Society & Natural Resources

An International Journal

ISSN: 0894-1920 (Print) 1521-0723 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

A Critical Review of Buffer Zone Theory and

Practice: A Philippine Case Study

Fiona M. Lynagh & Peter B. Urich

To cite this article: Fiona M. Lynagh & Peter B. Urich (2002) A Critical Review of Buffer Zone
Theory and Practice: A Philippine Case Study, Society & Natural Resources, 15:2, 129-145, DOI:
10.1080/089419202753403319

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/089419202753403319

Published online: 02 Feb 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 274

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usnr20
Society and Natural Resources, 15:129± 145, 2002
Copyright # 2002 Taylo r & Francis
0894-1920 /2002 $12.00 + .00

A Critical Review of Bu¡er ZoneTheory

and Practice: A Philippine Case Study

FIONA M. LYNAGH
PETER B. URICH
Department of Geography
University of Waikato
Hamilton, New Zealand

As populations increase and forest areas decline, protected areas are being de® ned in
an attempt to preserve remnants of original ¯ ora and fauna. T his is problematic
where local populations exist within or close to protected area boundaries. T hese
people are often compelled to exploit protected area resources to survive. T heore-
tically, socioeconomic activities and projects directed at buffer areas can decrease
pressure on protected areas and provide opportunities for local populations to
become active in their management. This research studied a group of rice farmers
and laborers in a remote village in the Philippines to ascertain whether potential
increases in farmer income affect pressure for production within the national park.
From in-depth interviews, ® eld visits, and wealth and status ranking, our case study
substantiates some of the claims made by other authors, but goes further to more
comprehensively implicate land tenure as a central issue in this particular situation.

Keywords buffer zones, conservation, development, environmental degradation,

NIPAS Act, Philippines, protected areas

Protected area buffer zones are areas where conserved regions meet with human
populations. This idea is traceable to UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB)
program biosphere reserve model, ® rst proposed in 1968 (Neumann 1997). The
MAB program linked protected areas with development, by catering speci® cally to
human activity within buffer zones that surround highly protected and genetically
rich core areas (McNeely et al. 1994). A buffer zone is typically an area of tradi-
tionally used land, often fragile and particularly susceptible to environmental
destruction (Amacher et al. 1998). The zones are managed with dual goalsÐ con-
servation and developmentÐ with buffers theoretically limited to activities such as
research, education, training, recreation, and tourism. The burning of vegetation,
cutting of live trees, construction of buildings, and establishment of plantations
are generally prohibited in buffer areas (Sayer 1991; Wells and Brandon 1993).
Currently, almost any activity involving people that takes place near a protected area
applies the buffer-zone concept (Wells and Brandon 1993). In this research a buffer
zone is understood to be an area of land peripheral to a protected area, designated
with the intention of bene® ting the local community, while simultaneously providing
an extra layer of protection to a conservation area.

Received 30 May 2000; accepted 20 March 2001.

Address correspondence to Peter B. Urich, Department of Geography, University of Waikato,
Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand. E-mail: pbu@waikato.ac.nz

129
130 F. M. L ynagh and P. B. Urich

While shielding the protected area they surround, governmental and non-
governmental conservationists see buffer zones as ideal means to encourage socio-
economic growth and opportunities on reserve boundaries. A buffer therefore has
multiple low-disturbance uses. These include various human activities and habitats
for wildlife, and can present locals with an opportunity to reinforce land and
resource claims (Garratt 1982; Nepal and Weber 1994; Neumann 1997).
The distinctive characteristics of different protected areas and buffer zones mean
that they cannot easily be de® ned or categorized. The buffer-zone concept has been
criticized in the literature for buffer zones can in¯ uence the pace of environmental
degradation of protected areas, actually increase park forays, neglect local concerns,
and represent a top-down approach to development and planning. It is argued here,
based on research in the Philippines, that these criticisms are well founded, and that
the de® nitions of buffer zones and protected areas need to be further re® ned and
localized.
To articulate our case we ® rst present an overview of the concept of protected
areas and their relationship with buffer zones and their inhabitants. Our primary
objective is to describe and then assess the range of opinions on the role of buffer
zones in protected areas management. We provide a brief analysis of a situation
where the assumptions made of the role of buffer zones is seriously questioned. We
seek to uncover the impact that intensi® ed wet rice farming in a buffer zone of the
Rajah Sikatuna National Park of the central Philippine island of Bohol may have on
the exploitation of resources in the park. We theorized, based on themes emerging
from our literature review, that the doubling and possibly tripling of production in
the buffer zone through the provision of a stable supply of irrigation water would
reduce the population’s exploitation of the park’ s resources. Our case study sub-
stantiates some claims made in the literature but goes further to more comprehen-
sively implicate land tenure as an overarching issue in this case.

Protected Areas
The smaller and more isolated a protected forest area, the more intensive the
management strategies must be to protect the resource. Collins et al. (1991)
recommended that reserves be surrounded by areas of managed land rather than by
farmland. Protected areas generally exist with some form of surrounding buffer
zone, whether of® cially or unof® cially recognized. Developing these buffer zones can
be an attractive conceptÐ ``if local people were provided with alternative sources of
income and employment, parks and reserves would be protected against `external’
pressures’’ (Ghimire 1994, 225). Typically, rural households want to maximize total
income: Unless legal activities provide suf® cient income, require less labor, and ® t
into the household’s agenda, people will not switch from the illegal, unsustainable,
and dif® cult activities that provide greater pro® t (Brandon and Wells 1992).

