2nd National Report on the State ofProtected Areas in the Philippines

November 2014

This report is the result of a collaboration of different organizations in a process led by the Department of Environment and NaturalResources–Biodiversity Management Bureau. The following organizations made valuable contributions to the National Protected AreasSystem stocktaking process and to the on-going development of the National Protected Areas System Master Plan:

Conservation International (CI) Fauna and Flora International (FFI) Foundation for the Philippine Environment (FPE) World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Gessellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbiet/Protected Area Management Enhancement (GIZ/PAME) Project Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID) Philippine Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation, Inc. (PTFCF) United Nations Development Programme/New Conservation Areas of the Philippines Project (UNDP/NewCAPP) United States Agency for International Development/Philippines Biodiversity & Watersheds

Improved for Stronger Economy & Ecosystem Resilience (USAID/B+WISER) Program

Photos courtesy of DENR.

2nd National Report on the State ofProtected Areas of the PhilippinesNovember 2014

2nd National Reporton the

State of Protected Areasin the Philippines

November 2014

PREFACE

The establishment of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) in 1992 has allowed us to identify and set aside biologicallyimportant areas that are crucial to the people’s well-being and the country’s sustainable development. The NIPAS also underscored theimportance of local and multi-stakeholder participation in maintaining the integrity of our protected areas (PAs). However, it is alsorecognized that gaps—such as those in the ecological, management, and enforcement aspects—still affect the PA system.

This document highlights the results of a stocktaking on the state of the Philippine’s national protected areas system, which is the first stageof the ongoing process to prepare the National Protected Areas System Master Pan. This initiative intends to provide for a more strategicperspective for assessing the current portfolio of protected areas, rationalize the expansion of the PA system, and provide a betterdemonstration of the link of protected areas with broader national development goals.

The findings and recommendations generated by the stocktaking will guide the strategic directions of the National Protected Areas SystemMaster Plan. The stocktaking results will also be presented to various groups of stakeholders in order to gain further inputs to enrich theprocess of formulating the Master Plan. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, through the Biodiversity ManagementBureau and with the active participation of partners in the academe, civil society, communities, donor agencies, and the private sector, isfully committed to this process and to working for a National Protected Areas System that effectively protects our globally important naturalresources, serves the needs of the people, and supports national development.

THERESA MUNDITA LIM

DirectorBiodiversity Management BureauDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources

TABLE OF CONTENTS

- 5 -Introduction:

Philippine Protected Areas

- 18 -Managing the Protected Areas:

Who’s in Charge?

- 25 -Main Challenges in PA Management

- 28 -Embracing the Human Dimensions of PA Management

- 31 -Securing Financing for PA Management

- 38 -Climate Change and PAs

- 40 -Building up the PA System:

It Takes a Village

Mt. Iglit-Baco

Introduction: Philippine Protected Areas

By definition and by nature, our protected areas (PA)represent the best of our physical and biological environment,and the PA system is established not only to protect thatenvironment, but also to enable the environment to continueto serve us.

PAs help us manage our ecosystems and biodiversityresources, ensuring the continued provision of ecosystemservices or benefits like food, water, livelihood, climateregulation, disaster risk reduction, ecotourism potential,among others. These are vital to promoting sustainabledevelopment and reducing poverty, making effective PAmanagement a key strategy to national development.

The Philippines’ PA system was officially established withthe enactment of the National Integrated Protected AreasSystem (NIPAS) Act of 1992 or Republic Act No. 7586.Under the NIPAS Act, previously declared national parks,nature reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, and other PA typescomprised the initial components of the NIPAS. The Law

prescribed the process by which the initial components should achieve full PA status, culminating in thepassage of a national law specific to the PA.

5

Mt. Malindang Natural Park

Protected areas refer to identified portions of land and water set aside by reason of their uniquephysical and biological significance, managed to enhance biological diversity and protected againstdestructive human exploitation.

The National Integrated Protected Areas System is the classification and administration of alldesignated protected areas to maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems, topreserve genetic diversity, to ensure sustainable use of resources found therein, and to maintaintheir natural conditions to the greatest extent possible.

--National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992

Medinilla from the Mt. Haguimitan Range WildlifeSanctuary

As of 2014, after more than two decades of NIPAS Act implementation, the System comprised 240 sitesin various stages of establishment. In the meantime, related developments in governance and naturalresource management have also shown other opportunities and mechanisms to promote conservation ofbiological diversity. Other modes of site-level conservation emerged, with management led by localgovernments or indigenous peoples with technical support from civil society partners or academicinstitutions (Table 1).

Table 1. Types of Protected Area ManagementManager Number and Area Legal Basis

Government, national(with local government andcivil society organization)

240(207 covering 13% of land area,

33 covering 0.9% of marine area)National Integrated

Protected Areas System Act

Government, local(often with local community

organizations)

~1,500(mostly marine covering 0.04%of marine area, >5 terrestrial)

Local Government Codeand Fisheries Code

Indigenouscommunity

~200(mostly terrestrial with

<5 formally documented)Indigenous Peoples

Rights Act

Private sectorUnknown

(terrestrial and marine) Unknown

As the agency with key mandate on the management of protected areas, the Biodiversity ManagementBureau (BMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) initiated thedevelopment of a National PA System Master Plan in 2013.

As part of the preparations, two workshops were held to define and clarify the components of a PASystem Master Plan. During these two workshops, it was agreed that the PA system should cover thoseestablished under NIPAS as well as those that achieve similar conservation objectives, which includecritical habitats, local conservation, and indigenous community conserved areas (ICCAs).

The process of developing the Master Plan has four major phases:

6

This document discusses the highlights of the Situation Analysis Stage. The stocktaking focused on thefollowing components:

Component 1 Gap Assessment and Threat Analysis

Component 2 Stakeholder Analysis, Capacity Assessment and Governance

Component 3 Policy, Socio-economic, and Financial Assessment

Component 4 Socio-Cultural Considerations in Protected Areas

Component 5 Climate Change Adaptation/Disaster Risk Reduction

While much of the findings and analysis discussed in the stocktaking reports dwelled on issues specific tothe NIPAS sites, the overall context of the stocktaking recognized the inclusion of other non-NIPASconservation areas to the programs and strategies that will form the National PA System Master Plan.The findings are intended to point the future directions that should be taken and guide the content of theMaster Plan.

7

Just how important are our country’s protected areas?

Out of 240 PAs totalling 5.4 million hectares, 170 PAs are terrestrial and 70 are marine. Of the 6.8-million hectares of Philippine forest cover, 2.7 million hectares or 39% are PAs. And of this PA forestcover, 67% are open forest, 27% are closed forest, and the remaining 6% are mangroves. Theendangered tamaraw and Philippine eagle are found in these terrestrial PAs.

One of the most important marine PAs in the country, Tubattaha Reefs National Park, has beendesignated as a UNESCO world heritage site. But the percentage of PAs classified as having excellentcoral cover is only 0.2%, and those classified as having good coral cover is at 5.7%.

They feed and nurture.

There are millions of people living within or nearprotected areas who primarily depend on theenvironment and natural resources for theirsubsistence and basic needs such as food,water, and shelter. Forests support crops, wildfoods, game, and spices. Marine protectedareas serve as breeding grounds that supportpopulations of fish and marine resources,essential to securing food security of thecountry.

They provide water.

Well-managed protected watersheds act asnatural filters that catch rain and regulate theaquifers to ensure the steady and abundantsupply of water. Protected areas’ role inregulating water supply ensures that irrigationsystems continue to function and supportagricultural production, industries, and secureenergy sufficiency through hydropower andgeothermal energy production.

