UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Bachelor of Science in Tourism

Lovella Anne J. Jose

Angelique Minorka Z. Valones

PERCEIVED IMPACTS OF TOURISM IN A PROTECTED LANDSCAPE:

THE CASE OF BROOKE’S POINT AND QUEZON,
MT. MANTALINGAHAN PROTECTED LANDSCAPE

Thesis Adviser:
Asst. Prof. Victoria H. Villegas

ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TOURISM

University of the Philippines

Date of Submission:
December 2016

Thesis Classification:

This thesis is available to the public

 This thesis entitled

“PERCEIVED IMPACTS OF TOURISM IN A PROTECTED LANDSCAPE:

THE CASE OF BROOKE’S POINT AND QUEZON, MT. MANTALINGAHAN
PROTECTED LANDSCAPE”,

prepared and submitted by

LOVELLA ANNE J. JOSE

ANGELIQUE MINORKA Z. VALONES

are hereby accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN TOURISM

VICTORIA H. VILLEGAS
Adviser

JULINE R. DULNUAN NORMA JEAN A. VERGARA CHARMIELYN C. SY

Panel Member Panel Member Panel Member

EDIESER D. DELA SANTA, PhD

Dean

December 2016

ii
 LIBRARY DECLARATION

We, Lovella Anne J. Jose and Angelique Minorka Z. Valones own the copyright of

this thesis entitled “Perceived Impacts Of Tourism In A Protected Landscape: The

Case of Brooke’s Point And Quezon, Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape”

subject to the provisions of applicable laws, the University’s Intellectual Property Rights

Policy, as well as any agreements with the University and/or external parties. In order to

enable the University to perform its mission of transferring knowledge and technology

for the public benefit, I/we grant to the University a non-exclusive world-wide, royalty

free license to reproduce, publish and publicly distribute copies of this thesis in whatever

form subject to the provisions of applicable laws, the University’s Intellectual Property

Rights Policy and any contractual obligations.

_______Lovella Anne J. Jose______ ___Angelique Minorka Z. Valones__

Printed Name of Student Printed Name of Student

______________________________ __________________________
Signature Signature

_____________________________ ____________________________
Date Date

iii
 THESIS ACCESS PERMISSION

We, Lovella Anne J. Jose and Angelique Minorka Z. Valones, authors of the thesis entitled “Perceived
Impacts Of Tourism In A Protected Landscape: The Case of Brooke’s Point And Quezon, Mt.
Mantalingahan Protected Landscape”, submitted to the Asian Institute of Tourism as partial requirement
for the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN TOURISM, do hereby grant to the UP AIT a
“nonexclusive worldwide, royalty-free license to reproduce, publish and publicly distribute copies of said
thesis/special problem in whatever form subject to the provisions of applicable laws, the provisions of [the
Intellectual Property Rights Policy of the University of the Philippines] and any contractual obligations”
(Art.7, Revised UP IRR Policy, June 3, 2011).

Specifically, the following rights are hereby granted to the UP AIT:

1. to upload a copy of this work in the UP AIT theses database and in any other of its databases available
on the public internet;
2. to publish the work in the UP AIT publications or any of its subsequent journal publications, both
in print format and online; and
3. to give open access to above-mentioned work, thus allowing “fair use” as defined in the Intellectual
Property Code of the Philippines. Provided, that, I be properly acknowledged and cited as the author of this
work.

Lovella Anne J. Jose and Angelique Minorka Z. Valones

Name and Signature

LIMITED ACCESS AUTHORIZATION

(For Potentially Patentable Thesis/Dissertation)

THESIS TITLE : Perceived Impacts of Tourism in a Protected Landscape: The Case

of Brooke’s Point and Quezon, Mt. Mantalingahan Protected
Landscape
AUTHORS : Lovella Anne J. Jose and Angelique Minorka Z. Valones
ADVISER : Asst. Prof. Victoria H. Villegas
DATE SUBMITTED : December 2016
DEGREE : BS Tourism

Permission is given for the following people to have access to this thesis:

Available to the general public: YES

Available only after consultation with author/thesis adviser NO
Available only to those bound by confidentially agreement NO

________________________ __________________________
Student Student

________________________ __________________________
Thesis Adviser Dean

iv
 BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

PERSONAL DATA
Name: Lovella Anne J. Jose

Address: #364 Lunak St., Tabing Bakod, Sta. Maria, Bulacan

E-mail address: lovella.anne@gmail.com

Date of Birth: 14 February 1996

Place of Birth: Sta. Maria, Bulacan

EDUCATION

Secondary Level: Early Christian School, Sta. Maria, Bulacan

Primary Level: San Gabriel Elementary School, Sta. Maria, Bulacan

ORGANIZATIONS

Member (AY 2013-2016), UP LAKAN

WORK EXPERIENCE

● Student Assistant, Library, Asian Institute of Tourism, April 2015 –

December 2016

● Intern, Marketing and Events Management Department, Philippine International

Convention Center, June - July 2015

v
PERSONAL DATA
Name: Angelique Minorka Z. Valones

Address: Tumbagar Rd., San Jose, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

E-mail address: jiqvalones@gmail.com; azvalones@up.edu.ph

Date of Birth: 7 September 1994

Place of Birth: Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

EDUCATION

Secondary Level: Palawan National School, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

Primary Level: Palawan State University-Laboratory Elementary School, Puerto

Princesa City, Palawan

ORGANIZATIONS

Member (AY 2011-2016), University of the Philippines Organization of

Palaweno Students (UP Palawenos)

WORK EXPERIENCE

● Intern, Public Relations and Communications Team, Sales and

Marketing Department, Marco Polo Ortigas Manila, May - July 2016

● VP for Internal Affairs, UP Palawenos, May 2013 - May 2014

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Acknowledgment is extended to the following people who in one way or

another contributed to the realization of the project.

Prof. Victoria Villegas, our thesis adviser, for her valuable feedback, guidance
and understanding throughout the duration of the research project;

Prof. Juline Dulnuan, Prof. Charmielyn Sy, and Prof. Norma Vergara, the
members of the panel, for their patience and valuable suggestions for the improvement
of the study;

Ms. Grace Tabiendo, Ms. Myrna Palencia and Mr. Ruben Ochoa, the AIT
librarians, for their moral support and for letting us use most of the library resources;

Ms. Phing Parungao, the administrative assistant in DAA, for her patience and
moral support;

Our parents, brothers, sisters and relatives for their moral and financial support;

To our college friends, for the company, support and encouragement all
throughout the conduct of this study;

Finally, to the University of the Philippines for the generous grant that enabled the
researchers to complete the study.

vii
 ABSTRACT

Tourism in a protected area is not a new phenomenon. The establishment of a

successful tourism destination in a protected area depends on the cooperation among the
stakeholders. This study explores the importance of the perspective of the stakeholders
and their perceived impacts of tourism in a protected area, particularly, in the
municipalities of Brooke’s Point and Quezon, Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape,
Southern Palawan. Qualitative research was used wherein the researchers conducted
face-to-face interviews and one phone interview to the research participants. From the
transcribed interviews, the researchers then identified the positive and negative impacts
of tourism, and further categorizing these as either social, economic or environmental
impacts. The results showed that among the positive impacts of tourism in the protected
landscape are livelihood programs for the indigenous people, employment opportunities,
promotion of destinations, more investments, and conservation and protection of wildlife
and environment. For the negative impacts of tourism, disturbance of wildlife and
culture, higher prices of commodity, and conflicts among stakeholders were observed.
The study concluded that although there are few tourism activities in the protected area,
the perception of the stakeholders can be suggestive of which direction the management
should take. In the case of tourism, development of the attractions while still taking into
consideration its possible effects to the environment is important.

Keywords: protected area, protected landscape, stakeholder perception, impacts of

tourism, role of tourism, Southern Palawan, Brooke’s Point, Quezon, Mt.
Mantalingahan Protected Landscape

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page………………………..…………………………………………………………i
Approval Sheet………………………..…………………………………………………..ii
Library
.. Declaration………………………..……………………………………………..…...iii
Thesis Access Permission………………………..…………………………………….…iv
Biographical Data………………………..………………………………………………..v
Acknowledgement...……………………..………………………………………………vii
Abstract…………………………….……………………………………………………viii
Table of Contents………………………..……………………………………………..…ix
List of Figure…………………………………………………………………...…...……xi
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….………xii

CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study……………………………………………………...1
1.2 Research Context……………………………………………………………...2
1.3 Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………...4
1.4 Objectives of the Study……………………………………………………..…5
1.5 Significance of the Study……………………………………………………...5
1.6 Scope and Limitation……………………………………………………...…..6
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction.………………………………………….…...…...……………....9
2.2 Related Literature…………………………………………………...…………….9
2.3 Summary of Related Literature…………………………..……..……………23
2.4 Conceptual Framework.……………………………………..…..……….......25
2.5 Definition of Terms………………..……………………………..…….………..26

3. RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 Introduction.………………………………………………………………….29
3.2 Research Design.……………………………………….…..….……….………..29
3.3 Data Collection.……………………………………………………………...30
3.4 Data Analysis.……………………………………………………………..…33
3.5 Research Locale……………………………………………………………...34
4. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………..…………39
4.2 Presentation of Data and Analysis of Findings………………………………39
4.3 Summary of Findings………………………………………………………...65
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………..69
5.2 Impacts and Role of Tourism to the Protected Area…………………………69
5.2 Conclusion and Implication…………………………………….……………71

ix
 6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Introduction……………………..……………………………………….…..75
6.2 Recommendation……………………………………………………..……...75
6.3 Recommendation for future research..………………………………………...77

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….…….79
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………..…….82

x
 List of Figures
1. Location of Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape………………………….…3
2. Conceptual Framework for determining the perceived impacts of tourism…..…25

3. Process of analyzing qualitative data…………………………………………….33

4. A Map of MMPL showing the known tourism related establishments………….36

xi
 List of Tables
2.1 IUCN Management categories of Protected Areas…………………………....11
2.2 Categories of Protected Areas in the NIPAS Act…………………………..….13
2.3 Discoveries of New Species during a Biological Assessment on MMP………15

2.4 Framework of World Commission on Protected Areas for assessing

management effectiveness of national protected areas……..………..……......22
3.1 Respondents Matrix……………………………………………………..……..32
3.2 Total Household Population and Number of Households……………..………35
3.3 Tourism Activities in MMPL…………………………..………..…...…..……37
4.1 Local Community………………………………………………………....…...39
4.2 Organizations…………………………………………………………………..40
4.3 Tourism Establishments…………………………………………………….….40
4.4 Summary of the tourism impacts as perceived by stakeholders of MMPL…...52

5.1 Attributes that positively or negatively affect the stakeholders of a protected

area……………………………………………………………………………..71

xii
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Tourism is now one of the world’s largest and fastest growing industries. For

many developing countries like the Philippines, one role of tourism is an economic driver

for development. The tourism industry may have economic benefits, but it also brings

about negative effects, especially to the environment. Unplanned and mismanaged

tourism destinations can result to the deterioration of the environment. In other instances,

tourism in a sustainable manner that manages resources and visitors well, so that the

future generations may also experience the quality of the destination and its conservation

values (Eagles, 2002), is the ideal scenario. Thus, a compromise between the

environment and tourism is needed.

Worldwide, tourism in natural protected areas is not a new phenomenon but it still

needs new and further knowledge because of the constant changes in the environment over

time (Newsome, Moore, and Dowling, 2013). A protected area is defined as the identified

portions of land and water set aside by reason of their unique physical and biological

significance and managed to enhance biological diversity and protected against destructive

human exploitation (NIPAS Act of 1992). Protected Landscape is one of the categories of a

protected area, making Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape an important area to study.

There are several studies presenting the relationship between protected areas and tourism

(e.g. Foxlee, 2007; Hind et al., 2009; Cui et al., 2012). However, these studies mostly

presented case studies on specific destinations in the

1
Philippines and other Asian countries. Most destinations researched in the review of

related literature had issues in management of the protected area that needed

recommendations from the researcher of each destination.

Protected areas are important to study because of the biodiversity and its

environmental, social and economic values that comprises it. It is also a focal point for

tourism because of the potential of these areas especially for ecotourism activities such

as mountain climbing, bird watching and diving. The changing climate also puts pressure

into maintaining the biodiversity and the economic value of these protected areas making

it extra hard for the managing entities to ensure the protection and preservation of these

areas while still allowing tourists to visit. Furthermore, management of natural areas is

important because management generally begins a form of protection though it is also

insufficient for sustainable management of a protected area as a tourist destination

(Newsome, Moore, and Dowling, 2013).

1.2 Research Context

Mt. Mantalingahan is located about 140 km. southeast of Puerto Princesa City, the

capital of the province of Palawan, Philippines. It is bounded by Victoria Peak in the

north and Mt. Bulanjao in the south found along the central spine of mountain ranges in

South Palawan and is the highest peak of the province at 2,085 meters above sea level.

On June 23, 2009, by virtue of Proclamation 1815, the Mt.

Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL) was formally declared a protected

area by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in order to conserve and

manage the natural resources, while promoting socio-economic development.

2
Figure 1. Location of Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape. (Source: wikimapia.org).

The Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape is a protected area in the province of

Palawan which covers a total land area of 120,457 hectares and lies within the territorial

jurisdiction of five municipalities: Bataraza, Brooke’s Point, Quezon, Rizal, and Sofronio

Española. It is one of only ten sites of the Alliance for Zero Extinction in the Philippines

– sites where species are in imminent danger of disappearing – and is home to

the indigenous people in the province, the Palaw’an.

The main motivating force behind the pursuance of MMPL is its rich and diverse

flora and fauna that are under serious threats from the growing use of timber and non-

timber resources linked with the growth of population and increasing urbanization. It is

important to protect the landscape’s rich biodiversity from the threats and to be able to

manage well the resources for it to be still available for the future generations. Studying

3
protected areas in the context of tourism is also important because it contributes

knowledge that can be disseminated to the locals and management of the study area.

The locals and managing entities in the area can utilize the knowledge to develop or

improve their tourism destination, minimize the threats and implement strict monitoring

of policies.

1.3 Statement of the Problem

As mentioned above, protected areas show promise in the tourism industry

because of its unique physical and biological significance. Understanding the

relationship of protected areas and tourism is important, because of the positive and

negative impacts that tourism can contribute to the area. The sustainable tourism

management of the protected landscape is an important factor in maintaining the

potential and resources of the area. Without proper management, the effect of tourism in

these areas could lead to the degradation of its resources and tourism capability.

Furthermore, protected areas need attention in terms of enhancing planning and control

to avoid conflicts between nature conservation and tourism development.

This study seeks to answer the following research questions: 1.) What are the

impacts of tourism to the stakeholders of Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape? 2.)

What are the stakeholders’ perceptions on tourism in the protected landscape?

The thesis seeks to provide guidance to the present management of the protected

landscape in order to have or maintain a sustainable tourism development management

plan. It also seeks to describe and evaluate issues that arise upon gathering of

information in the study area.

4
1.4 Objectives of the Study

This study aims to identify the impacts of tourism to Mt. Mantalingahan Protected

Landscape in the aspect of development to identify whether tourism is accepted or not by

the residents of MMPL. It also aims to identify how tourism can support the provisions

of the protected landscape then propose recommendations in order to sustain the area’s

characteristics as a potential tourism destination with an effective management in

tourism. The objectives of this thesis in particular are:

1. To identify the social, economic and environmental impacts of tourism in the

protected landscape; and

2. To identify the role of tourism to the stakeholders of the protected landscape.

The study determined the impacts of tourism to Mt. Mantalingahan Protected

Landscape and in the end, recommended an appropriate and effective tourism practices

that are aligned with the landscape’s objectives and provisions, exploring along the way

more proof on why it needs to be protected. It investigated if the local community has an

active participation or cooperation in the management of the protected landscape.

Moreover, to identify the role of tourism in the area whether it is accepted by the

stakeholders or whether the tourism industry is not yet fully received in the area. Finally,

the study looked into the implications of tourism on the social, economic and

environmental aspects of the protected landscape.

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study contributed to the knowledge in researches related to tourism by

providing information regarding the impacts of tourism in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected

Landscape (MMPL) and the relationship between protected areas and tourism. MMPL is

5
a unique case. Because of its rich biodiversity, new species of endemic flora and fauna

were recently discovered. There is even a case where a species of an endemic amphibian

called Palawan toadlet (Pelophryne albotaeniata) initially declared as extinct was

rediscovered after 60 years hidden under its abundant rainforest (Bittel, 2015). It is not

enough to conserve or preserve a place without an appropriate plan. To maintain its

conservation and preservation, proper management and understanding the context is

needed. Furthermore, at this point, there are no studies published yet regarding tourism,

specifically in the case of MMPL. Thus, this thesis is a contribution to the case of Mt.

Mantalingahan Protected Landscape concerning the impacts of tourism perceived by its

stakeholders.

The thesis hopes to provide assistance for future researchers regarding tourism

and how it can affect the protected area specifically in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected

Landscape through looking in the thesis’s gathered data and discussions. It could also be

useful in the formulation of programs and projects in the protected landscape concerning

the stakeholders, natural environment and tourism.

The results of this study are possible reference material for other destinations. It

can be used as a guide in the formulation of a management plan and/or environmental

plan in relation to tourism. This may also be adapted by other Philippine destinations

to further improve tourism, conservation and protection of the natural areas.

1.6 Scope and Limitation

This study focused on the area of Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape,

particularly in the municipalities of Brooke’s Point and Quezon. The stakeholders

6
included in the study are the local community, tourism establishments, MMPL

management, non-government organization (Conservation International) and government

agency (Department of Environment and Natural Resources). This study did not attempt

to generalize or apply completely the findings or analysis of the study in other protected

area destinations. Furthermore, this study is limited only to the context of protected areas

in the form of sustainable tourism, not sustainable tourism’s whole aspect. The study

area also differs from the other tourism destinations of Palawan, particularly in northern

Palawan, wherein the primary products are sun, beach, and island adventures while, so

comparisons were not made between northern and southern Palawan.

This thesis has a number of existing limitations in gathering primary data and

providing a more comprehensive analysis of the study. These include physical and

resource-related limitations: time, availability of data, financial resources, accessibility of

the study area and cooperation of the stakeholders or establishments present around the

area.

First is the limited study period of ten months. The first five months is allotted

for secondary data collection while succeeding months are allotted for field work and

primary data collection in the study area. Since Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape

was only proclaimed on 2009, only a few studies exist regarding its tourism potential and

management. The data gathering period is also limited due to scheduling conflicts,

distance of the study area, and the large area of the protected landscape. MMPL is about

four (4) to six (6) hours land travel from the capital of Palawan, Puerto Princesa City,

which is also an hour and a half flight from Manila. Some areas are also not accessible

because of security threats, as advised by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)

7
troops in the area. The researchers also wanted the inputs from the tourism officer of the

province which would also be beneficial for this study so efforts were exerted to contact

the office but due to the busy schedule of the tourism specialist, primary data from the

tourism office is non-existent in this study. Finally, the researchers employed extra

effort in the cooperation in the stakeholders and establishments in the study area because

of the lack of professional connections which resulted to limited respondents. Some of

the contacted respondents were suddenly not available during the data gathering trip to

the study area, so the researchers had to resort to other methods like a phone interview

instead of the face-to-face interview.

8
 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Introduction

The link between tourism and protected areas is substantial as tourism activities

rely heavily on the importance of the natural environment (Foxlee, 2007). Protected areas

are also becoming immersed in the role of tourism in supporting conservation initiatives,

thus identifying the impacts and stakeholders of the area a critical component to consider

in its role in tourism.

This chapter discusses the related literature reviewed regarding protected areas,

perceptions of stakeholders on tourism impacts, impacts of tourism to protected areas and

tourism in protected areas, followed by the conceptual framework used in this research.

2.2 Related Literature

The review begins with a definition of protected areas, followed by the

stakeholders’ perceptions on tourism impacts, impacts of tourism in protected areas

and the summary of reviewed literature. The results and relationships of the studies

found were also identified and compared. These results and relationships have

significance because it provides comprehension and guidelines related for this study.

2.2.1 Protected Areas

2.2.1.1 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is a “membership Union

uniquely composed of both government and civil society organizations. It provides public,

private and non-governmental organizations with the knowledge and tools that

9
enable human progress, economic development and nature conservation to take place

together”. It is an international organization working in the field of nature conservation

and sustainable use of natural resources. It is involved in data gathering and analysis,

research, field projects, advocacy, lobbying and education. IUCN's mission is to

"influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve nature and

to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable,”

(International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2016).

According to the Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management

Categories by the IUCN, a protected area (PA) as 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 (Dudley, 2008, p. 8). They are classified in different categories such as nature

reserve, wilderness area, national park or protected landscape that can be land, inland

water, coastal or marine areas, or a combination of such. Diverse objectives and

restrictions apply to each IUCN protection category. However, all categories pursue the

principle of conserving biodiversity and maintaining diversity of landscape or habitat.

The IUCN categorized protected areas into six categories with each having

different management objectives to reflect recognition that conservation is not

achieved by the same route in every situation (Dudley, 2008, p. 3). Found in Table 2.1

is an overview of the different categories and their description according to the

guidelines of IUCN.

10
 Table 2.1. IUCN Management Categories of Protected Areas, (Dudley, 2008).

Category Description
Ia. Strict nature reserves ● strict control and limitation of human
visitation, use and impacts
● managed mainly for scientific research
Ib. Wilderness areas ● usually large unmodified or slightly
modified areas
● focus is on preservation of the areas’
Ib. Wilderness areas ● usually large unmodified or slightly
modified areas
● focus is on preservation of the areas’
natural character without permanent or
significant human habitation
II. National parks ● large natural or near natural areas
● managed mainlyfor ecosystem
protection, education and recreation
III. Natural monument or feature ● generally quite small areas with a huge
visitor value
● managed mainly for conservation of
specific natural features (e.g. submarine
cavern, cave, landform)
IV. Habitat/species management areas ● managed mainly for protection through
management interventions
V. Protected landscapes/seascapes ● areas of distinct character with
significant ecological, biological,
cultural and scenic value
● formed by high interaction of people
and nature
● managed mainly for conservation and
recreation
VI. Protected areas with sustainable use of ● generally large areas
natural resources ● managed mainly for sustainable use of
natural ecosystems and conservation of
cultural values

As evident from the descriptions above, the extent of human involvement differs in

every category. Managing a protected area bearing in mind the benefits while pursuing the

principle of conservation is economically beneficial for tourism development. It

11
should be noted, however, that the designations of each of the IUCN categories are not

fixed. The classification is rather a framework to guide improved application of the

categories and it is up to each country to decide which category and term describes their

protected areas best (Dudley, 2008, p. 3).

2.2.1.2 National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS)

In the Philippines, Republic Act No. 7586, also known as the National Integrated

Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992, was enacted to secure for the Filipino

people of present and future generations the perpetual existence of all native plants and

animals through the establishment of a comprehensive system of integrated protected

areas within the classification of national park as provided for in the Constitution. In this

research, the definition provided in Section 4(1) of the National Integrated Protected

Areas System Act of 1992, which states that the “National Integrated Protected Areas

System (NIPAS) is the classification and administration of all designated protected

areas to maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems, to preserve

genetic diversity, to ensure sustainable use of resources found therein, and to maintain

their natural conditions to the greatest extent possible,” was used for consistency. Like

in the IUCN, the NIPAS Act of 1992 also established protected area categories with

their description applicable to the Philippine scenario as summarized in Table 2.2.

12
 Table 2.2. Categories of Protected Areas in the NIPAS Act adapted from Dudley,

2008.

Category Description
I. Strict nature reserves ● outstanding ecosystem, features
and/or species of flora and fauna of
national scientific importance
maintained to protect nature and
maintain processes in an undisturbed
state managed mainly for scientific
research
II. Natural parks ● relatively large area for scientific,
educational and recreational use
III. Wildlife sanctuary ● assures the natural conditions
necessary for protection of nationally
significant species or habitats through
management interventions
IV. Protected landscapes/seascapes ● provides opportunities for public
enjoyment through the recreation and
tourism within the normal lifestyle
and economic activity of these areas
● characterized by the harmonious
interaction of man and land
V. Resource reserve ● an
extensive and relatively isolated and
uninhabited area normally with
difficult access
● designat
ed to protected natural resources of
the area for future use and prevent or
contain development activities that
could affect the resource
VI. Natural biotic area ● set aside to allow the way of life of
societies living in harmony with the
environment to adapt to modern
technology at their pace

Moreover, RA 7586 mandated that there be a management plan for these

protected areas that “promotes the adoption and implementation of innovative

13
management techniques including if necessary, the concept of zoning, buffer zone

management for multiple use and protection, habitat conservation and rehabilitation,

diversity management, community organizing, socio-economic and scientific researches,

site-specific policy development, pest management, and fire control. The management

planning strategy shall also provide guidelines for the protection of indigenous cultural

communities, other tenured migrant communities and sites for close coordination

between and among local agencies of the Government as well as the private sector.” In

comparison, the categories and the definitions provided by the IUCN and NIPAS were

somehow similar altered only in some aspects but nevertheless the same. Some categories

posed by the IUCN are not present in the NIPAS, while those that are similar do serve the

same purpose. This indicates that although there is a global standard set and followed by,

if not all, most of the countries, there are still some variations that are specific and

applicable and/or not available or applicable only to a particular country, like the

Philippines.

Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape in Southern Palawan, a newly proclaimed

protected area and the focus of this research possesses huge economic value making it

incredibly important that protective actions be taken to safeguard it from human induced

threats such as illegal uncontrolled logging, pressure from several mining firms, and possible

degradation of its environment as increasing number of tourists, mostly mountaineers,

discover its beauty and potential to become the next ecotourism attraction. Mt.

Mantalingahan’s uniqueness and ecological character also made it popular to researchers to

conduct scientific expeditions. These expeditions provided new plant

14
 and animal discoveries. The table (Table 2.3) below shows the recent discoveries of

new species in the protected landscape.

Table 2.3. Discoveries of New Species during a Biological Assessment on MMPL

Common Name Scientific Name

Scincid lizard Sphenomorphus traanorum

Attenborough's pitcher plant Nepenthes attenboroughii

Ultramafic-growing sundew Drosera ultramafica

Note: Data for Scincid lizard from Linkem, Diesmos and Brown, 2010, for
Attenborough’s pitcher plant from Robinson, Fleischmann, Mcpherson, Heinrich,
Gironella and Peña, 2009, for Ultramafic-growing sundew from Fleischmann,
Robinson, Mcpherson, Heinrich, Gironella and Madulid, 2011.