The Establishment of Protected Areas and Bu€ er Zones

Theoretically, exploitation of forest resources and activities in buffer zones are
limited to very-low-impact uses to protect the core reserves. In practice, however, the
regulations are not enforced. Often landholders in an area surrounding a reserve are
unaware of a buffer zone’s existence. Moreover, in some cases local people can be
completely unaware that land has been converted to a nature reserve (Brandon
and Wells 1992; Sandy et al. 1982). Villagers also complain of poorly marked park
 Buffer Zone T heory and Practice 131

and buffer-zone boundaries. Delineation is even more acute in areas where a park is
degraded at its periphery, and fringe effects impose on the park (Dixon and Sherman
1990) .
Academic dispute exists over the main motivation for hunting and food and
wood gathering in protected areas. Ghimire (1994) posits that most of® cials see
pro® t as the main motive, rather than basic survival needs, with the main reason
being that few peasant households have access to ``permanent’ ’ or irrigated land.
Others think that resident people are either forced to exploit resources because of
diminishing survival options and resentment from unfair treatment (Raval 1994), or
that they manage resources simply to secure their day-to-day subsistence, giving little
thought to long-term resource productivity (Dalton 1989).
The designation of an area to protected area status does not suddenly change the
use of the area or erect a barrier between the reserve and the outside world (Garratt
1982). When reserves have been established, con¯ ict between local communities and
protected area management has occurred (Nepal 1997). In theory, con¯ ict should
not occur if the initiation, development, and management of these areas are by local
people themselves (Brandon and Wells 1992; Burkey 1993; Colchester 1996; Con-
servation Organization 1999; Dasmann 1982; Freire 1972; Ghimire 1994; Kothari
1996; Lynch and Talbott 1988; McNeely et al. 1994; Murty 1996; Nepal and Weber
1994; Rathore 1996; Raval 1994; Ritchey-Vance 1996; Sayer 1991; Wells and
Brandon 1993; West and Brechin 1991).
Land ownership is an important factor in the implementation of buffer zones.
When all the land involved is in public or state ownership, conversion is theoretically
fairly simple: Land is reclassi® ed and due restrictions imposed. Privately owned land
conversions can be more complex. Negotiations and the desire for compensation
may arise (Garratt 1982; Sayer 1991). In instances where mainly farmers with small
landholdings of less than 1 ha populate the vicinity of the park, virtually no possi-
bility exists of allotting private land for the creation of a buffer zone (Nepal and
Weber 1994). Local land tenure in buffer zones can be linked with issues of cultural
survival and indigenous rights. Where customary land and resource rights are held
by indigenous people, ``buffer zones should be established by vesting title to the
lands with the local communities at the level of either the village or ethnic group’’
(Neumann 1997, 563). Amacher et al. (1998) discuss how policies to correct the
tenure problems in buffer areas will have positive environmental impacts, especially
where immigration ¯ ows are substantial. In the case study to follow, land tenure is
central to protected area status and buffer zone development.

Criticisms of Bu€ er Zones

Many problems have been noted with regard to buffer zones. As Wells and Brandon
(1993, 159) remark: ``Given the widespread use and promotion of the buffer zone
term, and the intuitive appeal of the concept, it is perhaps surprising that two recent
reviews have concluded that there are in fact very fewÐ if anyÐ convincing working
models.’’ Although acknowledging that buffer zones are ``intuitively very appeal-
ing,’’ Wells and Brandon (1992, 27) criticize current de® nitions because they are
``inconsistent and overlook practical problems, and this precludes their imple-
mentation in all but very limited circumstances. ’’ To assess the validity of the
practical arguments against buffer zones in the context of our case study we review
the breadth of the criticism. Some of the practical problems that we chronicle include
land degradation, park forays by locals, and management and development
132 F. M. L ynagh and P. B. Urich

decisions. The value of top-down versus bottom-up approaches pervades the lit-
erature and prefaces the case study.

Environmental Degradation in Bu€ er Zones

Buffer areas are designed to protect and enhance the conservation value of the park
or reserve that is being buffered. However, the creation of these buffers, and their
imperfections, mean that they impact negatively on the environment. By overlooking
the environmental and social costs of expanding national parks and protected areas,
for example, more land may become degraded rather than less. This can occur as
additional land is added to tightly controlled forest resources in parks, with the result
that local people in adjacent buffer areas become forced to overuse land and other
natural resources located outside forest boundaries in order to subsist (Ghimire
1994; Lightfoot 1994; WFT 1990, cited in Ghimire 1994).
Many buffer zones are created around reserves where large numbers of people
have been displaced, which causes high population pressure around the park. Even
where no villages or families have been removed, people are drawn to buffer areas
with apparent plentiful resources and greater opportunities. Brandon and Wells
(1992) see little point in conceding buffer-zone use rights to locals as compensation
for lost access to a park because many potential buffer areas are already being
exploited. Rathore (1996) holds that most forest buffers have already been reduced
to a degraded status from enormous pressures from adjacent settlements.

Park Forays
When the siting of a park is arbitrary, villagers in the area are made particularly
vulnerable. This disadvantage can compel people to make forays into the park. They
may have no choice but to compensate for being cut off from traditional supplies
(Shah 1995). Although the buffer exists between the villages and reserve boundaries,
Ghimire (1994) asserts that many households still rely heavily on edible forest
products, grazing land, ® rewood, and construction materials found within reserves.
A survey carried out in India in the mid 1980s showed that protected areas are
not at all pristine or ``unspoiled’’ places, and that 69% of surveyed protected areas in
India had human populations and resource-use activities inside them, perhaps with
upward of 3 million people (Kothari 1996; Suri 1996). Kemf (1993) reports that in
Latin America 86% of protected areas are inhabited, either temporarily or perma-
nently. In Thailand many parks have at least 10% of the total area cleared and
occupied by people from the surrounding areas. These ® ndings show that illegal land
settlement is a serious problem within protected areas (Ghimire 1994). There is no
reason to believe that this is not the case in the protected areas of other developing
countries, too. However, the community-land and forest rights and access to forest
and wetland resources have been extinguished or severely reduced in most protected
areas (Kothari 1996).