They provide jobs.

PAs are also important sources of raw materials such as wood, hemp, rattan, bamboo and other non-timber products that are used for the production of goods such as furniture and handicraft.

They house important cultural heritage.

Many protected areas have distinct cultural and spiritual importance for many indigenous communitieswho consider them as ancestral domains and sacred natural sites. Ancestral domains overlap withprotected areas covering 26% of total PAs or about 1.44 million hectares.

They protect from disasters.

Protected areas also benefit downstream communities by acting as buffer zones and natural barriers tomitigate the effects of storms, floods and other natural disasters.

8

Mt. Malindang Ranges

These benefits are directly linked to national development and the people’s well-being, if not survival(See Table 2).

Table 2. Ecosystem Services from Protected AreasType Ecosystem Service Description

Prov

isio

ning

Food Variety of food products

Fresh water Water used for both domestic purposes by households (drinking water,cooking, laundry) and commercial/industrial purposes (irrigation, productionof goods, cleaning purposes).

Timber/Wood Used for purposes such as home and furniture construction and fuel

Raw materials Wood, hemp, silk, rattan, bamboo, etc. used for production of other goods

Pharmaceutical &biochemical

Natural medicines from plants, food additives, and other biological materials

Energy-related Hydropower, biomass, and other sources of energy

Regu

lati

ng

Climate regulation Influence of ecosystems to the climate through its role in carbonsequestration

Air quality regulation Maintenance and purification of air

Soil erosion control Role of vegetation in soil retention and prevention of landslides

Biological control Regulation of crop and livestock pests and diseases

Moderation of extremeevents

Flood control, windbreaker during storms, and coastal protection frommangroves

Cult

ural

Cultural diversity &heritage

Value attributed to culturally/historically important landscapes and species

Ecotourism Recreational and tourism value of ecosystems such as hiking for mountains,swimming, bird watching, eco-tours, zip lines, and other activities.

Statistics from DENR-PAWB show that in 1998, about 572,000 domestic and7,600 foreign tourists visited protected areas in the country.

Spiritual values Spiritual value attached to ecosystems or its components such as sacred sites,animals, and plants as well as places for conduct of certain religious rituals

Aesthetic Beauty attached to scenic sites and natural areas; inspirational value for artworks, commercial symbols, architecture, and advertising

Scientific/Research Ecosystem components (e.g., endemic plants), conditions, and processes thatare useful in research and other scientific-oriented activities

Supp

orti

ng

HabitatHabitat for endemic, endangered and threatened species

Numerous efforts have been made in the past to determine specific values of the ecosystem servicesthat protected areas provide. Figures 1 and 2 show highlights of two such studies, done for the islands ofPanglao, Pamilacan, and Balicasag in Bohol in 2007 and Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape in2005.

9

Some of these economic valuation studies have contributed information that led directly to decisions oractions to improve management of protected areas. Some of these are the user fees imposed in Mt.Kitanglad Range Natural Park, Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park, Mt. Pulag National Park, and SamarIsland Natural Park.

However, even though the protected areas continuously provide vital life-support services like food andwater, not all of the potential economic benefits of these sites have been realized. In some cases, suchas in the levying of user fees, management interventions are needed to ensure that the protected areaservices are “compensated” and converted into economic value that can be used for conservation efforts.

Perhaps more importantly, protected areas can only deliver these services if they are effectivelymanaged, and if the extent of the PA system as a whole is adequate. How can we ensure that the PAsystem lives up to its potential and is able to fulfill its role in national development?

Some key factors that have to be present:

The PA system is representative and ecologically adequate

PA managers and staff are capable and sufficient

Threats or challenges are addressed

Communities and traditionally marginalized sectors are sufficiently involved

Sustainable financing mechanisms are maximized

Policy gaps are addressed

10

Figure 1. Estimated Economic Value of the Coastal Resources and Marine Waters of the Islands ofPanglao, Pamilacan, and Balicasag, Bohol

11

Figure 2. Estimated Economic Value of Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape

The stocktaking exercise for the PA System Master Plan looked at status of the NIPAS in terms of thesefactors and identified the opportunities and directions for improvement. Strategies to address theseopportunities will be reflected in the National PA System Master Plan to be developed in 2015.The following sections discuss the highlights of the findings of the stocktaking.

12

Mt. Hamiguitan

Are We Protecting Enough to Secure Ourselves?

At the physical and biological level, there are two main criteria that a PA system should be able to fulfill:

1. The PA system should be representative, which means that it should contain each of the Philippines’natural ecosystem types and native (especially endemic and/or restricted range) species.

2. The PA system should be ecologically adequate, which means that the natural ecosystems within PAscan sufficiently provide for the continuous and sustainable living processes of the diversity of living thingsand for ecosystems goods and services inside and outside (service area) of the PAs.

The first criterion should ideally be achieved in two ways: by ensuring representativeness in terms ofecosystem types and in terms of species. However, for the purposes of developing the National PASystem Master Plan, representativeness will initially be based upon ecosystems since it will be moredifficult to assess all species. Nonetheless, priority species (e.g., threatened, keystone species) will beidentified and monitoring for representation will include both ecosystems and priority species.

The Philippines has four major natural ecosystem types that must be represented in the PA system:(1) terrestrial, including caves, (2) inland wetland, (3) marine, and (4) island escosystem. Each of thesemajor ecosystem types may be further classified into sub-types, and each sub-type must be representedin the national protected area system. Figure 3 shows the map of the Philippines’ major terrestrial andmarine habitats within these major ecosystem types.

The stocktaking exercise for the PA System Master Plan looked at status of the NIPAS in terms of thesefactors and identified the opportunities and directions for improvement. Strategies to address theseopportunities will be reflected in the National PA System Master Plan. The following sections discuss thehighlights of the findings of the stocktaking.

13

Examples of the Philippines’ cave, terrestial, inland wetland, and marine ecosystems.

14

Figure 3. Philippine Major Terrestrial and Marine Habitats

15

The results of the stocktaking, however, showed that the country’sNational Integrated PA System is only partially representative,especially in terms of biogeographic and ecosystem types.

In the Philippines, over 12% of terrestrial area is within the NIPAS.However, this coverage is not necessarily in the most biologically-important areas. Montane forests are generally better covered in thePA system than lowland and coastal forests. Less than 1% of thecountry’s marine area is formally protected, with coral reefs beinggenerally better covered than seagrass/seaweed areas and softbottom areas. The extent of inland wetlands has not really been

disaggregated from the raw terrestrial and marine protection estimates. And since caves and caveecosystems have scientific, educational, recreational, tourism and other purposes, and therefore havespecial management needs, there is also a need to identify and assess cave ecosystems found withinPAs.

In terms of species, the Philippines has at least 855 globally threatened or restricted range speciesconfirmed to occur in 228 Key Biodiversity Areas or KBAs (freshwater fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds,mammals and congregatory species of birds; seaweeds and seagrasses, corals, molluscs,

elasmobranchs, reef fishes, marine turtles,sea- and small island-specialist birds, andmarine mammals; known as “triggerspecies”). The country also has at least 694threatened plants, which are still being geo-referenced. However, not all of these KBAsare protected.

This brings up the question of ecologicaladequacy. PAs are just tools; the actual intentis managing and conserving the entire naturalcapital essential for all ecosystem goods andservices (e.g., water, fisheries, energy).

Is the current PA system sufficient to deliverecosystem services needed to sustain theneeds of the broader seascape-landscape?The needs of upland communities? Ofagriculture? Of lowland cities? Of industries?

