Addressing issues in human and ecosystem wellbeing in the Philippines
Rowena Reyes-Boquiren, Ph.D.
Socioeconomics and Policy Unit
Conservation International – Philippines
rboquiren@conservation.org
ABSTRACT
With human wellbeing intricately linked with ecosystem wellbeing in our
direct and indirect conservation actions, the monitoring approaches,
methods and tools we use are best shared across corridors.
In the Philippines, conservation actions need to be considered relative to
scales and level of governance arrangements (policy framework,
institutional contexts), science-based inputs and technological expertise,
and priority human wellbeing issues particularly in addressing needs in
protecting ecosystem services along with human resources management
(including population growth) and poverty reduction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct and indirect conservation actions
The three pillars in conservation - science, partnership and
human wellbeing – are operationalized in conservation actions
that range from direct to indirect modes (i.e., with direct and
indirect impact on conservation). Direct action includes protection
of species and habitats, restoration/rehabilitation and mitigation
(also of habitats) and development relating to human wellbeing
concerns as drivers in conservation. Crosscutting these are indirect
conservation actions that include management (e.g., establishing or
strengthening a Protected Area or a community-based coastal
resources management board); integrated information, education
and communication (IEC) or advocacy; research; training; resource
mobilization; and policy work. 1 Both direct and indirect
conservation actions are important.
1
Adopted with updated revision of strategies in the framework designed by UPS-FIDS in
Biodiversity Conservation of Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park: Assessment,
Siting of issues in initiatives
When taken at the corridor level, these direct actions are
associated with the clustering of sites which follows elevation
gradients as a heuristic tool.
- Protection is focused on the core zone of the Protected Area
(terrestrial or marine), whereas restoration/mitigation and
enforcement is typically focused on the adjacent buffer zone.
Between terrestrial and marine ecosystems, the boundaries of areas
for protection are theoretically more easily delineated in the
forested zones than in Marine Protected Areas across municipal and
national waters. Strict protection and mitigation zones are
undefined where habitat degeneration is critical.
- Meanwhile, development is primarily focused on areas
farthest away from the core, may be from the buffer and multiple
use zones to the centers of compact settlements. Accordingly,
indirect conservation actions cut across direct conservation sites,
from the corridor level down to the lowest scale across elevation.
Locating issues in conservation (Fig. ) clearly guides
priorities in actions. Appropriate conservation actions are
targeted in ecosystems from the higher elevation terrestrial
habitat down to the lowland, coastal and marine habitats (from
green to brown to blue environment sectors), with sites
classified according to ownership (public lands/waters and A&D
or alienable and disposable lands).
Sites for strict protection are public lands and waters under
the jurisdiction of the state’s mandated agency and/or local
government unit. In addition, policy sets all lands above 18% in
slope as forest lands (Revised Forestry Code).
Ownership and tenurial status are critical bases in sustainable
use and management of natural resources which influences
Vision and Strategic Directions, prepared for UNF/SGP/COMPACT, July 2003. Insights from this
seminal work of Perry Ong et. al. are acknowledged.
stakeholders’
quality
of
engagement
in
environmental
sustainability. Across these categories, tenurial rights that have
been recognized in diverse forms conflict, management units have
competing mandates, while technical and scientific values are not
well selected in copious projects, and thus tend to jeopardize
human wellbeing and ecosystem services. As a matter of fact, these
have effects on population management (size, growth rate, quality
of human capital) and ecosystem services (climate change
mitigation, protection and sustainable financing).
For instance, area for protection if with A&D lands in low
income upland communities need resolution of the tenurial issue, a
long-drawn concern, as livelihood enhancement is targeted,
likewise intensive in investments in financial, human, social and
even physical assets. Human wellbeing can be assured if
conservation initiatives are strategically designed with broader
multi-stakeholder involvement
and up to higher levels of
governance, with public-private partnering, approved management
schemes, and policy conflict resolution/development.
