated three important

under NIPAS, to be implemented on the ground by

terrestrial biodiversity corridors - Sierra Madre,

DENR field offices, and protected area staff of each

Palawan and Eastern Mindanao as well as marine

site. With NIPAS, PAWBs first task was to assess all

eco-regions that includes bioregions in the South China

these initial components and reclassify them into the

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

internationally recognized categories that defined the

Sea, and the Pacific Ocean.

strategy to protect these sites. PAWB also conducted

a parallel process of assessing whether the initial

Apart from the number of Protected Areas established

components matched the key biodiversity areas of the

and the fulfillment of legal requirements (surveys,

country.

reports, plans, agreements, laws and regulations,

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

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

whether there is improvement in biophysical condition

Protected Areas covering around 5.44 million hectares,

of PAs, quality of life of communities, or increased

one hundred seventy (170) areas covering 4.06 million

benefits to the country.

hectares are terrestrial ecosystems while seventy

(70) areas covering 1.38 million hectares are marine

To be sure, there are a number of successes in

ecosystems. The total Protected Area system of the

specific sites, which are noted in this report. DENR

Philippines is supplemented by a total buffer zone

has developed tools for measuring the impacts of

area of 0.22 million hectares comprised of 0.20 million

protected areas management, but these are still in the

hectares and 0.02 million hectares terrestrial and

early stages of implementation. There are clear policy

marine zones, respectively. However, it is noted that

trends that move the focus of management from the

not all PAs have delineated buffer zones.

protection of particular species or habitat to large

ecosystem and landscape approach, where the whole

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

range of ecological, social and economic issues can be

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

taken into account.

The Philippines 240 protected areas are classified such as follows:

Natural Parks/National Parks (61)
Protected Landscapes (35)
Protected Landscapes and Seascapes (21)
Protected Seascapes (8)
Natural Monument/Landmark (4)
Resource Reserves (2)
Natural Biotic Areas (4)
Game Refuge and Bird/Wildlife Sanctuaries (14)
Watershed Forest Reserves/Areas (56)
Wilderness Areas (12)
Mangrove Swamp Forest Reserves (23)

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

Following the CBFM framework, the DENR developed

had extensive experience in community-based natural

the Protected Area Community Based Resource

resources management and in recognizing the right

Management Agreements (PACBRMA) specifically

of communities to live in harmony with nature.

targeting organized tenured migrant communities

Consistent with the policy, NIPAS recognized that

or indigenous peoples in protected areas and buffer

indigenous and local communities can live within

zones. PACBRMAs are intended to provide security

protected areas, without compromising conservation

and incentives to develop, utilize, manage, conserve

goals. Indigenous and local communities are seen

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

as stewards of the protected areas, where they can

PACBRMAs have been awarded; most of these are in

continue with livelihood activities in designated

Region 2 (Northeastern Luzon) with 22 PACBRMAs.

multiple-use zones, while keeping strict protection

There are also 77 CBFMA is the NIPAS areas and

zones largely untouched.

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,

KIagans 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 Tboli and Ubo indigenous peoples.

Community involvement in the management of

forestlands and natural resources goes back to
community forestry policies in the 80s. Peopleoriented 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.

20

NIPAS complements the management of ancestral

responsibility for managing natural resources in their

domains through harmonization of the Protected

area following traditional knowledge systems and

Areas Management Plan and the Ancestral Domain

often supported by modern technical methods (such

Sustainable Development and Protection Plans

as participatory GIS mapping).

(ADSDPPs). Indigenous peoples have primary

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 birds 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 islands 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 Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) 1997, the countrys 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

Progress on assessing gaps in the protected area network (1.1)

Progress in assessing protected area integration (1.2)
Progress in establishing transboundary protected areas and regional networks (1.3)
Progress in developing site-level management plans (1.4)
Progress in assessing threats and opportunities for restoration (1.5)
Progress in assessing equitable sharing of benefits (2.1)
Progress in assessing protected area governance (2.1)
Progress in assessing the participation of indigenous
and local communities in key protected area decisions (2.2)
Progress in assessing the policy environment for
establishing and managing protected areas (3.1)
Progress in assessing the values of protected areas (3.1)
Progress in assessing protected area capacity needs (3.2)
Progress in assessing the appropriate technology needs (3.3)
Progress in assessing protected area sustainable finance needs (3.4)
Progress in conducting public awareness campaigns (3.5)
Progress in developing best practices and minimum standards (4.1)
Progress in assessing management effectiveness (4.2)
Progress in establishing an effective PA monitoring system (4.3)
Progress in developing a research program for protected areas (4.4)
Progress in assessing opportunities for marine protection
Progress in incorporating climate change aspects into protected areas
Status: 0 = no work, 1 = just started, 2 = partially complete, 3 = nearly complete, 4 = complete
(Insert notes as appropriate)