16

Philippine Eagle (Pithecopaga jefferyi)

As inputs to the PA System Master Plan, theassessment identified priority areas for inclusion to PASystem. These areas are divided into four categories:Category A: areas representing the

country’s bio-geographic zones

Ex. Mt. Halcon for Greater Mindoro, Nug-as forGreater Negros-Panay

Category B: areas representingsub-ecosystem types

Ex. Siburan, Mt. Hilong-Hilong, Mt. Diwata Range

Category C: areas with flagship species

Ex. Bantayan Islets for sharks/rays, BabuyanIslands for marine mammals

Category D: Key Biodiversity Areas where all knowntrigger species are represented at least once

Ex. Apo Island

Ensuring representation of Category A and B sites arethe immediate priorities.

There is still a lot to know to answer these questions sufficiently. Ecological adequacy depends on manyfactors, mainly:

The quality and location of the representative of the ecosystems being protected The degree of protection of ecosystems within protected areas as well as the degree to which

they are protected and used outside of these protected areas Which ecosystem goods and services are targeted and their target amount.

Assessing ecological adequacy has not really been comprehensively done for any site in the Philippines.It is still unknown what and how much ecosystem services does the country need and whether thecurrent PA system is adequate to sustain such needs.

KEY ACTIONS NEEDED:Ensuring Informed Decisions for Designing the PA System

Available information on the country’s ecosystems and species have guided and continue to guide actions ordecisions such as PA establishment. However, considerable data gathering and analysis still need to be done todetermine the extent of the PA system and enable the development of truly effective strategies for the PA SystemMaster Plan. Some needed efforts:

On representativeness:

Map and estimate approximate extent of each of the various natural ecosystem types Compare representation of standard ecosystem types and priority species within the NIPAS Periodically adjust the NIPAS++ representation in the Philippine Development Plan to ensure adequate

representation

On ecological adequacy:

Determine what ecosystem services needed Determine the balance/amount of these ecosystem services desired vis-à-vis development needs including

estimating the survival envelopes of priority species Incorporate needs into national development plans

For the PA system, the most important application of these information is on adjusting the configuration of the PAsystem to satisfy the needs of representativeness and ecological adequacy. This process involves getting thecooperation of all stakeholders—local governments, civil society, industries, communities, and others. It is alsoimportant that all stakeholders have an adequate understanding of the role of PAs in managing and conserving theentire natural capital essential for ecosystem goods and services.

There should also be a regular (every six years) review and planning (including investment planning) of nationalprotected area system development (prioritization and expansion) together with representativeness, ecologicaladequacy and management effectiveness considerations.

17

Managing the Protected Areas: Who’s in Charge?

The NIPAS Act places protected areas under the control and administration of the DENR. It also seeks toensure that each PA is managed by a Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) that represents thevarious stakeholders of the protected area. The Protected Area Superintendent (PASu), who is usually aDENR staff, is primarily accountable to the PAMB and DENR for the implementation of the managementplan and operations of the protected area. Technical support staff are recruited to support the PASu inthe performance of his/her functions.

In reality, however, the situation leaves much to be desired. Capacity assessments done in 2009, 2011,and 2013 by the New Conservation Areas in the Philippines Project (NewCAPP) showed the limitations inthe management capacity of the country’s protected areas, specifically in the individual, institutional, andsystemic capacities. Assessment scores from 2009 to 2013 show an increasing trend (Table 3) butlimitations remain.

Table 3. Assessment of Capacity to Manage the Philippines PA System

The assessment results also showed that while there are some strengths and advantages working infavor of protected area management capacity, these are not present consistently throughout the System.Table 4 shows more detail on the strengths and weaknesses of the PA System’s management capacity,as reflected in the most recent assessment (2013).

18

Local PNP (blue shirt), PNP-Maritime(camouflage) with d PASu and bantay dagat jointly conducting regular seaborne patrols.

Table 4. Assessment Statements on PA Management Capacity

19

20

The inconsistency in capacities is also evident in the results of the Management EffectivenessAssessment. BMB started using Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) and ManagementEffectiveness Assessment Tool (MEAT) in assessing the country’s protected areas in 2010. Since then,over 100 national PAs and 1,500 local government PAs have undergone management effectivenessassessment. In general, the scores showed that management effectiveness of most national PAs isrelatively low—only a few national PAs (e.g. Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park) and a few locally-declaredmarine protected areas (e.g. winners of the bi-annual MPA Awards) have relatively higher managementeffectiveness (Figures 4 and 5). However, monitoring of (b) compliance/behavior of resource users, (c)natural/biological/ ecosystems health, and (d) ecosystem benefits/goods and services delivered byprotected areas is only available for a handful of sites (if at all).

Capacity assessment results also showed that there is a wide range of skills that may need to beenhanced among existing PA staff. Improvements on fundamental skills may be needed, such asensuring that management plans, work plans and financial plans are aligned with the objectives of thePA. On the other hand, there is also a need to change existing mindsets among PA managers and equipthem with skills required in PA system governance such as in negotiation, brokering, steering, contractmanagement, consensus-building and conflict management.

Not enough in charge

A large factor in the limited PA management capacity is the sheer lack of staff available to manage PAs.Compared to its Southeast Asian neighbors, the country’s PAs is the most severely understaffed,trailing behind Laos.

There are 187 PASUs handling 240 PAs. Some PASus handle multiple PAs, and all of them aredesignated as PASus and occupying concurrent positions, pending the implementation of the DENRRationalization Plan. It is also estimated that on average, there is only one available staff for every 2,300hectares of PA.

On the other hand, 63 of 240 PAs have no PAMBs. In the PAs where there are PAMBs, there are issueson whether the PAMB members have sufficient knowledge to make decisions, or whether PAMBmembers even have time to attend meetings at all. In many instances, PAMB members do not make it tothe meetings but merely send representatives who may not have the authority or even technicalknowledge to make decisions.

A consistent feedback from all the PAs is the lack of adequate financial, manpower and logisticalresource to enable effective PA management. Based on the data provided in the individual site reports,the average budget provided by DENR to manage a protected area is only about PhP48 per hectare.

21

Figure 4. METT Scores for Philippine Protected Areas

22

Figure 5. MEAT Levels of Philippine Marine Protected Areas

23

Aside from DENR and other PA staff, other stakeholdersare also doing conservation efforts in highbiodiversity areas which may or may not be under theofficial coverage of the NIPAS, such as critical habitats,local conservation areas (LCAs) and indigenouscommunity conserved areas (ICCAs).

In many cases, the mere fact that the local governments orindigenous peoples in these areas proactively sought to takeon the management of their natural resources already indicatea certain level of capacity. The recent initiatives to develop aNational PA System Master Plan recognize that their effortsare an important part of building a strong and resilient PAsystem.

Some community members in Buhid involved in PA management activities.

KEY ACTIONS NEEDED:Building a Stronger Workforce for the PA System

Develop and adopt PA Competency Standards, which will be used to assess staff skills andtraining needs.

Produce more PA professionals and implement a capacity development program for existing PA staff.

Recruit permanent staff for PAs. The DENR Rationalization Plan may also be used as an opportunity toensure recruitment of suitably qualified personnel for PASUs and PA staff.

Review and refine the METT and MEAT and implement regular management effectivenessmonitoring, using results to guide plans and budgets.

24

Main Challenges in PA Management

External Threats

If not managed well, various human activities and natural events canthreaten the integrity of protected areas and reduce their capacity todeliver ecosystem services. The Philippine Biodiversity Strategy andAction Plan (PBSAP) has identified the top priority threats as land usechange, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and invasive alienspecies.