Table 2.3 shows that MMPL hides within its dense forests an abundance of

resources that makes it a primary candidate for protection, preservation, and proper

management.

Numerous studies regarding the biodiversity of MMPL were conducted or are

currently ongoing. In the context of tourism and development, it is understandable that there

exist limited or no studies available given that it has only recently been declared as a

protected area by virtue of Proclamation No. 1815 dated June 23, 2009. This study aims to

aid as early as now in developing a management or tourism plan that is reliable and useful to

be used in the protection, conservation and development of the protected area. By assessing

and identifying the impacts, and taking into consideration the perspective of the stakeholders,

suggestions to further improve on those identified and focusing on where it is vulnerable is

beneficial to avoid possible degradation and eventual ruin if preventive measures will not be

taken. By conducting tourism-related studies, the misconceptions between preservation,

conservation and development by means of tourism being on the opposite sides of the

spectrum will be deconstructed. This study

15
aims to show that harmonious co-existence between nature and humans is possible

if proper measures and strict compliance with the guidelines and law will be taken.

2.2.2 Stakeholders’ Perceptions on Tourism Impacts

A definition of a stakeholder is “any group or individual who can affect or is

affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman 1984). It also

means that the manager of an organization should ensure the stakeholders’ rights and

participation in decision making. On the other hand, perception is “a process by which

organisms interpret and organize sensation to produce a meaningful experience of the

world” (Lindsay & Norman, 1977). In other words, a person is faced with a situation

wherein he/she interprets the situation into something meaningful based on his/her

experience. However, a person’s interpretation may be different from reality since

every person has different experiences.

The stakeholders theory developed by Freeman (1984) is a common theory used

in stakeholders research and study, however it is most common in organizations or

corporations context which include stakeholders as stockholders. In the tourism context,

the important stakeholders for the planning and implementation of projects include

residents, tourists, employees, government, local business, competitors, activist groups,

educational institutions (Perić, Đurkin and Lamot, 2014). From the stakeholder theory

perspective, a very important viewpoint on tourism is the functional approach to the

management, if developed properly, tourism can maximize positive impacts to the

community and environment while minimizing the negative impacts to the environment

and culture of a tourism destination.

16
 The stakeholders’ perceptions on tourism is a way of understanding the positive

and negative impacts of tourism through their experiences in specific tourism destinations

(Stylidis, 2011).

2.2.3 Impacts of Tourism in Protected Areas

Tourism has both positive and negative impacts to the environment and its

stakeholders. However, the impacts received by a protected area may differ to the

impacts received by another area. Though, one apparent impact of tourism is its

economic benefits. Belsoy (2012) studied the positive and negative impacts of tourism in

protected areas. The positive impacts include creation of employment, increase in the

economic levels, promotion of conservation of natural spaces, minimizes the migration of

the local population, improvement in the economic and socio-cultural level of the local

population, commercialization of the local products, exchange of ideas, costumes and

sensitization of the tourist and local population for protection in the environment. Belsoy

(2012) pointed out that tourism is an intensive sector of employment. On the other hand,

the negative impacts include rising consumption of land, water, energy and destruction of

landscapes with the creations of new infrastructures, rise in production of wastes,

alteration of ecosystem, loss of traditional habits, increase in prostitution, narcotic traffic,

more forest fires and increase in the prices of goods and services.

In the study of Strickland-Munro and Moore (2014), the study area focuses on

Kruger National Park in South Africa and Purnululu National Park in Australia. The

identified positive impacts include intrinsic opportunities and benefits from nature

conservation, associated cultural values and employment while negative impacts include

damage-causing animals and visitation difficulties. It was also mentioned that interaction

17
of local people with tourists was limited with a sense of disconnect evident. It was

revealed that the associated views of local people in Park tourism as an activity reserved

for rich tourists rather than the locals. The findings indicated that the need for

multifaceted, carefully considered policy responses if social equity and benefits for local

community are to be achieved. Strickland-Munro and Moore (2014) also mentioned that

framing the impacts of protected area tourism through the resilience framework provided

a useful way to access local community perceptions while retaining awareness. The

resilience approach acknowledges the importance of understanding interactions among

components and provides alternatives. In addition, it is a broader, interdisciplinary

approach sensible of multiple interacting variables and perspectives allows exploration of

the complex relationships among system components.

Another study in tourism impacts, Libosada (1998) illustrated a case in Banaue and

Sagada in the Philippines. He mentioned that the people in Banaue have their political

system in a village level. The community developed a legal system based on a customary or

an unwritten law. In relation to tourism, the locals started to rely their income mostly to

tourists because of the regular tourist groups and individuals that travel to their area. The

caves in Sagada are also overused, damaging the limestone formations through souvenirs

collectors and vandals. The growth of ecotourism activities in the Philippines contributed to

the degradation of the environment and natural resources. To minimize the negative impacts

of tourism activities, Libosada (1998) identified the negative impacts of some ecotourism

activities and its mitigating actions. For mountaineering or trekking the negative impacts are

trail erosion and damage, garbage accumulation, disturbance of wildlife and culture

shock/degradation. Some mitigating

18
actions proposed were determining the carrying capacity of the trails, placing garbage

receptacles in strategic points (e.g., campsites, jump-off and starting points), putting up

signage reminding trekkers of wildlife sensitivity, and gathering information on the

culture in the destination before going inside the area or conducting a cultural

consultation.

There are a number of existing positive and negative impacts of tourism to

protected areas. However, these impacts are not all applicable in one destination. The

destinations have benefits or negative effects of tourism depending on the variables (e.g.

activities, policies, environmental or visitor management) of the area. Belsoy (2012)

studied the impacts of tourism in protected areas as a whole, while Strickland-Munro and

Moore (2014) studied two national parks. On the other hand, Libosada (1998) studied

two sites in the Philippines. The three studies mentioned that tourism is an economic

driver that creates employment to the locals. Though, there are also a number of negative

impacts of tourism to be considered that needs mitigating measures such as mishandling

of tourists in an ecotourism site or poor management of the area.

2.2.4 Tourism in Protected Areas

The growth of economy associated with the nature-based tourism and ecotourism

acquired protected areas as tourism destinations (Dharmaratne, Sang and Walling, 2000).

However, the relationship between tourism and protected areas is complex. One reason

is that conservation and development may contrast in the protected area. Tourism may

focus on its economic benefits in the protected area that may lead to construction of

facilities, amenities and so on. On the other hand, the protected area which is a natural

area with ecological and biological importance also needs to be conserved or preserved.

19
In line with this, proper management and implementation of policies may be essential in

achieving both conservation and economic benefits of tourism and also minimizing its

negative impacts in the protected areas.

Tourism in most natural or protected areas relies on a combination of different

management strategies and actions (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006). A study of Foxlee

(2007) mentioned that integrated management approach is the most desirable approach

promoted in most guidelines to date (p.53). An integrated management looks at different

aspects of the tourism environment such as natural, social and cultural environment to

accommodate visitors. Foxlee added that being flexible and adaptive to changing

environment is also essential in tourism management and planning in protected areas.

Here are the guidelines provided by Foxlee (2007) for integrated management

approaches directed at governments and managers of protected areas:

1. Deal with the demands on the land and contribute to conserving

the environment and culture while generating income.

2. Coordinate the allocation of land-use, regulate activities that

damage ecosystems by strict implementation of policies.

3. Specific measures must be developed to ensure tourism activities

remain within the carrying capacity and limits of the natural,
cultural and social environment of the area.

4. Governments, non-government organizations, local communities

shall take actions in integrating planning of tourism as a
contribution to sustainable development.

5. Define appropriate policies, management plans, and interpretation

programs for tourists and allocate sources of funds for natural areas
to manage the number of tourists, protect the ecosystem and to
protect sensitive habitats.

20
 Few issues were mentioned in the study of Foxlee (2007) such as the skills and

knowledge of communities in the tourism industry that needs to be addressed by the

protected area managers. This includes the ability of the communities to engage in decision

making process. However, he concluded that it is important to have guidelines to encourage

action towards sustainability and recommended that more concrete outcomes can be sought

and achieved with common vision and participation from key stakeholders.

Foxlee (2007) focused on the integration management approach. Scherl and

Edwards (2007), on the other hand, discussed the three most common models of tourism

management in protected areas and their association with communities. These include

community-managed, private sector/non-governmental organization (NGO)/government

managed, and joint ventures. The joint venture management model is the combination of

the community and the private sector/NGOs or government managed. Joint ventures

have the potential to establish equitable community partnerships, contribution to

conservation and tourism if it is managed effectively and sensitively (Newsome et al,

2013; Scherl and Edwards, 2007).

The issues related to governance and PA-based tourism ventures mentioned are

the challenges in making decisions, lack of training, capacity, capital, and conflicts

among local community. The recommendations given by Scherl and Edwards (2007) are

their view on the role of protected areas and their potential to support tourism activities,

empower local and indigenous communities to be active partners and managers of

tourism ventures within or surrounding protected areas, establish conflict resolution

systems and negotiation protocols, develop and implement mechanisms for

compensation of negative impacts, make good use of existing resources and so on.

21
 In the aspect of effectiveness of management in protected area, Cui, et al (2012)

examined the management effectiveness of the national protected area in Yellow River

Delta based on the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of the IUCN

framework (see Table 2.4).

Table 2.4. Framework of World Commission on Protected Areas for assessing

management effectiveness of national protected areas. (Cui et al, 2012).

Focus Elements Criteria

Design issue Context Significance; threats; vulnerability; national
Context
Planning Protected area legislation and policy; protected
area system design; reserve design;
management planning
Delivery of protected Output Results of management actions; services and
area objectives products
Outcomes Impacts: effects of management in relation to
objectives

The results of the study of Cui et al. (2012) showed that the management of

Yellow River Delta Reserve is basically good in terms of budget management,

community involvement, resource monitoring, biodiversity investigation, education

awareness and community co-management. However, an issue mentioned was the strict

partition management cannot be implemented. To address the existing issues, the

authors of the said study recommended the management to enhance publicity and

investment, coordinate balance between protection and exploitation, take effective

protective measures to protect rare and endangered wildlife, and also increase

environmental publicity and education.

2.2.5 Tourism in Protected Areas of the Philippines

In the Philippine context, Hind, Hiponia, and Gray (2009) presented the transition of

the Apo Island’s community-based management into centralized national state

22
management, Protected Area Management Board (PAMB). Their findings are the

PAMB’s exclusion of stakeholders’ participation in decision-making, lack of financial

transparency, failure to protect fishing grounds from divers, no change in the socio-

economic status of residents and its poor environmental performance. Their study

concluded that NIPAS Act limits the management and a system of co-management

between community and national state is essential to ensure the sustainability of the

island’s resources. The top-down governance mandated by the NIPAS Act created

conflicts between the community and officials, thus the author recommended that

Apo Island must decentralize its management.

In another study in the local context, Quiros (2006) examined the compliance of

tourists in the Code of Conduct for whale sharks in Donsol, Philippines. The impacts of

tourism on whale sharks and the effectiveness of management in minimizing these

impacts through observations of the behavior of whale sharks and compliance of tourists

in the policy were examined. The study revealed that whale sharks become violent when

tourists touch them which were 82% of the sample tourists under observations on

human interactions in whale sharks. It showed that strict enforcement of policies is

needed to minimize negative impacts of tourists to whale sharks. Quiros (2006) added

that management which includes monitoring can pinpoint influential management issues

and decrease conflicts between stakeholders. Governance also influences effectiveness

of management through providing its structures (Newsome et al., 2013).

2.3 Summary of Literature Reviewed

Tourism affects the environment either directly, indirectly or cumulatively which

could determine the sustainability of tourism and its related activities in the protected

23
areas. The participation of the stakeholders are important in the management of a tourism

destination in relation to the stakeholders theory developed by Freeman (1984). Similar

positive impacts mentioned by Belsoy (2012), Munro (2014) and Libosada (1998) above are

the creation of employment and the benefits from nature conservation. One important

findings of Munro (2014) was the being disconnected of the local community to the tourists

because of their perception that the national park is only for rich tourists. It is essential

because the local community is one of the stakeholders of the area.

Moreover, several studies have mentioned that empowerment and encouragement

of local communities in participation in decision making of tourism in the protected area

are essential in managing a protected area or tourism destination (Foxlee, 2007; Scherl

and Edwards, 2007; Hind et al., 2009). Edgell (2006) also added that if the communities

manage tourism well, they can gain the economic benefits, conserve the environment

and improve social conditions. Moreover, other studies stated that having strict

enforcement of policies, protective measures and guidelines/monitoring for the local

community and tourists regarding the environment were also a key for successful

tourism managed destination (Quiros, 2006; Foxlee, 2007; Cui et al., 2012).

The main issues discussed in this stream of literature evolved around the local

communities and policies in the protected areas. For local communities, the issues

were lack of skills and knowledge in participating on decision-making and conflicts

among themselves. As early as 1980s, the communities began to be more concerned

about the environment and environmental impact and economic impact statements had

to be prepared for major project developments for tourism (Edgell, 2006). Successful

management relies on adequate planning, knowledge, implementation and monitoring

24
(Newsome, Moore, and Dowling, 2013). However, balancing between the environment

and development is still a most difficult activity that needs to be planned sustainably.

The development of a tourist destination might have negative impacts to the environment

and sometimes, to the community. Several studies mentioned conflicts among

stakeholders, thus resulting to a poor performance of tourism and bringing some negative

impacts to their area (Scherl & Edwards, 2007; Hind, Hiponia & Gray, 2009; Strickland-

Munro & Moore, 2014). Monitor and evaluate for management effectiveness based on

the concept of sustainable planning is recommended (Satumanatpan, Senawongse,

Thansuporn and Kirkman, 2014). Also, one important principle of sustainable

development of tourist destinations was the management should integrate the planning

program of tourism with non-government organizations and local communities (Hüttche,

White and Flores, 2002). Furthermore, the tourism industry is also a technique to

conserve and protect the natural areas with tourism potential.

2.4 Conceptual Framework

Figure 2. Conceptual framework for determining the perceived impacts of tourism

Figure 2 above depicts the conceptual framework used in the study. The

framework explains that tourism led the impacts to the stakeholders which has positive

25
and negative impacts and the factors determined to the stakeholders’ perceptions are the

social, economic and environmental conditions. The stakeholders include the local

community, tourism establishments, managing entity of the protected landscape,

government and non-government organization that resides and operates within the

jurisdiction of MMPL. As described in the IUCN and NIPAS protected area categories, a

protected landscape is an area with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic

value, characterized by harmonious interaction of man and land, managed mainly for

conservation and recreational purposes. By this definition, understanding the relationship

of people and nature is paramount in establishing a tourism development plan for

MMPL. The perception of the residents living within the area is vital in considering the

intended plans for the protected area. It was proposed that stakeholder’s theory is the

basis in the development of the conceptual framework of the study.

2.5 Definition of Terms

● Biological diversity or biodiversity – the variability among living organisms from

all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems

and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity

within species, between species and of ecosystems. (NIPAS Act of 1992)

● Buffer zones – are identified areas outside the boundaries of and immediately

adjacent to designated protected areas pursuant to Section 8 that need special

development control in order to avoid or minimize harm to the protected

area. (NIPAS Act of 1992)

26
● Code of conduct – a set of rules outlining the social norms and rules and

responsibilities of, or proper practices for, an individual, party or organization.

Related concepts include ethical, honor, moral codes and religious laws.

● Integration management – effective direction of every aspect of an organization

so that the needs and expectations of all stakeholders are equitably satisfied by the

best use of all resources. (Dalling, 2007)

● Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL) – a key biodiversity area

nestled in the southern part of the Palawan Man and Biosphere Reserve and is the

area of study of this research. (NIPAS Act of 1992)

● National park – a forest reservation essentially of natural wilderness character

which has been withdrawn from settlement, occupancy or any form of

exploitation except in conformity with approved management plan and set aside

as such exclusively to conserve the area or preserve the scenery, the natural and

historic objects, wild animals and plants therein and to provide enjoyment of these

features in such areas. (NIPAS Act of 1992)

● National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) – it is the classification and

administration of all designated protected areas to maintain essential ecological

processes and life-support systems, to preserve genetic diversity, to ensure

sustainable use of resources found therein, and to maintain their natural conditions

to the greatest extent possible. (NIPAS Act of 1992)

● Protected Area – refers to identified portions of land and water set aside by reason

of their unique physical and biological significance, managed to enhance

27
 biological diversity and protected against destructive human exploitation. (NIPAS

Act of 1992)

● Stakeholders - “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the

achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984).

28
 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the research methodology used in this study to answer the

research questions stated in Chapter 1 (section 1.3). It consists of the research design,

data collection, participants, instruments and data analysis.

The research design used was qualitative method. This study seeks to determine

the impacts of tourism in the Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape and the

participation of different stakeholders that are essential especially in decision making.

The interview respondents are the stakeholders which include: local communities,

tourism establishments, government and non-government organization and the

Assistant Superintendent of the Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.

3.2 Research Design

Qualitative method was used in this study to seek the impacts of tourism in Mt.

Mantalingahan Protected Landscape and from there, develop a framework or guideline

applicable in the local context. Qualitative research was preferred to be used in this

study because an in-depth study and understanding is needed to determine the tourism

implications and impacts to the stakeholders of the study area. Interviews with the

stakeholders were analyzed, interpreted and assessed to evaluate the impacts of tourism

in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape, thus determining the role of tourism to the

area.

The research design relates the framework used in the study on constructing

interview questions on which the integrated answers of the stakeholders were

interpreted and assessed the data about the impacts of tourism in the protected area.

29
3.3 Data Collection

Before being allowed to conduct a study in MMPL, researchers had their study

approved by the PAMB or the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB). After the

submission and completion of all the requirements set by the management, careful

examination and deliberation was performed by its research committee, before

recommending the study for approval to the executive board. The researchers went by the

process and were eventually granted permission to conduct the research in the protected area.

The research application requirements and process can be seen in Appendix A.

In-depth interviews were used in this study to answer the research questions of

this study. According to Punch (2005), an interview is a very good way of finding out

people’s perceptions, meanings and definitions of their experiences. In other words,

conducting an interview is the best preference in collecting data for a qualitative research

study. The interviews for each resident depend on the questionnaire for them. Individuals

from the local community and the tourism establishments took about 10 to 15 minutes,

while government officers and the MMPL official took about 30 to 45 minutes. Lastly,

the phone interview with the NGO representative lasted for 40 minutes. The matrix of

respondents was shown in Table 3.1.

3.3.1 Research Participants

a. Local Communities – Local people usually have an intimate knowledge of a protected

area though they may have little knowledge on how it is managed. Their participation is

important because they may have information and insights not shared by the protected

landscape managers. A convenience sampling was used to determine the interviewees on

the households who lived near a tourist destination within the protected

30
area in the municipality of Brooke’s Point. In other words, the residents who were

available or convenient for the researchers to interview at the time of data gathering

were interviewed because of difficult accessibility reasons. Interviews were also set to

be conducted in Quezon but because of security threats, the researchers were advised not

to pursue it anymore.

b. Tourism Establishments – These are the owners/managers or employees of any

tourism business establishments within the study area. These establishments already

existed even before the proclamation of of MMPL given that there already exists tourism

activities in the study areas. Their insights also helped in terms of determining the status

of tourism in the area.

c. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) PALAWAN –

The insights of a government agency that concerns the environment also helped in the

study especially in the aspect of environment in the protected area.

d. Assistant Protected Area Superintendent (PASu) – An interview to the

Assistant PASu of the protected landscape was an important data to be interpreted and

analyzed by the researchers because the study also aims to determine if the

management of the study area is effective.

e. Conservation International – Insights from a non-government organization that

sits on the Protected Area Management Board is also essential data for the study.

31
Table 3.1. Respondents Matrix

Establishment/Office/Group Designation Age Years in Office/Years in

business/Years residing in
area
1. MMPL Management Asst. PA 48 9
Superintendent
2. DENR-CENRO Quezon Forester I 23 1

3. Conservation Project Manager 46 14

International, Philippines
4. Brgy. Mainit, Brooke’s Pt., Resident 19 19
Palawan
5. Brgy. Mainit, Brooke’s Pt., Resident 50 50
Palawan
6. Tourism Establishment- Employee 25 8
Quezon, Palawan
7. Tourism Establishment- Employee 23 4
Quezon, Palawan
8. Tourism Establishment- Owner 74 20
Brooke’s Pt., Palawan

There were a total of 8 respondents or stakeholders that were interviewed in this

study. The respondents include two households, three tourism establishments, one of each

in government employee, MMPL management and non-government organization.

3.3.2 Research Instruments

Interviewee’s information sheet was provided to the respondents to acquire

some of their basic information. It was mentioned above that in-depth interviews was

conducted. First, letters of request (see Appendix B) were sent to the interviewees that

needed an interview schedule. Semi-structured interview method was used for

interviewing the stakeholders in this study. There were guide questions for the

interviewers that aided the researchers to gather further information pertaining to the

32
impacts of tourism from the perspectives of each research participants. There were also

appropriate follow-up questions to understand more the situation of the area during the

interview. Moreover, the questions that were asked (see Appendix C) only applied to

the respondent’s role on the study site (i.e., resident, tourism establishment owner, Asst.

PASu, etc.). The questionnaire was developed and based on the stakeholders theory. The

interviews were voice recorded upon the approval of the interviewee.

3.4 Data Analysis

The figure (Figure 3) below describes the process of analysing the qualitative data

of this study.

Figure 3. Process of analyzing qualitative data

The content analysis approach was used to the interpretation of data. First, the

recorded interviews were transcribed by the researchers and then grouped the interviews

according to the type of stakeholder (e.g., household member, tourism establishments,

33
government). Answers from the interviews were analyzed and interpreted through

reflecting and understanding the meaning of transcripts by the researchers to find out the

perceived impacts of the stakeholders by categorizing it into three categories: social,

economic and environmental. The transcribed interviews were scanned and categorized

based on which impact is most likely related to apply (e.g. social impact, economic

impact and environmental impact). The transcribed interviews were also summarized

based on the data gathered and insights of the researchers on each stakeholders (e.g.

residents, DENR, tourism establishments, etc.). It is important to compare each data of

the transcribed interviews. Determining also on how it fits with the other components of

the study is essential such as the issues or whether tourism development is supported by

its stakeholders. The results showed that tourism is indeed supported by the stakeholders

and a number of positive and negative impacts of tourism were perceived on each of the

identified social, economic and environmental impacts.

3.5 Research Locale

Mt. Mantalingahan is a key biodiversity area and one of the eleven sites of the

Alliance for Zero Extinction in the Philippines and one of the eleven bird areas in

Palawan (Alliance for Zero Extinction, 2005). Moreover, an estimated 79% of the

total land of MMPL is primary forest (Protected Area Management Board, 2010).

There are 2,951 households within MMPL, with a total of 12,625 individuals.

34
Table 3.2. Total Household Population and Number of Households adapted from Mt.
Mantalingahan Management Plan, 2010

There is an existing management plan of MMPL in 2010 and there is also a

revised version in 2016. However, the revised plan is still not yet published or available

to the public. The plan was published by the Protected Area Management Board. The

vision of MMPL is “Towards a protected environment, managed by a responsible and

united citizenry with high knowledge and awareness and sustainable livelihoods, and has

regard for others and faith in God” and its mission is “To maintain, protect and enrich

the biodiversity in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape”. The vision and mission

describes that the plan contains information focusing on the protected landscape’s

biodiversity and its importance. According to the plan, tourism and tourism

establishments were minimal in the protected landscape and the entire Southern

Palawan. It was also mentioned that one of the objectives is to develop a tourism plan

partnered with the provincial/municipal tourism office, Association of Travel and Tour

Operators of Puerto Princesa (ATTOPP) and NGOs. However, there is still no available

plan specified for tourism for the protected landscape as of now. A simple look on

tourism related establishments around MMPL can be found on the figure below:

35
 Figure 4. A Map of MMPL showing the known tourism related establishments. H
stands for accommodation facilities while R represents F&B establishments.

To get to MMPL, the options are either to ride a passenger van or bus from the

San Jose Terminal in Puerto Princesa between 5AM to 1PM or hire a private vehicle.

Since MMPL covers a large area, and has five municipalities with jurisdiction over it,

travel time also varies depending on the destination municipality. From Puerto Princesa,

going to Quezon, 146 km away, will take about 2.5 hours of travel, to Rizal, 206 km

away, will take 4.5 hours, to Bataraza, 218 km away, and to Brooke’s Point, 206 km

away, will take about 3.5 hours.

36
 There is also a variety of tourism activities within MMPL that the tourists can

enjoy. These activities are hiking, trekking, mountaineering, wildlife viewing, caving

and eco-cultural tours. Below (Table 3.3) is a table of the activities, its locations and the

local administrator of each destination that can be found in MMPL.

Table 3.3. Tourism activities in MMPL

ACTIVITIES LOCATIONS LOCAL ADMINISTRATOR

Peak of Mantalingahan, Ransang, Barangay Council

Rizal (3-day hike to reach the
peak)

Tres Marias, Panalingaan, Rizal Barangay Council Bangsa

(3 hours hike from Sitio Kadulan) Palawan Philippines, Inc.
Hiking, trekking, (BPPPI)
mountaineering,
Kamantian, Brooke’s Point Barangay Council
wildlife viewing
Maruyog Ecological Park, Municipal Tourism Office
Brooke’s Point (30-minute ride
from Poblacion)

Kapangyan and Lalatuan Falls, Bonobono-Malihud-Bulalacao

Bataraza Multipurpose Cooperative

Mantayob Falls, Bunog, Rizal Barangay Council

El Salvador Falls, Sofronio Municipal Tourism Office

Española

Caving Tau’t Bato, Ransang, Rizal Barangay Council and

Municipal Tourism Office

Amas Samahan ng mga Palawano sa

Amas, Brooke’s (SPABP)
Eco-cultural
Panalingaan Bangsa Palawan Philippines,
Inc. (BPPI)

37
 The study area was chosen on the basis of it being a relatively-new established

protected area. There are many potential nature-based and cultural tourism destinations

within the protected landscape that is distinct from what Palawan typically offers. This

also serves as a chance to reinforce Palawan’s stature as the Last Frontier in terms of its

biodiversity wealth and exquisite natural sceneries. This implies that changes and

recommendations according to the result of this study could be implemented and adapted

early on for a long-term successful protected area management. MMPL is also among the

primary projects of Conservation International Philippines wherein through the

management plan, is focused on the shared goal of zero net loss of forest and ecosystem

services in the protected area. Mount Mantalingahan forests are valued at US$5.5 billion

in the ecosystem services they provide to people. They also play an important role in

absorbing and storing carbon – an essential component in the solution to climate change.

