Acknowledgements:

Asian Development Bank, Conservation International, Deutsche Gesellschaft

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

Published by the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB), Department

of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), in partnership with the
Ateneo School of Government (ASoG) and the support of the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) - Global Environment Facility (GEF).

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

Tel No: (63)2 9246031-35

Webpage: www.pawb.gov.ph; www.newcapp.org
Email: director@pawb.ph; newcapp.info@yahoo.com

© Copyright 2012 by the United Nations Development Programme

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

In all documentation, information, signage and written oral communication,

this publication will be referred to by the title “Communities in Nature: State of
Protected Areas Management in the Philippines.” This publication is funded by
a grant from the GEF.

Printed in the Philippines

 2012

Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, DENR

and the Ateneo School of Government,
with the support of UNDP-GEF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 5
Objectives of the Report 5
Conserving biodiversity through protected areas 6
Biodiversity in the Philippines 6
Protected Areas Management 8
Evolution of Conservation Practices in the Philippines 11
Chronology of milestones in laws and 12
policies on natural resources management
and biodiversity conservation
National Integrated Protected Areas System 17
Progress in Protected Areas Management 18
Implementation Challenges in Protected Areas Management 23
Beyond NIPAS: New foundations for protected areas management 29
The role of the international community 29
Recognizing and valuing ecosystem services 30
Addressing the drivers of biodiversity and habitat loss 31
Addressing poverty and open access 32
Sustainable financing and paying for ecosystem services 33
Working together to conserve protected areas 35
National integrated strategy of sustainable economic growth 35
Communities are part of the protected area 38
Expanding governance options for the system of protected areas 40
Challenge of adapting to a changing environment 42
What policy makers can do 44
Personal actions, community actions, 46
demand for good governance.
Conclusion 48

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADMP Ancestral Domain Management Plan
ADSDPPs Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection
Plans
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BASEL The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CBFM Community-Based Forest Management
CCBS Climate Community and Biodiversity Standards
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora
CPPAP Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Project
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
FPIC Free, Prior, and Informed Choice
GEF Global Environmental Facility
GIS Geographic Information Systems
ICCA Indigenous Community Conserved Areas
ICM Integrated Coastal Management
IPAF Integrated Protected Areas Fund
IPRA Indigenous People’s Rights Act
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
KALAHI-CIDSS: KBB Kapit Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-
Comprehensive Intergated Delivery of Social Services;
Kaunlaran at Kapangyarihan sa Barangay
KBA Key Biodiversity Areas
LCA Local Conservation Areas
LGU Local Government Unit
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships
MPA Marine Protected Area
NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
NIPAP National Integrated Protected Areas Programme
NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System
NWAPP National Wetland Action for the Philippines
PA Protected Areas
PACBRMA Protected Area Community Based Resource Management
Agreements
PAMB Protected Areas Management Boards
PAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
PDP Philippine Development Plan
PES Payment for Environmental Services
RAMSAR The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
SSME Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USAID United States Agency for International Development
Greetings for a greener earth!

We proudly bring to our people and to the world this first ever State of the Protected Areas Report, COMMUNITIES
IN NATURE, State of the Protected Areas Management in the Philippines, through the DENR’s Protected Areas
and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) and the New Conservation Areas in the Philippines Project (NewCAPP), the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Philippine Tropical Forest
Conservation Foundation (PTFCF), and the Ateneo School of Government (ASoG).

This Report underscores the DENR’s vision of a nation sustaining its natural resources for a cleaner and healthier
environment, and our mission of mobilizing the citizenry in protecting, conserving, and managing the environment
and our precious natural resources.

The past two decades have seen us in vigorous pursuit of goals for biological diversity and conservation. An early
milestone was our country’s signing of the Convention on Biological Diversity, on the very day we celebrated
our 96th Independence Day on the 12th of June 1992; this was well ahead of the completion of the Convention’s
ratification process on 8 October 1993, which allowed the Convention to come into force on 29 December 1993. On
29 June 1992, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS)
Act of 1992 were promulgated by the DENR through Department Administrative Order No. 25.

This year, we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the passage of the NIPAS law – the first 20 years of our solidarity
with the global community in integrating conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity in national strategies,
plans, and programs. Along the way, we have established a system of protected areas for biodiversity conservation,
and we have rehabilitated and restored degraded ecosystems.

This State of the Protected Areas Report reflects the commitment of the administration of President Benigno S.
Aquino III to deliver a greener future, as enunciated in the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) for 2011 to 2016. The
PDP goals for the environment and natural resources sector seeks to improve not just the conservation, protection,
and rehabilitation of natural resources, but also the quality of the environment, which must be made cleaner and
healthier. The PDP also aims to enhance the resilience of natural systems and improve the adaptive capacities of
human communities to cope with environmental hazards, including climate-related risks.

For their hard work in producing this landmark publication, I commend the PAWB and the ASoG, and acknowledge
with gratitude the support of the PTFCF and NewCAPP, through the GEF and UNDP. Many thanks also to our other
partners and fellow stakeholders in biodiversity conservation, for their most valuable inputs and contributions in
the crafting of this opus. This Report will serve as a reference point for many years to come, making it a vital part of
our people’s environmental heritage. Read on then, and put this treasury of knowledge to productive use.

RAMON J.P. PAJE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THERESA MUNDITA S. LIM

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

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

Management in the Philippines.

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

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

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

sharing insights and lessons.

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

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

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

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

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

recommendations in the report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANTONIO G.M. LA VIÑA, J.S.D.

Dean
Communities in Nature: First State of the Protected Areas Report

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is pleased to support the development and publication
of this Report which highlights the evolving role of local communities, especially the indigenous peoples, in
conserving the Philippines’ biodiversity resources. This report is unique in that it is not the usual “statistical report”
but graphically shows the “human side” of protected area management.

The Philippines is globally known not only for its rich biodiversity but also for pioneering community-based
biodiversity conservation practices. The widespread acceptance of these practices is a tacit acknowledgment of
the critical importance of the role of local communities in conserving the country’s biodiversity and other natural
resources. The role of indigenous peoples is of crucial importance as they reside in areas with high biodiversity.
Out of the 128 identified key biodiversity areas, approximately, 96 (75%) are within the ancestral domains of the
indigenous peoples. Cognizant of this IP and local communities’ potential for effective biodiversity conservation,
UNDP is supporting the Philippine government’s initiative, “New Conservation Areas Project in the Philippines
(NewCAPP)”, which aims to expand governance options of protected area management in the country, to include
IP and LGU-managed conservation areas.

Protected areas have been conventionally viewed as no-touch zones. However, we believe that they should not
remain as such but should be considered productive assets that can contribute to poverty alleviation. Protected
areas can showcase that conservation and sustainable use by dependent communities like IPs, are not mutually
exclusive. Sustainably managed, PAs can continuously provide ecosystem goods and services vital to human
welfare and development. We are glad that this Report has systematically dissected these issues. It is able to
demonstrate that biodiversity conservation within a protected area context that puts value on the contribution of
local communities like IPs, is a more effective strategy in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on
poverty alleviation (MDG1) and achieving environmental sustainability (MDG 7).

We commend the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) and its partners for coming out with this Report,
the first ever in the country. I hope it will inspire all the stakeholders to work harder to conserve the remaining
gene pools of the country through a robust and dynamic protected areas system. Rest assured that UNDP will
continue to support the development of capacities not only for this end but the improvement in the quality of life of
communities dependent on natural resources.

Again, congratulations for a job well done!

RENAUD MEYER
UNDP Country Director
The Philippines is endowed with rich biological resources – a heritage that benefits not only the present and future

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

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

protected areas.

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

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

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

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

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

peoples groups, forest dependent communities, and local governments.

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

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

natural resource conservation in the framework of national development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

heritage.