Similarly, environmental sustainability to ensure ecosystem
services is a strategic goal beyond short-termed, one-shot activities
(e.g., raising environmental awareness, agroforestry training,
nursery establishment, population control). Most experiences in
project periods less than 3-5 years have generally failed, despite
extensive funding. Conservation and development objectives need
to be balanced through indirect, enabling actions (IEC,
environmental education, training, and the like).
Fig. 2. Locating Issues in Human and Ecosystem Wellbeing.
ELEVATION IN
MASL
ECOSYSTEM
CONSERVATION
ACTION
LAND
CLASSIFICATION
> 1000
Natural forest
and freshwater
ecosystems
1000 - 500
< 500 - 0
<0
Open lower montane, freshwater and
lowland agricultural ecosystems
Freshwater/
lowland
agricultural
ecosystems
Coastal - marine
ecosystems
Protection
Mitigation
Restoration
Protection
Mitigation
Development
Development
Mitigation
Alienable & Disposable Lands
(Midslopes, foot slopes, lowlands)
Public forestlands
Mitigation
Restoration
Protection
International high
seas, national &
mun. waters
RIGHTS-BASED
ACCESS
Tenure
Lead Institution in
management*
Stewards,
ancestral
domain/land
holder
Stewards,
ancestral
domain/land
holder, A&D
land owners
A&D land
owners, tenure
and lease holders
A&D land
owners, tenure
and lease holders
IP traditional
fishing grounds
Lease holders
NGA (DENR)
NGA (DENR,
DAR), LGU
NGA (DENR,
DAR, DA), LGU
LGU
LGU, NGA (DABFAR, DENR)
PRIMARY
INTEGRATED
PROGRAM
APPROACHES
Forest protection
and enrichment
Forest
protection and
enrichment
Agroforestry
Marine protection
Agroforestry
Agriculture
Agriculture
Aquaculture
VITAL SCIENCEBASED
TECHNOLOGY
FIELDS
species diversity
water conservation
soil conservation
nutrient flow
choice of species
cover/hedgerow farming
Nursery establishment
SERVICES ISSUES
POPULATION
MANAGEMENT
ISSUES
population growth
rate
settlement
expansion
Mariculture
cropping-animal integration
Coral reef MPA
approach
cropping techniques
pest /disease
management
ECOLOGICAL
Mangrove
reforestation
Rainforestation/ reforestation
nutrient enrichment
Management issues: locus of control and decision-making among LGU, NGA, business sector
Creation of ES markets and benefit-sharing
Resource valuation tools for creation
High PGR from
fertility and/or
increasing with
net migration
Very high PGR
with fertility
and increasing
net-migration
Moderately high
PGR with fertility
and increasing
net-migration
Very high PGR
with net
migration
Settlement expansion regulation
Physical infrastructure, basic services
Not applicable
Highlights of assessments
The transect indicates that there are reasons why learning
opportunities in the experience of CI-P and partners must be
sustained and strengthened in the wellbeing strategy, with
institutional arrangements and mechanisms to be reformed along
with improvements in the policy framework.2
First, rapid habitat alteration and biodiversity loss cannot be
effectively addressed easily because of weak governance
demonstrated in issues in inter-agency structures and practices,
intra-unit priorities and capacities, and policy inconsistencies across
levels. For example, some officially declared protected areas are
not handled well because the mandated agency is in conflict with
competing management schemes. As of December 2005, there were
already 101 NIPAS-PA covering a total of 32,200 square km. of land
and water area and roughly 2,200 square km. total buffer zone.
Thirty of these PAs (~30%) have marine components. DENR is
currently processing the inclusion of 183 other areas into the
system. Access and control over many of these are in conflict with
permitees, tenured and tenure-seeking parties (under a private
logging company or in competition with mining exploration,
ancestral domain rights of indigenous people, community-based
forest management by upland dwellers, titled land owners, the
local government unit with its own programs and service delivery).
As a result, actions in protection tend to be constrained in scale,
politically leveraged, and difficult or unstable to sustain.
Second, extractive and destructive natural resource-based
economic activities as well as urban development are the priorities
in centrally designed and controlled government programs.
Conservation constituency building among local government units
and communities is slowed down by externally controlled programs.