It is a key biodiversity area, where new species are still being discovered, and recognized

for this value as it is one of only 10 sites of the Alliance for Zero Extinction in the

Philippines and one of 11 important bird areas in Palawan. The rich culture of the

indigenous Palaw’an also thrived for thousands of years in MMPL. The active

participation and cooperation among the local and national government, NGOs, local

communities, and indigenous people, was also a deciding factor which made MMPL a

perfect area for studying.

38
 CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, presentation, analysis and interpretation of data were done to

understand and answer the research questions of the study presented in Chapter One.

This chapter also presents the major findings of this study derived from the interviews.

The respondents of the interviews were presented and the data gathered were analyzed in

order to identify the impacts of tourism and its role to the protected landscape. The

presentation of data and analysis of findings discussed the perceptions of the stakeholders

to tourism obtained from the transcribed interviews, next is the tourism impacts to the

area, issues were also identified and the role of tourism was determined in the area.

4.2 Presentation of Data and Analysis of Findings

The profile of research participants were summarized and divided into three

tables: local community, organizations and tourism establishments. The local respondents

of the interview were shown in Table 4.1. Next, interviewees from government and non-

government organizations were shown in Table 4.2 while participants from tourism

establishments were shown in Table 4.3

Table 4.1. Local Community

Location Age Occupation Sex Designation Years of

Residence

Brgy. Mainit, 19 Student Female Member of the 19

Brooke’s Pt., Palawan household

Brgy. Mainit, 50 Housewife Female Member of the 50

Brooke’s Pt., Palawan household

39
 The two families both reside in the municipality of Brooke’s Pt., Palawan and

one representative from each of the families was interviewed. We have interviewed the

household member who was immediate after the head of the family. However, we have

interviewed the eldest child of a household since her parents were not available at that

time. Next, a housewife was interviewed.

Table 4.2. Organizations

Sector Age Sex Designation Years in

Position

MMPL Management 48 Female Forester III/Assistant 9

Protected Area
Superintendent

Government Agency 23 Female Forester I 1

Non-government 46 Female Project Manager 14

Organization

The Assistant Protected Area Superintendent was interviewed since the PASu

was not available at the time of interview. Available employee of DENR was also

interviewed in the municipality of Quezon. Moreover, the project manager of the

Conservation International Palawan has also participated in the study.

Table 4.1. Tourism Establishments

Nature of Business Age Sex Designation Years of

Operations/Years
in Position

Accommodation 74 Female Owner 20

40
 Nature of Business Age Sex Designation Years of
Operations/Years
in Position

Resort 23 Female Employee 4

Accommodation and 25 Female Cashier 9

Restaurant

For the tourism establishments, one owner who also resides in Brooke’s Pt. was

interviewed while two employees from Quezon available for the interview were selected.

4.2.1 Interview Findings among the Stakeholders

This section presents the findings on the different stakeholders about the tourism

development and other questions mentioned in the interview on the protected landscape.

Furthermore, additional essential findings or issues were also discussed which were

obtained from the transcribed interviews.

4.2.1.1 Residents

The residents interviewed were from Barangay Mainit in Brooke’s Point, Palawan

who lived near the foot of MMPL and a nearby tourist destination, the Mainit Falls or 7

Falls. Originally, the heads of the family was supposed to be interviewed but

unfortunately, they were not home because of work. The researchers then interviewed the

eldest among those whoever was present in the households they have visited.

The respondents were already living in the area long before MMPL was

established and Mainit Falls was developed so they have known and experienced the

41
changes that had happened. According to the interviews, their way of living had changed

since developments were made in their community. Mostly positive because it brought

many services near their area which is far from the town proper, and it generated jobs

for them. Tourists were generally well-received by them, as long as the visitors behave

accordingly.

When the Mainit Falls was first being established, the Municipal Tourism Office

valued the local residents’ involvement in the project and even offered those jobs. They

were consulted, taken into consideration, and eventually promised that they will benefit

from the development of the falls. Of course, they were happy because they will have a

livelihood and they will also have the chance to promote Mainit Falls to the public. At

first, the Municipal government lived up to its promise, but as years went by and the

management changed and turned over to a private organization, the locals felt that they

were being edged out, and eventually, they were.

4.2.1.2 Tourism Establishments

The establishments interviewed were familiar with MMPL, but admitted that their

main motivation in putting up their business was not because of its declaration as a

protected area. It is obvious given that MMPL was just established in 2009 and some of

the interviewed started their business much earlier. Aside from that, there are other

reasons aside from MMPL in their putting up of the business.

In Quezon, Palawan, most of their guests were visiting Tabon Cave, which was

the site of one of the earliest settlements in the Philippines. These visitors were mostly

composed of foreigners, researchers, students, and tourists who wanted to see where and

42
how our ancestors lived. As for Brooke’s Point, Palawan, it is often a venue for huge

events of the province and other major seminars so a lodging house is not a bad

business idea.

These businesses value the environment so on their own, they practice

segregation, recycling and proper waste disposal. They follow the local government’s

laws and regulations and always ensure that their permits are up to date. They also

submit their visitor count to the local tourism offices to help track the visitor statistics of

their municipality. However, there is no coordination with the MMPL management and

PAMB yet, but they are familiar with significance of MMPL to the municipalities within

its jurisdiction.

4.2.1.3 Department of Environment and Natural Resources - CENRO

The DENR-CENRO (Department of Environment and Natural Resources -

Community Environment and Natural Resources Office) is located in Quezon,

Palawan but it has jurisdiction in two municipalities: Quezon and Rizal. The

interviewed DENR employee is from the planning department, so the answers from the

interview questions might be limited but still essential for this study.

DENR-CENRO conducts Information, Education and Communication Campaigns

(IEC) and capacity building to enforce their crusades concerning the conservation of the

environment. It was mentioned that IEC is the basic tool to communicate the information

regarding their programs. They promote it through coordination with the 36 barangays of the

two municipalities, 25 barangays in Quezon and 11 barangays in Rizal. It turns out that the

participation of the locals depends on the effort of the barangay officials. The

43
factors that also affect the participation of the locals are the subject or purpose of the

IEC, the locals’ relation and interest on the topic and the timing of the IEC. According to

the interview, the local people were interested in topics with relation to land use more

than the environmental programs. Furthermore, sometimes the locals also have work so

they were not able to participate.

There is coordination between DENR and the PASu, although it is not strong since

the MMPL was purely managed by the Protected Area Superintendent or PASu. It was

mentioned that an assigned personnel with a project would work with other sectors which

is multitasking. It shows that the coordination among different sectors is visible.

In the tourism aspect of the interview, they were in favour of tourism since the

tourists get their permits from them before they will be allowed to hike. However, they

do not have specific rules and regulations directed to the tourists because the tourists

already have a guide to the mountain. DENR will provide the contact of the tourists’

guide. With the assumption that the mountain guide will be responsible for properly

informing and guiding the tourist, it means that the tourist is responsibility of the guide.

The payment and rules or regulations to the tourists are in the hands of the guide. The

interviewee is in favour of tourism, but it was also mentioned that there should be

limitations since MMPL is a protected area, meaning the wildlife may be disturbed. On

the other hand, a positive effect of tourism is the alternative livelihood programs for the

IPs.

According to the interview, the tourism establishments were properly oriented to

their waste disposals. However, Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) is assigned

44
in the monitoring of the resorts, restaurants and so on. On the safety and security aspect

of the MMPL, there were assigned guards called the ‘green guards’ on the protected

landscape. They have been patrolling in the area for twenty four hours every day since

they live there.

There is no specific future plans of DENR mentioned in the interview. However,

DENR has an event called ‘People’s Day’ wherein different stakeholders will raise

their concerns within the day. It was not regularly conducted because of the different

constraints such as availability of organizers, participants and the funds. Furthermore,

DENR is always a member of organizations concerning the environment such as the

Environmentally Critical Areas Network (ECAN). ECAN is enforcing the conservation

and protection through the imposition of total logging ban in all areas of maximum

protection and other restricted zones, where MMPL is also a member.

4.2.1.4 MMPL Office

The MMPL management is clear on its vision of protection and conservation of

the mountain range and all living things thriving within its bountiful forests. Nestled in

the rainforest of MMPL are various endemic and endangered species of flora and fauna

that are either newly discovered or on the verge of extinction. In cooperation with the

LGUs, DENR, PNP, NGOs and the IPs that live in the mountains, they make sure that

MMPL is a place where humans, plants and animals live harmoniously and benefit from

each other without the risk of being overused and abused.

Before, MMPL was just a mountain range, but because of the efforts and

initiatives of the LGUs that has Mt. Mantalingahan in its jurisdiction, in 2009, it was

45
declared as a protected area. The Protected Area Management Board composed of

seventy-one (71) members makes the policies pertaining to the protected area and is

headed by the Regional Director of DENR-MIMAROPA and meets twice a year. It is

composed of the five (5) Mayors of the five (5) municipalities, the Governor of the

province plus the thirty-six (36) barangay chairs, five (5) representatives from the IP

community, from the academe, the youth sector, and civil society, together with the

Philippine National Police, Western Command, and Department of Agriculture among

others. Still, before anything else, PAMB consults first with the stakeholders before

arriving to decisions, especially on important matters.

The management spearheads IEC (Information, Education, and Communication)

campaigns and evaluates the activities based on their Working Financial Plan. The

activities are, of course, in line with the General Management Plan of MMPL and they

check whether these support their cause. However, all the activities done in MMPL

must be approved first by the PAMB. For example, extraction of raw materials like

almaciga, resin, rattan, and the likes must first be approved by the PAMB, wherein they

will issue an endorsement letter. Incidentally, they only allow IPs because that is their

traditional practices and it is the main source of income for most of them. It stands to

reason since they’ve been living and taking care of the mountains ever since, and they

should be the primary beneficiary of the fruits that the mountain bears.

In monitoring and patrolling of the protected area, since MMPL covers a large

area, the management delegates the task and coordinates with the LGUs, barangay

councils, and tribal leaders to help maintain the security and implementation of rules

inside the PA. Although they can not ensure that everyone follows the implemented rules,

46
they are confident that most respect the rules because there are sanctions and penalties for

those who will be caught in violation of the laws of the PA. Insurgencies and terrorist

presence like the Abu Sayyaf were confirmed by the military situated in the mountains but

the management says that they only take refuge and just go in passing in the mountains. To

date, there is no reported incident of civilians harassed by these groups.

For the tourism establishments, as mentioned a while ago, the MMPL

management does not have jurisdiction over them, as well as for the municipal tourism

offices. However, they are in constant communication with the provincial tourism office

for trainings and seminars in relation to tourism. Most of the tourists who visit MMPL are

mountaineers. Most of the feedback that they get from mountaineers is that MMPL is a

challenging climb and has a unique biodiversity. However, those who wish to climb Mt.

Mantalingahan can’t do so unless they get a permit from the DENR-CENRO office in

Quezon, Palawan. They need the permit to acquire a guide when they reach the jump-off

point in Ransang, Rizal. The guides are all IPs, and they are instructed to not accept

climbers who do not have permits. This also helps the management in monitoring those

who climb the mountain for their safety and security. Also included in the permit are the

dos and don’ts so the climbers will be guided accordingly. Aside from the conservation

fee that the climbers pay at the CENRO Office, the guide was also supposed to be paid by

the climber for Five Hundred Pesos (P 500) per day, and must also be provided with food

and beverage for the duration of the trip.

The management is very optimistic that tourism can be very helpful, especially

to the local communities, given the proper planning and implementation. They believe

that when development is brought to the PA, the first beneficiaries should be the locals,

47
especially the IPs, but they must be readied first because there is a possibility that they

will be abused and be overwhelmed by the influx of benefits. So, among their future

plans is to bring the handmade products of IPs to the public by having an avenue where

they can showcase local produce and have the IPs sell them at a reasonable price, since it

takes them days to get down from the mountains, only to be haggled on their prices by

other people. Currently, they are campaigning for MMPL to be included in the

UNESCO World Heritage Site List so that their vision and mission of protection and

conservation will be strengthened and ultimately have an international backing.

4.2.1.5 Conservation International Philippines

Conservation International or CI saw the potential of MMPL before it was

declared as a protected area because of reports of its biodiversity and capacity to host and

sustain endemic and endangered species of flora and fauna in addition to the rich culture

of the indigenous Palaw’ans that has been living there for thousands of years. In the

beginning, before it was MMPL, the area was managed by the LGUs. This NGO they

came into the picture and helped them in establishing, guiding the management, and

coming up with the management plan of MMPL. For the environment, they conducted

biodiversity checks, research expeditions in the protected area, and partnering with the

LGUs and DENR to protect and conserve the wildlife in MMPL. For their programs and

campaigns, they have distributed information materials of their researches, and relayed

them to the designated offices, and through DENR’s social media account. They also

made a website for MMPL where the materials were published but when they turned

over the account, the website was forlorn because the management was not able to pay

for the webhosting fees making it unavailable for present use. CI is empowering and

48
encouraging local communities to protect their natural resources through conservation

agreements, which incentivize community protection activities. Hundreds of families

have taken part – and learned the value of conservation along the way – transforming

communities from resources users into responsible and sustainable resource managers. In

some communities, there is actually a leader whom they constantly communicate with

and to where they coordinate to implement their information dissemination and

educational campaigns.

CI’s role in the MMPL can be traced way back wherein they have provided

legal and management advice to the authorities, supporting research and documents in

the campaign for it to be a protected area. Up until now, the organization supported law

enforcement campaigns and consulted with various stakeholders on how to strengthen

MMPL’s laws to protect it from abusers. Because of its knowledge and success in

handling other protected areas from all around the world, CI was also instrumental in

proposing resolutions, rules, and regulations to the PAMB for the betterment of the

protected area.

Tourists, especially mountaineers, pay a fee to the DENR Office in Quezon before

being allowed to enter and climb the mountain. The collections remain unused. It was

difficult for PAMB, where CI was given a seat as form of thanks for their efforts in

providing assistance to MMPL matters, to decide where to appropriate the cash but a lot

of suggestions were taken into consideration. Setting up a bank account for MMPL was

the best option. A resolution was sent to the regional office of DENR, yet up until now,

the cash was still not put into a bank yet.

Tourism is welcomed and encouraged but there are worries that the environment and

49
the culture will be gravely affected if not managed effectively. The IPs, in particular, might

be overwhelmed by the influx of tourists. The environment’s delicate condition might be

compromised. Tourism potential is evident and they are optimistic about it but CI

believes that it is not yet ready for such development. They are also exploring how to

present Southern Palawan as a distinct destination from Palawan’s other famous beach

destinations namely Coron, El Nido, and Puerto Princesa. Market study was also being

conducted to establish Southern Palawan as a new destination where tourists can also

go while in the province. Employment of the locals, especially the IPs which comprises

more than 90% of MMPL’s population, is seen as the positive effect of tourism. On the

other hand, there are concerns that the nature and culture will be disrupted if such

activities were not regulated. For this, education, trainings, and guidance and assistance

to the implementing bodies are their solution.

CI gets their funds from the Global Conservation Fund, where a hefty donation

was made by the Betty and Gordon Moore Foundation. Recently, CI acquired a $1M

dollar donation for the benefit of MMPL but it deemed not enough. They estimated that

a total of $3M dollars is needed for the minimum management support, operations, and

financial requirements of MMPL, so efforts to acquire the $3M are vigorous. The funds

were allocated depending on which stage the project is currently in. For example, for the

scoping phase, funds were used in the research and assessment of the area. For the

planning and phase, the funds were used for the development of the management plan

and updating it, education, and other needs that arise. And lastly, for the monitoring

stage, it is used to ensure that the plans are implemented and other future needs.

Tourism related establishments are invited to talks and seminars and are consulted

50
by the organization, in partnership with the management, DENR, and /or Provincial

Tourism Office. Seminars, trainings and talks are conducted to relay to them their plans

for MMPL, and to help improve the service provided by these establishments. CI is

in constant communication with the PTO in providing the necessary information for

the tourism establishments.

Strengthening the protection and conservation advocacy of the MMPL and

helping implement properly the plans indicated in the 2016-2020 management plan is

CI’s primary goal. They also wanted to increase visibility of law enforcers and forest

protectors to ensure that the MMPL laws are implemented. In order to maintain the

ecological integrity of MMPL, CI plans to secure long-term financing in the form of a

trust fund, so it may endure in perpetuity. This endowment fund will be used to secure

a sustainable financing mechanism for the effective management of the protected area.

When enough funding will be acquired, CI hopes to improve on the facilities and IEC

campaigns. Basically, CI is a major supporting entity of the MMPL. Where there is

something lacking in terms of monitoring, implementation, policy formulation, among

others, they nudge the correct personnel to the get back on track. Gaining complete

authority over matters, is not their goal, hence, CI’s end game is for the MMPL and the

LGUs to be able to stand on their own, while they provide assistance to the best that

they can.

4.2.2. Tourism Impacts in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape

In this section, tourism impacts on each stakeholder were discussed

and evaluated. Table 4.2 shows the summarized tourism impacts perceived by

the stakeholders of Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape

51
 Table 4.2. Summary of the tourism impacts as perceived by stakeholders in MMPL

Stakeholder Tourism Impacts

Social Economic Environmental

Residents + Improved quality of + Employment + Infrastructure

life opportunities development
+ Pride of the - Higher commodity - Change of natural
destination prices landscape
- Lost rights on land
- Conflicts to the
tourism
establishments
- Noise
- Crime

Tourism + Helps people who + Employment + Proper segregation

Establishments have needs depending opportunities and waste disposal
on the nature of + Promotion of the + Minimal impacts to
business (e.g., destinations the environment
backpackers, solo + Investments
travellers)

DENR-CENRO + Livelihood programs + Employment + Monitoring and

for IPs opportunities patrolling
+ Trainings and - Huge crowd of
seminars people
- Disturbance of
wildlife

MMPL + Trainings and + Employment + Protection and

seminars opportunities conservation of
Management
+ Improve quality of especially for IPs wildlife
life + Promotion of the + Pursuance of adding
- Possibility of abuse destinations PA to UNESCO
on influx of benefits World Heritage List
from the tourists + Few impacts to
the environment

Conservation + Trainings and + Employment + Protection and

seminars opportunities conservation of
International
+ Improve quality especially for IPs wildlife
of life + Enhance legal matters
- Disruption of
nature and
culture
Note: + sign represents the positive impacts of tourism while - sign represents the
negative impacts of tourism

52
4.2.2.1 Residents

A. Social
The residents experienced an improvement in their quality of life. They have

reported that the services that are usually not readily available for them are now within

reach because of tourism. Jobs were also generated because of the development of some

natural sites as tourism destination giving them an alternative source of income aside from

agriculture and gathering of forest products. This also strengthened their sense of

community because they became proud on the publicity that their local site is getting.

Because of the development, there have also been negative impacts to the

community. Power play and politics made them lost their rights on their land. An

interviewee mentioned “Mas maganda pa yung dati, noong hawak pa ng munisipyo (7

falls) kami pa talaga nag-aano diyan..”. In other words, the resident prefers their life

before when the falls or the land is handled by the municipality instead of the

businessman because they were the ones in charge of the place. Individuals and groups

of people are reported to have driven them further from their primary natural resources

such as the falls and the rivers leaving them no choice but to settle in the background of

the development. Where they usually get water, wash their clothes, and take a bath is

now a fenced establishment which is has changed a lot and is far from its former

appearance. Conflicts also arose with the present management of the tourist destination

because, the former handler of the destination, the municipal government, ensured that

the locals are the ones who benefit from the developments, even securing jobs for them

and guaranteeing that they are very much involved in the planning and operations. The

change in leadership of management however did not honor the previous management’s

53
promises leaving most of the locals without jobs. The quiet and peaceful life of the

locals were also disrupted due to the noise that the tourists bring and the crime and lack

of security.

B. Economic
As mentioned, employment opportunities were generated. Some were employed

as staff in the destination; some were tapped as laborers during construction, tricycle

drivers for transport of tourists, and some put up businesses near the area like sari-sari

stores because of the increase in demand. However, this also brought by growth in the

prices of basic commodities. Even though the high prices were initially set to profit from

the tourists, the locals were also among the customers leaving them with no choice but to

buy the goods from these stores.

C. Environmental
Tourism paved way to the development of infrastructure to the community.

Before, the only way to get to the community is by travelling via motorized vehicle from

the town proper to the end of the dirt road and from there, though a footpath that also

takes about an hour by walking. Now, vehicles can directly be driven to the destination

making it viable for both the tourists and the locals that goods and services be

transported easily.

However, this also brought by changes in the natural landscape of the site near the

community. The waterfall that was once surrounded by tall trees and huge rocks is now

unrecognizable with its concrete cottages and man-made pools. Because of this, the

natural flow of the water was disturbed; therefore, the amount of water that flows outside

the 7Falls vicinity has greatly diminished. Aside from that, tourists leave a lot of trash

54
and the noise that tourism activities brought has disturbed the wildlife that was once

abundant in that area.

4.2.2.2 Tourism Establishments

A. Social
According to an interview from a tourism establishment owner, a positive impact

of tourism is helping people who have needs. A tourism establishment owner said:

“..kasi dati wala silang matutuluyang ganito, kung saan-saan lang sila manunuluyan
na kamag-anak or kaibigan, ngayon mayroon na silang napupuntahang ganito.
Malaking bagay sa mga turista.”

“..because previously they have no place to go like this, they just stay with their
relatives or friends, but now they have a place to stay. This is good for the tourists”

The nature of their business is a lodging house, so it was perceived that the

existing of the establishment helped people or tourists who need a place to stay,

especially to the backpackers and solo travellers.

B. Economic
The economic impacts of tourism establishments are employment opportunities,

promotion of the destinations and investments. Tourism establishments have direct

positive economic impacts to the local community. All interviewees from the tourism

establishments mentioned that their employees were residents within or near their area of

operations. They also prioritize hiring from the local community.

Promotion of the destinations was categorized in the economic impact since

through promoting the destination, it can also attract tourist to visit again or spend more.

In the interviews, the owners and employees promote the destinations present in the

area to the domestic and foreign tourists. Incidentally, investment opportunity is also an

55
economic impact of tourism. According to the interview from one of the employees,

some foreign tourists are planning to build schools near their area. It means that there

will be more investments coming to the area that may also create job opportunities to the

local community.

C. Environmental
A visible positive impact of tourism to the area is the proper segregation and

waste disposal of the tourism establishments. It was mentioned from one of the interview

that the collection of garbage from their area (Brooke’s Point) is seven (7) days, which is

initiated by the residents which the LGU followed. Though, in the other establishment

(Quezon), the collection of garbage is twice a week. Regardless, they still practice

proper segregation and disposal of the garbages. In addition, the DENR also mentioned

that the tourism establishments were properly oriented in managing their wastes.

Tourism establishments also have minimal impacts to the environment. It was

observed that the establishments present in the MMPL were mostly lodging or pension

houses, local restaurants and local resort. There were no hotels at this point of time. There

are minimal impacts because the number of the tourism establishments observed was

limited.

4.2.2.3 DENR - CENRO Quezon

A. Social
The identified social impacts of tourism from the perspective of DENR employee

are the livelihood programs for the IPs or the indigenous people and the trainings and

seminars conducted for the stakeholders. Since MMPL is a home for the indigenous

Palaw’an group, the livelihood programs will benefit them to improve their quality of

life. It was also mentioned that the guides of the hikers were IPs. Thus, tourism has also a

56
direct positive impacts to the community of the MMPL which are mostly Palaw’an.

On the other hand, trainings and seminars conducted can also benefit the stakeholders

through raising their awareness in the conservation and protection of the environment.

However, there is no visible negative impact of tourism to the environment yet.

B. Economic

Employment opportunity is the obvious economic impact of tourism. It was

mentioned that there is an alternative livelihood programs provided for the IPs. It is not

only a social impact, but also an economic impact since it creates job opportunities to the

community. Thus, it can improve their quality of life or standard of living.

C. Environmental

Since MMPL is a large area of mountain and forests with different ecotourism

activities, monitoring and patrolling of the landscape is one of the positive impacts of

tourism contributed to MMPL. It was mentioned that the hikers needed a guide or

green guards that monitor the safety and security of the area. Without people or tourists

interested to go to the MMPL, there will be none or not strict initiatives from the

management to provide green guards.

The negative impacts of tourism to the MMPL perceived by the DENR

employee are the large crowd of people which could cause disturbance of wildlife.

DENR’s main concern is the environment. Since MMPL has a rich biodiversity, a crowd

of people may damage the area also disrupt the flora and fauna harmoniously living

within the mountains.

4.2.2.4 MMPL Management

57
 A. Social
In accordance to the General Management Plan set by the MMPL after its

proclamation, the management conducts trainings and seminars for the stakeholders

involved, dependent of course on the topic and/or issue that are brought to light. The

local communities, business owners and other stakeholders are tapped and invited to

educate them about the importance of MMPL and the benefits that can be obtained if they

join hands in the protection and conservation of the protected area. They also conduct

livelihood trainings seminars for the concerned to help them maximize the tourism

potential of MMPL with the help of the Provincial Tourism Office. For example, they

trained the IPs living near the jump-off point for mountaineers in Ransang, Rizal about

tour guiding.

In connection with that, the quality of life of the people living near or within the

protected area has greatly improved because of the numerous livelihood programs

spearheaded by the management. MMPL management reiterated that the primary

beneficiaries of the produce of the protected area should be the communities living within

its jurisdiction so the plans and projects are centered on that fact.

However, some of the tourists wanted to impart their blessings to the communities

they visit. This could result to the reliance of the locals, especially the IPs to these ‘gifts’.

Examples of ‘gifts’ usually brought by tourists, especially mountaineers, are school

supplies, and groceries. The management worries that this practice would eventually

make the IPs expect that all tourists will bring such gifts which in turn would make them

reliant on this instead which is not advantageous in the long run. Instead, they suggest

58
that if the tourists insist on giving gifts, they prefer that they be of long term value like

seeds for planting.