1. Ramsar Sites

3. ASEAN Heritage Sites

Agusan Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary

Mt. Apo Natural Park

Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park

Mts. Iglit-Baco Natural Park

Naujan Lake National Park

Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park

Olango Island Wildlife Sanctuary

Mt. Malindang Range Natural Park

2. World Heritage Sites (Natural)

4. Biosphere Reserves

Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park

Whole Province of Palawan as Game

Puerto Princesa Underground River

Refuge and Bird Sanctuaries

National Park

22

3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2

Implementation Challenges in Protected Areas

Much of the policy development since the 1980s

Management

has been reforms to tenure issues. With consent

from government, private individuals, community

Conservation and equitable access

organizations and private business entities may

have possession and use of forestland for traditional

The unique challenge that the country faces is that

forestry, pasture, fisheries, agriculture, ecotourism and

protected areas, whether in the uplands or on the

other purposes under short-term permits and long-

coasts, host communities - even entire municipalities.

term leases. In designated NIPAS areas, the DENR

Therefore, protected areas management has to involve

implements a special Protected Area Community-

the people, who are actually part of the ecosystem.

Based Resource Management Agreement (PCBRMA)13

that allows qualified occupants to use delineated

Large-scale destruction of the forest and coastal

zones for livelihood and settlement, compatible with

resources can often be traced to lack of tenure and/

the conservation of the protected area.

or inability to enforce property rights. While the State

owns and controls natural resources, the State is

In spite of the absence of quantitative assessments

largely an absentee landlord. In the absence of clear

of impacts relative to baselines and conservation

property rules, a de facto open access regime prevails,

targets, there are a number of successful examples of

where everyone scrambles to extract as much benefit

communities managing protected areas, where the

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

grant of tenure rights have created some livelihood

to the resources, either by those who have more

stability and sustainability, and enabled communities

power, or by arbitrary application of law enforcement.

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 decisionmaking (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.

Vegetable farming and quarrying in

protected areas in the Cordilleras.

24

Conflict with local autonomy

is just one of the members. NIPAS includes two of

the largest marine Protected Areas (Apo Reef qnd

In the coastal and marine sector, control over fisheries

Tubbataha Reef, which is a World Heritage site).

in nearshore waters has traditionally been given to

local governments, this includes the grant of permits

Apo Island Protected Landscape and Seascape

for various fishing-related activities. The Local

Before the mid-1990s,

Apo Island was often
described as one of the
worlds 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 regimethe 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 Apos marine
protected area (MPA). A system of co-management
between community and national state actors is
essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of Apos
marine resources.

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 is a world-famous dive destination. For decades, local

communities and local officials (led by former Mayor Rodrigo Alalano
above) took care of the island until it became a NIPAS PA in 1994.

25

Provincial Funding
PhP11, 696,000
(US$ 278,500)
13% International Donor,

Sustainable Financing
It is a well-known fact that government budget

PhP9,836,174
(US$ 234,000)
11%

for management of the 240 Protected Areas are

insufficient in both financial and human resources. For
the period 2005-2009, the average annual operating

National Donor
PhP450,000
(US$10,700)
1%

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

National Funding for

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

Private Donor
PhP12,000
(US$285)
0%
Fees &
Concessions
PhP11,101,282.70
(US$264,300)
11%
Others
PhP5,097,792
(US$121,400)
6%

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

Source of data: Anda, Jr. and Atienza 2011

compared to many of its Asian neighbors.

NIPAS created the Integrated Protected Areas Fund

Top ten PAs in revenue generation

(cumulative income through 2011)

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

NAME OF PROTECTED AREA

TOTAL INCOME (PhP)

US$

Ninoy Aquino Parks and

Wildlife Nature Center

78,522,680.00

1,869,587.00

be invested back to protect it.