2
These highlights of assessments in conservation and development are based on massive reports
consistently monitored and analyzed since the PBCPP in 2002. Updates have been occasioned with the
production of the Ecosystem Profile for CEPF in 2003 and up to recent assessment of CEPF assisted
projects, regional and national sharing of data and assessments for the establishment of the Philippine
Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation, annual and periodic reports of donors shared with the
environment sector (EU, WB, UNDP, ADB, USAID) and local NGOS (such as Foundation for the Philippine
Environment, Peace and Equity Foundation, Haribon). Refer to the List of References.
Industrial zone establishment, mining, energy development,
irrigation and water distribution, housing and settlement expansion
are initiated by national government agencies and corporate
business sectors for implementation, not necessarily with the full
participation, control or support of local government units [or the
reverse in a few cases].
Third, poverty incidence and population growth rate increase
(from both high fertility and in-migration) as development pressure
intensifies, aggravated by weak asset-based improvements to
counter inequitable access and control over resources. Poverty
reduction and population control are often devolved to resourcepoor local government units. With the expansion of human
settlements in degraded lands, investments are neither sufficient
for wellbeing concerns, nor prioritized for protection of habitats
and ecosystem services. Livelihood, education, health, and
transportation are intrinsically major challenges in development,
but population and environment itself is a central concern in
poverty reduction.
Lastly, at a general level, mismanagement as well as human
abuse and neglect of biological resources palpably stem from a lack
of genuine understanding and appreciation of environmental
sustainability. There are positive developments, though. For
instance, the issues in the protection of ecosystem services are now
being addressed recently. Ecosystem services are in weak
management of governance units. Government units are still largely
over administration of extraction, not based on valuation or
protection, but are now with a few successful initiatives which are
being replicated quickly across regions. Markets are still for
creation in ecosystem services (like watersheds, coastal and marine
resources) but trust fund build-up and charging of user fees and
willingness to pay are now in exploratory stage by some LGUs, e.g.
in watershed management and coastal/marine resources protection.
Across scales, synergy has to be achieved and sustained in education
and awareness-raising about conservation and human wellbeing.
The corridor strategy is one clear recourse to scale up
conservation initiatives that address the fragmentation of habitats
while supporting convergence, expansion and strengthening of
actions among stakeholders across levels. The corridors prioritized
by CI-P have the highest biodiversity richness and endemism, as
well as the most intact and highest degree of conservation status.
These also benefit from the widest variety of players that can be
engaged: heterogeneous population in local communities of
indigenous peoples, traditional ethnic groups and settlers as
primary stakeholders; local government units and national
government agencies with respective mandates that need to be
integrated and maximized; investors in logging, mining, plantation
establishment, industrial development, tourism and large-scale
fishing with corporate responsibilities and business interests that
can be mobilized; and a broad range of local, national and
international support agencies with conservation and development
initiatives to build from and connect with.
Given these concerns in the analytical framework,
conservation action must emphasize these major questions:
How appropriately can we address human wellbeing in
corridor-wide,
site-focused
and
species-specific
conservation actions?
How can we strengthen the link between ecosystem and
human wellbeing concerns in these efforts?
With enormous issues in conservation and development,
what are the priorities to benefit human wellbeing?
On more specific aspects of these major questions are the
following:
How are stakeholders involved in conservation actions?
For instance, in forest enrichment/ protection, what roles
are assigned to local residents? What to governance units?
How are forest tree species to use decided on and what
are the possible effects in peoples’ lives?
What science-based technologies in agroforestry sustain
ecosystem services that people need?
How are tenurial rights respected? Secured?
What benefits do stakeholders get? Are
commensurate to investments and “sacrifices”?
benefits
How are local people prepared for risks and “shocks”?
What improvements in assets are addressed?
How are “losers” compensated?
How is poverty addressed? What options are explored?
How are institutions
conservation?
involved
for
sustainability
of
These are examples of questions addressed by the strategy
paper that also explains priorities. The challenges in the corridor
approach are indeed extensive. As an institution in transition to be
a Center for Biodiversity Conservation, an assessment of what we
have learned is imperative to scale up our conservation initiatives
by advancing human wellbeing milestones.