B. Economic

Since the locals are the ones living near or within the protected area, they are the

ones employed for tourism services. The management especially cares for the

participation of IPs in tourism. They trained them on how to be guides to the

mountaineers who wish to climb Mt. Mantalingahan which makes sense since they know

the terrain more than anyone. The guides accompany the climbers from their ascent until

their descent, introduce them to the unique flora and fauna that they encounter along the

way, and warn them against doing something bad or anything that will disrupt the

environment or night insult the supernatural beings that they believed to live in the

mountains.

Ecotourism and Adventure Tourism are also promoted by the MMPL management

which would generate more income and attract more visitors. These activities include

hiking, trekking, mountaineering, wildlife viewing, which can be done at Mt.

Mantalingahan (3-day hike to reach the peak from Ransang, Rizal), Maruyog Ecological

Park (30-minute ride from Poblacion, Brooke’s Point), Kapangyan and

Lalatuan Falls (Bataraza). Mantayog Falls (Bunog, Rizal), and El Salvador Falls

(Sofronio Espanola). Tourists can also try caving at Ransang, Rizal where the Tau’t

Bato, a sub-group of the Palaw’an indigenous group, are settled.

C. Environmental
Opening the protected area for tourism activities and development lead to the

spreading of information and awareness regarding the provisions of MMPL. Its efforts on
59
the protection and conservation of wildlife were imparted to the tourists who in turn

support their cause by respecting the environment and promoting the destination by their

own means. Compliance to the set rules and regulations would ensure that the protected

area will remain protected for a long time. To strengthen the status of MMPL as an

important protected area, the stakeholders, led by the management, are in pursuance of

having the PA be declared as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Submitted on 2015, it is

now included in the tentative list. It was classified under criterion (ix): outstanding

example representing significant ongoing ecological and biological processes, and

criterion (x): contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ

conservation of biological diversity, including those threatened species of outstanding

universal value from the point of view of science or conservation. If successful, the

MMPL would have more funding and its inscription would pave way to information

dissemination regarding its cause and encourage more tourists who are well-minded and

are champions of the environment to visit the protected area.

4.2.2.5 Conservation International Philippines (CI)

A. Social

In partnership with the MMPL management, DENR, PTO and other NGOs, CI

conducts trainings and seminars to promote their advocacies. Communities were also

encouraged to take part in the protection and conservation of natural resources. This in turn

results to the improvement of quality of life of the partner families and communities by

educating them about the benefits that can be reaped if conservation initiatives are followed.

However, there is the threat of disruption of nature and culture of the residents, particularly

the IPs which has nurtured its culture with MMPL for thousands of years

60
already.

B. Economic

Employment opportunities especially for IPs are seen as the main economic driver

of the project and CI is a supporter of this cause. Establishment of more tourism

businesses and other protected-area-supporting-causes employ manpower from the local

communities. Their programs and seminars are also mainly for the education and giving

assistance to the locals in handling the products that can be legally extracted from

MMPL.

C. Environmental

Scientific studies that strengthen the cause for the protection and conservation of

wildlife was performed by CI allowing the species to thrive and be categorized properly

and ensure a future that is hopefully sustainable. These studies reinforced MMPL’s

status as an important biodiversity location where a rich variety of flora and fauna can be

found enticing more people to support the efforts of the organization. Because of

extensive network and knowledge in successfully handling numerous protected areas all

over the world, CI became a trusted advisor, providing legal advices and enforcement

mentoring sessions to the management. Through this, a longer lasting protected area can

be guaranteed, provided the measures taken are in compliance to what are implemented.

4.2.3 Other Findings and Role of Tourism in MMPL

In this section, issues that arose upon gathering data were identified such as the

presence of minimal tourism, safety and security, implementation of rules and

regulations, acceptance of tourism and limited funds. The role of tourism in MMPL was

61
also identified through understanding the impacts of tourism perceived by its

stakeholders.

4.2.3.1 Minimal Tourism in Quezon and Brooke’s Point

It was mentioned above in the Mt. Mantalingahan Management Plan (2010) that

there is lesser tourism activity in MMPL and in the entire southern Palawan compared to

northern Palawan. It was published in 2010, but until at this point of time, there is still not

apparent of tourism in the study area. There are few tourism establishments, few

international brands of restaurants or hotels and few infrastructure developments which

already existed before the proclamation of MMPL because tourism already exists in the

municipalities which are the subjects of this study. Thus, tourism has still no major

impacts to the environment because the dense forests are still visible. In addition, most

foreign people visit the protected landscape for biological expeditions, not for

recreational purposes. It was revealed from the interview with the Asst. Protected Area

Superintendent that the building of infrastructures in the protected landscape is in status

quo because the Spatial Use Agreement is suspended, wherein the issuance of

documents/instrument for building of infrastructures. However, the reason behind the

suspension is unknown to them. The accessibility of the place is also a factor in visiting

the area. MMPL is 4 to 5 hours away from Puerto Princesa City and can only be

accessible through land transportation. There are also a lot of unpaved roads during the

trip.

Having minimal presence of tourism in MMPL means that there are still a lot of

potential for the area to develop. In fact, the Asst. PASu also mentioned that there is still

62
no established trail; tents and view decks are the only man made structure in the

mountain at this point. However, the management of MMPL should be careful in

implementing policies, especially to future investors to conserve and protect the

biodiversity of the MMPL since there are a lot of endemic species that can be found

in the forest.

4.2.3.2 Safety and Security Issues

A major safety and security concern in tourism on MMPL is the threat of the illegal

entrants like the Abu Sayyaf. It may discourage tourists to go hiking to the MMPL although

there is no reported fatal incidence yet concerning this threat. At this point of time, there is

no action against the illegal entrants since the Asst. PASu said that they were not doing

anything, they were just passing by the area. However, the management of the protected

landscape with the help the law-enforcement agencies and the military should ensure the

security of the tourists visiting the area and also the residents.

4.2.3.3 Implementation of Rules and Regulations

There are rules and regulations in the MMPL, but the implementation of some

regulations were not strict or even non-existent in some interviews as observed. The

strictly implemented policy that was observed is the logging ban in the protected

landscape. Since there are green guards that monitor and patrol the area in 24 hours,

presence of illegal loggers will be reported immediately.

For the tourism establishments interviewed, there is none or minimal rules and

regulations implemented for the tourists’ compliance. It was understandable since their

63
area is manageable and has still minimal number of tourist arrivals. However, the

managers and owners should be able to adapt in future development or changes to

their area.

4.2.3.4 Acceptance of Tourism

All respondents or stakeholders of this study favor tourism development in

MMPL. Though, the residents interviewed still prefer their life before the development

(establishment of 7 Falls Resort) in their area. One interviewee mentioned that they prefer

their life before, because they like their peaceful and quiet life more than today because

of the noise of tourists or excursionists while the other one mentioned that they get no

benefits anymore since there has been a change in the management. However, they are

not against the future developments in the area.

The other stakeholders accept tourism or future developments because of the

benefits it bring to the them such as employment opportunities. The negativity towards

tourism is very wispy since there is a presence of tourism but only to a small extent

considering the suspension of Spatial Use Agreement.

4.2.3.5 Limited Funds

The funds for MMPL come from the General Appropriations Act which is disbursed

by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The funds were allocated to the

trainings and seminars conducted, as well as for the communication and monitoring of the

area, as mentioned in the DENR interview. The central office approves the budget, however

if a project is not inclined with targets set, there will be no allotted

64
funds for it. According to the Asst. PASu, there were also many projects of the LGU

which cannot be sustained. There are also donations from NGOs like Conservation

International; however they are decided on a case to case basis.

4.2.3.6 Role of Tourism

After the evaluation of impacts of tourism to the stakeholders, it was identified

that the role of tourism in the MMPL is still not established because of its minimal

implications to the area and its stakeholders. Improvement on the quality of life of the

residents is not very apparent because of the limited tourism establishments and business

investments in the area. In addition, not all residents have benefited from the building of

the tourism establishment near their premises. However, tourism has still a great

potential in being an economic driver to the stakeholders as well as being a tool for the

conservation and protection of the landscape.

4.3 Summary of Findings

This study has been able to identify the perceived tourism impacts to the

stakeholders of Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape through processing the collected

data. It showed that stakeholders have diverse perceptions on tourism development in their

area and having varying focal points are important factors to consider.

The tourism impacts perceived by residents were improved quality of life, pride of

the destination, loss of rights on lands, conflicts to the tourism establishments, noise,

crime, employment opportunities, higher commodity prices, infrastructure development

and change of natural landscape. The residents have experienced major changes in their

65
way of living when tourism a tourism establishment was built near their households.

They preferred their way of living before since they value the ‘peaceful and quiet’

environment than nowadays with tourists visiting near their homes. However, they

still support tourism development because of its positive impacts such as employment

opportunities and infrastructure development and they were also not being hostile

towards the tourists. This implied that the local community and tourists has a good

relationship despite that the residents would want life before tourism development.

Tourism establishments within the MMPL were mostly small lodging local

businesses. It was also revealed that they putted up the business not because of MMPL

but being near in other tourist destination. These establishments showed that they were

prioritizing the local community for employment. The tourism impacts identified based

on the perspectives of tourism establishment owner/employees were helping people

who have needs, employment opportunities, promotion of the destinations, investments,

proper segregation and disposal of wastes, and its minimal impacts on the environment.

There were also minimal impacts of tourism because of the limited establishments

present in the area.

DENR and the MMPL management showed that they were conducting IEC.

However, the participation of the local community depends on the efforts of the barangay

officials in pursuing them to attend. They were more interested in attending seminars

depending on the topic. It was also revealed that both DENR and MMPL was strict in the

conservation of the environment through monitoring of illegal logging in the protected

area thru having ‘green guards’ which patrol in the area for 24 hours. In the case of

tourism activities, the Asst. PASu mentioned that one of tourism’s negative social

66
impacts is the IP’s possibility of abuse in the influx of benefits from the tourists. Other

tourism impacts mentioned by the DENR and MMPL management were trainings and

seminars, improve quality of life, employment opportunities especially for IPs,

promotions of destinations, monitoring and patrolling, crowd of people, disturbance of

wildlife, protection and conservation of wildlife, pursuance of adding the protected

area in the UNESCO World Heritage list and the minimal impacts of tourism to the

environment.

On the perspective of a non-government organization, the perceived tourism

impacts were trainings and seminars, improve quality of life, disruption of nature and

culture, employment opportunities especially for IPs, protection and conservation of

wildlife, and enhance of legal matters.

The perceived impacts of the stakeholders mainly evolved in the economic impact

specifically employment opportunities, especially for the IPs. This showed that the

stakeholders consider the IPs in their area and even in their plan such as providing

livelihood programs to them. In addition, minimal impacts to the environment were also

mentioned by different stakeholders because of the limited tourism activities present in

the area.

After processing and meeting the objectives of this study, additional findings were

identified. The findings were mostly issues which include minimal tourism in the area,

safety and security, implementation of rules and regulations, acceptance of tourism and

limited funds. These findings were also essential in determining the role of tourism in the

67
protected area. The role of tourism interpreted was tourism being not fully established

in the area, thus it also has minimal implications to the protected area and stakeholders.

68
 Chapter V
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION

5.1 Introduction

This study examined tourism on the Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape. The

impacts and role of tourism were determined as perceived by the stakeholders which

include the local community, tourism establishments, government and non-government

organizations and the management of the protected landscape.

The conceptual framework used in this study was developed based on the

stakeholder’s theory of Freeman (1984). The review of related literature emphasizes the

relationships of tourism, stakeholders and the protected area. In order to determine the

impacts of tourism to the protected landscape, qualitative methodology was used.

In the process of analyzing the data, several positive and negative impacts of

tourism were ascertained. Issues upon gathering data were also determined which is also

useful in this study in order to determine the role of tourism in MMPL.

5.2 Impacts and Role of Tourism to the Protected Area

This study was able to identify the social, economic and environmental impacts of

tourism in the MMPL. These impacts were further divided into positive and negative

impacts. The positive social impacts include improved quality of life, pride of the

destination, helps people who have needs, livelihood programs for the IPs, and trainings

and seminars. Next, the positive economic impacts include employment opportunities,

promotion of the destinations, and investments. Lastly, the positive environmental

impacts of tourism include infrastructure development, proper segregation and waste

69
disposal, minimal impacts to the environment, protection and conservation of wildlife,

and the campaign of adding the MMPL to the UNESCO World Heritage Site list. It

was observed that the environmental impacts (6 positive) have the most number of

positive impacts compared to social (4 positive) and economic impacts (3 positive).

On the other hand, the negative social impacts of tourism include loss of rights

on their land, conflicts to the tourism establishment, noise, crime and the possibility of

abuse on influx of benefits from the tourists. The negative economic impact is the higher

commodity prices. Negative environmental impacts of tourism are change of natural

landscape, crowd of people and the disturbance of wildlife. Social impacts (5 negative)

have the most number of negative impacts perceived by the stakeholders compared to the

economic (1 negative) and environmental impacts (3 negative).

The issues identified upon gathering data were the presence of minimal tourism in

the area, safety and security, implementation of rules and regulations, acceptance of

tourism and limited funds.

After understanding the impacts of tourism to the stakeholders, it was concluded

that tourism has still no seeming role in the protected landscape. There are more positive

impacts than negative impacts as perceived by the stakeholders, although these positive

impacts are not apparent to the stakeholders as a whole because the tourism industry is

not yet fully immersed in the area.

70
5.3 Conclusion and Implication

5.3.1. Tourism Impacts

After realizing the social, economic and environmental impacts perceived by the

stakeholders, the researchers have concluded the attributes that positively and negatively

affect a protected area which is shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Attributes that positively or negatively affect the stakeholders of a

protected area in terms of social, economic and environmental aspect

Aspect Positive impacts Negative impacts

Social ● Rising concern for IPs ● Conflicts among

through livelihood programs
● Conduct of trainings
and seminars on PA
● Service delivery
through accommodation
facilities
stakeholders
● Incidents of crime
● Noise
● Disturbance of culture

Economic ● Employment ● Higher commodity

opportunities prices
● Promotion of
destinations
● Investments

Environmental ● Strict compliance on ● Disturbance of

the ban of logging in the area wildlife
● Conservation and
protection of wildlife and
environment
● Proper segregation
and disposal of wastes
● Pursuance of being
listed as a UNESCO World
Heritage Site

The attributes that positively affect the stakeholders of the protected landscape are

high concern for IPs’ welfare through the livelihood programs conducted by the

management of the protected landscape, seminars and trainings that will increase

71
awareness of the attendees in tourism and environment, service delivery to the tourists by

providing accommodation facilities, employment opportunities which can improve the

quality of life of the stakeholders, promotion of the destinations that can also lead to

investments and employment opportunities. The strict compliance of the logging ban in

the area and proper segregation and disposal of wastes also positively affect the

stakeholders because the nature reserves are still there. In the tourism aspect of protected

areas, the main attractions are its physical or natural characteristics. Lastly, the pursuance

of being listed in the UNESCO World Heritage Sites can directly help to the

conservation and protection of the protected area.

On the other hand, the attributes that negatively affect the protected area include

conflicts among stakeholders, crime, and noise, disturbance of culture, higher commodity

prices and disturbance of wildlife. Conflicts among stakeholders include conflicts

between the resident and tourism establishment owner or between the tourists and IPs.

The disturbance of culture also pertains to the involvement of IPs. Higher prices of

commodities affect the protected landscape but in a minimal extent since almost all of the

commodities nowadays also had a price hike. The disturbance of wildlife can affect the

environment aspect of the protected landscape if the tourists do not comply with the rules

and regulations implemented in the area.

In this section, the study implied on which attributes can the management or any

stakeholders can focus in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts. For example, to

avoid conflicts among stakeholders, seminars and trainings or events can be conducted for

the stakeholders to raise their concerns. Furthermore, the stakeholders can also seek which

attributes can be an opportunity to them. For instance, tourism establishments can

72
benefit to the future investors in the area. Thus, the management can invite or propose

to businessmen to invest in the area.

5.3.2. Role of Tourism

The researchers concluded that the identified role of tourism in the MMPL which

is not established yet and the presence of minimal tourism activities does have a

relationship to the issues that arose upon data gathering such as safety and security,

limited funds, implementation of rules and regulations and acceptance of tourism. Having

an established tourism can lessen the instances of insurgence in the area since there will

be more strict rules and regulations to be implemented. If the protected landscape is

promoted well as a tourism destination, possible donations from different private sectors

can also happen. This also implies that the stakeholders of the area may adapt according

to the changes that may happen in the future. For instance, if tourism is boosted in the

area, the tourism establishments will probably have more distinct and strict rules and

regulations implemented for the compliance of tourists.

This study implied that in the exploratory stage up to the early development stage

of a protected area, the role of tourism is not yet apparent. The initial stage of

development focuses on the familiarization with the situation, establishment of

management, and coordination with the various stakeholders. It takes time and effort to

finally arrive in a state where everything falls into place. There are other matters that

needed to consider, so tourism is not usually prioritized. However, for tourism products

that are nature-based, the managing entities should be vigilant because if not properly

handled, it could have disastrous results. Upon discovery, tourism could ruin a perfectly

73
good environment maybe in just a matter of a few months if interventions and

prevention is not initiated immediately and rigorously. It is easy to destroy a place but

the rehabilitation process would sure be lengthy. This is where the destination managers

should prepare for such incidents.

74
 Chapter VI
RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the researchers’ recommendations to the management of

MMPL and their relationship with the other stakeholders in order to promote the

provisions of MMPL to preserve and conserve the wildlife living within its helms and for

the businesses and locals to benefit from it. These recommendations are two-pronged: for

the destination managers and for the future direction of succeeding studies.

6.2 Recommendation

Mt. Mantalingahan is a significant landmark. Numerous endemic and endangered

species found a safe haven within its forests and is nestled safely, protected from the

threats of the outside world. It is a success story wherein man lives harmoniously with

nature, wherein the former provides protection to the environment and the latter provides

for the needs of man. The locals that were tapped by the management have now become

the defenders of the wildlife coming up to an agreement with the management that

conservation schemes be implemented allowing them to participate in the initiative

while also receiving incentives in the process.

Aside from the threats to Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape such as illegal and

unregulated usage of forest products, rapid conversion of forest land into agricultural land,

poaching of wildlife, destruction of forest, increase in population, unwanted entrants, and

mining claims within and around its perimeter, it faces the greatest threat that the world is

also facing, climate change. Because of the innate quality of the protected area, it is most

vulnerable against this huge peril, and all of the beings relying on it will be affected greatly.

75
That is why, preventive measures and concrete environmental protection plans should

not only be initiated by the management but all sectors of the community, and must be

faithfully implemented and followed. Since many are heavily dependent on the

mountain either as a source of income, or as a place to live and thrive,

The researchers suggest that the MMPL Management should strengthen its ties

with the concerned and related offices and organizations for the effective implementation

of its plans. Coordination among the offices is practiced but a more centralized operation

could smoothen the relationships. Although these partnerships are solid on paper,

proactive participation and visible involvement is still the main problem. For example, in

the security aspect, a lot of manpower is needed to patrol and monitor such a large area

of land, yet only a handful of people perform these tasks and some of them do not even

own the proper equipment to enforce the laws of the land. Within the protected area, it is

also easy for the lawless beings to hide because of the thick forests, without the risk of

being detected by the authorities. If a civilian or tourist encountered a group of

insurgents, incidents might happen to the former.

Aside from the rules and regulations set that were given to the climbers of Mt.

Mantalingahan included in their permit, MMPL could have a fully functioning website or

even a social media page where the interested tourists could get the necessary

information and inquire about their visit. There were instances where some mountaineers

have no idea that a permit should be acquired first from the CENRO Office in Quezon so

they go directly to the jump-off point in Rizal only to be directed back to Quezon, which

is a few hours away, because the tour guides would not accept them with no permit. It is a

76
good practice that the guides strictly implement the “No permit, no entry, no guide”

policy, however, the tourists’ experience might be affected by the lack of information

available. Since tourism’s primary product is experience, these might affect the

willingness and decision of tourists to visit the area.

It is clear in the interviews that the management values the involvement and

participation of the stakeholders especially the local communities, and in turn, the

stakeholders are more than willing to participate and engage in their activities, most of

the time. This is hard to fix completely because of scheduling conflicts, lack of

commitment, lack of interest by the participants, and lack of visible results from among

the past programs. However, continuous efforts can go a long way. By being able to

continually conduct seminars that are holistic in nature, those that complement each

other and in the end would result to participants that possess knowledge that can be

articulated into a useful and fruitful skill, the participants might eventually realize the

value of these trainings and seminars in the long run. Nonetheless, it is commendable

that the PAMB take seriously the concerns of the stakeholders and considers those in

making their decisions.

6.3 Recommendation for future research

The findings on this research can help in the initial steps other studies in

MMPL because this kind of study takes a long time. Primary information provided by

this research can the basis for future exploratory studies like assessment, monitoring

and implementation practices in the protected area.

The tourists’ perspective can also be explored in future studies. By providing visitor

surveys, the management can get the necessary information regarding the tourists’

77
experiences, suggestions, recommendations, and profile, and take the necessary actions

according to the findings.

The different tourism characteristics of MMPL in comparison with the other

more famous destinations in Palawan will also provide another perspective in developing

and introducing a new kind of tourism product that is distinct and, most of all, of high

economic and ecological value.

The social, economic and environmental impacts of tourism and the perspectives

and reception of the stakeholders about tourism development were explored in this study.

By putting into light the different outlooks of the concerned sectors of the community

regarding tourism, it can now be possible to tailor the projects and plans according to the

stakeholders’ needs and pave a more concrete path towards development. The

researchers suggest that this study be used for such purpose.

78
REFERENCES:

Alliance for Zero Extinction. (2005). Sites & Species. Retrieved

from http://www.zeroextinction.org/sitesspecies.htm
Belsoy, J. (2012). Environmental Impacts of Tourism in Protected Areas. Journal of
Environment and Earth Science, 10, 64-73.

Bittel, J. (2015). “Extinct” Amphibians Rediscovered After Nearly Half a Century.

National Geographic. Retrieved from
news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150602-amphibians-extinct-species-toads-
philippines-animals

Centre, U. W. (n.d.). Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape. Retrieved November 10,

2016, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6006/
Conservation International (n.d.). Conservation International Philippines - Conservation
International. Retrieved November 17, 2016, from
http://www.conservation.org/global/philippines /Pages/Mount-Mantalingahan-
Protected-Landscape.aspx

Cui, B.S., He, W.J., Hua, Y.Y. and Fan X.Y. (2011). Assessment of
Management Effectiveness
for the National Nature Reserve in the Yellow River Delta. Procedia
Environmental Sciences, 13, 2362-2373. DOI: 10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.225.

Dalling, I. (2007:3) “Integrated Management Definition”, Chartered Quality Institute

Integrated
Management Special Interest Group, Issue 2.1.

Dharmaratne GS, Yee Sang F, Walling LJ. (2000). Tourism potentials for
financing protected areas. Annals of Tourism Research 27(3):590-610.

Dudley, N. (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories:

IUCN.

Fleischmann, A., Robinson, A., Mcpherson, S., Heinrich, V., Gironella, E., and
Madulid,D. (2011). Drosera ultramafica (Droseraceae), a new sundew species of
The ultramafic flora of the Malesian highlands. Blum - J Plant Tax and Plant
Geog Blumea - Biodiversity, Evolution and Biogeography of Plants, 56(1), 10-15.

Foxlee, J. (2007). Key Principles and Directions for Tourism in Protected Areas: A
Review of Existing Charters, Guidelines and Declarations. In R. Bushell and
P.F.J. Eagles (Eds.), Tourism and Protected Areas: Benefits Beyond Boundaries.
(pp.44-54). London, United Kingdom: CAB International.

79
Freeman, R.M. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholders Approach. Boston: MA:
Pitman

Edgell, D.L. (2006). Managing Sustainable Tourism. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth
Hospitality Press, pp. 103-105.

Explore & discover Southern Palawan’s hidden treasures Mt. Mantalingahan Protected
Landscape [Brochure]. (n.d.) Palawan, Philippines

Hind, E.J., Hiponia, M.C., and Gray, T.S. (2009). From community-based to centralized
national management – A wrong turning for the governance of the marine
protected area in Apo Island, Philippines? Marine Policy, 34, 54-62. DOI:
10.1016/j.marpol.2009.04.011.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., and Leverington, F. (2006). Evaluating effectiveness : A

framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas, 2nd
edition.

Hughes, M., Coyle, C., and Rubite, R. R. (2010). A Revision Of Begonia Section
Diploclinium (Begoniaceae) On The Philippine Island Of Palawan, Including Five
New Species. Edinburgh Journal of Botany, 67(01), 123.

Hüttche, C.M., A.T. White and M.M.M. Flores. (2002). Sustainable Coastal Tourism
Handbook for the Philippines. Coastal Resource Management Project of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Department of
Tourism, Cebu City, Philippines, 144 p.

Lemos, M.C. and Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of

Environment and Resources, 31, 297-325.

Libosada, C.M. Jr. (1998). Ecotourism in the Philippines. GEBA Printing: Makati
City, p. 109-111

Lindsay, P. and Norman, D.A. (1977). Human Information Processing: An

Introduction to Psychology. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Linkem, C. W., Diesmos, A. C., and Brown, R. M. (2010). A New Species of Scincid
Lizard (Genus Sphenomorphus) from Palawan Island, Philippines. Herpetologica,
66(1), 67-79.

Newsome, D., Moore, S.A., and Dowling, R.K. (2013). Natural Area Tourism:
Ecology, Impacts and Management (2nd ed.). NY, USA: Channel View
Publications.
Perić, M., Đurkin, J. and Lamot, I. (2014). Importance of Stakeholder Management in
Tourism Project: Case study of the Istra Inspirit Project. Trends in Tourism and
Hospitality Industry. pp. 273 - 284.

80
Protected Area Management Board. (2010). Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape
Management Plan. Palawan, Philippines.

Punch, Keith F. (2005). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative

Approaches (2nd ed.). (pp.168-172). London, United Kingdom: SAGE
Publications Ltd.

Quiros, A. (2006). Tourist compliance to a Code of Conduct and the resulting effects on
whale shark (Rhincodon typus) behavior in Donsol, Philippines. Fisheries
Research, 84, 102-108. DOI: 10.1016/j.fisheries.2006.11.017.

