See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270956568
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and
recommendations
Article · January 2005
CITATIONS
READS
3
3,546
1 author:
Jose Don De Alban
ClearWind
61 PUBLICATIONS 431 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Reconciling agricultural expansion and forest conservation in the new Myanmar View project
Evaluating the effects of land cover change and climate change on Southeast Asian biodiversity View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Don De Alban on 17 January 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Sylvatrop, The Technical Journal of Philippine Ecosystems and Natural Resources 15 (1&2): 31-64
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area
boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and
recommendations
Jose Don T. De Alban
Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources
4/F Fil Garcia Tower, 140 Kalayaan Avenue cor. Mayaman Street, Diliman, Quezon
City, 1101 Philippines
Email: dondealban@gmail.com
Important Bird Areas (IBA) in the Philippines were identified using a set of
international criteria to determine globally important priority areas for biodiversity
conservation. The IBA boundaries were delineated using data on trigger bird
species distribution coupled with available land cover data. Present conservation
work has been guided using the IBAs as a directory of key conservation sites.
But how relevant and accurate are the IBA boundaries, considering that less
than 50% of Philippine IBAs are completely known ornithologically, and that
the original IBA delineation relied on historical records of trigger bird species?
The mapping of IBAs illustrated that the original IBA delineation was not well
related to forest extents and that 46% of the country’s forest habitats lay beyond
IBA boundaries. Forests remained extensive within large Endemic Bird Areas
(EBA) but smaller EBAs like Mindoro and Negros Panay had 8% and 5% forests
left, respectively. Mining areas were heavily in conflict with IBAs wherein
21% of forests in IBAs were similarly under mining applications. The
implications of the gaps in existing IBA boundaries were discussed in light of
aggressive promotion of mining and how conservation work and policy agenda
in the country could be affected. Challenges and threats in conserving the IBAs
at the local and national levels were identified by examining overlaps with
mining claims and conflicting tenurial instruments. The revision of original
IBA boundaries should be implemented to conform better to forest boundaries,
Keywords: forest habitats, Endemic Bird Areas, mining, conflicting tenurial arrangements,
geographic information systems, trigger species, Key Biodiversity Areas
32
J.D.T. De Alban
which may form the bases of protected area boundaries. Parameters on
delineating IBAs should be developed using updated forest cover information,
which can further improve the results of this IBA analysis. The IBA concept
should also be applied to Key Biodiversity Areas with the inclusion of data on
non-avian taxonomic groups.
IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS (IBA) ARE SITES DETERMINED TO BE GLOBALLY
important for the conservation of birds and their habitats using a set of international
criteria developed by BirdLife International, incorporating the presence of significant
numbers of globally threatened, restricted-range, biome-restricted assemblage, and
congregatory bird species (BirdLife International 2004). As site-scale priorities, the IBAs
can be delineated and managed such that the effective protection of these sites can
address biodiversity loss, and can serve as building blocks of inter-connected networks
of sites required for conservation actions in the long term (BirdLife International 2004).
Since the 1980s, BirdLife International has been developing the concept of IBAs
(e.g., Osieck and Mörzer Bruyns 1981, Grimmett and Jones 1989) and has sought to
produce national inventories in all regions of the world. National IBA directories have
been produced in 48 countries (Eken et al. 2004), and in the regions of Europe (Heath
and Evans 2000), the Middle East (Evans 1994), the African continent and some associated
islands (Fishpool and Evans 2001), and Asia (BirdLife International 2004). In the Asian
region, IBAs were identified due to the urgency of responding to the threats faced by the
great diversity of its birds and habitats. Through this initiative, Mallari et al. (2001)
conducted an analysis identifying 117 IBAs in the Philippines, of which 86%
predominantly contained forest habitats aside from wetlands and oceanic islets, and
compiled information on the status into a directory of Philippine IBAs.
With birds being the best known and most documented terrestrial taxonomic group
in the Philippines, and a good indicator for other terrestrial taxa at coarse scales (e.g.,
Tabaranza and Mallari 1997, Stattersfield et al. 1998, Balmford in Norris and Pain
2002), IBAs were deemed to be good tools for identifying spatial priorities for conservation
because they are significant for the conservation of other flora and fauna in addition to
birds (e.g., Stattersfield et al. 1998, Mallari et al. 2001, BirdLife International 2004).
The IBA directory along with other studies has influenced the revision of the first National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) for the Philippines in 1997, which was
developed and adopted by the national government to address the country’s grave
biodiversity crisis (Ong et al. 2002). This revision is embodied in the Philippine
Biodiversity Conservation Priority-setting Program (PBCPP) or the second iteration of
the NBSAP, which incorporated the IBAs as part of the 206 identified biodiversity
conservation priority areas (CPA) in the country. The IBA directory has greatly set the
direction of conservation work done by Haribon Foundation, the BirdLife International
partner in the Philippines, in terms of selection of priority conservation sites for research
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 3 3
and site action (Haribon Foundation 2003, Tabaranza et al. 2003). It has also highlighted
conservation sites that have not been included yet or are inadequately protected by the
National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS). Although IBAs cannot take the
place of protected areas since IBAs have no legal basis, the IBA directory can point out
areas of conservation significance that may serve as a basis for declaring new sites as
protected areas under the NIPAS.
A rigorous process was undertaken in the selection of IBAs in the Philippines.
Mallari et al. (2001) described that candidate sites were identified using the international
IBA criteria developed by BirdLife International. The Philippine IBAs were selected
using the categories of globally threatened, restricted-range, and congregatory bird species.
The category of biome-restricted assemblage of bird species was not applied in the
Philippines since characteristic species and habitats were sufficiently covered under the
category on restricted-range species. Data compiled by Collar et al. (1999), which
identified the localities of 74 globally threatened Philippine bird species, contributed
greatly to the initial listing of candidate IBAs. Boundaries were drawn primarily where
bird populations (including globally threatened, restricted-range, and congregatory species)
were located. To determine the size of the IBA, boundaries were inferred from a practical
standpoint of conservation work in the future. In the absence of bird records or where
natural habitats of birds recorded in the past were lost, IBAs were selected based on the
forest habitats or in remote and inaccessible areas that could possibly indicate the
presence of threatened birds. The 1987 forest cover data published by the Swedish
Space Corporation (SSC) in 1988 was mainly used as a base map, supported by available
data on roads, rivers, topographic divides, and tenurial arrangements.
Due to data limitations on bird species and habitats, the boundaries of IBAs were
not definitively determined. The distribution and status of Philippine avifauna are
incompletely known, although ornithological expeditions have been conducted on most
of the islands (Dickinson et al. 1991, Kennedy et al. 2000, Mallari et al. 2001). Much
of the data on birds used to identify IBAs were comprised of historical records, with
some IBAs identified based solely on these (e.g., Bacon-Manito, Mt. Dajo National
Park). In many cases, the continued importance of Philippine IBAs for the species they
were defined for has not been demonstrated unless recent biological inventories were
conducted to improve IBA information (e.g., Balbalasang-Balbalan National Park, Mt.
Irid-Angilo). Mallari et al. (2001) noted that for some IBAs, specific globally threatened
or restricted-range bird species had only been recorded just outside the IBA boundaries.
In these cases, suitable habitat for the trigger species was assumed to be inside the IBA
in order for those species to merit inclusion in the IBA. Another limitation to the
identification of IBA boundaries came from the use of 1988 forest cover data since this
information is also considerably outdated. In effect, some important areas that should
have been identified may have been left out (omission errors) or some areas lacking
significant conservation value for birds or other biodiversity may have been included
34
J.D.T. De Alban
(commission errors). Of the two types of error, the latter is more significant from a
conservation planning perspective, because it can result in scarce conservation resources
being invested in sites that make little or no contribution to the conservation of global
biodiversity. For the conservation of threatened species, however, Eken et al. (2004)
stated that omission errors were more serious since it would result in the exclusion of
important sites for populations of global conservation significance.
Habitat loss, primarily caused by land use conversion and extractive activities such
as logging and mining, is considered to be the main threat to Philippine IBAs (Mallari
et al. 2001, Duya et al. 2003, Tabaranza et al. 2003). The rate of deforestation in the
Philippines since 1987 was estimated at 100,000 ha per year (ESSC 1999: 18), and
remaining forest cover as of 1987 was determined to be approximately 23% of the
country’s total land area (SSC 1988, Kummer 1992a, Sajise et al. 1996). An analysis of
mining conflicts with IBAs conducted in this paper reveals that most of the IBAs and
remaining forests are affected by the revitalization of the mining industry. Despite having
244 proclaimed protected areas (Ong et al. 2002), these NIPAS instruments have been
inadequate in protecting the country’s remaining forest habitats. MacKinnon in Ong et
al. (2002) stressed that the Philippine protected areas system is weak in real protection,
contains a high proportion of degraded habitats, is not well related to the distribution of
biodiversity, and shows little relation to the forest boundaries on the ground. There are
significant areas of biodiversity in lowland forests that do not have any legal protection
under the NIPAS or elsewhere. Most protected areas have not been delineated, and
those enacted into law (e.g., Mt. Kanla-on Natural Park) may possibly be reduced in
size to give way to extractive activities of national interest in the future (Gatumbato
2003).
