watershed - sd with impact

WATERSHED WritersAileen de GuzmanJoyce ReyesEditorsChay Florentino-HofileñaGiselle Baretto-LapitanProject ManagementAmihan R. PerezAteneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs (ACSPPA)Technical and Editorial TeamRene “Bong’ Garrucho, LGSPMags Maglana, LGSPTess Gajo, LGSPMyn Garcia, LGSPOrient Integrated Development Consultants, Inc. (OIDCI)Art Direction, Cover Design & Layout Jet HermidaPhotographyRyan Anson

SAVING FORESTS, STORING WATER FOR THE FUTURE

Watershed Management:

Watershed Management: Saving Forests, Storing Water for the FutureService Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government

Copyright @2003 Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program(LGSP)

All rights reserved

The Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program encouragesthe use, translation, adaptation and copying of this material for non-commercial use, with appropriate credit given to LGSP.

Although reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this book,the publisher and/or contributor and/or editor can not accept any liabilityfor any consequence arising from the use thereof or from any informationcontained herein.

ISBN 971-8597-05-0

Printed and bound in Manila, Philippines

Published by:

Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP) Unit 1507 Jollibee PlazaEmerald Ave., 1600 Pasig City, PhilippinesTel. Nos. (632) 637-3511 to 13www.lgsp.org.ph

Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs (ACSPPA)ACSPPA, Fr. Arrupe Road, Social Development ComplexAteneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, 1108 Quezon City

This project was undertaken with the financial support of the Governmentof Canada provided through the Canadian International DevelopmentAgency (CIDA).

A JOINT PROJECT OF

IMPLEMENTED BY

Department of the Interiorand Local Government (DILG)

National Economic andDevelopment Authority (NEDA)

Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency

Federation of CanadianMunicipalities (FCM)

www.fcm.ca

Agriteam Canadawww.agriteam.ca

CONTENTS

FOREWORDACKNOWLEDGEMENTSPREFACEACRONYMSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYINTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SECTORWater as the Major Concern of Watershed ManagementWatershed DefinedWatershed as a Planning and Management UnitNature of Watershed Degradation and Its ConsequencesCauses of Watershed DegradationGuiding Principles for Improved Watershed ManagementWatershed Management Interventions

CHAPTER 2: LGU MANDATES ON WATERSHED MANAGEMENTGeneralWatershed Management/Forestry Development Planning Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM)Industrial Forest ManagementAncestral DomainProtected AreasMiningEnvironmental Impact Assessment of Forestry ActivitiesOthersInternational Covenants

CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION AND POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONSPolicy GapsTechnical and Funding Capabilities of LGUs

iiiiv

viixiii

1

7789

11131314

1919272834353638424344

474749

S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T: R E S O U R C E B O O K s F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

Socio-Economic Conditions in LGUsCoordination of Sectoral Plans and Activities

CHAPTER 4: GOOD PRACTICES IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENTForest Land Use PlanningCommunity-Based Forest Management and Tenure SecurityForest Management and ProtectionInformation, Education, and AdvocacyMultisectoral Participation Fund Support GenerationEnvironmental Performance Monitoring

CHAPTER 5: REFERENCES AND TOOLSStudy Tour SitesReferences

ENDNOTESANNEXES

Philippine Strategy for Watershed ManagementAllocation and Management of Timberlands : Why Municipalities Should Get InvolvedCommunity-Based Forest ManagementNo Forest Without Management

5153

5757637080848892

9797

101

107109109137145161

CONTENTS

S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K s F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

T he Department of the Interior and Local Government is pleased to acknowledge the latestpublication of the Philippines Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP), ServiceDelivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government; a series of books on eight (8)

service delivery areas, which include Shelter, Water and Sanitation, Health, Agriculture, Local EconomicDevelopment, Solid Waste Management, Watershed and Coastal Resource Management.

One of the biggest challenges in promoting responsive and efficient local governance is to be able tomeaningfully deliver quality public services to communities as mandated in the Local Government Code.Faced with continued high incidence of poverty, it is imperative to strengthen the role of LGUs in servicedelivery as they explore new approaches for improving their performance.

Strategies and mechanisms for effective service delivery must take into consideration issues of povertyreduction, people’s participation, the promotion of gender equality, environmental sustainability andeconomic and social equity for more long- term results. There is also a need to acquire knowledge, createnew structures, and undertake innovative programs that are more responsive to the needs of thecommunities and develop linkages and partnerships within and between communities as part of anintegrated approach to providing relevant and sustainable services to their constituencies.

Service Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government offer local government units andtheir partners easy-to-use, comprehensive resource material with which to take up this challenge. Byproviding LGUs with practical technologies, tested models and replicable exemplary practices, ServiceDelivery with Impact encourages LGUs to be innovative, proactive and creative in addressing the realproblems and issues in providing and enhancing services, taking into account increased communityparticipation and strategic private sector/civil society organizational partnerships. We hope that in using

iS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

FOREWORD

these resource books, LGUs will be better equipped with new ideas, tools and inspiration to make adifference by expanding their knowledge and selection of replicable choices in delivering basic serviceswith increased impact.

The DILG, therefore, congratulates the Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)for this milestone in its continuing efforts to promote efficient, responsive, transparent and accountablegovernance.

HON. JOSE D. LINA, JR.SecretaryDepartment of the Interior and Local Government

FOREWORD

ii S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

This publication is the result of the collaboration of the following individuals and institutions thatsupport the improvement of the delivery of watershed management by local governments to their

constituents

The Local Government Support Program led by Alix Yule, Marion Maceda Villanueva and Rene “Bong”Garrucho for providing the necessary direction and support

The Orient Integrated Development Consultants Inc. (OIDCI), particularly Becky Paz, Remy Esteban, JoyCabo, Cherry Al-ag and Dr. Nick Uriarte for undertaking the research and roundtable discussion andpreparing the technical report which was the main reference for this resource book; and for assistingin the review of the manuscript

Participants to the Roundtable Discussion on Watershed Management held last August 8, 2002 inDavao City. Their expertise and the animated exchange of opinions helped shape the technical reporton which this publication is based:

Ma. Bella Guinto of Carmona; Ver Tiongson of Nueva Vizcaya; Edna Tongson of Agusan Sur; Egnar ofBukidnon; Mario Villanueva and Felipe Allaga of Bagumbayan; Nestor Obrero, Leah Rose Calatrava, andDulcesima Padilla of Davao del Sur; Ferdinand Bautista of Maragusan; Noel Cuartero and Gegi Irong ofTandag; Ray Roquero of LMP; Cecille Helmi Halim of DA-ARMM; Virginia Rivera and Dr. Efraim Nicolasof DA-ATI SoCSKSarGen; Richard Rubis of DA-ATI Panabo; Priscilla Sonido of NEDA-XI

Boy Balayon and Dodie Gualberto of PCEEM; Wiebe Van Rij and Mimi Arcillas of UDP; Jessica Salas ofPWMC; Rory Villaluna, Lyn Capistrano and Ratan Budhatoki of PCWS; Ricky Nuñez of Balik-Kalikasan EWF;Ago Tomas of ESSC-Agusan del Sur; Ulysses Triambulo of ATRE; Lorena Navallasca of PROCESS Foundation;

iiiS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Kantong Salipada of MDFI; Delza Fuentes of EcoGov; Bien Dolom of OIDCI; Marie Nuñez and GemmaIturralde

LGSP Manager Abe de la Calzada; Advisor Jing Lopez; Program Officers Rizal Barandino,Victor Alfaro,Vicente Iriberri and Cecille Isubal

Tess Gajo for providing feedback that helped ensure that the resource book offers information that ispractical and applicable to LGU needs and requirements

Amihan Perez and the Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs for their efficient coordinationand management of the project

Chay Florentino-Hofilena and Giselle Baretto Lapitan for their excellent editorial work

Aileen de Guzman and Joyce Reyes for effectively rendering the technical report into user-friendly material

Mags Z. Maglana for providing overall content supervision and coordination with the technical writers

Myn Garcia for providing technical and creative direction and overall supervision of the design, layoutand production

Sef Carandang, Russell Fariñas, Gigi Barazon and the rest of the LGSP administrative staff for providingsupport.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iv S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

S ervice Delivery with Impact: Resource Books for Local Government are the product of a seriesof roundtable discussions, critical review of tested models and technologies, and case analysesof replicable exemplary practices in the Philippines conducted by the Philippines-Canada

Local Government Support Program (LGSP) in eight (8) service sectors that local government units (LGUs)are mandated to deliver. These include Shelter, Water and Sanitation, Health, Agriculture, Local EconomicDevelopment, Solid Waste Management, Watershed and Coastal Resource Management.

The devolution of powers as mandated in the Local Government Code has been a core pillar ofdecentralization in the Philippines. Yet despite opportunities for LGUs to make a meaningful differencein the lives of the people by maximizing these devolved powers, issues related to poverty persist andimprovements in effective and efficient service delivery remain a challenge.

With LGSP’s work in support of over 200 LGUs for the past several years came the recognition of the needto enhance capacities in service delivery, specifically to clarify the understanding and optimize the roleof local government units in providing improved services. This gap presented the motivation for LGSPto develop these resource books for LGUs.

Not a “how to manual,” Service Delivery with Impact features strategies and a myriad of provenapproaches designed to offer innovative ways for local governments to increase their capacities to betterdeliver quality services to their constituencies.

Each resource book focuses on highlighting the important areas of skills and knowledge that contributeto improved services. Service Delivery with Impact provides practical insights on how LGUs can applyguiding principles, tested and appropriate technology, and lessons learned from exemplary cases to theirorganization and in partnership with their communities.

vS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

PREFACE

This series of resource books hopes to serve as a helpful and comprehensive reference to inspire andenable LGUs to significantly contribute to improving the quality of life of their constituency throughresponsive and efficient governance.

Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program (LGSP)

PREFACE

vi S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

ACRONYMS

A & D Alienable and DisposableASEAN Association of South East Asian NationAusAID Australian Agency for International DevelopmentAWP Annual Work PlanBFD Bureau of Forest DevelopmentCADC Certified Ancestral Domain ClaimsCADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title CALC Certificate of Ancestral Land ClaimCARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform ProgramCBFM Community-Based Forest Management CBFMA CBFM Agreement CBFMO CBFM Office CBFMP Community-Based Forest Management Program CDAs Community Development AssistantsCENR Community Environment and Natural ResourcesCENROs Community Environment and Natural Resource Offices/OfficersCFP Community Forestry Program CFPC CARAGA Forest Plantation CorridorCIDA Canadian International Development AgencyCLUP Comprehensive Land Use PlanningCRM Community Resource Management CSC Certificate of Stewardship ContractCSOs Civil Society Organizations DAO DENR Administrative OrderDAR Department of Agrarian ReformDECS Department of Education, Culture & Sports

viiS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

ACRONYMS

viii S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

DENR Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesDILG Department of the Interior and Local GovernmentDOE Department of EnergyDOF Department of FinanceECC Environmental Compliance CertificateEcoGov Philippine Environmental Governance ProjectEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEIS Environmental Impact StudyEMB Environmental Management BureauENR Environment and Natural ResourcesENRC Environment and Natural Resources CouncilENRO Environment and Natural Resources OfficeEO Executive OrderEPM Environmental Performance MonitoringESSC Environmental Science for Social ChangeFLUP Forest Land Use PlanningFMB Forest Management BureauFPE Foundation for the Philippine EnvironmentFSSI Foundation for a Sustainable Society, Inc.FTAA Financial or Technical Assistance AgreementsHLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory BoardIAF Institute of AgroforestryICC Indigenous Cultural CommunityICRAFT International Center for Research in AgroforestryIEC Information Education Communication

ACRONYMS

IEE Initial Environmental ExaminationIFMA Industrial Forest Management AgreementIFMP Industrial Forest Management Program IP Integrated Peoples IPR Individual Property RightsIPRA Indigenous People’s Rights ActIRA Internal Revenue AllotmentISF Integrated Social ForestryISWM Integrated Solid Waste ManagementJBIC Japan Bank for International CooperationKAPAWA Kahublagan Sang Pumuluyo Sa Watershed KSPFI Kahublagan Sang Panimalay Foundation, Inc.LBP Land Bank of the PhilippinesLGA Local Government AcademyLGSP II Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program II LGU Local Government UnitsLGUSCP Local Government Units Support Credit ProgramLMP League of Municipalities of the PhilippinesLOGOFIND Local Government Finance and Development ProjectLRPs Local Resource Partners MA Mineral AgreementMAGAGDA Mati Green AgroForestry Development Association MGB Mines and GeoSciences BureauMIWD Metro Iloilo Water DistrictMOA Memorandum of Agreement

ixS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

ACRONYMS

x S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

MPDCs Municipal Planning and Development CoordinatorsMPFD Master Plan for Forest Development MPSA Mineral Production Sharing AgreementNAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information AdministrationNIA National Irrigation AdministrationNCIP National Commission on ICCs/IPsNGAs National Government AgenciesNGOs Non-Government OrganizationsNIPAS National Integrated Protected Area System NPC National Power CorporationNRMP Natural Resources Management ProgramOIDCI Orient Integrated Development Consultants, Inc.PAMB Protected Area Management Board PAO Provincial Agriculturist’s OfficePASSO Provincial Assessor’s OfficePASST Philippines Australia Governance FacilityPASu Protected Area Superintendent PAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau PCARRD Philippines Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research DevelopmentPCEEM Philippines-Canada Environmental and Economic Management Project PENR Provincial Environment and Natural ResourcesPENROs Provincial Environment and Natural Resource Offices/OfficersPMWC Philippine Watershed Management CoalitionPO People’s OrganizationPOF People Oriented Forestry PPDO Provincial Planning and Development Office

ACRONYMS

RA Republic ActRDC Regional Development CouncilRED Regional Executive DirectorRTD Roundtable Discussion RUP Resource Use Permit SALT Sloping Agricultural Land TechnologySANREMCRSP Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Collaboration, Research

Support ProgramSEC Securities and Exchange CommissionSFM Sustainable Forest ManagementSIFMA Socialized Industrial Forest Management AgreementSIFMP Socialized Industrial Forest Management ProgramSMP Special Mines Permit SP Sangguniang PanlalawiganSWM Solid Waste ManagementTLAs Timber License AgreementsTREES Tropical Resources and Ecosystem SustainabilityUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentVALMA Valderama Lumber Manufacturers, Inc.VMPCI VIBANARA MultiPurpose Cooperative, Inc.WIDA Wood Industry Development AuthorityWMIC Watershed Management Improvement ComponentWRDP Water Resources Development Project

xiS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

RATIONALE FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

In the Philippines, watersheds are tapped as vital sources of water supply for domestic, irrigation,and industrial purposes. They also provide the socio-economic base to a growing populationand help maintain ecological balance, minimize the occurrence of floods and droughts, and

mitigate the effects of adverse climatic changes. However, forest cover in many watersheds are nowdwindling and are considered in critical state due to overexploitation and mismanagement (PCARRD,1991).