Apo Island Protected

Landscape/Sea scape

35,420,594.05

843,347.00

In the twenty years of NIPAS implementation, 62% of

13,023,843.00

310,091.00

all protected areas have established their site-based

Hinulugang Taktak
National Park

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

Lower Agno WFR

11,574,963.00

275,594.00

process of establishing the governance mechanism

Upper Agno River Basin

10,625,000.00

252,976.00

Apo Reef Marine Reserve

10,496,877.00

249,976.00

9,330,454.75

222,153.00

5,111,352.17

121,698.00

Mt. Pulag National Park

4,820,707.53

114,778.00

Biak-Na-Bato National Park

4,608,975.00

109,737.00

uncertainty in competing for national appropriation

and ensures that the revenues raised from the site will

(PAMB) as a pre-requisite for establishing the subfund. 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.
26

Taon Strait PS
Manleluag Hot Spring

The other side of the financial challenge is the

In many of the Protected Areas around the country, the

underutilization of IPAF. Seventy-five percent of the

private sector has actively participated and invested

collected money should be retained in the site, while

in management activities that significantly eases the

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

financial and management burden of the PAMB and

administration and support for sites that lack funding.

PA staff.

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

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.

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.

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

international law, the concept of common concern

of humanity evolved as a way to express global

NIPAS follows a long national and international

responsibility without encroaching on a sovereign

tradition of setting aside significant and critical

countrys rights. By definition, a common concern

natural areas for protection or conservation. The

requires international action and necessitates new

global significance of the Philippines in biodiversity

forms of domestic law-making, compliance techniques

conservation is highlighted by the following facts:

and enforcement. Other consequences include the

importance of participation by non-state actors and

It harbors more diverse life forms than any other

country on earth on a per hectare basis;

management of environmental resources at all levels of

governance. 14

It has more than 52,100 described species, of which

more than one half are found nowhere else on earth;

The international community has provided incentives

491 of these are threatened as listed in the IUCN Red

and impetus for biodiversity rich countries to protect

List;

their resources, by providing knowledge and technical

More than 1,130 terrestrial wildlife species have

been recorded; half of these are endemic; 157 are

assistance, financial incentives, support for stopping

illegal activities.

threatened; and 128 are threatened endemic species;

It is one of the most important centers of amphibians

Some sectors worry that with international support

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

comes many obligations that could restrict the country

Asia; 68 are endemic;

in the strategic use of its biological resources, or

It is home to an astounding 576 species of birds, of

impair the rights of indigenous and local communities.

which 195 are endemic and 126 are restricted range

For example, in REDD-Plus, the investments

species, making the Philippines the 4th leading

in reducing deforestation, forest degradation,

country in the world in bird endemism;

sustainable management of forests and carbon-stock

With 174 indigenous mammalian species, 111 of which

enhancements are intended for reducing carbon

are endemic, it has the greatest concentration of

emissions or increasing sequestration of atmospheric

terrestrial mammalian diversity in the world; but it

carbon by forests. In practical terms, the forest areas

also ranked 8th among the most threatened;

dedicated for REDD-Plus are restricted from other

Rate of discovery of new species in the country is

uses, or may use methods that maximize mitigation

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

potentials but are incompatible with conservation of

new species of herpetofauna discovered in the last

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

10 years.

indigenous species in key biodiversity areas. This can

potentially affect the livelihoods of forest dependent

Conserving the Philippines rich biodiversity should

communities. In anticipation of these problems, the

not only be the concern or responsibility of the

REDD-Plus mechanism being developed under the

Filipino people. There is a sensitive line that divides

UNFCCC contain specific governance and biodiversity

state sovereignty over its natural resources and the

safeguards to ensure that achieving the climate

responsibility of all humanity to protect the Earth. In

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

community rights and loss of biodiversity.

The seas of the Philippines are considered

marine equivalent of the Amazon River Basin.

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

29

Recognizing and valuing ecosystem services

conversion into farms and fishponds. These ecosystem

services are often taken for granted and considered

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

free until they become scarce or lost.

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 Palawans 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.

and land-use conversion is prohibited, government

will have to spend a lot of resources to enforce the

In order to make rational decisions on whether to keep

regulations, faced with the pressure to allow people

an area undisturbed as protected area or allow it to be

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

used for other purposes, the true value of ecosystem

value and high cost of enforcement make protected

services must be accounted for in the cost-benefit

area designation and protection a real challenge.

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

have shown the importance of this analysis. The

30

However, the truth is that natural ecosystems

challenge is adopting this as mainstream framework in

produce goods and services that are just as valuable,

deciding appropriate land and sea use, as foundation

if not more valuable, than the benefits derived from

for directing economic development.