Considering the onslaught of threats on the last vestiges of biodiversity in the country,
the relevance of IBAs is put to the fore. There is no question about their significance and
application for conservation work in the Philippines. However there are questions about
the accuracy and precision of IBA boundaries. Are the IBA boundaries well-related to
the extent of key habitats of Philippine birds, particularly forests? How should the IBA
boundaries be delineated particularly considering size and contiguity issues? How much
forest lies within and outside the IBA boundaries, and what are the implications of this
in view of the threat posed by mining to forests and IBAs? Also, do IBA boundaries
serve as sound bases for protected area boundaries? What are the implications of
overlapping land tenure arrangements on the delineation of IBA boundaries? How do
IBA boundaries affect and relate to Key Biodiversity Areas?
The original delineation of IBA boundaries conducted by Mallari et al. (2001) was
assessed by overlaying various thematic maps to identify and assess gaps, issues, and
threats to IBAs. The IBAs were mapped with forest, endemic bird areas (EBA), and
mining permits, among others. The IBA boundaries and forest habitats were analyzed at
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 3 5
the site- and at EBA levels. Endemic bird areas are conservation units important for the
maintenance of avian diversity (Stattersfield et al. 1998). The extent of each EBA is
defined by the presence of two or more restricted-range birds. In other words, birds that
are endemic. Secondary areas are those areas that support one or more restricted-range
bird species, but do not qualify as EBAs since fewer than two species are entirely
confined to it. Although protecting IBAs is an effective approach as site-scale priorities
for the conservation of birds and their habitats, EBAs are similarly important for achieving
long-term conservation goals at a larger scale through the protection of a network of
sites (such as IBAs or groups of IBAs within an EBA). In the Philippines, Stattersfield et
al. (1998) identified seven EBAs and three secondary areas encompassing most of its
major islands or island groups. Of the seven EBAs, four were assessed under critical
threat level, namely, Mindoro, Negros-Panay, Cebu, and the Sulu Archipelago. Other
EBAs such as Luzon, Mindanao-Eastern Visayas, and Palawan were categorized under
urgent threat level. Mallari et al. (2001) tabulated the distribution of Philippine IBAs by
EBAs and secondary areas, which showed that the IBAs were well distributed throughout
the country. IBAs were identified for each of the major biogeographic divisions with at
least one recognized IBA in an EBA or secondary area, particularly for Batanes-Babuyanes
Islands and Siquijor. A geographic information system (GIS) functioned as an indispensable
tool in manipulating and analyzing spatial information for this study.
Methodology
Datasets
Several datasets were overlaid and analyzed using a GIS. The IBA thematic layer for
spatial analysis was taken from the GIS data generated from the PBCPP, which were
based from the maps of the Philippine IBA directory by Mallari et al. (2001). A thematic
layer for endemic bird areas (EBA) developed by Stattersfield et al. (1998) was generated
using the municipal boundary GIS shapefile from the PBCPP (Ong et al. 2002), which
was subsequently classified into EBAs. The 1987 land cover maps produced by SSC
(1988) were used as the baseline for forest cover. Although the 1987 SSC data are
already outdated, they were the best possible forest cover data available that covered
almost all the islands in the Philippines (except for Batanes-Babuyanes Islands, TawiTawi, Sulu, Polillo Island, and some small islands in Palawan). Use of the 1987 SSC
data on forest cover may be impractical in terms of timeliness and accuracy. Kummer
(1992a,b) identified major limitations of the SSC data such that it was the first study
that made use of high-resolution SPOT satellite imagery for an entire country, and the
acquisition of ground reference data was inadequate given the extensive scope of the
study. Although not without its advantages, the SSC data are also not compatible with
previous forest inventories and the SSC made little effort to compare its results with any
other earlier work on Philippine forest cover (Kummer 1992a,b). A direct implication of
36
J.D.T. De Alban
the limitations of the SSC data on this study may be on the calculated area of forest
cover in EBAs and IBAs. However, for purposes of illustrating the gaps in the initial IBA
boundary delineation, the data are still invaluable. Forest cover data between 20022003 produced by the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA)
and the Forest Management Bureau were not used since the digital GIS data had not
been made publicly available at the time of the study. The Asian Development Bank
(2004) pointed out that there were uncertainties regarding 2002-2003 forest cover data
wherein the percentages and conclusions on the status of forest cover independently
made by the two government agencies did not agree. Additionally, 1992-1993 land
cover data of the Japan Forest Technical Association and NAMRIA were not used due to
inaccuracies noted by the author, and the absence of published data for the whole of
Mindanao.
Land cover data, including forest cover, were generated from satellite imagery for
two areas: Mt. Siburan in Mindoro Occidental, and the southern portion of Central
Panay mountains, to get much recent forest habitat information on IBAs in these areas
compared to the 1987 SSC forest cover data. Landsat 7 ETM+ images covering (1)
Mindoro Occidental with path-row = 116-051 (U.S. Geological Survey 1999), and (2)
Central Panay mountains with path-row = 115-052 (U.S. Geological Survey 2001a,b)
were downloaded from the Global Land Cover Facility (http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu).
Image processing was carried out using Idrisi Kilimanjaro remote sensing and GIS software
developed by Clark University (Eastman 2001).
Boundaries of land tenure instruments in Sablayan, Mindoro Occidental such as
protected areas and ancestral domains were taken from the GIS data produced in 2002
by the National Integrated Protected Areas Program of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR). Boundaries of other land tenure instruments, such as
the civil reservation and other DENR projects, were digitized from scanned and
georeferenced paper maps using ArcView GIS v. 3.1 developed by the Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI 1996). Sibalom Natural Park and existing mining
tenements were plotted using their technical descriptions, which were obtained from
the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau and the Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the
DENR, respectively. For geographic coordinates, each point was encoded on a spreadsheet
as delimited text and loaded into the GIS software. Conversion of points to lines/
polygons was accomplished using the XTools extension (version created on June 2001
by Mike DeLaune; see http://www.odf.state.or.us/stateforests/sfgis/). Bearings and
distances were similarly encoded on a spreadsheet and loaded using the Distance/Azimuth
extension (version 1.2 developed by Jeff Jenness on May 2001; see http://
www.jennessent.com/arcview/). Data on mining applications were taken from the PBCPP
GIS data produced in 2002, which were based from the “Mining Claims and Applications,
Ancestral Domain Claims with Protected Areas” map published in 1999 by the
Environmental Science for Social Change (ESSC).
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 3 7
Bird species locations in Mt. Siburan IBA were plotted from coordinates taken from
biological inventories conducted by (1) the Integrating Forest Conservation with Local
Governance in the Philippines (IFCLGP) project of Haribon Foundation in 2002, hereafter
referred to as the “forest conservation project of Haribon,” and (2) research by the
ongoing Threatened Species Program of Haribon Foundation, which commenced in
2004. Locations of bat roosts from the results of flying fox research also under the
Threatened Species Program were also plotted. Similarly, threatened bird species locations
in Central Panay mountains IBA were mapped from the results of biological inventories
of the forest conservation project of Haribon in 2002. Point localities of Rafflesia speciosa
were drawn mainly from unpublished research by Ferdinand Gaerlan in 2003 and also
from the biological inventories of the Haribon forest conservation project in 2002.
Coordinates were encoded on a spreadsheet and loaded into the GIS software.
Image processing and classification
Ground control points were located on NAMRIA 1:50,000 topographic maps. A
minimum of 30 ground control points for each image was used for image registration.
The images were projected to Zone 51 North of the Universal Transverse Mercator
projection. The panchromatic band (with a 15-meter spatial resolution), available from
the Landsat ETM+ sensor, was rectified prior to registering the multi-spectral bands
(with a 30-m spatial resolution) to the higher resolution image. Allowable root-meansquare error at less than 0.50 of an image pixel was attained for each image. Natural
color composites were produced using bands 3, 2, and 1 on RGB channels, respectively.
Image enhancements were applied using linear contrast stretch with original digital
number (DN) values and stretched saturation points. Zeroes were omitted from the
stretch calculation and a varying range from 1.0 to 2.5 percent (depending on which
seemed visually pleasant) was saturated from each end of the greyscale values. The
composites were used together with the IBA boundaries for visual interpretation. Training
areas, or representative sample sites of known cover type, were collected using Garmin
GPS 12XL global positioning systems receivers during ground-truthing and biophysical
surveys in 2002 for the Mt. Siburan image, and from 2002-2003 for the Central Panay
images. Image classification was done using supervised classification incorporating the
training data with some minimal inference from visual interpretations. Land cover classes
were based mainly on training area data. A maximum likelihood algorithm was applied
to classify all images after developing signatures for each land cover class using equal
prior probabilities for each signature. Accuracy assessment was similarly done for the
three images. One hundred stratified random sampling points were generated for each
image and were checked using ground-truthing data. For the Mt. Siburan image, the
Kappa coefficient was K = 0.8538. Kappa obtained for the Central Panay images were
K = 0.7249 and K = 0.8703 for the 03 January 2001 image and 30 July 2001 image,
respectively. Temporal analysis was conducted on the two Central Panay images and
merged to compensate for cloud-covered areas. The image yielding the higher Kappa
38
J.D.T. De Alban
was used as the reference image, and a final classified image was produced from the
two merged images.
Visual interpretation
Using the SSC land cover data (SSC 1988), large tracts of remaining forest areas
were determined by visually picking out extensive and contiguous forests from the EBAs
with the highest forest cover and land area. From these, selected large IBAs were assessed
whether contiguous forest areas were well within their boundaries. The IBAs used for
site-level analysis were visually assessed to investigate issues relating to boundary
delineation. For Mt. Siburan IBA, coverage of forest, the relation of the IBA boundary to
species point locality data, and conflicting land tenure arrangements were depicted on
a map. The IBAs on Samar Island were used to highlight the dilemma on size and
contiguity, which revolves on the condition of the habitat. Central Panay IBA was
compared to a protected area in terms of its forest cover and species.