Deforestation and the large-scale transformation of the original vegetation of the country's forests tonon-forestry purposes, coupled with inappropriate land-use practices, have disrupted the hydrologicalcondition of watersheds. Likewise, population growth, pollution and indiscriminate development aredepleting the nation’s water sources. These have brought about flash floods and prolonged drought.Other adverse consequences are accelerated soil erosion, siltation of water bodies and reservoirs, andpoor water quality.

In the past, public awareness on watershed management opportunities for economic and waterresource development projects rarely existed. The public failed to appreciate the inherent and vital roleof watersheds in supplying water as well as providing other economic benefits.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The Philippine Constitution mandates the State to protect and advance the right of the people to abalanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. Through the LocalGovernment Code of 1991, the task of protecting and advancing the right of the people to a balanced

xiiiS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

and healthful ecology was devolved from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR) to Local Government Units (LGUs). This task includes the management of watersheds andforested lands as well as delivering basic services and facilities to their constituents.

LGUs play a critical role in controlling the continuing degradation of forests and uplands, and other relatedproblems of flooding and soil erosion—all of which are adversely affecting downstream areas. As a matterof fact, a number of circulars, administrative orders, and memoranda have been issued by both DENRand the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) to help guide LGUs address these issues.

WHAT LGUS CAN DO

There have been limited LGU initiatives in watershed management. In many cases, these initiatives arenot sustained. This situation indicates a continuing need for LGUs to know and understand theimportance of the watershed ecosystem, along with the scope of their mandate, the range of watershedmanagement activities they can pursue at their level and the external resources that they can tap andmobilize. LGUs will need relevant information, skills upgrading and technical assistance to developprojects that respond to their conditions and needs.

WHAT SOME LGUS HAVE DONE

One initiative LGUs have done is to formulate forest land use plans (FLUPs) to rationalize the uses offorestlands and determine the appropriate tenure arrangements for their management. AvailableFLUP guidelines allow the integration of forest land use plans into LGUs’ comprehensive land useplans (CLUPs). The province of Agusan del Sur and the municipality of Baggao in Cagayan Valley are amongthose that have pioneered forest land use planning and implementation.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xiv S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

Other LGUs have implemented an aggressive information, education, and communication (IEC)campaign to heighten the awareness of citizens on watershed management issues. The City of Baguioand the province of Iloilo are among those with an innovative IEC campaign. And there are LGUs whohave been successful in actual site development activities. The province of Nueva Vizcaya developedsome novel approaches to forest management that are not only pro-environment but also pro-people.The Claveria case highlights the LGU’s support for the Community-Based Forest Management Programthat has protected the area’s water supply.

This resource book focuses on doable measures for watershed management at the LGU level, rather thanthe very technical aspects of watershed management. This book is designed to provide information andinsights that will enable LGUs to expand their current knowledge of watershed management practicesand experiences in various parts of the country.

xvS E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

John Wesley Powell, a scientist and a geographer defines a watershed as “that area of land, abounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked by their commonwater course and where, as humans settled, simple logic demanded that they become part of acommunity.” A watershed is a complex ecosystem with interacting natural components. It is a vital

source of water supply, provides socio-economic base to a population, and helps maintain ecologicalbalance. However, human activities have a direct impact on the quality and quantity of surface water,groundwater, and other natural resources present in the watershed.

By its very nature, watershed management must be integrated. It should address both water and therelated land resources that affect or are affected by water. Water resources include surface water(rivers, streams and lakes) and groundwater. Land resources include wetlands, forests, flora and fauna.Issues related to water and land resources pertain to flooding, water quality, and soil erosion. Thepremise that everything is connected to everything else lies at the very heart of watershed management.

The presence of various complex interacting natural components in a watershed is also the cause ofconflicts. This is also the reason why it has been difficult to address the various issues related towatershed management. These issues include: (a) how can a watershed accommodate a growingpopulation; (b) how can it sustain its support to an expanding urban area; and (c) how does oneproperly allocate land and water for various uses while ensuring that the water’s quality and quantitysuit the needs of the stakeholders. These are a few of the various problems local watershed managersmust face.

In the Philippines, local governments are tasked to help resolve the conflicts arising from this complexecosystem. To help LGUs face this challenge, this resource book on Watershed Management wasdeveloped. The materials collated here aim to: (1) provide LGUs information on the development of

1S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

INTRODUCTION

solutions to challenges, working models and specific watershed management activities that can bestudied and replicated when appropriate; (2) enhance LGUs understanding of their mandates with respectto watershed management and help them identify opportunities for their involvement; and (3) guideLGUs in identifying sources of assistance that would help them formulate and improve their watershedmanagement efforts.

This book attempts to show examples on watershed management efforts, with the involvement ofdifferent sectors: upland communities, municipalities, national government agencies, water supplymanagers ,civil society groups and the private sector. This book takes a holistic view, exploring the cause-effect relationships of human activities on natural functions and processes that extend acrossjurisdictional boundaries, and considering actions that go beyond the usual tree planting activities.

LGUs can use this resource book to help them prepare watershed management projects. Users of thisbook are presented with innovative ways of providing the needed services to their communities in orderto address the various issues related to watersheds. This book also encourages LGUs to start small, thinkbig, and scale up fast in implementing service delivery projects. Watershed management is somethingthat LGUs cannot do alone. The book relates information that is clear, interesting, and relevant to reallife situations. The concepts presented here are expressively direct and clear. The following chapterscomprise this resource book:

Chapter 1. Overview of the Watershed Management Sector. This serves to introduce the reader toimportant concepts and principles that are used in watershed management.

Chapter 2. LGU Mandates on Watershed Management. This provides a list of policies that relate towatershed management with a brief description of each. The policies are classified into sectors: generalpolicies, watershed/forest management planning, CBFM, industrial forest management, protected

INTRODUCTION

2 S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

areas, ancestral domain, mining and others. Also provided is a list of relevant international covenantsof which the Philippines is a signatory.

Chapter 3. Implementation & Policy Issues and Recommendations. This contains the issues andconcerns as well as recommendations that have been identified. The section covers issues on policygaps, technical and funding capabilities of LGUs, socio-economic conditions of LGUs, and coordinationof sectoral plans and activities.

Chapter 4. Good Practices in Watershed Management. This puts together and describes actualexperiences of LGUs, communities and DENR on what practitioners and experts consider as goodpractices in watershed management. In view of the complexity of “watershed management,” goodpractices that relate to it cover a broad range of activities and do not only focus on actual rehabilitation(e.g., reforestation) and protection works.

Chapter 5. References and Tools. This contains a list of materials that could serve as good referencefor LGUs. These materials cover a broad range of topics, from general concepts and programs to veryspecific projects and approaches. This section also contains study tour sites that LGUs could visit shouldthey want to observe good practices in watershed management.

The Annex features articles that could help deepen LGU appreciation of the challenges and doablesin watershed management. The Philippines Strategy for Improved Watershed Resources Managementoutlines the philosophy, guiding principles, and key elements of the country’s strategy, and the actorsthat will be involved in its implementation. Another article elaborates on community-based forestmanagement as a national strategy for watershed improvement. Finally, two documents examine theneed for management of forestlands and the roles of municipalities particularly with respect toallocation and management of timberlands.


INTRODUCTION

Much of the content of this resource book was developed with the assistance of the Orient IntegratedDevelopment Consultants, Inc., which is also involved in the implementation of the PhilippineEnvironmental Governance Project (EcoGov).

A companion book published by the Local Governance Support Program (LGSP), titled “ResourceFinder: Financial and Technical Assistance for LGUs,” provides additional information on the differenttypes of assistance that LGUs can access from government agencies, government financing institutions,ODA, and civil society organizations. Watershed management is among the service areas covered bythe Resource Finder.

INTRODUCTION

4 S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

OVERVIEW OF THE WATERSHEDMANAGEMENT SECTOR

CHAPTERONE 1


CHAPTER 1❙ WATER AS THE MAJOR CONCERN OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Time magazine predicted that a Third World War would be triggered bycompetition for water. The world has begun to experience abnormalities in thesupply of water in recent years. As demand increases and the supply of goodquality water diminishes, more and more communities will experience watershortages. At the same time, flooding has become more frequent in someareas, supplying excessive amounts of water that these communities do not need.Thus, the sayings: “thirst in the midst of plenty” and “scarcity in times of need.”

Like other tropical countries, the Philippines is experiencing this extremeimbalance between the demand for and supply of water. This disparity can belargely attributed to human actions that adversely affect the water cycle. Overthe last few years, a lot of effort and resources have been poured by thegovernment to watershed management in order to overcome this problemand to ensure the steady supply of water to meet the ever-increasing resourcedemand from competing users. Little has been achieved, thus far. This onlymeans that this effort entails more action and involvement from all sectorsthat are to benefit from this endeavor.

Watershed management is primarily concerned with the quantity and quality of water. Yet the“regimen” or schedule (i.e., availability of water when needed) of this prized resource is alsocritical.1

Overview Of The Watershed Management Sector

Watershed n.

A watershed is the

total land area that

contributes to the

flow of a particular

water body (e.g.,

river, creek, or

stream), including

the area where the

water drains out.

8

❙ WATERSHED DEFINED

A watershed is the total land area that contributes to the flow of a particular water body (e.g., river,creek, or stream), including the area where the water drains out. The outlet can be a dam, irrigationsystem, or water supply take-off point. It can be a place where the stream or river discharges intoa larger water body such as a bigger river, a lake, or the sea.2

A watershed is a natural system whose boundary is determined on the ground by the highest pointsor ridgeline near or around a water body. Ridgelines, also referred to as a topographic divide, separateone watershed from another.3

In other regions, the term “watershed” is also known as a catchment area or drainage basin.Several related watersheds are sometimes referred to as a river basin. In general, the term“watershed”can be used to refer to a small catchment area or to several sub-watersheds that makeup a river basin.

A watershed does not refer only to forests or the upper reaches ofmountains or uplands. The complete watershed continuum (e.g., ofa large river basin) includes the uplands (which include the headwatersor the origin of the water system), the lowlands, and the coastal zonewhere the outlet of the river system is located.4

There is a strong interdependence among the uplands, lowlands,and coastal areas within a watershed. Activities in the uplands affectthe lowlands and coastal area (e.g., deforestation brings about siltationin rivers and coastal areas), while some developments in the lowlandshave implications on the resources in the uplands (e.g., populationgrowth and lack of employment opportunities in lowland areasencourage migration to the uplands).

1 Watershed MANAGEMENT

S E R V I C E D E L I V E R Y W I T H I M P A C T : R E S O U R C E B O O K S F O R L O C A L G O V E R N M E N T

Main River

Tributary

9

Since it is a natural system, watersheds transcend political boundaries. Rarely do political boundariesfollow the ridgeline. A watershed can encompass one or more barangays, municipalities, or evenregions (e.g., the headwaters of the Agusan River Basin are located in Compostela Valley in Region11 and the river discharges into Butuan Bay). Therefore, the management of a watershed that coverstwo or more political units requires the concerted efforts of the concerned local governmentunits (LGUs).

❙ WATERSHED AS A PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT UNIT

The reasons for the use of “watershed” as a planning and management unit can be viewed fromboth technical and social standpoints.


OVERVIEW OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SECTOR 1

Headwaters

HillsPlains Coastal Areas

Watershed Continuum

10



TECHNICAL STANDPOINT SOCIAL STANDPOINT

A watershed is a holistic frame of reference. Itis the most practical unit for an ecosystemapproach in resolving environmental issues.The diagnosis of such issues must bethorough—from the headwaters down to thecoastal zone.

The river system links the headwaters and theestuary, and the land, water, forest, farmland,urban and rural settlements.

It uses a fixed natural boundary, rather thanan arbitrary one such as political boundaries.This minimizes confusion as to the actual sizeof the area it covers. With a well-defined area,it also becomes easier to monitor the impactof watershed management on soil,vegetation, animal life, microclimate, andother factors.

Water is the critical factor—the mediumthrough which energy, elements, soil, andpollutants circulate in the biosphere. Thequantity and quality of water is the mainindicator in monitoring the impact ofwatershed management interventions.

The activities of people upstream have animpact on the lives of people downstream. Inthe watershed approach, upstream-downstream relations and interdependenciesare dealt with. It is easier to identify thestakeholders and the interests they represent(e.g., loggers and miners in the headwaters,farmers in lowlands, business groups andwater users in urban centers). It encouragesmultisectoral and participatory planning andmanagement processes.

Everyone in a given watershed depends onthe health and quality of the watershed fordrinking water, flood protection, food, rawmaterials, and other life-sustaining elements.

The quantity and quality of drinking water isunrivaled as an environmental concern.

Many environmental issues cannot beresolved within the limits of LGU boundaries.The watershed framework identifies the LGUsthat will need to collaborate with each other.

11

The watershed approach simply means taking the whole watershed as a planning and managementunit and employing an integrated, comprehensive, and ecosystem-based approach to problemanalysis, planning, and implementation. A shift to the watershed approach by LGUs would meanthe following:

Encouraging LGU planners, who may be focused on concerns that are within the limits of theLGU's political boundaries, to think beyond their political boundariesA better understanding by LGU planners of the ecological processes occurring within thewatershed that govern upland-lowland relationshipsUnderstanding of a broad range of issues, which may cover different ecosystems, and which maybe occurring beyond the political boundaries of an LGU Putting more emphasis on planning skills and providing basic training on proper mapping andspatial analysis in planningInvolving more leaders in planning and implementation; encouraging multi-sectoral and inter-LGU collaborationEducating decision-makers on the rationale and merits of the watershed management approach

❙ NATURE OF WATERSHED DEGRADATION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

The country has a land area of 30 million hectares. In 1934, 57 percent or 17 million hectares of thesewere still covered with forests. In 1980, this was reduced to 7.4 million hectares. Recent estimatesindicate that there are only about 5.33 million hectares, roughly 18 percent of the total land area,still covered with forests.

These figures show the gravity of watershed degradation. If allowed to continue, this situation willhave great repercussions on economic activities, and the health and social well being of communitieswithin and beyond the watershed.



12

Watershed degradation takes on several forms, or a combination of the following:

Soil degradation - decline in soil productivity as the topsoil erodes and the hydrological,biological, chemical, and physical properties of the soil are changed. As soil productivity falls,yields from croplands, pastures and forests also decline. This could mean lesser vegetativecover, thus further increasing the rate of soil degradation. Vegetation degradation - decrease in vegetative ground cover and the decline in the qualityand quantity of natural biomass. The reduction of vegetative ground cover results insedimentation and siltation in rivers, water supply reservoirs, irrigation systems, and hydropowerplants. The downstream siltation of lakes, coral reefs, and mangroves adversely affects coastaland marine resources. Biodiversity degradation - reduction in the diversity of species. The most extreme form ofdegradation is the extinction of some species of fauna and flora. This decreases the gene pooland the global biological heritage. Water degradation - decrease in the quantity and quality of both surface and ground waterand increased risk of downstream flood damage. This results primarily from the loss of vegetativecover. Manifestations of water degradation include decreasing groundwater discharge, dryingup of springs and streams, and extreme fluctuations in stream flows and fishkills due to thedecrease of the water's quality.Climate degradation - changes in the micro-climatic conditions that increase the risk of cropfailure due to a decrease of available water. This could have severe consequences on food supply. Land conversion - dwindling arable and forestlands due to land use change such as urbansettlements, industrial parks, roads, and golf courses. This will seriously affect food security.Landscape degradation - diminished scenic value of natural landscapes since these are destroyedby visual and physical intrusion of urban and industrial development, mining and quarrying.