Addressing the drivers of biodiversity and habitat

biodiversity and habitat loss. It is common to bargain

loss

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

because these are free and the only cost to recover

Biodiversity and habitat loss can be brought about

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

by natural and/or human-induced causes. Natural

Perhaps out of need and lack of access to better

calamities (for example: earthquakes, typhoons,

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

warming sea surface temperature) can cause

the fisher will have to catch more and more fish to

changes in the environment that affect species

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

and the ecosystem. Human activities may alter

whatever and as much as possible, even if these are

the environment very significantly such that living

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

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

in turn will result in fewer fish and crabs reaching

the natural balance changes, including its ability to

reproductive age, which eventually results in the

deliver the services that the ecosystem produced.

decline of the catch.

The alteration of the environment are intended to

The same issues and principles apply to other

bring benefits to humans such as farming, fishing,

human activities such as mining, urban development,

housing, mining, energy production, etc. However,

ecotourism, and others. Demand for products and

there comes a point where the scale of these changes

services push human activities to larger scales

surpass the ability of the area to maintain the natural

[reducing the natural areas]. Pricing that does not

functions that provide the benefits that humans are

account for environmental costs also drive demand up.

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

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

The impacts of human activities on ecosystems and

water and prevent erosion is also reduced. This may

ecosystem services depend on the scale of these

result in insufficient water for irrigation of the farms,

activities and the resilience of the ecosystems in

loss of fertility of the soils, changes in temperature

absorbing the impacts. Even if human activities are

that are optimal to the crops - changes that cascade

small scale, the location and distribution of these

to reduce productivity of the farms. The demand for

small-scale activities may also result in habitat

more farm products put pressure to cut down more

fragmentation that can just have as much adverse

trees to convert to farms. Designating protected areas

effects as single large-scale human activities.

or watersheds prevent the surpassing of the limits of

what the ecosystem can support to human activities.

Addressing the drivers of biodiversity and habitat

This is the same principle that indigenous peoples in

loss is not a simple matter of enforcement, but must

the Cordillera follow in protecting communal forests

be accompanied by creation of the right economic

above the rice terraces (muyong system).

incentives to and market mechanisms to accurately

account for environmental costs. Enforcement and

The inaccurate pricing of goods and services, which

market mechanisms work together to influence

does not account for environmental costs, also drives

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 governments
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

32

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.

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?

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.

Or mining? There are not enough studies to make a

While NIPAS provides a fee system, whereby

generalized statement. In the absence of convincing

revenues in Protected Areas are channeled back to

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

management activities, most of the beneficiaries of

tried and tested profits from farming and mining has

ecosystem services from protected areas are outside

brought jobs and wealth to many people.

the boundaries of these protected areas. Therefore,

an expanded system of sustainable financing based

But another way of comparing the values is to ask,

on the payment of ecosystem services is needed to

what would be the cost if these resources are lost?

augment the fee system under the law.

TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE

Non-Use Values

Use Values
Direct use
value

Indirect
use value

Option
value

Quasi-option
value

Bequest value

Existence value

Outputs/
services
that can be
consumed
directly

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

Consumptive:
Capture
fisheries
mariculture
aquarium trade
pharmaceutical

Biological support to:

sea birds
turtles & dugongs
fisheries
other ecosystems

*species
*habitats
*way of life
connected to
traditional uses

*threatened reef habitats

*endangered species
*charismatic species
*aesthetic reefscapes

Non- Consumptive:
tourism/ recreation
research/education
aesthetic use

Physical
protection to:
*other coastal
ecosystems
*coastline
*navigation

*species
*habitats
*biodiversity

Global lifesupport:
*Carbon store
*may slowdown global
warming

33

34

Working together
to conserve protected areas

National integrated strategy of sustainable

There are 3 main barriers that limit the effectiveness

economic growth

of the protected areas system of the Philippines in

conserving globally significant areas, namely:
1. Biogeographical representativeness significant

In almost all assessments of the root causes of loss

of natural resources and biodiversity, governance

ecological gaps exist. There is a need to consider

problems are highlighted and well-documented. In the

innovative governance of protected areas to fill these

2011 USAID biodiversity and forestry analysis for the

gaps and conserve biodiversity ultimately;