Management and Development

In buffer zones there is often a lack of recognition of local people by ``management, ’’
and a failure to use traditional and local knowledge in administration. National park
rights are well de® ned, legally enforceable, and clearly vested with management. The
rights to manage buffer areas, however, can be vested with either national park
authorities or the local people (Shah 1995). Joint forest management (JFM) is an
 Buffer Zone T heory and Practice 133

agreement between government and local people about mutually sharing arrange-
ments of forest management. The forest’s property rights are vested with one of the
parties (Murty 1996). Rathore (1996) advocates buffer zone management being
carried out on a joint basis with adjoining communities under existing JFM inter-
pretation.
From research in Nepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park conducted by Nepal
and Weber (1994, 341), local people were in favor of managing their buffer zones;
``many local people were willing to assume a shared management responsibility.’’
Opinions differed on the issue of the buffer-zone managing bodyÐ those villagers
who favored a government agency saw the biological, technical, and economic
aspects of management as requiring knowledge that local people did not possess,
while the proponents of local management said that they would be better man-
agers. Those people wanting joint management stressed the need for government
support. Willingness to share buffer-zone management in this case was mainly
determined by age, level of education, volume of crop loss, household size, and
landholding size. A strong emphasis was placed on local people’s better manage-
ment capability.
Wells and Brandon (1992) see one of the biggest problems with buffer zones as
the unlikeliness that limited bene® ts to local people will change their behavior or
reduce pressure on the ¯ ora and fauna in the protected area, and thereby enhance the
conservation of biological diversity. The few working examples of buffer zones mean
that little logical rationale is found for this expectation.

Top-Down Approach
Buffer-zone creation and the approaches taken in buffer-zone management are
seen by a number of academics to be restricting, disregarding, and essentializing of
local people (Colchester 1996; Ghimire 1994; Kothari 1996; McNeely et al. 1994;
Nepal and Weber 1994; Neumann 1997; Sayer 1991). The aim of buffer zones is
seen to be a ``bribe’’ to lessen local resistance to the establishment and expansion
of parks and reserves, rather than an alternative sustainable livelihood option
(Ghimire 1994).
Buffer-zone creation has meant that settlement and common property areas
have been further ``invaded’’ by park authorities and livelihood opportunities for
local communities have been lost (Ghimire 1994). Proposals involving the inte-
gration of conservation and rural development in buffer zones (for example,
integrated conservation and development projects) can actually involve different
forms of state intervention and land use restrictions. Instead of improving security
of tenure for people in buffer zones, projects ``extend state authority over settle-
ment and land use well beyond protected area boundaries, thereby heightening the
insecurity of local land tenure’’ (Neumann 1997, 575). Preservationist views have
led to forced relocation, impoverishment, human rights abuse, and a breakdown of
traditional systems of resource management (Colchester 1996). Colchester notes
that new policies have been adopted by conservation organizations for working
with indigenous people, but at the same time top-down conservation and global
environmental management by large development agencies threaten to undo this
progress.
Con¯ ict management, biosphere reserves, buffer zones, ecodevelopment, and
bene® t sharing have mostly been ``initiated and directed by outsiders, have been of
short duration and have focused on ambitious but untried technologies to secure
134 F. M. L ynagh and P. B. Urich

increased economic bene® ts for local people’’ (Colchester 1996, 34). Colchester
(1996, 34) cites the National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS) in the
Philippines, which professes to have the ``preservation of ancestral domain and
customary rights within protected areas’’ as a management target. Yet NIPAS ``put
protected areas under `close management, control and study’ so that `experts’ can
decide where, when and how much natural resources local communities can
extract. ’’
Ghimire (1994, 225) states that ``the idea of rural development in buffer zone
areas usually comes totally from above, with little or no participation of local
communities.’’ Although integrated conservation and development projects and
buffer zones are presented as being participatory and locally empowering, in actual
fact the rural communities at whom the projects are aimed have little to do with
buffer-zone proposal, design, or enforcement (Neumann 1997). Neumann sees a long
history of Western notions of the ``primitive’ ’ as structuring conservationists’ ideas
for local participation in buffer zones. The essentializing of local people is seen to
obscure politics of land within buffer zones, through positive and negative stereo-
types and assumptions. Neumann (1997) also recognizes that buffer-zone proposals
generally suffer from a failure to recognize, let alone analyze, unequal power rela-
tions and how they relate to land and resource access and, ultimately, the force of
conservation policies. Buffer-zone projects, rather than presenting a new approach,
are more similar to ``colonial conservation practices in their socio-economic and
political consequences,’’ and many represent a ``geographical expansion of state
authority beyond the boundaries of protected areas and into rural communities’’
(Neumann 1997, 564, emphasis in original).
An emerging Western paradigm incorporates local and internal knowledge
systems into a buffer-zone management strategy. One example is the development
of conservation targets and management methods through dialogue between
individual farmers and those interested in resource preservation, acknowledging
that these two perspectives are seldom mutually exclusive. A second method
typically involves cash compensation for either the loss of habitat or economic
opportunities that are forgone as a downstream effect of preservation. This method
has been used widely by mining interests in remote and possibly biologically rich
regions (Banks 1996). The longer term viability of each of these methods has not
been thoroughly researched. However, in the case of compensation payments for
mine development, anecdotal evidence from Melanesia and the South Paci® c leaves
us with some doubt.
In conclusion, considerable controversy surrounds buffer-zone theoryÐ which
illustrates a positive and worthwhile conceptÐ and practice, where little contextual
evidence proves that buffer zones are effective. The following case study is used to
address the contentious issues of theory and practice. The outcome is a further
re® nement of the de® nition of buffer zones in the context of protected area man-
agement that more clearly articulates local conditionality.