It takes some time before the consequences of watershed degradation become apparent; hencethey are often not immediately recognized. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a disaster for LGUsand communities to realize the value and urgency of taking care of their watersheds.5



13

❙ CAUSES OF WATERSHED DEGRADATION6



Direct Causes

Deforestation and removal of naturalvegetationOver extraction of surface andgroundwaterImproper management of cultivatedarable land (e.g., no soil erosion controlmeasures)Improper management of natural forestsand tree plantations (e.g., use ofdestructive harvesting technologies)OvergrazingIndustrial activities (e.g., road cuttings,chemical pollution)Unregulated land conversion

Underlying Causes

Population growth and migration to theuplandsIncreased urbanization and development inthe lowlands (increased demand for water,raw materials)Insecure land tenure (in forestlands)Poverty and economic disadvantageLack of markets for upland productsInappropriate conservation technologiesLack of access to financingLimited institutional support servicesConflicting mandates of different institutionsConflicting policiesExploration of natural resources (the truevalue of natural resources is not recognizedso that users are not encouraged to use themefficiently)

❙ GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR IMPROVED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

To ensure the sustainability of the natural resources of watersheds, the following guiding principlesneed to be followed: 7

Ecological Sustainability – The technologies and production processes involved in usingand developing a watershed’s natural resources should not have adverse environmental effects. Social and Cultural Sustainability – The use and development of the watershed’s resources

14

should be compatible with the culture and values of the people affected by it and shouldstrengthen community identity. Moreover, there must be equitable sharing of costs andbenefits between, and within, communities and households.Economic Sustainability – Resources must be used and managed in an economically efficientmanner and must benefit the greatest number of people. The potential of the resources tosupport future generations must also be ensured. Institutional Sustainability – Community-based organizations, NGOs, LGUs, and nationalagencies involved in watershed management planning, implementation, and monitoringshould have the financial and human resources to sustain the delivery of services.

❙ WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INTERVENTIONS

Watershed degradation has numerous causes. Degradation occurs in different forms and theconsequences can be long-term and far-reaching. Watershed management is thus a complexprocess that requires an integrated set of interventions at different levels—national, provincial,municipal, community, and farm. These interventions can be classified into three:

Policy and LegislationInstitutional Support ServicesTechnology

◗ WHAT ARE DOABLE AT THE LGU LEVEL?8

Policy and Legislation

Integrate watershed management planning concepts and principles into provincial andmunicipal level comprehensive land use planning procedures. Integrate a forestland use plan into the LGU’s comprehensive land use plan.



15

Identify and focus attention on watersheds that require priority based on locally developed, ratherthan nationally determined criteria. These may include watersheds that are supporting local watersupply and irrigation systems, biodiversity areas, important socio-cultural areas, eco-tourismareas, and even hazard areas.Enter into joint management agreement with DENR for specific watersheds.Define specific areas within watersheds that require total protection (e.g., habitats of rare andendangered species, critical water sources).Collaborate with DENR in defining the permanent forest lines.In consultation with DENR, establish local laws for regulating land use within watersheds.Enforce national forestry laws consistently and in a transparent manner.Establish or strengthen multisectoral forest protection groups to help enforce forestry laws andordinances.Encourage local investments for improved watershed management.

Institutional Support Services

Adopt a multisectoral, inter-LGU and inter-agency approach to watershed management;collaborate and plan together with LGUs that share a watershed; create a multisectoralWatershed Resource Management Committee/Council.Stimulate support and demand for improved watershed management at the community level.Identify and get the views of key stakeholders or groups of people who depend on thewatershed, such as upland farmers, water districts, and irrigators’ associations.Establish a system for the collection, review, and dissemination of critical watershed information.Support the community-based forest management (CBFM) program of the national government.This program considers the upland communities as de facto “forest resource managers.” LGUsmay support CBFM by helping upland communities organize themselves, apply for tenure,prepare management plans, and adopt more sustainable forest management and farmingpractices. LGUs can also provide them with the necessary support services.Develop an integrated upland agriculture/forestry extension support service that makes use ofpeople-centered learning processes.



16

Implement an Information, Education and Communications (IEC) program that would enhanceenvironmental awareness in communities.Build partnerships and tap external organizations providing both technical and funding supportto sustain LGU activities in watershed management.

Technology

Conduct research and/or observe upland technologies that have been successfully usedelsewhere. Organize study tours for upland farmers and LGU officials to these areas. Initiate community-based watershed management projects such as agro-forestry, soil andwater conservation projects, communal forests, and reforestation using technologies that aresimple, low-cost, low-risk, flexible, and conservation-effective; and which build on indigenouspractices. Develop and utilize simple, primarily qualitative, biophysical indicators and tools for detectingdegradation trends and monitoring effects of interventions.Help DENR monitor management practices of those given tenure over forestlands within theLGU territory to make sure these forestlands are being used as planned. Support the establishment of small- to medium-scale forest-based industries.Allocate resources to market-based mechanisms (e.g., improve market access of uplandcommunities, identify market opportunities for upland commodities, develop local processingcapabilities).

The success of watershed management projects in the Philippines relies not only on the supportof the local governments and communities but also on the legal mandates on which these projectscan be anchored. The next chapter presents various laws (both national and local), mandates,directives, and administrative orders that provide the backbone necessary to implement watershedmanagement activities in the country.



LGU MANDATES ON WATERSHEDMANAGEMENT

CHAPTERTWO 2


CHAPTER 2❙ GENERAL

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Article 11 of the Constitution maintains that the State shall protect and advance the right of thepeople to a balanced and healthful ecology in accordance with the rhythm and harmony ofnature.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160: THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES(1991)

This devolves from the DENR to the LGUs certain forest management functions, specifically thefollowing:

Implementation of Integrated Social Forestry (ISF)Management of and control over communal forests with an area of 50 square kilometers or lessEstablishment of tree parks and greenbeltsEnforcement of laws related to mangrove resources conservation within municipal waters

The Local Government Code (LGC) requires conducting consultations with the concerned LGUs,NGOs, and other concerned sectors for any proposed project or program. It also defines theshares of the LGU in the proceeds from the development and use of the national wealth.

LGU MANDATES ON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

20

The pertinent provisions with respect to watershed/forest management are cited below.“SECTION 17. Basic Services and Facilities. (a) Local government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall continue exercising the

powers and discharging the duties and functions currently vested upon them. They shall alsodischarge the functions and responsibilities of national agencies and offices devolved to thempursuant to this Code. Local government units shall likewise exercise such other powers anddischarge such other functions and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidentalto efficient and effective provision of the basic services and facilities enumerated therein.”

“(b) Such basic services and facilities include, but are not limited to, the following:”

Province“Pursuant to national policies and subject to supervision, control and review of the DENR,enforcement of forestry laws limited to community-based forestry projects, xxx.”Sec. 17, (b) (3) (iii)

Municipality“Extension and on-site research services and facilities related to… and enforcement of fishery lawsin municipal waters including the conservation of mangroves.” Sec. 17 (b) (2) (i)

“Pursuant to national policies and subject to supervision, control and review of the DENR,implementation of community-based forestry projects, which include integrated social forestryprograms and similar projects; management and control of communal forest with an area notexceeding fifty (50) square kilometers, establishment of tree parks, greenbelts, and similar forestdevelopment projects.” Sec. 17 (b) (2) (ii)

City“All the services and facilities of the municipality and provinces….” Sec.17 (b) (4)

2 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT


21

The other provisions of the Code that pertain to forest management functions to beperformed by the local government units are:

Municipal Mayor“For efficient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which is the general welfareof the municipality government, and in this connection shall: … Adopt adequate measures tosafeguard and conserve… forest, and other resources of the municipality;” Sec. 444 (b) (3) (vii)

Sangguniang Bayan“Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective municipalgovernment, and in this connection shall: …Protect the environment and impose appropriatepenalties for acts which endanger the environment, such as … illegal logging and smuggling oflogs, smuggling of natural resources products and of endangered species of flora and fauna,slash and burn farming….” Sec. 447 (a) (1) (vi)

“Approve ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and effective delivery of the basic services andfacilities as provided for under Section 17 of this Code, and in addition to said services andfacilities, shall: Provide for the establishment, maintenance, protection, and conservation ofcommunal forests and watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other similar forestdevelopment projects.” Sec.447 (a) (5) (i)

City Mayor“ Ensure the delivery of basic services and the provision of adequate facilities as provided for underSection 17 of this Code….” Sec. 455 (b) (4)

Sangguniang Panglungsod“Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective city government,and in this connection, shall: … Protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for actswhich endanger the environment, such as … illegal logging and smuggling of logs, smuggling of

LGU MANDATES ON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 2


22

natural resources products and endangered species of flora and fauna, slash and burn farming….”Sec.458 (a) (1) (vi)

“Approve ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and effective delivery of basic services andfacilities as provided for under Section 17 of this Code, and in addition to said services andfacilities, shall: Provide for the establishment, maintenance, protection and conservation ofcommunal forests and watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other similar forestdevelopment projects.” Sec. 458 (a) (5) (i)

Provincial Governor“For efficient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which is the general welfareof the province and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the provincial governor shall:

“Adopt adequate measures to safeguard and conserve…forest and other resources of the province,in coordination with the mayors of component cities and municipalities:” 465 (b) (3) (v)“Ensure the delivery of basic services and the provision of adequate facilities as provided forunder Section 17 of this Code….” Sec. 456

Sangguniang PanlalawiganApprove ordinances and pass resolution necessary for an efficient and effective provincialgovernment and in this connection, shall: “Protect the environment and impose appropriatepenalties for acts which endanger the environment, such as…illegal logging and smuggling of logs,smuggling of natural resources products and of endangered species of flora and fauna, slash andburn farming….” Sec 468 (a) (1) (vi)

BarangayThe Local Government Code did not devolve any specific forest management functions to thebarangays.



23

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 92-30Guidelines for the Transfer and Implementation of DENR Functions Devolved to LocalGovernment Units

This order identifies specific DENR functions, programs, and projects to be devolved to LGUs foreach of the sectors: forest management, protected areas and wildlife management, landmanagement and mines development.

In forest management, the implementation of the following community-based forestry projectswas devolved: ISF projects; establishment of new regular reforestation projects (except thoseareas located in protected areas and critical watersheds); completed family and community-based contract reforestation projects; Forest Land Management Agreements; and CommunityForestry Projects.

Also devolved are the management and control of communal forests with an area not exceeding50 square kilometers or 5,000 hectares; management, protection, rehabilitation and maintenanceof small watershed areas that are sources of local water supply; enforcement of forest laws incommunity-based forestry project areas, small watershed areas and communal forests, includingthe apprehension of violators of forest laws, and the confiscation of illegally extracted forestproducts on site.

In addition to their Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA), LGUs are to allot funds for financing localdevelopment and livelihood projects, and for protecting and developing the environment andnatural resources. These funds will come from LGUs’share of 40 percent of the gross collection derivedby the national government from mining taxes, royalties, forestry charges and other taxes, fees, orcharges enumerated in the Code.

The DENR shall transfer to the concerned LGUs the personnel and assets including pertinent recordsand equipment corresponding to the devolved functions. The DENR and the concerned LGUs shall



24

organize, within six months from the approval of this Order, an Environment and Natural ResourcesCouncil (ENRC). This council shall consist of appropriate LGU and DENR officials and representativesfrom the concerned LGU. The ENRC shall review and recommend the implementation of programsand projects, and perform oversight functions on matters pertaining to environment and naturalresources.

DENR-DILG JOINT MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 98-01 Manual of Procedures for DENR-DILG-LGU Partnership on Devolved and Other ForestManagement Functions

This document indicates how to build an effective partnership between the LGUs and the DENRin forest management. The partnership is anchored on the Local Government Code and DENRAdministrative Order No. 30, Series of 1992. The salient provisions of the Circular are:

“Creation of a National Steering Committee to formulate policies and programs towardstrengthening and institutionalizing the DENR-DILG-LGU partnership on devolved and otherforest management functions. Regional Steering Committees will likewise be created to overseeand monitor the DENR-DILG-LGU partnership and to prepare a strategic plan which shallinclude, among others, joint land use planning, resources sharing, and training for LGU capacitybuilding on forest management.”“The appointment or designation of an Environment and Natural Resources Officer and thecreation of an ENR Office in the LGUs shall be encouraged.”“Forest management projects (reforestation, communal forests, forest or tree parks, greenbelts)and functions devolved from the DENR (and personnel, equipment and other resources sotransferred from the DENR) to the LGUs shall be fully documented and covered with aMemorandum of Agreement.”“The review and assessment of existing CBFM projects and the implementation of new CBFMprojects shall be reviewed and assessed jointly. “



25

“The DENR and the LGUs shall coordinate closely in forest protection and enforcement offorest laws and regulations. Joint DENR-LGU forest protection teams in the regional, provincial,municipal and barangay levels shall be created.”“DENR and LGU will jointly identify potential community watershed areas in the LGUs’jurisdictionthrough joint forestland use planning. Upon request by the LGUs’ Sanggunian, the DENR willdeclare the identified area as a Community Watershed.”“The issuance by DENR of tenurial instruments in forestlands and for forest products’utilizationshall be in coordination with the LGUs. “

Note that this Memo Circular is currently under review under the Philippine EnvironmentalGovernance Project (EcoGov) to enhance the concept of partnership between DENR and LGUs.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 192Providing for the Reorganization of the Department of Environment, Energy and NaturalResources, Renaming it as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and forother Purposes (1987)

This Order mandates the DENR as the primary government agency responsible for the conservation,management, development, and proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources,specifically forest and grazing lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulationof all natural resources.

This EO created the Forest Management Bureau (FMB), which would absorb the powers andfunctions of the Bureau of Forest Development (BFD) and the Wood Industry DevelopmentAuthority (WIDA). The FMB shall advise the Secretary on matters pertaining to forest developmentand conservation. The EO also created a Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) to take overwildlife and marine parks of the BFD, all national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and game preservespreviously managed by the Ministry of Human Settlements and national parks reservations.



26

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 705 Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines (1975)

This Decree assigns the Department to study, devise, determine, and prescribe the criteria,guidelines, and methods for the proper and accurate classification and survey of all lands of thepublic domain into agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timberor forest, and grazing lands, and other classes.

This PD also establishes the multiple uses of forestlands by providing that the numerous beneficialuses of the timber, land, soil, water, wildlife, grass and recreation or aesthetic value of forest lands,and grazing shall be evaluated and weighed before allowing their utilization, exploitation,occupation or possession.

According to this PD, “only the utilization, exploitation, occupation or possession of any forest landsand grazing lands, or any activity therein, involving one or more of its resources which will producethe optimum benefits for the development and progress of the country and public welfare,without impairment or with the least injury to its resources, shall be allowed”.

“The Code is open to the development or use of all forest reservations as long as they are consistentwith the principal objectives of the reservation. Critical watersheds, national parks, and establishedexperimental forests, however, shall not be subject to commercial logging or grazing operations,and game refuges; bird sanctuaries, marine and seashore parks shall no be subject to hunting orfishing and/or activities of commercial nature.”

