1. THE IMPORTANCE OF TENURE
IN
COMMUNITY FORESTRY
Highlights from the Philippines
Edited by
Dr. Karen Lawrence
DRAFT
Southeast Asian Secretariat
Environmental Science for Social Change
May 1998

2. CONTENTS
1. The Context for Community Forest Management.........................................................................................................3
.Key Policy Implementation Issues Common to Many Countries in the Region3........................................................6
2. TENURE SECURITY....................................................................................................................................................8
.The Traditional Tenure Systems. .................................................................................................................................8
.CO-MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................................................................9
3. CO-MANAGEMENT..................................................................................................................................................11
.National Parks And Community Involvement............................................................................................................27
.Issues ..........................................................................................................................................................................28
2

3. 1. The Context for Community Forest Management.
In national plans throughout Asia, Central governments have relied upon upland watersheds as a
source of raw materials and power. Mechanisms and agencies were developed to ensure
extraction was carried out as efficiently as possible. Very little concern was taken to ensure that
these resources were replenished. The people within those areas, if not seen merely as obstacles,
were used as a cheap labour. As a result of this approach development of the lowlands has taken
place on a much wider scale, and the Philippines is a typical example. A fundamental assumption
was the common perception that the uplands were a vast wilderness, with no people and rich in
resources. (The countries’ piggy bank). Once the uplands were opened up, pressures from
migrants seeking better lives and the availability of land have combined with unregulated
commercial extraction practices to remove forest cover and to reduce the natural regenerative
properties of the forest systems. As a consequence the development of the lowlands has
proceeded much more rapidly than that of the uplands. There is an overwhelming disparity in the
resource flow from the uplands down, to the lowlands. This pattern is repeated in the levels of
disparity of social opportunity between the uplands and lowlands.1
See chart 1
In the Philippines for example, although upland projects existed even during the Marcos era, a
conscious policy focus on greater equity has only really come in the ’87 constitution, where it
acknowledges the rights of indigenous peoples, IPs and Filipino communities to the joint
management of the resources. A substantial part of the project funds for development were
channeled to the uplands through administering organisations such as Government Agencies [GA].
In reality their development projects have had minimal impact on increasing the resource base or
on enhancing the natural regeneration processes. The benefits normally went as far as the end of
the road, which is to the formal unit, the Barangay. The alternative has been to place this
responsibility in the hands of the private business sector. The GA, located so far from the resource
base itself, has a very limited awareness of the real results of commercial resource management.
Only when the ecosystems started to show signs of failure and weakening and the lowlands began
to feel the impact in the form of unpredictable power, water and timber supplied, did some in
government begin to acknowledge a need to review this resource flow inequity. Contradictions
still exist. The passing of the mining act recently could be potentially the biggest threat yet to
national resource stability.
Many of the GAs, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources [DENR] for example,
were originally set up to regulate resource extraction rates and to make sure that fines, levees, fees
and taxes were paid to the government. The bureaucratic structures, procedures and authority soon
developed. Often in response, control mechanisms were set up to minimise internal corruption.
Protection and controlled resource use activities that optimise resource regeneration, are in conflict
with the original intent and with the systems that support the present authority structure and the
financial systems that back them. If you reduce the levels of resource extraction, you also reduce
the taxes for both local and national government as well as fees paid to GAs. An attempt to give
greater responsibility to the people is currently underway through the Local Government Unit
[LGU] code. The Barangay unit and municipal governments were given the power to make more
decisions concerning local development, but they are not yet sufficiently empowered to respond to
the needs of communities. The authority system still favours commercialisation, companies are
considered more experienced and are indicators of economic development, a sign of civilisation.
3

4. Chart 1. Resource Flows.1
Chart 2. Authority Flows.2
4

5. The Local Government Code envisions resource management decisions being increasingly made
at the Barangay, and Municipal level. Unfortunately as is typical of many areas far from central
government, in the Mindanao context, after years of resource exploitation the Barangays are also
far removed from the forest itself. Only the far flung Sitios and traditional settlements that are
located at the edge of or inside the forest are people still able to interact with the resource base. It
is the level of interaction that people have with their resource base that gives them the experience
they need to gain a perception of the level of resource abundance in an area.
The decisions made by these primary forest dependants reflect the depth of this rich knowledge
base. At the Sitio and settlement group level their experiences are acknowledged and shared,
regardless of their standard of literacy. The many informal groups, Tribal Council, resource user
groups or religious groups, provide opportunities for leadership skill development. If primary
forest dependants are represented then decisions affecting the resource base made by these
informal institutions are made with a full understanding of the status of the resource base.
Whether this is reflected at the Barangay level depends upon how representative and empowered
the sitio officer is within the formal institutional structure of the Barangay. How much weight is
given to the forest based experience in the Barangay context in comparison with a formal
educational attainment as well as the ability of the Sitio representative to express the real situation
in the Sitio, are factors that influence the decisions made at the Barangay level. How well a
Barangay council can manage different inputs from GAs, Aid Agencies, NGOs as well as balance
the need for revenue from taxes remains to be seen. The assumption at the Barangay level is that
there is representation of the minority groups and accountability through the elected officials.
However the reality is different as those far from Barangays centres, often do not get the
opportunity to vote. There are not enough forms provided, or if informed at all, there is not enough
time for them to get to the voting booth. They remain even now, silent keepers of the national
heritage.
The Barangay system is often only accountable to an elite few, who are near its centre and have
access to the resources provided. Barangays are just as likely to benefit from over exploitation of
the resource base as those in the towns and cities, without being downstream enough to experience
the negative impacts. It is only at the sitio level where primary forest dependants have respect and
partake fully in decision making processes, that can be assured of sustained resource management
practices. It is in the longterm commercial interest that the access and control of resources to be
given to an empowered group of representative community leaders. This is especially true for
high value resources such as rattan, timber, almaciga, bamboo and essential oils.
However, many communities are taking action because of concerns over deteriorating natural
habitats and declining water, wood, food and other forest generated resources. This is being felt in
several Municipalities where the environmental changes in micro climate, brought about by a local
reduction in forest cover is adversely affecting the availability of drinking water. LGUs are also
noticing the difficulty in obtaining materials for infrastructure development. Forest protection and
management is increasingly perceived as an essential task necessary to ensure the quality of life
and continued residence in the area. Community forest protection represents a positive adaptive
social response to increasing population pressures on the resource base. All over Asia there is a
shift from loose, broad systems of use and control to more intensified access controls that are
being driven by small, local resource user communities.1
5

6. The purpose of this paper is to explore how the tenure instruments are evolving with an emphasis
on the Philippine situation where the legal system has produced an array of possibilities.
However, its important to stress that no one country has all the answers to the many problems that
are common throughout the region. By looking in more depth at the approaches used in the
Philippines, others can connect and see what is appropriate in their own cultural context. Ideally,
we should be able to learn from the experience of others. The following provides a summary of
similar issues facing both communities and governments across the Asia region.
.Key Policy Implementation Issues Common to Many Countries in the Region3
Who is the community? The use of community mapping and other participatory tools in
identifying primary forest users and in motivating communities.
Communal forests To find ways to overcome legal limitations and to acknowledge
traditional forms of ownership and tenure.
Cultural knowledge The use of science to verify, validate and acknowledge what is
known by traditional communities and increase awareness where
there are gaps.
Community Empowerment What is needed for empowerment? The role of federations and
networks, and other strategies that communities use to get a
response.
Regeneration and reforestation Understand community management systems that use the
regenerative capacity of the forest and their effectiveness in
improving quality and extent of forest cover.
Fire Management Cost of control vs management: what are the systems available
and how can communities pay for the costs internally?
Co-management agreements Finding strategies that devolve power and responsibilities to
local government and communities.
Re-orientation of GA Changing roles from regulators to service providers
Linking with local governments To overcome problems of the local elite and to ensure CFM
activities are transparent
National Parks,
protected areas and people Management solutions beyond a doughnut approach that
acknowledge forest occupants as key participants in
management of forest resources.
Donor coordination Government strategies to make outside assistance effective
Spread mechanisms Understanding the strategies communities employ to take project
supported innovations beyond the project zone
6