EBA analysis
Following Mallari et al. (2001), this paper used an EBA approach by looking at forest
habitats and their extent within IBAs in relation to EBAs. Forest cover data were analyzed
in terms of biogeographical units such as EBAs instead of using administrative or political
management units to evaluate the state of forests based on its biological or ecological
importance, which was more useful in assessing forest conditions and in identifying gaps
and future directions in biodiversity conservation and forest management in the Philippines.
Commonly, the forest cover statistics of the Philippines are presented using administrative
units, which may overlook or fail to assess biological and ecological factors.
Site-level analysis
IBAs at the site-level were analyzed to look into specific issues confronting boundary
demarcation such as forest coverage, size, and contiguity, which are necessarily linked
to habitat fragmentation. Site-level analysis concentrated on the sites of the forest
conservation project of Haribon, namely: Mt. Siburan IBA in Sablayan, Mindoro
Occidental and Central Panay mountains IBA in Panay Island. Point localities of bird
species and other non-avian taxa were also reflected to get an idea of how boundaries of
IBAs and key biodiversity areas (discussed later in the paper) may be delineated through
an initial visual assessment. Other IBAs were also used to illustrate issues on IBA forest
coverage and contiguity. Management challenges and threats to IBAs were analyzed at
the macro and site levels. At the macro level, IBAs were plotted against issued mining
tenements and potential mining applications. Mining is considered as one of the major
threats to Philippine IBAs (Mallari et al. 2001, Duya et al. 2003, Tabaranza et al. 2003,
De Alban et al. 2005). This was also done due to the urgency to respond to the current
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 3 9
thrust of government from tolerance to outright promotion of the mining industry in the
Philippines. At the site level, existing boundary overlaps between several different tenurial
instruments and IBAs were mapped to get an idea of its implications to IBA boundary
delineation and on the management challenges confronting the conservation of IBAs.
Spatial analysis and area computations
ArcView GIS v. 3.1 was used to conduct all spatial analyses and area computations.
Spatial data were projected onto Zone 51 North of the Universal Transverse Mercator
projection. The XTools extension was loaded to calculate the land area in hectares. The
remaining area of Philippine forest cover was computed in order to establish a baseline
figure for the whole country, and to be consistent with subsequent area computations.
The land area of each EBA and secondary area was computed followed by the computation
of the forests within each EBA and secondary area to determine the amount of remaining
forest within each biogeographic unit. The forest occupied by IBAs within each EBA
and secondary area was computed next to assess the degree of distribution of IBAs over
forest habitats. The percentage forest cover of each EBA or secondary area in relation to
total Philippine forest cover was computed to determine where large or extensive forests
still occur. The coverage of Philippine forests within IBAs was computed to find out
how much forest was within IBA boundaries and how much fell outside. Overlaps
between mining tenements/applications and forest areas were also determined and
compared to coverage of forest within IBAs to establish urgency of conservation actions
to address threats to remaining forests. The coverage of forest within protected areas and
IBAs, particularly in the Haribon forest conservation project sites, was calculated to
illustrate if important conservation sites were afforded sufficient formal protection under
the NIPAS, and if gaps in the protected areas system existed.
Results
Coverage of remaining forests within IBAs
Not all remaining forest habitats of the Philippine archipelago are included within
IBAs (Figs 1&2, Table 1). The percentage of forests outside IBAs were higher in the largest
EBAs, Luzon and Mindanao Eastern Visayas, compared to the smaller EBAs and secondary
areas (Table 1). Existing IBA boundaries contain only 54% of the country’s remaining
forests. The largest EBAs, namely: Luzon and Mindanao-Eastern Visayas, which contain
almost 86% of the total remaining forest area of the country, have about 24% and 27%
remaining forest cover in relation to the area of the EBA, respectively. Of the total forest
areas in Luzon and Mindanao-Eastern Visayas EBAs, however, IBAs cover only about 45%
and 53%, respectively. Considering that these are the largest EBAs in the Philippines, and
that they hold the largest and contiguous blocks of the country’s remaining forests,
considerable areas of forest are not covered by the IBAs in these EBAs.
1,460
2,578,898
3,318,275
86,678
156,150
721,642
17,647
746
n/a
n/a
6,881,497
449,172
10,789,452
12,208,923
1,023,353
2,853,096
1,446,888
122,424
31,553
263,370
115,678
29,384,335
3,720,858
55,552
127,145
587,399
16,989
390
n/a
n/a
1,460
1,170,139
1,761,784
n/a
Forest area
within IBAs
23
8
5
50
14
2
n/a
n/a
0
24
27
n/a
% Forest
cover
(ha)
54
64
81
81
96
52
n/a
n/a
100
45
53
n/a
% of forest
within IBAs
100
1
2
10
0
0
n/a
n/a
0
37
48
n/a
% of total
Philippine forest
within EBA
1
Small islands or groups of small islands that were not classified as endemic bird areas or secondary areas are treated as
“unclassified small islands.” These unclassified small islands make up approximately 0.40% of total Philippine land area.
n/a
80,425
Batanes and
Babuyan Islands
Cebu
Luzon
Mindanao and
Eastern Visayas
Mindoro
Negros and Panay
Palawan
Romblon Islands
Siquijor
Sulu Archipelago
unclassified small
islands1
TOTAL
Forest area
(ha)
EBA area
(ha)
Endemic Bird Area
(EBA)
Table 1. Forest cover of endemic bird areas, forests within important bird areas, and percentage of total Philippine
forest cover based on 1987 forest cover data (SSC 1988), Stattersfield et al. (1998), Mallari et al. (2001), and
Ong et al. (2002).
40
J.D.T. De Alban
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 4 1
Location Map
PH082
Siargao Island
Protected Landscape
and S eascape
P H090
Camiguin Island
PH083
Mt. Hilong-hilong
PH091
Mt. Balatukan
20
0
P H084
Mt. Diwata range
20
Kilometers
PH092
Mt. Kaluayan-Kinabalian
complex
PH093
Mt. Tago range
PH086
Bislig
PH094
Mt. Kitanglad Range
Natural Park
PH085
Agusan Marsh
Wildlife Sanctuary
PH095
Kalatungan
mountains
MINDANAO-EASTERN VISAYAS
Endemic Bird Area
PH087
Mt. Agtuuganon
and Mt. Pasian
PH098
Mt. Piagayungan
PH100
Mt. Sinaka
LEGEND
PH088
Mt. Puting Bato-Kampalili-Mayo
complex
PH101
Mt. Apo Natural P ark
Important Bird Areas (IBA)
Forests within IBAs
Forests outside IBAs
Figure 1. Forests within and outside important bird areas in the Luzon endemic bird area,
particularly in the Sierra Madre mountain range and the Cordillera. Sources:
1987 forest cover data (SSC 1988), Stattersfield et al. (1998), Mallari et al.
(2001), and Ong et al. (2002).
J.D.T. De Alban
42
Location Map
PH012
Buguey Wetlands
PH002
Kalbario-Patapat
National Park
PH013
Mt. Cagua
PH003
Balbalasang-Balbalan
National Park
NG
AIN RA
RD
E C
O
PH015
Northern
Sierra Madre
Natural Park
E
ILL
E
RA
S
PH014
Mt. Cetaceo
M
O
U
NT
TH
LUZON
Endemic Bird Area
E
PH004
Mt. Pulag National Park
S
IE
R
R
A
M
A
D
R
PH016
Central
Sierra Madre
mountains
PH017
Aurora Memorial
National Park
PH005
Zambales Mountains
30
0
PH006
Camp O'Donnel
LEGEND
Important Bird Areas (IBA)
Forests within IBAs
Forests outside IB As
PH019
Angat W atershed
PH007
Candaba S wamp
30
Kilometers
PH018
Mt. Dingalan
PH020
Mt. Irid - Angilo
PH010
Manila Bay
PH021
Polillo Islands
PH009
Mariveles Mountains
P H023
UP Land Grants
Figure 2. Forests within and outside important bird areas on the Mindanao-Eastern
Visayas endemic bird area, particularly in the Mt. Kaluayan – Mt. Kinabalian
complex in Mindanao. Sources: 1987 forest cover data (SSC 1988), Stattersfield
et al. (1998), Mallari et al. (2001), and Ong et al. (2002).
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 4 3
For example, Mt. Kaluayan–Mt. Kinabalian complex is one of the largest IBAs in
the Mindanao Eastern Visayas EBA (Fig. 1). Although most of the IBA is forested, large
tracts of contiguous forests lie outside the IBA boundary to the east. Similarly, forests
on extensive mountain ranges like the Sierra Madre and the Cordillera are not covered
sufficiently by the largest IBAs in Luzon EBA (Fig. 2). In the Sierra Madre mountain
range alone, nine IBAs were identified from the northernmost tip in Cagayan down its
length towards the southernmost end in Quezon. The whole mountain range supports
an estimated 1.4 M hectares of forest (about 21% of Philippine forest cover) but an
estimated 54% of the forests of the Sierra Madre lie outside IBAs. In comparison,
potential mining areas in these two large EBAs cover more or less the same proportion
of forests (46% for Luzon and 49% for Mindanao-Eastern Visayas) as the IBAs (Fig. 7,
Table 2). Alarmingly, half of the forests within the IBAs of the Mindanao-Eastern Visayas
EBA are concurrently under mining applications.