“No person may utilize, exploit, occupy, possess or conduct any activity within any forest and grazingland, or establish, install, add and operate any wood or forest products processing plant, unless hehas been authorized to do under a license agreement, license, lease or permit. Upon therecommendation of the appropriate government agency, the President may, pending the conductof appropriate hearing, order the summary suspension of any such contract, concession, license,permit, lease or privilege granted for violations of any of the conditions.”



27

“In order to achieve the effective protection of the forest lands and the resources therein from illegalentry, unlawful occupation, kaingin, fire, insect infestation, theft, and other forms of forestdestruction, the utilization of timber shall not be allowed except through license agreements. Holdersof such licenses however have the obligation to adopt all the protection and conservationmeasures to ensure the continuity of the productive condition of said areas, conformably withmultiple use and sustained yield management. Penalties will be imposed for the illegal cutting,gathering and/or collecting timber or other products.”

❙ WATERSHED MANAGEMENT/FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 99-01 Adoption of the Watershed and Ecosystems Planning Framework

The DENR officially adopts the Watershed and Ecosystems Planning and Management Framework.Thus, all DENR offices are to review and realign all programs and projects, including their budgets,in accordance with the priority watershed areas of the regions.

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 97-02

This requires the creation of a set of criteria for defining a watershed, prior to the formulation ofa watershed management plan.



28

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 95-15 Revised General Guidelines in the Implementation of the Sub-Classification of Forestlandsand other Inalienable Lands of the Public Domain

The Order defines the various forestland classification categories and criteria that will be used forclassification. This AO also describes the procedures for the survey, zoning and mapping, processingand approval of the sub-classification.

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS NO. 92-23Institutionalization of the Master Plan for Forestry Development within DENR and DefiningFunctions of Offices for the Purpose

This document provides implementation support within the DENR organization for the PhilippineMaster Plan for Forest Development. This AO also created various support groups and defines theircomposition and functions.

❙ COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT (CBFM)

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 263 Adopting Community–Based Management as the National Strategy to Ensure theSustainable Development of the Country’s Forestland Resources and Providing Mechanismsfor its Implementation (1995)

This EO grants organized communities (including indigenous peoples) access to the forestlandresources under long-term tenurial agreements, provided they employ environment-friendly,ecologically sustainable, and labor-intensive harvesting methods.



29

This Order also creates a multi-agency CBFM Steering Committee headed by the DENR to formulateand develop policy guidelines needed to effectively carry out CBFM. The DENR is mandated toestablish a CBFM special account to provide a financial and professional incentive system fordeserving communities. It is also tasked to consult with government financial institutions aboutcreating favorable financing mechanisms for communities and organizations.

Superseded by Executive Order 263: DENR Administrative Order No. 93-22 Revised Guidelines forCommunity Forestry Program

Revised under Executive Order 263: DENR Administrative Orders No. 91-04 Revised RegulationsGoverning the Integrated Social Forestry Program

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS NO. 96-29 Rules and Regulation for the Implementation of Executive Order 263, otherwise knownas the Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) Strategy

The Order establishes the CBFM Program to implement EO 263. Under this program, local organizedcommunities shall be issued tenure instruments and will be assisted by DENR, LGU and otherorganizations in the preparation of a Community Resource Management Framework. The frameworkshall serve as a guide in the access, development, use, and protection of resources in areas to bemanaged by the communities. The Order describes in detail the activities under each stage of thecommunity-based forest management program.

LGUs are to be actively involved in CBFM. Specifically, they should be involved in: (a) conducting an Information Education Communication (IEC) campaign with DENR; (b) identifying, selecting, and validating CBFM areas; (c) endorsing PO applications for CBFMA; and (d) assisting in community appraisal, organization, and resource management planning. LGUs may

also help finance CBFM development, conservation, and harvesting activities.



30

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2000-44 Amending Certain Provisions of DAO 96-29 and Providing Specific Guidelines for theEstablishment and Management of Community-Based Projects Within Protected Areas

This Order allows community-based projects inside multiple-use and buffer zones of protected areas,except any form of logging, or timber cutting that involves the natural forest. Qualified tenuredmigrant communities may participate in the Community-Based Projects and may be issuedCBFMAs (Community-based Forest Management Agreements) within protected areas. Theseagreements (CBFMAs) will be endorsed by the Protected Area Management Board.

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2000-29 GUIDELINES Regulating the Harvesting and Utilization of Forest Products within Community-BasedForest Management Areas

These guidelines require holders of tenurial instruments under the CBFM program of DENR to securea Resource Use Permit before they can use naturally grown and/or planted forest resources. Thetenure holders should have an affirmed Community Resources Management Framework andAnnual Work Plan. The extraction of forest products will be limited only to identified productionzones. The remaining forest areas should not be less than 80 cubic meters per hectare afterharvesting.

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE NO. 99-35 Revised Guidelines in the Implementation of the Resource Use Permit in Community-Based Forest Management Programs

The Order suspends the processing and issuance of resource use permits for CBFM holders and otherpeople-oriented forestry projects. This Administrative Order provides more guidelines for theformulation and approval of resource use permits.



31

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 99-29 Amendments to DAO No. 96-29 which Prescribes the Rules and Regulations for theImplementation of Executive Order No. 263, Otherwise Known as the Community-BasedForest Management Strategy

DAO No. 99-29 makes changes to DAO 96-29, which prescribes the implementing rules andregulations of EO 263. In particular, DAO No. 99-29 repeals the requirement in DAO No. 96-29 forLGUs to endorse/affirm the CRMFs, AWPs and RUPs of CBFM POs. Instead, LGUs should be providedcopies of approved CBFMs, CRMFs, AWPs. REDs, PENROs, and CENROs are to continue/enhance theirclose coordination with concerned LGUs

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 99-28 Amendment to Certain Provisions of DENR Administrative Order No. 12 Series of 1993entitled “Revised Guidelines Regulating the Implementation and Management of DENR-CARP Activities”

This Order redefines DENR’s involvement in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)to include the allocation of non-alienable lands suitable to agroforestry through the implementationof CBFM. This order also mandates DENR to train LGUs and Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)staff in order to enhance their technical expertise to support the implementation of the CBFM Program.The Order also describes in detail the DENR-CARP organizational structures and their functions.

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 99-11 Amending DAO 98 Series of 1988 to Include CBFMP Under the Coverage of Program D of theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and the National Anti Poverty Program

Program D of CARP should now include public A and D lands, as well as forestlands. To implementagrarian reform in public lands, the program should also include both land transfer and non-transfer CBFM schemes. The allocation of lands through the CBFM Strategy should conform to theprovisions of DAO 96-29.



32

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS NO. 98-41 Guidelines on the Establishment and Management of Community-Based ForestManagement (CBFM) Projects Within Watershed Reservations

These guidelines concern the implementation of the CBFM strategy inside watershed reservations,which must be in accordance with the provisions of the National Integrated Protected AreasSystem (NIPAS) law and be consistent with the principles of multiple use, sustainable management,and biological diversity conservation.

The tenurial instruments and the procedure for implementing CBFM Projects inside watershedreservations will follow DAO 96-29 and related policies, provided that the Protected AreaSuperintendent and the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) are involved in all phases ofCBFM implementation. LGUs are tasked to provide assistance and help monitor the implementationof the affirmed CRMF and AWP.

DENR MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 98 – 08 Guidelines on Contracting Inside CBFM Areas

The Order sets the rules and regulations to hasten and systematize two types of contractinginside CBFM areas: (a) service contract for the extraction, transport, processing, and marketing offorest products, and (b) development contract for the development of portions of CBFM areas intoplantations, agro-forestry, livestock production, eco-tourism and other developmental activitiesas contained in the affirmed Community CRMF of the POs.

The guidelines provide that the PO should furnish the LGU with a copy of any service or developmentcontract and that the CENRO and LGUs shall jointly and periodically monitor the implementationof the contracts.



33

DENR MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 97-12 Guidelines for the Formulation of the Community Resource Management Frameworkand Annual Work Plan for Community-Based Forest Management Areas

This Circular defines the content and procedures for the preparation and affirmation of theCommunity Resource Management Framework (the community’s strategic plan for managing andbenefiting from the forest resources on a sustainable basis) and Annual Work Plan.

DENR MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO 97-11 Operationalization of the CBFM Program at the Regional, PENR, and CENR Offices

The Regional Offices are tasked to organize a CBFM Office to coordinate the implementation of theCBFM Program in the region. This office will be under the Regional Technical Director for ForestManagement Services. CBFM Teams at the CENRO are also created to undertake, monitor, andsupport field implementation.

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS NO. 96-30 Integration of All Community-Based Forest Management and People-Oriented Forestry(POF) Programs and Projects into the DENR Regular Structures

This Order seeks to integrate all DENR programs and CBFM and POF projects. It also aims toprovide a smooth transition in the turnover of all CBFM and POF programs and projects to the ForestManagement Bureau (FMB). The Order also creates the CBFM Office (CBFMO) in FMB and a CBFMAdvisory Committee to provide technical and administrative guidance to the CBFMO during thetransition period.



34

DILG MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 96-143Enjoining Support for the Community Forestry Program (CFP)

Directs local authorities, particularly cities and municipalities, to undertake community-basedforestry efforts and other initiatives in protecting the natural ecosystem. The Community ForestryProgram (CFP) preceded CBFM.

❙ INDUSTRIAL FOREST MANAGEMENT

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 99-53 Regulations Governing the Industrial Forest Management Program (IFMP)

This Order repeals DAO 91-42, DAO 93-60, and DAO 97-04. The Order defines the areas availablefor IFMP, which comprise the following:

(a) open and denuded lands, brushlands (b) degraded residual natural forests (c) areas covered by cancelled/expired Forest Land Grazing Agreement or pasture permits or

leases (d) government reforestation projects or portions thereof found to be more suitable or can be better

developed as IFP (e) production residual natural forest that may be best included in any of the aforementioned areas

and be a part of the managed forest under the Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA)(f ) areas under cancelled and expired Tenurial Land Agreements (TLAs).

The Order also establishes procedures in the processing of applications and approval of IFMAs,defines the terms and conditions of the IFMA, and the incentives and profit-sharing arrangementsunder the program.



35

Repealed by DENR AO 99-53: DENR Administrative Order No. 97-04 (Rules and RegulationsGoverning the Industrial Forest Management Program)

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS NO. 96-24Rules and Regulations Governing the Socialized Industrial Forest Management Program(SIFMP)

This provides for the issuance of a Socialized Industrial Forest Management Agreement (SIFMA) toqualified tree planters. SIFMAs may cover all grasslands, brushlands, and open and denudedforest lands under the jurisdiction of the DENR—including those within government reforestationprojects—and not otherwise to be classified under the NIPAS or subject of CADC, CALC, vested rights,licenses, permits or management agreements.

The Order outlines the procedures to be followed from the selection of SIFMA sites to the awardof the SIFMA itself. LGUs are involved in the validation and mapping of potential SIFMA sites, in theconduct of information campaigns, and in site monitoring and evaluation.

❙ ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8371 An Act to Recognize, Protect and Promote the Rights of Indigenous People, EstablishingImplementing Mechanisms, Appropriating Funds Therefore, and For Other Purposes(1997)

This Act recognizes the applicability of customary laws governing property rights or relations indetermining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain. The Government shall identify landsthat Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) or Indigenous Peoples (IPs) traditionally occupy andguarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession through the issuanceof a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT).



36

This RA further provides the procedures for the delineation process and guidelines of optionsregarding the management of critical watersheds, mangroves, wildlife sanctuaries, wilderness, andprotected areas within ancestral domains.

This Act creates the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), which is mandated toformulate and implement policies, plans, and programs to promote and protect the rights and wellbeing of ICCs/IPs, and recognize their ancestral domains.

Superseded by the IPRA of 1997: DENR Administrative Orders No. 96-34 and 93-02

❙ PROTECTED AREAS

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7586 National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS) Act (1992)

The law calls for the establishment of a National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) andadopts the following categories of protected areas:

(a) strict nature reserve; (b) natural park; (c) natural monument; (d) wildlife sanctuary; (e) protected landscapes and seascapes; (f ) resource reserve; and (g) natural biotic areas.

It places the NIPAS under the control and administration of the DENR. For each of the establishedprotected area, a Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) should be created. The law alsocreates a trust fund to be known as Integrated Protected Areas Fund for funding NIPAS projects.



37

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS NO. 92-25 National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Implementing Rules and Regulations

This Order describes the various steps to be taken by DENR in the (a) establishment of the initialcomponent of the NIPAS, (b) establishment of additional protected areas, and (c) establishmentof some protected areas. It also sets the guidelines for the preparation, approval, and adoption ofprotected area management plans, as well as a description of the various management zones anda detailed outline of the plan. It includes a salient provision on the creation and composition of thePAMB, which has representatives from the provincial, municipal and barangay LGUs.

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 99-21 Superseding DAO No. 97-05 and Prescribing the Revised Guidelines in the Implementationof the Pertinent Provisions of R.A. 1273, P.D. 705 and P.D. 1067

This Order provides that the following be demarcated and preserved as permanent timberland:

(a) strip of 40 meters wide starting from the bank on each side of any river or stream; (b) 20-meter strips of land along the edge of the normal high waterline of rivers and streams

with channels of at least five meters wide; and (c) strips of mangrove or swamplands at least 20 meters wide, along shorelines facing oceans, lakes,

and other bodies of water, and strips of land at least 20 meters facing lakes.

The necessary surveys will be undertaken to reflect these areas in maps and titles.

DENR MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 93-16 Guidelines on the Establishment and Management of Buffer Zones for Protected Areas

The purpose of this Circular is to prevent destruction of the protected area by establishing bufferzones outside its boundaries. The Circular establishes the ecological, social, and economic criteria



38

for setting a buffer zone; procedures for boundary delineation; and management zoning withinthe buffer zones.

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS NO. 92-13 Regulations Governing the Establishment of Buffer Zones Within Forestlands

This Order was issued to ensure the sustainability of the remaining forest resources by establishingbuffer zones between the boundary of production forests and areas used for agricultural and otherpurposes.

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS NO. 91-24 Shift in Logging from the Old Growth (Virgin) Forests to the Second Growth (Residual)Forests

Effective 1 January 1992, logging of the virgin forest will be prohibited. Logging operations will shiftto residual forests with prohibitions in certain areas. Timber License Agreements (TLA) and TimberProduction Sharing Agreement (TPSA) holders are ordered to conduct a timber inventory of theirresidual forests if they are to continue their logging operations.

❙ MINING

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7942The Philippine Mining Act (1995) An Act Instituting a New System of Mineral ResourcesExploration, Development, Utilization, and Conservation (1995)

The Act covers the exploration, development, use and processing of all mineral resources. Itdefines the areas that are open to mining operations and closed to mining applications. Forinstance, all mineral resources in public or private lands, including timber or forest lands as defined



39

in existing laws, are open to mineral agreements or financial or technical assistance agreementapplications.