Republic of the Philippines. Congress of the Philippines. “An act providing for the
establishment and management of National Integrated Protected Areas
th
System...” R.A. 7586, 5 Session, 1992.
Robinson, A. S., Fleischmann, A. S., Mcpherson, S. R., Heinrich, V. B., Gironella, E. P.,
and Peña, C. Q. (2009). A spectacular new species of Nepenthes L.
(Nepenthaceae) pitcher plant from central Palawan, Philippines. Botanical
Journal of the Linnean Society, 159(2), 195-202.

Satumanatpan, S., Senawongse, P., Thansuporn, W., and Kirkman H. (2014). Enhancing
management effectiveness of environmental protected areas, Thailand.
Ocean & Coastal Management, 89, 1-10. DOI:
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.12.001.

Scherl, L.M and Edwards, S. (2007). Tourism, Indigenous and Local Communities and
Protected Areas in Developing Nations. In R. Bushell and P.F.J. Eagles (Eds.),
Tourism and Protected Areas: Benefits Beyond Boundaries. (pp.71-86). London,
United Kingdom: CAB International.

Stolton, S. (2009). Communicating values and benefits of protected areas in Europe:

Results of a seminar organised by BfN EUROPARC Federation at the
International Academy for Nature Conservation on the Island of Vilm, Germany
April 14th - 18th, 2009. Bonn: BfN.

Strickland-Munro, J. & Moore, S., (2014), ‘Exploring the impacts of protected area
tourism on local communities using a resilience approach’, Koedoe 56(2), Art.
#1161, 10 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ koedoe.v56i2.1161

Stylidis, D. (2011). Tourism and Community Life: Building a Conceptual

Framework Retrieved from http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/771377/1/549463.pdf

81
 Appendix A
Procedures for evaluating and endorsing research proposals for/in MMPL

1. Requirements
a. Fees
· A non-refundable application fee of Php 200 will be imposed for non-Palawan based
proponents.
· An endorsement fee of Php 500 will be collected from non-Palawan-based proponents
prior to the release of the endorsement.
· Bona fide Palawan-based proponents are exempt from paying the application and
endorsement fees
b. Copy of research proposal indicating relevant details
c. Supporting documents
· IP/NCIP endorsement
· Barangay resolution endorsing the proposal
· Municipal resolution endorsing the proposal
· If the study entails wildlife collection, a project information sheet required by PCSD
shall be filled-up
· Copy of visa (to be verified against the original), if the proponent is foreigner
2. Evaluation Process
a. Proponent to submit the research proposal with corresponding attachments to the
Protected Area Superintendent (PASu).

b. The PASu evaluates whether the proposal is in line with MMPL’s research and
monitoring agenda and whether the outputs are useful to populate/update the database

c. The PASu submits the proposal with information on his/her initial evaluation to the
research, project planning & evaluation committee for further evaluation. The PASu must
make sure s/he has gathered and understood all pertinent details before including the
particular proposal in the agenda of the committee meeting. Fill-out checklist to
summarize findings.

82
d. The research, project planning & evaluation committee determines the merit of
the proposal and recommends to the executive committee.
e. The PASu informs the proponent of the action on his proposal. If approved, a
PAMB ExeCom endorsement will be issued, with terms and conditions. If denied, a letter
of regret specifying reasons will be sent.

f. The endorsement must be signed by the Presiding Officer of the Executive

Committee.

g. Evaluation process must not exceed 30 days.

h. Any study that entails wildlife collection shall not be allowed to commence unless
collection and transport permits are secured from PCSD and DENR and duly presented to
the PASu.

3. Proposal Information Sheet (if the study will entail wildlife collection)
(Adopted from PCSD template)
● Project Title
● Project Objectives
● Places of Collection

● Projected Timetable of Implementation

● Bioresources and quantity (if possible) (indicate live or dead specimen, specify if
by-products or derivatives)

● Methodology (use separate sheet if necessary)

● Collection methods/procedures (recorded, photographed, video, collected,
observed, etc.) and format (notes, specimens, photographs, etc.).

● Anticipated intermediate and final destination of bioresources, etc.

● How bioresources obtained be used initially (i.e. national collection) subsequently

(e.g. drug exploitation, field guide preparation, etc.).

83
● Description of funding support with budget (use separate sheet if necessary).
● Analysis of foreseen impact on biological diversity.

● Detailed description of immediate compensation anticipated.

● Detailed description of long-term compensation anticipated.

● List of in-country entities likely to receive compensation enumerated in #11 and

reasons (logical and legal, and if applicable).

84
 Appendix B
Letter Request for Interview

Date

Name
Designation
Address

Dear Mr.:
Greetings!
We, Lovella Anne Jose and Angelique Valones, are undergraduate student from Asian
Institute of Tourism, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, and as part of
the requirements for BS Tourism degree, we are currently doing a thesis entitled
“Perceived Impacts of Tourism in a Protected Landscape: The Case of Brooke’s Point
and Quezon, Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape”. For us to have a better
understanding of this topic, we would like to request for an interview with you to be
able to learn more on the state of management of the Mt. Mantalingahan Protected
Landscape. Your insights regarding how the protected area is managed are essential for
our thesis.
Should you have any questions or concerns, you may contact us through our email
(lovella.anne@gmail.com/ jiqvalones@gmail.com ) or through our mobile
number (+639159811668/ +639953878037).

Thank you very much.

Sincerely, Endorsed by:

Lovella Anne Jose Asst. Prof. Victoria Villegas

Angelique Minorka Valones Asian Institute of Tourism
BS Tourism (Thesis Adviser)

85
 Appendix C
Interview Questions

Interview Questions to the Local Community:

1. In your opinion, how does tourism affect the protected landscape?

2. Do you get consulted on a matter related to tourism?

3. Can you describe the safety and security in your area?

4. What changes in your area have you noticed because of tourism?

5. Can you describe your experiences with tourists?

6. In your opinion, what are the positive and negative impacts of tourism to

the community?

7. Is there evidence that tourism gives you a better quality of life as

compared before?

8. Are you in favor of tourism development, conservation or both?

86
Interview Questions to Tourism Establishments:

1. Why did you built your business near the MMPL?

2. Can you describe your daily operations?

3. What are the common comments of the tourists in your business?

4. Who is your major market?

5. Where do you acquire your employees?

6. Do you know PAMB? Do you coordinate with them?

7. Can you describe how you source your supplies and your disposal of wastes?

8. What do you think is the effect of your business in the environment?

87
Interview Questions to the DENR-CENRO Palawan

1. What are your specific programs in protecting the environment?

2. Did you propose policies, rules, or restrictions which are implemented to

the MMPL?

3. What is your opinion about tourism in the protected landscape?

4. Do tourists have entrance fees when entering the MMPL?

5. In your opinion, what are the positive and negative impacts of tourism to

the protected landscape? What are your solutions?

6. Where do you get your funds? How and where do you allocate it?

7. Do you coordinate to any tourism related establishments when you

promote your environmental protection campaigns?

8. What are your future plans and projects to the area?

88
Interview Questions to the Assistant Protected Area Superintendent:

1. What is your vision or assessment in the conservation of MMPL?

2. Can you describe the decision-making process in your organization?

3. What are the specific policies or programs to protect the area?

4. Do you issue permits to tourism establishments?

5. Where do your funds come from? Where and how do you allocate it?

6. Are you encouraging tourists to visit MMPL?

7. Are there companies that would like to invest/build businesses near

the protected landscape?

8. Are there groups that regularly visit MMPL?

9. Do you think that tourism will greatly help improve the quality of life

of the community?

10. What are your future plans or programs in the protected landscape?

11. Is there anything that needs for improvement?

89
Interview Questions to the Conservation International:
1. What are your specific programs in protecting the environment?

2. Did you propose policies, rules, or restrictions which are implemented to the

MMPL?

3. What is your opinion about tourism in the protected landscape?

4. Do tourists have entrance fees when entering the MMPL?

5. In your opinion, what are the positive and negative impacts of tourism to the

protected landscape? What are your solutions?

6. Where do you get your funds? How and where do you allocate it?

7. Do you coordinate to any tourism related establishments when you promote your

environmental protection campaigns?

8. What are your future plans and projects to the area?

90
 Appendix D

Interview Transcriptions

Resident 1

Interviewer: Meron lang kaming katanungan sa turismo sa Mainit Falls kasi parte siya
ng Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape. So gusto lang namin makita yung epekto ng
turismo sa community niyo.

Interviewer: So una pong tanong, ano yung effect ng turismo sa buhay nyo? Gumanda
ba buhay nyo, meron bang nagbago?

Household member: Kung sa amin lang po, naging lang okay po siya kasi nag-improve
po yung at saka po diyan din po nagtatrabaho yung uncle ko.

Interviewer: So ano po yung ginagawa ng uncle mo?

Household member: Ano po, labor lang po sya diyan

Interviewer: Yung uncle mo po ba tumutulong sa panggastos dito sa bahay na ito?

Household member: Ay hindi po

Interviewer: Pero masaya po kayo na nagkaroon sya ng trabaho?

Household member: *nods*

Interviewer: So, alam nyo po ba yung mga environmental na batas dito sa

protected landscape? Alam nyo po ba yun?

Household member: Binabawal na po yung pagputol ng mga puno dito, kahit po yung
diyan banda, pinapaalam din po nila sa DENR.

Interviewer: Pero may pumupunta pa rin para magputol or wala talaga?

Household member: Wala na talaga

Interviewer: Sino yung nagbabantay, meron bang bantay?

Household member: Meron po, nakalimutan ko pangalan

91
Interviewer: Okay lang pero doon ba sila sa baba? Sa may 7

falls? Household member: Wala po diyan, dito rin po nakatira

Interviewer: So meron tao talaga

Interviewer: So kung sumuway ka, alam nyo po ba yung; kung may bayad
ba; makukulong ganon.

Household member: May.. hindi ko po kasi alam

Interviewer: So yung tinatayo yung, yung dinedevelop yung 7falls, kumonsulta rin
sila diyan, kilala nyo po ba yung may ari ng 7falls?

Household member: Yung as in?

Interviewer: Yung, Oo, hmm, Yung nagpagawa, or nagdevelop.

Household member: Yung ano ko lang kasi dyan, yung ano eh.. Panoy Baroma

Interviewer: Ahh yung, konsehal ba siya? Konsehal ba siya dito?

Household member: Hindi ko alam ehh

Interviewer: Governor ba sya? Kumunsulta ba sila? Pero tinanong ba nila

kayo? Household member: Hindi po.

Interviewer: Basta nag tayo nalang dyan? So yung hindi pa sya ganyan, andito na kayo
nakatira?

Household member: Oo.

Interviewer: Anong nangyari nung dumating sila ganun pa rin ba yung ano

niyo? Household member: Ay yung ano po?

Interviewer: Parang kasi, di ba kayo nagulo? Hindi ba kayo nadistract? Yung

pangkabuhayan niyo?

Household member: Ay hindi naman po

92
Interviewer: So may mga seminars ba or trainings about sa turismo dito?

Household member: Wala po

Interviewer: Hindi niyo rin alam kung meron?

Household member: Hindi po..

Interviewer: Okay lang.. So kamusta naman yung security dito? Tahimik ba? Walang
nakawan?

Household member: Ay Wala rin po, wala naman

Interviewer: So magkakakilala ba kayong magkakapit bahay?

Household member: Opo, actually mga auntie, lola ko rin yung mga kapit bahay ko

Interviewer: So meron bang mga ano rito, yung mga masasamang loob, wala

naman? Household member: Hmm wala naman po

Interviewer: Pero walang nangyaring ganun sa pagkakatanda nyo?

Household member: Wala po

Interviewer: Naka-encounter ka na ba ng turista?

Household member: Hindi pa?

Interviewer: So yung mga ano, bilihin, yung wala pa iyan (7 falls) saka yung
ngayon, parang ipagkumpara mo? Nagmahal ba? Nagmura?

Household member: Ay opo. Nagmahal.. opo

Interviewer: Feeling mo, gaano kalaki minahal, sobra ba? Or tama lang?

Household member: Hmm parang lahat naman po ng bilihin tumaas na rin po

Interviewer: So tingin mo sakto, tama lang?

Household member: Parang yung ngayon na panahon lang..

93
Interviewer: Yung mga bumibisita dyan, may nakakasalubong or meron kayong
nakausap, ganun o kaya kahit nasasalubong lang?

Household member: Minsan, minsan po.

Interviewer: So kumusta naman yung mga pumupunta dito?

Household member: Okay lang naman po

Interviewer: Hindi ba sila bastos, mabait ba sila?

Household member: Ay hindi rin po, okay lang sila

Interviewer: Okay yung mga ano, yung mga, ano nyo sa kanila, parang, tanggap mo
sila sa community nyo?

Household member: Tanggap naman po

Interviewer: Eh kasi diba since nandito na kayo bago pa sila dumating?

Household member: Opo

Interviewer: So yung simula nung nagawa tong 7 falls, ano yung, gumanda ba buhay ng
community nyo or naging magulo ba? Naging maingay?

Household member: Ay okay lang din naman po, yung nakaano lang naman, kasi dati po
wala pa yung mga sounds sounds na yan pero ngayon kahit i mean kahit wala kang
radyo sa bahay or ano, may libreng sounds ka

Interviewer: So gusto nyo po yun?

Household member: Okay lang po yun

Interviewer: So ano pa po yung tingin nyong nagbago? Simula nung nagawa yung 7falls?

Household member: Hmmm…

Interviewer: Isipin mo yung mga dati saka ngayon..

Household member: Actually medyo malaki rin yung pinagbago kasi yung mga kapwa ko
po, nabigyan kasi ng trabaho dyan.

94
Interviewer: Nabigyan po sila ng trabaho? Ano pong ginagawa nila dyan?

Household member: Yung iba po, karamihan din po kasi sa kanila dyan labor din.. Pero
okay na rin po yun at least nakatulong

Interviewer: So ano pa po yung mga tinulong ng mga nagbago? Uhmmm, sa

ano,sa paligid?

Household member: Oo sa paligid

Interviewer: Naging malinis ba o dumumi?

Household member: Ayy naging ano po, naging malinis po. Kasi dati po yan diyan, mga
ano po iyan

Interviewer: Gubat ba?

Household member: Opo, medyo puro paper trees po yun andiyan lahat. Tapos yung
falls na yan, di pa po ganyan kaano yan dati. Ilan lang yung kubo diyan tapos yung mga
atip nya mga ano lang pawid lang pero ngayon yero na

Interviewer: Yero na..

Interviewer: So sino yung mga nagpaputol ng paper trees dito? Sila?

Household member: Di po, pero bale parang kinultivate lang po yan sya.

Interviewer: Hmmm, san ba yun? dito banda? Parang niyog man to oh.

Household member: Opo, yung kabila po

Interviewer: Hanggang saan ba yung ano falls? Diba may bahay don?

Household member: Opo yung baba nyan

Interviewer: Tapos nun? Falls na?

Household member: Opo

Interviewer: Okay, So sino nakatira doon?

95
Household member: Mga lolo po

Interviewer: Okayy. So, tingin mo yung paggawa nitong 7 falls, gumanda buhay niyo?
Or mas gusto nyo yung dati nyong buhay kaysa ngayon?

Household member: Kasi kung papipiliiin kami, ako, sanay kasi kami sa tahimik na, kaya
parang mas gusto kong yung dati kasi tahimik. Ngayon po minsan yung iba po kasi
kapag pumupunta, nag iinuman dyan, tapos di mo maiwasan pag lasing na nagsisigaw
pero di naman po sila nanggugulo.

Interviewer: So maingay lang? Under influence lang ng alak.

Household member: Opo, Pero okay lang din po iyon sa amin

Interviewer: So parang yung ano yun, kung ikaw papipiliin, mas gusto. Yung dati pa
rin? So since sinabi mo yun, pabor ka ba na meron ganitong development sa lugar nyo?

Household member: Opo kapag meron ako po kasi, yun na nga po nabigyan ng trabaho

Interviewer: Ahh maliban po sa trabaho, yung ano, lumapit ba yung ano, yung
ospital, lumapit ba yung mga bilihin?

Household member: Kung yung ospital po, actually nasa bayan talaga, pero yung mga
bilihin po lumapit, opo mas lumapit po.

Interviewer: Dati po saan kayo bumibili noong wala pa to?

Household member: Sa ano pa po, sa crossing, kilala nyo po si? basta doon banda,
sa may kanto pa po, sa may baba

Interviewer: Sa may junction ng? Sa may spill way?

Household member: Hindi po, doon po sa may baba lang ng kanto ng marin..

Interviewer: Malayo..

Household member: Malayo po talaga kaya mas naging okay na ngayon kasi may
tindahan po dyan?

Interviewer: Pati yung ano? Naglalakad lang po ba kayo?

96
Household member: Meron tricycle dyan yung pinsan ko

Interviewer: Kung ano, may ano kami, diba development o kaya ahhh panatilihin lang
na ganon, or kaya syang pagsabayin, tingin mo? Kung ikaw papipiliin gusto mo ba yung
development na ganyan or yung halimbawa yung falls, yung dati ganun lang sya, parang
walang babaguhin? Ayun, ano yun, tingin mo? Ano mas gusto mo? Hindi babaguhin
yung falls or yung nadevelop na siya?

Household member: Sakin mas okay na po yung nadevelop kasi kahit papaano parang
syempre parang yung ibang tao yung kung ano talaga yung ano 7 falls talaga sinasabi,
at least makita ng mga tao na umunlad

Interviewer: So proud naman kayo sa mga nagaganap dito?

Interviewer: Alam nyo po ba na part to ng Mt Mantalingahan Protected Landscape?

Household member: Uhm

Interviewer: I mean, nainform ba kayo?

Household member: Nainform para saan po?

Interviewer: Hindi kasi yung lugar kasi na to, mountain range, ano sya parang
protected area sya so dapat walang putol ng puno, mga ganun.

Household member: Ay wala po

Interviewer: Ay pero okay lang, ayun gusto lang namin malaman.

Household member: Ayy

Interviewer: May pumupunta po ba ditong DENR?

Household member: Hmmm pumupunta sila dito pero hindi talaga ako yung nakakano..

Interviewer: Para lang malaman namin yung agenda nila.. Pero alam mo yung
ginagawa nila?

Household member: Ayun po nagsusurvey sila ng mga ano

97
Interviewer: Bawal din po kainin yung ganun diba?

Household member: Ay opo

Interviewer: Okay na ba tayo?

Household member: Oh sige so, salamat

Interviewer: Salamat po!

Resident 2

Interviewer: Simpleng tanong lang po, okay lang po? Good morning po, para sa thesis
at mmpl lang po. Sa opinyon nyo po, pano nakaapekto yung turismo, kunware sa
pagpapatayo ng 7 falls resort sa inyo?

Household member: Uhuhm

Interviewer: Ahh nakabuti po ba sya?

Household member: Oo, nakakabuti rin

Interviewer:Hmm ahh saan po kayo nagtatrabaho or may sarili po kayong ginagawa?

Household member: Yun nga yung pinaanuhan namin yung falls na yan pati yung sabi
kasi sanayan magtrabaho, eh ngayon naanuhan na nila edi wala na, hindi na nila kami
pinatrabaho

Interviewer: Ay ganon po? Parang pina-try lang po kayo magtrabaho?

Household member: Oo

Interviewer: San po, taga saan po yung mga nagtatrabaho dyan?

Household member: Yung nag-aano, yung ibang tao rin

Interviewer: Taga bayan po ba?

Household member: Hindi rin, taga rito rin

98
Interviewer: Pero hindi po sigurado na lahat kayo mabibigyan ng trabaho?

Household member: Yung iba yung mga ano lang, kami lang walang trabaho

Interviewer: Alam nyo po ba yung mga policies ng denr about sa mt mantalingahan

po? Yung dito sa bundok? Bawal po ba magputol?

Household member: Ano, bawal mag ano ng malalaking kahoy lalo na dyan sa may
falls pati dyan sa gilid ng mga sapa na yan.

Interviewer: Yung lang po ba bawal lang magputol ng mga puno?

Household member: Oo

Interviewer: May nakita na po ba kayong nagputol?

Household member: Wala na rin

Interviewer: Ahh yung nagpatayo po yung establishment kinausap po ba kayo ng may

ari na magpapatayo po sila diyan?

Household member: Oo, kasi yung una nga yung paano nila sa amin na kasi ngayon,
kami may ari bago, kaya sila rin may kailangan sa amin kasi sabi nga nila sa amin
patayuan nga nila kami ng magandang bahay bago buwan buwan mayroon pa kaming
trabaho, meron rin kaming tatanggapin, kaya..

Interviewer: So dati po diyan kayo naglalaba?

Household member: Yung ano na rin, dyan sa baba

Interviewer: Pero ngayon po ano po hanap buhay niyo ngayon?

Household member: Ayun nagkaingin.

Interviewer: Kaingin po? Pinapayagan naman po ng DENR?

Household member: Dito lang din, yung iba dyan sa gilid

Interviewer: Meron po ba kayo na-attendan na parang seminar po about tourism?

Household member: Wala pa, ewan ko lang sa asawa ko.

99
Interviewer: Pero meron pong seminar?

Household member: Oo

Interviewer: Kumusta naman po yung seguridad matapos itayo yung establishment

Household member: Ayun nga minsan madami tao minsan wala rin

Interviewer: Wala po bang mga nakawan?

Household member: Meron din nung nakaraan, may nakawan din dyan

Interviewer: Mga turista po?

Household member: Mga dayo lang yung iba, taga puerto, ninakaw mga cellphone

Interviewer: Yung ninakawan po mga bisita?

Household member: Oo

Interviewer: Pero dayo po mga nagnanakaw? Nakasalamuha na po ba kayo ng

turista, may nakausap na po kayo?

Household member: Meron din, yung pero nakaraan lang

Interviewer: Kumusta naman po mabait naman po ba?

Household member: Oo, mabait naman sila

Interviewer: So kung kayo po papipiliin na buhay, yung dati na wala pa yan o yung
meron na?

Household member: Sa bagay mas maganda pa yung dati eh ngayon wala na kami
pakinabang diyan eh unang una yung sa falls na yan hawak ng munisipyo, kami
pa nagmemaintain

Interviewer: Sino po may hawak ngayon?

Household member: Si ano, Baroma

Interviewer: Si Panoy? Board member ba sya?

100
Household member: Presidente raw ng ano yan ng project na

yan Interviewer: Provincial ba sya or dito lang

Household member: Wala na

Interviewer: Di na siya nanalo?

Household member: Presidente lang daw ng ano ng project na yan, sya presidente
kaya sya nag manage diyan

Interviewer:Pero nung pinatayo po ba yan mas naging okay po ba yung buhay nyo
or yung dati pa rin?

Household member: Yung dati

Interviewer: Yung mga bilihin po ba, mas nagmahal po ba ngayon or yung simula
ng pinatayo yan?

Household member: Oo, nagmahal na rin

Interviewer: Kung kayo po papipiliin, gusto niyo po ba idevelop, kung maganda po yung
leadership?

Household member: Mas maganda pa yung dati, nung hawak pa nga ng munispyo
kami pa talaga nag aano dyan

Interviewer: So maganda munisipyo sa inyo, yung relationship nyo? Ano po yung

inaano ng munisipyo sa inyo?

Household member: Eh buwan buwan meron kaming ano, sinisweldohan nila kami dun

Interviewer: Sino po yung ano dun, yung leader, tourism officer?

Household member: Si Engr. Evangelista

Interviewer: Konsehal?

Household member: Hindi, engineer

Interviewer: Simula po nung pinatayo ito, hindi na kayo naano?

101
Household member: Hindi na, sila sila nalang naghawak dyan, wala na kami pakinabang
dyan

Interviewer: Ahh alam nyo po ba na part ng mmpl yung itong area nyo po?

Household member: Oo, pagkaalam ko nga paano na rin, kasama na doon

Interviewer: DENR po ba? So, sige yun lang po. Maraming salamat po

Tourism Establishment 1

Interviewer: Gaano na po katagal ‘tong business niyo?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Since 1996

Interviewer: Ano po nag-udyok sa inyo na itayo ‘tong business niyong lodging house?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Marami kaming kaibigang nakikituloy lang. Sabi nila,
gumawa raw ng ganun para hindi na sila mahiyang tumuloy. Kaya gumawa kami ng
kaunting lodging para may matutuluyan sila. Yung mga ahente bang mga suki sa business
naming

Interviewer: Ilan po ‘yung kwarto dati?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Dati walong kwarto lang.

Interviewer: Eh ngayon po?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Ngayon dito thirteen na rooms na. Bukod pa ‘yung doon
sa kabila.

Interviewer: So, describe niyo naman po ‘yung araw-araw niyong operations. Parang
kung ano po ‘yung araw-araw na nangyayari dito.

Tourism Establishment Owner: Wala namang nangyayaring ano, basta pag may magcheck-
in, tatanggapin namin tapos ‘yun, mga decent naman mga nagche-check-in kasi hindi kami
tumatanggap nung mga nagche-check-in na, ‘yung mga short time short

102
time lang. Ayoko ng ganun. Halimbawa ‘yung mga ahente, ‘yung mga auditor ng
bangko pag nagche-check-in sila, auditor ng rural bank, mga ganun. Bisita ng PSU, dati.

Interviewer: Nirerecommend ba kayo ng mga kaibigan at kakilala niyo?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Oo naman.

Interviewer: May permit po ba ‘tong business niyo?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Oo naman. Hindi ka pwedeng magbusiness dito nang

walang permit. Mayor’s permit, DTI, BIR, lahat kumpleto. Hindi pwede dito ‘yung
illegal. Mag-umpisa ka sa Barangay Clearance, Mayor’s permit, DTI, BIR, ayun.

Interviewer: Ano naman po ‘yung mga policies niyo para sa mga bisita?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Wala naman kaming mahigpit na policy sa kanila basta
ayaw lang naming ‘yung mga, halimbawa, nag-iinuman sila, naglalasing, ayaw ko ng
ganun. Ayaw ko rin na magdadala sila ng mga babae. Gusto ko kung sino nagcheck-in,
‘yun lang. ‘Di pwede ‘yung may dadating jan, papasok sa kwarto, ayoko ng ganun.
Saka ayoko ng maingay. Respeto na rin sa ibang guest.

Interviewer: Madalas rin po ba sa mga guest niyo na pumupunta sa mga tourist

attraction dito sa Brooke’s Pt.?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Ay bihira. Hindi katulad sa Puerto na maraming

turista. Dito bihira.