Study Area
The Republic of the Philippines is made up of around 7107 islands, and the island
province of Bohol is situated in the Central Visayan region of the country (Figure 1).
It is the 10th largest island in the Philippines, with a total land area of 411,726 ha.
It contains 47 municipalities, and its one city, Tagbilaran, serves as capital for its
994,000 inhabitants. Bohol is predominantly an agricultural province, with 62% of
 Buffer Zone T heory and Practice 135

FIGURE 1 Location and extent of Rajah Sikatuna National Park.

the total area dedicated to agriculture (Mozcom 1999). Poverty is widespread in the
provinceÐ in 1994, 42% of Boholano families, half of these being from rural areas,
fell below the poverty line. The province of Bohol has the highest rate of poverty in
the region. Based on ® gures from the early 1990s, nearly 98,000 families were con-
sidered ``poor’’ (Point Cebu 1999).
Batuan, a municipality situated in the interior of Bohol, was the research site
from July to September 1999 in the buffer zone of the Rajah Sikatuna National Park
(Figure 1). Like the rest of the province, Batuan is rurally based with agriculture as
the chief income source. Rice is the main farming activity, but coconut, banana,
corn, root crops, cassava, and vegetables are also produced. The 1995 population of
Batuan was 11,898 (Republic of the Philippines 1996). Batuan contains 15 barangays
or villages.
The site of the research in the barangay of Cabacnitan, Batuan, is classi® ed as
an upland area, and as such, much of the land is hilly or mildly sloping.
Nationally, upland areas are de® ned as dry-cropped marginal areas, with slopes of
18% or more, containing mountainous zones and/or hilly terrain (Flieger and Cusi
1998). Deforestation can and does have very severe impacts in these areas. The
Rajah Sikatuna National Park is located at the most remote part of Cabacnitan.
This park provides various resources for the people of Cabacnitan and barangays
other than those in Batuan that lie adjacent to the park. The park contains the
headwaters of the Loboc and Wahig-Inabang a rivers, the two major rivers in
Bohol (Arco 1998).
136 F. M. L ynagh and P. B. Urich

Rajah Sikatuna National Park

On 7 October 1987, the Philippine government named a 9023-ha limestone karst area
in the interior uplands of Bohol a national park under Proclamation 129 (PSDN
1999; Urich and Bliss 1992). 1 The Rajah Sikatuna National Park (RSNP) was
appointed national park status with the hope of boosting investment in reforestation
of the area while protecting the island’s hydrological resources (Urich and Bliss
1992) .
RSNP covers 29 barangays in the 7 municipalities of Batuan, Carmen, Sierra
BullonÄ es, Garcia Hernandez, Valencia, Dimiao, and Bilar within Bohol. The special
features of the park include the last remaining forested portion of the Bohol Island
province and one of only ® ve old-growth forests in the central Philippines. It also
contains diverse and unexplored plant and animal resources, including the very rare
¯ ying lemur and Philippine tarsier, and is one of 10 sites earmarked for WB-GEF
IPAS Project status (BWF 1999; PSDN 1999; Urich and Bliss 1992). The current
park area was originally designated as ``timberland’ ’ in 1928, and became part of the
Loboc Watershed Reforestation Project in 1953. An 8-ha Boy Scout camp was
developed in the 1950s, and the camp was designated a national parkÐ RSNPÐ in
1987, before being expanded in 1990 to include the surrounding timber lands within
its boundaries (Arco 1998; Urich and Bliss 1992).
The problems facing other national parks in the Philippines have not eluded
RSNP. According to the park superintendent, the number of rangers in the park
has dropped from an original 30 down to 5 because the Department of Environ-
ment and Natural Resources (DENR) funding will not stretch to cover wages. 2
Local body politics mean that the strict implementation of forest laws is not
necessarily as straightforward as would seem, as it is not always in a person’s best
interests to obey the law if it goes against the wishes of local politicians or
in¯ uential people (A. Espiritu personal communication 1999).
The National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of the Phi-
lippines, requires that a Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) be created for
each protected area. The RSNP PAMB was not organized until 1994, and was for-
malized a year later by the secretary of the DENR (Arco 1998). PAMB’s role
involves deciding budget allocations, approving proposals for funding, deciding
planning matters, and administering general protective measures in the area.
PAMB’ s required member composition is described in the NIPAS Act, and includes
various governmental representatives, a representative from each barangay covered
by the protected area, and at least 3 nongovernmental organization (NGO) repre-
sentatives, in this case constituting close to 50 members. One of the RSNP NGO
PAMB spokespeople is from the Soil and Water Conservation Foundation (SWCF). 3
SWCF has carried out research on RSNP PAMB and notes that prior to its entry to
PAMB, the board was weak, lacked understanding of its functions, and had even less
knowledge of structuring programs in speci® c areas. In the SWCF’ s ® nal report on
PAMB, the board was also seen to be ``lacking skills in policy formulation, strategic
planning, collective decision-making and general park management. . . [and showed]
very little attempt to identify and resolve con¯ icts among members and other sta-
keholders particularly on natural resource utilization’ ’ (Arco 1998, 6).

Local Use of RSNP

The location of RSNP amid reasonably highly populated areas means that use of the
park by people from the surrounding district is correspondingly high. Within the 29
 Buffer Zone T heory and Practice 137