Closed to mining applications are the following areas:

(a) military and other government reservations, except upon prior written clearance by thegovernment agency concerned;

(b) areas near or under public or private buildings, cemeteries, archeological and historic sites,bridges, highways, waterways, railroads, reservoirs, dams or other infrastructure projects,public or private works including plantations or valuable crops, except upon written consentof the government agency or private entity concerned;

(c) areas covered by valid and existing mining rights; (d) areas expressly prohibited by law to be mined; (e) areas covered by small-scale miners as defined by law, unless with prior consent of the small-

scale miners; and (f ) old-growth- or virgin forest-proclaimed watershed forest reserves, wilderness areas, mangrove

forests, mossy forests, national parks, provincial/municipal forests, parks, greenbelts, gamerefuge and bird sanctuaries, as defined by the NIPAS law.

No ancestral land shall be opened for mining operations without the prior consent of the indigenouscultural community concerned.

The Act describes the different arrangements, agreements and permits that the DENR can issue forthe exploration and use of mineral resources, and lists the incentives available to investors inmineral development.



40

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 96-40Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7942 Otherwise Knownas the “Philippine Mining Act of 1995”

This Order transforms the Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB) from a staff into a line bureau.It also defines the functions of local government units as follows:

(a) ensure that relevant laws on public notice, public consultation and public participation arecomplied with;

(b) in coordination with DENR, approve applications for small-scale mining, sand and graveloperations, quarrying, guano- and gemstone-gathering, and to approve gratuitous permits forindustrial sand and gravel operations not exceeding five hectares;

(c) receive their share (as provided for by law) in the wealth generated from the use of mineralresources and thus enhance economic progress and national development.

Furthermore, LGUs are supposed to:

(d) facilitate the means by which a community can make an informed decision on the socialacceptability of a mining project, a requirement for the issuance of an Environmental ComplianceCertificate;

(e) participate in the monitoring of any mining activity as a member of the Multipartite MonitoringTeam;

(f ) participate as a member of the Mine Rehabilitation Fund Committee; (g) receive social infrastructure and community development projects for the use of the host and

neighboring communities; (h) act as mediator between the Indigenous Cultural Community(ies) and the Contractor(s).

Among others, the Order sets out in detail the procedures and rules for the establishment anddismantling of mineral reservation, as well as rules for mining operations within mineral andgovernment reservations. It also describes the eligibility criteria and the terms and conditions of



41

exploration permits, mineral agreements, financial or technical assistance agreements, and quarryoperations. The Order establishes the conditions for applications for quarry permits, sand and gravelpermits, and small-scale mining permits from the Provincial Governor/City Mayor through theProvincial/City Mining Regulatory Board, which are to be created for each province/city.

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 99-57 Amendments to DAO 96-40 or the “Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No.7942, Otherwise Known as The ‘Philippine Mining Act of 1995’”

Major amendments to the Mining Act are made, covering the following:

(a) establishment of the term and maximum areas allowed under an exploration permit; (b) transfer or assignment of Exploration Permit applications; (c) terms and conditions of the Exploration Permit and Mineral Agreement (MA); (d) possible conversion of an Exploration Permit to an MA or a Financial or Technical Assistance

Agreement (FTAA) and vice versa; (e) issuance of Special Mines Permit; (f ) mandatory requirements for filing of an FTAA; (g) general provisions for quarrying and extraction of sand and gravel, guano, and gemstone

resources in private and/or public lands.

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 99-56 Guidelines Establishing the Fiscal Regime of Financial or Technical Assistance Agreements(FTAA) Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7942, otherwise known as the Philippine MiningAct of 1995 (the “Mining Act”)

The Order establishes the fiscal regime for FTAAs that the Government and the FTAA contractorsshall adopt for the large-scale exploration, development, and commercial use of mineral resourcesin the country. It also provides for the formulation of a pro forma FTAA.



42

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 99-34 Clarificatory Guidelines in the Implementation of DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40or “Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 7942 Otherwise Known as the‘Philippine Mining Act of 1995’”

This Order provides more specific guidelines on securing clearance of applications for an ExplorationPermit, a Mineral Agreement and Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (MA/FTAA). Theguidelines also cover the renewal of a Exploration Permit; mandatory requirements for anApplication for an MA/FTAA and registration of an MA; and availment of multiphase activities underthe FTAA.

Through this Order, prior approval or endorsement by any two of the concerned Sanggunians(Panlalawigan, Bayan, and Barangay) is required in support of mining applications intended fordevelopment and/or utilization purposes. For mining applications intended for exploration, proofof consultation with, or project presentation to, any two of the concerned Sanggunians is required.

❙ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF FORESTRY ACTIVITIES

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2000-07Provisional Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Forestry Projects

Pending the finalization and issuance of scoping guidelines for forestry projects, all applicants forIntegral Annual Operational Plans are required to submit an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE)and other certifications.



43

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 99-15Designating the Forest Management Bureau as the Lead Agency in the Implementationof the Environmental Impact Statement System for Forestry Projects

The Forest Management Bureau (FMB) assumes all functions relative to the EIS System for ForestryProjects. The EMB Director should turn over to the Forest Management Bureau all EnvironmentalImpact Statements and Environmental Compliance Certificates as well as other documentspertaining to Forestry Projects. The FMB Director is authorized to create an Environmental ImpactAssessment Unit and designate the necessary personnel.

❙ OTHERS

DENR MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 99-29 Guidelines in the Implementation of Usufruct Rights in Tree Farming Within ForestlandsWhere Occupation is Not Allowed

This Order grants DENR employees—as individuals or as an association or organization—usufruct rights over forestlands where occupation is not allowed (e.g., critical watersheds, bufferzones/multiple-use zone of protected areas, etc.) for the establishment, protection, and maintenanceof tree farms. The appropriate tenurial agreement is the Contract of Usufruct, which includes theprofit-sharing scheme with the government. In no way does this contract give the participantacquisitive or ownership rights over the land.



44

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 99-13Declaring Certain Portions of the Public Forestlands in Region 13 as the CARAGA ForestPlantation Corridor (CFPC)

This sets aside some 684,503 hectares of open/denuded lands, brushlands and degraded secondgrowth forests in the provinces of Agusan del Sur, Agusan del Norte, Surigao del Norte, andSurigao del Sur as part of the CFPC.

This Order indicates the technical description of the parcels. The CFPC is reserved permanentforestland for the production, mainly of timber and non-wood forest products that will support forest-based processing facilities and/or supply wood and other forest product requirements to both thedomestic and foreign markets. Areas programmed for forest plantation development undervarious tenurial instruments within the CFPC may apply with the DENR to avail of incentives forinvestors/developers in the Corridor.

❙ INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS

The Philippines is a signatory to the following international covenants that relate to watershed andforest management:

1. Non-legally Binding Authoritative Principles for a Global Consensus on the ManagementConservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests (13 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro)

2. Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (16 November 1992,Paris)

3. Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (3 March1973, Washington)

4. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (23 June 1979, Bonn)5. ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (9 July 1985, Kuala

Lumpur)



IMPLEMENTATION & POLICY ISSUESAND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTERTHREE3


CHAPTER 3M ost watersheds in the Philippines are considered degraded. The extent of degradation

may differ but the consequences are significant in terms of reduction in economic, social,and environmental benefits to communities. With the passage of the Local Government

Code, LGUs are now mandated to manage community watersheds. However, there are issues andconcerns that need to be addressed so that LGUs can ably perform this devolved function. Theseare summarized below.

❙ POLICY GAPS

◗ MISMATCH BETWEEN THE DEVOLVED FUNCTIONS AND LGU POWERS ANDAUTHORITY

While the Local Government Code provides that LGUs shall discharge the functions andresponsibilities devolved to them, the exercise of these functions remains subject to DENRsupervision, control, and review. Moreover, the functions were devolved without the correspondingresources that LGUs need to perform the mandated functions.

Most LGUs, therefore, experience a mismatch between the functions devolved to them and theiractual devolved powers or authority. For instance, while implementation of community-based forestmanagement projects (CBFM) and integrated social forestry projects (ISFP) have been devolved toLGUs, the devolution did not include the authority to issue permits to harvest and transport forestproducts. Decisions on allocation, disposition, and use of natural resources are still being made bythe DENR. Thus, many LGUs feel that they become important participants in the process only whenproblems arise.

IMPLEMENTATION & POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

48

This situation, as well as the commonly held perception that watershed management is theconcern of the national government, explains to a large extent the inaction of many LGUs.

Recommendations for LGUs:Pursue this topic in collaboration with the LGU leagues (Leagues of Municipalities, of Cities, andof Provinces). Draw up a position or a resolution regarding devolution. Suggest the review the provisions in the DENR-DILG Joint Memorandum Circular (MC) 98-01 andpropose the development of clearer guidelines.Suggest the formation of an oversight committee to monitor the implementation of the jointMC and include various LGU leagues and other sectors.

◗ NON-INCLUSION OF LAND USE PLAN OF FORESTLAND (OR UPPER WATERSHEDAREAS) IN LGU LAND USE PLANS

The Local Government Code requires LGUs to prepare their comprehensive land use plan (CLUP)—a physical framework plan that specifies land use and zoning. However, the HLURB CLUP guidelinesbeing followed by LGUs generally lack a watershed/forestland management orientation. Thisoccurs since forestlands are categorized as one land use type, when, in fact, there are various landuses within forest zones. Thus, CLUPs provide very detailed plans for the lowlands/settlement areasbut miss out on forestlands or the upper watershed areas. In many cases, these forestlandscompose a large percentage of the LGU territory, and in reality, provide the needed support(water supply, raw materials, etc.) for the lowlands.

Guidelines have actually been developed for forestland use planning by LGUs but there havebeen no formal directives about their adoption or their integration into the CLUP.

Recommendation for LGUs:Integrate Forest Land Use Planning into the Comprehensive Land Use Plan



49

◗ LACK OF POLICY AND MECHANISMS ON RESOURCE PRICING AND USER FEES,ALONG WITH A WEAK INCENTIVES SYSTEM

Improper resource use activities in upper watersheds will have adverse effects on lowland and coastalareas. To encourage upland occupants to adopt sustainable watershed practices, it is necessary toput in place a system for compensating them for resource enhancing activities that benefit thegeneral public. To encourage LGUs to protect watersheds that provide water to other LGUs, theformer should be compensated by the latter LGUs for their investments in watershed protection.

Recommendation for LGUs:Set up a mechanism for effective resource pricing where appropriate fees could be charged toagricultural, domestic, and industrial users for the water they use. A percentage of the chargescould be reserved to fund watershed management activities. An organization consisting of variousLGUs and an oversight and support institution like the DENR could be part of that mechanism.

❙ TECHNICAL AND FUNDING CAPABILITIES OF LGUS

INADEQUATE TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES AND INFORMATION RESOURCES ONWATERSHED MANAGEMENT

LGU staff are concerned that their technical skills in watershed management planning,implementation, monitoring, and evaluation might be inadequate. Specifically, they require skillsfor resource profiling, data integration and analysis, forestland use planning, mapping/ communitymapping, watershed rehabilitation technologies, and community-based monitoring and evaluationof watershed parameters.

Moreover, there is very limited understanding of key watershed management principles (e.g.,multiple uses of watersheds), policies, and programs (such as the joint DENR-DILG Memorandum

IMPLEMENTATION & POLICY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3


50

Circular 98-01 which is poorly disseminated and unknown to many LGUs); CBFM, which is the currentkey strategy in forest management; and the range of tenurial instruments being issued onoccupants of forestlands. Even if LGUs are interested in managing specific watersheds in their area,they are constrained by their unfamiliarity with processes and requirements.

The absence or lack of updated and adequate information on watershed resources also limits LGUinterest in watershed management. It is not easy to gather from DENR the maps and data that arecritical to watershed management planning (e.g., land classification, forest cover, tenured forestlands,upland settlements). Without this information, LGUs cannot fully appreciate their watershedresources and grasp the gravity of their problems. Inadequate information also makes it difficultto determine the best watershed management strategies.

Recommendation for LGUs: Train LGU staff.Link up with agencies such as DENR, institutions like the Philippine Environmental GovernanceProject (EcoGov), the Philippine Watershed Coalition, and other information sources that canprovide updated information.

◗ INADEQUATE FUNDS

Funding is frequently identified as a crucial factor in the management of watersheds. Sincewatershed management activities generally require large capital, the greatest challenge is attainingoverall funding stability for the implementation of watershed rehabilitation activities. Reforestationcosts at least P20,000 per hectare. Undeniably, LGUs also have limited funding resources. Many claimthat they do not even have adequate funds to provide for the basic services of their constituents.Because of this resource limitation, most of them are hesitant to take responsibility for watershedmanagement. However, as the experiences of the municipalities of Maasin and Lumban, Iloilo show,watershed funds can be generated from the LGU share of national wealth and through privateconcession holders. These experiences are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4. LGSP also



51

published a companion volume to this resource book, The Resource Finder: Financial and TechnicalAssistance for LGUs, which can guide LGUs in identifying other sources of support for watershedmanagement

◗ LIMITED INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT

Watershed management is a complex task. It is concerned not only with managing water, but alsowith managing the land, resources, and people living within the watershed areas. For LGUs toeffectively manage watersheds, they need all the support and assistance of various institutions andsectors. Unfortunately, only a few LGUs have established links with other national agencies, NGOs,and the private sector. Only a few have links with critical resource organizations, such as institutionsinvolved in technology, research, and training. Most LGUs also have limited knowledge about whereand how to access funding and technical assistance.

Recommendation for LGUs:The experiences of Maasin, Iloilo, Claveria, Misamis Oriental, and Baguio City are good examplesof how LGUs can mobilize financial, technical, and institutional support in saving and furtheringcitizen’s concern for a critical watershed area.

❙ SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF LGUS

◗ INCREASING UPLAND POPULATION AND POVERTY

The population in many upland areas is continually increasing. This is mainly due to in-migrationcaused by poverty and limited employment opportunities in the lowlands. Since large portions offorestlands have become de facto open access resources, many poor families in the lowlands lookat these areas as alternative places to eke out a living.



52

This situation (along with limited economic opportunities in the uplands) puts more pressure onwatershed resources, thus leading to increased degradation of watershed areas. Forestlandoccupants who occupy or use areas without having tenure make this situation worse, since theyhave fewer incentives to conserve the productive potential of the land and its resources. Thus, inmost cases, the land management strategies adopted by forestland occupants generate immediatereturns without regard for long-term sustainability—to the disadvantage of the watershed areas.

Recommendation for LGUs:Conduct studies on how to provide land tenure to upland dwellers/migrants. The two case studies(Claveria, Misamis Oriental and Nueva Vizcaya) in Chapter 4 show that community-based forestmanagement and tenure security exemplify one way to implement land tenure distribution.

◗ IMPROPER AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES/LACK OF EXTENSION SERVICES

Another factor that adversely affects the watershed involve the agricultural practices (cropcultivation and grazing) of upland dwellers. Steep slopes are being cultivated without soil and waterconservation measures. Often, kaingin (or slash and burn agriculture) is used to prepare the landfor cultivation. Inappropriate land uses and practices lead to soil erosion/soil loss, sedimentationof water bodies, and low productivity both in the upper and downstream/lowland areas.