Interviewer: So ‘yung mga madalas na bisita niyo po, ‘yung mga may sadya talaga dito sa
Brooke’s Pt.?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Oo, yun nga ‘yung mga ahente, mga bisita ng munisipyo.
Halimbawa ‘yung mga nagmimeeting sila, nagpapaseminar sila. Iba-ibang kumpanya.

Interviewer: May accreditation po ba itong business ninyo ng DOT?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Ay wala. Pero nagsusubmit din kami ng mga guest
namin. Monthly nagsusubmit kami dun. Nagbibigay kami ng report naming kung ilan

103
‘yung naging bisita namin. Meron nga kaming award jan eh kasi lagi kaming
updated magbigay ng ano. Masipag gumawa ‘yung aking bantay jan.

Interviewer: Meron po bang mga foreigner na nagchecheck-in dito?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Bihira. Madalang na madalang. Baka sa isang taon

eh dalawang beses lang meron kami.

Interviewer: Kailan naman po pinakamalakas ‘yung buhos ng guest? ‘Yung

pinakamataas ‘yung occupancy nitong lodging house?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Hindi naman pare-pareho. Halos ganun-ganun lang. Pag
merong palaro dito, halimbawa Palarong Panlalawigan, o kaya MIMAROPA o kaya
merong okasyon na gaganapin sa munisipyo na festival. Saka pag may convention ng
mga teacher, ‘yung sa DepEd.

Interviewer: Meron po ba kayong comment card? Ano po kadalasang kumento nila sa

stay nila dito?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Wala kaming comment card. Pero nakakausap ko

naman ‘yung mga guest. Wala naman silang nasasabing pangit. Nagustuhan naman nila.
Maganda daw naman kahit luma. Unang-una malinis. Wala naman silang comment na
“Ay, hindi na kami magche-check-in jan”, “Mga bastos mga nakacheck-in dun”,
wala naman.

Interviewer: Saan naman po nagmula ‘yung mga empleyado niyo?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Isa lang empleyado ko dito. Hindi na ako naghahanap ng
marami, ako na nag-aasikaso dito. Pag may nagcheck-in jan, aayusin ko na lang ‘yung
kama, tapos lilinisin. Wala naman kasing napakarami. Basta ‘yung sinasabi ko sa’yo,
punuan lang talaga kami pag may mga Palarong Panlalawigan, MIMAROPA, at saka pag
may okasyon jan sa munisipyo, bibigyan nila kami ng maraming guest.

Interviewer: So, paano po pag ganun, kung mag-isa lang kayo kadalasan tapos maraming
bisita?

104
Tourism Establishment Owner: ‘Yung katulong ko na lang dito sa bahay. Dalawa lang
kami. Lalagyan lang naman ng beddings ‘yan. Pag nakumpleto na ‘yan, pagpasok nila,
matutulog na lang sila. Wala namang maraming tatrabahuhin pa. Ganun lang ‘yun. Pag-
alis ng guest namin, lilinisin na ‘yan. So lalagyan lang ng beddings, so pag may
pumasok, nakaready na.

Interviewer: Water system?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Sa NAWASA. Malinis ang tubig dito.

Interviewer: Waste disposal?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Meron kaming basurahan, tatlong klase.

Plastic, nabubulok, merong bote-bote.

Interviewer: Ano pong tingin niyong epekto ng business niyo sa environment?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Magaling din ‘yung business namin. Kasi unang-una,
nakakatulong din kami sa mga taong nangangailangan, ng kanilang tutulugan, tutuluyan,
halimbawa ‘yung mga overnight lang. Malaking bagay ‘yun. Kung sa kalikasan naman,
okay naman. Kasi hindi naman nakakasira ng kalikasan dito sa atin. Masisira lang ‘yung
kalikasan pag halimbawa, tapon sila dito nang hindi maayos. Depende na rin yun sa may-
ari kung mangyayari ‘yun. Kung marami kang guest, e ‘di alagaan mo ‘yung basura nila,
i-segregate mo, lagay mo sa tapunan ng basurahan. Pagdaan ng mga truck, hahakutin na
lang.

Interviewer: Gaano po kadalas ang pagdaan ng trak ng basura?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Araw-araw. Dati dito noon, tuwing araw lang ng
Miyerkules, dadaan ‘yung nabubulok. Sa Biyernes, dadaan ‘yung hindi nabubulok.
Nagreklamo ‘yung mga tao. Kasi nga naman, ‘yung nabubulok, kahit na wala kang
tinatapon ‘dun na mga nabubulok na bagay, halimbawa ‘yung mga bituka ng isda or kung
ano-ano pang mga tira-tirang pagkain, mangangamoy ‘yan talaga. Siyempre, kapag
ganun na, inuuod na ‘yan, nangangamoy na kaya nagreklamo mga tao, ang ginawa
ngayon, araw-araw na. Basta isegregate mo lang basura mo.

105
Interviewer: Ano na po ‘yung mga pagbabago simula nang itinayo ninyo itong
business, sa turismo ng Brooke’s Pt.?

Tourism Establishment Owner: Ay malaki na ang pagbabago. Kasi dati wala silang
matutuluyang ganito, kung saan-saan lang sila manunuluyan na kamag-anak or kaibigan,
eh ngayon, meron na silang napupuntahang ganito. Malaking bagay sa mga turista.
Meron na kaming nasusuggest kung saan sila pupunta. Pwede silang pumunta sa
Sabsaban (Falls) or ngayon nadagdag ‘yung sa Maruyog Ridge, Maruyog Farm at
EcoFarm, Mainit Falls, diba.

Tourism Establishment 2

Interviewer: Meron po kaming 8 questions so baka mga 20 minutes po yung

interview. Sa unang question po, alam niyo po ba kung bakit malapit sa mt
mantalingahan tinayo yung resort?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Mt. mantalingahan? Dito rin kasi sya kasi, sa tabon
cave

Interviewer: Ahh dahil sa tabon cave po hindi dahil sa mmpl?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Hindi at saka tinayo na rin nila para sa business

Interviewer: Can you describe your daily operations?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Hmm. everyday may mga pumapasok, nag checheck
in galing ibat ibang lugar, meron dyan galing ibang bansa, mga foreigner

Interviewer: May record po ba kayo kung ilan yung dumadating na mga bisita nyo po?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Wala kasing peak season, minsan madami, minsan
hindi. Pag minsan madami lalo na pag may occasion, mga nagpapabook marami yun
minsan loaded hindi magkasya dito sa lodging house.

Interviewer: Ahh depende po sa okasyon?

106
Tourism Establishment Employee: Saka dito kasi parang walang peak season minsan
madami minsan hindi

Interviewer: Wala pong, walang buwan talaga?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Kung sa buwan talaga, more or less, mga summer,
mas marami sa ka december din

Interviewer: Pero mas madami po ba yun domestic or foreign?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Konti lang yung foreign

Interviewer: Mga American po ba ganun?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Ibat ibang lugar din

Interviewer: May mga comments po ba sila about sa resort niyo?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Meron din, ah nakita nyo naman kasi hindi sya
katulad ng ibang class diba, yun lang comment nila saka maganda yung ambiance,
pero pagdating sa yung mga accommodation hindi pa sya ganun ka-class

Interviewer: Pero tahimik po kasi?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Oo, yun yung ano nila dito tahimik saka maganda
yung ano

Interviewer: So, yung mga employees nyo po dito taga-saan po?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Taga dito din sa quezon

Interviewer: Sa quezon po?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Meron din sa ibang municipal, pero karamihan dito
sa quezon

Interviewer: Paano po hina-hire? Referral po ba o may nag-aapply?

Tourism Establishment Employee: May nag-aapply tapos meron din to present lang dito

107
Interviewer: Ay alam niyo po ba yung PAMB? Yung protected area management
board po?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Narinig ko na pero hindi ko alam

Interviewer: Pero may mga partner po ba kayong establishment? Yung resort?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Ay hindi naman kasi sakin to kaya hindi ko alam.
Pero pagkakaalam ko parang wala, ano kasi ito, private

Interviewer: Ahh hindi po tulad ng iba na may partner?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Oo private siya

Interviewer: Ahh saan niyo po kinukuha yung supplies nyo? Kunwari sa pagkain..

Tourism Establishment Employee: Diyan sa market

Interviewer: Bumibili lang po kayo sa market? Yung mga wastes po, pano nyo
po dinidispose? May nagko-collect po ba?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Wala, hindi sila nagko-collect dito, yung ano dito
sa munisipyo, may sarili kaming lagayan ng basurahan

Interviewer: Tapos saan niyo po dinadala after?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Yung ano, naghukay lang kami, nag segregate lang
kasi wala naman dyan nagkukuha, kahit iniipon namin dyan hindi rin nila nakukuha

Interviewer: Ah sa tingin niyo po, ano po yung epekto ng resort na to sa environment?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Hmmm good naman sya. Bakit? Anong cause sa
environment? Hindi naman kasi nakakasira kasi natural lang.

Interviewer: Yun lang naman po. Thank you po!

108
Tourism Establishment 3

Interviewer: Good morning po, ako po pala si Love, sya po si Angelique. So start na po
tayo?

Interviewer: So uhm alam nyo ba kung bakit dito yung location ng business?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Kasi mas, saka to kilala yung tabon cave kaya dito
naisip na business ng boss namin kasi malapit lang sya tabon cave kaya darating yung
time na syempre pag marami nang tourists pag naimprove yung tabon cave, maraming
pupunta

Interviewer: So pano po yung daily operations nyo, ano po yung ginagawa? Diba pension
house saka restaurant. Describe nyo po yun ginagawa nyo?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Ginagawa? Kasi ako na-assign sa cashier, cashier po

ako, sa araw araw syempre marami kaming guests lagi. Maraming mga bisita mga
foreign ganyan

Interviewer: Ano po yung mga policies nyo sa mga bisita?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Rules o regulations sa guests? Ay hindi ko pa po alam

kung alin mga rules o regulation

Interviewer: Ahh wala pa naman po?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Oo

Interviewer: May record po ba kayo ng mga bumibisita dito? May daily?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Oo Meron, may daily guest logbook kami

Interviewer: Sa average po ilan po yung pumupunta?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Mostly kasi yung mga regular guests namin dito yung
mga delivery van yung mga, foreign guests namin mga 3-5 person lang daily.

Interviewer: Pero yearly? Wala po?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Ay yearly may nakabook kami. Yung nakaraang year
mga taga US Navy. Yung marine, dito sila naka check in yung mga nagpapatayo ata ng
= 109
school building. Tapos ngayon kasi nakabook din kasi ngayon yung taga US Navy,
yung project nila magpapatayo ng school sa Quezon.

Interviewer: So mas marami po bang foreign na pumupunta dito kaysa?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Mas marami yung mga hindi foreign. Minsan lang
mga foreign

Interviewer: Anong buwan po ba sila pinakarami?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Pinakamarami pag may summer

Interviewer: Marami rin po bang pumupunta sa may tabon?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Marami din

Interviewer: So dumami po ba sya lalo or kumpara sa dati? Kelan po ba kayo nag start ng
work?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Ako nag start mag work year 2008

Interviewer: Ahh medyo matagal na rin. Pero ito po, kailan nag start?

Tourism Establishment Employee: 2007, december nag start. Tapos nag start ako dito
2008 june

Interviewer: So bagong bukas palang po, nandito na kayo?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Ginagawa palang yung ibang building

Interviewer: Ilang rooms po meron dito?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Hmm lahat lahat ng nag-ooperate

23. Interviewer: Parepareho po yung mga kwarto?

Tourism Establishment Employee: May mga vip namin 10 rooms tapos yung ordinary 13.

Interviewer: So yung mga turista nagcocomment po ba sila, meron po ba kayong

mga comment box ganyan?

110
Tourism Establishment Employee: Ay wala naman. Okay naman mga ano namin
kasi wala naman sila ng comments

Interviewer: So yung mga nagtatrabaho po rito, mga taga saan po?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Taga rito rin. Quezon lang

Interviewer: More on referral or apply?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Apply, send ng biodata or resume. Yung iba

referral halimbawa kakilala ganyan pero mostly nag-aapply

Interviewer: Ahh alam nyo po ba yung PAMB? Protected area management board? Hmm
kasi diba malapit din ito sa Mt. Mantalingahan?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Sa brookes? Ahh kasama siya?

Interviewer: Opo kasama rin yung quezon. Nakikipag coordinate po ba kayo?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Ay hindi ko alam sa boss namin, kasi ako dito lang
ako nag stay

Interviewer: May mga seminar po sila na pinapa-attend?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Uhum

Interviewer: Yung seminar po ba alam nyo po kung tungkol saan? Or kahit di kayo
nakapunta alam nyo po ba yung title or tungkol saan yung mga seminar?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Naririnig ko lang pero di ako naka-attend yung boss
lang namin nakaattend.

Interviewer: Mga government po ba?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Marami sya ina-attendan, kunwari sa mga ano

lahat. Ako di nakakaattend

Interviewer: Sa disposal of wastes nyo po, may nangongolekta po ba?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Meron po, tuwing friday. Twice a week

111
Interviewer: Sino po nangongolekta?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Yung dito sa munisipyo, yung basurero dito

Interviewer: May segregation po ba?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Oo meron

Interviewer: Paano po yung nabubulok kasi weekly?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Parang twice a week sila kumukuha dito

Interviewer: Pero diba pag nabubulok, halimbawa pag kinabukasan pwede nang
uurin ganun?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Sa separate na lalagyan

Interviewer: Uhm yung business permit nyo po sa munisipyo lang galing?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Marami, kumpleto yan

Interviewer: Meron po sa DENR?

Tourism Establishment Employee: DENR? Di ko po alam kung meron dyan

Interviewer: DOT accreditation?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Meron ata dyan pero di ko sure. Kasi dalawang outlet
kasi to, yung isa kasi dun sa grocery tapos sa taas doon may pension din

Interviewer: Doon po?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Oo doon sa harap ng market, yung grocery doon

na malaki. Oo dalawa yung outlet, baka andoon yung file. Hindi ko po alam

Interviewer: Sa tingin nyo po, ano po yung epekto ng business na to sa environment?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Syempre ano, epekto sa environment?

Interviewer: Okay lang po ba or wala naman siyang epekto?

112
Tourism Establishment Employee: Wala naman siguro kasi yung marami pa yung forest
na ano eh. Syempre hindi pa masyadong ano sa forest kasi konti palang mga pension dito,
establishment kaya..

Interviewer: Yung mga ano po may mga tumutuloy din po ba rito, kunwari
mga researcher ganun?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Mga researcher? Oo meron. Nakaraan san ba yun...

Interviewer: Mga foreigner po ba?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Mga foreign sya, tapos nagpunta sila sa tabon cave
kasi pero nakalimutan ko kung anong company nila, basta matagal dito sila nakastay.

Interviewer: Ahh dito sila nag stay?

Tourism Establishment Employee: Oo, tapos nag ano sila sa tabon cave kasi
ipopromote daw nila sa ibang bansa

Interviewer: Uhh thank you po.

DENR

Interviewer: So start na po tayo? Uhm. Meron po akong 8 interview questions so

baka tumagal po ng 10-20 minutes. Okay lang po yun?

Interviewer: So first question po. Uhm meron po ba kayong specific programs in

protecting the environment? May campaign po ba about?

DENR Employee: Oo, IEC. Tapos minsan nagcoconduct din kami ng capacity
building. Uhh katulad niyan kasi sa ano meron kaming protected area na hindi
pinahintulutan na putulin.

Interviewer: Anong program po iyon?

DENR Employee: Uhm, yung pinaka-ano talaga diyan yung IEC.

Interviewer: IEC?

113
DENR Employee: Information, Education and Communication Campaign. Yun yung
pinaka parang basic tool para ma-communicate, magbigay ng information regarding sa
DENR program.

Interviewer: Paano niyo po siya pino-promote? May ka-partner po ba kayong mga

barangay or kayo lang po yung nagpopromote nun?

DENR Employee: Opo, pumupunta kami sa barangay, coordinated na yun.

May coordination. Always coordinating.

Interviewer: Lahat ng barangay official po yun? Sa Quezon lang?

DENR Employee: Sa Rizal din, bale 2 municipality yung ano namin, restriction.

Interviewer: So yung mga local community nagpaparticipate talaga sila?

DENR Employee: Sa ano, kapag may IEC.

Interviewer: Mga ilan yung nagpaparticipate? Marami naman per barangay?

DENR Employee: Dapat tinanong natin yung babae kanina. Siya kasi yung aming IO,
information officer. Katulad ngayon, kasi next week meron kaming people’s day so nag
invite kami. Yun kasi may panukala na kasi si bagong Secretary Lopez na magkaroon ng
people’s day. Yun kasi yung forum kung saan ininvite namin yung mga stakeholders sa
Quezon at Rizal. Eh yung affected talaga ng mga programs namin yung may concern.

Interviewer: Saan gaganapin yun?

DENR Employee: Bale dito, sa gymnasium.

DENR Employee: Tinatanong niya kung marami nagpaparticipate during IEC.

DENR Employee: Kasi yung target namin ay hindi mismo yung public, minsan depende
sa purpose yan, minsan kapag ano, may mga programs kami na kailangan namin mga tao,
katulad nung nakaraan na may kinalaman, nag-attend nun halos 200+

Interviewer: Depende po sa kung ano meron?

114
DENR Employee: Eh kasi minsan nag-IIEC kami, hindi lang, kundi para maging aware
din yung mga tao sa mga… minsan hindi nila alam, kailangan kami lumapit sa kanila.
Kapag kasi una yan, nagbibigay kami ng letter sa barangay, tapos yung kapitan yung
makikipag-coordinate sa mga tao. Depende rin sa effort ng barangay yun eh, minsan busy
sila, minsan kokonti mga 50. Kapag kasi hindi nila na-disseminate yung letter, konti lang
darating pero nung mga nakaraan okay naman kasi nagbigay kami ng letter ng maaga
tapos masipag naman yung barangay.

Interviewer: Paano niyo ba ine-encourage na pumunta? Or nagbibigay lang ba kayo ng

letter?

DENR Employee: Kasi meron kaming ano may mga nagraradio kami program,
pinakabasic kasi niyan dapat may ano kami, tapos nga magbobroadcast kayo..

Interviewer: Parang wala po ba kayong panghikayat sa kanila?

DENR Employee: Minsan kasi hindi mo na kailangan maghikayat kasi. Halimbawa pag
sa lupa, pag yung topic ay sa lupa, maraming pupunta. Depende sa topic. Pero meron rin
kaming mga ibang environment program, minsan din kasi may trabaho sila eh. Kapag
yung timing mo mali, kapag naka-work sila, kaunti lang pupunta.

Interviewer: May mga businessman din po ba kayong ini-invite na pumunta?

DENR Employee: Mga private stakeholders? Dapat lagi silang kasama nga kasi hindi
lang public. Dapat public and private stakeholders. Oo , kasama sila.

DENR Employee: Nagpatawag ng meeting yung pamb sa mga business, nagpameeting

sila sa, kasi po may an diba, may about sa land, may about sa trip, meron naman sa
environmental, so kung sino yung naka-assign doon, sila na po yung nag-initiate na
pumunta. Pero yung mga business man kasi may mga ano na kino-comply nila. So sila
na nagpatawag ng meeting.

Interviewer: So, yung sa mga rules and regulations sa mmpl? Kayo rin ba yung
nag-iimplement doon?

DENR Employee: Sa mmpl kasi 5 municipalities, Quezon, Brooke’s point, Rizal.. So

yung mmpl office ay dito sa quezon, so may protected area superintendent, sila talaga

115
yung nagmamanage ng PA. Meron silang tinatawag sila na blue guards, green guards
na nagkalat diyan sa PA.

Interviewer: So, through guards kung paano siya mino-monitor?

DENR Employee: Oo, sila na.

Interviewer: Parang may specific ba kayong rules sa mmpl?

DENR Employee: Kung ano, about mmpl kasi, mas maganda siguro kung sumagot
niyan, sila mismo. Dito kasi sa denr, meron ditong iba’t ibang ward kasi dito. Mayroong
protected area, forestry, land. Parang may concentrated, pag nagtrabaho kasi matagal. Or
mas maganda multi-tasking, kumukuha naman. Halimbawa, pag wala yung naka-assign
na personnel, pwede naman trabahuhin yung sa ibang sector, pero kung andiyan yung
mga naka-assign na personnel, sila talaga.

Interviewer: Sa municipality may naka-assign na personnel?

DENR Employee: Meron po, eh kasi maraming office.

Interviewer: So kino-coordinate nalang din per municipality?

DENR Employee: Halimbawa, dito sa quezon, dalawang municipality yung jurisdiction,

kung taga-quezon or taga-rizal ka, yung concerns mo, halimbawa sa quezon ka pupunta.
Pag sa Brooke’s point, meron doon.

Interviewer: Pero isa lang naman yung batas na ini-implement?

DENR Employee: Opo, isa lang.

Interviewer: Ano yung opinyon niyo about sa turismo sa mmpl?

DENR Employee: Tourism.. Marami naman pumupunta na mga hiker, nag ma-
mountaineering. Marami naman.

Interviewer: Pabor naman kayo?

DENR Employee: Opo kasi kumukuha naman sila ng permit bago sila pumunta sa area.

Interviewer: Mga anong klaseng turista yung mga pumupunta?

116
DENR Employee: Nakaraan kasi, mga local, may foreign. Karamihan talaga hiker.

Interviewer: May mga researcher din ba?

DENR Employee: Last time may pumunta. Meron, may mga school din kasing
nagcoconduct katulad ng sa protected area, medyo mas malapit yung ano kaysa sa
mmpl. Pero kumpleto naman yung data ng tao kung sino yung pumupunta sa mmpl
pwede niyong makuha.

Interviewer: Nagbibigay din ba kayo ng regulation sa kanila bago sila aakyat?

DENR Employee: Meron, bago sila aakyat saka may guide talaga sila. Pagpunta nila dito,
ibibigay namin yung name at number ng mag-guide sa kanila tapos yun yung ko-contact-kin
ng hiker, tapos sila na mag-usap sa area. Meron talaga naka-assign na guide sa kanila.

Interviewer: Yung mga guide po, taga-saan sila?

DENR Employee: Usually, taga-doon na. Mas kabisado nila.

Interviewer: So, may taga-quezon din?

DENR Employee: Meron.

Interviewer: So, meron po bang entrance fee yung pagpunta sa mmpl?

DENR Employee: Yun ang hindi ko masyado, kasi yung alam ko lang permit lang.
Parang magbibigay lang sila ng ano sa guide, pero hindi na office yung nag-uusap, yung
guide at hiker.

Interviewer: Parang bayad nalang sa guide? Hindi po sa inyo?

DENR Employee: Kasi, sila na nag-uusap. Ibibigay lang yung number tapos sila na
bahala mag-usap. Walang nanggagaling dito sa office na, ito yung bayad ng guide.
Yung importante lang na pagpunta nila doon, meron silang permit.

Interviewer: Yung guide ba denr ang nag hire o pasu? Or kung sinong guide nalang?

DENR Employee: Coordinated sa kanila, under yun ng denr. Kasi sa lahat, denr.
Kumbaga pero yung direct supervisor nila ay yung pasu.

117
Interviewer: Sa tingin niyo po, ano yung positive and negative impacts ng tourism
sa protected landscape?

DENR Employee: Halimbawa kasi diba, kapag in-open sa public yang ano niyan,
magugulo yan kasi protected area nga siya, kumbaga hindi sa lahat ng oras open siya,
may mga limitations. Katulad niyan, may plano raw na lalagyan ng market doon sa taas,
so ang possibility na magiging bad effect niya yung ma-iipon ang tao, magugulo doon,
pero yung magandang epekto niya naman is katulad parang siguro kung may tourism
diyan, yung alternative livelihood program ng mga IPs. Positive ng tourism yun, lahat
naman may pros and cons eh. Ayun magkaroon sila ng karagdagang hanap buhay.

Interviewer: Yung funds po, meron ba kayong funds sa denr? Saan niyo po nakukuha?

DENR Employee: Meron. Allotted sa specific area.

Interviewer: Alam niyo kung saan galing mismo?

DENR Employee: Actually kasi, yung alam ko diyan. Uhm kasi sa planning ako eh, yung
pondo diyan binababa nalang so, bina-budgetan yan kung halimbawa, ito yung program
ng mmpl, so syempre kapag in-approve yun ng central office. One na inapprove yan, may
ina-allot na budget yung DBM. Minsan humihingi kami ng ano na kung saan
nanggagaling yung pondo, kasi syempre nagtataka rin yung mga tao.

Interviewer: Pero wala naman nagdodonate from private?

DENR Employee: Meron yan, kung may mga program. Hindi lang namin alam yung
specific na ano. Pero nung nakaraan yung CI, nagbigay. Pero yung kumbaga may ni-
conduct ka nang activity talaga, may mga tumutulong naman. Siguro kapag kung ano
yung mga nakalagay na program na concern ng denr, popondohan ng denr, pero
halimbawa kung wala naman sa target eh kasi karamihan pag wala sa target, hindi
nagbibigay yung ibang agencies or other partners ng pondo.

Interviewer: So, saan niyo po ina-allocate yung budget sa mmpl? Programs, seminars?

DENR Employee: Karamihan niyan mga training, syempre yung information yung pag
disseminate, tapos nagkoconduct din ng training, monitoring din yan, tapos nagrereport

118
kung ano yung nangyayari. Nirereport yan monthly, basta hindi lang basta ano,
denr. May concern din kami sa ibang area.

Interviewer: Nakikipag-coordinate din ba kayo sa tourism establishment para

mapromote yung mga campaign niyo about protection of the environment?

DENR Employee: Yun ang hindi ko..

Interviewer: Basta through seminars po? Nag-aattend sila?

DENR Employee: Edi, usually po, kasama naman sa nagiging member ang denr,
katulad ng sa ECAN, ECAN board, so member din po.

Interviewer: Ano yung ECAN?

DENR Employee: Environmental for.. Hindi ko matandaan. Basta E-C-A-N. Pero

pagdating sa mga concern na related sa environment, laging member ang denr.
For enforcement, kasama ang denr.

Interviewer: Pero sinasabihan niyo ba sila na magbigay ng regulations about

sa environment? Kung paano i-dispose yung mga wastes nila?

DENR Employee: Ayun po, properly oriented naman sila. Kasi natatalakay naman yun
kung mag-attend ka ng meeting, pag ireraise na yung mga concerns. Doon na papasok
yun.

Interviewer: Paano niyo mino-monitor kung tama ba yung pag-dispose nila?