barangays that contain RSNP there is a total of 4388 households, or 25,331 people
(SWCF 1999). The use of RSNP land in these barangays varies, since some parts of
the national park contain settlements of resident peoples, 4 whereas some parts are
uninhabited but accessed from external barangays. Batuan has only one barangay
that contains RSNP land, Cabacnitan. No formal settlement or sitio5 within the
RSNP-inclusive part of Cabacnitan exists, although a small number of huts are
evident close to the boundary, and with a considerable resident population.
RSNP provides a variety of uses for local people. For Cabacnitanians, land in
the park is used for growing crops, hunting, collecting housing materials and foods,
and a number of other activities. Individuals or families utilizing RSNP do so
because they either lack other survival options or secure land elsewhere.
The Philippine government was accused by a local Boholano NGO of ``dis-
regarding the masses of their right to survival,’’ when RSNP was declared a pro-
tected area (Bohol Chronicle 1999, 4). Kinabuhi, a network of various cause-oriented
groups in the region, says that although Presidential Proclamation 129 appears to be
ecologically upright, the plight of small land owners and poor farmers was ignored
(Bohol Chronicle 1999). Propaganda material produced by local rebels has been
collected by the military, and capitalizes on residents’ concerns over presidential
proclamations . Because many farmers have insecure land tenure, the issue of land
ownership and designation is seen by governmental of® cials to be a suitable means
for propagandists to utilize (Bohol Chronicle 2000). Farmers have alleged that arrests
and con® scations have occurred ``in the guise of environmental protection. ’’
However, Kinabuhi claim that tourism and foreign investment are the real intentions
of the declaration and the harsh penalties for farmers. Harassed farmers have long
relied on the forest resources and produce for their livelihoods and claim that they
have not been offered any alternatives with the introduction of the protected area
(Bohol Chronicle 1999) .

Park Delineation
In most cases in the Philippines, the de® nitions of protected areas and buffer zones
are driven not by local people who utilize the areas, but by governmental repre-
sentatives or the nongovernmenta l members of the local PAMBs. As stated in
Section 8 of the NIPAS Act:

For each protected area, there shall be established peripheral buffer zones
when necessary, in the same manner as Congress establishes the protected
area, to protect the same from activities that will directly and indirectly
harm it. Such buffer zones shall be included in the individual protected area
management plan that shall be prepared for each protected area. The
DENR shall exercise its authority over protected areas as provided in this
Act on such areas designated as buffer zones.

For RSNP the park boundary is very indistinct, and a patch of coconut trees
marks the edge in one place, while weeds make up the majority of the land cover for
a distance into the park. Currently the placement of distinctive markers around the
entire rim of the park is under discussion. Boundary markers will in effect bring both
the boundaries closer to the settlement of Cabacnitan and ensure that all local people
know where the edges of the park are (Figure 2). 6 This ``monumenting’’ of bound-
aries is stipulated in PAMB regulations, thus ``delineating protected area buffer
138 F. M. L ynagh and P. B. Urich

FIGURE 2 Boundary of the Rajah Sikatuna National Park.

zones immediately adjacent to a protected area for the purposes of minimizing harm
to the latter’’ (Flieger and Cusi 1998, 5). The placement of markers, however, is likely
to be controversial. It will affect individuals using RSNP land both of® cially and
unof® cially. For example, when the cadastral surveying and placement of permanent
boundary pegs was completed in areas surrounding the park the number of physical
altercations between landowners rose sharply, as did the number of boundary
disputes reaching the courts (Urich 1995). Relations between the state and the local
peasantry regarding land in the park have been acrimonious since the designation of
the area as public land in 1928. Over the ensuing 72 years the government has never
adequately surveyed the boundary of the park nor attempted to place markers.
Every time an attempt has been made to formalize the boundary, threats of severe
personal harm (death) have been made to government employees charged with the
job. This threat was carried out in the mid 1980s when two forest guards were killed
by rebel forces. We see no reason why this attitude would change at this point in
time.
In the early to mid 1980s there was a strong New People’s Army (NPA) presence
in RSNP, as the forest cover provided the rebels with excellent concealment close to
the town of Batuan. After a battle on the other side of Batuan, rebels would hide in
RSNP. Because of this con¯ ict, the DENR did not strongly monitor use of the forest
for nearly a decade. When it eventually recommenced its supervision, a large area of
forestland had become cultivated. People (for example, landless laborers) began to
cultivate this land after being promised protection from the NPA in return for their
support. This included not only political support, but also food and shelter to be
provided by farmers whenever asked (F. Deliman personal communication 1999).
 Buffer Zone T heory and Practice 139

This chain of events led to the national park being increasingly cultivated and has
increased the importance of local land tenure relations and resulting development of
social forestry in RSNP.

Empirical Evidence: The Role of Bu€ er Zones

The aim of the research in the Philippines was to determine the effectiveness of
buffer-zone-based development projects at reducing pressure for production on an
adjacent protected area. We theorized that the double or triple cropping of rice
would increase the demand for labor locally and would thus diminish the need for
the ``landless’’ to exploit resources in the adjacent national park. This is repeatedly
mentioned in the literature as a viable hypothesis where ``integrated conservation
and development projects’’ (ICDPs) or ``ecodevelopment’ ’ principles are applied to
settlements in degraded forest and buffer areas. Theoretically, increased food and
economic security would alleviate pressure for production on the forest, and allow
regeneration of the protected area, as well as produce economic bene® ts for the
locals (Pardeshi 1996; Raju 1996; Rathore 1996; Shyamsundar 1996; Wells and
Brandon, 1993).
The Philippines case study provided a situational example for in-depth, long-
itudinal study. For the purpose of this study the local population was split into
two groups. One group had relatively secure tenure in a wet-rice-producing area on
the fringes of the national park, yet central to the buffer zone. Members of the
second group had either poor tenure security or were deemed landless, and as part
of their economy they worked for the landholding rice farmers on the irrigated rice
lands. We sought to discover what impact intensi® ed rice farming would have on
the population’s behavior relative to the exploitation of resources in the national
park. This involved following the impacts of a New Zealand government-funded
irrigation upgrade project covering a 100-ha communal irrigation system. Speci® -
cally, the project involved the completion of a small dam and the concreting of
irrigation canals. The Bonogon Irrigation Association and its 25 households
represent those that cultivate land within the project area and control irrigation.
To test this theory we used the methods of in-depth household interviews, ® eld
visits, and wealth and status ranking. A total of 25 rice-farming and 17 laborers’
households were interviewed as part of a larger study of 60 households. In the
survey of landholders cultivating rice, 42 laborers used by the landholders were
identi® ed and 17 people were interviewed. Interviews involved discussions in the
laborers’ households, as assessments of their social and material well-being were
conducted. We measured house sizes, types of construction materials, family size,
and educational attainment. Field surveys were conducted of all land at the
laborers’ and rice-® eld owners’ disposal both in and outside the park. All lands
were visited and mapped, and land-use histories were documented. Focus-group
discussions were held with laborers and landowners on the issue of land use in the
park and perceptions of change. A wealth ranking exercise was also conducted. All
data were collected with the goal of replicability over a period of 5 to 10 years, and
perhaps longer.