7. Chart 3. Community Pressure Flows.2

8. 2. TENURE SECURITY.
The key issue in terms of any tenure instrument is: Who or which group is defined by it as
legitimate? The choice often lies between those with access to education, money and political
support, and can often be self-proclaimed leaders, or those that are still living traditional lifestyles.
Usually this last group are far from political centres and without access to formal education, but
they interact with the forest and its resources on a daily basis in ways similar to their ancestors.
Even with the best of intentions if the process is not clear from the start, seemingly innovative
government initiatives can be merely an additional pressure. As chart 3 shows, in the Philippines,
the pressures on these marginalised, often simple people are increasing. Evidence from the
landscape shows that the combined effect can cause them to weaken their former control
mechanisms, changing their behaviour to that of exploiter. Providing them once again with a level
of resource security is seen by many, both inside and outside these communities as a key step in
reversing this spiral of degradation.
.The Traditional Tenure Systems.
Traditionally over time, these communities have developed their own tenure system that has
provided support for longterm management activities. The resources provided by the forest were
sufficient to meet the community needs. These primary forest dependants living together in
community settlements have developed cultural mechanisms to ensure the transfer of knowledge,
policies and practices, that maintain their strong relationship with the resource base. Leaders were
identified by means of informal organizations, which were developed to optimise the meeting of
community needs. Over a period of time, the combination of the resource flow inequities
supported by formal authority structures that were designed to support elite groups, have resulted
in pressures being exerted on these forest communities. Chart 3. The effect of these pressures has
stretched the skills of traditional leaders and weakened many of the cultural mechanisms that
controlled the use of the resources. Extraction levels then get set to respond to market demand
rather than to the needs of the community. As a consequence both the environment and physical
health of these communities have deteriorated. Re-establishing tenure security is the key to
halting the processes of degradation. It can provide the community with a means of restoring
longterm management practices that respond to the regenerative capacities of their resource base.4
It is essential that any proposed tenure instrument process must acknowledge these already
marginalised communities, as the instrument will be the key to restoring their tenure rights for an
area. Under certain circumstances, it could be a tool for further marginalisation rather than
empowerment. What type of tenure instrument is appropriate? Several options are being
explored at the moment in the Philippines and in the rest of Asia. Most are considering some sort
of shared management strategy, co-management. This can provide various levels of community
involvement. In many respects Nepal has gone a step further than most and has tried to provide
tenure to identified primary user groups.5
Another strategy being employed by communities is the formation of federations or networks.
These are performing important functions, such as; facilitating coordination among small
management units, mediating conflicts and representing collective concerns and needs to
government agencies1
. In regions were local government representatives are unresponsive to the
needs of small forest user groups they provide a new mechanism for social and political
organising, Northern Farmers Network in Chiang Mai Thailand is a typical example7
. However
8

9. the following discussion can apply to both single communities and recognised federations or
groups. Either way, the important factor is the process for establishing the legitimacy of the
representative organisation and whether the organisation has adequate mechanisms to ensure it
remains relevant to the communities living on the forest fringe.
.CO-MANAGEMENT
2.1.1. Definition and Examples.
Several examples of co-management of natural resources already exist in Asia, whether it is for
natural forest reserve areas or national parks and protected areas. It can be defined as when some
or all of the relevant stakeholders in an area with natural resources, are involved in a substantial
way in management and activities6
. The government agency can be said to have entered into a
partnership with local stakeholders.
In some countries, agreements
have been made informally
between local government agency
staff and communities residing in
forest reserve areas or protected
areas, but with increasing outside
pressures from other users, these
agreements do not adequately
protect the communities. There
is an increasing awareness by
communities that these have to be
formalised so that the agreements
can be acknowledged by all
government agencies and other
potential resource users. The question is: How can this be done if there is not yet an adequate
legal framework to support it? In many countries statute law has to be passed to allow the
government agency to enter into a formal contract with local stakeholders.
Co-management is itself a process of defining the partnership roles and responsibilities. As
such there is not a single all defining instrument that can be developed and copied to fit all
situations. However there are elements of the process that need to be discussed and agreed upon by
representatives of all parties with an interest in the resources and area concerned, such as
government agencies, various community interest group representatives, village leaders, NGOs
and local government representatives6
.
Partnership agreement or
contract
Government
Agency
Stakeholders,
community groups,
LGU etc.
Only since November 1997, with the passing of a new
constitution, did Thailand create the legal basis for
communities to have the right, duty and responsibility to
manage their natural resources, with the passing of the
new constitution. Questions still arise in terms of the
type of agreement being sought and the type of area
under contention. There is a willingness on the part of
government to enter into agreements with communities
to assist in the rehabilitation of degraded lands, but
government is less willing to consider co-management
agreements with communities in terms of sharing
management responsibilities for protected areas.7
9

10. When is co-management appropriate?
Some form of co-management has been found to be appropriate for areas when6
;
Elements to be considered in the Partnership6
.
• The locality of the area concerned and its boundary (conflicts can be more easily managed
if the boundary is defined for areas of resource use, for example by community mapping,
CM).
• The range of functions and sustainable uses it can provide
• The recognised stakeholders in the area
• Functions and responsibilities of each stakeholder.
• Specific benefits and rights granted to each stakeholder.
• An agreed set of management priorities drawn from understanding the management issues
and concerns of all stakeholder groups.
• A management plan developed through participation of all stakeholder groups.
• Procedures for conflict resolution, negotiation and collective decisions.
• Procedures for enforcement.
• Specific rules for monitoring, evaluating and reviewing the partnership agreement and
relative management plan as appropriate.
• Sources of financial support, stakeholder counterparts, budgets, and transparent accounting
and timely payment procedures.
• There are people residing in the area, even if they are with or without official titles.
• Access to the natural resources in the area is essential for local livelihood security and
cultural survival.
• Sections of local communities have historically enjoyed traditional or legal rights
over the area
• Local interests will be strongly affected by the way in which the area is managed
• There are conflicts of interest over how the resources should be managed for an area
• The agency’s previous management strategy has failed to produce the expected
results.
• Various stakeholders in the area are ready to collaborate, and either request to do so
or have set up mechanisms to do so.
• There is enough time to use negotiation processes that can respect community
process.
10

