Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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
LCA
LGU
M&E
MARPOL
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
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.
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.
Executive Summary
The Philippines has one of the most diverse biological
biological resources.
generations.
protected areas.
Key recommendations
for conservation.
private sector.
allocation.
Introduction
Objectives of the Report
Climate Change.
of ecosystems.
marine areas.
The Verde Island Passage holds the record of the most diverse coral and shorefish species in the world. (Map source: Conservation International)
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.
ecosystems.
IUCN
Comment
Most restrictive category under NIPAS that
allows only scientific use for the area
IV. Habitat/Species
Management Area
V. Protected Landscape/
Seascape
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
11
---
1863
1894
1874
1900
Inspeccion General
de Montes,
the first Forestry Service
created
Kaingin (strifting
cultivation) first banned
in forest land
1978
1976
1975
Establishment of
Environmental Impact
System
1985
1987
Establishement of Apo,
Pamilacan, and Balicasag
Island as no-take Marine
reserves
2001
1998
2003
Drafting of the Philippine
Sustainable Archipelagic
Development Framework
12
1904
2006
2007
Integrated Coastal
Management Policy
(E.O. 533)
1932
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
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
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)
National Greening
Program (E.O. 26)
13
in Negros Oriental.
14
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
Project (2000-2012).
17
country.
18
19
20
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
Status
1. Ramsar Sites
4. Biosphere Reserves
National Park
22
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
Management
23
24
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%
National Donor
PhP450,000
(US$10,700)
1%
Private Donor
PhP12,000
(US$285)
0%
Fees &
Concessions
PhP11,101,282.70
(US$264,300)
11%
Others
PhP5,097,792
(US$121,400)
6%
US$
78,522,680.00
1,869,587.00
35,420,594.05
843,347.00
13,023,843.00
310,091.00
Hinulugang Taktak
National Park
11,574,963.00
275,594.00
10,625,000.00
252,976.00
10,496,877.00
249,976.00
9,330,454.75
222,153.00
5,111,352.17
121,698.00
4,820,707.53
114,778.00
4,608,975.00
109,737.00
(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
PA staff.
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.
27
28
Beyond NIPAS:
List;
10 years.
29
30
loss
deals, the fisher will sell the catch at a low price, but
meet the basic needs of the family. The fisher will sell
31
32
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
*species
*habitats
*way of life
connected to
traditional uses
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
economic growth
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
poverty
Reduced agricultural
productivity, service
areas & food security
Polluted water
sources
Loss of
biodiversity
Breakdown of norms
and traditional/
indigenous knowledge
systems
Reduced availability of
water, timber & other forest
products
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
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
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)
36
Cross-cutting Strategies
Effective environmental governance
Continued institutional strenghtening and capability building
Research, Development, Extension and Knowledge Management
Environment and Natural Resource Financing
Ramsar Convention.
management;
37
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.
38
39
40
FFM
120,000,000
100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
TOTAL: 351,575,708.00
ISWM
600,000,000
500,000,000
400,000,000
300,000,000
200,000,000
100,000,000
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
TOTAL: 1,259,478,581.00
CRM
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
TOTAL: 96,287,695.00
41
water.
42
The Ikalahans of Nueva Vizcaya are known for their pioneering efforts in community-based forest management
using traditional practices, but adapting to the modern context. They were the first to obtain formal recognition
of their ancestral domain rights from the government, through the modern institutional vehicle of the Kalahan
Educational Foundation (KEF). The recognition of their rights gave them control to manage natural resources. KEF
also became the institutional foundation for strengthening cultural identity among the young. In turn, the Ikalahan
traditional forest management practices have become a role model for community-based forest management
(CBFM) in the country.
The Ikalahans have a sophisticated system of forest management where they delineated the forests into different
functions, such as conservation, income-generating and environmental service purposes. Among the IP groups
in the Philippines, the Ikalahans are distinct because of their strong sense of entrepreneurship. While many ethnic
communities continue with traditional practices and knowledge systems, the Ikalahans have adapted their traditions
to modern sustainable agroforestry skills. The community members are encouraged and supported to continue
their organic farming methods. They also run a food processing unit where they sell harvested fruits from their
production forests to generate cash for their basic needs. All these practices were found to be effective in improving
the productivity of the land and in enhancing the quality of forest growth.
In recent years, in response to the challenge to mitigate climate change, KEF established long-term carbon
monitoring of Ikalahan ancestral forests and are negotiating a pioneering forest carbon agreement with Mitsubishi.
With the help of Conservation International-Philippines, KEF recently achieved a certification based on Climate
Community and Biodiversity Standards (CCBS) for its reforestation project.
43
programs.
44
occupational standards.
private sector.
45
46
47
Conclusion
The Philippines is still a Megadiverse country despite
the tremendous loss of biological resources in the
past decades. The remaining natural resources capital
is still considerable, not only for the conventional
value in logs, other forest products and fisheries,
but increasingly because of the value of ecosystem
services that support economic activities and protect
the well-being of the people.
Protected area management is a key strategy in
conserving biodiversity. In the Philippine context,
protected areas management has evolved from
diverse customary practices of indigenous peoples, to
centralized government control that excluded people,
to people-oriented policies to engage IP and local
communities as partners in management, and now to
diversify options that allow locally led (community or
local government) management. With NIPAS, as focal
policy, protected areas management has evolved to
address not just the conservation of natural resources,
but also to ensure the well-being of communities
directly and indirectly dependent on biological
resources and ecosystem services.
Protected areas provide vital ecosystem services that
underlie the economic growth of the country. In the
pursuit of inclusive growth, the government has to
carefully craft policies that protect key biodiversity
areas and fairly allocate access to the limited benefits
that these areas provide, especially to poor dependent
communities.
Integration of conservation and development goals
is even more urgent as the country faces the impact
of climate change on ecosystems, people and the
economy. Conserving biodiversity will allow the
people to better adapt to impacts of climate change.
However, climate change also poses a threat to
biodiversity. Governance strategy must be able to use
protected areas in adaptation, but also be sensitive
48
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.
Klaus Nigge
L. Heany
Leornardo Co
Lory Tan
Pastor Malabrigo
PAWB-CITES/Wildlife Rescue
PAWB-CMMO
PAWB-PACMAND
R. Brown
ToppX2
Valderrama
WWF