DENR Employee: For example, kasi may mining dito sa palawan, nagkakaroon sila ng
MMT validation. So doon, malalaman na kung nakaka-comply ba sila sa mga conditions
o hindi.

Interviewer: Ano po? M-m..?

DENR Employee: MMT.. multipartite monitoring team. Nagko-conduct po yun sila

quarterly.

Interviewer: So may monitoring team po? Tuwing?

119
DENR Employee: Quarterly, pero kung may mag arise na violations, may mga agaran
namang inspection na pumupunta doon.

Interviewer: Lahat ba ng establishment binibisita nila?

DENR Employee: Yung MMT? Sa mining po yun eh. Sa mga establishment naman
katulad ng resort, iba naman yan. Sa EMB naman yun na concern. Yung mga resort,
yung mga restaurant, mga ganun. Yung EMB naman po yun, Environmental
Management Bureau, sila naman po yung assign para doon.

Interviewer: Saan po sila?

DENR Employee: May office din sila dito, dito rin sila nag-ooffice sa CENRO. Marami
kasi siyang hawak, parang buong palawan sa kanya, kaya malaki siya sakop niya. Yan
talaga regular siya na nag-aano, gawa ng super dami ng ano area of jurisdiction niya
malaki. Umaabot din kasi sa Mindoro?

Interviewer: Kayo po sa denr, ilan kayong employee?

DENR Employee: Ano, ngayon 56 kami dito, hindi kasama yung mga, so sa 56 na yan
lahat yun halos lahat yun permanent.

Interviewer: Lahat kayo taga-Quezon?

DENR Employee: Ay hindi. Yung iba galing narra, yung iba brooke’s point, rizal. Pero
ang majority, taga-Quezon.

Interviewer: May nabalitaan ako na madedelist na yung Mt. Mantalingahan sa

protected area? Alam niyo po ba yun?

DENR Employee: Hindi ako aware sa balitang yan.

Interviewer: Kasi sabi, lalagyan na ng mining kaya, kasi diba pag protected area,
bawal yun?

DENR Employee: Oo, actually kasi yung protected area, malaking yung ano eh, hindi
na ano itong mmpl.

Interviewer: Pero sa balitang yun, ano pong opinyon niyo?

120
DENR Employee: Pero sa hindi, saka proclaimed na siya eh, hindi naman basta
basta madedelist yan diba?

Interviewer: Tapos may balita rin po about insurgent sa mmpl?

DENR Employee: Nakakatakot naman yung mga ano. Eh kasi yang mmpl may apat na
classification ng lupa, yung agricultural, tapos meron ngang protected area tapos yung
land. Saka pag protected area, wala talagang ibang activity diyan saka depende rin kung
ano yung nauna, diba approve naman yung mining doon, bago pa naiproclaimed, meron
na yun pero wala naman kami narereceive na memorandum na madedelist siya eh.
Protected area na siya, hindi na siya maaalis. Actually ina-apply namin na maging
UNESCO siya. Iyon lang yung narinig ko kasi nung nakaraan nag attend sila ng seminar
kung paano siya masasama sa listahan ng UNESCO..

Interviewer: Kasi mas ma-poprotect siya kung kasama siya sa list..

DENR Employee: Oo kasi ano na yun eh, global na yun pero protected area maganda
nga yung proclaimed na kaya hindi na siya maalis.

Interviewer: So, yun nga kasi malaki nga yung mmpl, paano niyo minomonitor yung
safety and security ng mga pumupunta doon?

DENR Employee: Diba kapag ano, may permit tapos may kasama na sila na mga taga-
doon. Binabayaran nila mga tao. Meron din mga green guard na nagpapatrol doon.

Interviewer: 24 hours ba silang nagpapatrol doon?

DENR Employee: Yun kasing iba doon talaga natutulog tapos kalat kalat na sila
doon. Kaya yung mga kinukuha taga doon na eh.

Interviewer: So, ano po yung future plans and projects niyo sa area?

DENR Employee: Sa mmpl na talaga, sila kasi may mga program na sila, mga plano
yan. Saka before ma-proclaimed, lumalabas na may mga occupancy din, meron diba?
Sila naman kung di naman sila basta basta pwedeng paalisin so yung mangyayari diyan
mag-aano sila ng parang agreement sa mmpl, or mag apply sa pasa, protected area
special application. Para maprotektahan yung area.

121
Interviewer: So, improvement nalang ng application pa?

DENR Employee: Hindi nga eh, pero sa paano natin mapoprotektahan, yung
mga management plan siguro ganun.

Interviewer: Sa denr po, ano yung plans niyo?

DENR Employee: Mas maganda talaga kung sila, katulad niyan sa forest, yung ibang
sector, ibang grupo na sila nagmamanage, nag-aalaga, nagpoprotekta.

Interviewer: May project daw kayo sa susunod?

DENR Employee: Ahh yung people’s day? Mga concern ng mga stakeholder, pwede
tanungin within the day. Next week siya, maganda sana yun kasi makikita mo yung
mga concerns nila na pwede nilang iraise doon.

Interviewer: Every year niyo yun kino-conduct?

DENR Employee: Actually, binalik nalang ngayon. Matagal na yun eh tapos bumalik
ngayon. Last year wala. Siguro kasi hindi naman basta basta pag-conduct niyan, mga
participants, saka yung funds. Pero minsan pwedeng pledge, katulad samin, hindi namin
kukunin sa ano kasi gagawan ng activity, share-share nalang, contribution

Interviewer: Okay na po, salamat po.

Asst. PASu

Interviewer: ‘Yung unang question, ano po ‘yung vision, ‘yung pag-assess as a protected
area nitong Mount Mantalingahan? Ano po ‘yung vision niyo nung una niyong na-
establish?

Asst. PASu: Explain ko muna ‘yung ano ha. Kasi 2009, Nung June 23, 2009, ‘yun ‘yung
naproclaim na Mount Mantalingahan. It covers 5 municipalities and 36 barangays, southern
Palawan. So nung una syempre ang vision talaga ng Mount Mantalingahan,
‘yung talagang, ‘yung aking sasabihin hindi lamang ako kundi ‘yung sa buong ano staple din
ng PL so syempre para maprotektahan ‘yung laksang buhay ng Mount Mantalingahan

122
kasi iba ‘yung biodiversity dun sa MMPL. Diverse siya compared dun sa mga ibang
protected area.

Interviewer: Paano niyo po masasabing iba siya kumpara sa ibang mga protected area?

Asst. PASu: Masasabi naming iba iyong MMPL kasi ‘yung mga species ng mga wildlife
dito compare mo sa ibang PA ay wala kang matatagpuan dun sa ibang area mas marami
dito sa Mount Mantalingahan. May mga study na kinonduct, mga research na kinonduct
sa Mount Mantalingahan kaya nasabi ko na mas diverse dito sa MMPL kasi ‘pag may
mga summit kami may mga foreign na PA within MIMAROPA ‘pag nagpresent kami
makikita namin ‘yung pagkaiba-iba ng PA so mas diverse talaga sa Mount
Mantalingahan. At yung Mount Mantalingahan ay ang pinakamalaki ang area,
pinakamalaki dito sa buong southern Palawan atsaka sa buong, I think sa buong Pilipinas.
‘Yung PA ‘yung pinakamahaba. It covers 5 municipalities with a total of 120,457
hectares.

‘Yung species na last na nadiscover ‘yung mga crabs plus ‘yung sa mga bats, ‘yung
sacolinus-sacolinus basta marami sila na mga species na basta dyan lang sa Palawan ulit
nakita. Nagconduct ng research noon ay ‘yung Conservation International. Ang team
leader nila ay ‘yung pinatay na si Dr. Leonard Co. Basta siya nagsponsor nag-initiate
talaga ng financial matter ‘yung Conservation International para maproclaim ang Mount
Mantalingahan.

Interviewer: So dati po ano po ba status ng Mount Mantalingahan before maging

protected area?

Asst. PASu: Wala ‘yan siya. Bundok lang siya pagkatapos meron-meron na ring mga
initiative ‘yung mga LGU. Kasi nung una meron na ring group ‘yung Mount
Mantalingahan Task Force. ‘Yung task force naman na ‘yun sa time ‘yun ni Governor
Socrates. Kaso hindi ‘yun napush through kasi ang gusto nilang sundin syempre ano ‘yun
LGU ‘yun ang susundin nila yung ICP law e hindi kung gusto mo maging protected area
susundin mo yung naipass na act, ‘yung 7586. So nung time naman ni Secretary
Defensor, yung time na sumulat ‘yung South Palawan Planning Council na humihingi ng
tulong na gusto na nila maging protected area ang Mount Mantalingahan through sa
naipass na act.

123
Interviewer: So ‘yung primary ano po dito conservation-

Asst. PASu: Conservation protection.

Interviewer: Conservation and protection. Meron po ba kayong assessment nung buong

management? Handling ng protected landscape?

Asst. PASu: Ganito, siguro ‘yung sinasabi mong handling kung sino ‘yung mga
organization. Sa protected area kasi meron tayong Protected Area Management Board.
‘Yung PAMB, sila ‘yung board na gumagawa ng mga policy pertaining to protected area at
ito ay binubuo syempre ng 5 mayor kasi 5 municipalities plus the governor plus the 36
barangay chair and plus limang representative ng IPs plus may mga academe, may youth,
may civil society. Kasama rin ang Philippine National Police, WESCOM, Department of
Agriculture and the rest. Basta 71 ang members. Ang chair ay ‘yung aming Regional
Director.

Interviewer: Ng DENR po?

Asst. PASu: Yes.

Interviewer: So ‘di ba po meron po kayong management plan?

Asst. PASu: Yes, meron.

Interviewer: Tapos ilang years po ‘yung plano niyo?

Asst. PASu: 5 years.

Interviewer: 5 years. So kailan po siya naformulate?

Asst. PASu: 2009. Nag-ano na nga kami ng management plan, nagrevise.

Interviewer: Nagrenew na po. So paano po ‘yun, paano niyo po chinecheck kung

nasunod ba ‘yung plan?

Asst. PASu: ‘Yung plan namin, meron kasi kami sinasabi na work and financial plan
then ‘yung work and financial plan na ‘yun nakaset dun ‘yung mga activities na gagawin
mo sa loob ng isang taon.

124
Interviewer: Ay hindi po ba siya long term or medium term na 5 to 6 years?

Asst. PASu: Hindi. Ah hindi, ibig kong sabihin nun kasi merong mga activity dun na
kailangan sa taong ‘to gagawin mo kasi kagaya ng patrolling and monitoring, continuous
activity ‘yan, ganun. Mga IEC, continuous activity ‘yun, kasi nakaprogram siya.
Kunwari 5 years, tapos another 5 years titingnan mo ‘yung-

Interviewer: Ay ano po ‘yung IEC, sorry?

Asst. PASu: Information, education, communication campaigns so may mga nakalagay

doon na mga activities kung alam mong hindi naman na siya related, papalitan mo lang
siya ng tawag o ‘yung ibang target mo dadagdagan mo o isestrengthen mo, ganun.

Interviewer: So ‘yung PAMB po sila ‘yung gumagawa ka ng decision,

‘yung nagdedecide po ng matters?

Asst. PASu: Yes, lalo na dun sa mga projects na pumapasok sa protected area.

Interviewer: So ano po ‘yung mga projects dito?

Asst. PASu: Andyadyan na ‘yung mga forest products kasi wala pa ‘yung protected area
nandyadyan na ‘yung gathering ng mga almasiga resin, ng rattan, so ‘pag nagrerenew
‘yun, dadaan ‘yun dito sa protected area office para kumuha pa ng endorsement kasi
‘yung doon sa requirements kailangan meron silang endorsement from the PAMB.

Interviewer: Hindi po ba siya parang taliwas dun sa goal na conservation and protection?

Asst. PASu: Hindi. Kasi ‘yung kanilang ginagawa dun ay traditional practices na ‘yun
dahil hindi mo naman pinapatay eh

Interviewer: Ahh sino po ba sila?

Asst. PASu: Ang nag-eextract nun ay mga IPs, tradition na nila ‘yun, practices and ‘yun
ay sustainable at ‘yun ay minomonitor din ‘yun nung taga-DENR.

Interviewer: Ah so wala pong big companies na involved, ‘di po ninyo ‘yun papayagan?

Asst. PASu: Hindi company kasi kapag sa loob ang protected area, dapat ang
naggagather, ang unang magiging beneficiary ay ‘yung mga IPs, indigenous dun.

125
Interviewer: So kasama ‘yung traditional lahat sila dun sa protected area so ‘yung mga
activities nila, hinahayaan niyo lang pong ipagpatuloy nila?

Asst. PASu: Hindi. Kasi ‘yung lahat na mga naapprove na kung narinig mo ‘yung
CADC-CALC, bawat CADC meron ‘yan silang ADSDPP so ‘yung ADSDPP ng mga
IPs atsaka ‘yung mga GMP ng Mount Mantalingahan, hinaharmonize ‘yun so kung ano
‘yung mga activity na nandun sa GMP-

Interviewer: Ano po ‘yung GMP?

Asst. PASu: General Management Plan. -kailangan ‘yung ADSDPP na mga IPs ay in
consonance dun sa GMP ng MMPL, hindi sila pupwede na maglagay doon ng activity
na hindi angkop dun sa GMP ng MMPL. Ganun ‘yun.

Interviewer: So minomonitor niyo rin po?

Asst. PASu: Yes. And kasama rin naman kami dun sa paggawa nung, ‘yung bago
marevise ‘yung aming management plan, ang gumawa niyan ay ‘yun mga stakeholder
ng Mantalingahan, hindi kami. Kami ‘yung part nung sa pagrerevise pero lahat ‘yan ay
ginawa ng mga taong nasa loob ng Mantalingahan.

Interviewer: So very cooperative din naman po ‘yung mga IPs?

Asst. PASu: Yes, kasi sila naman ‘yung nandudun e majority ng nasa PA ay IPs,
Palaw-an, ‘yun lang ‘yung mga IPs dyan.

Interviewer: So saan niyo po binebase ‘yung decisions niyo, depende dun din syempre sa
plano?

Asst. PASu: Ang nagdedecide niyan ay ‘yung nasa board, protected area management
board, Kasi kami, ‘yung nandito sa protected area office, kami ‘yung secretariat, hindi
kami ‘yung mag-iinfluence sa kanila na itong gagawin niyo, sila ‘yun ‘yung
magdedecide, ‘yung PAMB.

Interviewer: Nagcoconsult din po sila sa IPs tsaka sa ibang stakeholders?

Asst. PASu: Yes, of course. Hindi pupwede silang magpass ng resolution na walang
consultation atsaka ‘yung resolution na gagawin nila, alam nila na lahat ay makikinabang,

126
hindi ka pwedeng maging bias na ito lang ang papaboran mo, lahat ay
kailangang makinabang.

Interviewer: So ano po ‘yung ano specific policies na to protect the ano protected areas?

Asst. PASu: Syempre ‘yung ano, unang-una nandyan lagi ‘yung ano patrolling
and monitoring protected area, hindi ‘yan nawawala. Meron din kaming
biodiversity monitoring system.

Interviewer: So how do you delegate ‘yun since ang laki ng area?

Asst. PASu: Meron kaming mga nakaassign na mga staff sa bawat ano munisipyo. Kahit
na kami ay undermanned, meron naman kaming laging mga collaboration dun kay Jing sa
Gawad Munisipyo sa bawat munisipyo at sa bawat barangay kasi ang lahat ng PAMB
member meron kaming coordination sa kanila so kahit na underman kami, nagagawan pa
rin namin ng paraan na laging ililink ‘yung mga PAMB members atsaka ‘yung mga
barangay leaders, barangay council, ‘yung mga tribal leaders. ‘Yun ang aming kasa-
kasama mag-implement ng mga project and program sa loob ng protected area.

Interviewer: So ‘yun para naman sa mga communities na nasakop ng

landscape, sumusunod din naman sila?

Asst. PASu: Naman. Hindi lang natin masabi na hundred percent pero sumusunod sila
kasi alam nilang may guidelines e na anytime na may violation sila na magawa
syempre sanction ka, meron kang punishment.

Interviewer: Ano po ‘yung penalties?

Asst. PASu: Pwede kang makulong kung ikaw ay nagwildlife trading, of course
makukulong ka. Kung ikaw ay nagpoach ng kahoy, makukulong ka kasi may mga
batas tayong pinapairal sa loob ng protected area.

Interviewer: So ‘yung law enforcement team niyo po ano siya depende kung saan ‘yung,
halimbawa kung sa Brooke’s Point, sila ‘yung nagpapadala ng people to enforce the law.

Asst. PASu: Hindi, kasi ‘yung 5 municipalities, dito ‘yung pinakaopisina niyan, ngayon
kung anong problema dun, may coordination kami between cenros kasi ‘yung Mount

127
Mantalingahan dalawang centros ang cover so katuwang namin ‘yung cenros Brooke’s
Point, national LGUs doon plus ‘yung lahat ng law enforcement na gumagalaw dun sa loob
ng Mount Mantalingahan ay meron kaming coordination so halimbawa may nag-ilegal dun,
alam niya na kung kanino itetext ‘yun, kung sinong sasabihan then kung iinform sa amin
edi icoconnect naman namin sa ganitong law enforcement pro. Ganun lang, connect-
connect lang kami kasi ‘di naman namin kayang puntahan lang ‘yan lahat.

Interviewer: So meron po bang mga ano dito, insurgencies, ‘yung mga namumundok?

Asst. PASu: Meron din.

Interviewer: Ano pong ginagawa niyo sa kanila? Kunwari po ‘yung mga leftist
na nagtatago sa bundok.

Asst. PASu: Meron. Meron.

Interviewer: Do you consider them illegal entrants?

Asst. PASu: Hindi naman kasi sila naman namamasyal lang diyan. ‘Pagka mainit dun
sa Manila, mainit sa Cavite, sa Mindoro, dito sila pupunta. ‘Yun ang sabi ng mga ano e
intelligence e, kapagka mainit sila dun, dito sila magRNR, recreation.

Interviewer: So hindi naman po sila nanggugulo, hinahayaan niyo nalang po?

Asst. PASu: Hindi, wala. Atsaka hindi pa nga namin nakikita. Meron kaming mga staff
doon-

Interviewer: Naencounter nila.

Asst. PASu: Pero wala naman din.

Interviewer: Civil naman po sila, as long as hindi sila nag-iilegal na ano.

Asst. PASu: Wala naman silang illegal activity na ginagawa, ang sa kanila lang naman
pupunta lang sila dyan pero ‘yung sasabihin mon a maggagather ng mga a- wala.
Basta dadaan lang sila dun, ‘yun lang. Kaya lang ang pangit minsan syempre ‘yung iba
sasabihin na ay h’wag kayo umakyat dyan kasi nandyan ‘yung mga ganyan, ‘yun pala

128
meron namang illegal activities na ginagawa dun, ginagawa nilang front ‘yun para ‘di ka
umakyat. Ganun lang, wala naman ‘yung sabihin mong-

Interviewer: So nakikipagcoordinate po ba kayo sa mga tourism establishments na within

the park so nag-iissue po ng permit, sa inyo po galing?

Asst. PASu: Wala kaming ano- ‘yung gumagalaw lang ngayon ay ‘yung tourism offices ng
limang munisipyo pero meron naman kaming mga, may mga coordination naman kami
galing sa provincial tourism, mga constant naman ‘yung aming pulis, kay Maribel din ‘yun
e, constant naman ang aming communication kung may mga trainings.

Interviewer: ‘Yung mga umaakyat po ng bundok, ‘di ba marami pong umaakyat?

Asst. PASu: Ah ‘yung mga umaakyat ng sa Mount Mantalingahan-

Interviewer: Sa Rizal-

Asst. PASu: -kumukuha sila dito ng conservation permit kasi ‘yung local guide namin
doon kung walang permit ‘yung mga climbers, hindi sila iguguide doon.

Interviewer: ‘Yung guides niyo po saan po sila nagmula?

Asst. PASu: Ay ‘yung mga guide namin ‘yun ang kanilang livelihood.

Interviewer: So may mga training sila before anything else?

Asst. PASu: Meron. Yes, may training. Meron kaming trainings na inattendan na
sponsor ng Department of Tourism and province.

Interviewer: So what particular trainings po ‘yung ginawa niyo sa kanila?

Asst. PASu: ‘Yung sa tour guiding and housekeeping kaya alam nila.

Interviewer: ‘di ba po ‘yung jump off sa Rizal, ano po ‘yun parang homestay po ba ‘yun,
uwian, or campers?

Asst. PASu: Hindi naman sila e. Kasi ‘yung mga umaakyat dirediretso na sila sa area.

Interviewer: Hindi na nagsestay sa daan?

129
Asst. PASu: Hindi na.

Interviewer: Hindi po ‘yun bayan ‘di ba?

Asst. PASu: Bayan. ‘Yung Ransang barangay. ‘Yung pumupunta kasi dito, pagdating
nila ng Rizal, ‘yung iba mamimili lang dun pero meron pa kaming information center
doon na pwede rin silang makistay dun. Meron kaming bahay dun.

Interviewer: So aside po sa from dun sa conservation fee, saan pa po ba kayo

kumukuha ng funds aside dun sa fees na binabayad?

Asst. PASu: ‘Yung fees na binabayad sa amin ngayon, hindi pa namin iyon
pinapakialaman, hindi namin ginagastos ‘yun, puro palang kami koleksyon, wala
kaming utilization disbursement. ‘Yung pondo ngayon ng Mount Mantalingahan ay
galing sa DENR region MIMAROPA.

Interviewer: So s’an niyo po siya balak gamitin if ever?

Asst. PASu: Magdedecide niyan ang board. Malinaw kasi dun sa resolution na ipinasa, kung
projects ang need dun sa isang barangay, dun ‘yun ilalagay so sa ngayon konti palang
naman ang aming conservation fee, wala pa kung anong paglalagyan ng pera kasi hindi
naman namin ‘yun magagastos habang walang resolution na ipinapasa ang board.

Interviewer: So gusto niyo po ba na binibisita ng mga turista ‘yung MMPL?

Asst. PASu: Oo e part ‘yan e kasi kahit hindi mo naman pupwedeng ibawal kasi
part nung aming work and financial plan ‘yung tourism, ‘yung eco-tourism.

Interviewer: Meron po ba kayong particular na kasi parang nasabi ng municipal tourism

officer sa Brooke’s Point, nandun po sa plan pero hindi siya specified.

Asst. PASu: Hindi specified?

Interviewer: I mean wala pong halimbawa kunwari, by this year, we will magpapatayo ng
ganito in this space.

Asst. PASu: Ay kasi nga ‘yung pagpapatayo ngayon ng mga infrastructure sa loob ng PA
ay status quo kasi walang ibibigay na documents ang DENR dahil ‘yung spatial use

130
agreement with NPA ay suspended so kahit gustuhin mo man magtayo dun, may gusto na
magpatayo ng isang building dun, hindi pwede, anong iissue namin instrument, may
ibibigay na moral instrument, kasi suspended nga.

Interviewer: Bakit po suspended?

Asst. PASu: Hindi natin masasagot kasi sinuspende ng secretary namin so pinag-aaralan
pa ngayon kung magkano ba kokolektahing fee sa buong protected area. Kasi ang isang
naging issue doon ay iba’t ibang PA, iba-iba ang fee na kinokolekta. So far ‘yun ‘yung
information pero hindi namin alam kung ‘yun talaga ‘yung katotohanan, ang sa ngayon,
suspended pa sila.

Interviewer: So paano po ‘yung ano, since nagpalit na sila ng leadership?

Asst. PASu: Secretary?

Interviewer: Opo. Continuous pa rin po ba or nagkaroon ng, merong pinagkaiba?

Asst. PASu: Of course, kung ano ‘yung nandun sa work and financial plan, ‘yun
ang susundin mo.

Interviewer: So ano po ‘yung ano coordination, meron na po ba kayong coordination

with secretary Lopez about Mount Mantalingahan.

Asst. PASu: Hindi. Kasi kami naman may sinusubmit na work and financial plan e. Ang
makikipagcoordinate doon ay ‘yung aming mga regional director. Pagkatapos ‘pag sa
PA naman, ‘yung biodiversity monitoring group.

Interviewer: So hindi pa naman po siya nagshow ng special interest?

Asst. PASu: Meron na kasi last na nagbigay si secretary ng pondo, may part doon ‘yung
eco-tourism pero hindi naman, hindi siya napush through parang ganun.

Interviewer: So naestablish niyo na po ba ‘yung carrying capacity dito?

Asst. PASu: Wala pa kasi ang laki ng area ng Mount Mantalingahan e so lagi naman
nilang pinupuntahan ‘yung peak ng MMPL so atsaka ano lang siya e seasonal compared

131
sa ibang PA na most of the time vinivisit ito hindi naman kasi kung panahon ng tag-ulan,
sinong aakyat?

Interviewer: Mahirap. So kailan po ‘yung madalas, tuwing summer ganun?

Asst. PASu: Summer atsaka pagdating ng ber months.

Interviewer: So since nasa plan niyo po, meron po ba kayong team na nagpopromote ng
tourism o ‘yung mga partners nalang?

Asst. PASu: ‘Yung mga partners namin ngayon mga travel agency. Tsaka ‘yung mga
taga, ‘yung mga municipal tourism offices atsaka ano na rin e ‘yung mga climbers na
umakyat na dun ‘yun na kinukuha nilang serbisyo so nagiging ano na rin ‘yung PA,
nagiging familiar na rin ‘yung Mount Mantalingahan.

Interviewer: So very popular po talaga ‘to sa climbers?

Asst. PASu: ‘Yun ang sabi nila kasi challenging sa kanila ‘yung umakyat ng peak ng
Mantalingahan. It takes 4 days bago marating yung peak.

Interviewer: So ano naman po ‘yung mga ano nila dun, mga comments?

Asst. PASu: Lahat ay positive kasi kakaiba nga ‘yung biodiversity doon sa taas.

Interviewer: Very nagfofollow naman din sila ng mga guidelines?

Asst. PASu: Naman kasi usually ‘yung mga umaakyat naman dyan dati nang professional
mountaineers na nila.

Interviewer: Kung apat na araw, professional na po talaga ‘yun.