11. Areas that are suitable could include all types of forest or natural resources, including protected
areas. In all cases consultation and seeking a consensus of stakeholders in management would be
necessary, including the case when an area is under extreme threat and requires a decision to stop
the fast ecological deterioration. However, this minimum step is unlikely to be seen by many as
co-management as the authority in management is not shared. The transition between the
different degrees of co-management are vague. The results can be unexpected, when various
stakeholders have seats in a decision-making body like a management board, many local demands
are still left unmet. However the original intent was to ensure that these local stakeholders had
representation6
.
Types of co-management
The following schematic diagram represents the various types of co-management, where there is a
sharing of influence and control, as seen from the perspective of the agency in charge of natural
resource management6
.
Full agency control Shared control and authority by the agency in charge and other stakeholders. Full control by other
stakeholders
3. CO-MANAGEMENT
Ignore the
interests and
capacities of
other
stakeholders
& minimize
their
relationship
with the
area.
Inform the
stake-
holders
about
relevant
issues and
decisions
Actively
consult
stakeholders
about issues
and
decisions
Seek their
consensus on
issues and
decisions
Negotiate on an open
basis to develop
specific agreements
(Involving them in
decision making)
Sharing authority and
responsibility in a
formal way
(Via seats on a
management board)
Transferring authority
and responsibility to
one or more
stakeholders
Authority and
responsibility is
transferred
permanently
through awarding
ownership rights
for the area
No interference or
contribution from
other stakeholders
Increasing expectations of stakeholders
Increasing contributions, commitment and accountability of stakeholders
No interference
or contribution
from the agency
in charge.
Increasing re-orientation of agency towards servicing
Critical Watersheds CADC areas CADC
areas
Protected area
buffer zone.
Functional
watersheds
NIPAP and other
protected areas,
under the
NIPAS.
Reforestation
areas
(Lease
agreements,
CBFMA or IFMA
Indigenous
Peoples Rights
Act-CADT
Nation Power Corporation,
management of watersheds
for the production of
hydro-electricity
Gov. projects
and
programmes,
Highways,
Mining
companies,
commercial
developmen
ts
DENR-
Protected
Areas and
Wildlife
Management
Bureau
Protected Area
Management
Board-PAWMB,
DENR
NIPAS-national
integrated
protected area
system.
Joint
management
Agreements
with PPDO and
LGU.
CBFMA
Community
organisation is
given lease.
IFMA Company
is given lease,
DENR provides
advice or training.
It retains
regulatory powers
Limited title is
given to
indigenous
communities,
allowing them to
transfer
ownership
within members
of the same IP
community.
Taking the Philippines as an example, the supporting policy and legislative tools are placed in the
scheme as well. Ownership in all cases remains with the state, under the Regalian Doctrin. This
11

12. pattern of ownership, state or private is common in the legal systems throughout the region and
more often than not reflects a colonial heritage. In many countries, traditional communal
property rights still exist that have been developed over centuries of a community interaction
with its resource base, but these are not supported by law. Often a fundamental difference is
found in the perception of ownership itself. Many communities did not consider it possible to own
the resources, merely be responsible for their management and receive benefits as a consequence
of diligent practice.
Both current policy developments of Community Based Forest Management [CBFM] and the
National Integrated Protected Areas System [NIPAS] have evolved from less participative forms
of co-management. The Indigenous People Rights Act [IPRA] would fall under the last section,
however under certain circumstances, it could move to the left. This would be where for instance
the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title CADT is in a Protected Area. Potentially the authority
over the area could be shared through entering voluntary management agreements with the park
authority (PAMB) as in many areas in Europe, this could be formalised by a Memorandum Of
Agreement [MOA]. Financial incentives and compensation could be provided in return for agreed
work or management practices. Land use changes would be controlled in part by the park
authority, but farming activities would generally remain outside these controls. As the model
shows in the Philippine learnings from field context need to be shared across various government
agencies so that the experiences of trying to operationalise a particular co-management strategy
can have a broader impact in terms of influencing other policies. Different situations arise in other
countries. However the more flexible legal framework operating in the Philippines, currently
allows for a greater diversity in the type of co-management agreements being implemented.
The effectiveness of co-management in achieving particular goals is not guaranteed there are
certain risks involved. When control is fully in the hands of local institutions, these may be co-
opted by powerful individuals for their private interests, which may win over the interests of the
management goals of the national and local communities. However, when control is fully in the
hands of public agencies, local knowledge and skills in resource management can go
unrecognized6
. In many cases ecological degradation of an area increases as a result of the
removal of people form a given area.
Basic assumptions and consequences of co-management6
.
• The various stakeholders have different capacities and management experiences a partnership
agreement stresses and builds on the complementarity of their distinctive roles. – It requires a
situation where more is to be gained by collaboration than competition.
• Different interests will be harmonised while responding, to some extent to all of them.
Relevant people responsible for management over the agreed area are treated with respect and
equity – Trust exists between the parties that they are all working for the common good.
• The partnership agreement links rights and responsibilities. – management authority and
responsibility for different resources or areas are assigned to the same institutions.
• An equitable partnership provides a guarantee for the interests and rights of stakeholders, in
particular the less powerful- Broader society is organised in a way that responds to variable
conditions and is able to assume increasingly important roles and responsibilities.
• The partnership as described by the co-management agreement is capable of responding to
varying needs in an effective way. – It requires a feedback mechanism for review and
improvement.
• Co-management depends on the commitment of one or more individuals and/or on the
presence of dedicated projects. – There is a political willingness to support individuals within
an agency to develop commitment to the effective management of an area.12

13. Benefits and costs of co-management6
It is the very nature of co-management is to find a compromise between the different goals
and objectives of the various stakeholders to bring about effective management for an area. As
such there are benefits and costs which in part help define the type of partnership that government
agencies are willing to work with.
BENEFITS COSTS
The legally recognised document increases the sense of security
and stability, which leads to greater commitment to the area.
Process takes time, especially at the preparatory phase and
developing the agreement.
Resource exploitation by non-local interests is controlled through
an alliance between state agency and local stakeholders.
Professionals with uncommon skills are required.
Management responsibilities are shared and so the burden on the
agency is less.
Opposition by an agencies or individuals to share authority with
others.
All parties involved receive specific negotiated benefits. Opposition by stakeholders with an agenda of their own.
Management effectiveness is increased through the application of
local knowledge and skills.
Opposition by local residents that see various government resource
management strategies as depriving them of development potential.
Resource management capacities are enhanced for both the agency
representatives and other stakeholders, through enhanced
communication and dialogue.
Certain original management goals may be compromised.
Trust between state agencies and stakeholders increases. The agreement might not be maintained due to unforeseen
circumstances or problems.
Ownership of the management process and the commitment to
implement joint decisions increases.
Voluntary compliance of rules and regulations reduces the
enforcement expenditure.
Resources are saved as problems and conflicts are less likely to
occur due to the increased understanding among groups.
There is less likelihood of damage to the environment because of
the increase in public awareness.
Conservation and sustainable landuse practices are more integrated
into social, economic and cultural issues and agendas.
Participatory processes are more integrated into the larger political
framework if feedback mechanisms can draw the learnings.
13