DR. PACIENCIA P. MILAN

Professor Emeritus, Visayas State University
Chairperson, PTFCF Board of Trustees
Executive Summary
The Philippines has one of the most diverse biological
resources among all countries in the world, including
the most varied marine living resources. These
biological resources are of global significance because
of their uniqueness and richness; these are also
important for the well-being of the Filipino people.
Filipinos and the rest of the world have a stake in
making sure that the Philippines’ biological resources
are conserved for the benefit of present and future
generations.
Long before recorded history, the indigenous peoples
of the Philippines lived in harmony with nature,
following unique customary practices that linked
nature, spirituality and community livelihood. When
the Spaniards and Americans came, they introduced
centralized, state-led management to exploit and
protect the country’s rich natural resources. The
centralized control approach was generally adopted
by the government of the young Philippine Republic,
where conservation areas were largely off-limits to
people, and productive areas were opened for private
ownership or concessions. However, by the 1970s,
government policies began to shift to acknowledge
that: (1) the natural resources were quickly being
exhausted, even in areas designated for conservation,
and (2) communities are part of the conservation
areas, with an important role in the utilization and
management of these areas. The people-oriented
conservation policies evolved in the 1980s and 1990s
to strengthen shared management responsibilities
between the government, and indigenous and local
communities over protected areas. The evolution
of protected areas management and the roles
of indigenous and local communities paralleled
the developments in international discussions.
The experiences in the Philippines have informed
negotiations and development of international
norms, especially on indigenous people’s rights and
community-based approaches to conservation of
biological resources.
In 1992, as the international community assembled
for the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, the Philippines
enacted the National Integrated Protected Areas
System (NIPAS), which was a major milestone in the
evolution of conservation policies in the Philippines.
NIPAS provided a standardized system of delineating
and managing priority areas for conservation. It
recognized, for the first time, the rights of indigenous
peoples living in these areas, as well as that of other
local communities dependent on the rich resources for
livelihood. Following the trend of community-focused
and decentralized protected areas management,
NIPAS is now attempting to balance the need for
conservation and improving the lives of poor people
dependent on the natural resources, while at the
same time facilitating multi-sectoral responsibility for
protecting these priority areas for conservation.
Throughout the history of customary practices
and formal legislated norms for protecting natural
resources, including twenty years of implementing
NIPAS, the Philippines has identified 240 protected
areas covering 5.4 million hectares of land and sea, or
about 13.6% of the total land area, but only 0.64% of
the vast marine territory. Several of these sites have
global and regional significance as ‘heritage sites.’
However, based on current scientific information,
designated protected areas cover only 34.82% of the
total Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) identified for the
country. Considerable resources have been invested in
protected areas management over the past decades
– by the government, local people, bilateral and
multilateral partners, civil society and private sector.
But during times of economic hardships, investments
in conservation decline, while the pressures to cash in
on the protected areas resources increase.
1
 Over the years, the country has developed some best
practices and gained valuable insights in protected
areas management that takes into consideration the
increasing pressure of drivers of biodiversity loss and
the meager resources available for PA management.
The Philippines has learned important lessons
especially in participatory PA management planning,
addressing socio-economic issues, and developing
sustainable financing mechanisms. The next stage
of protected areas management will revolve around
two themes that are intended to sustain the gains
from experiences and best practices: integration of
conservation into mainstream development planning,
and broadening further the base of governance of
protected areas.
Key recommendations
Link protected area to the wider landscape
Protected areas management must handle social and
political, not just technical, issues. In the Philippines,
despite the record of degradation, protected areas
still provide valuable ecosystem goods and services
that people need. Protected areas conservation must
be seen in the broader landscape where the natural
wealth continues to provide for the needs of the
people. Part of the socio-economic considerations
of PA management is ensuring equitable access to
opportunities, especially for the poor and marginalized
communities who are almost entirely dependent on
natural resources for their livelihood. If the interests of
IP and local communities, entrepreneurs, consumers,
local and national government are aligned and met by
linking protected areas to the landscape where people
live and make a living, and by equitable allocation of
access to the land and natural resources, there will be
less competition over the resources that are set aside
for conservation.
2
Build broader stakeholder support for Protected Areas
and management objectives
The biological resources of the Philippines are very
important to the global community because of their
abundance, diversity and uniqueness. However, there
is very little information available to the public on what
is there, what their values are for people, how much
people will invest to conserve them, and perhaps pay
to offset or replace the loss of those they’d rather use.
The government has to invest more in an accurate
information system, and effective communication
tools to inform stakeholders about the resources
and their values, so that they can make informed
decisions. Accurate reporting of progress also
ensures governance transparency and accountability.
Rekindling the people’s natural and traditional
affinity to the environment through information
and knowledge sharing will facilitate conservation
programs.
Work together, with common goals but different roles
The Philippine Development Plan (2012-2016) outlines
how environmental protection and natural resources
conservation are critical to inclusive economic growth.
In order for inclusive, sustainable growth to be
achieved, economic planners, environmental managers,
entrepreneurs, consumers, indigenous communities,
school teachers, prosecutors, judges – everyone – must
have a shared commitment to the common goal, even
while pursuing their sectoral interests and priorities.
The diversity of stakeholder groups means that each
may have a different perspective of the importance
of protected areas, priority actions and the roles
that stakeholders play. However, there should be a
common interest in conserving the natural heritage. A
lot of the protection objectives can also be achieved,
not only through NIPAS, but by other expanded options
for natural resources management complementing
NIPAS that recognizes the roles of other actors such
as IP and local communities, local governments and
private sector.
Build capacity for Protected Areas management
The Philippines currently has an abundance of talent
and expertise in all the technical aspects of protected
areas management (biophysical sciences, economics,
community development, politics and governance).
However, the experts are in the academe, private
sector or in the central offices of government agencies.
It requires extraordinary leadership and consensus
building skills to bring together and orchestrate multi-
disciplinary tasks that require integration of various
disciplines and skills coming from different groups
with different priorities. In the specific protected
areas, the PAMB and protected area staff must
provide such leadership. In the long term, it is crucial
that the caliber of site-based protected area staff be
elevated through skills training and clear occupational
standards. The PAMB should also strengthen its
institutional/organizational and financial capacity
to complement enhancements in technical capacity.
There is enormous potential to raise revenues from
ecosystem services especially since most people
are willing to pay, for as long as the management
institution is capable and trustworthy.
Maintain Protected Areas for the future through sound
science and policy
Many scientists have expressed the concern that
despite the significant gains in protected areas
management, the Philippines is still losing its
remaining forest and coastal ecosystems at an
alarming rate. In other words, the country is either not
effective in conserving its resources, or not fast enough
in protecting ecosystems at risk. Clearly, government
has to rationalize the designation of PAs to cover all
KBAs, which it is doing though a more rigorous review
process of PA designation. The government should
also broaden the policy and regulatory framework to
address the drivers of biodiversity and ecosystems
loss through proper valuation and resource/land-use
allocation.
3
4
Introduction
Objectives of the Report
The Philippines is celebrating twenty years of the
National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS),
which was established by law in June of 1992.
NIPAS was created to rationalize the designation
and protection of “outstanding remarkable areas
and biologically important public lands,”1 following
decades of different priorities and programs that
tried to maximize the economic benefits from the
country’s natural wealth. In the past two decades, the
Philippines has faced tough challenges and learned
many lessons in conserving its remaining natural
resources, particularly its rich and unique biological
diversity. The conservation of biological resources
through protected areas is a national priority in the
Constitution and related laws. The current trend in
policy is to weave conservation into the fabric of
overall development planning for the country.
After twenty years of NIPAS, the Philippines is taking
stock of its conservation record, documenting and
consolidating the lessons learned, to ensure that the
next generation of resource managers has a baseline
to refer to in their effort to address future challenges.
This report is the first attempt to share to the public,
in a candid and transparent manner, the state of
protected areas management, highlighting successes
and challenges and presenting summary data. The
report draws insights and lessons from the evolution
of conservation policies and programs throughout
history and through NIPAS implementation, to guide
future programs and to encourage broad stakeholder
support in these programs.
This year, the world is also celebrating twenty years
of the historic United Nations agreements signed in
Rio de Janiero during the 1992 Earth Summit. It is
fitting that the Philippines is taking stock of protected
1 The NIPAS Act, Republic Act No. 7586, Sec. 2
2 a comprehensive and detailed assessment is not feasible at this time
because of lack of data and resources.
3 See for example: CBD Secretariat, 2009
areas management now, since NIPAS was enacted
at the same time as, and as a response to the goals
articulated in, the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD). Therefore, the report will also track how the
country has developed and implemented policies that
are consistent with its commitments under the CBD.
The world is now made acutely aware of the impacts
of climate change. Policy makers are cautioned
that there is a risk that the conservation efforts
that governments invest in now cannot ensure that
the natural resources being protected will remain,
threatened as these already are. Climate change is
expected to aggravate other stresses on ecosystems
such as habitat fragmentation, loss and conversion,
over-exploitation, invasive alien species and pollution.3
This report reflects current thinking in considering
the impact of climate change on ecosystems and
biodiversity, and in harmonizing programs for
biodiversity conservation and climate change, echoing
the developments in the international negotiations
under both the CBD and the Framework Convention on
Climate Change.
The Philippines is known for its pioneering
environmental conservation framework that is
community-focused and where decision-making is
participatory and multi-sectoral. This is a reflection of
2
the fact that, in the Philippines, communities are so
closely linked to the environment. This is a strength
that policy makers can count on - to be able to call
on stakeholders to participate in conservation - given
the enormity of the challenges, the limits of available
resources and the risks that everyone faces should we
fail to conserve the biological diversity that everyone
depends on and is a part of. Thus this report is
dedicated to, and entitled, Communities4 in Nature, to
emphasize the connection.
4 Understood broadly at two levels: IPs and local communities living in
protected areas; all stakeholders dependent on ecosystem services provided
by protected areas.
5
 Conserving biodiversity through
protected areas
Biodiversity in the Philippines
Simply put, biodiversity refers to both the totality and
variety of all living things within a given area. The CBD
defines biological diversity as “the variability among
living organisms from all sources including, inter alia,
terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and
the ecological complexes of which they are part; this
includes diversity within species, between species and
of ecosystems.”
The diversity of living things naturally varies
depending on the location on Earth, because of the
specific conditions in the area, such as temperature,
precipitation, altitude, soils, and the presence of other
species. There is generally higher biodiversity in the
tropics, including the Philippines – which is among
the “Megadiverse” countries in the world that host
the most number of different species. The long and
complex geological history of the Philippines is the
primary driver of diversification of ecosystems that
gave rise to very high levels of endemicity among
many groups of animals and plants. In the Philippines,
The Verde Island Passage holds the record of the most diverse coral and shorefish species in the world. (Map source: Conservation International)
5 The Philippines is one of the countries identified by Conservation
International (1998) as having the most diverse biological resources in
the world; The Philippines is also a member of the Group of Like-Minded
6 Megadiverse countries (formed in Cancun in 2002) that cooperate in
international negotiations relevant to conservation of biodiversity.
there is a wide variety of ecosystems that give rise
to the richness in biodiversity, from tropical forests,
freshwater and oceanic areas. Although none of the
Philippine islands is unusually species-rich, so many
separate islands have different endemic species, which
collectively makes the archipelago have a large species
total in relation to its size.6
The Philippines has identified 228 key biodiversity
areas7 covering 7.6 million hectares, including 128
terrestrial and 100 marine sites. The KBAs are habitats
of 209 globally threatened species, 419 endemic
species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and
freshwater fishes, and 62 congregatory birds species.8
This covers 7,610,943 hectares equivalent to 25% of
total land area. Of these, 117 are terrestrial and 11 are
marine areas.
The Philippines is popularly referred to as the global
center of marine biodiversity, or the ocean counterpart
of the Amazon River Basin, because of the rich variety
of life in its marine ecosystems.
6 See for example: Ricart, et al 2010, Posa and Sodhi (2005)
7 The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines KBAs
as “places of international importance for the conservation of biodiversity
through protected areas and other governance mechanisms.
 Biodiversity is also a measure of the health of
ecosystems - as when certain natural or human
causes (such as pollution, land-use change, drought,
storm surge, etc.) result in changes in the number and
distribution of populations, and in interactions among
species (for example, disruption of the food chain, loss
of habitats).

depend on traditional medicines from nature for

primary healthcare.

Biodiversity and climate change are closely linked

Biodiversity is important because living things provide
ecosystem services. For example: cleaning the air,
regulating climate, purifying water, pollination, and
preventing erosion. It is also very important to human
health. A significant proportion of modern drugs are
derived, directly or indirectly, from plants, animals, and
microorganisms. Indigenous and local communities,
issues that directly affect human well-being – many of
the anticipated risks of climate change are associated
with changes in biodiversity (changes in populations
and distribution of disease vectors, scarcity of fresh
water, impacts on agricultural biodiversity and food
resources etc.). Climate change and extreme weather
can also destroy ecosystems.

Extreme rainfall during

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

7
 Protected Areas Management
Protected areas are places designated or set aside
for conservation because of their recognized natural,
ecological and/or cultural values. Protected area
designation and management are essential for
biodiversity conservation, and often make up the
pillars of conservation strategies of countries and the
international community. In protected areas, human
activities are regulated in order to maintain functioning
natural ecosystems. These areas become sanctuaries
for species and places to maintain ecological processes
that otherwise would not survive or continue under
intense human disturbance.
Definition of ‘protected area’:
CBD - A geographically defined area that is designated
or protected and managed to achieve specific
conservation objectives.
IUCN - A clearly defined geographical space,
recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal
or other effective means, to achieve the long-term
conservation of nature with associated ecosystem
services and cultural values.
NIPAS Act - Identified portions of land and water set
aside by reason of their unique physical and biological
significance, managed to enhance biological diversity
and protected against destructive human exploitation.
8
The concept of having “protected areas” is not new.
Indigenous peoples often delineate “sacred grounds”
where human activities are prohibited, and designate
zones where activities are strictly regulated.
Today these areas are recognized as Indigenous
Community Conserved Areas (ICCA) – areas
traditionally managed by the community following
customary law and tradition.
The Talaandig
of Bukidnon call
sacred grounds
“Panubaran.”
Datu Migketay
(Victorino
Saway) explained
the concept of protection and conservation in an
interview conducted by Stella Estremera (2011):
Everything done in the forest by the indigenous
peoples, Datu Migketay (Victorino Saway) said,
was done with sustainability in mind. “Indigenous
forest management always involves a sanctuary. In
the hunting grounds of the forests, our ancestors
have long staked out sanctuaries where hunting
is absolutely prohibited. Our ancestors from the
different tribes have all agreed on these because
a hunter is also responsible for the protection and
preservation of game animals,” Datu Migketay said.
With regard to fishing, since they only have
freshwater waterways in Bukidnon, a two-week
break is observed after every fish harvest from
streams. Datu Migketay described that the old way
of fishing is damming a portion of a stream, after
which the full-grown fish are gathered. The dam is
removed and the rest of the fish are allowed to go
free. The tribes also respect prior claims to a stretch
of the stream. No one dams a stream and harvests
from an area where someone else has already been
harvesting fish.
Only full-grown dipterocarp species too are cut for
making houses. Trees that bear nuts and fruits are
left to live on for as long as these continue to bear
fruit.
Many protected areas are allocated primarily for
species and habitat conservation, but protected areas
are also important for conserving sites of cultural
or indigenous importance such as the Ifugao Rice
Terraces (World Heritage Site), and lately for their
value in disaster risk reduction and conservation of
carbon stocks (See Page Imugan).
In modern legal systems, there are several kinds of
protected areas, which vary by level of protection
depending on the enabling laws of each country or
the regulations of the international organizations
involved. The term “protected area” also includes
marine protected areas that cover coastal or ocean
ecosystems.
Under Philippine law, Protected Areas (capitalized
here for distinction) are synonymous and often
exclusively refer to components of NIPAS. However,
in this report, ‘protected area’ (small letters) is not
limited to the components of the NIPAS (consistent
with international usage of the term), but all areas
designated and managed for biodiversity conservation,
including local government- and IP-managed areas
outside of NIPAS, and marine protected areas.8 The
indigenous community conserved areas may fall under
any of the IUCN or NIPAS categories, depending on
the focus of the customary conservation/utilization
activities allowed by the particular indigenous people.
The comparability of protected areas classification
is important especially in reporting progress to the
international community, such as under the AICHI
Biodiversity Targets and the Plan of Work for Protected
Areas.

IUCN NIPAS (Sec. 3 and 4) Comment

Ia. Strict Nature (a) Strict Nature Reserve Most restrictive category under NIPAS that
Reserve allows only scientific use for the area

Ib. Wilderness Area Included in strict nature reserve

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

III. Natural Monument (c) Natural Monument Essentially the same

IV. Habitat/Species (d) Wildlife Sanctuary Essentially the same

Management Area

V. Protected Landscape/ (e) Protected landscape/seascape NIPAS emphasizes opportunities for

Seascape recreation and tourism

VI. Managed Resource (f) Natural Biotic Area NIPAS emphasizes the preservation of
Protected Area indigenous culture associated with the
area

8 In agriculture, the law created a ‘network of protected areas for agriculture

and agro-industrial development’ covering highly productive and ecologically
sensitive farmlands and marine sanctuaries.
9
 Philippines at a glance
Archipelago with more than 7,100 islands
Land area: 298,170 km2
Terrain: mostly mountainous with narrow to extensive
coastal lowlands
Forest cover: 7.67 M ha (76,700km2) (FMB 2010)
Renewable water reserves: 479 km3
Coastline: 36,289 km.
Marine Waters (including EEZ): 2.2M km2
(Palma 2009)

Natural hazards: astride typhoon belt, usually affected

by 20 cyclonic storms per year with average of 7
to 9 making landfall; landslides; active volcanoes;
destructive earthquakes; tsunamis (NDCC 2007)

Population: 103,775,002 (July 2011 est);

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

Government: Republic
Administrative divisions: 81 provinces, 122 cities, 1512
municipalities

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

Unemployment rate: 7% (2011 est.)