For the purposes of developing the National PA System Master Plan, itis proposed that factors like forest cover and land-use change,population density, fisheries catch per unit effort through time beanalyzed to serve as proxy indicators. Analyzing the trends on these

factors can help PA managers determine the immediate impacts of the threats, identify areas forrestoration, strengthen governance, and address potential threats.

Policy Inconsistencies and Gaps

Aside from external threats, inconsistencies and gaps within the PA policy context pose challenges toeffective PA management. There are also opportunities that can be explored, however, and there havebeen initial efforts to address these policy challenges.

• Roles of various stakeholders. Although the intention of the NIPAS Act is to have the DENRoverseeing PA management, there are areas where local governments and indigenous peoples’ groupsare contributing significantly in terms of labor (in the case of IPs) and resources (in the case of LGUS) inprotected areas management. In such cases, it may be beneficial to explore mechanisms that allowdecentralization of management. Initiatives to establish local conservation areas (LCAs) as well as effortsto grant proper legal recognition to indigenous peoples and community conservation areas and territories(ICCAs) are some of the on-going efforts to address this situation.

There are also some initiatives to enhance governance arrangements and cooperation amongdifferent agencies and stakeholders, especially in PAs that span across departmental and politicalboundaries. However, it should be emphasized that successful collaboration requires tangible and moresustainable mechanisms such as the eventual integration of PA management plans with LGU plans andannual investment programs.

25

Park rangers of the Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park.

• PA policies and policies on other resource uses. Although it is clear in the NIPAS Act that PAs aremeant to secure biologically important areas and protect them from destructive activities, conflicts arefound in policies that promote other land uses or resource uses for economic development. Some ofthese policies are the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, Agriculture and Fisheries ModernizationAct, Mining Act, and the Indigenous People’s Rights Act. It must be noted that some of these conflictsinvolve areas that have already been classified as something else—for example, the Revised ForestryCode covers land classified as forestlands, where (regulated) natural resource utilization is promoted.However, some high-biodiversity areas are still found within such areas, and it is important to have cleardecision-making mechanisms when faced with conflicting land uses. While establishing PAs areimportant, it is also important to allocate land for various other uses. The stocktaking report noted thatwhen conflicts between development and conservation arise, the former oftentimes prevail over the latter.There have been efforts to harmonize the policies, but for the part of the PA system, this againunderscores the need to determine and allocate the extent of PA system that is absolutely needed tosustain critical and life-supporting ecosystem services.

• Buffer zone management. Buffer zones are intended to provide an additional layer of protection for thePA and should be considered in the PA management plan. However, the stocktaking report noted thatthere is very little information available on buffer zone management in the Philippines and it is not knownwhether the buffer zones are fulfilling their intended purpose. There is also a lack of distinction in the typeof activities allowed in multiple use zones and buffer zones. Furthermore, there is uncertainty in thePAMB’s jurisdiction over buffer zones, which are technically outside of PA boundaries (La Viña et al.,2010 and Caleda, 2013).

The stocktaking report also noted that aside from its ecological function, buffer zones can also bemanaged to fulfill 1) socio-cultural functions as a social fence and way of engaging stakeholders; and2) economic functions as a source of livelihood for communities. Under the NIPAS Act itself, theecological function is the main purpose of designating buffer zones. The Law’s implementing rules andregulations, however, extended this to include the provision of benefits and livelihood opportunities tolocal communities. In some areas, this has instead resulted in encouraging creeping exploitation aroundthe PA boundaries. Clearly, there is still a lot to be clarified in terms of policies or guidelines governingbuffer zones.

26

KEY ACTIONS NEEDED:Addressing Key Challenges to the PA System

Determine the appropriate management and governance structures and processes(institutional arrangements, decision-making and dispute resolution processes) for a system ornetwork of protected areas within a particular landscape.

Grant formal recognition of ICCAs and other PA governance regimes as part of the NationalPAsystem

Determine final definition of the extent of the National PA system by law

Address policy inconsistencies and overlaps through the issuance of joint policies, for example,regulations to guide the coordinated implementation of the NIPAS Act and the Fisheries Code,etc.

Conduct further study on needed amendments to the NIPAS Act in view of the requirements of arationalized and expanded system of protected areas.

Identify specific provisions of the laws that are in conflict with PA objectives, determineimplications to PA, and provide recommendations.

Clearly establish primacy of biodiversity conservation and protection objectives and parametersfor the determination of all PA zones, including buffer zones.

Remove coverage of private lands in buffer zones under the jurisdiction of PAMB or PAmanagement plans; or, work with LGUs to integrate BZ management zone arrangements intoapproved CLUP and local zoning ordinance of host LGU;

27

Embracing the Human Dimensions of PA Management

In the Philippines, where almost all PAs are inhabited by people with legitimate historical or ancestralclaims, working with communities is an inherent part of PA management.

This involves considering the perspectives and concerns regarding gender roles as well as theimportance of indigenous cultural communities/Indigenous peoples who have diverse roles, needs,knowledge, culture, beliefs and practices that affect the PAs. Attending to the differentiated concerns andperspectives of communities living within the PAs presents an opportunity for social inclusion and equityfor the marginalized and vulnerable women, men and ICC/IP in the protected areas.

Key Findings and Concerns on IPs

The Philippines has a total land area of 30 million hectares. Some 4.048 million hectares have been setaside as PAs, of which 34.09% or 1.38 million hectares are within Certificate of Ancestral Domain/Title(CADC/CADT) areas.

In 2010, the estimated population of the IPs is 14-17 million; 61% arefrom Mindanao. While there are no updated data available, the vastmajority of the population of the IPs reside in the uplands which theyclaim as part of their traditional territories.

This assumption was validated in the spatial analysis conducted byPhilippine Association for Inter-Cultural Development (PAFID) in 2012,which showed that most ancestral lands/domains and indigenousterritories are located within critical watersheds, PAs and KBAs. Basedon the data of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)and KASAPI, the ancestral domain area in the country is approximately7.5 million hectares, a large percentage of which are within the KBAsand PAs.

The Philippine Constitution and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act(IPRA) uphold the protection and promotion IP rights. The NIPAS Act, itsImplementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), and other relevantregulations also recognize the rights of the IPs over their ancestrallands.

However, despite these and other existing laws, IP groups remainamong the poorest, marginalized, and vulnerable in the Philippinesociety. They lack access to vital social services like health andeducation. They are also vulnerable to displacement due todevelopment projects like dams, mining, and road infrastructure, as well

as natural calamities/disasters and armed conflicts.

28

An indigenous community member fromthe Mt. Kalatungan Natural Park

Because IPs consider their ancestral domain as part of their identity, their displacement from these areasas well as the degradation of natural habitats has severe impacts, leading to loss of their ancestralculture and destabilization of their capacity to survive as indigenous cultural communities.

Key Findings and Concerns on Women in PAs

On the whole, there is very limited information on women in PAsand there are no tools to get information, besides the collection ofsex-disaggregated data. Based on the latest available data (July2014) from the Survey and Registration of Protected AreaOccupants (SRPAO) conducted on 55 PAs, roughly half of PAoccupants are female. However, their issues, concerns, and theroles they play in their communities and in the context of PAmanagement are not adequately known.

Some studies of IPs and local organizations indicate that womenmainly fulfill traditional household chores such as washing andcooking. They can also be adding to their household incomethrough activities like making various products (e.g. brooms,baskets) using raw materials available in their area or gathering

non-traditional forest products that may be sold in the lowlands.