14. The Process
There is no prescribed way to develop a right co-management agreement. However, the strength
of the agreement is often as strong or as weak as the process that developed it.6
It is assumed:
Where appropriate the use of participatory tools would be recommended. In the case of the
Philippines this would be community mapping (CM) as drawn on plastic with pens.
Possible steps in the co-management process would be6
:
Preparing for
the
partnership
Assess available resources, appoint a co-management team, with community mapping capabilities (CM)
Preliminarily identify the main stakeholders – CM
Review land and resource uses and identify existing conflicts and management issues – CM
Assess the need and feasibility of developing a co-management agreement, Merge the community data onto a
technical map and integrate it with other available technical data on erosion susceptibility, and existing tenure
instruments or programmes.
Begin a stakeholder analysis, identify criteria to distinguish among them.
Contact the stakeholders and carry out community mapping activities to identify needs, concerns and issues
Support stakeholders to organize, identify their representatives and develop an internal consensus on their interests
and concerns regarding the area.
Developing
the agreement
Appoint and independent facilitator
Hold a first procedural meeting among stakeholders
Hold a series of consultations and or planning meetings among stakeholders.
By integrating data from different sectors and with the geophysical data, support the negotiation, mediation or
arbitration of conflicts, using CM to draw out the issues.
Reach a basic consensus and or common vision and agreement (MOA), and a management plan with zoning
arrangements, specific functions, rights and responsibilities of the various stakeholders.
Publicize the consensus or agreement, hold a ceremony to underline its importance.
Implementing
the agreement
If applicable, set up a relevant co-management institution, council or an extended management body.
Carry out management activities
As needed, clarify the responsibilities and rights of stakeholders, management conflicts and enforce the agreement.
Monitor activities and results.
Possibly, experiment with more complex technical activities and more widespread application of the agreement.
On the basis of the agreement and monitoring results, hold regular reviews with all relevant stakeholders.
If necessary, carry out required changes and/or go back to developing a new agreement.
Who moves the Process?
It is found that enthusiastic individuals are the
prime movers of a co-management process.
These can be either community leaders, local
government officials, provincial governor or those
from within the government agency.6
The government agency has legal ownership over the area
The agency is willing and ready to develop a management partnership
The rough unit of area and its location has already been chosen, either by the
community/stakeholder or the government agency.
Concerns6
The Government agency is itself a
major stakeholder, and problems have
been found to arise when they also
assume the role of process facilitator,
which can often take the form of
chairman of the management body,
committee or board.
Management committees or boards
need to be selected to review and
implement the agreement Problems
arise when they are predetermined and
appointed before the agreement has
been reached. In the process of reaching
the agreement the functions of the
implementing body can be defined.
14

15. Communities are complex. Differences in
ethnic origin, class, status, caste, gender,
religion, and wealth can create profound
differences in interests, capacities and
willingness to invest in the management of
natural resources.
The internal differences and conflicts within
communities need to be recognized, as well as
the necessity for negotiation.
Communities change, especially when under
the influence of markets, education, religion,
authority, political processes and the media.
Knowing the major historical events that
shaped present allegiances within communities
and with their neighbours can be critical in
resolving conflicts or responding to outside
initiatives that promote a particular co-
management agreement.
Questions that are common and that can be identified through community mapping.8
• Who are the community or the representative group within the community that have the
most to loose if the forest resources of the area are degraded? Different groups, including
women, within a community will vary as to the depth of information drawn on their map or the
extent of the area. This information and these conflicts are easier to understand if the
boundaries are discussed after the resources have been drawn.
• Who are those in the community that have specialist knowledge? Those with special
knowledge on resources will be identified if those other than the community leader are allowed
to participate in the drawing exercise.
• How to solve resource use conflicts? There will be conflicts. These can be drawn on the
management issues layer. By drawing the conflicts spatially, most incidences will show the
area of conflict. This is often much
smaller than perceived through discussion
alone. Once it is clear what and where the
conflict is and who it affects, focused
discussions can be directed to find the
potential compromise solution.
• How to motivate communities? In certain
cases where the area has been
predetermined as a project, such as a
national park, then communities need a
process to encourage their participation.
Community mapping can identify clearly
those willing to participate and can
stimulate interest and lively discussions
within communities.
• What are the needs of the community?
Livelihood stability is often the most
critical concern for communities, CM
issues can draw out where they are having
problems and with what resource. If the
problem is not covered by the terms of the agreement, then other agencies or NGOs can be
contacted to respond. However, a process of response needs to be worked on.
• Are there other government concerns, projects and programmes that could affect the area?
It is valuable to repeat the CM process with all stakeholders, including government agency
representatives and local government. For those with a technical background, CM on a
technical map could be more appropriate. If the facilitator is flexible, it’s not a problem. Other
data from the same government agency or others can be collated and put on other data layers
using GIS.
15

16. Some conflicts cannot be resolved and an
amicable compromise must be found that will
not further marginalise the disadvantaged.
Some communities may require assistance first
in order to get organised so that they can be
represented in the negotiations and participate
in developing the management agreement.
Time needs to be given to allow for community
processes, whether in terms of developing an
organisation or arriving at a consensus.
• Are the stakeholders representative of
those with interests in the resources of
the area? CM is a tool that can be used to
organise communities. The very process
of identifying the resources and
understanding the management needs can
bring about a community organisation. If
communities are organised around
management issues rather than for
political or economic gain, they tend to be
more representative and more stable.
The following examples will try to examine
different approaches to co-management based on the Philippine situation, or when appropriate,
from another country. However first it might be helpful to highlight the two potential processes of
policy evolution
16

17. Policy Time Line For the Philippine9
1881 Royal decree prohibits shifting cultivation.
1894 Spanish Maura law claims 2/3rds of
Philippines as public forest land.
1897 First Philippine Constitution, which classifies
land of the public domain as agricultural,
forest or timber, mineral lands and national
parks. Only agricultural may be alienated.
Regalian Doctrin is used as the premise that
all land belongs to the state.
1898 US Administration Established.
1940s’ Japanese occupation during WW2
1946 Liberation from Japanese by USA
1950s’ Heavy logging Luzon Plain,
Laural Langly agreement: US imports for
natural resources swap.
1965 Marcos is elected
1971 Kaingin permits issued for forest dwellers.
1972 Marshal Law declared
1975 PD 705: Forest reform code legitimizes
forest dwellers’ use of uplands
1979 Marshal Law is lifted.
Renewable 25 year communal tree farms
introduced.
Family reforestation programme initiated.
1981 Green Revolution Policy
1982 Integrated social forestry programme begins
LOI 1260:
1983 Nino Aquino Assassinated.
1986 Edsa Revolution: Cory Aquino is elected.
National reforestation Programme initiated.
1987 New Constitution: Articles II, S10,16, XIV,
S17.
DENR created: EO 192
1st
community ISF issued to the Mangyans
1988 People Orientated Forest Programme, EO
192, DAO1
1989 DAO 123,
DAO 04, Rattan resource extraction
guidelines.
DAO 04-1: Special concession is given to
Cultural communities.
PD 865: Ban on the export of logs. Some
provinces institute a local log ban.
Secretary Factoran initiates community
forestry program.
1990 People orientated forest land management
expanded
Principles of IP rights, ancestral lands and
domains recognition established.
1990 RA 7160: LGU code; devolves some DENR
functions to local governments.
1st
Certificates of Ancestral land claims
issued in Baguio.
BRINGING ABOUT CHANGES IN
POLICY10
.
Process of policy development in the
Philippines.
The Philippines is known for having a very
innovative policy that has given rise to several
types of co-management agreements. It is helpful
to understand how these have evolved.
Community Based Forest Management
Programme (CBFMP) is rooted in community
involvement in reforestation and other forms of
social forestry. Initial mechanisms to review
policy came from the Upland Development
Working Group (UDWG) that started in 1981 and
involved those from the GA, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, [DENR] as
well as Academe, Donors and NGOs. An
offshoot support mechanism developed
specifically for NGOs, UNAC. These groups
brought about critical developments in
community reforestation by reviewing what was
happening on the ground as well as trying out new
ideas through implementing pilot projects.
Support also came to develop a formal policy
review programme within the DENR in 1990.
This resource programme [NRMP] specifically
focused on developments in community forestry,
with an emphasis on reforestation and
rehabilitation.
The Philippine Working Group11
was initiated and
made functional at the AFN meeting in Hawaii
1994. Perhaps the biggest difference between this
group and others preceding it, is that it did not
try to implement pilot projects. The PWG
members simply went to a specifically chosen site
to understand how communities, Local
Government and local DENR representatives
were dealing with resource management issues in
their area. The PWG looks at the policy
implementation problems and the initiatives being
taken at all levels to overcome local difficulties.
Where members of the group feel it appropriate,
they offer advice and clarifications and on
occasion also offer to follow up on certain issues.
17