Population below poverty (as of 2009): 26.5% (NSCB
2010)

10
Evolution of Conservation
Practices in the Philippines
The indigenous peoples of the Philippines lived
close to nature and practiced traditional methods of
using natural resources that closely associated their
spirituality with their livelihood.
The pinugo or muyung is an indigenous system of
forest management unique to the people of Ifugao,
in the Cordillera region (Northern Luzon), practiced
since time immemorial.9
The pinugo/muyung are woodlots or forests located
above the rice terraces, which are both owned by
clans. 

The pinugo/muyong is a source of food, fuel,
lumber for housing and woodcarving, medicinal
plants, botanical pesticides, and other products that
may be traded. It also provides irrigation, water for
the household and prevents soil erosion. The pinugo/
muyung is governed by a set of customary laws and
values intrinsic to the Ifugao people that reflects
their ties to the land and environment. The muyung
system can be viewed from different perspectives,
either as a forest conservation strategy, a watershed
rehabilitation technique, a farming system or an
assisted natural regeneration (ANR) strategy.10
In other parts of the Cordillera, similar community
forest management customs exist, such as: tayan
or batangan in Mountain Province; lapat in Abra
and Apayao (that includes water bodies); imong in
Kalinga; and kidjuhan or kijuwan in Benguet.
9 See video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUzOQEG9-zc produced by
Kadioan Inc. with the support of Growing Forest Partnership, IEED, and
International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests.
When the Spaniards first came to the Philippines
in the 16th century, over 90% of the land (almost
30 million hectares) was covered with forests. The
Spanish colonizers used the timber to build ships for
the galleon trade. In 1863, the first Forestry Service,
Inspeccion General de Montes, was established by
Royal Decree, to determine the extent of the country’s
forest resources and oversee their proper utilization.
Through the next four decades, the Forestry Service
conducted surveys on the suitability of the timber
for civil and naval purpose, assessed the actual
condition of the forest, check and prevent trespass
and unauthorized encroachment into the forest
and prevent illegal cutting of timber. The Spaniards
introduced a permit system for forest use and were
first to ban kaingin11 in 1874 – under the principle that
all the lands and natural resources belonged to the
Crown and people who wish to use the resources must
get permission.
The Americans converted the Inspeccion to the
Forestry Bureau in 1900. In 1904, the US Government
in the Philippines also passed a forest law that
remained the basis of forest regulation until 1975.
During this period, timber extraction
grew exponentially and peaked
in the 1960s, through large-scale
commercial operations. The
Philippines was a major supplier
of logs in the region, especially to
Japan. By 1969, forest products
constituted 33% of total export
revenues, while at the same time
local and international foresters
were warning of the inevitability of
the harvest diminishing if there was
not a significant change in policy.
Communal forests ensure water
supply for the rice terraces in
Battad, Ifugao.
10 Camacho et al. 2009 describes many of the indigenous practices of the
Northern indigenous communities.
11 Swidden farming; shifting cultivation
11
 Chronology of milestones in laws and policies on natural
resources management and biodiversity conservation.
Indigenous forest and
--- coastal management
practices

1863 1874 1894 1900 1904

Forest Laws and

Inspeccion General Regulation for the
Forest Act, which
de Montes, Philippine Forest Service
contained the Philippine
the first Forestry Service approved by Spain
Forest Policy
created
Kaingin (strifting First Forest Legislation
cultivation) first banned by the U.S. Gov’t in the
in forest land Philippines

1978 1976 1975

Establishment of Forestry Reform Code

Creation of Marine Parks of the Philippines
Environmental Impact
Task Force (P.D. 705)
System

1985 1987

Establishement of Apo, Creation of Forest Management

Pamilacan, and Balicasag Bureau, and Protected Areas and
Island as no-take Marine Wildlife Bureau under DENR that
reserves separated once more the functions of
forestry and PA management.

2001 1998

2003
Fisheries Code (R.A.
Wildlife Resources and 8550) mandating 15% of
Conservation Act municpal waters as fish
(R.A. 9147) santuaries and reserves
Drafting of the Philippine
Sustainable Archipelagic
Caves and Cave Resources
Development Framework
Management and
Protection Act (R.A.
9072)
2006 2007

Integrated Coastal Issuance of Revised NIPAS

Management Policy Implementing Rules
(E.O. 533) and Regulation (DAO
12 2008-26)
 1932 1933 1940

Establishment of
Establishment of Hundred
Mt Arayat as one of
Islands, Lingayen Gulf as
First National Parks Law the first National Park
National Park
(R.A. 3195)

1974 1972 1953

Establishment of Sumilon Creation of Bureau of Creation of Parks and

Island Cebu, as first Forest Development, Wildlife Commission with
working municipal marine merging forestry, the primary function of
reserve parks and wildlife and administration National
reforestation function Parks and conserving
wildlife

1988 1990 1991

Establishment of
NIPAS Act
Tubbataha Reefs, Sulu
Sea, as first national (R.A. 7586) 1992
Preparation of the
marine park Master Plan for Forestry
Development
Enactment of the Local
Government Code of the
Philippines (R.A. 7160)

1997 1995 1993

Enactment of Indigenous Adaptation of CBFM as Establishment of Coastal

Peolple’s Rights Act, or National Strategy (E.O. Environment Program
IRRA (R.A. 8371) 263)

2009 2010 2011 2012

Disaster Risk Reduction

Enactment of Climate and Management Act National Greening Mining Policy (E.O. 79)
Change (R.A. 9729) (2011) Program (E.O. 26) and Implementing Rules
(R.A. 10121) 13
 The first National Parks law was passed in 193212.
During the American period, the government
established several national parks for the conservation
of natural resources. Among the earliest national parks
were: Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve (1933), Mt. Arayat
NP (1933), Mt. Data NP (1936), Biak-na-Bato NP (1937),
Pagsanjan Gorge NP (1939) and Hundred Islands
NP (1940). At that time, the centralized concept of
conservation was to prohibit extractive activities
and to relocate residents to areas outside the park
boundaries, consistent with the experience of America
with its national parks. The government created the
Parks and Wildlife Commission in 1953 with primary
function of administering and maintaining National
Parks and conserving wildlife. A Reforestation
Administration was also created in 1960 that was
tasked to reforest and afforest bare and denuded
forest lands especially critical watersheds. By 1975, the
government passed the Forestry Reform Code of the
Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 705) that merged
its forest conservation and utilization functions under
one agency as it remains today.
In the coastal and marine sector, the same pattern
emerged. The Philippines was considered a major
source of fisheries products because of its rich fishing
grounds in the Sulu-Celebes Sea, South China Sea
(now referred to as West Philippine Sea), and Pacific
coasts. The government policy was to maximize
fisheries output for its strategic contribution to
exports. Marine ecosystem conservation had its early
roots with the establishment in 1940 of the Hundred
Islands National Park in Lingayen Gulf. However,
major programs in conservation of coastal and marine
ecosystems began with Silliman University establishing
a fish sanctuary in Sumilon Island in Cebu Province in
1974. During the 70s and 80s, collaboration between
universities, NGOs, and communities led to the
establishment of hundreds of marine sanctuaries or
12 Act No. 3915, An Act Providing for the Establishment of National Parks,
Declaring such Parks as Game Refuges, and for other Purposes
14
marine protected areas under the community-based
coastal resources management (CBCRM) approach.
When the Local Government Code (1991) and Fisheries
Code (1998) were passed, the powers of local
government units over coastal resources and fisheries
management were strengthened. All over the country,
community-based initiatives began to receive the
support of local governments in establishing legally
delineated marine sanctuaries. Many of the major
sites of community-based marine protected areas later
became part of NIPAS, such as the famous Apo Island
in Negros Oriental.
With the resurgence of democratic institutions after
the EDSA Revolution in 1986, environmental and
human rights groups began to focus on rationalizing
the environmental policies of the country. The 1987
Philippine Constitution created a new category of
public domain – the national park – highlighting its
importance. Establishing a system of protected areas
(or national parks) became a priority, encouraged
by support from donor institutions to conduct basic
scientific and policy studies. The research findings
and recommendations led to Congress enacting the
National Integrated Protected Areas System Act in
1992, which provided the framework for assessing,
establishing and managing Protected Areas important
for biodiversity conservation. At present, specific
laws and regulations protecting wildlife, fisheries,
cave resources, and genetic resources, and ensuring
biosafety complement NIPAS.
NIPAS marked a turning point in recognizing the rights
of indigenous peoples to their land and traditional
practices. Five years later, in 1997, the Philippines
passed a landmark law recognizing and protecting
the rights of indigenous peoples, especially over their
ancestral domains and ancestral lands. Under the law,
indigenous peoples have the primary responsibility,
as owners, for protecting their ancestral domains,
which often are part of protected areas. Several NIPAS
Protected Areas, such as Mt. Kitanglad Natural Park
and Coron Island Protected Area, have developed
working mechanisms to harmonize the roles and
interests of indigenous peoples, local governments and
national agencies.
For areas outside of protected areas, community-based
forest management (CBFM) evolved in the late 70s and
80s, borrowing from lessons in communal irrigation
and CBCRM, where local communities are charged
with protecting the resources on which they are
dependent for their livelihood. In 1995, then President
Fidel V. Ramos issued a major policy adopting CBFM
as the national strategy to ensure the sustainable
development of the country’s forestland resources.
NIPAS later also adopted the same framework in
developing tenure instruments for community-based
management of multiple-use and buffer zones in
protected areas.
At the turn of the 21st century, environmental policies
have focused on climate change and disaster risk
reduction and management, with the enactment of
laws that created the institutional frameworks for
addressing climate change and reducing the adverse
impacts of natural disasters, often associated with
extreme weather. At the local level, this meant that
Protected Areas Management Boards and local
governments have to consider disaster risk reduction
and management, and climate change mitigation
and adaptation in their plans, to reduce the adverse
impacts on local communities.
15
16
National Integrated
Protected Areas System

The NIPAS Act, Republic Act No. 7586, was designed
as a “framework” law that would rationalize the
designation and management of various conservation
areas in the country. Act No. 3915 approved in 1932
defined national parks as “any portion of the public
domain which, because of its panoramic, historical,
scientific, and aesthetic value, should be dedicated
and set apart for the benefit and enjoyment of the
people of the Philippine Islands”. As a result, there
were overlapping laws, proclamations and executive
orders setting aside national parks that include
historical or memorial parks, tourist attractions, along
with conservation areas. Worse, the 1932 concept of a
national park banned all settlements and hunting. Any
area declared a national park was designated as some
fortress that no person is allowed to do anything in
except administer park duties.
With the establishment of the Protected Areas and
Wildlife Bureau under the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources in 1987, the policy direction
of the government was to put all these different
conservation areas together under a common
framework, establishment process, and governance
mechanism to comply with the Constitutional mandate
to delineate national parks as a new category of public
domain.
for protected areas. Congress then enacts a law
specific for each site, taking into consideration the
evaluation of the site under the System.
The law followed the trend of participatory, multi-
sectoral decision-making by convening a Protected
Area Management Board (PAMB) for each protected
area. The PAMB membership includes DENR, relevant
national government agencies, all local governments
with jurisdiction over a part of the Protected Area,
civil society, and indigenous and local community
representatives. With PAMB as the focal point,
delineation, planning and management follows a
democratic and consultative process.
The initial implementation of NIPAS was greatly
enhanced by three major projects supported by
multilateral donors: The GEF supported ten priority
sites through The World Bank under the Conservation
of Priority Protected Areas Project (CPPAP, 1994-
2002); the European Union supported an additional
eight priority sites under the National Integrated
Protected Areas Programme (NIPAP, 1995-2003);
and UNDP-GEF funded the Samar Island Biodiversity
Project (2000-2012).