Relatively smaller EBAs like Cebu, Negros-Panay, and Mindoro have less than 10%
forest cover. Their IBAs, nonetheless, cover a much higher percentage of forests within
their EBAs compared to the forest coverage of IBAs in much larger EBAs. The IBAs in
Table 2. Mining applications within each endemic bird area, and forests that are
both within important bird areas and mining applications based on 1987
forest cover data (SSC 1988), Stattersfield et al. (1998), Mallari et al.
(2001), Ong et al. (2002), and MGB (2004a,b,c).
Endemic Bird Area Forest within
Forest in IBAs % Forest area % Forest area of EBA
(EBA)
mining
within mining within mining
within IBAs and
applications(ha) applications(ha) applications mining applications
Batanes and
Babuyan Islands
Cebu
Luzon
Mindanao and
Eastern Visayas
Mindoro
Negros and Panay
Palawan
Romblon Islands
Siquijor
Sulu Archipelago
Unclassified
small islands1
TOTAL
n/a
36
1,190,676
n/a
496,492
n/a
2
46
n/a
19
1,639,549
19,604
35,279
49,363
710
86
n/a
868,090
12,161
26,857
45,668
286
68
n/a
49
23
23
7
4
12
n/a
26
14
17
6
2
9
n/a
n/a
2,935,303
n/a
1,449,621
n/a
43
n/a
1
Small islands or groups of small islands that were not classified as endemic bird areas or
secondary areas are treated as “unclassified small islands.” These unclassified small islands
make up approximately 0.40% of total Philippine land area.
1
J.D.T. De Alban
44
BATANES
LEGEND
Important Bird Areas
Issued mining tenements
(as of 31 march 2004)
Mining applications
Forest cover (1988)
BABUYANES
Endemic Bird Areas
Batanes and Babuyan Islands
Cebu
Luzon
Mindanao and Eastern Visayas
Mindoro
Negros and P anay
Palawan
Romblon Islands
Siquijor
Sulu Archipelago
N
W
E
S
LUZON
Polillo
Island
CATANDUANES
MARINDUQUE
MINDORO
ROMBLON
Tablas
Calamianes
Island Group
Sibuyan
Island
MASBATE
SAMAR
PANAY
CEBU
LEYTE
Dinagat
Island
PALAWAN
BOHOL
NEGROS
SIQUIJOR
Siargao
Island
Camiguin
Island
MINDANAO
100
0
100
BASILAN
Kilometers
SULU
TAWI-TAWI
Figure 7. Important bird areas, mining claims, and forest cover in the endemic bird areas: [1] Luzon,
including Catanduanes, Marinduque, and Polillo Island; [2] Mindoro; [3] Palawan, including
Calamianes Island Group; [4] Negos-Panay-Masbate; [5] Cebu; [6] Mindanao, including Samar,
Leyte, Bohol, Basilan, and the islands of Siargao, Dinagat, Camiguin; and [7] Sulu Archipelago,
including Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. The secondary areas are: [1] Batanes-Babuyanes Islands; [2]
Romblon, including Sibuyan and Tablas; and [3] Siquijor. Mining tenements include financial and
technical assistance agreements (FTAA), mineral production sharing agreements (MPSA), and
exploration permits (EP). Sources: 1987 forest cover data (SSC 1988), Stattersfield et al. (1998),
Mallari et al. (2001), Ong et al. (2002), and Mines and Geosciences Bureau (2004a,b,c).
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 4 5
the Negros-Panay and Mindoro EBAs, for example, contain about 81% and 64% of the
forests in their EBAs, respectively. For the EBA of Cebu, all its remaining forests are
within the confines of one of its IBAs. However, based on the assessment of Kummer
(1992a,b) pertaining to the 1987 SSC land cover data, the forest cover of Cebu may be
almost certainly erroneous basically due to lack of sufficient ground reference data.
Several localities in the island (including Carmen, Dalaguete, Nug-as Alcoy, among
others) still exhibit forest patches according to Orlanes et al. (2005) and Paguntalan et
al. (2005), which have not been reflected in the SSC land cover maps. Ironically, errors
have persisted in the SSC land cover data of Cebu despite the fact that ground surveys
were conducted by SSC only in the islands of Luzon and Cebu.
The EBA of Palawan has 50% remaining forest cover, the highest percentage compared
to all other EBAs. IBAs in Palawan contain 81% of the EBA’s remaining forest, which is
equal to the percentage of forests within the IBAs of the Negros-Panay EBA. The forests
that are within their IBAs are not equal in terms of area per se, but rather in terms of the
proportion of forests in the EBA that are found within their respective IBAs. This means
that while the EBA of Negros-Panay has a lower forest cover area compared to Palawan,
the percentage of forest cover within their IBAs are similar, regardless of the number of
IBAs identified for each EBA. Similar analyses on the Sulu Archipelago EBA and BatanesBabuyanes Islands secondary area were not possible due to lack of data. Regarding
secondary areas, Romblon Islands has about 14% forest cover across its three islands with
most of it found on Sibuyan Island. Its two IBAs encompass 96% of the island’s forests,
which is the highest for all secondary areas in the country. The secondary area of Siquijor,
on the other hand, has barely 2% of forest cover left in its rather small area, and yet the
sole IBA in Siquijor (Mt. Bandila-an) contains only about 52% of its remaining forest.
Relation of IBA boundaries to species and habitats
The IBA boundary of Mt. Siburan showed very little relation to identifiable natural
features on the ground (Fig. 3). It did not follow river systems or forest edges. The 1999
land cover map illustrated several forest areas that lay beyond the IBA boundary. Haribon
Foundation (2004a) and Haribon Threatened Species Program researchers sighted Mindoro
Tarictic (Penelopides mindorensis) and Mindoro Bleeding-heart (Gallicolumba platenae)
were mostly observed in forest habitats often along forest edges. Collar et al. (1999) in
Mt. Siburan IBA made particular mention of sightings of threatened bird species in the
forests of Mt. Siburan or the Sablayan Penal Colony only, not including other nearby
forests. Several nearby forest areas were included within the original IBA boundary in the
absence of available information on trigger bird species in those localities. This may be
one of several possible instances where Mallari et al. (2001) selected or delineated IBAs
based on habitat information where IBA trigger bird records were absent and only habitat
data could hypothetically indicate their presence. The original boundary delineation of
Mt. Siburan IBA is a particular example where omission or commission errors were done.
J.D.T. De Alban
46
Mindoro
Island
Mt. Siburan IBA
Mt. Rabangon
#
# ## # #
%#
#
# %
#
#
#
##
#
##
%
%
#%
# %
%%
#
## #
%
# %
%
%
##
Mt. Siburan
%
#
##
#
Mt. Tallulah
#
#
#
#
#
LEGEND
Important Bird Areas
$
%
#
Flying Fox
Mindoro Bleeding-heart
Mindoro Tarictic
Land Cover 1999
Water body
Forest
Brushland
Cultivated area
Grassland
Cloud
Rivers
$$ $
$$
$$
Malpalon IBA
$
Mt. Laylayan
1000
0
1000 2000
Meters
Figure 3. Mt. Siburan IBA showing land cover data (1999) and point localities of Mindoro
Tarictic, Mindoro Bleeding-heart, and flying fox species. The adjacent Malpalon
IBA is also shown. Sources: U.S. Geological Survey (1999), Mallari et al.
(2001), and the Threatened Species Program of Haribon Foundation.
As another example, Central Panay mountains IBA was plotted on land cover data
from 2001 together with Sibalom Natural Park, and point locations of bird species and
a plant species, Rafflesia speciosa (Fig. 4). Sibalom Natural Park overlaps with the IBA
boundary but is still found well outside the IBA. The protected area contains degraded
habitats and partially covers lowland forests that are not within the IBA. However, it
also leaves out significant lowland forest fragments that are within the IBA. This clearly
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 4 7
Panay Island
Y
##
Y
##
Y
Y
Y
#
LEGEND
[%
Y
#
Y#
#
Y#
Y
Y#
Y
#
Y#
Y
#
Y
#
Important Bird Area
Sibalom Natural Park
[ Threatened bird species
%
Y
# Rafflesia speciosa
Land Cover 2001
built-up area
lowland f orest
forest above 1000 meters
brushland
cultivated area
grassland
water body
cloud cover
[%
#
Y
Y
# #
Y
Y
#
Y
#
#
Y
Y
#
Y
#
Y
##
Y
2000
0
2000
4000
Meters
Figure 4. The southern portion of Central Panay mountains IBA with land cover data
(2001) and point localities of bird species (including Negros Bleeding-heart,
Visayan Tarictic, and Visayan Writhed Hornbill) and a plant species, Rafflesia
speciosa. Sibalom Natural Park is also shown. Sources: U.S. Geological Survey
(2001a,b), Mallari et al. (2001), and the Threatened Species Program of Haribon
Foundation.
shows one of the gaps in protected area delineation wherein their boundaries are not
related to areas of conservation importance such as the IBA. It is not even closely
related to forest boundaries. The IBA boundary closely follows the outline of mostly the
higher elevation montane forests but leaves out small lowland forest patches at the
southern portion of the mountain range. Threatened birds including Negros Bleedingheart (Gallicolumba keayi), Visayan Tarictic (Penelopides panini), and Visayan Wrinkled
48
J.D.T. De Alban
Hornbill (Aceros waldeni) were observed in forest habitats found within the protected
area (Haribon Foundation 2004b). The IBA, however, does not contain some of the
forest fragments where these threatened bird species were observed. This only suggests
that the IBA boundary could be modified and improved to include the habitats and
identified localities of these threatened bird species, provided that viable populations
exist and habitat requirements are met.