One study noted that women who have had formal education tend to speak out more during communitygatherings and meetings, contributing their insights especially when it pertains to the welfare of theirchildren and community. In some IP communities in the Cordillera and in Mindanao, the women oftenchallenge everyone’s ideas regarding matters that affect their community. This therefore implies thatgiven the educational and training opportunities especially confidence building measures, women canparticipate in the discussions and dialogues concerning them.

Comprising half of the PA population, women are clearly important stakeholders and their concerns, aswell as the overall aspect of gender and development (GAD), deserve to be understood more. Among thePA policies and guidelines reviewed, only two specifically have gender provisions: one stating that PAMBmembership should include women, and one requiring that SRPAO survey teams should comprise atleast 10% female members.

A Road Map for GAD Mainstreaming has been drawn up by the GAD System DENR Central Office. Theroad map, which covers the implementation period 2015-2017, aims for improved participation of womenand men in implementing the priority programs of DENR. It also serves to provide clear directions thatDENR can use in their annual GAD plan and budget. In the suggested enhancements for the 2014 GADPlan and Budget sent by the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW) to the DENR BiodiversityManagement Bureau, PCW recommended that on women economic empowerment, women in protectedareas and ecotourism areas be given priority.

29

Indigenous communities of Kalatungan RangeNatural Park

KEY ACTIONS NEEDED:Promoting Greater Inclusion for Marginalized Groups in PAs

Determine appropriate entry points for gender mainstreaming in each PA management phase.

Maximize existing opportunities. PA plans and projects should anchor their GAD mainstreaming effortsto the DENR GAD roadmap to be able to access budget support.

Facilitate more in-depth discussions among men and women indigenous peoples with localgovernments facilitated through DENR field personnel within the PA to develop further theirperspectives and recommendations on indigenous development paradigms.

Encourage and document the contribution of women to project activities in key areas where womenalready figure prominently.

Conduct capacity building assessments and gender and culturally sensitive interventions among PAMBmembers and other stakeholders.

Clearly define or elaborate the IP/gender roles and accountabilities in the PA management andgovernance according to their practices and beliefs.

Encourage ecologically sound IP practices and incorporate them in the PAs’ conservation strategies.

1 Lumbo, S., Declaro M, Casanova V and Ruedas E., Social Roles of Indigenous Women in Occidental Mindoro, Issues, Concerns and PolicyImplications, Paper presented during the 4th Asian Rural Sociology Association International Conference, Legaspi City, Philippines, September2010.

30

Securing Financing for PA Management

Currently, the bulk of financial resources needed to manage the National PA System come from nationalgovernment subsidy through allocations lodged under the DENR. Up to 96% of PA budget comes fromnational government. In the past five years, budget allocations for PAs have been increasing—fromPhP513.9 million in 2009 to PhP1.184 billion in 2014. However, the share of protected areas’ budget outof DENR’s total budget is characterized by a decreasing-increasing trend—decreasing from 4.1% to2.9% from 2009 to 2013, then rising to 5.1% in 2014 (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Annual PA Budget Through DENR Allocation

31

Kalatungan Range Natural Park

Community workers removing weeds in a tree nursery to be used in forest rehabilitation efforts.

A large percentage of this budget was spent on maintenance and other operating expenses or MOOE(60%) and personnel services (31%). Capital outlay spending had a very small share of 10%. Aside fromnational government allocations, PA budgets are also supplemented by site-level revenues, which comefrom user fee collections, local government allocations, private donations, and foreign-assisted projects.

Budget data of 18 PAs covered by Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas Project showed an averageannual budget of PhP3.1 million per PA. From 2009 to 2013, average annual budget per protected areaincreased by 261%, i.e., from PhP970,156 to PhP3.51 million. However, it is alarming that averageannual budget can range from a very low amount of PhP73,970 (Mt. Isarog) to PhP7.15 million (Mt.Kitanglad).

The largest sources of site-level revenues are user fees and Special Use Agreement in Protected Areas(SAPA) fees. However, for 2006 to 2013, a total of only PhP176.8 million revenues have been reported.On the average, annual PA revenues amount to PhP22.1 million—not even 1% of the annual allocationfrom the DENR. There are various reasons for not being able to impose fees, such as absence offacilities and amenities.

Note that many PAs are charging fees, and most of the fees are low (as low as PhP5 entrance fee).For example, entrance fees, the most widely used form of user fees, are collected only in 44 PAs, or only18% of the total number of PAs. Facilities user fees are collected in only 31 PAs (13%) whiledevelopment fees, which are supposed to largely contribute to PA revenues since these should beimposed on large resource users, are being collected in 17 PAs only.

32

PA funding coming from local governments, private corporations, and foreign-assisted projects are notyet fully accounted, but they can also be highly variable and limited to only a few PAs.

A look at the data of the Integrated Protected Areas Fund (IPAF) further indicates that PAs are notmaximizing their revenue generating potential and may lack the skills do so. Only PhP282.8 million havebeen deposited from 1996 to 2013—less than a quarter of DENR’s PA budget for 2014 alone. PhP212.1million have been deposited in PA Sub-Fund while PhP70.7 million are with Central IPAF. As ofDecember 2013, 81% of PA Sub-Fund have been disbursed or accessed by depositing PAs. With this,remaining balance amounts to PhP40.4 million. On the other hand, only 19% of Central IPAF have beenutilized. Central IPAF remaining balance is PhP57.3 million.

PAMB (Protected Area Management Board) members during its composite monitoring of the PA.

Table 5 contains data on available PA financing from 2009-2014, which further shows that the PA systemis largely sustained by national government allocations.

33

Table 5. Total Available Finances for Protected Area System, 2009 to 2014, in pesos

Yet, PAs undoubtedly need considerably more funds. There are no national estimates of financing needsfor optimum PA management, but business plans developed for 18 PAs under the Sustainable Financingof PAs Project show that PhP675.1 million are needed for the first two years’ start-up costs alone.Considering a five-year implementation period, total financing gap or revenue shortfall for the 18 PAs isestimated at PhP2.015 billion (Figure 7, Financing Gap of Selected PAs).

Figure 7. Financing Gap of Selected PAsSource: Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas Project, BMB/REECS

The project’s results also noted that given existing capacity of the 18 PAs, only six of them will be able tofund their estimated institution-building costs. These are Mt. Apo, Mt. Banahaw, Central Cebu,Mt. Kitanglad, Mt. Malindang and Mt. Mantalingahan. Institution-building costs are essential to be fundedas these are to be used for start-up activities.

34

Recent developments, however, have led to an increasing push for efforts to enhance finances outside ofnational government allocations. Some of the factors contributing to this are:

Increased recognition of need to reduce government subsidy. Enthusiasm shown by PA offices inlearning the mechanics of establishing user fees and other financing mechanism has beenoverwhelming.

Improved recognition of upland–lowland continuum, leading to increasing support of downstreamcommunities and economic players to improved practices of upland on-site managers

Recognition of contribution of PAs to economy. For example, in Mindanao Region, agro-industryplayers which are major beneficiaries of PA ecosystem services have been active in seeking waysto contribute to PA management.

Increased multi-sectoral support to PA management as catalyst to more responsive managementinterventions. Support to PA management has even gone beyond PAMB and on to a widercoverage, e.g., river-basin or watershed level, as in the case of Mt. Kalatungan as part of theCagayan de Oro River Basin.

Tools for Revenue Generation

Different PAs have different potentials for revenue generating strategies. These are the major revenuegenerating schemes that have been used or are in the process of being implemented in the country’sPAs.