18. 1991 DAO 24: Logging no longer allowed in old
growth forest.
DAO 04: revised regulations for social forestry
program, ISF
1992 President Ramos is elected
DAO 30: guidelines for the transfer of DENR
functions to local government.
DAO 25:
7586, NIPAS act is signed.
1993 DAO 02: Secretary Alcala signs CADC/CALC
DAO 22: Revised guidelines for community
forestry programme.
DAO 23: Forest land management programme
initiated. Certificate of stewardship granted.
DAO 60:
1994 Social Reform Agenda- SRA is launched.
1st
CADCs are issued.
1995 EO 263: CBFM declared as strategy for
sustainable forest management.
Mining act is signed, limiting rights of
communities to control commercial extraction of
their mineral resources, only consensus
community agreement is required.
1996 IRR 96-29: CBFM implementing guidelines are
written and include community mapping as part
of the process.
DAO 24: Socialised IMFAs are brought in.
DAO 34: Management guidelines for Ancestral
domain are written.
Partnership between LGU and DENR to promote
CBFMAs is developed.
IRR of the mining act are written.
DOA 96-30: integrates CBFMP and POFP into
DENR regular structure.
1997 1 million hectares of CADC have been awarded.
DAO 4: implementing guidelines for SIFMA are
written.
DMC 97-12: guidelines for the CBFM plan,
community resource management framework and
annul workplan are written.
IPR Act: Gives right of title to AD and land
claims. New National Commission for
Indigenous peoples is set up. All previous DENR
functions relating to IPs are given to the
Commission.
1998 Securitised forest agreements are proposed.
IRR for IPRA is written.
Part of the reason why it has been such an effective body is the way in which policy can evolve in
the Philippine context. See chart 4.
The Philippines provides a model where
innovative policy leads ground level
implementation. Policy review mechanisms
provide an effective and necessary means of
understanding how the innovative policy is
being interpreted at the different levels. An
ultimate indicator of the effectiveness of policy
is the lack of fragmentation and quality of forest
cover as a percentage of the landscape. Once
these learnings from the ground are passed back
up the line, policy adjustments can be made.
The legal framework needs to be highly flexible
and given the combination of statute and case
law, the system in the Philippines is able to
respond. However, at the same time the lack of
strong innovation coming from the
grassroots is an indication that communities
are not empowered. Questions then arise as to
how ready are some of these communities, or
local government for that matter, to take on the
broader responsibilities of resource management
that are being given to them by these policies.
How can they be made ready?
Process of policy development in Thailand.
Not all countries share the same policy
evolution strategies as the Philippines. The
opposite model, where community innovation
pushes policy is most evident in Thailand. See
chart 5. The Thai legal framework has less
flexibility in some ways as it relies solely on
statute law. Therefore, understandably there is
reluctance on the part of legislators to change
unless they are sure the new policy works. It is
also indicative of the highly centralised mode of
government, which is a characteristic shared by
several governments in the region. Although
official policy is very restrictive, the
government agency, Royal Forestry Department
[RFD] through developing a project site with its own rules and regulations, can provide the
flexibility to implement new ideas. Innovation from communities in terms of developing effective
forest management practise is very evident. Highly effective traditional communication
mechanisms provide the basis for the innovations to spread across and within communities. The
18

19. quality of local leadership is critical and has been maintained either through traditional
mechanisms or through training provided by their local forest monasteries.
Chart 4: Process of Policy Development in the Philippines
Chart 5: Process of Policy Development in Thailand
19

20. No of Sites No of HH No of Hectares
Philippines: CBFMP 671 100,102 3,570,802
Thailand: official CF committees 4,952
Thailand: Unofficial CFC 15,000
In some ways this second model makes it more difficult to find an effective mechanism that can
assist in policy evolution. Things are made increasingly difficult when you combine it with a
highly authoritarian policy approval process. In some cases frequent government changes
exacerbate the difficulties. Which mode of policy evolution is more successful is debatable, in
comparing results from Thailand and the Philippines:
In Thailand, a community forest established through reforestation, and protection activities, can be
anything from 32.4 ha (200 rai), to 162 ha (1000 rai). Those that are traditional to the community
or established on their own, usually through combining protection and regeneration, tend to be
larger areas, from 81 ha to 405 ha. The area covered by the CBFMP sites also includes
settlements and farmlands. The real impact is indicated by the amount of forest cover maintained.
However, as adequate mechanisms are not being used in either country to monitor changes and
infrastructural developments continue to have unmonitored impact, other social factors such as
peace and order, commercial exploitation and illegal logging combine to make direct comparisons
nearly impossible at this time12
.
DEVOLVING MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES THROUGH CO-
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS,
Reforestation Areas and Local Government.
Much of the co-management advancements in the Philippines are towards devolving responsibility
for natural resource management to the local government. This has been a slow process, in part
because the LGUs weren’t ready and also because the Local DENR were concerned in terms of
their technical capabilities to take over old reforestation areas. However it is being attempted in
several areas. In order help make the connections between LGU and DENR, both the Philippines
Political Structure, chart 6 and DENR Bureaucratic structure, chart 7 are given.
From both it is at the province level that local government and local DENR have direct
counterparts and can start making effective agreements and coordinate activities. In part they are
able to meet informally in the same locality and have a shared understanding of local needs and
concerns. A critical factor however is whether the local government considers the environment an
important factor that can be seen as benefiting economic development rather than slowing it down.
This has been a prime consideration in Nueva Viscaya, where recently the Provincial government
and DENR negotiated an agreement where they share management responsibilities for an area of
forest. Appendix 1, Chart a, and b show the details of this MOA, for the lower Magat reforestation
project. Map 1 shows the location of the reforestation area13
.
20

21. Chart 6: Philippine Political Structure.
Chart 7: DENR Bureaucratic Structure.
21

22. The legislation to support this type of co-management has been in place since 1990 with the local
government code. However, local governments have been slow to take on these new
responsibilities and local DENR have been slow in volunteering the old reforestation areas that
should be under the management of the LGU. Only a few local governments have assigned their
environmental and natural resource officer ENRO. Nueva Viscaya was one of the few provinces
that was involved in a project to built local government capabilities. In other regions of the
Philippines, the Mayor can be a key change facilitator in terms of developing environmental
management strategies. Pueta Princesa in Palawan is a prime example; in this case the local
government manages the National Park, St Pauls14
.
In Thailand the empowerment of the local Tambon council [OBT] in terms collecting and
spending local taxes is seen by many as being an appropriate organisation to increase the level of
official community involvement in the management of local natural resources. Increasingly,
where local watershed units have developed an effective watershed network of protection
committees, these are now influencing their OBT. In Nan province, where there is a strong local
awareness in terms of the importance of the forest and water, the OBT are taking up these rules
and regulations to apply to areas beyond forest reserve12
.
Forest Reserve Areas And Communities.
In the Philippines is took a constitutional shift in 1987 to acknowledge the rights of community to
benefit from the national resources as well as to acknowledge the rights of IPs to self
determination. The key policy support came in the form of a Department Administration Order;
DAO 02. This acknowledged the right of occupancy of IPs in forest reserves, protected areas and
watersheds and tried to establish a process to determine the legitimacy of a group claiming the
rights over an area. The Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim [CADC], as it was called, did not
provide any right of ownership, only the right to use the resources in a traditional way. Chart 8.
The process of obtaining a CADC is shown in Appendix 2 Chart a.
The other main tenure instrument that has made advancements in terms of co-management is the
Community Based Forest Management Agreement [CBFMA]. This programme is the umbrella
for all previous forms of social forestry and can be used in combination with protected area
legislation, NIPAS. The main thrust is to promote sustainable forest management strategies that
are developed by the communities themselves. The benefits are shared between the community
and government, but with the understanding that some of the profits from approved resource use
strategies will be used for community development.
The CBFM programme is process orientated, and has the flexibility to combine with local
government land use plans as well as to strengthen the management plan developed for a CADC,
ADMP. The Ancestral Domain Management Plan, [ADMP] is for the community, however, if
they want to extract resources in commercial volumes then approval is sought from DENR through
CBFMP. The process can be simplified if the ADMP development workshops include
representatives from other sectors in the community and follow the criteria of the Community
Resource Management Framework, [CRMF], which is defined under a CBFMA. This process of
combining the two instruments is shown in Chart 1015
. However, it can be just as easily the other
way round, CBFMA first and then a CADC.
22