Since not all trigger bird species require forest habitats, non-forest areas were also
incorporated within the original IBA boundaries as shown for both the IBAs of Siburan
and Central Panay mountains. Species of other taxonomic groups such as the flying
foxes and Rafflesia also were not strictly observed in forest habitats. Sites of Rafflesia
speciosa, a new species of Rafflesia endemic to Panay Island, were observed to thrive in
lowland secondary forest patches and other disturbed habitats (Barcelona and Fernando
2002). Rafflesia sites were mostly outside the IBA boundary and were mainly within
the confines of Sibalom Natural Park. There were also known point localities of the
species that were beyond the protected area. One concentration of rafflesia sites is
concurrent with a known point locality of threatened bird species. Near Mt. Siburan
IBA, major roosts of Golden-crowned Flying Fox (Acerodon jubatus) and Large Flying
Fox (Pteropus vampyrus) were found on mixed brush and minor forest patches near
grassland and forest habitats. Initial survey results showed the major roosting sites were
not within either IBAs of Siburan or Malpalon although satellite roosts within the Mt.
Siburan IBA were reported by locals, but have not been verified. These point out that
possible conservation sites defined for these species can either occur outside IBAs, have
certain overlaps with IBAs, or exist in congruence within the IBA. It also indicates that
non-forest habitats may be included within those possible conservation sites defined for
them.
Instances on whether to treat adjacent IBAs as one contiguous IBA or as separate
or discrete IBAs were also considered, particularly when IBAs were spread across
contiguous forest habitats (Fig. 5). For example, three separate IBAs, namely: (1) Mt.
Cabalantian–Mt. Capoto-an complex, (2) Mt. Yacgun–Mt. Sohoton complex, and (3)
the Southern Samar mountains, are found over one large contiguous forest sprawled
across Samar Island (part of Mindanao-Eastern Visayas EBA). A question arises as to
whether the three small IBAs should be combined into one large IBA or should remain
as discrete areas. Similar examples include the forests in the Sierra Madre range (with
9 discrete IBAs) and other large contiguous forests in mainland Mindanao (Figs. 1&2).
IBAs covering fragmented forests such as Mt. Siburan IBA and Malpalon IBA also
raise the same question as to whether it would be more appropriate to consider them
as one IBA or maintain them as is (Fig. 3). The size will be defined generally by the
habitat requirements of the trigger bird species of the IBA. Definitely, how the IBA
boundary is delineated will have a significant bearing on the management and
conservation of the IBA particularly in terms of resources. It may possibly come to a
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 4 9
Location Map
PH073
Mt. Cabalantian - Mt. Capoto-an
complex
SA MA R I S LA ND
PH074
Mt. Yacgun - Mt. Sohoton
complex
PH076
biliran and Maripipi Islands
PH075
Southern Samar
mountains
MINDANAO-EASTERN VISAYAS
Endemic Bird Area
PH077
Anonang-Lobi range
20
LEGEND
0
20
Kilometers
LEYTE
I SL AN D
PH078
Mt. Nacolod
Important Bird Areas (IBA)
Forests within IBAs
Forests outside IBAs
Figure 5. Forests within and outside important bird areas particularly in Samar Island on
the Mindanao-Eastern Visayas endemic bird area. Sources: 1987 forest cover
data (SSC 1988), Stattersfield et al. (1998), Mallari et al. (2001), and Ong et al.
(2002).
50
J.D.T. De Alban
point where ecological factors are weighed against sociopolitical or economic factors
in determining the size of the IBA.
Conflicting tenurial arrangements and IBAs in Sablayan, Mindoro Occidental
Several conflicting issuances are evident between the different tenurial instruments
over IBAs and forest areas in Sablayan (Fig. 6). The IBAs cover 77% of Sablayan’s forests
compared to only 40% that are found within protected areas. Extensive forest areas,
therefore, are still outside of both formal protection mechanisms and identified
conservation sites. Only 40% of forests within IBAs are also afforded protection under
the NIPAS instruments. Other habitats such as grasslands and mangroves are also found
within the IBAs in Sablayan.
Mining claims vs. IBAs in the Philippines
Mining claims are in conflict with 82 IBAs in the country with operating mining
tenements affecting 18 IBAs (Fig. 7, Table 2). Existing mining tenements enclose
1.59% of the country’s remaining forest cover, almost 40% of which is deemed as
closed canopy or old growth forests, while at least 43% of forests are similarly under
both mining tenements and applications. About 21% of forest habitats within IBAs
are concurrently under mining applications. Of the forests of Luzon and MindanaoEastern Visayas EBAs, 46% and 49%, are subject to mining applications, respectively,
while existing mining tenements cover only 1% and 2% of their forests, respectively.
In the Luzon EBA, the proportion of forest covered by mining applications is even
slightly greater than that covered by IBAs (Fig. 7, Table 2). In the Mindoro and NegrosPanay EBAs, which notably have only about 8% and 5% of forests left, respectively,
mining applications have taken a stake on almost one-fifth of their remaining forests.
Of the 3.1 M ha of forests that are not included within IBAs, roughly 1.3 M ha or
41% are under various mining applications.
Discussion
Original IBA boundaries need to be revised
Because IBA boundaries are not well-related to forest extents and extensive forest
areas were also determined to be outside the IBAs, particularly for IBAs in relatively
large EBAs, the IBA boundary delineation needs to take the distribution of forest more
into account. Boundaries of IBAs need to be revised to make them more related to forest
boundaries because it is one of the major factors determining the distribution of trigger
bird species (which are mainly forest-dependent). The boundary revision will also rectify
possible omission and commission errors resulting from the original IBA boundary
delineation. The size or extent of the IBA also becomes a point in question at the onset
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 5 1
Mindoro
Island
BACO
NAUJAN
5
0
5
VICTORIA
Kilometers
STA. CRUZ
Mt. Halcon IBA
Mt. Siburan IBA
SABLAYAN
LEGEND
Important Bird Areas
Lowland forest
Forests over 1000m
Municipal boundary
Land Tenure Instruments
Ancestral Domain Claims
Malpalon IBA
DENR Experimental Forest
F.B.Harrision GRBS
Mindex Mining
Mt. Iglit-Baco National Park
Community-Based Forest Management Area
Mindoro Pine Seeds Production Area
Sablayan Prison & Penal Farm
Iglit-Baco mountains IBA
CALINTAAN
Figure 6. Important bird areas and land tenure instruments over forest cover in Sablayan,
Mindoro Occidental. Sources: 1987 forest cover data (SSC 1988), Mallari et al.
(2001), the Local Government of Sablayan, Mindoro Occidental, and the
National Integrated Protected Areas Program of the DENR.
52
J.D.T. De Alban
of revising the delineation of boundaries. What factors determine the size or extent of
the IBA? Definitely, the IBA boundaries will be determined by the distribution and
habitat requirements of the trigger bird species for which it was defined, which will
also certainly influence the size of the IBA.
The size will also be affected albeit subjectively by contiguity issues in relation to
forest or habitat fragmentation. For example, in the case of Samar Island a question
arises as to whether the three existing separate IBAs should be combined into one large
IBA or should otherwise remain as discrete areas (Fig. 5). Two Samar IBAs (except the
Southern Samar mountains IBA) almost share the same threatened bird species (Mallari
et al. 2001). Different forest habitat types are also present such as forests over limestone
and forests over ultramafics (Magallona et al. 2004), and dipterocarp forests (Mallari et
al. 2001), among others. Considering that Samar’s different forest habitats are more or
less contiguous, localizing IBAs into discrete areas may no longer be necessary.
Nevertheless, the IBAs may still have been localized into discrete areas to take into
account the difference in forest habitat types. Taking conservation actions for the three
separate IBAs at the landscape level, or protecting them as a network of sites, may
possibly be more logical and effective in terms of addressing forest or habitat restoration
rather than combining them into a single IBA. One large contiguous IBA may also
present management difficulties in terms of institutional or administrative arrangements.
Considering that Samar Island is divided into three provincial units, it may be difficult
to manage one enormous IBA, or a protected area for that matter. In fact, Samar Island
Natural Park is situated across three provinces and covers an area of almost 460,000 ha.
It has an extremely large Protected Area Management Board composed of 201 members
representing all its stakeholders (Samar Island Biodiversity Project 2004), which may
however prove difficult to convene. Limited financial resources can make the management
of the protected area difficult especially with larger areas to cover and huge capital
expenses necessary to support human resources. IBAs, or even protected areas, then
should only be merged as long as they remain manageable as single sites, and where it
makes both ecological and sociopolitical sense. Nevertheless, IBA boundaries need not
necessarily be cast in stone. Drawing the boundaries is an iterative process that will
make IBA information more robust and comprehensive with the introduction of new
data.
The IBA boundary delineation should not be affected by management regimes over
IBAs, particularly where several conflicting tenurial instruments overlap with IBAs. In
Sablayan, for example, different land tenure instruments govern biodiversity conservation
and forest management in Sablayan (Fig. 6). These include Mangyan ancestral domains,
protected areas (F.B. Harrison Game Refuge and Bird Sanctuary and Mts. Iglit-Baco
National Park), a civil reservation (Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm or the “penal colony”),
and other DENR projects (community-based forest management areas, Mindoro Pine
Seed Production Area, and the experimental station of the Forest Research Institute).