• User fees. These include entrance fees, use of facilities, fees for commercial film/photography, andother fees which may be imposed on visitors for activities done within the PAs. Setting up user feesideally involves doing studies to determine the amount to be charged to PA resource users. However,because most PAs may lack the financial and technical resources to do such studies, minimum standardfees (e.g. minimum entrance fee of P50 to be collected by all PAs) may be imposed so that the PAs withno established user fees can start collecting.

35

• Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). PESarrangements involve setting up a paymentsystem between the users or beneficiaries ofunmarketed, ecosystem services (e.g. downstreamfarmers using the waters from upstream) and theproviders of or those who make the ecosystemservices possible (e.g. indigenous groups takingcare of their upland ancestral domain). This requiresestablishing the physical and geographic linkages ofthe identified ecosystem service to stakeholders. It isalso important to establish credibility and capacity ofthe communities in managing financial resourcesfrom PES as well as their competency in deliveringexpected output of the resources. Credible

institutions with accountability systems may also be tapped as fund managers or monitoring bodies.Considerable preparation and negotiations are needed to set up PES arrangements successfully, but thismechanism has a lot of potential to deliver resources and promote a greaterunderstanding of PA ecosystem among stakeholders.

• Corporate social responsibility (CSR). Entering into genuine partnerships (instead of dole-outarrangements) with corporations operating near PAs or other interested private entities can lead tobenefits for both the private entities and the PA, including savings, sustainability of operations andimproved community relationships. These partnerships should strive at not only generating actual moneyas counterpart to PA management. Partnerships can come in the forms of providing technical assistance,trainings and linkages with other potential partners, among others.

• Enterprise development. Working with local communities and helping them establish sustainableenterprises can decrease resource use pressure in PAs and contribute to PA protection andmanagement. Through this, three objectives can be achieved: economic sustainability, positive socialimpacts, and environment protection.

• Damage estimation. Imposing corresponding fees on activities that cause PA degradation cangenerate finances to fund rehabilitation and other management activities. However, it should be notedthat it is not a revenue generating mechanism per se, but should be understood as a form of disincentivesystem that will regulate socioeconomic activities with potential negative impacts on PA resources andsurrounding areas.

Tools for revenue regeneration can and should also be viewed as tools for promoting improvedmanagement and enhancing multi-stakeholder participation. These tools have been applied in some PAsand should be more fully explored for the rest of the PAs.

The enactment of Republic Act 10629, which promotes easier access of PAMBs to their PA revenues,can be an added motivation and opportunity for improved PA management. On the other hand, while thecurrent suspension in the granting SAPAs means foregone revenues for many PAs, it is also anopportunity to study how SAPAs can be better managed to serve PA objectives.

36

However, it should also be recognized that there are also PAs where these financing options are notfeasible because the beneficiaries are society in general (such as cultural and educational services) orthe global community (such as gene pools and the sequestration and storage of carbon emissions).These PAs still deliver or contribute significant ecosystem services and should still receive support fromthe national government and the international stakeholders.

KEY ACTIONS NEEDED:Ensuring Sustained Financial Support for the PA System

Identify PAs where sustainable financing strategies are feasible, and those where continuinggovernment subsidy is necessary for broader societal goals.

Improve communication efforts highlighting linkage of PAs with country, regional, and site-levelsocio-economic goals.

Provide capacity building trainings for PA staff on resource mobilization, including sharing oflessons among PAs.

Provide policy and legislative support for innovative financing mechanisms

Provide guidelines for PAs in updating their user fees.

Roll-out RA 10629 implementation.

Incorporate sustainable financing as one of DENR’s Major Final Outputs

37

Climate Change and PAs

The Philippines is among the countries most vulnerable to climate change impacts such as severestorms, warmer temperatures, and more rainfall. These impacts are expected to bring in disasters suchas flooding, landslides, and erosion, which can severely destroy natural habitats and compromise theirability to deliver ecosystem services. Some of the potential impacts to people and the economy at largeare:

Compromised food security

Loss of lives and damages to farms, infrastructure, and property due to more frequent storms and floods

Biodiversity loss or increased extinction rates

Increased frequency and intensity of pests and diseases

Changes in species distribution and behavior in plants and animals

To respond to the challenges of climate change, collaborative action on mitigation and adaptation mustbe undertaken. These actions include:

Maintaining and restoring natural ecosystems

Protecting and enhancing ecosystem services

Managing habitats for endangered species

Creating refuges and buffer zones

Establishing networks of terrestial, inland water and marine protected areas that take into account projectedchanges in climate; and

Mainstreaming climate change into policies, plans and programs

These are essentially activities involved in designing and managing the National PA System. Healthyecosystems and diverse landscapes are more resilient to climate change impacts. For example, healthycoral reefs are more likely to survive coral bleaching events because they have better water quality andlow sedimentation.

38

Migratory birds in Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park

PA management is recognized in the National Climate Change Action Plan 2011-2028 as in importantclimate change response. One of the national strategic priorities under the Plan is environmental andecological stability, with the following desired outcomes:

1 Climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies for keyecosystems developed and implemented;

2 Management and conservation of protected areas and key biodiversity areasimproved;

3 Environmental laws strictly implemented;

4 Capacity for integrated ecosystem-based management approach in protectedareas and key biodiversity areas enhanced;

5 Natural resource accounting institutionalized.

As part of pursuing the objectives of the National Climate Change Action Plan, PAs may also bedesignated as Ecotowns—described as “an implementation vehicle for the convergence of adaptationand mitigation actions, as well as a demonstration of integrated ecosystem-based managementapproach.”

KEY ACTIONS NEEDED:Ensuring Sustained Financial Support for the PA System

Improve capacities to ensure that climate change considerations are included in the process ofdeveloping PA management plans.

Promote the use of vulnerability assessments to gain a better understanding of how climate change willaffect PA ecosystems as well as communities.

Promote better understanding of PAs as an important strategy for climate change adaptation.

Strengthen the network of PAs to improve the national resilience to climate change

39

Building up the PA System: It Takes a Village

The stocktaking exercise has collected a lot of informationand recommendations to guide thedevelopment of the PA System Master Plan and guide theshort-term and long-term actions for building up thecountry’s PA System. These will be presented to variousstakeholders—decision-makers, legislators, private sectorgroups, indigenous peoples, and others—to get theirfeedback and further enrich the assessment.

Some of the essential ingredients in building up the PASystem include:

Improved understanding on the role of PAs in economic development and climate change resilience amongdecision-makers and other key stakeholders, leading to stronger political and social support for the PA system.

An efficient information system within the Biodiversity Management Bureau to facilitate data collection/analysis andensure sound, informed, and science-based decisions on matters like the extent of the PA system and thebiodiversity resources found therein.

Sustainable financing mechanisms established in appropriate PAs, along with continued national governmentsupport for the rest of the PAs in the system.

It is important to take note that building a successful PA System cannot be achieved by DENR alone oreven the PAMBs. Many of the recommendations in the stocktaking are outside the scope and control ofDENR, and require strong political will and support of other stakeholders. It is hoped that the process ofdeveloping and implementing the PA System Master Plan will be characterized by such strong and broadsupport to PA management.

40

Pujada Bay coral and clown fish.

References

Note: This publication is the condensed version of a series of reports resulting from the Stocktaking of theNational Protected Areas System process done from 2013 to 2014. Below are the references consultedin the stocktaking.

Alcala, Angel C., Abner A. Bucol, Arvin C. Diesmos, and Rafe M. Brown. 2012. “Vulnerability of PhilippineAmphibians to Climate Change.” Philippine Journal of Science 141 (1): 77–87.