Furthermore, agricultural extension services are barely available in the uplands. Upland householdsand communities receive very little information on how to manage their upland farms and the forestsin a sustainable manner.

Recommendation:There is a need for Local Government Units, Department of Agriculture, Department of AgrarianReform and DENR to offer an extension support service that caters to upland communities.Institutions such as Western Mindanao Community Initiatives Program (WMCIP) and the UplandDevelopment Program (UDP) that work with LGUs in upland agricultural development canprovide good examples that can be studied and adopted by LGUs.



53

❙ COORDINATION OF SECTORAL PLANS AND ACTIVITIES

◗ ABSENCE OF AN OVERALL PLAN AND WEAK COORDINATION AMONG SECTORS

A poor appreciation of the need to implement an integrated watershed management programsfurther constrains the effective management of watersheds. NGOs, local communities, the privatesector, and even government agencies are not fully aware of the problems and their roles. Thereare different players involved in watershed management, possessing diverse and often conflictinginterests. The absence of a framework or a plan, which could serve as the basis for cooperation, onlyintensifies the competition among them for various watershed resources.

The absence of watershed management plans thus renders many watersheds vulnerable to forcesof degradation. As a result, determining the best management strategies, and coordinating andintegrating different activities in the watershed become more difficult. The cases of Philippines-Canada Economic and Environment Management Project (PCEEM), of Maasin in Iloilo and ofNueva Ecija are good examples of projects that highlight the benefits of managing differentinterests and the advantages of multi-stakeholder participation.



GOOD PRACTICES INWATERSHED MANAGEMENT

CHAPTERFOUR4


CHAPTER 4❙ FOREST LAND USE PLANNING

LGUs can help in identifying and giving priority to community watersheds through forestland useplanning (FLUP). The DENR has developed the FLUP guidelines, which are primarily for LGU use.These guidelines are designed to jive with those for comprehensive land use planning so that LGUscan integrate a forest land use plan into their comprehensive land use plan (CLUP).

A main feature of forestland use planning is the use of the watershed as a planning unit. Usingappropriate land use planning tools such as mapping and map overlay analysis, an LGU canidentify: (1) areas with conflicting land uses, (2) areas that require protection or which can be usedfor production, or (3) areas with open access that require management. By applying a set ofcriteria, an LGU can identify specific sub-watersheds within its jurisdiction that should be givenpriority (e.g., because of their irrigation value, domestic water supply, and biodiversity). The FLUPwill also highlight opportunities for inter-LGU collaboration in managing shared resources. The FLUPwas introduced to several LGUs during the implementation of the Natural Resources ManagementProgram, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), whichachieved different degrees of success.

The two cases that are presented below are the results of such efforts (although the Agusan delSur exercise was funded by the Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program [LGSP]).Under the new USAID-DENR project called the Philippine Environmental Governance (EcoGov),forestland use planning is promoted to LGUs as a tool to facilitate the allocation and closure of openaccess areas to forestlands. Under EcoGov however, the FLUP procedures are enhanced withgood governance practices so that there is transparency and accountability in the land allocationprocess, and decision-making is more participatory.

GOOD PRACTICES IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

58

AGUSAN DEL SUR’S PROVINCIAL FOREST LAND USE PLAN

HIGHLIGHTSPolitical will in the implementation of the projectUse of the watershed as a planning framework at the provincial levelCapability-building of LGU on forest land use planningInter-office/agency and inter-LGU (province and municipalities) collaborationSpatial analysisDatabase to support resource use and management planning and decision-making

The province of Agusan del Sur was among the first to participate in an orientation on FLUP.The orientation came at an opportune time, since the Provincial Planning and DevelopmentOffice (PPDO) was then in the process of preparing its proposal for funding by LGSP. The PPDOdecided to pursue provincial-level forestland use planning and the proposal was endorsedand subsequently approved by LGSP.

To implement the project, the province created a provincial level forestland use planningteam through an Executive Order issued by the Governor. The team was chaired by the PPDO,with the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) of the Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as co-chair. Member agencies included theprovince’s Environment and Natural Resources Office (ENRO), Provincial Agriculturist’sOffice (PAO), Provincial Assessor’s Office (PASSO), Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) andNational Irrigation Administration (NIA). For more than six months, the team was formallytrained and allowed to do hands-on work with the guidance of consultants. After completingthe FLUP, it was presented to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP), for approval andimplementation.



FOREST LAND USE PLANNING

Contact InformationProvincial Planningand DevelopmentOfficePatin-ay, ProsperidadAgusan del SurTel. No.: (085) 343-7268

59

KEY FEATURES OF THE PLANNING PROCESS

Adoption of the watershed framework in planning. The team studied the topographic profile ofthe province and the whole Agusan River Basin. Twelve sub-watersheds within the province weredelineated as a result of the watershed mapping exercise. Each sub-watershed was considered as aplanning unit. Because of its unique functions and importance to the province, the Agusan Marsharea was delineated, thus becoming the 13th sub-watershed and Agusan’s special planning unit. Involvement of municipal LGUs. Though completed at the provincial level, the municipal planningunits—particularly the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinators (MPDCs)—participatedin most of the formal training sessions and in the critical stages of the FLUP process. This allowed themunicipal planners to develop an appreciation of the watershed framework and the whole FLUPapproach. Use of spatial analysis to define land use conflicts. Seven (7) thematic maps were produced tocharacterize the 13 planning units. The land use issues and conflicts within the watersheds were thusnot only described, but also located on the maps.Importance given to irrigation support in prioritizing sub-watersheds. The point sources of existingand proposed irrigation facilities were mapped and the respective irrigation watersheds weredelineated. This analysis led to the selection of Gibong sub-watershed as the most critical area,given the number and extent of irrigation systems it supports. Closing open access areas. The tenured and the open access areas in each watershed were definedin the maps. Proposals were formulated on how the open access areas could be managed. Appropriatetenurial instruments were presented for those areas.

GOOD PRACTICES IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 4


FOREST LAND USE PLANNING Agusan del Sur

60



THE GAINS DERIVED FROM THE FLUP EXERCISE

The process broadened PPDO’s understanding and appreciation of the watershed concept, watershedresources, and management issues. The ecological profiling and mapping exercise provided a good database that allowed the provinceto make informed decisions on forestland uses. The maps generated from the exercise becamevery useful references to the province in its review of applications for Mineral Production SharingAgreements (MPSA), the creation of tree plantations, and permits to use forest resources. The information generated through the FLUP was useful in the formulation of the EnvironmentManagement Plan for the Agusan Marsh. They are likewise being used as inputs to the formulationof (a) the province’s Local Environment Code, and (b) proposed expansion of the Agusan Marshprotected area.The plan provided the initial basis for the proposed proclamation of the Gibong Watershed as a criticalwatershed.The plan provided the basis for Agusan del Sur’s Community Based Resource Management Project,“Sustaining Local Government Initiatives in Community-Based Resource Management.”The provincialgovernment has allotted P4.5 million for this project, which includes the formulation of the CBRMplans for six pilot sites in six of the 12 watersheds in the FLUP.

Source: “Towards Regaining the Lush Forest of Agusan del Sur.” LGU Initiatives in Forest Management. 1999: GOLD-PBSP and OIDCI.

Agusan del Sur FOREST LAND USE PLANNING

MUNICIPAL FOREST LAND USE PLANNING IN BAGGAO, CAGAYAN

HIGHLIGHTS:Political will in resource management planning and actualizationAdoption of watershed as planning frameworkLGU capability-building on forestland use planningIntegration of forestland use into the LGU’s comprehensive land useplanInter-LGU collaboration in management planning of critical watershed

The municipality of Baggao is the second largest municipality in the province of Cagayan.Situated in the northeastern region of the Philippines, it has a total land area of 92,060hectares, 70 percent of which are classified as forestlands. Its forest resources include oldgrowth forests in the Sierra Madre range.

In the past, Baggao was known as a haven of wood products, particularly narra. However,after the 1980s, most of its forest resources were destroyed, degrading its watersheds andthreatening its sources of water for irrigation and domestic uses. The effects of forestdestruction were clearly demonstrated in October 1996, when the town experienced thebiggest flash flood in 23 years, submerging 14 of its 48 barangays for days. This incidentheightened the LGU’s desire to design and enact a comprehensive plan for the propermanagement of its natural resources.

In 1997, the municipality of Baggao decided to complete its comprehensive land useplan (CLUP). In the process of CLUP preparation, the LGU requested DENR’s assistance informulating a forestland use plan (FLUP). FLUP results were integrated into the CLUP.

FOREST LAND USE PLANNING

61



Contact InformationMunicipal Planningand DevelopmentOffice (MPDO)Baggao, Cagayan

62



With this initiative, Baggao became the first municipal LGU in the country to have a comprehensive landuse plan with a forestland use plan as an integral component.

One of the recommended strategies in the FLUP was management of the irrigation watersheds with otherLGUs. The MPDO of Baggao convinced the Sangguniang Bayan to allocate funds for the joint managementplanning, which was to include the concerned LGUs, DENR, NIA, and the irrigators’ association.

A series of inter-LGU consultations then followed, resulting in the creation of a joint watershed planningteam and a common decision to request that the Pared River be proclaimed a watershed forest reserve.The planning team completed the preparation of a Pared River watershed management plan, which wasincluded in the draft proclamation.

Source: “Forest Land Use Planning: A Tool for LGU Participation in Sustainable Forest Management.” LGU Initiatives in ForestManagement. 1999: GOLD-PBSP and OIDCI.

Baggao, Cagayan FOREST LAND USE PLANNING

63

❙ COMMUNITY-BASED FORESTMANAGEMENT AND TENURE SECURITY

Upland communities occupy most, if not all, watersheds in the country. It is deemed costly—economically, socially, and politically—to resettle these upland communities elsewhere. It has beenrecognized that a more practical approach would be to provide forest occupants with incentivesto participate in forest protection, development, and conservation (Executive Order 263 upholdsCommunity-Based Forest Management [CBFM] as the strategy for sustainable forest management).Security of tenure, which assures forest occupants of long-term access to the land, is consideredan important incentive. It develops the community’s sense of “ownership” over the forestlandsallocated to them and motivates them to invest in and protect these areas from illegal anddestructive activities. In essence, it helps close the “open access” nature of most forestlands.

There are various tenure instruments that can be issued for allocating forestlands. They may differaccording to land use (pasture, industrial plantation, reservation/protected area, special use) or tenureholder (organized community, private investor, indigenous community, etc). Communal tenure isusually provided in the form of Community-Based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA). TheCBFMA is issued to organizations of forest occupants who agree to look after the sustainability ofthe area allocated to them. The tenure is usually good for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years.

The good practices in this section showcase experiences in CBFM. The Claveria case highlights theLGU’s initiative and collaboration with DENR to close its open access forestlands primarily throughCBFM. This move benefits its upland communities as well as the neighboring municipalities thatdepend on Claveria for their water supply. The Nueva Vizcaya experiment also deserves to behighlighted in this section, offering four novel models that provide usufruct/tenure/harvesting rightsto forest occupants. The LGU assumes the full role of a resource manager, with the support of DENR.The Nueva Vizcaya experience in co-managing with DENR the Lower Magat watershed has beenused as a model in developing the DENR-DILG guidelines for managing community watersheds.At present, this model is applied in two municipalities in Agusan del Sur—Veruela and Sta. Josefa.



64

CLAVERIA’S SUPPORT TO THE COMMUNITY-BASED FORESTMANAGEMENT PROGRAM

HIGHLIGHTS:Community-Based Forest Management to close open access forestlandsLGU support and commitment to CBFM

Claveria, Misamis Oriental has a total land area of about 89,000 hectares. About60 percent of these are forestlands; a large part is undisturbed or old growthforests. Unknown to many, water used by many municipalities around Claveriaalso comes from Claveria’s forests.

In early 1991, the municipality was chosen to host a pilot site for theimplementation of the Community Forest Program (CFP) under the DENR’s

Natural Resources Management Project (NRMP). The project was located in BarangayMat-i.

Under this program, the Mat-i Green Agro-Forestry Development Association (MAG-AGDA) was given tenure and the corresponding responsibility to manage some 1,500hectares of forestlands for a period of 25 years (renewable for another 25 years).

Fifteen of its 24 barangays were identified for CBFM implementation. These areas includeAposkahoy, Bulahan, Gumaod, Hinaplanan, Lanise, Luna, Malagana, Mat-i, Minalwang,Parmbugas, Pelaez, Plaridel, Rizal, Sta. Cruz, and Tipolohon.

The DENR and LGU collaborated for the formation and strengthening of the people’sorganizations (POs), which would receive tenure instruments or CBFM agreements. In



COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT AND TENURE SECURITY

Contact Information:Municipal Planning andDevelopment Office Claveria, MisamisOriental

Regional CBFMCoordinatorDENR Regional Office XCagayan de Oro CityTel. No.: (08822) 726-243

65

1997, five POs in four barangays were issued their CBFMAs. The Higaonons in Barangay Minalwang werealso granted a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC). More CBFMAs were awarded in 1998 forthe remaining barangays, raising the total coverage of the program to 30,467 hectares.

A large part of the mountain range from Mt. Sumagaya, Mt. Lumot, and all the way to Mt. Balatocan isnow covered by CBFMAs. The POs, which are tenure holders, are the on-site managers of the areas forat least 25 years. They will share with DENR and the LGU the responsibility of protecting the forest resourceswithin their assigned areas. This move of the LGU effectively closed most of the “open access areas” ofthe municipality, which otherwise would have been open for settlement and exploitation.



COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT AND TENURE SECURITY Claveria, Misamis Oriental

66

THE NUEVA VIZCAYA EXPERIMENT

HIGHLIGHTS:LGU as resource manager; effective devolution of watershed managementresponsibilityTenure rights and tree ownership as incentives to people’s participationin resource managementLGU and DENR co-management of critical watersheds

Nueva Vizcaya has increasingly been concerned about the occurrence offlash floods in the lowlands. This has been attributed to the rapid degradationof its watershed resources, which, in turn, is caused by increasing populationin its forestlands. As of 2000, the province has a total population of 367,000.Of this, 45 percent live in the uplands. Out of the province’s 275 barangays,146 are located in the uplands.

The province developed some novel approaches to forest management that are not onlypro-environment but also pro-people. This deviates from traditional tree planting andcontract reforestation projects, which have been proven unsustainable.

The Nueva Vizcaya experiment consists of four models in natural resources management.The theoretical premise of the experiment is that people’s participation in natural resourcemanagement is incentive-driven. Thus, the main strategy is to motivate upland residentsto become responsible resource managers by giving them long-term rights over thelands they are using and the trees they are planting. The four models are described in thetable on the following page:



COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT AND TENURE SECURITY

Contact InformationGovernor of NuevaVizcaya

ProvincialAdministrator

Provincial ENR OfficerBayombong, NuevaVizcayaTel. Nos.: (078) 321-2551;321-7209; 321-2758Email:[email protected]

67



Model

Barobbob WatershedManagement:Transforming Squatters toLand Managers

Bangan Hill: Model forLGU-NGA-NGOpartnerships

Co-Management of theLower Magat ForestReserve

Description

Management of this watershed (429 hectaresand which supports the province’s waterworkssystem) was devolved to the LGU by DENRupon the intercession of the Governor. Insteadof relocating the watershed residents, theprovincial government provided them withusufructory, harvesting, and tenurial rightsthrough a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).The agreement has a lifespan of 25 years and isrenewable for another 25 years.