NIPAS was pioneering in many ways. Before the law

was crafted, there were extensive studies, including
identification of priority sites conducted by experts
in the academe and civil society and supported by
multilateral donor agencies. NIPAS does not create a
specific protected area, but provided a process wherein
existing and newly proposed sites are evaluated and
categorized under a standard system that roughly
parallels the categories under the IUCN classification.
With this system, the priority conservation areas
became more consistent with international standards

Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park in

Palawan - a Ramsar and World
Heritage Site

17
 Progress in Protected Areas Management
PAWB was tasked to provide the strategies and
mechanisms to manage the protected areas now
under NIPAS, to be implemented on the ground by
DENR field offices, and protected area staff of each
site. With NIPAS, PAWB’s first task was to assess all
these ‘initial components’ and reclassify them into the
internationally recognized categories that defined the
strategy to protect these sites. PAWB also conducted
a parallel process of assessing whether the initial
components matched the key biodiversity areas of the
country.
As of today, NIPAS counts two hundred forty (240)
Protected Areas covering around 5.44 million hectares,
one hundred seventy (170) areas covering 4.06 million
hectares are terrestrial ecosystems while seventy
(70) areas covering 1.38 million hectares are marine
ecosystems. The total Protected Area system of the
Philippines is supplemented by a total buffer zone
area of 0.22 million hectares comprised of 0.20 million
hectares and 0.02 million hectares terrestrial and
marine zones, respectively. However, it is noted that
not all PAs have delineated buffer zones.
Sixty-three (63) of the 170 terrestrial PAs and nineteen
(19) of the 70 marine PAs are within key biodiversity
The Philippines’ 240 protected areas are classified such as follows:
18
areas. This coverage is only 34.82% of the total key
biodiversity areas of the country.
The Philippines has designated three important
terrestrial biodiversity corridors - Sierra Madre,
Palawan and Eastern Mindanao – as well as marine
eco-regions that includes bioregions in the South China
Sea (West Philippine Sea), Sulu-Sulawesi Sea, Visayan
Sea, and the Pacific Ocean.
Apart from the number of Protected Areas established
and the fulfillment of legal requirements (surveys,
reports, plans, agreements, laws and regulations,
etc.) there is no overall systematic data on impacts -
whether there is improvement in biophysical condition
of PAs, quality of life of communities, or increased
benefits to the country.
To be sure, there are a number of successes in
specific sites, which are noted in this report. DENR
has developed tools for measuring the impacts of
protected areas management, but these are still in the
early stages of implementation. There are clear policy
trends that move the focus of management from the
protection of particular species or habitat to large
ecosystem and landscape approach, where the whole
range of ecological, social and economic issues can be
taken into account.
• Natural Parks/National Parks (61)
• Protected Landscapes (35)
• Protected Landscapes and Seascapes (21)
• Protected Seascapes (8)
• Natural Monument/Landmark (4)
• Resource Reserves (2)
• Natural Biotic Areas (4)
• Game Refuge and Bird/Wildlife Sanctuaries (14)
• Watershed Forest Reserves/Areas (56)
• Wilderness Areas (12)
• Mangrove Swamp Forest Reserves (23)
Map source: Philippine PoWPA Action Plan https://www.cbd.int/protected/implementation/actionplans/country/?country=ph

19
 By the time NIPAS was established, the Philippines
had extensive experience in community-based natural
resources management and in recognizing the right
of communities to live in harmony with nature.
Consistent with the policy, NIPAS recognized that
indigenous and local communities can live within
protected areas, without compromising conservation
goals. Indigenous and local communities are seen
as stewards of the protected areas, where they can
continue with livelihood activities in designated
multiple-use zones, while keeping strict protection
zones largely untouched.
Community involvement in the management of
forestlands and natural resources goes back to
community forestry policies in the 80s. People-
oriented forestry programs such as Certificate of
Stewardship Contract (CSC), Integrated Social
Forestry Program (ISFP), and Community Forestry
Program (CFP) have since been consolidated under
the Community-based Forest Management Program
(CBFMP), which has been identified as the national
strategy for managing forest lands.
20
Following the CBFM framework, the DENR developed
the Protected Area Community Based Resource
Management Agreements (PACBRMA) specifically
targeting organized tenured migrant communities
or indigenous peoples in protected areas and buffer
zones. PACBRMAs are intended to provide security
and incentives to develop, utilize, manage, conserve
designated areas for as long as 50 years. A total of 62
PACBRMAs have been awarded; most of these are in
Region 2 (Northeastern Luzon) with 22 PACBRMAs.
There are also 77 CBFMA is the NIPAS areas and
associated buffer zones.
Portions of the forest lands are covered by ancestral
domain claims. According to the National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples, as of 2011, 156 Certificates of
Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) have been approved,
covering about 4.3 million hectares and almost 1
million rights holders.
Six indigenous peoples - Manobos, Bagobo, Ubos, Atas,
K’Iagans and the Tagacaolo consider Mt. Apo Natural
Park (left) as their ancestral domain and their home.
Lake Sebu Watershed Forest Reserve (below) is home to
the T’boli and Ubo indigenous peoples.
NIPAS complements the management of ancestral
domains through harmonization of the Protected
Areas Management Plan and the Ancestral Domain
Sustainable Development and Protection Plans
(ADSDPPs). Indigenous peoples have primary
responsibility for managing natural resources in their
area following traditional knowledge systems and
often supported by modern technical methods (such
as participatory GIS mapping).

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

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

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

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

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

21
 In implementing NIPAS, the government is also
aligning its strategies, programs and actions to its
commitments under international agreements, such
as the CBD. Under the CBD Programme of Work on
Protected Areas, the Philippines is on track to meet its
targets.

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

• Progress on assessing gaps in the protected area network (1.1) 3
• Progress in assessing protected area integration (1.2) 2
• Progress in establishing transboundary protected areas and regional networks (1.3) 2
• Progress in developing site-level management plans (1.4) 3
• Progress in assessing threats and opportunities for restoration (1.5) 2
• Progress in assessing equitable sharing of benefits (2.1) 2
• Progress in assessing protected area governance (2.1) 2
• Progress in assessing the participation of indigenous 2
and local communities in key protected area decisions (2.2)
• Progress in assessing the policy environment for 3
establishing and managing protected areas (3.1)
• Progress in assessing the values of protected areas (3.1) 2
• Progress in assessing protected area capacity needs (3.2) 2
• Progress in assessing the appropriate technology needs (3.3) 1
• Progress in assessing protected area sustainable finance needs (3.4) 2
• Progress in conducting public awareness campaigns (3.5) 2
• Progress in developing best practices and minimum standards (4.1) 2
• Progress in assessing management effectiveness (4.2) 3
• Progress in establishing an effective PA monitoring system (4.3) 2
• Progress in developing a research program for protected areas (4.4) 2
• Progress in assessing opportunities for marine protection 3
• Progress in incorporating climate change aspects into protected areas 2
Status: 0 = no work, 1 = just started, 2 = partially complete, 3 = nearly complete, 4 = complete
(Insert notes as appropriate)

1. Ramsar Sites 3. ASEAN Heritage Sites

• Agusan Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary • Mt. Apo Natural Park
• Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park • Mts. Iglit-Baco Natural Park
• Naujan Lake National Park • Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park
• Olango Island Wildlife Sanctuary • Mt. Malindang Range Natural Park
2. World Heritage Sites (Natural) 4. Biosphere Reserves
• Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park • Whole Province of Palawan as Game
• Puerto Princesa Underground River Refuge and Bird Sanctuaries
National Park

22
Implementation Challenges in Protected Areas
Management
Conservation and equitable access
The unique challenge that the country faces is that
protected areas, whether in the uplands or on the
coasts, host communities - even entire municipalities.
Therefore, protected areas management has to involve
the people, who are actually part of the ecosystem.
Large-scale destruction of the forest and coastal
resources can often be traced to lack of tenure and/
or inability to enforce property rights. While the State
owns and controls natural resources, the State is
largely an absentee landlord. In the absence of clear
property rules, a de facto open access regime prevails,
where everyone scrambles to extract as much benefit
as quickly as possible before s/he is deprived of access
to the resources, either by those who have more
power, or by arbitrary application of law enforcement.
Much of the policy development since the 1980s
has been reforms to tenure issues. With consent
from government, private individuals, community
organizations and private business entities may
have possession and use of forestland for traditional
forestry, pasture, fisheries, agriculture, ecotourism and
other purposes under short-term permits and long-
term leases. In designated NIPAS areas, the DENR
implements a special Protected Area Community-
Based Resource Management Agreement (PCBRMA)13
that allows qualified occupants to use delineated
zones for livelihood and settlement, compatible with
the conservation of the protected area.
In spite of the absence of quantitative assessments
of impacts relative to baselines and conservation
targets, there are a number of successful examples of
communities managing protected areas, where the
grant of tenure rights have created some livelihood
stability and sustainability, and enabled communities
to protect ‘their’ area from further encroachment and
illegal activities.
13 DENR Adminstrative Order No. 2004-32 on the establishment and
management of Community Based Program in Protected Areas.
23
 Inconsistencies in land-use decisions

One of the key challenges of protected areas

management is stopping land-use change in areas that
have not yet been formally set aside for conservation
– this includes the 4.71-million hectares that are
considered KBAs but are not part of the NIPAS. Many
of these key biodiversity areas are also highly valued
for agriculture, mining, urban development and other
uses. At present, the sectoral approach to decision-
making (i.e., mining, agricultural or urban development
decisions are made independent of protected areas
designation), results in a race to which land-use
interest can stake its claim first. Once development
activities have taken hold, it is almost impossible to set
the area aside later for conservation.

Vegetable farming and quarrying in

protected areas in the Cordilleras.

24
Conflict with local autonomy
In the coastal and marine sector, control over fisheries
in nearshore waters has traditionally been given to
local governments, this includes the grant of permits
for various fishing-related activities. The Local
Government Code (1991) and Fisheries Code (1998)
strengthened the role of local governments to manage
the coastal environment for conservation, in addition
to powers to grant fishing rights in municipal waters
(up to 15 kilometers from shore). The Fisheries Code
requires coastal local governments to set aside 15%
of their municipal waters as fish refuge or sanctuary.
This conservation mechanism is very much consistent
with protected areas management. At present, more
than a thousand marine protected areas have been
established, including areas that are highly regarded
tourist areas, such Apo Island in Negros Oriental.
NIPAS also covers coastal and marine areas. Under
the law, once a coastal area is declared part of NIPAS,
its management is removed from the sole control of
the local government and comes under the umbrella
of the national system and managed by the Protected
Area Management Board, where the local government
is just one of the members. NIPAS includes two of
the largest marine Protected Areas (Apo Reef qnd
Tubbataha Reef, which is a World Heritage site).
Apo Island Protected Landscape and Seascape
Before the mid-1990s,
Apo Island was often
described as one of the
world’s best examples
of community-based
marine management.
In the late 1990s,
DENR convinced local
residends to include
Apo Island under
NIPAS. Extensive
interviewing of
islanders has revealed
deep misgivings about the move from community
management to a centralized regime—the Protected
Area Management Board (PAMB). Local stakeholders
initially favored NIPAS because of its comprehensive
strategy for biodiversity conservation, but they became
frustrated because of its exclusion of stakeholders from
management and its poor institutional performance. A
study by Hind and colleagues (2010) concluded that
the implementation of the NIPAS Act highlights the
limitations of top-down management, and that there
is a need to restore an element of local stakeholder
participation in the governance of Apo’s marine
protected area (MPA). A system of co-management
between community and national state actors is
essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of Apo’s
marine resources.
Apo Island is a world-famous dive destination. For decades, local
communities and local officials (led by former Mayor Rodrigo Alalano
above) took care of the island until it became a NIPAS PA in 1994.
25
 Sustainable Financing Provincial Funding
PhP11, 696,000
(US$ 278,500)
It is a well-known fact that government budget 13% International Donor,
for management of the 240 Protected Areas are PhP9,836,174
(US$ 234,000)
insufficient in both financial and human resources. For 11%
the period 2005-2009, the average annual operating National Donor
budgets allocated to PAWB in support of activities PhP450,000
for PA system management is about PhP900,000 (US$10,700)
National Funding for 1%
(US$ 21,400). The regional offices budgets to support Operations Private Donor
local capacity building, and supporting the oeprations PhP60,615,574 (US$1.4M) PhP12,000
61% (US$285)
of the PAMBs for 2008, exclusive of the budget to
0%
support PA establishment, was only PhP13,381,000 Fees &
(US$318,600). In a study prepared for DENR, Anda, Concessions
PhP11,101,282.70
Jr. and Atienza estimated that we have a shortfall of (US$264,300)
1,478 staff and operating expense of USD8.4 million. Others 11%
PhP5,097,792
This is a conservative estimate when considering the
Source of data: Anda, Jr. and Atienza 2011 (US$121,400)
low levels of funding and staffing of Philippine PAs 6%
compared to many of its Asian neighbors.
Top ten PAs in revenue generation
NIPAS created the Integrated Protected Areas Fund (cumulative income through 2011)
(IPAF). This was intended to solve the problem of NAME OF PROTECTED AREA TOTAL INCOME (PhP) US$
uncertainty in competing for national appropriation Ninoy Aquino Parks and 78,522,680.00 1,869,587.00
and ensures that the revenues raised from the site will Wildlife Nature Center

be invested back to protect it. Apo Island Protected 35,420,594.05 843,347.00

Landscape/Sea scape

In the twenty years of NIPAS implementation, 62% of Hinulugang Taktak 13,023,843.00 310,091.00
all protected areas have established their site-based National Park

sub-fund mechanisms. The remaining 38% are in the Lower Agno WFR 11,574,963.00 275,594.00
process of establishing the governance mechanism Upper Agno River Basin 10,625,000.00 252,976.00
(PAMB) as a pre-requisite for establishing the sub-
Apo Reef Marine Reserve 10,496,877.00 249,976.00
fund. Two-thirds of the areas with sub-funds are
generating income, with only a handful of Protected Tañon Strait PS 9,330,454.75 222,153.00
Areas generating substantial income (Table), mostly
Manleluag Hot Spring 5,111,352.17 121,698.00
from entrance fees.
Mt. Pulag National Park 4,820,707.53 114,778.00

The total collection of IPAF (cumulative over 20 years) Biak-Na-Bato National Park 4,608,975.00 109,737.00
is PHP220 million, mostly coming from the top ten
earning PAs. There are no systemwide studies on the
actual potential for revenue generation, except for
sites that have good potential for tourism and water
supply.