Ambal, R.G.R, M.V. Duya, M.A. Cruz, O.G. Coroza, S.G. Vergara, N. de Silva, N. Molinyawe, and B.Tabaranza. “Key Biodiversity Areas in the Philippines: Priorities for Conservation.” Journal of ThreatenedTaxa 4 (8): 2788–96.

Anda, Alexander D., and Marlon M. Atienza. 2013. Fiscal Gap and Financing Protected Areas in thePhilippines. EEPSEA Research Reports. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia andWorldFish Philippines.

Balangue, Tonie O. 2013. Philippines: Compendium of Climate Change Vulnerability and ImpactAssessment Tools | Adaptation Community. Manila, Philippines: GIZ through the Support to the ClimateChangeCommission in the Implementation of the National Framework Strategy on Climate Change and theNational Climate Change Action Plan. https://gc21.giz.de/ibt/var/app/wp342deP/1443/index.php/knowledge/vulnerability-assessment/examples/philippines-compendium-of-cc-vulnerability-and-impact-assessment-tools/.

Cabral, R.B et al. 2014. “Philippine MPA Database.” http://mpa.msi.upd.edu.ph/.

Caleda, Mary Jean. 2013. Beyond Protected Area Boundary: State of Buffer Zone Planning andManagement at the Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park, Bukidnon Province, and Mindanao.

Carreno, Alberto M. 2014. “Buffer Zones as a Tool for Protecting World Heritage Sites: The Case ofHeritage Routes.” Accessed July 31. http://www.law.kyushu-u.ac.jp/programsinenglish/hiroshima/martorell.pd.

Castillo, Gem. 2011. “Fiscal Gaps and Financing of Protected Areas in Southeast Asia and China:Updates on Cross Country Studies”. presented at the Meeting of PAWB, Sulo Hotel, Quezon City,November 29.

Climate Change Adaptation for Coral Triangle Communities: A Guide for Vulnerability Assessment andLocal Early Action Planning (LEAP Guide). 2013. U.S. Coral Triangle Initiative Support Program.

Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment of the Verde Island Passage, Philippines. Technical Report.2010. Arlington, Virginia, USA: Conservation International.

Climate Proofing for Development. A Training Toolkit, Volumes 1-4. 2012. Department of Environmentand Natural Resources and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit.

Conservation International Philippines, Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, and Haribon Foundation. 2006. Priority Sites for Conservation inthe Philippines: Key Biodiversity Areas. Quezon City, Philippines.

De Vera, David E. 2007. “Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines: A Country Case Study”. presented at theRNIP Regional Assembly, Hanoi, Vietnam, August 20.http://www.iapad.org/publications/ppgis/devera_ip_phl.pdf.

De Vera, Ellalyn. 2003. “PAWB Renamed to Biodiversity Management Bureau.” Manila Bulletin,December 3. http://www.mb.com.ph/pawb-renamed-to-biodiversity-management-bureau/.

“DENR Administrative Order 1992-25, NIPAS Implementing Rules and Regulations.”

“DENR Administrative Order 2004-32, Revised Guidelines on the Establishment and Management ofCommunity-Based Program in Protected Areas.”

“DENR Administrative Order 2007-17, Rules and Regulations Governing Special Uses within ProtectedAreas.”

“DENR Administrative Order 2008-26, Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of the NIPAS Act.”

“DENR Memorandum Circular 1993-16, Guidelines on the Establishment and Management of BufferZones for Protected Areas.”

Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Biodiversity Management Bureau (DENR-BMB) andthe Resources, Environment, and Economics Center for Studies (REECS). 2014. Final Report OnSustainable Financing Of Protected Areas Project. Quezon City, Philippines.

Dixon, John A. 1994. Economic Analysis of Environmental Impacts. Earthscan.

Ellis-Jones, Mark. undated. “Towards Potential Pro-Poor REDD Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms.”<http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/>.

Fernando, E. S., L. C. Co, D. A. Lagunzad, W. Sm Gruezo, J. F. Barcelona, D. A. Madulid, A. B. Lapis,G. I. Texon, A. C. Manila, and P. M. Zamora. 2008. “Threatened Plants of the Philippines: A PreliminaryAssessment.”

Asia Life Sciences (Philippines), April. http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=PH2009000014.

Foden, Wendy B., Stuart H. M. Butchart, Simon N. Stuart, Jean-Christophe Vié, H. Resit Akçakaya,Ariadne Angulo, Lyndon M. DeVantier, et al. 2013. “Identifying the World’s Most Climate ChangeVulnerable Species: A Systematic Trait-Based Assessment of All Birds, Amphibians and Corals.” PLoSONE 8 (6): e65427. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065427.

Gatumbato, Errol, and Gregorio Texon. 2013. An Assessment of PAMB Competency Standards andRequirements, Profiling of PAMBs and Results of Evaluation of Existing PAMB Operations Manual.UNDP-GEF NewCAPP.

Gitay, Habiba, C. Max Finlayson, and Nick Davidson. 2011. A Framework for Assessing the Vulnerabilityof Wetlands to Climate Change. Ramsar Technical Report No. 5/CBD Technical Series No. 57. RamsarConvention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,Montreal, Canada. http://strp.ramsar.org/strp-publications/ramsar-technical-reports/rtr-no.5-a-framework-for-assessing-the-vulnerability-of-wetlands-to-climate-change-2011.

Gonzales, A.M., and A.S. Martin. 2007. Gender in the Conservation of Protected Areas. Innovations inConservation Series. Parks in Peril Program. Arlington, Virginia, USA: The Nature Conservancy.

Green Growth Initiatives: Eco-Town Framework.

Green, Michael John Beverley, Alexander N. James, and James Paine. 1999. A Global Review ofProtected Area Budgets and Staff. WCMC Biodiversity Series No. 10. Cambridge, UK: WorldConservation Monitoring Centre and World Commission on Protected Areas.https://www.cbd.int/financial/expenditure/g-spendingglobal-wcmc.pdf.

Guiang, Ernesto S., and Gilbert C. Braganza. 2014. National Management Effectiveness and CapacityAssessment of Protected Areas in the Philippines (Draft Final). Manila, Philippines: GIZ.

Horigue, Vera, Porfirio M. Aliño, and Robert L. Pressey. 2014. “Evaluating Management Performance ofMarine Protected Area Networks in the Philippines.” Ocean & Coastal Management 95 (July): 11–25.doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.03.023.

“Indigenous People in the Philippines. UNDP Fast Facts.” 2010. United Nations DevelopmentProgramme. http://www.ph.undp.org/content/philippines/en/home/library/democratic_governance/.

James, Alexander. 1999. “Institutional Constraints To Protected Area Funding.” PARKS 9 (2): 15–26.

“Key Elements of Philippine Protected Area Effectiveness. E-Poster Presented at the World ParksCongress, Sydney, Australia, 18 November 2014.” 2014. Department of Environment and NaturalResources, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH2, Marine ProtectedArea Support Network, Global Environment Facility/United Nations Development Programme, U. S.Agency for International Development/B+WISER, Philippine Association for Intercultural Development,and many other partners of DENR.

La Viña, Antonio G.M., James L. Kho, and Mary Jean Caleda. 2010. Legal Framework for ProtectedAreas: Philippines. Guidelines for Protected Area Legislation, IUCN- Environmental Law ProgrammePublications, Series No. 81. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Larsen, Peter B. 2006. Reconciling Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: Rights, Governance andEquitable Cost and Benefit Sharing. Discussion Paper. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Lasco, R. D. (ed ), E. E. (ed ) Tongson, and J. E. (ed ) Padilla, eds. 2014. PES: Sustainable Financing forConservation and Development. Proceedings from the National Conference-Workshop on Payments forEnvironmental Services: Direct Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation, Manila,March 1-2, 2005. WWF, ICRAF, REECS, UP-CIDS, UPLB-ENFOR, CARE. Accessed December 10.http://outputs.worldagroforestry.org/record/3192/.