The provincial government negotiated with anacademic institution to segregate 50 hectaresof a barren hill for the LGU to manage for atleast 25 years. The area was parceled into one-hectare lots and awarded to NGOs and POsthrough a MOA. Harvesting rights wereguaranteed as long as they managed the areas.

Part of the forest reserve covering about 24,000hectares of forestlands (of which 80 percent areopen access areas) is now under co-management with DENR. The steeringcommittee has the Governor as chair and theDENR Regional Executive Director as co-chair.Members are the municipal mayors andselected NGOs. The DENR PENRO serves as themanager while the LGU ENRO Office providesstaff support. The steering committee isauthorized to sub-allocate areas to individuals,

Results

Squatters were converted toland managers. Thus, thearea became free of firesand poachers.Forest cover regeneration.Stabilization of thewatershed, which will havepositive effects on watersupply in the long term.Increased livelihoodopportunities.

Fire-free and re-greening of thebarren landscape.

2,140 hectares have beencovered by sub-agreements.Reduced incidence of forestfires (unlike before whenthere were seasonal forestand brush fires) and timberpoaching.Regeneration of forestcover; stabilization ofwatershed conditions.

Four Models of Natural Resources Management - Nueva Vizcaya

68



Four Models of Natural Resources Management - Nueva Vizcaya

Model

TREE (Tree Resources forEducation and Enterprise)for Legacy

Description

associations, corporations, cooperatives. Tenurerights are for 25 years, renewable for another 25years. DENR issues formal tenure whenappropriate.

The Tree for Education project is for schools andschoolchildren while the Tree for Enterpriseproject is for individuals and associations.Participants can plant trees in productionforests and private lands. They are givencertificate of ownership and harvesting rightsover the trees they plant. The Tree for Legacy isfor environmentalists and advocates. They canplant in protection and production zones offorestlands and in private lands. They are givenusufructory certificates so they can enjoy forestproducts without cutting the trees.

Results

Increased livelihoodopportunities, includingfruit and forest tree farms.Reduced migration andselling of rights.

Participants became forestguards/ managers thusreducing forest fires,squatting, and timberpoaching.Forest cover regeneration.Source of income.Enhanced environmenteducation of the youth.

The co-management scheme has been considered a breakthrough in LGU and DENRcollaboration. This scheme was used as a basis for the issuance of the Joint DENR and DILGMemorandum Circular 98-019 . The Barobbob watershed experiment earned for the provincethe Galing Pook Award in 1999.

A number of lessons were learned from the Nueva Vizcaya experiment:

Combining DENR’s expertise in resource management and the LGU’s skill in peoplemanagement is a practical strategy in natural resource management.

69

Privatizing the management of natural resources is good politics and a sound local governance policy. Co-management is a strategic alternative to outright devolution.Food security objectives of stakeholders can be made compatible with ecological security objectivesof the State. Poverty is not only economic but also aggravated by poverty of capacity. Enhancement of capacityshould thus be both at the individual and organizational levels and should be on a sustained basis.

Sources: Asian Institute of Management (AIM) and Local Government Academy (LGA). “Watershed Co-Management Program: Nueva VizcayaProvince.” Innovation and Excellence in Local Governance , Galing Pook Awards. 1999Tiongson, Virgilio A. “Redeeming the Environmental Integrity of a Watershed Haven: Participatory Initiatives in Nueva Vizcaya.” Paperpresented to the Conference on Sustaining Upland Development in Southeast Asia: Issues, Tools and Institutions for Local NaturalResources Management. Makati City: May 2001



COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENT AND TENURE SECURITY Nueva Vizcaya

70

❙ FOREST MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION

Forest resource management has three important components: (1) the maintenance or restorationof tree cover; (2) forest protection; and (3) sustainable utilization of forest products.

The first refers to vegetative measures such as establishing a tree plantation, reforestation activities,natural regeneration assistance, agro-forestry development, and sustainable hillside agriculture.Soil and water conservation and forest fire protection measures (i.e., hedgerows, fire breaks) areusually integrated into the design of these interventions.

Forest protection involves regular surveillance activities to protect forests from occupation,poaching, and illegal harvesting. This also includes the protection of forests from fire, pests, anddiseases.

The sustainable use of forest products ensures a continuous supply of forest products, i.e., activitiesdo not deplete or seriously damage existing forest resources.

There are many good practices in forest management that can be cited and most of them involvethe use of appropriate technologies such as those demonstrated in (1) Mindanao Baptist Rural Centerin Bansalan, Davao del Sur - The Sloping Agricultural Land Technology or SALT; (2) the BukidnonIndustrial Plantation Project - New Zealand Tree Plantation Technology; and (3) InternationalCenter for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAFT) in Claveria, Misamis Oriental - Agro-ForestryTechnologies.

The abovementioned technologies and many others are well documented and available in variouspamphlets, technology journals and publications of DENR, PCARRD, UPLB, and other projects. Thus,these are not included in this resource book.



71

Highlighted in this section are experiences in mobilizing "off-site" stakeholders to support therestoration and protection of watershed resources, and motivating "on-site" stakeholders to do thesame. Some cases (i.e., Eco-Walk, Save Maasin Watershed, and Nueva Vizcaya Experiment) alreadydemonstrate how sectors-usually from the lowlands and thus "off-site" stakeholders-were mobilizedfor the reforestation of critical watersheds.

One of the cases selected for this section (Balik Ilahas of Negros Occidental) also shows theeffectiveness of a multisectoral group organized by the provincial government in law enforcement.

The "on-site" stakeholders are the upland communities and forest occupants themselves. Threeapproaches to motivate these stakeholders are emphasized in the cases that follow: (a) providingcash incentives like the "buy-back program" of Quezon, Bukidnon; (b) providing effective extensionservices and other incentives, such as the support provided by the Negros Occidental provincialLGU to ISF farmers and the innovative Landcare movement in northern and central Mindanao; and(c) providing security of tenure mainly through CBFM.

This section also presents "on-site forest management" projects being exercised by the NPPFRDCand VIBANARA (Barangays Villa Imelda, Batong Labang, Nanaguan and Rang-Ayan), which are twoof the more mature CBFM agreement holders in the country. The NPPFRDC's story highlights itsability to provide other livelihood opportunities to its members. The effectiveness of offeringsecurity of tenure was earlier exemplified in the Nueva Vizcaya experiment.



72

NEGROS OCCIDENTAL’S BALIK ILAHAS PROGRAM

HIGHLIGHTSPolitical will and commitmentEffective use of devolved resources Integrated upland extension servicesMultisectoral and community-based forest protection

In 1993, the provincial governor of Negros Occidental, Governor Rafael Coscolluela,launched the “Balik Ilahas”(Bringing Back the Wilderness) program designed to improve theforest cover of about 18,000 hectares in five critical watersheds. The program had fourcomponents: (a) information, education and advocacy; (b) enforcement and protection; (c)reforestation and rehabilitation; and (d) alternative livelihood for forest occupants.

Various provincial offices were organized into a task force with the Provincial Environmentand Management Office taking the lead role. The province allotted P40 million for the five-year program with an additional P24 million from the 20 percent development fund.

The program focused on the ISF sites, which have just been devolved to the LGUs. Thisprogram covered some 27,749 hectares. The province mobilized community developmentassistants (CDAs) for the ISF areas to urge ISF participants to take part in a massivereforestation and agro-forestry development effort.

For its forest protection component, a Task Force Ilahas was created to focus on theenforcement of environmental laws. The task force consisted of regular composite membersfrom the DENR, PNP Provincial Command, PNP Regional Mobile Forces, and volunteers fromthe private sector.



FOREST MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION

Contact InformationOffice of the GovernorNegros OccidentalTel. Nos.: (034) 434-4243; 433-3252

73

The task force also had other members composed of Bantay Bukid or Forest Watch members whowere mainly ISF participants and indigenous tribe members (Tribu Ati). They were stationed in variouscritical areas and tasked to provide information on illegal and destructive forest activities. They were alsotasked to keep a tight watch over unexploited wilderness areas.

The enforcement and protection activities of Balik Ilahas resulted in the confiscation of illegally sourcedlogs worth millions of pesos and the filing of cases against the perpetrators. Timber poaching was reducedconsiderably. The project increased the LGU’s confidence in its ability to protect the environment.Negros Occidental won a Galing Pook Award in 1998 for the success of this program.

Source: Asian Institute of Management (AIM) and Local Government Academy (LGA). Galing Pook Awards - Innovations andExcellence in Local Governance (1998)



FOREST MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION Negros Occidental

74

TREE PLANTING AND GREENBELT-BUY BACK PROGRAM

HIGHLIGHTS:Political will in strengthening project proposalWater as a source of powerAddressing irrigation problems

This project was initiated by the municipal government of Quezon, Bukidnonin response to the rapid degradation of the uplands of Pulangi Watershed,

the major source of water for hydroelectric power and irrigation.

The LGU encouraged all sectors to plant any tree species in any open land and along slopingareas, creeks, streams and rivers. Interested participants were to register with the LGU, whichprovided them with seedlings, and supervised and monitored planting activities. After threeyears, those who planted the trees were qualified to claim their pay incentive from the LGU.The amount was determined on the basis of the survival rate, the height of the trees, andthe type of land on which they were planted. Despite being paid for planting and takingcare of the trees, the planters did not lose ownership of the trees.

The program yielded both environmental and economic results. Households that were ableto harvest mature trees were able to earn from it. Participating schools have been able toimprove their facilities. A cooperative of tree planters have been formed with the supportof NGOs, church organizations, and the business sector. In year 2000, the program had about300 registered individual participants.




Contact InformationMunicipal Planningand DevelopmentOfficeQuezon, Bukidnon

THE LANDCARE MOVEMENT IN MINDANAO

HIGHLIGHTSLow-cost dissemination on agro-forestry practicesPolitical will in mobilizing the population of the community for the project

In 1996, the Landcare movement in the Philippines was initiated in Claveria,Misamis Oriental by the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry(ICRAFT). Landcare is a farmer-led approach to rapid and inexpensivedissemination of agro-forestry practices among upland farmers. It has growninto a dynamic voluntary movement consisting of about 250 groups inClaveria (Claveria Landcare Association), Malitbog, and Lantapan in Bukidnon,with a membership of over 5,000 households. These groups have put up morethan 1,500 conservation farms and more than 400 community and household nurseriesthat produce fruit and forest trees seedlings.

Landcare groups are sitio-based so that members can easily interact with each other.They discuss important local issues, share lessons, skills, and other resources towardbetter land husbandry and protection of the environment. Landcare groups are seen aseffective means to spread information on practices and promote the adoption of farm andwatershed management processes. Among the practices that were popularized throughLandcare were conservation-farming based on contour buffer strips and the growing ofnew species of fruit and timber trees to diversify the farm enterprise. At the communitylevel, Landcare is regarded as a powerful force for evolving and promoting initiativesthat protect the watershed.

Source: Garrity, Dennis P., Agustin R. Mercado Jr., and Marcelino Patindol. The Landcare Experience in the Philippines:Technical and Institutional Innovations for Conservation Farming. International Centre for Research in Agroforesty.


75



Contact Information Site CoordinatorICRAFTMisamis Oriental StateCollege of Agricultureand Technology(MOSCAT)Claveria, MisamisOrientalTel. Nos.: (88) 358-1059;358-1057

76

THE NGAN, PANANSALAN, PAGSABANGAN FOREST RESOURCEDEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE (NPPFRDC): A CBFM MODEL

HIGHLIGHTSCommunity-Based Forest ManagementUpland livelihood projectsGender responsive activitiesCertification for sustainable forest management practices

The Ngan, Panansalan, Pagsabangan Forest Resource DevelopmentCooperative (NPPFRDC) was formed in 1996 under the Community-BasedForest Management (CBFM) Program of DENR. Shortly after its registration,the PO was awarded a CBFM agreement which assigned the group 14,800

hectares of forestlands in the municipalities of Compostela and New Bataan, CompostelaValley.

NPPFRDC is one of the most active CBFM people’s organizations in Mindanao. In fact, it isregarded as a model PO in terms of managing its CBFM area and of providing livelihoodopportunities for its cooperative members, particularly its women members. Among theexisting livelihood projects are agricultural production, timber use, sawmill operation, riceand corn milling, livestock, meat processing, kalamansi juice processing, and a consumerstore.

It also has won several awards over the past few years, among them: TESDA GawadKasanayan Kabuhayan sa Kaunlaran 2000, Most Gender Responsive Project Award (DENRNational Winner for 2001), and Most Outstanding Project Award (DENR Regional Winner).




Contact InformationChairmanNPPFRDCNgan, Compostela,Compostela Valley

ManagerNPPFRDCTel. Nos.: (0919) 6215448;(0919) 6043193

77

The NPPFRDC is the only PO in the country with a certification from SmartWood, a US-based forestmanagement-certifying agency. This certification means that the PO complies with the standards ofsustainable forest management. Its timber products can then be marketed locally and abroad ascertified wood.

Other than providing livelihood opportunities to its members, NPPFRDC’s other achievements include:

The education of their members and other residents in the three barangays about forest managementand the effects and problems associated with slash and burn agriculture. Billboards have been setup in strategic places on the CBFM area that warn the public about kaingin.The training of their members on agro-forestry development and the establishment of fruit treeplanting in designated agro-forestry areas. The training (paralegal) and deployment of a forest protection team in each barangay.The issuance of resolutions declaring certain CBFM areas as reserves or protection areas.The provision of budgets for the maintenance of roads during harvests (to prevent further soilerosion).


FOREST MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION Ngan, Compostela Valley


78

THE VIBANARA STORY

HIGHLIGHTSCommunity-Based Forest ManagementIndividual property rights of PO members

Thick forests used to cover the mountains of barangays Villa Imelda, BatongLabang, Nanaguan and Rang-Ayan in Ilagan, Isabela. However due to loggingoperations of ACME Plywood in the latter part of the 1970s and 1980s, most ofthe original forests were cut. When the timber license agreement (TLA) ofACME was cancelled in 1990, nearby residents gained access to the area and

forest destruction further accelerated. Illegal logging and small-scale timber poachingcontinuously destroyed the remaining residual forests. Local accounts say that during thedaytime about 10 trucks with illegally cut logs passed through the barangay roads. Duringnighttime, an undetermined number of trucks continued to transport logs.

By 1992, the area was selected as a pilot site for community forestry. A people’s organization(PO) was formed which led to the birth of the VIBANARA Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc.(VMPCI).

After a series of consultations with the PO members on the terms of the CBFM agreement,the CBFMA was finally signed in 1995, transferring the management of approximately 5,000hectares of forestlands to the cooperative. This was later increased to 10,220 hectares in1998. The issuance of a CBFMA ended the “open access”nature of the area and gave a clearsignal to everyone that the area was under the management of the VMPCI. This alsomeant that the cooperative had legal rights over the land and its resources.