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 5 3
Five IBAs (whether partially or completely) are also situated in the municipality of
Sablayan, namely: Mt. Halcon, Mts. Iglit-Baco mountains, Mt. Siburan, Malpalon, and
Apo Reef Marine Natural Park. These IBAs similarly leave out extensive forest areas,
which is possibly due to the lack of available data on trigger bird species in those
localities or just the sheer arbitrariness of their boundary delineation. While IBA boundaries
in Sablayan need to be revised to make it more related to forest boundaries, protected
area boundaries (as shown in Sablayan and by Sibalom Natural Park) also need to be
revised to conform better to conservation priorities considering that these NIPAS
instruments do not have adequate coverage of IBAs.
The overlapping land tenure arrangements were possibly due to establishment of
these instruments without thoroughly inspecting if any boundary conflicts would ensue.
Some of the issuances were proclaimed way back between 1910 to 1970. Boundary
overlaps exist between protected areas and ancestral domains, particularly on portions of
the Mts. Iglit-Baco IBA. The penal colony and F.B. Harrison have overlaps especially on
the forests of Mt. Siburan. While majority of the forests of the Siburan IBA is within the
confines of F.B. Harrison, the penal colony takes precedence since it was proclaimed
much later than the protected area. The administration of the penal colony is under the
hands of the Department of Justice although mandate on forest management still rests
with the DENR. All IBAs (except for Apo Reef Marine Natural Park) have certain portions
within ancestral domains. Other land tenure overlaps in the Siburan IBA occur between
the penal colony, ancestral domains and a community-based forest management area.
The variety of tenurial instruments indicates variations in land uses mainly due to the
different institutions/holders managing them (i.e., penal colony = Bureau of Corrections
of Department of Justice; community-based forest management area = DENR and the
local partner organization; F.B. Harrison = DENR). The boundary conflicts affect the
conservation of IBAs and introduce challenges on how to harmonize the management of
the conflicting issuances towards effectively conserving important habitats and species.
While the overlapping tenurial arrangements directly influence the conservation and
management of IBAs, it should not directly affect the delineation of IBA boundaries since
they should be shaped only by the habitat requirements of trigger bird species alone.
Under existing Philippine laws and policies, each tenurial instrument has its own
particular system of managing resources within their jurisdiction. Conflicting provisions
pertaining to biodiversity conservation, or natural resource management for that matter,
between these laws should not exist ideally, except possibly in the most unique cases.
For example, provisions on forest management exist in both the NIPAS Act and the
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act, laws that govern protected areas and ancestral domains,
respectively. These laws ensure that traditional practices of indigenous communities
over natural resources (e.g., hunting of wildlife) are protected, and at the same time
adequate safeguards are put in place to conserve wildlife and maintain its sustainable
use. IBA boundary delineation may be affected albeit indirectly by these overlapping
54
J.D.T. De Alban
tenurial instruments particularly from the ensuing habitat loss due to poor implementation,
or from an increase in forest cover resulting from restoration activities.
The EBA analysis applied in this paper, wherein the amount of remaining forest
cover within EBAs and their IBAs were assessed, enriched the analysis made by Mallari
et al. (2001) pertaining to the distribution of Philippine IBAs. It was also shown that
not all remaining forest habitats of the Philippine archipelago are included within IBAs
(Figs. 1,2,&5, Table 1). Large IBAs in the Cordillera and Sierra Madre mountain ranges
in Luzon have been shown to leave out rather extensive and contiguous forest areas,
which is similarly applicable to large IBAs in Mindanao. Small islands also exhibited
the same results, excluding some IBAs (such as Siargao Island and Tawi-Tawi Island)
which treated the whole island as an IBA using coastlines as the functioning IBA boundary.
The most plausible explanation for the non-inclusion of rather extensive forest habitats
within IBAs can only be attributed primarily to the data deficiency on trigger bird
species distribution, or Philippine avifauna in general, despite its being the most-studied
taxon in the Philippines. Mallari et al. (2001) may have identified some of these
“excluded” forest habitats as additional candidate IBAs but still have not made it to the
final roster of IBAs for a number of reasons. Some apparent grounds why these forest
habitats did not merit inclusion within IBAs is primarily the lack of available information
on trigger bird species and their habitats. The availability of bird records also affects IBA
size and extent as shown by the Mt. Siburan example. Another reason may also be that
available information exists but significant populations are not sufficient within the
area for it to merit being selected as an IBA, or many trigger bird species exist but
habitats are insufficient to support these bird populations. Perhaps the forests outside of
IBAs are degraded, fragmented, or otherwise of low importance for IBA trigger bird
species. The arbitrariness of the size and extent of the original delineated IBA boundaries
by Mallari et al. (2001), while it was inferred more or less to reflect what was practical
for future conservation work, is also a factor. These inferences, however, cannot treat
every square-inch of forest as a conservation site while strictly following the IBA criteria
developed by BirdLife International.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to determine whether or not it is necessary to
increase the coverage of the Philippines’ remaining forest within IBAs. The goal, however,
is to prioritize among remaining forest areas so that given limited conservation resources,
governments, civic groups, and funding institutions know where and how to direct their
conservation efforts. Unfortunately, limited information on trigger species and knowledge
on IBAs can greatly affect where conservation funds and efforts are focused. Existing
knowledge on Philippine IBAs reflect that only 29% are well known, and a rather
considerable 71% are incompletely or poorly known (Mallari et al. 2001). This highlights
the need for continued research and improvement of IBA information, particularly on
data-deficient sites, and even on forest habitats not included within IBAs. Nevertheless,
the non-inclusion of some forest habitats in IBAs and perhaps the limited knowledge on
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 5 5
Philippine IBAs at present has some implications particularly to conservation work in
the Philippines especially in light of the state of the Philippine rainforest and the present
mining revitalization program of the government.
Mining areas are in conflict with IBAs
Sajise et al. (1996) estimates that the Philippines ideally requires 54% of forest
cover due to its topography and small islands in order to maintain its natural processes.
Results indicate that all of the Philippines’ EBAs except Palawan have less than 50%
forest cover with some even gravely below 10%. Their correlation indicates that
Philippine EBAs are already below the required threshold identified by Sajise et al.
(1996). This may mean that the capacity of remaining forest habitats within these EBAs
to support significant populations of important species is or may already be at risk.
Collar et al. (1999) identified 59 of the 64 threatened bird species as occurring in forest
habitats, of which 83% are particularly found in lowland forests, and further
recommended that a premium should be placed on the country’s remaining forests such
that conservation efforts and resources are focused and maximized on these habitats.
However, the pressure on these remaining forest habitats from various threats is already
considerable, and may even be exacerbated much more by the revitalization of mining.
Stattersfield et.al. (1998) assessed the threat levels of EBAs and determined that the
relatively smaller EBAs had a much severe threat level compared to rather large EBAs
such as Luzon and Mindanao-Eastern-Visayas. This entails that the degree of pressure on
important habitats is even higher for those EBAs that have very few forest areas left. The
protection of remaining forest habitats or sites with viable populations of important
species and habitats, therefore, requires urgent conservation action.
Indeed, the IBAs are affected by the mining revitalization in the Philippines. In
2004, the Arroyo administration vigorously promoted the revitalization of the mining
industry under the premise that the government recognizes the critical role of investments
in the mining industry for national development and poverty alleviation. The
government expects the mining revitalization through its Mineral Action Plan to generate
billions in investments and revenues, and create employment for thousands of Filipinos
(Defensor 2005, Presidential Management Staff 2005). This will apparently open up
more mining areas in the country with existing mining applications at the forefront.
As of 31 March 2004, numerous mining tenements have been issued, including 190
mineral production sharing agreements, 16 exploration permits, and 2 financial and
technical assistance agreements covering a total land area of 489,898 hectares (Mines
and Geosciences Bureau, 2004a,b,c). In view of the negative impacts of mining in the
past to the environment and to local communities in the Philippines (e.g., MacDonald
and Ross 2003, Christian Aid and PIPLinks 2004), the revitalization of the mining
industry has been treated with utmost apprehension by various sectors of Philippine
society.
56
J.D.T. De Alban
The number of overlaps between IBAs and mining tenements/applications alone
point to two highly conflicting resource uses such that careful planning and safety
mechanisms are required prior to undertaking mining activities (Fig. 7, Table 2). The
Mines and Geosciences Bureau of DENR even recognizes numerous overlaps between
biodiversity conservation priority areas (identified in the PBCPP) and high mineral
potential areas throughout the country. In fact, even forests within IBAs were opened to
mining applications despite being identified as conservation priorities. Remaining forest
habitats, whether these are within IBA boundaries or not, may still be considered or
opened for mining applications especially if these are mineral-rich areas. The conflicts
of mining areas with IBAs imply that while certain sites have already been identified as
conservation priorities, it does not guarantee their exclusion from being considered as a
potential mining area. This points out that if mining conflicts with IBAs (and the forests
within IBAs) can still be opened to mining, albeit not without heavy resistance, how
much more for forest areas that are outside IBAs or conservation priority areas? Definitely,
forest areas identified as IBAs have greater leverage or chances of being strongly lobbied
outside of priority mining areas. It may or may not be necessary or desirable to increase
the extents of remaining Philippine forests within IBAs. However, the limited knowledge
on the distribution and status of Philippine avifauna presents a limitation to the
identification and selection of IBAs; and thus, the identification of conservation priorities
throughout the country, which can imply that the significance of forest areas outside
IBAs for conservation have not been fully assessed. This limitation can have serious
impacts to forest habitats outside IBAs in light of the revitalization of the mining industry
in the Philippines.