26
The other side of the financial challenge is the
underutilization of IPAF. Seventy-five percent of the
collected money should be retained in the site, while
the remaining 25% is to be used for System-wide
administration and support for sites that lack funding.
At present, the utilization rate of the sub-funds is
83%, but for the central fund, more than 90% of the
revenues remains unused. No money has been used to
fund activities in non-earning sites. All of the revenues
of IPAF went to fund activities only in the areas where
the money was generated; not even the central fund
was used to support activities in areas that have no
income.
In many of the Protected Areas around the country, the
private sector has actively participated and invested
in management activities that significantly eases the
financial and management burden of the PAMB and
PA staff.
The Energy Development Corporation operates
geothermal facilities close to several NIPAS
protected areas. The company has embarked on
law enforcement, reforestation and rehabilitation
activities to restore the ecological balance in these
areas. EDC also works with indigenous and local
communities to raise awareness on biodiversity
conservation, participate in the management of the
protected areas, and generate livelihood activities.

There is big potential to raise revenues in protected

areas. Revenues from water resources alone can be
substantial. Water utility companies have expressed
willingness to pay for watershed/protected area
conservation.

In the Samar Island Natural Park, a study estimating

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

SINP receives an average of about 3,000 mm of rain

annually. Estimated available groundwater for SINP
Core area is around 999 MCM per year, and 363
MCM per year in the Buffer Zone area.

Local governments have provided direct financial and

personnel support for protected areas management,
on top of their mandated role in the PAMB. In Mt.
Kitanglad, the local governments take turns hosting
PAMB meetings and contributing funds to finance
management and enforcement activities. In Negros
Occidental, the provincial government provides
funding and coordinates technical assistance for
local governments and stakeholders to prepare
management plans for existing and proposed
protected areas.

27
28
Beyond NIPAS:
New foundations for protected areas management
The role of the international community
NIPAS follows a long national and international
tradition of setting aside significant and critical
natural areas for protection or conservation. The
global significance of the Philippines in biodiversity
conservation is highlighted by the following facts:
• It harbors more diverse life forms than any other
country on earth on a per hectare basis;
• It has more than 52,100 described species, of which
more than one half are found nowhere else on earth;
491 of these are threatened as listed in the IUCN Red
List;
• More than 1,130 terrestrial wildlife species have
been recorded; half of these are endemic; 157 are
threatened; and 128 are threatened endemic species;
• It is one of the most important centers of amphibians
(101 species) and reptiles (258 species) in Southeast
Asia; 68 are endemic;
• It is home to an astounding 576 species of birds, of
which 195 are endemic and 126 are restricted range
species, making the Philippines the 4th leading
country in the world in bird endemism;
• With 174 indigenous mammalian species, 111 of which
are endemic, it has the greatest concentration of
terrestrial mammalian diversity in the world; but it
also ranked 8th among the most threatened;
• Rate of discovery of new species in the country is
one of the highest in the world, with a total of 36
new species of herpetofauna discovered in the last
10 years.
Conserving the Philippines’ rich biodiversity should
not only be the concern or responsibility of the
Filipino people. There is a sensitive line that divides
state sovereignty over its natural resources and the
responsibility of all humanity to protect the Earth. In
The seas of the Philippines are considered
marine equivalent of the Amazon River Basin.
international law, the concept of common concern
of humanity evolved as a way to express global
responsibility without encroaching on a sovereign
country’s rights. By definition, a common concern
requires international action and necessitates new
forms of domestic law-making, compliance techniques
and enforcement. Other consequences include the
importance of participation by non-state actors and
management of environmental resources at all levels of
governance. 14
The international community has provided incentives
and impetus for biodiversity rich countries to protect
their resources, by providing knowledge and technical
assistance, financial incentives, support for stopping
illegal activities.
Some sectors worry that with international support
comes many obligations that could restrict the country
in the strategic use of its biological resources, or
impair the rights of indigenous and local communities.
For example, in REDD-Plus, the investments
in reducing deforestation, forest degradation,
sustainable management of forests and carbon-stock
enhancements are intended for reducing carbon
emissions or increasing sequestration of atmospheric
carbon by forests. In practical terms, the forest areas
dedicated for REDD-Plus are restricted from other
uses, or may use methods that maximize mitigation
potentials but are incompatible with conservation of
biodiversity (e.g. reforestation using fast growing non-
indigenous species in key biodiversity areas. This can
potentially affect the livelihoods of forest dependent
communities. In anticipation of these problems, the
REDD-Plus mechanism being developed under the
UNFCCC contain specific governance and biodiversity
safeguards to ensure that achieving the climate
mitigation goals is not made at the expense of IP/local
community rights and loss of biodiversity.
14 Shelton, 2009. http://www.jak.ppke.hu/hir/ias/20091sz/05.pdf
29
 Recognizing and valuing ecosystem services
Protected areas produce significant economic benefits
even if they are left alone and ‘set aside.’ To most
people who have access to forest land or coastal areas,
the question is ‘how much can the area produce [of
economic value] if left as is, as compared to if the
area is converted to a farm or fishpond? The answer
seems simple – of course, forest areas converted to
vegetable farms will earn the farmer more money
and will provide goods for more people. Under this
scenario, it is difficult to argue to keep forest lands and
coastal areas in their natural state, if the areas have
the potential to be converted into ‘productive’ use.
On top of that, if the area is designated for protection
and land-use conversion is prohibited, government
will have to spend a lot of resources to enforce the
regulations, faced with the pressure to allow people
in need to make a living on farms. The low productive
value and high cost of enforcement make protected
area designation and protection a real challenge.
However, the truth is that natural ecosystems
produce goods and services that are just as valuable,
if not more valuable, than the benefits derived from
30
conversion into farms and fishponds. These ecosystem
services are often taken for granted and considered
free – until they become scarce or lost.
Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL) is a
mountain range covering 120,457 hectares in Southern
Palawan, Philippines, which was declared a Protected
Area in June 2009. Mt. Mantalingahan is home to
indigenous Palaw’ans and is a key biodiversity area.
According to Conservation International, this largely
forested mountain range is critical for providing
various ecosystem services that benefits the local
communities with an estimated total economic
value of US$5.5 billion. These ecosystems services
include water, soil conservation, flood control, carbon
sequestration, non-timber forest products and the
high potential of waterfalls, caves and other areas for
tourism. The thirty-three watersheds within MMPL
are extremely valuable to the lowland agricultural
economy in the area.
In order to make rational decisions on whether to keep
an area undisturbed as protected area or allow it to be
used for other purposes, the true value of ecosystem
services must be accounted for in the cost-benefit
analysis. This issue is not new, and a number of studies
have shown the importance of this analysis. The
challenge is adopting this as mainstream framework in
deciding appropriate land and sea use, as foundation
for directing economic development.
Addressing the drivers of biodiversity and habitat
loss
Biodiversity and habitat loss can be brought about
by natural and/or human-induced causes. Natural
calamities (for example: earthquakes, typhoons,
warming sea surface temperature) can cause
changes in the environment that affect species
and the ecosystem. Human activities may alter
the environment very significantly such that living
organisms must adapt, move away or die. As a result,
the natural balance changes, including its ability to
deliver the services that the ecosystem produced.
The alteration of the environment are intended to
bring benefits to humans – such as farming, fishing,
housing, mining, energy production, etc. However,
there comes a point where the scale of these changes
surpass the ability of the area to maintain the natural
functions that provide the benefits that humans are
after. When too much of the forests are cut down to
make way for farms, the ability of the forest to absorb
water and prevent erosion is also reduced. This may
result in insufficient water for irrigation of the farms,
loss of fertility of the soils, changes in temperature
that are optimal to the crops - changes that cascade
to reduce productivity of the farms. The demand for
more farm products put pressure to cut down more
trees to convert to farms. Designating protected areas
or watersheds prevent the surpassing of the limits of
what the ecosystem can support to human activities.
This is the same principle that indigenous peoples in
the Cordillera follow in protecting communal forests
above the rice terraces (muyong system).
The inaccurate pricing of goods and services, which
does not account for environmental costs, also drives
biodiversity and habitat loss. It is common to bargain
for the price of fish, crabs, and other wild catch
because these are ‘free’ and the only cost to recover
is the effort of the fisher to bring the catch to market.
Perhaps out of need and lack of access to better
deals, the fisher will sell the catch at a low price, but
the fisher will have to catch more and more fish to
meet the basic needs of the family. The fisher will sell
whatever and as much as possible, even if these are
not mature fish or crabs, in order to earn more. This
in turn will result in fewer fish and crabs reaching
reproductive age, which eventually results in the
decline of the catch.
The same issues and principles apply to other
human activities such as mining, urban development,
ecotourism, and others. Demand for products and
services push human activities to larger scales
[reducing the natural areas]. Pricing that does not
account for environmental costs also drive demand up.
The impacts of human activities on ecosystems and
ecosystem services depend on the scale of these
activities and the resilience of the ecosystems in
absorbing the impacts. Even if human activities are
small scale, the location and distribution of these
small-scale activities may also result in habitat
fragmentation that can just have as much adverse
effects as single large-scale human activities.
Addressing the drivers of biodiversity and habitat
loss is not a simple matter of enforcement, but must
be accompanied by creation of the right economic
incentives to and market mechanisms to accurately
account for environmental costs. Enforcement and
market mechanisms work together to influence
behavioral change in consumers.
31
 Addressing poverty and open access
The Philippines is among the fastest growing
economies because, among others, of its growing
population and economic development. Population
has grown to more than 100 million, and the
challenge of providing a good quality of life for all is
overwhelming. Most people want to move to urban
centers to find work and get better access to basic
services. This causes a strain on the capacity of cities
to provide for the people; increases demand for
food, water, power, and other services that depend
on natural resources. The people who remain in the
margins of forest and coastal areas also eke out a living
from the meager harvest directly from the forest, river
or sea, or from farms carved out of forests.
Growing urban and rural populations depend on
natural resources, directly or indirectly. However,
there is a prevailing tendency to bargain long-term
benefits for immediate gains. Because of government’s
poor capacity for law enforcement, this is common
occurrence – But people have to make a living – why is
that wrong? Are the trees more important than the life
of poor people? Is this thinking a fallacy?
An issue of equity
32
In Bubong, Lanao del Sur, illegal logging is rampant
and publicly acknowledged by the police and local
governments. The forest of Bubong is p art of the
wateshed of Lake Lanao, which in turn provides water
to the Agus hydroelectric power grid. Illegal logging
continues because of high demand for lumber [which
has become scarce due to logging bans strictly imposed
in nearby places]. The forests are also the source
of firewood, which is the fuel of choice of the local
communities.
In the absence of strict law enforcement and cheaper
alternatives to lumber and firewood, the forests of
Bubong will continue to be cut. In the meantime,
the water level of Lake Lanao has gone low during
dry season, causing temporary shutdowns of the
hydroelectric plants and consequently causing
tremendous economic losses due to power shortage.
Even without the accurate numbers, it is obvious that
the value of the lumber and firewood, and the benefits
these products provide, pale in comparison to the
losses in power and economic activities due to the
logging operations.
The devastation wrought by typhoon Sendong in
Iligan and Cagayan de Oro Cities, where subdivisions
and settlements were washed away by flashfloods
in December 2011 was attributed to the massive
deforestation in upland areas of Lanao.
Sustainable financing and paying for ecosystem
services
When natural resources and ecosystem services are
not properly valued, and their costs not included in
cost-benefit analyses, it will be very hard to argue
for their protection. There may be emotional value in
protecting the Philippine Eagle, because of its beauty
and majesty. But when the choice is between keeping
the forests where the Eagle lives and turning that same
forest into profitable plantations that earn millions of
dollars and employ hundreds of people, the ‘practical’
choice seems obvious.
Can a protected area match the income and
employment opportunities of commercial plantations?
Or mining? There are not enough studies to make a
generalized statement. In the absence of convincing
data, the default decision would be to go with what is
tried and tested – profits from farming and mining has
brought jobs and wealth to many people.
But another way of comparing the values is to ask,
what would be the cost if these resources are lost?
In Bukidnon Province, the industrial pineapple and
banana plantations have recently complained that
the land is drying up – rainfall patterns have changed
resulting in extreme rainy seasons and long periods
of dry season, unlike in decades past where rainfall
was evenly distributed throughout the year. For the
companies, the cost of production has increased
significantly to source water for the farms; otherwise,
productivity has decreased.
Some enlightened commercial farmers, such as John
Perine of Unifrutti, have observed that the loss of
water and increase in temperature around the area are
associated with the loss of the forests in Mt. Kitanglad
and Kalatungan (both Protected Areas). These farmers
understand the value of restoring the forest cover, and
hopefully restore the microclimate around the farms.
They are willing to contribute to or pay for protected
area management. For several years now, the large
commercial farmers near Mt. Kitanglad have been
contributing funds to cover PA management activities.
While NIPAS provides a fee system, whereby
revenues in Protected Areas are channeled back to
management activities, most of the beneficiaries of
ecosystem services from protected areas are outside
the boundaries of these protected areas. Therefore,
an expanded system of sustainable financing based
on the payment of ecosystem services is needed to
augment the fee system under the law.

TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE

Use Values Non-Use Values

Direct use Indirect Option Quasi-option Bequest value Existence value

value use value value value

Outputs/ Functional Future direct Expected new Value of Value from

services benefits and indirect information leaving use knowledge
that can be enjoyed use from avoiding & non-use of continued
consumed directly irreversible values to existence
directly losses of: offspring based on
e.g. moral
conviction

Consumptive: Biological support to: *species *species *threatened reef habitats

Capture sea birds *habitats *habitats *endangered species
fisheries turtles & dugongs *biodiversity *’way of life’ *charismatic species
mariculture fisheries connected to *aesthetic reefscapes
aquarium trade other ecosystems traditional uses
pharmaceutical
Non- Consumptive: Physical
tourism/ recreation protection to:
research/education *other coastal
aesthetic use ecosystems Global life-
*coastline support:
*navigation *Carbon store
*may slow-
down global
warming

33
34
 Working together
to conserve protected areas

National integrated strategy of sustainable
economic growth
In almost all assessments of the root causes of loss
of natural resources and biodiversity, governance
problems are highlighted and well-documented. In the
2011 USAID biodiversity and forestry analysis for the
Philippines, which reflects the research and consensus
of policymakers, scientists and civil society, the
problem of biodiversity loss, is presented in a broader
context of economic, socio-cultural, technical and
other factors (See problem tree). Market forces play
an important role in determining people’s decisions
on the level of exploitation of natural resources. If
the environmental costs are not accounted for, the
artificially low price of ecosystem goods and services
could lead to over-exploitation. Changing weather
patterns, natural disasters and climate change impacts
have altered ecosystems and caused significant
damages from droughts, floods, storm surges, rising
sea surface temperatures.
There are 3 main barriers that limit the effectiveness
of the protected areas system of the Philippines in
conserving globally significant areas, namely:
1. Biogeographical representativeness – significant
ecological gaps exist. There is a need to consider
innovative governance of protected areas to fill these
gaps and conserve biodiversity ultimately;
2. Limited capacity for protected area management
– there are limited resources for demarcation;
enforcement is weak; there are deficiencies in
management systems and tools; the structure and
functioning management boards of protected areas
need improvement; and there is no systematized
framework for monitoring and evaluation for keeping
track of the management effectiveness; and
3. Inadequate systems for financial planning, budgetary
management and revenue generation – most of
the protected areas are financed entirely out of
government revenues; systems to capitalize on
alternative revenue streams from ecotourism and
ecosystem services are not fully developed; trust
fund mechanism exists but revenue generation has
been limited

PROBLEM TREE
Increased vulnerability Increased vulnerability of Increased Reduced agricultural Breakdown of norms Increased conflicts on used of natural
of ecosystem to communities to climate poverty productivity, service and traditional/ resources & reduced availability of water for
climate impacts extremes/natural disasters areas & food security indigenous knowledge irrigation/domestic use downstream
systems

Increased GHG Increased floods, soil Polluted water Loss of Reduced availability of Reduced soil fertility &
emission from erosion, siltation, landslides sources biodiversity water, timber & other forest increased vulnerability to
deforestation and products pest/diseases/invasive
forest degradation species

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

DEMOGRAPHY NATURAL SCIENTIFIC, SOCIO-CULTURAL ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE

• Increase • Extreme TECHNICAL AND Inability of community Increased demand for forests/ • Ambiguous or conflicting, and
population weather TECHNOLOGICAL to manage resources: biodiversity products & services, antiquated laws & policies
• Urban storm surge • Lack science- • Low household and land for sommercial & • Institution with overlapping mandates
migration • Earthquakes, based NRM: incomes/production agricultural production • Inappropriate land/sea use planning
• Upland/ volcanic Inadequate/ • lack access to basic Individuals vs. Macro-economy • Unsecured properly rights; open access
Coastal activity Inconsistent services Inability to maximize value • Lack capacity & resources (operational)
migration • Increased data/ • Lack empowerment to income from natural resources • Inadequate/inappropriate allocation of
SST, sea- information/ exercise civil/political • Poor rural infrastructure funds & personnel
level rise technology for & economic rights • Low agricultural productivity • Short-sighted planning & decision-
rational decision • Low awareness level • Poor access to markets making
making on conservation • Under-pricing of natural • Corruption; political intervention
practices resources • Lack integration of CC impacts on
• Lack incentives to • Lack appreciation on policies and plans
protect public goods extremalities associated with • Budget Allocator (Forestry vs. PA)
resource use
• Global trade
Source: USAID 2011

35
 The PDP has twin goals of economic growth and “The deteriorated state of
poverty alleviation as components of the overall goal the country’s environment
of “inclusive growth.” The Plan recognizes the need and natural resources is
felt most by the poor, who
for investing in infrastructure priorities to improve
depend on such resources for
environmental quality and enhance productivity - such their livelihood and are most
as irrigation, sanitation and wastewater treatment, vulnerable to the consequences
solid waste management, flood control, etc. The ENR of its degradation and
Chapter of the PDP focuses on three major goals – depletion. Climate change and
two of which are directed at conserving remaining
risks from natural disasters
only amplify the association
natural resources and preserving a clean and healthy
between poverty and
environment. The third goal emphasizes the need for environmental degradation.”
climate change adaptation and disaster management.

PHILIPPINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2011-2016

GOAL
Inclusive Growth
rapid, sustained, creates jobs, draws the majority into the economic and social
mainstream, and continuously reduces mass poverty
Growth in real GDP Poverty incidence reduced from 33.1% in
of 7-8% per year 1991 to 16.6% by 2015 or less

How to achieve goal

Massive investment in physical Human development Employment Complementary strategies

infrastructure generation
Including for: KALAHI-CIDSS: Including in: (including ecological integrity
• Climate proof infra dev’t KKB • tourism and climate change resiliency
• Water supply (IWRM) • agriculture in Chapter 10)
• Irrigation Conditional • fisheries
• Sanitation, septage and Cash Transfer • agroforestry
sewerage mgmt. • mining
Transparent and responsive governance

Vision for ENR Sector (Chapter 10)

An environment that is healthy, ecologically balanced, sustainably productive, climate change resilient and
one that provides for present and future generations of Filipinos
Strategic Framework

GOAL 1. Improved conservation, protection and GOAL 2. Improved environmental quality for GOAL 3. Enhanced resilience of
rehabilitation of natural resources cleaner and healthier environment natural system and improved adaptive
• Sustainably manage forest and watersheds • Reduce air pollution in Metro Manila and capacities of human communities
• Improve protection and conservation of other major urban centers to cope with environmental hazards
biodiversity • Reduce water pollution to improve including climate-related risks
• Enhance cosatal and marine resources water quality in prioirty rivers and other • Strengthen institutional capacities of
management economically and ecological important national and local governments
• Improve land administration and management water bodies • Enhance the resilience of natural
• Manage a more equitable utilization of • Reduce wastes generated and improve system for CCA and DRRM
mineral resources waste disposal • Improve adaptive capacities of
• Develop and implement environment-friendly • Establish a healthier and livable urban communities
enterprise and livelihood opportunities environment
Cross-cutting Strategies
• Effective environmental governance
• Continued institutional strenghtening and capability building
• Research, Development, Extension and Knowledge Management
• Environment and Natural Resource Financing
Source: USAID 2011

36
Some key actions on biodiversity conservation under
the PDP include:
• Targeting to have 15 million hectares of forested
land, 50 percent of which may be production forest,
the following will be implemented to increase forest
cover by 600,000 hectares by 2016;
• Assess the effectiveness of management and
implement adaptive management in all protected
areas proclaimed under the NIPAS;
• Strengthen management of protected areas in
partnership with local communities through issuance
of security of tenure and provision of alternative
livelihood;
• Prepare protected area management plan
incorporating vulnerability and adaptability of the
sector to disaster risk and climate change
• Preparation/updating of management plan for
protected areas and ecologically important habitats
to include climate change adaptation; and
• Operationalize the concept of Payment for
Environmental Services (PES). PES is a mechanism
in environment and natural resources management
that corrects the flaw in current economic system
whereby the users of ecosystem/environment
services are made to pay the ENR managers
• Implement the National Biosafety Framework,
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources
and the updated National Wetland Action Plan for
the Philippines (NWAPP) as part of the country’s
commitment to the Convention on Wetlands or
Ramsar Convention.
• Develop and implement the national integrated
coastal management (ICM) program to include
principles, strategies and action plans
• Apply the ecosystem approach to the management
of fisheries and other marine resources, addressing
transboundary policy and regulatory concerns;
• Evaluate management effectiveness of all MPAs
proclaimed under NIPAS;
• Implement the Coral Triangle Initiative National
Plan of Action and the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine
Ecoregion (SSME) Conservation Plan which
includes designating priority seascapes across the
Coral Triangle as geographic focus of sustainable
management;
The Philippines’ next steps relevant to protected areas
management in the short term would be to establish
sustainable management mechanisms within each
seascape or biogeographic region and implement local
actions that will redound to achieving coordinated
actions leading to scaled-up synergy at the municipal
(or district) level and at the marine key biodiversity
areas. The next steps in the medium and long terms
would be to achieve significant ecological impacts
and attain sustainable benefits showing impacts
to a reasonable degree, respectively. More specific
recommendations include: (1) having an adaptive
ecosystem based management embedded with a
social reform agenda; (2) facilitating an enabling
learning environment and empowered constituency;
(3) advocating the institutionalization of good
governance; (4) building capacity among stakeholders;
and (5) developing ways to leverage funds to sustain
management.
37
 Communities are part of the protected area
What is unique about the challenge of protected
areas management in the Philippines is that these
ecologically critical areas are home to indigenous and
local communities. Early policies on conservation
focused on relocating the people outside of the
national parks. This had some success at that time
when upland population was small, and the Forest
Service had sufficient resources and highly motivated
forest guards. In the 60s, upland population increased
- partly because of displacement in the lowlands,
policies that encouraged expansion of farming in
frontier lands (especially in Mindanao), and opening
up of previously inaccessible areas through logging
roads. The policy of relocation proved ineffective in
controlling the degradation or loss of ecosystems
when population rapidly grew and enforcement
capacity significantly declined. The situation called
for a radical shift in thinking about conservation:
where local communities were previously considered
trespassers, they are now considered partners in
resource management and an integral part of the
ecosystem.
In protecting the environment, indigenous peoples and
local communities perform a vital function that benefit
the larger community of downstream beneficiaries.
Yet, this service largely remains unrecognized and
unpaid. The poor marginalized communities in fact
subsidize conservation efforts for the benefit of all.
Participatory management
One of the more significant developments to come
out of the implementation of the NIPAS Act is the
development of a process known as Participatory
3-Dimensional Modelling. The method integrates
participatory resource mapping and GIS methods, and
has proven to be a user-friendly and relatively accurate
research, planning and management tool. The precision
of the final 3D model of the protected area is assured
by confirming geo-referenced data with knowledge
provided by members of the local community. It also
provides stakeholders with a replica of the site where
they can actually see and relate to management
zones and boundaries. The method has since been
institutionalized by the DENR on January 4, 2001
through Memorandum Circular No. 2001-01, which
recommended its nationwide adoption in protected
area planning and sustainable natural resource
management.