23. Chart 8: Rights and Responsibilities of CADC.
Chart 9: The Rights and Responsibilities of a CBFMA.
Chart 10: The Process of Combining a CADC and CBFMA.
23

24. 24

25. 25

26. Part of the reason for the flexibility of CBFMP is the use of community mapping that draws out
the local understanding of management issues and resources8
. Appendix 3, Chart a gives the
CBFMP implementation framework integrated with the community mapping process used8
. The
principals behind it are summarised by:
In practice, among Indigenous People [IP], there is a preference for obtaining the CADC first and
then getting commercial user rights through CBFMP. This is how the instruments were combined
in the Dupinga watershed, Nueva Ecija15
. By working through the process in this manner it was
easier to establish that the IP group has a larger stake in the watershed. The more detailed
knowledge possessed by the IPs and their long association with the watershed was accepted by
other sectors16
. The IPs in Dupinga, the Dumagats, are similar to many other IP group in that they
have very little formal education and lack the organisational and financial management skills of
other stakeholders. The other stakeholders are usually migrants who coming from the lowlands,
had better access to education and to markets. In this case if CBFMA had come first, then the IPs
would most likely have been given equal representation on the registered peoples organisation.
However, given their socio-economic and political disadvantages this could have resulted in
further marginalisation as they could not compete equally. By seemingly favouring the IPs and
putting the CADC and, therefore the CBFMA in the name of their PO representative, the other
sectors are still able to contribute to the process by developing the management plan. The
responsibility of management is weighted in favour of those with the biggest stake in the
watershed. Because the tenure instrument is in the hands of the primary forest user, even with
shifts in the dynamics of the communities, they will not be further marginalised.
There are problems and delays in the above process, which seem to be the result of conflicts from
assigning the CADC to the wrong communities. Some of the areas claimed under CADC and
CBFMA have been for large areas, some more than 50,000 has. When management plans are to
be developed problems arise due to the sub-groups that exist in these large areas. Often if the
tenure instrument is given to a group located in the lowlands away from the resource base, or to an
individual, it results in problems. Increasingly it has been found that in these cases the
marginalised members living in the large area are further disenfranchised from decisions
concerning resource management activities. The sub-grouping even among IPs of the same tribe
is not recognised by the local DENR so that this process of further marginalsation can result from
more educated IPs, usually more aligned with the dominant lowland culture. Unfortunately, what
has made the situation even more problematic is that the success for DENR is measured by the
number of hectares under a programme. Therefore it is more important to award one large CADC
rather than five small ones. Budget allocation is also based on similar indicators of success.17
Things are made more complex due to the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act18
[IPRA], passed in
November 1997. It tries to provide greater security for communities, by providing legally
recognised communal property rights. The legal framework of the Philippines is not yet ready.
• Participatory, PO lead process
• Multi-use of forest resources for effective overall management of an area.
• Resource sustainability
• Integrated planning.
• The acknowledgement of IP rights and practices.
• Awareness of gender difference in terms of resources used and functions within the community.
• Effective use of non timber forest products.
• Re-investment of the money and benefits into community development and poverty alleviation.
26

27. Only two forms of ownership are recognised, ownership by the state or by an individual.
Therefore there are occasions when IPRA could facilitate fragmentation of the indigenous land. If
IPRA is ratified with the legal system as it now stands, it will be subject to registration under the
Torrens titling system. If there exists a Native Title (the land was given to the IPs during the
Spanish times and not reclaimed by the state in the meantime), or if Ancestral Land Title [CALT]
is claimed for an area not covered by a certified ancestral domain title[ CADT], then the registered
title is governed by the same civil law as other forms of property.
However, if the CADT (or a CALT under a CADT) is registered for an IP group that has been
occupying an area in the public domains since time immemorial, then the ownership is governed
by the provisions stated under IPRA. The intent of the law is to give IPs a legal basis for self
determination and have full participation in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of
management activities of all national, regional and local development plans programmes and
polices which may affect them. What is critical for the law to be effective is that time is given to
strengthen the cohesiveness of communities and that they are organised using processes that
empower them. See appendix 4 for the Key Points of IPRA.
An area of increasing complexity and conflict in the Philippines as in other countries of the region
is the balance between local needs and national concern. This is most apparent in the case of
communities and protected areas, when it comes to securing water supplies, ecological stability or
biodiversity. The usual solution is that the local communities are asked to sacrifice access and use
to their resources for the Nation. However, few mechanisms currently exist to adequately
compensate them or protect their interests (under IPRA this has been addressed for protect areas
that will be declared as such after its enactment, whether IP rights will be respected in areas
already identified is not yet clear). Often the tension that results from this inequity can lead to
increased rates of degradation in these critical areas. It is therefore helpful to consider current
strategies being employed and the concerns being raised.
.National Parks And Community Involvement
Can the objectives of conservation and communities be reconciled? Some say they cannot. Strict
protectionist models have been tried in several countries, but with usually poor results in terms of
maintaining habitat cover and quality. Many of the policy decisions made were based on the
erroneous assumption that there were no communities using the forest resources in these areas.
Understaffed government agencies have designated areas for protection using table top surveys
made in the office and these were based on slope calculations and other official secondary data
sources, such as aerial photos, satellite imagery and official location of settlements.
These decisions have repeatedly failed to take account of the dynamic relationship between
villagers and their natural environment. When policies formulated at the desk are implemented at
the local level conflict can arise when the protected overlaps with other programmes or when rules
are suddenly imposed on communities. Communities are thrown into a state of confusion and
uncertainty when they are asked to stop using their traditional resources or change the way they
farm. When communities were found to be within the boundary itself, they can still be relocated
outside the boundary. However in several countries, Vietnam, Thailand and Philippines, it has
been found that relocated forest dwellers often continue to reenter parks and sanctuaries because of
their traditional reliance on the forest as a source of subsistence and cash income. It has become
27

28. increasingly evident that forest dependent communities need to be included in management if
there is to be effective regulation of local use practices19
.
Two types of model seem to have been developed as a strategic response to the issue of people and
protected areas; one is exclusive the other inclusive.20
USA- Exclusive, assumes a wilderness area: No participation in management planning
or total relocation out of the area
Western Europe-Inclusive: It assumes human residence within the park. Therefore,
private ownership in the park is allowed and or people actively participate in management
planning processes.
Initially in Asia the USA model was adopted. Often a centralised government would set aside vast
wilderness areas and assign various management rights to those areas. However, it has become
increasingly clear that protected areas do not remain in an untouched state if people are
ignored or relocated. The integration of local communities into the design and management of
protected areas is more increasingly a part of the debate/discussions and practice in South and
Southeast Asian countries. How to go about integration in practice is still at an exploratory stage;
many issues have yet to be clarified.19
The two approaches that seem to be emerging are;
Biosphere reserves21
and restricted practice, as we find in Thailand, Vietnam. Community
involvement in management is only sought in the buffer zone. The communities are relocated
from the other zones into the outer zone. The size of the zones are pre-determined by policy.
1. Inner protection zone.
2. Limited resource use and extraction zone.
3. Bufferzone for sustainable agricultural practice.
Multizones and participation in management - Nepal and the Philippines.
Other stakeholders are part of the decision making process in zone establishment and management
planning. Management objectives and strategies are developed for each zone and specific
approaches and technologies identified. Management practices allowed to be implemented are
those that will meet the zones objective. Countries differ in the way they designate the various
zones and the practices allowed. They also differ in the involvement of communities; some are
given assigned responsibilities of park administration, so that communities are employed as guides
or in other activities.
.Issues
The following were identified as common concerns and learnings by those from countries in
AFN.19
• In many countries current laws and policies are not yet responsive to community participation,
and do not have the flexibility to respond to site-specific variables.
• Clarification of tenure and ownership patterns with respect to land and resource management
rights in and around the PA, is urgently required.
28