The existing conflicts between mining areas and IBAs, as well as other conservation
priorities, should be enough cause for government to proceed with caution, and rethink
its plan of action to aggressively promote mining and develop the mineral industry in
view of the mining conflicts with conservation priorities and the threats it poses to
fragile species and habitats. Past experiences have shown that mining can result in
adverse, irreversible, and widespread impacts to the environment that directly affects
forests and local communities (e.g., MacDonald and Ross 2003, Christian Aid and
PIPLinks 2004, De Alban et al. 2005). Although the roster of areas closed to mining
operations identified by the Mining Act and those areas expressly prohibited by the
NIPAS Act seems apparently numerous and extensive, they are deemed insufficient and
inadequate (MacKinnon in Ong et al. 2002, De Alban et al. 2005). Closed canopy or
old growth forests, for example, comprise only 35% of remaining forest cover, while
most NIPAS areas are not yet delineated and can still be reduced in size to leave some
areas open to mining. Mining concessions have even been approved in proclaimed
critical watersheds and highly stressed unprotected watersheds (Miranda et al. 2003).
Surely, government should consider the amount of investments that have been received
and spent by the country for conservation purposes, particularly in those areas with
overlapping high mineral potentials and conservation priorities.
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 5 7
Important Bird Areas and Key Biodiversity Areas
Key biodiversity areas (KBA) are sites that are large enough or sufficiently
interconnected to support viable populations of trigger species that are of global
conservation significance, and form the pillars of biodiversity conservation (Eken et al.
2004). The IBA criteria, which have been demonstrated extensively for birds to identify
IBAs, can be generalized and applied for other taxonomic groups to identify KBAs
(BirdLife International 2004).
While data on the distribution and status of trigger species for taxonomic groups
other than birds in the Philippines are still relatively inadequate to identify key biodiversity
areas, the information on birds can be used initially as the first installment. IBAs can
serve as the “initial components” or building blocks of the network of key biodiversity
areas. As additional information on birds and other taxonomic groups become available,
they can be incorporated immediately as key biodiversity areas. It is important to
distinguish also that all IBAs are key biodiversity areas, but some key biodiversity areas
are not IBAs such that they are significant for the conservation of other taxa but not
birds (BirdLife International 2004).
The revision of IBA boundaries, therefore, serves not only to address the IBA boundary
delineation to meet the requirements of trigger bird species for which it was identified,
but is also useful as a first approximation of key biodiversity area boundaries once
revisions are incorporated. In Mt. Siburan IBA, for example, if the IBA boundary were
to be revised to focus perhaps on Mt. Siburan only or where data on specific localities
of trigger bird species are only available, the result would probably reduce the size of
the original boundary delineation. The revision may make the IBA more manageable as
a single conservation site, and possibly make conservation resources and efforts more
focused. The revision (and probably the resulting reduction) of the original extent of the
IBA boundary—to reflect more relation to forest boundaries and to adhere firmly on
available data on trigger bird species—does not imply that future studies in these
neighboring forest areas, and future conservation work as new information are available
for that matter, are not necessary. For the Central Panay IBA, recent information from
the Haribon forest conservation project on the presence of trigger bird species and their
habitats within Sibalom Natural Park may already be considered as input for the possible
revision or extension of the IBA boundary further to the south.
In relation to IBA boundaries, the data on point localities of other taxa, particularly
the flying foxes and Rafflesia, illustrate that a possible key biodiversity area boundary
defined for these species may lie beyond the IBA; thus, stressing that not all key
biodiversity areas are important for the conservation of birds. In the case of Rafflesia
sites, key biodiversity area boundaries may extend beyond or overlap with the IBA
boundary. The satellite roosts, if their location within the Mt. Siburan IBA is confirmed,
58
J.D.T. De Alban
or even if additional major roosts were found within the IBA, increases the conservation
value of the key biodiversity area as well as the IBA such that it becomes significant for
the conservation of other taxa in addition to birds.
Recommendations
Several recommendations were drawn from this study. [1] Existing IBA boundaries
should be revised to show better relation to forest boundaries and other key habitats; [2]
The Philippine IBAs conform better to forest habitats and distribution of biodiversity
compared to protected areas. Therefore, future work on protected area selection and
boundary revisions should be done based on revised IBA boundaries or key biodiversity
areas, once information is available; [3] Up-to-date forest cover (or land cover) data
should be incorporated to this study using the same methodologies to improve analysis
results. The analysis results using the 1987 SSC data should be compared with much
recent forest cover data once the information is available. Satellite imageries can be
indispensable in deriving information on land cover and habitats; [4] Biological surveys
or studies should be conducted, targeting data-deficient areas primarily, to improve the
existing information on birds and other biodiversity. Mallari et al. (2001) pointed out
that only 34 out of 117 IBAs are well known ornithologically and that the level of
knowledge on the majority of IBAs is mostly incomplete. While habitat data can indicate
important sites, nothing can replace species locality data; [5] Based on the results of the
EBA analysis, particular attention should be directed to the EBAs of Mindoro, NegrosPanay, and Cebu. Conservation efforts and restoration activities should be heightened
to conserve its highly threatened habitats and biodiversity. [6] Parameters on how to
delineate the boundaries of each IBA should be developed, and the process of delineation
per IBA should be documented; [7] The Important Bird Areas concept should be extended
to “Key Biodiversity Areas” with the inclusion of data on taxonomic groups other than
birds; [8] Further steps to conserve IBAs should be taken after improving existing
information on IBAs.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the Haribon Foundation staff particularly the Integrating Forest
Conservation with Local Governance in the Philippines (IFCLGP) project staff because I
learned so much in biodiversity conservation through them. I thank Cristi Marie C.
Nozawa and Blas R. Tabaranza, Jr. for helpful comments in the initial concept outline
of the study, and Je-el C. Ong for reviewing and providing good suggestions to improve
the final manuscript. Special thanks to Francisco B. Tavora, Jr. for the initial image
processing and classification of Southern Panay satellite images, Rosalyn D. Sontillanosa
for technical support on data input and spatial analysis regarding mining tenements,
and Corina D.C. Bernabe for inputs on mining policies and issues even during the
earlier collaborations on mining research and for something else greater entirely. Thanks
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 5 9
to the following for sharing their field data on species point locations: Edmund Leo B.
Rico, Sherry P. Ramayla, Jennifer P. Dimas, and Jayson E. Dimaranan for Mindoro
Bleeding-heart and Mindoro Tarictic in Siburan IBA; Mylanar G. Saulog and Harvey
John D. Garcia for flying foxes in Siburan IBA; and Ferdinand John M. Gaerlan for
Rafflesia speciosa in Southern Panay Island. I am also grateful to Tanya N. Conlu for
encouraging me to finish and submit this paper for publication. I thank the European
Commission for funding the Haribon IFCLGP project such that the data generated from
the biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional capacity surveys were greatly used
for site-level examples in the IBA analysis. I also thank the Critical Ecosystems Partnership
Fund (CEPF) through the Threatened Species Program (TSP) for funding the oral
presentation of this during the 14th Annual Philippine Terrestrial Biodiversity Symposium
2005 of the Wildlife Conservation Society of the Philippines (WCSP). I also appreciate
the hard comments made by Carlo C. Custodio during the oral presentation of the
initial premises of the study. Thanks to Neil Aldrin D. Mallari for the valuable inputs
on the IBA analysis and boundary revisions during the 14th WCSP Symposium. I am
deeply grateful to Andrew W. Tordoff, Nina R. Ingle, Ma. Dolores C. Tongco, and an
anonymous reviewer for providing very valuable comments to improve the earlier version
of this manuscript.
References
Asian Development Bank. 2004. Country Environmental Analysis for the Republic of
the Philippines. (http://www.adb.org/PHCO/Env-Assessment-draft.pdf) accessed 27
August 2005.
Balmford, A. 2002. Selecting sites for conservation. In Norris, K. and Pain, D.J., editors.
Conserving Bird Biodiversity: General Principles and their Application. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Pp. 74-104.
Barcelona, J.F. and E.S. Fernando. 2002. A new species of Rafflesia (Rafflesiaceae) from
Panay Island, Philippines. Kew Bulletin, 57(3):647-651.
BirdLife International. 2004. Important Bird Areas in Asia: Key sites for conservation.
BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom. (BirdLife Conservation Series
No. 13). 297 pp.
Christian Aid and PIPLinks. 2004. Breaking Promises, Making Profits. Mining in the
Philippines. Christian Aid, London, England. 60 pp.
Collar, N.J., N.A.D. Mallari, and B.R. Tabaranza. 1999. Threatened Birds of the
Philippines: Haribon Foundation and BirdLife International Red Data Book.
Bookmark, Inc., Makati City, Philippines. 559 pp.
60
J.D.T. De Alban
Defensor, M.T. 2005. Revitalizing the Philippine Mining Industry: What Can Mining
Companies Expect in 2005 and Beyond? Paper presentation at the Asia Mining
Congress, 21-24 March 2005, The Oriental Singapore.
De Alban, J.D.T., C.D.C. Bernabe, and B.E. de la Paz. 2005. Analyzing Mining as a
Threat to Forests and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the Integrating Forest
Conservation with Local Governance in the Philippines, 9-12 November 2004,
Legenda Suites, Subic Bay Freeport, Zambales, Philippines.