Communities in protected areas have lived in harmony

with nature historically. However, communities do
not live in isolation – exposure to markets, changing
values, increase in population (fertility and migration) –
all contribute to increase pressure on natural resources,
which inevitably result in overexploitation.

However, communities can play an important function

in conservation, if provided with the right incentives
to go back to sustainable practices. This is not easy,
because the reality is, the remaining natural resources
may not be able to sustain dependent communities
(except for highly productive areas with access to
markets).

18 See Camacho et al 2010

38
 Northern Sierra Madre law enforcement

Former Isabela Gov. Grace Padaca worked together

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

Padaca formed an anti-illegal logging task force in

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

Nine of Isabela’s 36 towns are located within the Sierra

Madre Mountains and most of their residents eke out
a living either as hacheros (chainsaw operators) or
bugadores (log transporters).

“It pains me to see that many of these people, even in

other provinces, lose their source of income,” she said.
She asked the national government to help us create
livelihood programs and emergency employment to
help alleviate the lives of those directly affected by the
campaign against illegal logging.

Padaca added that some politicians who are

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

The pristine forests and waters of the

Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park (inset) is
marred by massive illegal logging operations.

39
 Expanding governance options for the system of
protected areas
While it is important for government to continue to
focus on the priority areas included in the NIPAS,
the shortfall in personnel and resources needed to
manage these areas limit the effectiveness of NIPAS.
It is unlikely that government budget for NIPAS will
increase dramatically in the future. However, it is
not only direct investment in NIPAS that can ensure
conservation of key biodiversity areas.
There is growing recognition among policy makers
that indigenous peoples can play a key role in
managing most of the protected areas in the country,
which are covered by ancestral domain claims. The
advantage of engaging IPs in management is that they
already have the tradition of living sustainably with
nature. Recognition of their rights to their ancestral
domains under IPRA has further strengthened their
commitment to protecting their heritage, yet be
consistent with the conservation objectives of the
country and the global community.
Kalatungan National Park
Mt. Kalatungan is a PA, with an elevation of 2,287m.
It is the sixth highest peak in the Philippines,
According to a CMU study, there are 109 species
of mosses in Kalatungan seven of these are new
records from both Mt. Kalatungan and Mt. Matutum.
It is also home to the endangered Philippine Eagle.
Also common to the area are the Philippine deer and
the Philippine wild pig along with several species
of mountain rodents. The Talaandig are among the
11 Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) in Mt.
Kalatungan who protect the forests as their sacred
grounds and who practice substinence hunting and
gathering of forest products. Biodiversity loss is
attributed to land clearing for mining, migration,
indiscriminate mining, illegal logging and over
collection of plants and animals. Opportunities
for accelerated and effective management of this
mountain range exist through the recognition of Mt.
Kalatungan as an ICCA – an important complement
to the official protected area system as they help
conserve critical ecosystems and threatened species,
and they are part of the indigenous peoples and local
community’s resistance to destructive ‘development’
among others (IUCN).

Indigenous Community Conserved Areas

The government is promoting the establishment

of indigenous community conserved areas as a
governance option for protected area management.
An ICCA has three defining characteristics:
• specific indigenous peoples or local communities
are more concerned about the area related to them
culturally or because of their livelihood dependence
on the resources in the area;
• the concerned communities are major players, or
have recognized authority (e.g. under IPRA) to
formulate, implement and enforce management
decisions;
• the management decisions are consistent with
conservation goals.

40
Local Government Conservation Areas FFM
120,000,000

Local governments are often overlooked in natural 100,000,000

80,000,000
resources management because the management role
60,000,000
has traditionally been performed by national agencies.
40,000,000
However, because of scarcity of budget and personnel,
20,000,000
national agencies are barely able to effectively perform
0

their management functions, including those in 2005 2006

TOTAL: 351,575,708.00
2007 2008 2009 2010

already identified priority areas. In recent years, the

ISWM
national government has promoted decentralization 600,000,000

of natural resources management through sharing 500,000,000

responsibilities with local governments under a ‘co- 400,000,000

management’ arrangement. DENR provides technical 300,000,000

assistance and capacity building (such as in forest land 200,000,000

use planning) to build consciousness and skills among 100,000,000

local officials to manage the natural wealth from which 0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

most of their constituents derive their livelihood. TOTAL: 1,259,478,581.00

CRM
20,000,000
Investments by local governments in natural resources
management increased dramatically in cases where 15,000,000

local governments come to realize the value of natural

10,000,000
resources management in their own development
goals. 5,000,000

0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
However, experience with locally managed TOTAL: 96,287,695.00

conservation (mostly in the coastal sector) show that Data Source: USAID Environmental Governance Project,
Phase 2 .
local government officials have short terms of office
that lead to changing priorities with every change in
administration. The key to continuity of conservation
programs is continued community support (or
demand) for the conservation programs of local
governments, so that the new administration would
be encouraged to sustain the programs of previous
administrations. The co-management arrangement
with DENR (which is a contractual obligation with the
local government) also helps provide the incentive
for the new local administration to continue with
programs of the predecessor officials.

41
 Challenge of adapting to a changing environment
The Climate Change Commission is tasked to
coordinate, monitor and evaluate the programs and
action plans of the government relating to climate
change. The Commission has drafted the National
Framework Plan to address climate change, anchored
mainly on adaptation and complemented by mitigation
activities. Recognizing that the Philippines is among
the most vulnerable countries to natural disasters
(such as extreme weather episodes associated with
climate change), the Commission is testing the
concept of building climate resilient communities that
are ready to adapt to the impacts of climate change
and minimize the economic and human losses of
natural disasters. The “Ecotown” concept is based
on the idea that forest and coastal ecosystems help
42
minimize the negative effects of climate change – for
example, healthy coral reefs and mangroves protect
coastal areas from storm surges; protected natural
forests prevent floods, landslides and the loss of fertile
soils, at the same time regulate the supply of clean
water.
As the concept of the Ecotown is further developed
through on-the-ground experience, communities
are developing capacity to also monitor the changes
in biodiversity because of climate change and take
action to mitigate biodiversity loss – for example, the
ability of coral reefs to adapt to rising sea levels, sea
surface temperatures and ocean acidification. After
all, resiliency is not only about ecosystems providing
benefits to communities but also about communities
caring for the ecosystems.
 The Ikalahans of Nueva Vizcaya are known for their pioneering efforts in community-based forest management
using traditional practices, but adapting to the modern context. They were the first to obtain formal recognition
of their ancestral domain rights from the government, through the modern institutional vehicle of the Kalahan
Educational Foundation (KEF). The recognition of their rights gave them control to manage natural resources. KEF
also became the institutional foundation for strengthening cultural identity among the young. In turn, the Ikalahan
traditional forest management practices have become a role model for community-based forest management
(CBFM) in the country.

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

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

KEF facilitates training for forest

carbon monitoring in the Ikalahan
Ancestral Domain.

Source: World Agroforestry Centre

43
 What policy makers can do
In 2001 and 2003, a national and regional
(ASEAN) review of field experiences in protected
areas management pointed to key themes and
recommendations to move forward. Many of the
recommendations then have been targeted for
implementation, but can still be enhanced and
instituted. The recommendations are updated here,
following the same themes identified then:
Link protected area to the wider landscape
Protected areas management must handle social and
political, not just technical, issues. In the Philippines,
despite the record of degradation, protected areas
still provide valuable ecosystem goods and services
that people need. Protected areas conservation must
be seen in the broader landscape where the natural
wealth continues to provide for the needs of the
people. Part of the socio-economic considerations
of PA management is ensuring equitable access to
opportunities, especially for the poor and marginalized
communities who are almost entirely dependent on
natural resources for their livelihood. If the interests of
IP and local communities, entrepreneurs, consumers,
local and national government are aligned and met by
linking protected areas to the landscape where people
live and make a living, and by equitable allocation of
access to the land and natural resources, there will be
less competition over the resources that are set aside
for conservation.
Build broader stakeholder support for Protected Areas
and management objectives
The biological resources of the Philippines are very
important to the global community because of their
abundance, diversity and uniqueness. However, there
is very little information available to the public on what
is there, what their values are for people, how much
people will invest to conserve them, and perhaps pay
to offset or replace the loss of those they’d rather use.
The government has to invest more in an accurate
information system, and effective communication
tools to inform stakeholders about the resources
and their values, so that they can make informed
decisions. Accurate reporting of progress also
ensures governance transparency and accountability.
Rekindling the people’s natural and traditional
affinity to the environment through information
and knowledge sharing will facilitate conservation
programs.