Asst. PASu: Alam na nila. Kasi 5 days ang kailangan mo para makaano sa peak so alam
na nila tsaka dun sa binibigay namin na permit nakalagay na dun ‘yung do’s and don’ts
tsaka ‘yung guide namin na IPs alam din kung ano ‘yung dapat gawin so kaya kahit na
nitong ‘di ba nagkaraoon ng issue ng ibang PA, nagkaroon ng mga forest fire, dito sa
amin wala. Dito sinusunod nila tsaka mga team lang naman. ‘Yung pinakamaraming
umakyat ‘yung last week, 19 sila.

Interviewer: Ano pong team sila?

132
Asst. PASu: Tagarito rin lang sa Puerto. ‘Yung iba noon galing Cagayan, marami rin
kung saan-saang lugar. Iloilo pero usually mga 5 lang sila or 8 ganun atsaka ano na rin
‘yung iba mga yuppies, mga young professionals sa Metro Manila na gusto mag-unwind.
‘Yung umakyat ng isa nung Wednesday, mag-isa lang siyang babae taga-Mandaluyong.
Ganun lang kaya ‘yung sa current capacity hindi pa namin masyadong napag-aaralan
pero maglalagay din kami kasi nakikita rin namin nga na yearly tumataas ‘yung aming
bilang ng mga mountaineers.

Interviewer: So lahat po ‘di ba, syempre dumadaan sila dito so alam nila.

Asst. PASu: Pero meron ding hindi.

Interviewer: Saan po sila dun?

Asst. PASu: Kasi merong nakakalusot din kaya pagka dumaan doon at ‘yung kinuha
‘yung guide namin doon, at wala silang permit, pinababalik nila. ‘Di nila ginaguide
kasi nga no permit, no entry, no guide.

Interviewer: So magkano po ‘yung bayad?

Asst. PASu: 100-pesos, maximum of 5 days.

Interviewer: 100. Para po sa guide?

Asst. PASu: Ang guide ay parang 500 per day.

Interviewer: So okay na rin po ‘yun?

Asst. PASu: Sila na rin ang nagdecide ng amount na yun e.

Interviewer: ‘Yung IPs po ‘yung guides.

Asst. PASu: Oo kasi hindi naman na kumukuha dun ‘yung PA.

Interviewer: Sa kanila nalang po?

Asst. PASu: Sa kanila talaga ‘yun. Livelihood.

Interviewer: Ano pong scope nung 500? Halimbawa, umakyat po ako, papakainin ko pa
rin po ba siya?

133
Asst. PASu: Parang kasama mo na rin siya.

Interviewer: So kung mag-isa po ako, ‘yung gamit ko for 2. ‘Yung water for 2. Food for 2
ganun.

Asst. PASu: Oo, parang kasama na rin siya.

Interviewer: E ‘yung tutulugan po? May sarili siya?

Asst. PASu: Tent lang. Oo, may dala siyang sarili. Pero ano lang talaga dun sa area
magtetent lang kayo kasi meron lang kami doon sa mga 250 ang elevation, meron
lang kaming viewdeck dun pero ‘yung mga camp na site building wala pa kami. So
ganun palang. Tent pa lamang.

Interviewer: Meron na po ba kayong repeat na climbers?

Asst. PASu: Meron.

Interviewer: Ano po ‘yun grupo or ano?

Asst. PASu: Group.

Interviewer: Kilala niyo po ba sila?

Asst. PASu: ‘Di ko na matandaan. Meron ding isa, mag-isa lang siya, as in
chinallenge niya ‘yung sarili niya na pinaiksi niya yung kanyang-

Interviewer: ‘Yung before? Bineat niya sarili niya.

Asst. PASu: Oo kasi basta, ‘di ko na matandaan, marami na. ‘Yung kung dati 5
days, gagawin niyang 3 days.

Interviewer: Nakaya niya naman po?

Asst. PASu: Kaya niya naman.

Interviewer: Saan po yung babaan dun? Kung saan ka umakyat doon ka rin bababa?

Asst. PASu: Hindi. Kung dun ka sa Ransang, bababa ka ng Brooke’s Point,

Malis, barangay Malis.

134
Interviewer: ‘Yung papunta na ng Bataraza, ‘yun ba ‘yun?

Asst. PASu: Oo, boundary ng Bataraza at Brooke’s Point. Dun ang baba mo, dun sa
bundok sa kabila.

Interviewer: So ang laki po pala nun?

Asst. PASu: Mahaba. Itatraverse mo talaga, itatraverse mo ‘yung bundok.

Interviewer: Nabasa kop o kasi- umaakyat po kasi ako ng bundok tapos ‘yung ano niya
‘yung terrain niyo daw ‘yung difficulty niya kasi ‘yung pinakamataas na difficulty.

Asst. PASu: Oo kasi ano na ‘yun e mostly forest na.

Interviewer: Tsaka wala po kasing established na trail.

Asst. PASu: Wala. Kaya kailangan niyong guide mo yung IPs talaga kasi siya ‘yung
nakakalam dun kasi. Kasi kami, meron ‘yung si Paso nakarating na, ako hindi pa
nakarating sa end.

Interviewer: Hindi po ba uso ‘yung ano dun, ‘di ba uso kasi dito ‘yung mga nababati
ganun? Di naman sila naaano?

Asst. PASu: Kasama na rin siguro ‘yun sa ano kasi kasama ‘yung guide nila na IP.
Sinasabihan sila ng mga hindi mo pwedeng gawin kapag nandun na sa taas, ‘pag sinabing
hindi ‘to pwede edi h’wag mo na gawin kasi ‘di naman maiwasan ‘yun.

Interviewer: So wala pa naman pong incident na ganun?

Asst. PASu: Wala pa naman. Wala pa naman. Meron lang isang incident na hindi
pinayagan ng army umakyat kasi merong mga cited na kwan- Abu Sayyaf. Kasi dun sa
dadaanan, may camp ng army so hindi daw sure ‘yung ano security so hindi sila
pinaakyat.

Interviewer: So ‘yung ganun pong mga Abu Sayyaf na threat madalas po ba ‘yun
o sobrang bihira lang? S’an po sila nakakapasok?

Asst. PASu: Hindi naman. Passing by lang. E marami kasing ano dito, dahil yan itong-

135
Interviewer: Dagat.

Asst. PASu: Oo, kasi itong dulo nitong Rizal ay ano na dagat na Luli Luya na,
Balabac na, open na ‘yan. llang hours na lamang nasa Malaysia ka na so maraming
entry point dito, maraming papasukan.

Interviewer: Madali palang magtago.

Asst. PASu: Oo. Tsaka lahat dito pumupunta kasi Mindoro bababa kang Taytay or El
Nido tapos lilipat ka na dito. Diretso na. Palabas na. Kasi ganun lang ‘yung kanilang ruta
dito. Pero wala pa naman nangyayari. Kung sinabing ‘di pwede, ‘di na talaga kami
aakyat for secrutiy tsaka kami tuwing meeting namin kasi talaga namang member naman
‘yung execomm so meron silang representative nag-uupdate sila ano bang status ng
peace and order situation ng Mount Mantalingahan, safe ba magtravel sa ganito so ‘pag
may mga report sila, o eto mayroon, inuupdate sa kanila ang WESCOM.

Interviewer: So gaano po ‘to kadalas itong meetings na ito?

Asst. PASu: Ang aming execomm ay once a month, minsan twice a month.

Interviewer: S’an po ‘yun, dito lang o nasa Puerto?

Asst. PASu: Sa Puerto kasi mas convenient kung dun kami sa PENRO, dun sa
DENR, office namin dun.

Interviewer: Sa Sta. Monica.

Asst. PASu: Oo, Sta. Monica. Pero meron pa rin kami bukod sa execomm. Meron pa
‘yung research committee kasi kung merong projects na kailangan iendorse, sa kanila
research ‘yun. Kung merong maraming nangangailangan ng endorsement so nagseset ng
meeting kasi ‘yung mga projects ay kailangan pag-usapan muna nung research project
planning committee. Papaaral sa ‘yo ang research mo, pipag-usapan muna ‘yun dun sa
committee kung papayagan ba o hindi so kailangan ‘yun ganun. Pagkatapos kung
kinakailangan pa ng mas malalim na ano ipapasok ‘yun dun sa ano, magfafinal decision
ay ‘yung execomm. Kung talagang kinakailangan pa, dun naman ‘yun sa en banc, ‘yung
maramihang grupo na, ‘yung 71, ganun. So ‘yung nasa PA office, hindi kami basta-basta
nagdedecide kasi may mga committee-committee ‘yan e.

136
Interviewer: ‘Yung buong ano po ‘yung 71 gaano po kadalas nagkikita ‘yun?

Asst. PASu: At least kasi ang en banc twice a year ang meeting ganun lang ‘yun. ‘Yung
sa batas.

Interviewer: So nakukumpleto rin po ba sila?

Asst. PASu: 40 percent ng attendance kasi geographical location kasi mahirap.

Interviewer: So sa Puerto rin po ‘yun?

Asst. PASu: Oo, most of the time sa Puerto or Brooke’s Point kasi yun ang mas ano nila
na place.

Interviewer: Mas preferred po.

Asst. PASu: Mas okay ‘yung mga facilities dun kasi kung icocompare mo naman dun sa
Rizal, ang hirap ng daan so mahirap ka makakuha ng quorum. Kaya either Quezon,
Puerto, o Brooke’s Point. ‘Yun ‘yung mga lugar kung saan kami nagdadaos ng en banc.

Interviewer: So meron na po bang nagshow ng interest na magtatayo sila or may

gusto silang kunwari meron po bang since maraming climbers, meron na bang
nagshow ng interest na magtayo ng parang shop for them?

Asst. PASu: Wala pa naman, kasi sa Rizal ang meron pa lamang ay ‘yung mga
lodging house pero dun lang sa poblacion pero sa mga bara-barangays wala pa.

Interviewer: Ah example lang po ‘yun. Wala po bang lumapit sa inyo na gusto naming
magtayo ng establishment dito?

Asst. PASu: Ay wala kasi siguro dito sa Palawan aware din sila na suspended nga ‘yung
pag-iisue ng mga documents kasi ang isang example nalang ‘yung El Nido. Sa dami-dami
ng mga resorts dun, mga establishments, lahat ‘yun sila status quo, mga hotels dun, wala.

Interviewer: Ano po ‘yung masasabi niyo sa mining around the area?

Asst. PASu: Hmm wala.

Interviewer: Meron po bang mining activity within the landscape?

137
Asst. PASu: Meron… ah hindi. Outside, within the boundary. ‘Yung sa-

Interviewer: ‘Yung Berong po ‘di ba?

Asst. PASu: Ay outside na ‘yun. Ang layo-layo naman

nun. Interviewer: Nadaanan ko lang po e.

Asst. PASu: Dun ‘yun malayo. Kasi dito sa Quezon, ang first barangay na kasama sa PA,
Malanggaw.

Interviewer: Meron po dun ‘di ba ‘yung papunta sa may Española? Asst.

PASu: Española, ‘yung Pulot ‘yung una pero nasa boundary siya

Interviewer: So hindi naman po sila nakakaano?

Asst. PASu: Wala naman so far. Wala naman silang nagagawang perwisyo dun sa PA,
sa ngayon, sa ngayon.

Interviewer: Kasi ‘di ba meron pong nakaraan ‘yung may spill?

Asst. PASu: Ah Berong ‘yun, ano lang ‘yun, basta.

Interviewer: ‘Di po ba kayo nagwoworry na may ganung incident?

Asst. PASu: Hindi naman, ano lang naman ‘yun e occasionally o aksidente lang na
nagkaroon pero hindi ‘yun lagi-lagi.

Interviewer: Pero okay lang po ‘yun sa inyo na may mga ganitong mga mining?

Asst. PASu: Syempre hindi.

Interviewer: Tapos ‘yung sa may Bataraza area pa.

Asst. PASu: ‘Yung Bataraza malayo naman ‘yun, ‘yung sa may Riotuba. Wala naman
‘yun. Ang pagitan ng Mantalingahan ay ‘yung Bulandyaw.

Interviewer: ‘Di ba ‘di pa aabot ‘yung Bataraza bayan?

138
Asst. PASu: Ang Bataraza 6 barangays ang cover ng Mount Mantalingahan. Ang
Kapangyan nasa barangay Malihudyon. Ang last, magsimula sa Barangay Inugbong
hanggang Tarusan ‘yun ang PA. So hindi namin abot. Ano na ‘yun Riotuba na ‘yun,
Mount Bulandyaw ‘yun na ang pagitan atsaka kapag sa PA, hindi naman namin sakop
‘yung dagat e. Sa Rizal lang dalawang barangay lang ang may mangrove, ‘yun ang
nasa loob ng PA.

Interviewer: Kasama pa sa area.

Asst. PASu: ‘Yung Panalingahan, ‘yung Kulasian, ‘yun lang ang kasama sa protected
area na may mountain, ‘yung the rest, ‘yung 6 barangays hindi ‘yan kasama.

Interviewer: So tingin niyo po ba yung tourism makakatulong siya para mag-improve ang
buhay kunwari ng communities na under the PA?

Asst. PASu: Makakatulong. Basta maayos lang. Makakatulong naman e pero kailangan
iayos muna. Kailangan iready ‘yung mga tao kasi lalong-lalo na sa area kasi mga IPs
‘yun e so kailangan iready muna sila kasi baka mangyari akala nila bibigyan ng bibigyan
lang na walang kapalit so dapat iready sila para naman ‘yung awareness nila tumaas.
Kung dun sa bar ‘yan, syempre makakatulong ‘yan kasi domino effect ‘yan e. Kung
maraming pumupunta, sila rin naman ang magbebenefit nun ganun kaya lang kailangan
lang iready kasi baka maabuse kasi meron nang mga climbers nagtatanong dito, sabi nila
magbibigay po kami ng ganito ganyan, sabi ko anuhin po muna natin kasi baka po ‘pag
kayo nagbigay nang nagbigay ineexpect nila na bawat umaakyat bibigyan sila. Kaya
hindi rin namin pinapractice ‘yung ganun. Syempre ‘yung iba galing ng Manila e. ‘Yung
iba galing din ng ano e Ateneo ba ‘yun, mga professor na tatlo na umakyat parang
magbibigay sila ng school supplies. Sabi ko hindian nalang po natin, iexplain nalang
natin sa kanila kasi baka mag-expect sila na tuwing may umaakyat dun bibigyan sila.
Kasi iba dun may ibang foreigner minsan pag-akyat nila e bago sila umakyat magsestay
muna sila dun sa isang pamilya ng IPs. Makikiano muna sila dun, makikisalamuha
syempre magbibigay sila ng pagkain, magbibigay, lahat ipoprovide, paano pag-alis?
Ngayon papano kung meron ulit makituloy baka magdemand sila. ‘Yun. Ay syempre
iba ang kalidad ng mga IPs e, hindi namin masyadong ano ‘yan. Baka mas maganda
ibigay ninyo pantanim, mga buto ng gulay. H’wag ‘yung mga-

139
Interviewer: ‘Yung panandalian lang. ‘Yung for livelihood.

Asst. PASu: Kasi baka masanay.

Interviewer: So okay po ano po yung mga future plans niyo para sa protected area?

Asst. PASu: Syempre ‘yung lalo pa naming palalakasin ‘yung protection and
conservation ng Mount Mantalingahan dahil ‘di ano ang Mount Mantalingahan lang
kasi ang pinakamalawak ang forest area e compared sa kapag sa baba wala na so
kailangan talagang palakasin din ‘yung law enforcement group kasi hindi mo maiiwasan
mga nagpopoach ng kahoy, nagtetrade ng wild life so kailangan ‘yun muna ‘yung
palakasin and of course dagdagan ‘yung tao ng protected area. Kahit kami ngayon ay
merong mga volunteers na greenguard, iba pa rin talaga ‘yung mga real-equipped na
mga tao. May mga kailangan tsaka syempre ‘yung talagang pondo na intended for
protected area kasi ‘yung pondo namin ngayon limited lang. May mga activities pa ‘yun
na kailangan naming gawin.

Interviewer: Aside from that po ano pa po ba ‘yung tingin niyong pwede pang
improvements?

Asst. PASu: Marami naman e kagaya nalang din siguro ‘yung sa mga, ‘yung mga
endemic fruits na dun sa area na pupwedeng imarket. ‘Yung kanilang mga handicraft
products kasi maraming mga handicraft products na gawa ng mga IPs pero wala
namang market.

Interviewer: Wala rin silang avenue para ibenta ‘yun.

Asst. PASu: Oo, ‘yun. Kasi ang alam lang nila pagbaba nila, meron silang mga dalang
products ibebenta pero syempre minsan tinatawaran pa. ‘Yun na ‘yun sana ‘yung
gusto naming palakasin para makadagdag talaga sa kanilang kabuhayan.

Interviewer: Meron po sanang center talaga for that.

Asst. PASu: E maraming projects LGU kaya lang ‘di nasusustain. Marami silang producto.
Marami silang mga agricultural crops na itinatanim pero ang problema lang din kasi ay
‘yung sa transportation kasi nandun sila sa taas, malayo, walang tulay. Kasi ‘yung ilang ilog
‘yun tatawarin nila tapos pagdating sa baba magkano lang bibilhin sa kanila?

140
Pag time ‘yan ang daming endemic fruits. Papano nalang ‘pag ibaba nila, magkano lang
bibilhin sa kanila? Hind pa macompensate ‘yung pagod nila dun sa kanilang mga dalang
products. So ‘yun, isa rin sa nakikita ko ‘yung market ng mga endemic goods dun
palakasin plus ‘yung sa handicrafts nila so ‘yun ‘yung kailangan.

Interviewer: So ‘yun ‘yung parang tinatawag na road to market na project.

Asst. PASu: Oo. Wala talagang road, as in pederoad. ‘Yung putik talaga ‘yung dadaanan
mo tapos kung ilog tatawid ka talaga, ‘pag mataas ‘yung tubig edi maghintay ka saka ka
tatawid kasi kahit tulay na kawayan wala talaga. ‘Yun ‘yung ano kasi ang daming
produkto sa taas kaya lang walang daan. ‘Yung tulay nalang sana at least malaking bagay
na ‘yun sa kanila kahit ‘yung mga bata kasi pumapasok din ‘yung mga ibang mga IPs.
‘Yun ang nagiging problema, wala silang maayos na tulay, ‘yung daan nga lang hindi na
maayos e, lalo na ‘yung tulay. ‘Yun ang problema nila.

Interviewer: May nakapagsabi po sa akin na nadelist daw po itong Mount Mantalingahan.

Asst. PASu: Saan? Paano madedelist e kagagaling lang ni Paso sa Mati, Davao para dun
sa sa natatandaan ko parang out of 24 kasi nung nandun sa manila, 24 ‘yung
nakakasama ‘yung sa UNESCO heritage, 24 kasama ang Mount Mantalingahan. Ngayon
nung nasa Davao na sila naging 19 kasama pa rin ang Mantalingahan then sa susunod
Bicol na. Hindi nadelist ang ano.

Interviewer: So ano po ang masasabi niyo sa ganun?

Asst. PASu: Ay chika lang ‘yun, ‘di naman ganun katotohanan. Kagagaling lang ni
Paso nung September 14, 15, 16 dun sila sa Davao, kasama pa sa top 19 ang Mount
Mantalingahan. Paano madedelist?

Interviewer: Ahh nasa world heritage site po ba ‘to nakalist?

Asst. PASu: Oo. UNESCO. S’an dun nadelist?

Interviewer: Kasi raw sabi, may nakapagsabi na kasi raw napasok na raw ‘yung mining.

141
Asst. PASu: Wala namang mining sa loob ng PA. Merong mining pero ‘di sila
makaoperate. Paano sila makakuha nang wala naman silang- inapprove sila ng
council pero wala silang FPIC.

Interviewer: Kailangan din po ‘yun?

Asst. PASu: Of course.

Interviewer: Ano po ‘yung FPIC?

Asst. PASu: Free and Prior Inform Consent. Paano ka bibigyan dun lalo na sa Brooke’s
e anti-mining ‘yung mayor.

Interviewer: Si Feliciano?

Asst. PASu: Oo. Paano nila sasabihing nadelist kasi may mining? Walang nag-ooperate
na mining sa loob ng protected area.

Interviewer: Saka si ano rin po kasi si Lopez, ‘di ba parang sinuspend niya rin ‘yung mga
pag-aano-

Asst. PASu: Nasuspend din ‘yung mga nasa labas ng PA kasi meron silang mga
violation. Hindi sila pumasa, ‘yun ‘yun, hindi dahil sa kung ano pa man.

Interviewer: Hindi responsible ‘yun.

Asst. PASu: Basta meron silang mga ano, mga anong dapat gawin hindi nila nacomply
pero dun sa mga nasuspende meron na ngayong nag-ooperate na ulit so far dito sa
Palawan. Still suspended pa rin sila, temporarily suspended.

Interviewer: Nung bata pa ako okay pa ‘yun pero ngayon ‘yung dun sa may Narra
area nakikita mo ‘yung daan na ano-

Asst. PASu: ‘Yun susupended kasama pa rin siya sa suspension pero meron nang mga
nag-ooperate na dun sa mga dating nasa listahan ng suspended ngayon nakakaoperate.

Interviewer: So dumami na po ba ‘yung mga mining ano dito?

142
Asst. PASu: Wala na rin naman. Walang dumagdag kasi paglabas ng ano ba ‘yun sa
responsible mining, hindi na magbibigay ng panibagong, hindi na sila mag-aapprove, ang
itutuloy-tuloy nalang ‘yung mga existing, wala nang opening.

Interviewer: Mas destructive po kasi ‘yung mga small scale e kaysa large scale kasi
syempre walang pondo mag-operate, ‘yung mga waste management.

Asst. PASu: Siguro ganun kasi iba naman ‘yung case ng dito sa may Riotuba kasi
matagal na. 25 nga nagrenew na. Another 25 na ‘yun e. So ‘yung mga small scale siguro
mga may problema. ‘Di sila ano sumusunod dun sa kanilang mga present condition kaya
ganun.

143
 Appendix E
Conservation International Interview Notes

Interviewer: What are your specific programs in protecting the environment?

CI project manager: CI saw the potential of MMPL before it was declared as a protected
area because of reports of its biodiversity capacity to host and sustain endemic and
endangered species of flora and fauna. At the start, it was managed by the LGUs, then
they came into the picture and helped them in establishing, guiding the management, and
coming up with the management plan. For the environment, they conducted biodiversity
checks, research trips in the protected area, and in partnering with the LGUs and DENR
to protect and conserve the wildlife in MMPL. For their programs and campaigns,
they’ve distributed information materials of their researches, and relayed them to the
designated offices, and through DENR’s social media account. They also made a
website for MMPL where the materials were published but when they turned over the
account, it was not really taken care of and the management wasn’t able to pay for the
webhosting fees so it is not functional anymore. For the participation, there are different
levels, and they all depend on the initiative and involvement of the communities. In
some communities, there is actually a leader whom they constantly communicate with
and to where they relay their information dissemination and educational campaigns.

Interviewer: Did you propose policies, rules or restrictions which are implemented
in MMPL?

CI project manager: Since they’ve been coordinating with MMPL since 2002, they’ve
been providing legal and management advice to the authorities, especially the LGUs.
They’ve supported law enforcement campaigns and consulted with various stakeholders
on how to strengthen MMPL’s laws. They’ve also submitted resolutions for consideration
to PAMB.

Interviewer: Do tourists have entrance fees when entering MMPL?

144
CI project manager: Tourists, especially mountaineers, pay a fee to the DENR Office in
Quezon before being allowed to enter and climb the mountain. As of now, all the
collections were still unused for the board still hasn’t agreed as a whole where to
allocate it. They have suggested that a bank account be set up for MMPL, wherein a
resolution was sent to the regional office of DENR, but up until now, the collection was
still not put into a bank yet.

Interviewer: What is your opinion about tourism in the protected landscape?

CI project manager: Tourism is welcomed and encouraged but there are worries that the
environment and the culture will be gravely affected if not managed effectively. The IPs in
particular might be overwhelmed by the influx of tourists. The environment’s delicate
condition might be compromised. Tourism potential is evident and they are optimistic about
it but CI believes that it is not yet ready for such. They are also exploring Southern
Palawan’s quaint distinction among Palawan’s other tourism destinations like in Northern
Palawan and Puerto Princesa, and studying what will make tourists go there since it
is different from Palawan’s image as a sun and beach destination.

Interviewer: In your opinion, what are the positive and negative impacts of tourism to the
protected landscape? What are your solutions?
For the positive, of course, employment especially for the locals and the IPs, this
comprises 90% of the population living within MMPL’s jurisdiction. For the negative,
disruption of nature and culture. For this, education, trainings, and guidance and
assistance to the implementing bodies are their solution.

Interviewer: Where do you get your funds? How and where do you allocate it?

CI project manager: CI get their funds from the Global Conservation Fund. It is funded
by the Betty and Gordon Moore Foundation. Recently, they acquired a $1M dollar
donation but it still not enough. They estimated that MMPL needs $3M dollars for the
minimum management support and financial need, so right now, they are still finding
someone who will fund their cause. The funds were distributed per stage and allocations
are as needed. For example, for the scoping phase, the funds were used in the research
and assessment of the area. For the planning and phase, it was used for the development

145
of the management plan and updating it, education, and other needs that arise. And for
the monitoring stage, it is used for ensuring the implemented plans and other future
needs.

Interviewer: Do you coordinate to any tourism related establishments when you

promote your environmental protection campaigns?

CI project manager: These establishments are invited to talks and seminars and consulted
by the organization, in partnership with the management, DENR, and /or Provincial
Tourism Office. Seminars, trainings are conducted to relay to them their plans for
MMPL, and to improve the service provided by these establishments. They are in
constant communication with the PTO in providing the necessary information for the
tourism establishments.

Interviewer: What are your future plans and projects to the area?

CI project manager: To strengthen the protection and conservation advocacy of the

MMPL and to implement properly the plans indicated in the 2016-2020 management
plan. They also wanted to increase visibility of law enforcers and forest protectors to
ensure that the MMPL laws are implemented. In order to maintain the ecological integrity
of Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape, CI plans to secure long-term financing in
the form of a trust fund, so it may endure in perpetuity. When enough funding will be
acquired, CI hopes to improve on the facilities and IEC campaigns. Basically, CI is a
major supporting entity of the MMPL. Where there is something placking in terms of
monitoring, implementation, policy formulation, among others, they nudge the correct
personnel to the get back on track. They don’t want to gain complete authority over
matters because their end game is for the MMPL and the LGUs to be able to stand on
their own, while they provide assistance to the best that they can.

146