Dickinson, E.C., R.S. Kennedy, and K.C. Parkes. 1991. The Birds of the Philippines: An
Annotated Check-List. British Ornithologists’ Union, Tring, United Kingdom. 507
pp.
Duya, M.V., P.S. Ong, P. Alviola, and A. Antolin. 2003. Identifying Potential Protected
Areas in the Sierra Madre Mountain Range, Luzon Island, Philippines. Proceedings
of the Building on Lessons from the Field: Protected Area Management Experiences
in Southeast Asia, 01-05 April 2003, Edsa Shangri-La Hotel, Ortigas, Mandaluyong
City, Philippines. Pp. 37-95.
Eastman, J.R. 2001. Idrisi Kilimanjaro: Guide to GIS and Image Processing. 2 vols.
Clark University, Massachusetts, USA.
Eken, G., L. Bennun, T.M. Brooks, W. Darwall, L.D.C. Fishpool, M. Foster, D. Knox, P.
Langhammer, P. Matiku, E. Radford, P. Salaman, W. Sechrest, M.L. Smith, S. Spector,
and A. Tordoff. 2004. Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. BioScience,
54(12):1110-1118.
Environmental Science for Social Change. 1999. Decline of the Philippine Forest.
Bookmark, Inc., Makati City, Philippines. 43 pp.
Environmental Systems Research Institute. 1996. ArcView GIS: The Geographic
Information System for Everyone. Environmental Systems Research Institute,
California, USA. 340 pp.
Evans, M.I. (ed.). 1994. Important Bird Areas in the Middle East. BirdLife International,
Cambridge, United Kingdom. (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 2).
Fishpool, L.D.C. and M.I. Evans (eds.). 2001. Important Bird Areas in Afrfica and
associated islands: Priority sites for conservation. Pisces Publications and BirdLife
International, Newbury and Cambridge, United Kingdom. (BirdLife Conservation
Series No. 11). 1144 pp.
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 6 1
Gatumbato, E.A. 2003. Biodiversity and Energy: The Geothermal Development at Mt.
Kanla-on Natural
Park. Proceedings of the Building on Lessons from the Field:
Protected Area Management Experiences in Southeast Asia, 01-05 April 2003, Edsa
Shangri-La Hotel, Ortigas, Mandaluyong City, Philippines. Pp. 302-316.
Grimmett, R.F.A. and T.A. Jones. 1989. Important Bird Areas in Europe. International
Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, United Kingdom. (Technical Publication 9).
Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources. 2003. Integrating Forest
Conservation with Local Governance in the Philippines (IFCLGP) Project: 2nd
Intermediate Report.
Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources. 2004a. Mt. Siburan,
Sablayan, Mindoro, Occidental. Integrating Forest Conservation with Local
Governance in the Philippines (IFCLGP) Project: Technical Report. 107 pp.
Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources. 2004b. Sibalom Natural
Park, Antique. Integrating Forest Conservation with Local Governance in the
Philippines (IFCLGP) Project: Technical Report. 100 pp.
Heath, M.F. and M.I. Evans (eds.). 2000. Important Bird Areas in Europe: Priority sites
for conservation. 2 vols. BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
(BirdLife Conservation Series No. 8).
Kennedy, R.S., P.C. Gonzales, E.C. Dickinson, H.C. Miranda, and T.H. Fisher. 2000. A
Guide to the Birds of the Philippines. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York,
USA. 369 pp.
Kummer, D.M. 1992a. Deforestation in the Postwar Philippines. Ateneo de Manila
Press, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines. 177 pp.
Kummer, D.M. 1992b. Remote sensing and tropical deforestation: a cautionary note
from the Philippines. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing,
58(10):1469-1471.
Macdonald, I. and B. Ross, 2003. Mining Ombudsman: Annual Report 2003. Oxfam
Community Aid Abroad, Victoria, Australia. 74 pp. (http://www.oxfam.org.au/
campaigns/mining/ombudsman/2003/index.html) accessed 09 August 2005.
MacKinnon, J. 2002. A Preliminary Analysis of the Philippine Protected Areas System:
Gaps and Recommendations. In Ong, P.S., L.E. Afuang, R.G. Rosell-Ambal, editors.
Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities: A Second Iteration of the National
62
J.D.T. De Alban
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources–Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Conservation International
Philippines, Biodiversity Conservation Program–University of the Philippines Center
for Integrative and Development Studies, and Foundation for the Philippine
Environment, Quezon City, Philippines. Pp. 58-63.
Magallona, A.E., J.D.T. De Alban, and E.J. Madamba. 2004. Utilization of ERS-2 and
ETM+ Imageries to Identify Forested and Community Areas over the Island of
Samar, Philippines. Paper presentation at the 1st Asian Space Conference, 22-25
November 2004, Chang-Mai, Thailand.
Mallari, N.A.D., B.R. Tabaranza, and M.J. Crosby. 2001. Key Conservation Sites in the
Philippines: A Haribon Foundation and BirdLife International Directory of Important
Bird Areas. Bookmark, Inc., Makati City, Philippines, 485 pp.
Mines and Geosciences Bureau. 2004a. Complete List of Issued Mineral Production
Sharing Agreements as of 31 March 2004. (http://www.mgb.gov.ph) accessed 11
May 2004.
Mines and Geosciences Bureau. 2004b. List of Existing Exploration Permits / Temporary
Exploration Permits as of 31 March 2004. (http://www.mgb.gov.ph) accessed 11
May 2004.
Mines and Geosciences Bureau. 2004c. Complete List of Issued Financial and Technical
Assistance
Agreements as of 31 March 2004. (http://www.mgb.gov.ph) accessed 11 May 2004.
Miranda, M., P. Burris, J.F. Bingcang, P. Shearman, J.O. Briones, A. La Viña, S. Menard.
2003. Mining and Critical Ecosystems: Mapping the Risks. World Resources Institute,
Washington DC. 58 pp.
Ong, P.S., L.E. Afuang, and R.G. Rosell-Ambal (eds.). 2002. Philippine Biodiversity
Conservation Priorities: A Second Iteration of the National Biodiversity Strategy
and Action Plan. Department of Environment and Natural Resources–Protected
Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Conservation International Philippines, Biodiversity
Conservation Program–University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and
Development Studies, and Foundation for the Philippine Environment, Quezon
City, Philippines. 113 pp.
Spatial analysis of Important Bird Area boundaries in the Philippines: gaps and recommendations 6 3
Orlanes, O.B., L.M.J. Paguntalan, and S.C.H. Chiu. 2005. Abstract of “Tabunan and
Nug-as forest fragments: The last biological strongholds of Cebu.” Sylvatrop,
13(1&2):144.
Osieck, E.R. and M.F. Mörzer Bruyns. 1981. Important Bird Areas in the European
Community. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, United
Kingdom.
Paguntalan, L.M.J., M.dG. Pedregosa, and M.J.C. Gadiana. 2005. Abstract of
“Conservation status of the Negros naked-backed fruit bat, Dobsonia chapmani: A
preliminary report.” Sylvatrop, 13(1&2):155.
Presidential Management Staff. 2005. 2005 State of the Nation Address: Technical
Report. Philippine Information Agency, Quezon City, Philippines. 100 pp.
Sajise P.E., N.E. Tapay, E.P. Picardo, N.D. Briones, R.D. Jimenez, E.E. Gomez, P.M.
Zamora, M.D. Fortes, M.T. Zafaralla, and I. Zosa-Feranil. 1996. Baseline Assessment:
The State of the Philippine Environment. University of the Philippines – Center for
Integrative and Development Studies, Quezon City, Philippines. 338 pp.
Samar Island Biodiversity Project. 2004. Summary Accomplishments for the 4th Quarter
2004. (http://www.sibp.org.ph) accessed 12 July 2005.
Stattersfield, A.J., M.J. Crosby, A.J. Long, and D.C. Wege. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas of
the World. Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation. The Burlington Press, Ltd.,
Cambridge, United Kingdom. 846 pp.
Swedish Space Corporation. 1988. Mapping of the Natural Conditions of the Philippines.
Swedish Space Corporation, Solna.
Tabaranza, B.R. and N.A.D. Mallari. 1997. Birds. In Wildlife Conservation Society of
the Philippines: Philippine Red Data Book. Bookmark, Inc., Makati City, Philippines.
Pp.99-136.
Tabaranza, B.R., S.D. Narvadez, R.A.N. Altamirano, and N. Resurreccion. 2003.
Integrating Forest Conservation Areas into the Broader Landscape. Proceedings of
the Building on Lessons from the Field: Protected Area Management Experiences in
Southeast Asia, 01-05 April 2003, Edsa Shangri-La Hotel, Ortigas, Mandaluyong
City, Philippines. Pp. 50-64.
U.S. Geological Survey. 04 October 1999. Landsat 7 ETM+ Scene, WRS-2, Path 116,
Row 51, Level 1G. Sioux Falls, South Dakota: USGS.
64
J.D.T. De Alban
U.S. Geological Survey. 03 January 2001a. Landsat 7 ETM+ Scene, WRS-2, Path 115,
Row 52, Level 1G. Sioux Falls, South Dakota: USGS.
U.S. Geological Survey. 30 July 2001b. Landsat 7 ETM+ Scene, WRS-2, Path 116, Row
52, Level 1G. Sioux Falls, South Dakota: USGS.
View publication stats