Lasco, R. D., R. V. O. Cruz, J. M. Pulhin, and F. B. Pulhin. 2014. “Assessing Climatic Change Impacts,Vulnerability and Adaptation - the Case of Pantabangan-Carranglan Watershed.” Accessed December10. http://outputs.worldagroforestry.org/record/5249?ln=en.

Lumbo, S., Declaro, M., V. Casanova, and E. Ruedas. 2010. “Social Roles of Indigenous Women inOccidental Mindoro, Issues, Concerns and Policy Implication”. presented at the 4th Asian RuralSociology Association International Conference, Legaspi City, Philippines, September.http://www.arsa1996.org/pictures/pdf/ARSA_IV_PRCDGS_VOL1/GENDER%20ROLES%20IN%20RURAL%20DEVELOPMENT/1_Susanita_Lumbo_et.al_73-81.pdf.

Maginnis, S., and C. Espinosa. 2009. REDD-plus and Benefit Sharing. Experiences in ForestConservation and Other Resource Management Sectors. Washington, D.C., USA: IUCN.

Mahanty, Sango, Jefferson Fox, Leslie Mclees, Michael Nurse, and Peter Stephen. 2006. “Introduction:Equity in Community-Based Resource Management.” In Hanging in the Balance: Equity in Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Asia, 1–13. Regional Community Forestry Training Center(RECOFTC), Bangkok, Thailand and East-West Center, Hawaii. <http://www.eastwestcenter.org>.

Maraňon, L.L. 2013. Comparative Analysis of Approaches to Determine Government Share from SpecialUses of Forestland. College, Laguna: University of the Philippines Los Baños.

Marine Key Biodiversity Areas (CD and Map). 2009. Conservation International Philippines,Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, andDepartment ofAgriculture - Bureau of Agriculture and Aquatic Resources.

“Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Gap Analysis for Philippines and Malaysia.” 2009. Marine Environmentand Resources Foundation, Inc., Conservation International–Philippines, and Borneo Marine ResearchInstitute Universiti Malaysia Sabah.bim.aseanbiodiversity.org/elib/reference/download.php?refNo=00895&fileId=895.

Martino, Diego. 2001. “Buffer Zones Around Protected Areas: A Brief Literature Review.” ElectronicGreen Journal 1 (15). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/02n4v17n.

Masilungan, Elena, ed. 2003. “Applying the Tools to Assess Gender Mainstreaming Book 2”.National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women.

Mayers, James, Stephen Bass, and Duncan Macqueen. 2001. Building Good Forest Governance ADiagnostic and Planning Tool. London, U.K.: International Institute for Environment and Development.

“MDG-F 1656: Strengthening Institutional Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change.”

MERF. 2013. Vulnerability Assessment Tools for Coastal Ecosystems: A Guidebook. Quezon City,Philippines: Marine Environment and Resources Foundation, Inc.http://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/library/guide-vulnerability-assessment-tools-coastal-ecosystems.

Nelitz, Marc, Samantha Boardley, and Rusell Smith. 2013. Tools for Climate Change VulnerabilityAssessments for Watersheds. Report of ESSA Technologies Ltd for the Canadian Council of Ministers ofthe Environment (CCME). Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.http://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/water/pn_1494_vat.pdf.

NOAA. 2011. Social Value versus Economic Impact: Measuring Equity and Efficiency in EnvironmentalPolicymaking. USA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. <http://www.csc.noaa.gov>.Olewiler, N.D. 2010. “Public Policy Analysis for Forest Policy and Environmental Economics Research”.Manila, Philippines.

PAWB Annual Statistical Reports. Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Protected Areasand Wildlife Bureau.

“Philippines National Climate Change Action Plan 2011-2028.” 2012. National Climate ChangeCommission.

Pulhin, J. M. 2010. “International Short-Term Training on Community Forestry for Middle ManagementStaff Training Materials”. AKECOP Philippines, College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University ofthe Philippines Los Baños, College, Laguna.

“Republic Act 7586. ‘An Act Providing for the Establishment and Management of National IntegratedProtected Areas System, Defining Its Scope and Coverage and for Other Purposes.’”

Russ, Garry R., and Angel C. Alcala. 2011. “Enhanced Biodiversity beyond Marine Reserve Boundaries:The Cup Spillith over.” Ecological Applications: A Publication of the Ecological Society of America 21 (1):241–50.

Siapno, Marlyn. 2012. Final Report on the Capacity Assessment of PAWB and Selected RegionalOffices.UNDP-GEF NewCAPP.

Strengthening the Philippines’ Institutional Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change.

The Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities: A Second Iteration of the National BiodiversityStrategy and Action Plan : Final Report. 2002. Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources-ProtectedAreas and Wildlife Bureau, Conservation International, Biodiversity Conservation Program-U.P. Centerfor Integrative and Development Studies and Foundation for the Philippine Environment.

Thomas, Vinod, Jose Ramon G. Albert, and Rosa T. Perez. 2013. Climate-Related Disasters in Asia andthe Pacific. 358. ADB Economics Working Paper Series. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30323/ewp-358.pdf.

UNESCAP. 2003. “Criteria for Evaluating the Policies or Measures. In: Economic and Social Commissionfor Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). Integrating Environmental Considerations into Economic PolicyMakingProcesses”. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.http://www.unescap.org. “Wetland Ecosystem Services Factsheet 10. Climate Change Mitigation andAdaptation.” 2011. Ramsar Convention. http://archive.ramsar.org/pdf/info/services_10_e.pdf.

2014. www.globalforestwatch.org

List of Acronyms

BMB Biodiversity Management BureauCADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain ClaimCADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain TitleCLUP Comprehensive Land Use PlanDENR Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesGAD Gender and DevelopmentICCA Indigenous Community Conserved AreasIP Indigenous PeoplesIPAF Integrated Protected Areas FundIPRA Indigenous Peoples Rights ActIRR Implementing Rules and RegulationsKBA Key Biodiversity AreaLCA Local Conservation AreaLGU Local Government UnitMEAT Management Effectiveness Assessment ToolMETT Management Effectiveness Tracking ToolMOOE maintenance and other operating expensesNewCAPP New Conservation Areas of the Philippines ProjectNIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas SystemPA Protected AreaPAMB Protected Area Management BoardPASu Protected Area SuperintendentPCW Philippine Commission on WomenPES Payments for Ecosystem ServicesSAPA Special Use Agreement in Protected AreasSRPAO Survey and Registration of Protected Area Occupants

List of Figures

Figure 1. Estimated Economic Value of the Coastal Resources and Marine Waters of the Islands ofPanglao, Pamilacan, and Balicasag, Bohol

Figure 2. Estimated Economic Value of Mt. Mantalingahan Protected LandscapeFigure 3. Philippine Major Terrestrial and Marine HabitatsFigure 4. METT Scores for Philippine Protected AreasFigure 5. MEAT Scores of Marine Protected AreasFigure 6. Annual PA Budget Through DENR AllocationFigure 7. Financing Gap of Selected PAs

List of Tables

Table 1. Types of Protected Area ManagementTable 2. Ecosystem Services from Protected AreasTable 3. Assessment of Capacity to Manage the Philippines PA SystemTable 4. Assessment Statements on PA Management CapacityTable 5. Total Available Finances for Protected Area System, 2009 to 2014, in pesos