2. Limited capacity for protected area management

Philippines, which reflects the research and consensus

of policymakers, scientists and civil society, the

there are limited resources for demarcation;

problem of biodiversity loss, is presented in a broader

enforcement is weak; there are deficiencies in

context of economic, socio-cultural, technical and

management systems and tools; the structure and

other factors (See problem tree). Market forces play

functioning management boards of protected areas

an important role in determining peoples decisions

need improvement; and there is no systematized

on the level of exploitation of natural resources. If

framework for monitoring and evaluation for keeping

the environmental costs are not accounted for, the

track of the management effectiveness; and

3. Inadequate systems for financial planning, budgetary

artificially low price of ecosystem goods and services

could lead to over-exploitation. Changing weather

management and revenue generation most of

patterns, natural disasters and climate change impacts

the protected areas are financed entirely out of

have altered ecosystems and caused significant

government revenues; systems to capitalize on

damages from droughts, floods, storm surges, rising

alternative revenue streams from ecotourism and

sea surface temperatures.

ecosystem services are not fully developed; trust

fund mechanism exists but revenue generation has
been limited
PROBLEM TREE

Increased vulnerability
of ecosystem to
climate impacts

Increased vulnerability of
communities to climate
extremes/natural disasters

Increased GHG
emission from
deforestation and
forest degradation

Increased floods, soil

erosion, siltation, landslides

Increased
poverty

Reduced agricultural
productivity, service
areas & food security

Polluted water
sources

Loss of
biodiversity

Breakdown of norms
and traditional/
indigenous knowledge
systems

Increased conflicts on used of natural

resources & reduced availability of water for
irrigation/domestic use downstream

Reduced availability of
water, timber & other forest
products

Reduced soil fertility &

increased vulnerability to
pest/diseases/invasive
species

DEGRADATION OF FOREST RESOURCE AND BIODIVERSITY IN UPLANDS, INLANDS WATER AND COASTAL/MARINE AREAS
Inappropriate conversion of forest to other uses reducing environmental services
Migration to critical zones in forest and coasts; encroachment into conservation areas
Over-harvestingly extraction of forest/biodiv resources
Indiscriminate use of harmful chemical; dumping of industrial, mining, agricultural and domestic wastes
Introduction of invasive species/inappropriate crops/farming systems that destroy habitats or reduce environmental services.
DEMOGRAPHY
Increase
population
Urban
migration
Upland/
Coastal
migration

Source: USAID 2011

NATURAL
Extreme
weather
storm surge
Earthquakes,
volcanic
activity
Increased
SST, sealevel rise

SCIENTIFIC,
TECHNICAL AND
TECHNOLOGICAL
Lack sciencebased NRM:
Inadequate/
Inconsistent
data/
information/
technology for
rational decision
making

SOCIO-CULTURAL
Inability of community
to manage resources:
Low household
incomes/production
lack access to basic
services
Lack empowerment to
exercise civil/political
& economic rights
Low awareness level
on conservation
practices
Lack incentives to
protect public goods

ECONOMIC
Increased demand for forests/
biodiversity products & services,
and land for sommercial &
agricultural production
Individuals vs. Macro-economy
Inability to maximize value
income from natural resources
Poor rural infrastructure
Low agricultural productivity
Poor access to markets
Under-pricing of natural
resources
Lack appreciation on
extremalities associated with
resource use
Global trade

GOVERNANCE
Ambiguous or conflicting, and
antiquated laws & policies
Institution with overlapping mandates
Inappropriate land/sea use planning
Unsecured properly rights; open access
Lack capacity & resources (operational)
Inadequate/inappropriate allocation of
funds & personnel
Short-sighted planning & decisionmaking
Corruption; political intervention
Lack integration of CC impacts on
policies and plans
Budget Allocator (Forestry vs. PA)

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

The deteriorated state of

the countrys 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.

climate change adaptation and disaster management.

PHILIPPINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2011-2016

GOAL
Inclusive Growth
rapid, sustained, creates jobs, draws the majority into the economic and social
mainstream, and continuously reduces mass poverty
Poverty incidence reduced from 33.1% in
1991 to 16.6% by 2015 or less

Growth in real GDP

of 7-8% per year

How to achieve goal

Massive investment in physical
infrastructure
Including for:
Climate proof infra devt
Water supply (IWRM)
Irrigation
Sanitation, septage and
sewerage mgmt.