Behavior of ``Secure’’ Rice Farmers

The 25 families with access to wet-rice land own or tenant the land, hire the
workers, and those with elected positions in the irrigators’ association also wield
140 F. M. L ynagh and P. B. Urich

local political power. Within the group there are variations in their status based
largely on their tenurial status, wealth, family ties, and age. Of the 25 families in
control of the local rice land, only 4 are cultivating land in the national park. All
four have formalized their association with the public land in the national park
through the registration of the parcel under the government’s Integrated Social
Forestry program. This program provides the cultivator of publicly owned land
with a secure 25-year lease with the possibility for extension for a further 25
years. In theory, strict land-use policies are to be adhered to, but these are
weakly enforced. Other than being owners of rice land, no generalizations can be
made as to the characteristics of these households. Their ages vary, as do their
wealth status and amounts of land cultivated in the park and outside in the
buffer zone.
Use of land in the national park by owners and tenants of rice land is markedly
different from use by landless laborers. The planting of economic trees is much more
common and the cultivators are much less concerned about the longer term impli-
cations that eviction or continued cultivation in the park might have on their
household economy. Nearly all farmers in this group noted that if the government
banned them from further cultivation, they would simply walk away and abandon
their plot. This is not surprising, as the land is remote from their householdsÐ up to
4 km walkÐ and their household average annual income is P14,4007 with some as
high as P40,000. Very little of this money is derived from land in the national park.
Importantly, when asked if increased rice production from the irrigation system
upgrade would limit the intensity of their use of the park, the entire group said no.
They noted that they would still ® nd time to cultivate land in the park; otherwise, ``it
would be a resource that was wasted.’’ Furthermore, the crops planted in the park
require little maintenance, as they are either tree or root crops. Another important
factor was that cultivation in the park was easier and more cost-effective than tra-
veling the 8 km to town to the local market where the crops the cultivators grow
locally could be purchased.

Behavior of ``Insecure’’ Laborers

The behavior of the landless or near landless laborers is markedly different from that
of the wet-rice landowning households. The land tenure status of the laborers is
central to our argument. Table 1 details the land holding status of the 17 interviewed
laborers. The laborers cultivating land in RSNP view it as critical to the provision of
their daily needs. The only locally signi® cant alternative source of income is laboring
in the rice ® elds. Wages can be as high as P300 a day (ploughing) for some of the jobs
undertaken in the cultivation of rice; however, the majority of the work pays between
P80 and P120 a day, depending on whether food and drinks are included in the
``contract. ’’ We must be careful not to discount the amount of labor that is absorbed
in rice farming and how much money ¯ ows from the rice farmers to their laborers.
The laborers we interviewed were well connected with the landowners in the rice-
growing area. In many cases they were blood relatives. Therefore their access to
laboring opportunities was good. This is why we were interested in ascertaining the
impact intensi® ed rice cultivation would have on the laborers’ attitude to cultivation
of their land in the park.
Just over half of the 17 laborers interviewed cultivated land in the national park.
As noted in Table 1, the plots cultivated by them are relatively large (on average
100% larger than those cultivated by the rice land farmers). Yet as Urich and Reeder
 Buffer Zone T heory and Practice 141

(1996) found, the mean size of all clearings in the park in the vicinity of Cabacnitan
decreased from slightly more than a hectare per farmer in the 1920s to just under a
half a hectare today. The laborers grow a much wider variety of crops, and many are
for daily sustenance rather than for long-term investment.
There are a few notable features of the population cultivating land in the park.
Generally these people are young, with an average age of the household head being
36 versus 52 years for those cultivating rice land. As displayed in Figure 3, the
wealth ranking of 1 (at the top of the ® gure) represents those families that are
perceived by the village to be ``well off’’ relative to everyone else. The group
designated as 2 is less well off but are managing. The group labeled 3 is the poorest
in the village, and these people tend to be the laborers who cultivate land in the
national park. They are not only perceived to be less well offÐ they are so quan-
titatively, with average household incomes of P12,500. They live in nipa huts rather
than concrete or wooden homes, and own fewer household assets such as electrical
appliances or working animals. This relationship between landlessness, youth and
poverty, and more intensive use of land in the national park was therefore reinforced
by the wealth ranking exercise.
The attitudes of laborers to continued use of the park with intensi® ed rice
production echoed those of the rice farmers. The laborers were unanimous in stating
that they would continue to cultivate land in the park but like the rice farmers might
visit this land less often. For 3 of the 17 respondents the food produced in the park
was considered their main source of income. For many of the laborers the work and
income derived from the park is therefore central to their economy, while work on
the rice lands is viewed as supplemental. This is further reinforced by the increasingly
competitive nature of securing work on rice lands. People from outside the local area
are beginning to penetrate the local labor market, and this results in work on the rice
® elds becoming less stable.

Conclusion: Valid Criticisms?

Buffer-zone projects are criticized for their implications that limited bene® ts provided
to locals can change their behavior and attitudes, resulting in enhanced conservation
(Wells and Brandon 1992). This criticism is mirrored in this research, where park users
predict no reduction in protected area exploitation. Land use in the national park is
expected to remain relatively unchanged over the next few years. This lack of change is
not due to changes in other employment, but rather because these people are very poor
and want to increase all available incomes and sources of food. It is also related to the
fact that many of these people have no access to other farmable areas, and the fertile
land in RSNP provides good opportunities for the cultivation of a variety of crops.