29. • PA management can be built upon the foundations of existing community practices,
knowledge, and institutions, but more documented examples are needed to understand how this
can be brought about.
• Co-management institutions need to be understood and created at various levels from village to
PA to the larger landscape, so that the special needs of socially underpriveleged sections and
the endangered species within the PA can be fully considered.
• The diverse development programmes of various sectors need to be integrated with the
objectives of conservation and of livelihood security in and around PAs.
Given the previous discussion the same learnings apply. Tenure security is a critical concern to
communities. Policies for protected areas need to be further developed. These polices must
respond more flexibly to this tenure security concern and enable communities to enter into MOAs
establishing a co-management agreement. These MOAs should be developed through a process
where management plans and zones are developed from the communities themselves by
establishing a process similar in nature to ADMP/CRMF. As a result, the communities on the
forest fringe will have the means to define their own community forest. If this were followed,
negotiations with the GAs that are concerned with protected area management would be more
equitable. While much of the park planning is still being carried out in central offices that use
technical data and experts to develop management zones, the communities have little means of
developing a counter argument in the negotiation process. They are just asked to agree or
disagree to the zones presented. However while this present scenario is far from the ideal, it is
perhaps helpful to look at actual examples being carried out in two countries, Vietnam and
Philippines so that the two models can be better understood.
Vietnamese Example.22
Ba Vi Mountains, one of Vietnam’s leading National Parks was designated as the eighth national
park in 1992. The natural forests of Ba Vi were already depleted by earlier commercial logging
and swidden farming. While timber extraction has been halted, these endangered ecosystems are
under mounting informal pressure from an expanding rural population of 12,000 households
residing in the adjacent villages. As in many nations, forestry agency staff have encountered
problems protecting the Park from local use. Illegal tree felling, hunting, plant gathering, and
swidden farming remain common occurrences.
1. The criteria and processes involved in the conceptualisation, establishment, planning,
zoning and categorization of protected areas (PA) need the central involvement of local
communities at all stages of decision making.
2. Local community involvement effectively requires that livelihood rights and benefits be
built into the PA management plan, along with responsibilities for conservation.
3. Policy needs to be flexible enough to allow management plans to be drawn up that are able
to incorporate the diverse ecological and social values of the PA.
4. The planning process needs to be dynamic, responding to the changing social, ecological
economic context, especially in its ability to provide alternatives to unsustainable
resource use and to ensure that there is equity in decision making and benefit sharing.
29

30. An initial co-management team comprising of;
villagers, park officials, and local NGO representation
could focus on four main areas:
1. Understanding Resource Use Patterns.
• A general description of Dzao resource use
practices around the Park as they relate to current
policies and programmes.
• Formulate profiles of Dzao resource use patterns
by working with key informants from the village as
members of the research team
• The research team could examine current
institutional resource use control systems and
problems and develop ideas to enhance natural
generation processes.
2. Assessment of natural regeneration patterns
and problems.
• A joint exploration by villagers and park officials
to find ways to accelerate the ecorestoration
process through regeneration of forest species
including those that are more economically
productive.
• Collection of ecological information in a time-
series of abandoned swidden plants, past logging
sites, and burn areas above and below 400 meters.
3. Establishment of rights and regulation for
medicinal plant collection.
• A dialogue on collection allocations within specific
elevational zones.
• An exploration of in-situ cultivation trials at
different altitudes.
4. Joint Park Administration.
• With participation of both villagers and park
officials the formulation of recommendations to
establish greater community representation in
protection and management in all areas of the park.
• Establishment of village representation in the Park
administration body.
• Establishment of community based forest
management groups.
In 1990, a buffer zone strategy was created
to better meet local economic needs and
engage neighbouring communities in
forest conservation activities. While some
agroforestry projects have effectively
supported the introduction of valuable tree
crops, forest land allocation to households
in the outer buffer zone, has proceeded
slowly, and have not always reached the
low-income households, most in need of
land. Poverty remains a problem,
collection of forest resources, both plant
and animal, as well as grazing and illegal
mining, continues to increase tension
between the Park authorities and the local
people.
Currently, there are no members of the
Yen Son Commune (village) working for
the Park. No institutional initiatives have
been taken to establish co-management
mechanisms that facilitate communication
among stakeholders and allow joint
management decisions to be made.
Sometimes there are training courses for
the local people in agricultural and
forestry extension, but for the most part,
their needs are not addressed in the
existing management plan.
In Asia and Africa there is mounting
evidence suggesting that forest
conservation strategies cannot be
separated from the needs and reliance of
local peoples on the forest resource base.
The experience of Ba Vi indicates that to
achieve both the National Park objectives
of conservation of flora and fauna and
protection of a crucial watershed area, as
well as meeting local economic and health
needs, an alternative plan based on co-
management may be required. A series of
informal co-management meetings could lead to the development of formal institutional
mechanisms designed to facilitate greater community participation in the management of Park
resource combined with a series of practical strategies geared to addressing specific resource
problems.
Ba Vi National Park presents a valuable opportunity to preserve a unique natural ecosystem,
rehabilitate degraded natural forests, and conserve ethnobotanical knowledge while responding to
30

31. the economic needs of land poor communities. To achieve these multiple goals, a management
framework may need to be developed that brings buffer zone communities into the Park’s planning
and management processes. Establishing ethnomedicine as an important theme in Ba Vi national
Park would give this sanctuary a unique identity among the country’s and the world’s protected
areas. Co-management would support the Dzao’s subsistence livelihood, as well as their
important role in providing health care services in the regions. Ba Vi administrators will need to
work closely, not only with Dzao, but with Kinh and Muong community leaders to meet both
national conservation goals and local needs.
Chart 11: The Management zones for Ba Vi National Park and the Community
Management Suggestions.
Philippine Case.
The management of protected areas is dictated by the National Integrated Protected Area System,
NIPAS act of 1992. Areas that were declared before July 1992, as protected under the previous
eight categories,, are automatically covered. Funds to implement the system have come from
several donors and include eighteen sights.
Protected area type Area ha Number of sites
National Parks 459,221
Game Refuge and Bird sanctuaries 947,171
Wilderness areas 64,014
Watershed areas 1,266,763
Marine areas 134,945
Total 2,872,114
The protected area and its bufferzone are recommended to be divided into one or more of the
categories listed below.
1. Strict protection zone: protection of areas with high biodiversity, only scientific studies,
ceremonial or religious use by IPs.
2. Sustainable use zone: Natural areas, collection and use of natural resources using
traditional sustainable methods that are not in conflict with biodiversity conservation
requirements.
3. Restoration zone: Areas of degraded habitat, assisted natural regeneration of native species,
eventually returning to zone 1 type.
4. Habitat management zone: areas with significant habitat and species. Human habitation
and current management practices are allowed if they maintain the desired habitat.
5. Multiple-use zones: areas of settlement, traditional and/or sustainable land use. Land
tenure is allowed.
6. Buffer zone: areas outside the PA, but adjoining it and are established by law as being
under the management board. Same land use as multiple zone.
7. Cultural zone: areas with significant cultural, religious, spiritual or anthropological value
or where practices take place.
8. Recreational zone: areas of high recreational, tourism, educational, or environmental
awareness value, where these activities are allowed in the plan.
9. Special use zone: Areas containing existing installations of national significance.
10. Other management zones: Other zones as described in the plan and with approval from the
secretary.
31