Human development
KALAHI-CIDSS:
KKB
Conditional
Cash Transfer

Employment
generation
Including in:
tourism
agriculture
fisheries
agroforestry
mining

Complementary strategies
(including ecological integrity
and climate change resiliency
in Chapter 10)

Transparent and responsive governance

Vision for ENR Sector (Chapter 10)
An environment that is healthy, ecologically balanced, sustainably productive, climate change resilient and
one that provides for present and future generations of Filipinos
Strategic Framework
GOAL 1. Improved conservation, protection and
rehabilitation of natural resources
Sustainably manage forest and watersheds
Improve protection and conservation of
biodiversity
Enhance cosatal and marine resources
management
Improve land administration and management
Manage a more equitable utilization of
mineral resources
Develop and implement environment-friendly
enterprise and livelihood opportunities

Source: USAID 2011

36

GOAL 2. Improved environmental quality for

cleaner and healthier environment
Reduce air pollution in Metro Manila and
other major urban centers
Reduce water pollution to improve
water quality in prioirty rivers and other
economically and ecological important
water bodies
Reduce wastes generated and improve
waste disposal
Establish a healthier and livable urban
environment

GOAL 3. Enhanced resilience of

natural system and improved adaptive
capacities of human communities
to cope with environmental hazards
including climate-related risks
Strengthen institutional capacities of
national and local governments
Enhance the resilience of natural
system for CCA and DRRM
Improve adaptive capacities of
communities

Cross-cutting Strategies
Effective environmental governance
Continued institutional strenghtening and capability building
Research, Development, Extension and Knowledge Management
Environment and Natural Resource Financing

Some key actions on biodiversity conservation under

Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources

the PDP include:

and the updated National Wetland Action Plan for

Targeting to have 15 million hectares of forested

the Philippines (NWAPP) as part of the countrys

land, 50 percent of which may be production forest,

commitment to the Convention on Wetlands or

the following will be implemented to increase forest

Ramsar Convention.

cover by 600,000 hectares by 2016;

Assess the effectiveness of management and
implement adaptive management in all protected
areas proclaimed under the NIPAS;
Strengthen management of protected areas in
partnership with local communities through issuance
of security of tenure and provision of alternative
livelihood;
Prepare protected area management plan

Develop and implement the national integrated

coastal management (ICM) program to include
principles, strategies and action plans
Apply the ecosystem approach to the management
of fisheries and other marine resources, addressing
transboundary policy and regulatory concerns;
Evaluate management effectiveness of all MPAs
proclaimed under NIPAS;
Implement the Coral Triangle Initiative National

incorporating vulnerability and adaptability of the

Plan of Action and the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine

sector to disaster risk and climate change

Ecoregion (SSME) Conservation Plan which

Preparation/updating of management plan for

includes designating priority seascapes across the

protected areas and ecologically important habitats

Coral Triangle as geographic focus of sustainable

to include climate change adaptation; and

management;

Operationalize the concept of Payment for

Environmental Services (PES). PES is a mechanism

The Philippines next steps relevant to protected areas

in environment and natural resources management

management in the short term would be to establish

that corrects the flaw in current economic system

sustainable management mechanisms within each

whereby the users of ecosystem/environment

seascape or biogeographic region and implement local

services are made to pay the ENR managers

actions that will redound to achieving coordinated

Implement the National Biosafety Framework,

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

In protecting the environment, indigenous peoples and

local communities perform a vital function that benefit

What is unique about the challenge of protected

the larger community of downstream beneficiaries.

areas management in the Philippines is that these

Yet, this service largely remains unrecognized and

ecologically critical areas are home to indigenous and

unpaid. The poor marginalized communities in fact

local communities. Early policies on conservation

subsidize conservation efforts for the benefit of all.

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

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.

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).
18 See Camacho et al 2010

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 Isabelas 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:
specific indigenous peoples or local communities
are more concerned about the area related to them
culturally or because of their livelihood dependence
on the resources in the area;
the concerned communities are major players, or
have recognized authority (e.g. under IPRA) to
formulate, implement and enforce management
decisions;
the management decisions are consistent with
conservation goals.

40

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
communitys resistance to destructive development
among others (IUCN).

Local Government Conservation Areas

FFM
120,000,000

Local governments are often overlooked in natural

100,000,000

resources management because the management role

80,000,000

has traditionally been performed by national agencies.