TABLE 1 Land Tenure Status of Laborers

Type of land tenure Number of laborers Total land involved

Owned land (BIA) 0 None

Owned land (other) 6 > 2.0 ha
Tenanted land (BIA) 0 None
Tenanted land (other) 2 0.5 ha
Occupied land (RSNP) 8 ¹ 10.0 ha
No land available 1 None
142 F. M. L ynagh and P. B. Urich

FIGURE 3 Relationship between interviewee age and wealth ranking result.

This complies with comments in the literature that suggest that buffer-zone projects
fail to reduce environmental destruction in protected areas, because a total lack of
control over resources by the local people is often maintained. People are forced
through poverty to utilize these resources, whether or not they are aware of the
environmental effects (Ghimire 1994; Lightfoot 1994; WFT in Ghimire 1994).
These results indicate that buffer-zone projects such as this one may need to
rede® ne their objectives. Such projects still have merit for the fact that, in this
example, local rice yields will likely increase, which is positive in terms of generating
opportunities to gain additional income and access to a staple crop, but the associated
conservation bene® ts are not necessarily forthcoming. Although not immediately
forthcoming, over time bene® ts to the laboring families may accrue to a point where
education for the youth becomes more ® nancially accessible, which will provide
opportunities outside of agriculture and hence reduce local pressure on resources. But
this is speculative and requires testing through longitudinal study. Such relationships
between development and conservation are forged not only through the increased
economic status of one group in society, but also through the deeper associations
between land relationships of groups in the community, local politics, and economy.
It seems that it would be nearly impossible to develop a buffer-zone activity that
involved all members of a community equally and thus provided everyone with equal
income and incentive not to use an adjacent protected area. There will always be
some members of a community who pro® t more, and some who bene® t insuf® ciently
and become compelled to seek a supplementary income, such as cultivating land
within the protected area. This idea further validates previous criticisms ® led against
buffer-zone projects, which deny the poor members of the community rights to land
used traditionally and to which they otherwise have no use rights whatsoever
(Colchester 1996; McNeely et al. 1994; Neumann 1997; West and Brechin 1991).

Notes
1. In 1999 the park was expanded to 10,452 ha, representing an additional 1689 ha. This
has yet to be delineated with ``permanent’’ boundary markers.
2. Local contacts informed us that in fact only two rangers currently operate in RSNP,
although four ranger stations are set up for use.
 Buffer Zone T heory and Practice 143

3. The Soil and Water Conservation Foundation is a Cebu-based nongovernmental

organization.
4. Resident populations are simply de® ned as ``those individuals, families, and commu-
nitiesÐ `traditional’ or `modern’Ð that occupy, reside in, or otherwise use, on a regular or
repeated basis, a speci® c territory within or adjacent to an established or proposed protected
area’’ (West and Brechin 1991, 6).
5. A sub-unit of a barangay or village.
6. The 1999 ``resurvey’’ of the park and the expansion of the boundary has not been
widely publicized. Given the current problems with civil unrest and, the underlying reasons for
it, this issue could exacerbate an already serious problem. Issues surrounding civil unrest and
perceived ``landgrabbing’’ on the government’s behalf are beyond the scope of this article.
7. US$1.00 = P38.00 during this study.

References
Amacher, G. S., W. Cruz, D. Grebner, and W. F. Hyde. 1998. Environmental motivations for
migration: Population pressure, poverty, and deforestation in the Philippines. L and Econ.
74(1):92± 101.
Arco, E. S. 1998. Rajah Sikatuna National Park (RSNP) Protected Area Management Board
(PAMB) planning and capacity building project. Bohol: Soil and Water Conservation
Foundation.
Babilonia Wilner Foundation. 1999. http://www.bwf.org/efforts.html#protarea, accessed 9
July.
Banks, G. 1996. Compensation for mining: Bene® t or time-bombÐ The Porgera case. In
Resources, nations and indigenous peoples: Case studies from Australia, Asia and the
southwest Paci® c, ed. R. Howitt, J. Connell, and P. Hirsch, 223± 236. Melbourne: Oxford
University Press.
Bohol Chronicle. 1999. Sikatuna Park proclamation law questioned by NGO. 44(184):14.
Bohol Chronicle. 2000. Protected lands blamed as behind insurgency. 45(84):2, 29.
Brandon, K. E., and M. Wells. 1992. Planning for people and parks: Design dilemmas. W orld
Dev. 20(2):557± 570.
Burkey, S. 1993. People ® rst: A guide to self-reliant, participatory rural development. London:
Zed.
Colchester, M. 1996. Beyond ``participation’’: Indigenous peoples, biological diversity con-
servation and protected area management. Unasylva 186(47):33± 39.
Collins, N. M., J. A. Sayer, and T. C. Whitmore. 1991. T he conservation atlas of tropical
forests: Asia and the Paci® c. Washington, DC: IUCN.
Conservation Organization. 1999. http://www.conservation.org/science/cptc/capbuild/net-
work, accessed 16 June.
Dalton, J. B. 1989. Managing denuded watersheds: Proven approaches, strategies and tech-
niques for community-based resource management in the Philippines timberlands. Phi-
lippine Geograph. J. 33(2):49± 61.
Dasmann, R. F. 1982. The relationship between protected areas and indigenous peoples. In
National parks, conservation and development: T he role of protected areas in sustaining
society, ed. J. A. McNeely and K. R. Miller, 667± 676. Washington, DC: IUCN Com-
mission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Smithsonian Institution Press.
Dixon, J. A., and P. B. Sherman. 1990. Economics of protected areas: A new look at bene® ts
and costs. London: Earthscan.
Fleiger, W., and D. R. Cusi. 1998. T he mountains of Cebu and their inhabitants: Measures and
estimates. Cebu City, Philippines: East-West Center, University of Hawaii and the Of® ce of
Population Studies, University of San Carlos.
Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Garratt, K. 1982. The relationship between adjacent lands and protected areas: Issues of
concern for the protected area manager. In National parks, conservation and development:
144 F. M. L ynagh and P. B. Urich