32. * The zoning of a protected area and its buffer zones and management prescriptions within those
zones shall not restrict the rights of indigenous communities to pursue traditional and
sustainable means of livelihood within their ancestral domain, unless they so concur.
National Integrated Protected Area Programme; NIPAP, eight sights were chosen for funding by
European Union;
1. Malampaya Sound, Palawan
2. El Nido, Palawan
3. Mt. Pulog, Cabayan, Benguet
4. Mt Malindang, Osamis City, Misamis Occidental
5. Mt. Isarog, Camarines sur
6. Mr Guiting-guiting, Sibuyan Island, Romblon
7. Coron Island, Palawan
8. Mt. Iglit-baco, Mindoro Occidental.
Ten protected areas have been identified and are funded by other agencies such as NORDECO,
ADB and WB. NGOs are expected to play a large part in responding to the issues in the parks and
advising the implementation of NIPAS. In order to do this they formed a body called, NGOs
integrated for protected areas, nipa. The following sites influenced by their body are;
1. Batanes Island
2. Palanan Wilderness
3. Apo Reef Marine Park
4. Bataan National Park, Zambales
5. Mt Kanlaon National Park, Negros, Panay
6. Mt Apo National Park, Davao
7. Siargao Island
8. Mt Kitanglad National Park
9. Agusan Marsh, Agusan, davao
10. Turtle Isalands.
32

33. References.
1. AFN No 9 1996: Linking Government With Community Resource Management, What’s Working
and What’s Not. A Report of the 5th
Asia Forest Network Meeting, Surajkund, India, December 2-
6, 1996. Ed. M. Poffenberger et al. Pp 41-46.
2. ESSC 1997: Rattan Resources, Community Management Capabilities, Cultural Biodiversity Series.
ESSC Philippines, Ed. Karen Lawrence. Pp 4-8.
3. AFNews Vol IV, No 2. May 1998.
4. ERD 1994: Upland Philippine Communities, Securing Cultural and Environmental Stability.
Research Report. Ed. Peter Walpole. ERD, Manila Observatory (ESSC) 1994.
5. AFN No 9 1996: Linking Government With Community Resource Management, What’s Working
and What’s Not. A Report of the 5th
Asia Forest Network Meeting, Surajkund, India, December 2-
6, 1996. Ed. Poffenberger et al. Pp 11-13
6. G. Borrini-Feyerabend. 1996: Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the
Approach to the Context. Research Paper. G. Borrini-Feyerabend, Social Policy Group, IUCN.
1996. Pp 8,9,9,12,16,17,18,19,20.
7. AFN/ESSC 1997: AFN Thailand. Site Documentation, SEA Regional Secretariat, ESSC, 1997.
Part 1. Pp 5-6.
8. DENR/ESSC 1998: Community Mapping Manual for Resource Management.1998, Community
Based Forest Management Office and the DENR and ESSC 1998.
9. AGM. La Vina 1991: Law And Ecology. A compilation of Philippine Laws and International
Document Pertaining to Ecology. 1991. Ed.Atty Antonio GM La Vina. The Legal Rights and
Natural Resources Centre. Cacho Publishing House Inc.
10. AFNews Vol IV No 2. Pp 2-3.
11. G. Braganza & P Walpole 1998: Empowering Community Managers. Learnings of the Philippine
Working Group on Community Forest Management. G. Braganza & P Walpole. ESSC 1998.
12. AFN/ESSC 1998a:Thailand. Site Documentation, Part 2. 1998. SEA Regional Secretariat. ESSC.
1998.
13. AFN/ESSC 1998 b:AFN Briefing Kit. Nueva Viscaya. 1998. SEA Regional Secretariat. ESSC.
1998.
14. PWG/ESSC 1996a: Documentation of Activities and Notes. Eighth Philippine Working Group Site
Visit. Kayasan, Puerto Princesa, Palawan. June 1996. The Secretariat, ERD-MO (ESSC). June
1996.
15. AFN/ESSC 1998c: AFN Breifing Kit. Dupinga Watershed, Nueva Ejcia. 1998. SEA Regional
Secretariat. ESSC 1998.
16. ESSC 1998: Resource Conflict and Culture Management Map. ESSC. 1998. Highlights of
Research from Dupinga Watershed, Southern Seirra Madre. G. Tengko et al. ESSC 1998.
17. PWG/ESSC 1996b: Philippine Working Group. Bukidnon. November 1996. Documentation of
Activities. PWG Secretariat. ESSC 1996.
18. LRC-KSK 98-122: LRC-KSK Legal Opinion and Memorandum on Matters Relevant to the
Interpretation and Implementation of Republic Act No. 8371 (Indignous Peoples Rights Act of
1997). LRC-KSK Legal Opinion No 98-122.
19. AFN 1996: 5 th Asia Forest Network Meeting. Surajkund Dec. 1996. Pannel Discussion
20. West, P.C. and S.R. Brechin 1991: Resident Peoples and National Parks, Ed. PC West & SR
Brechin. University of Arizona Press, Tucson (Arizona), 1991, [in 7].
21. UNESCO 1995: “The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves”, Nature and Resources, 31, 2: 2-
10, UNESCO 1995. [in 7].
22. M. Poffenberger 1998: Stewards of Vietnams Upland Forests. A Research Report No 10 AFN/FIPI,
M. Poffenberger ed. 1998, p. 71-89 & Figure 11, p 76.
Site Profiles and Problems.
33

34. Several problems and management issues have been identified in each site, and in some cases are
slowing down the implementation process. However, given it is so participatory, this is to be
expected.
Management Concerns of Protected Areas.
Site Involved Issues/concerns/learnings
St Pauls NP, Palawan MLGU,
Batanes Islands,
Palanan Wilderness
Apo Reef Marine Park
Bataan NP, Zambales
Mt Kanlaon NP, Negros
Mt Apo NP, Davao
Siargao Island
Mt. Kitanglad NP, Bukidnon
Agusan Marsh, Agusan
Turtle Islands
Malampaya Sound, Palawan EU Dynamite and cyanide fishing by outsiders. Conflict with the PCSD.
El Nido, Palawan EU Commercial interests are very strong. Provincial roads are badly mad and are
degraded the coral. Oil, and associated infrastructure.
Mt. Pulog, Benguet EU CADC. Commercial vegetable farmers. There is a conflict of interest.
Mt. Malindang, Misamis Oc EU PAMB doesn’t meet often, as the areas is too big and holding a meeting for
all involved is too expensive.
Mt. Isarog, Camarines Sur EU People seem to be easily influenced.
Mt Guiting-guiting, Sibuyan EU Personality difficulties. Local government wants access to timber for local
development projects.
Coron Island, Palawan EU People are suspicious that DENR will take the land away.
Mt. Iglit-baco, Mindoro Oc EU CADC, people are not in favour of the national park. There is a lack of
understanding about what it does and doesn’t allow you to do.
34