60,000,000

However, because of scarcity of budget and personnel,

national agencies are barely able to effectively perform

40,000,000
20,000,000
0

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

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

TOTAL: 351,575,708.00

ISWM
600,000,000
500,000,000

responsibilities with local governments under a co-

400,000,000

management arrangement. DENR provides technical

300,000,000

assistance and capacity building (such as in forest land

200,000,000

use planning) to build consciousness and skills among

100,000,000

local officials to manage the natural wealth from which

0
2005

most of their constituents derive their livelihood.

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

TOTAL: 1,259,478,581.00

CRM

Investments by local governments in natural resources

management increased dramatically in cases where

20,000,000

15,000,000

local governments come to realize the value of natural

resources management in their own development
goals.

10,000,000

5,000,000

However, experience with locally managed

conservation (mostly in the coastal sector) show that
local government officials have short terms of office

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

TOTAL: 96,287,695.00

Data Source: USAID Environmental Governance Project,

Phase 2 .

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.

41

Challenge of adapting to a changing environment

minimize the negative effects of climate change for

example, healthy coral reefs and mangroves protect

The Climate Change Commission is tasked to

coastal areas from storm surges; protected natural

coordinate, monitor and evaluate the programs and

forests prevent floods, landslides and the loss of fertile

action plans of the government relating to climate

soils, at the same time regulate the supply of clean

change. The Commission has drafted the National

water.

Framework Plan to address climate change, anchored

42

mainly on adaptation and complemented by mitigation

As the concept of the Ecotown is further developed

activities. Recognizing that the Philippines is among

through on-the-ground experience, communities

the most vulnerable countries to natural disasters

are developing capacity to also monitor the changes

(such as extreme weather episodes associated with

in biodiversity because of climate change and take

climate change), the Commission is testing the

action to mitigate biodiversity loss for example, the

concept of building climate resilient communities that

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

are ready to adapt to the impacts of climate change

surface temperatures and ocean acidification. After

and minimize the economic and human losses of

all, resiliency is not only about ecosystems providing

natural disasters. The Ecotown concept is based

benefits to communities but also about communities

on the idea that forest and coastal ecosystems help

caring for the ecosystems.

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.

KEF facilitates training for forest

carbon monitoring in the Ikalahan
Ancestral Domain.

Source: World Agroforestry Centre

43

What policy makers can do

In 2001 and 2003, a national and regional

Build broader stakeholder support for Protected Areas

(ASEAN) review of field experiences in protected

and management objectives

areas management pointed to key themes and

recommendations to move forward. Many of the

The biological resources of the Philippines are very

recommendations then have been targeted for

important to the global community because of their

implementation, but can still be enhanced and

abundance, diversity and uniqueness. However, there

instituted. The recommendations are updated here,

is very little information available to the public on what

following the same themes identified then:

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

people will invest to conserve them, and perhaps pay

Link protected area to the wider landscape

to offset or replace the loss of those theyd rather use.

The government has to invest more in an accurate

Protected areas management must handle social and

information system, and effective communication

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

tools to inform stakeholders about the resources

despite the record of degradation, protected areas

and their values, so that they can make informed

still provide valuable ecosystem goods and services

decisions. Accurate reporting of progress also

that people need. Protected areas conservation must

ensures governance transparency and accountability.

be seen in the broader landscape where the natural

Rekindling the peoples natural and traditional

wealth continues to provide for the needs of the

affinity to the environment through information

people. Part of the socio-economic considerations

and knowledge sharing will facilitate conservation

of PA management is ensuring equitable access to

programs.

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.

44

Work together, with common goals but different roles

Build capacity for Protected Areas management

The Philippine Development Plan (2012-2016) outlines

The Philippines has an abundance of talent in all the

how environmental protection and natural resources

technical aspects of protected areas management

conservation are critical to inclusive economic growth.

(biophysical sciences, economics, community

In order for inclusive, sustainable growth to be

development, politics and governance). It requires

achieved, economic planners, environmental managers,

extraordinary leadership and consensus building skills

entrepreneurs, consumers, indigenous communities,

to bring together and orchestrate multi-disciplinary

school teachers, prosecutors, judges everyone must

tasks that require integration of various disciplines

have a shared commitment to the common goal, even

and skills. In the specific protected areas, the

while pursuing their sectoral interests and priorities.

PAMB and protected area staff must provide such

The diversity of stakeholder groups means that each

leadership. It is crucial that the caliber of protected

may have a different perspective of the importance

area staff be elevated through skills training and clear

of protected areas, priority actions and the roles

occupational standards.

that stakeholders play. However, there should be a

common interest in conserving the natural heritage. A

Maintain Protected Areas for the future through

lot of the protection objectives can also be achieved,

sound science and policy

not only through NIPAS, but by other expanded options

for natural resources management complementing

Many scientists have expressed the concern that

NIPAS that recognizes the roles of other actors such

despite the significant gains in protected areas

as IP and local communities, local governments and

management, the Philippines is still losing its

private sector.