44
Work together, with common goals but different roles
The Philippine Development Plan (2012-2016) outlines
how environmental protection and natural resources
conservation are critical to inclusive economic growth.
In order for inclusive, sustainable growth to be
achieved, economic planners, environmental managers,
entrepreneurs, consumers, indigenous communities,
school teachers, prosecutors, judges – everyone – must
have a shared commitment to the common goal, even
while pursuing their sectoral interests and priorities.
The diversity of stakeholder groups means that each
may have a different perspective of the importance
of protected areas, priority actions and the roles
that stakeholders play. However, there should be a
common interest in conserving the natural heritage. A
lot of the protection objectives can also be achieved,
not only through NIPAS, but by other expanded options
for natural resources management complementing
NIPAS that recognizes the roles of other actors such
as IP and local communities, local governments and
private sector.
Build capacity for Protected Areas management
The Philippines has an abundance of talent in all the
technical aspects of protected areas management
(biophysical sciences, economics, community
development, politics and governance). It requires
extraordinary leadership and consensus building skills
to bring together and orchestrate multi-disciplinary
tasks that require integration of various disciplines
and skills. In the specific protected areas, the
PAMB and protected area staff must provide such
leadership. It is crucial that the caliber of protected
area staff be elevated through skills training and clear
occupational standards.
Maintain Protected Areas for the future through
sound science and policy
Many scientists have expressed the concern that
despite the significant gains in protected areas
management, the Philippines is still losing its
remaining forest and coastal ecosystems at an
alarming rate. In other words, the country is either
not effective on conserving its resources, or not fast
enough in protecting ecosystems at risk. Clearly,
government has to rationalize the designation of PAs,
which it has done recently through more rigorous
review process of PA designation. The PAMB should
also strengthen its institutional/organizational and
financial capacity to complement enhancements in
technical capacity. There is enormous potential to
raise revenues from ecosystem services especially
since most people are willing to pay, for as long as the
management institution is capable and trustworthy.
45
 Personal actions, community actions,
demand for good governance.
There are success stories and failures in implementing
protected areas management policies and programs,
and government has much more to do. But we can
help government by being vigilant in demanding better
governance, in not contributing to the problem, and
especially in initiating activities that help solve the
problems. Some of these examples are:
1. Stop illegal wildlife trade – the talking mynah,
bleeding heart pigeon and hornbills are beautiful in
a cage, but these are even more impressive if you
see them in their natural habitat; the corals and
shells you take or buy will not look the same in an
aquarium. The syndicates that prey on wildlife and
gullible hobbyists are criminals. They are likely to
be involved in other more serious criminal activities
as well (such as smuggling of explosives used in
dynamite fishing). Report all illegal wildlife trade and
don’t buy from these criminals.
2. Reduce consumption of goods produced with high
environmental costs – the high demand for French
fries, meat, exotic foods is driving the conversion of
forests and coastal areas into farms and fishpens.
Buy only what you can consume to avoid waste;
refrain from ‘upsizing’ to ‘save’ money. Buy locally
produced food to reduce transportation costs and
greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Support eco-friendly businesses – Support
enterprises that are conscious about reducing
wastes and not harming the environment. For
example, do not stay in a resort that severely alters
the beach or mountain landscape, or indiscriminately
disposes of garbage and sewage.
4. Be conscious of and reduce amount of pollution
and wastes –Take only pictures; bring home only
memories…. When visiting a protected area, do not
leave garbage or other pollutants. At the stores,
46
do not buy over-packaged products that end
up in dumps or washed into rivers and seas. Do
not support companies that do not clean up the
pollution they generate.
5. Support livelihoods of indigenous peoples and
local communities – Indigenous peoples have
lived with nature since time immemorial. Perhaps
their practices have changed today because of
interactions with other cultures and the market.
But we can still learn from their living past, as
we become more aware of our own rich cultural
diversity. Like many IPs, local communities in
protected areas are mostly poor people struggling
to make a living and improve their quality of life. If
we can provide them the security of basic services,
they will be more inclined to live harmoniously with
nature, ensuring that the fragile environments they
live in will provide the ecosystem services that the
rest of us need.
6. Use alternative materials that are reusable or
recyclable – Instead of buying furniture made from
fresh cut hardwood (that may come from primary
forests), buy those that reuse old wood, or those
made from recycled materials, such as chip board.
7. Know where your taxes and environmental fees go
– these fees are incorporated in water and electricity
bills, or are added as surcharge (e.g. for large
vehicles, hotel accommodations), or assessed for
basic services (e.g. garbage collection). However,
the use of the collected money may be as varied
as watershed management, buying garbage trucks,
building offices of regulatory agencies, basketball
courts, etc. Make sure that you support only the
fee systems where money is used directly for
environmental management purposes.
47
 Conclusion
The Philippines is still a Megadiverse country despite
the tremendous loss of biological resources in the
past decades. The remaining natural resources capital
is still considerable, not only for the conventional
value in logs, other forest products and fisheries,
but increasingly because of the value of ecosystem
services that support economic activities and protect
the well-being of the people.
Protected area management is a key strategy in
conserving biodiversity. In the Philippine context,
protected areas management has evolved from
diverse customary practices of indigenous peoples, to
centralized government control that excluded people,
to people-oriented policies to engage IP and local
communities as partners in management, and now to
diversify options that allow locally led (community or
local government) management. With NIPAS, as focal
policy, protected areas management has evolved to
address not just the conservation of natural resources,
but also to ensure the well-being of communities
directly and indirectly dependent on biological
resources and ecosystem services.
Protected areas provide vital ecosystem services that
underlie the economic growth of the country. In the
pursuit of inclusive growth, the government has to
carefully craft policies that protect key biodiversity
areas and fairly allocate access to the limited benefits
that these areas provide, especially to poor dependent
communities.
Integration of conservation and development goals
is even more urgent as the country faces the impact
of climate change on ecosystems, people and the
economy. Conserving biodiversity will allow the
people to better adapt to impacts of climate change.
However, climate change also poses a threat to
biodiversity. Governance strategy must be able to use
protected areas in adaptation, but also be sensitive
48
that biodiversity may be more at risk not only because
of pressures of human activities, but also because of
the shifts in a changing climate.
The evolution of governance of protected areas has
shown that shared responsibility works better than
centralized management. While an accountable
agency, the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau,
is needed for overall strategy and direction, actual
management responsibility of the various sites may
be shared with local stakeholders in various modes
that recognize the uniqueness and strength of local
managers – such as Local Conservation Areas (LCA)
and Indigenous Community Conserved Areas (ICCA).
The Philippines has been an active participant in
international discussions on environment and natural
resources conservation. Since the Earth Summit in
1992, the country has successfully aligned its national
policies and strategies with multilateral environmental
agreements, including CBD, UNFCCC, MARPOL,
Ramsar Convention, UNDRIP, Basel Convention,
CITES, among others. Given the limitations of an
emerging economy, with scarce financial resources
but abundant talent, the challenge for the country
is to systematically monitor and communicate its
achievements and lessons learned. This is one area
that the global community can support. The country
is on track in meeting the Aichi Biodiversity Targets,
through strategic policy reforms that sustain its gains
in people-oriented conservation, and in integrating
biodiversity conservation in development planning.
The Philippines has gone a long way in conserving
biodiversity areas – in adapting to the changing
concept of conservation of the areas and the roles
of people within, and in encouraging multisectoral
participation in management. These are also the
lessons learned that the country is proud to share to
the international community.
Selected References
Amoroso, Victor B., Reyno A. Aspiras. Hamiguitan Range: A
sanctuary for native flora. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: King Saud University. 2010.
Arcenas, Agustin L. Environmental Health: Economic Costs of
Environmental Damage and Suggested Priority Interventions-
A Contribution to the Philippines Country Environmental
Analysis . Final Report, World Bank, 2009.
Balooni, Kulbhushan, Juan M. Pulhin, Makoto Inoue. 2008. The
effectiveness of decentralization reforms in the Philippines.
Geoforum 39 (2008) 2122-2131.
Batcagan, Sabado T. Pricing of grassland resource in the
Philippines: Rent, grassland degradation and rehabilitation,
and alternative land uses. Proceedings from the International
Workshop on Environmental and Economic Accounting,
Manila, 2000.
Briones, M. Roehlano, Francis Quimba, Jonathan B. Bungcayao,
Joseph B. Paglingayen, Ivee Libunao, and Myrna B. Asuncion.
2011. Development Strategies to Achieve the MDGs in Asia:
Philippines (Final Report). PIDS Discussion Paper Series No.
2011-03, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Bryant, Raymond L. 2002. Non-governmental Organizations
and Governmentality: ‘Consuming’ Biodiversity and Indigenous
People in the Philippines. Political Studies (2002) Volume
50, 268-292. Oxford, United Kingdom: Political Studies
Association.
Bugna, Sahlee C., Tess Blastique. Description and Analysis
of the Protected Areas in the Philippines. 2001. ASEAN
Biodiversity.
Büscher, Bram. Wolfram Dessler. 2010. Commodity
conservation: The restructuring of community conservation in
South Africa and the Philippines. Geoforum 43 (2012) 367-276.
Calacademy. 2011. The 2011 Philippine Biodiversity Expedition.
http://www.calacademy.org/science/hearst/
Camacho, Leni D., Marilyn S. Combalicer, Youn Yeo-Chang,
Edwin A. Combalicer, Antonio P. Carandang, Sofronio C.
Camacho, Catherine C. de Luna, Lucrecio L. Rebugio. 2010.
Traditional forest conservation knowledge technologies in the
Cordillera, Northern Philippines. Forest Policy and Economics
72 (2012) 3-8.
Capistrano, Robert Charles G. (2009) Reclaiming the ancestral
waters of indigenous peoples in the Philippines: The Tagbanua
experience with fishing rights and indigenous rights. Marine
Policy 34 (2010) 453-480.
Castillio, Gem, Trina Isorena, Erol Gatumbato, and Eugene
Bennagen. 2010. Development of a Framework and
Methodology for Ecosystem Spatial Analysis and Spatial
Benefit Cost-Analysis of Ecosystem Conservation in the Samar
Island Natural Park: Manual on Ecosystem Spatial Analysis and
Spatial Benefit Cost Analysis. Submitted to the United Nations
Development Programme by the Resources, Environment and
Economics Center for Studies, Inc.
Christie, P. A. White, E. Deguit. (2001). Starting point or
solution? Community-based marine protected areas in the
Philippines. Journal of Environmental Management (2002)
66, 441-454.
Conservation International, DENR-PAWB, Haribon Foundation.
2010. Priority Sites for Conservation in the Philippines: Key
Biodiversity Areas.
Cruz, Rex. 2011. Assessing Land Capability. Presentation to the
National Economic Development Authority on the Finalization
of the Vulnerability Mapping Exercises und the MDGF-1656,
Manila.
DENR-PAWB. 2009. Assessing Progress Towards the 2010
Biodiversity Target: The 4th National Report to the Convention
on Biological Diversity. Quezon City: PAWB-DENR.
Estremera, Stella. 2011. Legislated Protected Area Management
in the eyes of Indigeneous Peoples of Mt. Kitanglad, the
Philippines. http://www.growingforestpartnerships.org/sites/
growingforestpartnerships.org/files/Philippines%20PA%20
report%20received%2029Nov11.pdf
Gjertsen, Heidi. 2004. Can Habitat Protection Lead to
Improvements in Well-Being? Evidence from Marine Protected
Areas in the Philippines. World Development (2005) Vol. 33,
No. 2, 199-217.
Gollin, K. and J. Kho. 2010. After the Romance: Communities
and environmental governance in the Philippines. Quezon City,
Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Habito, Cielito F. 2010. An Agenda for High and Inclusive
Growth in the Philippines. Mandaluyong City: Asian
Development Bank.
Hind, E.J., M.C. Hiponia, T.S. Gray. 2008. From community-
based tocentralised national management—A wrong turning
for the governance of the marine protected area in Apo
Island,Philippines? Marine Policy 34 (2010) 54-62.
Israel, Danilo C. 2010. Weather and climate-related disasters:
the cost of inaction. PIDS Policy Notes No. 2010-12, Makati
City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Lutz, Ernst, Julian Caldecott (eds.). Decentralization and
Biodiversity Conservation. The International Bank for
Reconstruction. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 1996.
Maliao, Ronald J., Robert S. Pomeroy, Ralph G. Turingan.
2008. Performance of community based coastal resource
management (CBCRM) programs in the Philippines : A meta-
analysis. Marin Policy 33 (2009) 818-825.
Mendoza, Marlo D., Romeo T. Acosta, Carlo P. Consolacion,
Nestor A. Bambalan, and Joel E. Flores. 2010. Global Resources
Assessment: A Country Report- Philipppines. FAO.
NEDA. Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016. 2011. Pasig
City: National Economic and Development Authority.
Nelson, Gerald C., et al. 2006. Anthropogenic Drivers of
Ecoysystem Change: an Overview. Ecology and Society.
NSCB. 1999. Environment and Natural Resources Accounting
(ENRA II) Project: Institutionalizaiton of the Philippine
Economic-Environmental and Natural Resources Accounting
(PEENRA) System. Annual Accomplishment Report, NSCB,
1999.
PAWB-DENR and GIZ. 2011. An in depth review of the NIPAS
Law related statutes on the establishment and management
of protected areas in the Philippines. Makati, Philippines,
ERDP-GIZ
PCIJ and Tanggol Kalikasan. 2011. Warriors of nature:
community action in protected areas. Manila: PCIJ and Tanggol
Kalikasan. 70pp.
Peterson, A. Townsend, Lisa G. Ball, Kelly W. Brady. Distribution
of the birds in the Philippines: biogeography and conservation
priorities. Bird Conservation International, Vol 10, No. 2, 149-
167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Posa, Mary Rose C., Navjot S. Sodhi. 2005. Effects of
anthropogenic land use on forest birds and butterflies in Subic
Bay, Philippines. Biological Conservation 129 (2006) 256-270.
Rickart, Eric A. Lawrence R. Heaney, Danilo S. Balete, Blas
R. Tabaranza, Jr. 2009. Small mammal diversity along an
elevational gradient in northern Luzon, Philippines. Mammalian
Biology 76 (2011) 12-21.
Senga, Rafael. 2001. Establishing protected areas in the
Philippines: emerging trends, challenges and prospects.
The George Wright FORUM 18(2): 56-65. http://www.
georgewright.org/182senga.pdf
Subade, Rodelio F. 2006. Mechanisms to capture economic
values of marine biodiversity: The case of Tubbataha Reefs
UNESCO World Heritage Site, Philippines. Marine Policy 31
(2007) 135-142.
USAID. 2011. Conserving Tropical Forests and Biodiversity for
Human Development and Inclusive Growth: 2011 FAA 118/119
Philippine Biodiversity and Tropical Forestry Analysis. Manila:
USAID Philippines.
USAID. 2011. Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project
Evaluation. Final Evaluation Report, USAID Philippines.
van der Ploeg, Jan, Andres B. Masipiqueña, Eileen C. Bernardo
(eds.). The Sierra Madre Mountain Range: Global Relevance,
Local Realities. Papers presented at the 4th Regional
Conference on Environment and Development. Cagayan Valley
Program on Environment and Development. Philippines:
Isabela State University, 2003.
Verburg, Peter H., Koen P. Overmars, Marco G.A. Huigen,
Wouter T. de Groot, A. Veldkamp. 2006. Analysis of the effects
of land use change on protected areas in the Philippines.
Applied Geography 26 (2006) 153-173.
Walters, Bradley B. 2004. Local Management of Mangrove
Forests in the Philippines: Successful Conservation or Efficient
Resource Exploitation. Human Ecology (2004) Vol. 32, No.2.
Weeks, Rebecca, Garry R. Russ, Alcala, Angel C. Alan T.
White. 2008. Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in the
Philippines for Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology
(2009).
Photo Credits:
Aisa Lim Klaus Nigge
Badi Samaniego L. Heany
Cuernos Leornardo Co
DENR-PAO Lory Tan
Diovane Jose Pastor Malabrigo
GTZ-DENR PAWB-CITES/Wildlife Rescue
George Tapan PAWB-CMMO
Gregg Yan PAWB-PACMAND
Haribon R. Brown
ICCA/PAFID ToppX2
James Kho Valderrama
Jose Ma. Lorenzo Tan WWF
K.D. Hill