The role of protected areas in sustaining society, ed. J. A. McNeely and K. R. Miller, 65± 71.
Washington, DC: IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Smithso-
nian Institution Press.
Ghimire, K. B. 1994. Parks and people: Livelihood issues in national parks management in
Thailand and Madagascar. Dev. Change 25:195± 229.
Kemf, E. 1993. In search of a home: People living in or near protected areas. In T he law of the
mother: Protecting indigenous peoples in protected areas, ed. E. Kemf, 3± 11. San Francisco:
Sierra Club Books.
Kothari, A. 1996. Is joint management of protected areas desirable and possible? In People
and protected areas: T owards participatory conservation in India, ed. A. Kothari, N. Singh,
and S. Suri, 17± 49. New Delhi: Sage.
Lightfoot, D. R. 1994. An assessment of the relationship between development and institu-
tionally preserved lands. Area 26(2):112± 122.
Lynch, O., and K. Talbott. 1988. Legal response to the Philippine deforestation crises. Int.
L aw Politics 20:679± 713.
McNeely, J. A., J. Harrison, and P. Dingwall, eds. 1994. Protecting nature: Regional reviews of
protected areas. Gland: IUCN.
Mozcom. 1999. Mozcom Internet Cebu. http://www.cebu.mozcom/bohol, accessed 2 July.
Murty, M. N. 1996. Contractual arrangements for sharing bene® ts from preservation: Joint
management of wildlife. In People and protected areas: T owards participatory conservation
in India, ed. A. Kothari, N. Singh, and S. Suri, 127± 134. New Delhi: Sage.
Nepal, S. K. 1997. Sustainable tourism, protected areas and livelihood needs of local com-
munities in developing countries. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. W orld Ecol. 4:123± 135.
Nepal, S. K., and K. E. Weber. 1994. A buffer concept for biodiversity conservation:
Viability of the concept in Nepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park. Environ. Conserv.
21(4):333± 341.
Neumann, R. P. 1997. Primitive ideas: Protected area buffer zones and the politics of land in
Africa. Dev. Change 28:559± 582.
Pardeshi, P. 1996. Conserving Maharashtra’s biodiversity through ecodevelopment. In People
and protected areas: T owards participatory conservation in India, ed. A. Kothari, N. Singh,
and S. Suri, 114± 126. New Delhi: Sage.
Point Cebu. 1999. Central Visayas Regional Development Plan (CY 1999± 2004) . http://
www.esprint.com/ ¹ pointcebu/conta, accessed 15 March.
Philippine Sustainable Development Network. 1999. Philippine Sustainable Development
Network Foundation, Inc. http://www.psdn.org, accessed 9 July.
Raju, G. 1996. From joint forest management to joint protected area management: Can the
concept be extended? In People and protected areas: T owards participatory conservation in
India, ed. A. Kothari, N. Singh, and S. Suri, 93± 113. New Delhi: Sage.
Rathore, B. M. S. 1996. Joint management options for protected areas. In People and pro-
tected areas: T owards participatory conservation in India, ed. A. Kothari, N. Singh, and
S. Suri, 85± 92. New Delhi: Sage.
Raval, S. R. 1994. Wheel of life: Perceptions and concerns of the resident peoples for Gir
National Park in India. Society Nat. Resources 7(4):305± 320.
Republic of the Philippines. 1996. 1995 Census of Population Report No. 1. Population by
province, city=municipality and barangay, vol. 3, V isayas Region. Manila: Republic of the
Philippines National Statistics Of® ce.
Ritchey-Vance, M. 1996. Social capital, sustainability, and working democracy: New yard-
sticks for grassroots development. Grassroots Dev. 20(1): 3± 9.
Sandy, I. M., I. G. M. Tantra, and K. Kartawinata. 1982. National Parks and Land Use
Policy. In National parks, conservation and development: T he role of protected areas in
sustaining society, ed. J. A. McNeely and K. R. Miller, 233± 236. Washington, DC: IUCN
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Smithsonian Institution Press.
Sayer, J. 1991. Rainforest buffer zones: Guidelines for protected area managers. Berkshire:
IUCN, Nature Conservation Bureau.
 Buffer Zone T heory and Practice 145

Shah, A. 1995. T he economics of third world national parks: Issues of tourism and environmental
management. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Shyamsundar, P. 1996. Constraints on socio-buffering around the Mantadia National Park in
Madagascar. Environ. Conserv. 23(1):67± 73.
Suri, S. 1996. People’s involvement in protected areas: Experiences from abroad and lessons
from India. In People and protected areas: T owards participatory conservation in India, ed.
A. Kothari, N. Singh, and S. Suri, 247± 260. New Delhi: Sage.
Soil and Water Conservation Foundation. 1999. Population in barangays which contain Rajah
Sikatuna National Park. Cebu City, Philippines: Annex 3± 5.
Urich, P. B. 1995. Resource control and environmental change in the Philippines: A case study in
the province of Bohol. PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.
Urich, P. B., and E. Bliss. 1992. New Karst Park in the Philippines. Natl. Speleol. Society News
2:41± 44.
Urich, P. B., and P. Reeder. 1996. Water resources in the Loboc River watershed, Bohol
province, Philippines. Asia-Paci® c V iewpoint [special issueÐ Water Resources in the Asia-
Paci® c Region] 37(3):284± 295.
Wells, M. P., and K. E. Brandon. 1992. People and parks: L inking protected area management
with local communities. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Wells, M. P., and K. E. Brandon. 1993. The principles and practice of buffer zones and local
participation in biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2± 3):157± 162.
West, P. C., and S. R. Brechin, eds. 1991. Resident peoples and national parks. Social dilemmas
and strategies in international conservation. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.