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

Personal actions, community actions,

demand for good governance.
There are success stories and failures in implementing

do not buy over-packaged products that end

protected areas management policies and programs,

up in dumps or washed into rivers and seas. Do

and government has much more to do. But we can

not support companies that do not clean up the

help government by being vigilant in demanding better

pollution they generate.

governance, in not contributing to the problem, and

especially in initiating activities that help solve the
problems. Some of these examples are:

5. Support livelihoods of indigenous peoples and

local communities Indigenous peoples have
lived with nature since time immemorial. Perhaps

1. Stop illegal wildlife trade the talking mynah,

their practices have changed today because of

bleeding heart pigeon and hornbills are beautiful in

interactions with other cultures and the market.

a cage, but these are even more impressive if you

But we can still learn from their living past, as

see them in their natural habitat; the corals and

we become more aware of our own rich cultural

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

diversity. Like many IPs, local communities in

aquarium. The syndicates that prey on wildlife and

protected areas are mostly poor people struggling

gullible hobbyists are criminals. They are likely to

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

be involved in other more serious criminal activities

we can provide them the security of basic services,

as well (such as smuggling of explosives used in

they will be more inclined to live harmoniously with

dynamite fishing). Report all illegal wildlife trade and

nature, ensuring that the fragile environments they

dont buy from these criminals.

live in will provide the ecosystem services that the

rest of us need.

2. Reduce consumption of goods produced with high

environmental costs the high demand for French

6. Use alternative materials that are reusable or

fries, meat, exotic foods is driving the conversion of

recyclable Instead of buying furniture made from

forests and coastal areas into farms and fishpens.

fresh cut hardwood (that may come from primary

Buy only what you can consume to avoid waste;

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

refrain from upsizing to save money. Buy locally

made from recycled materials, such as chip board.

produced food to reduce transportation costs and

greenhouse gas emissions.

7. Know where your taxes and environmental fees go

these fees are incorporated in water and electricity

3. Support eco-friendly businesses Support

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

enterprises that are conscious about reducing

vehicles, hotel accommodations), or assessed for

wastes and not harming the environment. For

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

example, do not stay in a resort that severely alters

the use of the collected money may be as varied

the beach or mountain landscape, or indiscriminately

as watershed management, buying garbage trucks,

disposes of garbage and sewage.

building offices of regulatory agencies, basketball

courts, etc. Make sure that you support only the

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,

46

fee systems where money is used directly for

environmental management purposes.

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

48

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.

Selected References
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.

Conservation International, DENR-PAWB, Haribon Foundation.

2010. Priority Sites for Conservation in the Philippines: Key
Biodiversity Areas.

PCIJ and Tanggol Kalikasan. 2011. Warriors of nature:

community action in protected areas. Manila: PCIJ and Tanggol
Kalikasan. 70pp.

Arcenas, Agustin L. Environmental Health: Economic Costs of

Environmental Damage and Suggested Priority InterventionsA Contribution to the Philippines Country Environmental
Analysis . Final Report, World Bank, 2009.

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.

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, 149167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Balooni, Kulbhushan, Juan M. Pulhin, Makoto Inoue. 2008. The

effectiveness of decentralization reforms in the Philippines.
Geoforum 39 (2008) 2122-2131.

DENR-PAWB. 2009. Assessing Progress Towards the 2010

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

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.

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.

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%20
report%20received%2029Nov11.pdf

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.

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.

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.

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.
Bscher, 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.

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 communitybased tocentralised national managementA 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 metaanalysis. 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

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. Masipiquea, 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).
Photo Credits:
Aisa Lim
Badi Samaniego
Cuernos
DENR-PAO
Diovane Jose
GTZ-DENR
George Tapan
Gregg Yan
Haribon
ICCA/PAFID
James Kho
Jose Ma. Lorenzo Tan
K.D. Hill

Klaus Nigge
L. Heany
Leornardo Co
Lory Tan
Pastor Malabrigo
PAWB-CITES/Wildlife Rescue
PAWB-CMMO
PAWB-PACMAND
R. Brown
ToppX2
Valderrama
WWF