Contact InformationChairmanVMPCIBrgy. Tang-ayanIlagan, Isabela

PENRO-DENRIlagan, Isabela

79

Inspired by the provision in the CBFMA that the VMPCI would benefit from its harvested forest products,the PO immediately organized its forest protection teams to make sure that the resources within theCBFMA area were protected. The members of the protection team, who initially worked as volunteersup to 1996, were deputized by the DENR.

Later, members of the team would be paid out of the earnings from forest product harvests and fromthe comprehensive site development contract with the DENR. Since then, the president of the cooperativehas declared that illegal logging had been totally eliminated while timber poaching had been reducedby 90 percent.

In 1997 the VMPCI decided to award individual property rights (IPR) to some of its members who wereclaiming portions of the CBFM site. This move was in preparation for the development of agro-forestry/tree plantations with funding from the ADB contract reforestation. Each IPR holder was to develophis claimed area by planting different tree species. The VMPCI thought that this scheme could facilitateplantation development and would ensure both protection and proper maintenance. The approachproved to be successful, as the cooperative easily reached its plantation targets and managed theplantation’s protection.

During the El Niño years, while grass fires were raging in adjacent areas, the VMPCI plantations coveredby IPRs were never burned because IPR holders guarded their own plantations.



FOREST MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION Ilagan, Isabela

80

❙ INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND ADVOCACY

Watershed management is not the sole concern of DENR and LGUs; it is a shared responsibility ofall sectors. The participation of others will depend on their understanding of the problem and theirappreciation of the benefits of a healthy ecosystem. It is thus important for education and advocacyto be an integral component of a watershed management program.

The two cases below showcase education and advocacy initiatives to generate popular supportfor the rehabilitation of critical watersheds. The two have different targets. The Eco-Walk case focuseson the youth to prepare them for their future roles as resource managers, while the Maasin casecalls the attention of concerned sectors to an urgent issue that requires immediate action.



ECO-WALK: ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS FOR CHILDREN

HIGHLIGHTSEnvironmental education for the youth Culture-based programMultisectoral involvement and commitmentLocal resource mobilization

The Eco-Walk was conceptualized as an experimental environmental learning process toincrease the awareness of Baguio schoolchildren about environmental issues and preparethem as future managers of their environment. Schoolchildren go on hikes to allow themto explore the forest, learn about the different plant and animal species, and observe the causesand effects of denudation and degradation. They sing environmental songs, have picnics, andhold games and quizzes to make the experience enjoyable. The exposure trip intends tosupplement and enhance learning in the classroom. In addition, schools are assignedparticular areas to reforest and the children are taught how to plant trees and care for them.This concept of allocating areas is borrowed from the indigenous forest managementsystem of the Ifugao tribes called muyong. (To this day, community forests are painstakinglysustained and protected by the same clans that built the Banaue rice terraces).The BusolWatershed was chosen as an Eco-Walk destination to emphasize the urgency of reforestingand rehabilitating the area. It is, after all, Baguio City’s major water source. The watershed was80 percent denuded when the project began, but forest cover improved with the program.Squatting, logging, and forest fires in the area were also minimized due to the frequentpresence of the children. This innovative project received the Gawad Oscar Florendo Awardas an Outstanding Environmental Project and the Galing Pook Award in 1996.

Source: Asian Institute of Management (AIM) and Local Government Academy (LGA). Galing Pook Awards –Innovation and Excellence in Local Governance (1996).

INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND ADVOCACY

81



Contact InformationOffice of the City MayorCity Hall, Baguio CityTel.: (074) 442-3939/8920/7220

82

SAVING THE MAASIN WATERSHED (ILOILO)

HIGHLIGHTSPolitical will and leadershipEnvironmental advocacyMultisectoral participation and commitmentCommunity-Based Forest Management

The Maasin Watershed Reservoir is located in the municipality of Maasin, Iloilo.With a total land area of 6,738.52 hectares, it is the source of potable waterof Iloilo City and four (4) other nearby municipalities. It also irrigatesapproximately 2,900 hectares of agricultural lands.

In the late 1980s, the volume of water supplied by Metro Iloilo Water District(MIWD) dropped to 35 percent. Due to the water supply shortage, manycity residents had to cross the Guimaras Strait to buy water. Others relied ondeep wells located in nearby municipalities. It was later discovered thatMaasin Watershed was already 80 percent denuded.

The water crisis served as a wake-up call for all sectors. Governor Art Defensortook on the crusade to save the Maasin Watershed. As chairman of theRegional Development Council (RDC), the governor was able to includeMaasin Watershed in the Regional Development Agenda.

The DENR Regional Office received funding to commission an NGO toundertake a resources appraisal and feasibility study for the rehabilitation ofthe watershed. This study became the basis for a massive advocacy campaign,



INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND ADVOCACY

Contact InformationProvincial Planningand DevelopmentOfficeProvincial CapitolIsmart St., Iloilo CityTel. No.: (033) 337-1739;337-4230

Regional CBFMCoordinatorDENR Region VIIloilo CityTel. No.: (033) 355-0002

The ChairmanKAPAWABrgy. Bolo, Maasin, Iloilo

The ChairmanPhilippine WatershedManagement CoalitionKahublaganSangpinamalayanFoundation25-B Magsaysay Village,La Paz, Iloilo CityTel. No.: (033) 320-0854

83

which involved the media, NGOs, LGUs, academe, national government agencies, and ordinary citizens.The campaign slogan read, “Save Maasin Watershed Or No Water in Year 2000.”

A Multi-Agency Task Force was created and chaired by Governor Defensor while the NGOs and the mediaorganized the “Save Maasin Coalition” and put up an initial fund of P500,000. The provincial governorallocated P500,000 as counterpart.

An initial target of 500 hectares was set for rehabilitation; 6,000 hectares was eventually designated forreforestation and protection.

The advocacy campaign resulted to an outpouring of support. Students, national and local governmentemployees, civic organizations, NGOs, media groups, and some private corporations made MaasinWatershed the common venue for their “Alay Tanim” or tree planting. The collaboration of variousplayers was notable and caught the attention of the national government and external fundinginstitutions. This project won the 1994-1995 Galing Pook Award.

Source: Asian Institute of Management (AIM) and Local Government Academy (LGA). Galing Pook Awards – Innovation andExcellence in Local Governance (1996).



INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND ADVOCACY Iloilo

84

❙ MULTISECTORAL PARTICIPATION

The multiplicity of stakeholders in watersheds does not allow a single agency to exercise exclusivemanagement control over watershed areas. The trend has therefore been toward the creation ofmultisectoral bodies for the planning and implementation of watershed management projects. Thisallows wider participation in watershed management initiatives, and provides a venue forharmonizing different stakeholder interests.

A number of LGUs have established such multisectoral bodies. Some of the previous cases showthe effectivity of these bodies in generating resources (volunteers and staff, funding, other support)and advocacy. Most of these bodies were created through local ordinances. In the case of Bukidnon,it took a presidential memorandum to create its Watershed Protection and Development Council.

Another example of multisectoral participation is the Philippines-Canada Environmental andEconomic Management (PCEEM) project. This is an interesting case due to the large number ofinvolved sectors and stakeholders that were able to transform themselves into a more permanententity, thereby acquiring a legal personality.



STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN THE MANAGEMENT OF A WATERSHEDPROJECT: THE PHILIPPINES-CANADA ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMICMANAGEMENT CASE (PCEEM)

HIGHLIGHTSAdoption of watershed framework in planningMulti-stakeholder representation in project management andimplementation activitiesCapability-building for effective stakeholder participation

The Philippines-Canada Environmental and Economic Management(PCEEM) project is a five-year project funded by the DENR and theCanadian International Development Agency (CIDA). It aims toimprove the Kotkot-Lusaran Watersheds in Metro Cebu and the Talomo-Lipadas Watershedsin Davao City.

The PCEEM seeks to address problems concerning the lack of water in priority watershedsthat supply most of the water requirements of the two major cities. A planning studyconducted on the Talomo-Lipadas Watersheds in Davao City showed that its waterresources were threatened by unregulated water extraction, land use conflict, impropercultivation of hilly lands, deforestation, and poor sewage and solid waste management.

PCEEM espouses the principles of (a) ecosystem-based resource management, (b)collaborative and integrative management of natural resources, and (c) capacity-building.Not only did the project adopt a holistic approach to watershed management (uplands,hillside, lowlands and coastal), it also established a multi-stakeholder watershed

MULTISECTORAL PARTICIPATION

85



Contact InformationExecutive DirectorPCEEM Davao, Inc.East-West Bank Corporate Bldg.,Insular VillageLanang, Davao CityTel. Nos.: (082) 234-4418 to 19;Email: [email protected]

86



management structure. This structure allowed the participation of all sectors with an interest in thewatershed. The project likewise facilitated consensus-based decision-making.

PCEEM in Davao City has 13 sectors represented in the project’s management board and whichparticipate in various field implementation activities. These sectors are:

National Government Agencies– DENR, NEDA and DTINon-Government – Mindanao Environment ForumBusiness - Davao City Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Inc.Farmers – Federation of Free FarmersPeople’s Organizations – Lipadas Watershed People’s OrganizationIndigenous People – Office of the Deputy Mayor for Tagabawe TribeAcademe – Philippine Science High School, Mindanao campusWomen – Katakus FoundationFisherfolk – City Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management CouncilUtilities – Davao City Water DistrictLocal Government Unit – City Government of Davao and Associations of Barangay Captains in theTalomo and Lipadas watershedsYouth– Davao City Association of Tribal StudentsOthers – Mt. Apo Protected Area Management Board

To establish a more permanent and formal organization that would carry on PCEEM initiatives beyondthe project period, the individuals and representatives of stakeholder groups belonging to the 13sectors have formed themselves into a non-stock, non-profit organization registered with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (SEC). The group is now known as the People Collaborating for Economicand Environmental Management in Davao Foundation, Incorporated (PCEEM Davao).

PCEEM Davao City MULTISECTORAL PARTICIPATION

87

The project yielded the following lessons that highlighted the need for more stakeholder participationin watershed management:

Different ecosystems are found in a watershed. There are thus many stakeholders in a watershed withdiverse and often conflicting interests. By acknowledging that ecosystems are all connected,stakeholders should realize that they have a common ground. Building collaborative relationshipsand developing positive attitudes are critical factors in making a long-term impact on resourcemanagement.Participation is enhanced through capacity building. Stakeholders need to realize that they have aright to participate in decision-making and receive the tools to make them effective decision-makers. These tools should allow them to assess the results of their decisions so they would knowif they made the right decisions, or if there is a need to rethink them. The importance of involving women and youth in watershed management must be recognized. Basedon studies, women feel the effects of poor water quality and quantity more because they directly usewater for food, hygiene, chores, and caring for the sick. In a sense, women have a greater stake in waterresource management. The youth are also important because they are the future managers of thewatershed.



MULTISECTORAL PARTICIPATION PCEEM Davao City

88

❙ FUND SUPPORT GENERATION

Funding is frequently identified as a crucial factor in the successful management of watersheds.In many cases, project implementation is halted or post-project maintenance activities cannot besustained due to lack of funds. The latter is particularly true for donor-funded projects, since itsfunding support ceases with the termination of the loan or grant agreement.

The previous cases showed watershed management activities that were funded from the regularbudgets of national government agencies, local government funds, loans and grants from donoragencies, and contributions/donations from the private sector and civil society organizations.The two short cases that follow show how some LGUs successfully demanded their share from theuse of national wealth to finance environmental management. The third case shows concessionholders of domestic water supply systems investing in the rehabilitation of the systems’watershed.



GENERATING WATERSHED REHABILITATION FUNDS FROM LGU SHAREOF NATIONAL WEALTH: MAASIN, ILOILO

HIGHLIGHTS Political will in allocating funds in priority project needsEffective paying scheme for the municipalityFund appropriation for maintenance

Using the Local Government Code as its basis, the municipal governmentof Maasin, Iloilo passed an ordinance imposing a one percent tax on thegross sales of the Metro Iloilo Water District (MIWD). Subsequently, it senta bill to the MIWD demanding payment of about P2 million, representing1 percent (1%) of total sales for the period 1992-1997. As a result of thismove, the MIWD remits to the municipal about P360,000 annually.

The municipal government has also been successful in making the MIWD pay real estatetaxes on the 6,738 hectares of the watershed. The MIWD provided a grant to DENR and theprovince amounting to P1 million for additional maintenance and protection of theMaasin watershed.

FUND SUPPORT GENERATION

89



Contact InformationOffice of the MayorMaasin, IloiloTel. (033) 320-3202857

Municipal Planning andDevelopment OfficeMaasin, Iloilo

90

USING FUNDS FROM USE OF NATURAL RESOURCE TO FINANCEREFORESTATION AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN LUMBAN, QUEZON

HIGHLIGHTS Political will in working in cooperation with national agencies for the projectTargeting reforestation, watershed management, health and environmentin one project

The municipality of Lumban in Quezon claimed its share from the National PowerCorporation (NPC) for its use of the water in Lake Caliraya for power generation.This claim is in accordance with the Local Government Code and a circular ofthe Department of Energy (DOE). The NPC agreed to remit to the Lumban LGU

one percent (1%) of the gross sales or receipts from its two plants. These funds are to beutilized as follows: 25 percent as electrification fund; 25 percent for development andlivelihood; and 50 percent for reforestation, watershed management, health, andenvironment enhancement.




Contact InformationOffice of the MayorLumban, Quezon

Municipal Planningand DevelopmentOfficeLumban, Quezon

PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENTS IN LA MESA DAM REFORESTATION

HIGHLIGHTSEnvironmental ConservationPrivate Organization Involvement

In 1997, the government sold two concessions to supply water in MetroManila to the Ayala and the Benpres Groups of Companies. Both companiesdiscovered that the watershed that supplies water to their reservoirs was fastlosing its tree cover. It was foreseen that by 2005, only about 15 percent ofthe watershed area would have forest cover. Benpres then requested the ABS-CBNFoundation to organize a reforestation project.

The Bantay Kalikasan unit of the foundation drew up a watershed rehabilitation planwith the following components for immediate implementation: reforestation, nurseryoperation, species reintroduction, and protection and security. Over the medium-term, anature park and biodiversity reserve would be established to provide outdoor recreation;an education program would also be conducted to increase consciousness about thewatershed.

Bantay Kalikasan also began a publicity campaign to source funds from other businesses.Adopt-a-hectare for P50,000 was thus launched. In addition to the two water companiesand a number of civic and professional organizations, there are now about 15 largeprivate companies supporting the project. About half of its target of 1,200 hectares forreforestation has been attained.


91



Contact InformationResource MobilizationCoordinatorBantay KalikasanABS-CBN FoundationTel No.: (02) 415-2227

92

❙ ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING (EPM)

Monitoring the progress of watershed management activities is part of good project management.Environmental performance monitoring (EPM) takes the progress monitoring activity to a higherlevel by looking at the effects of watershed management on forest resources, particularly water,soil, and biodiversity.

In 1997, the DENR, through the USAID-funded Natural Resources Management Program developeda set of criteria and indicators (C and I) for Sustainable Forest Management in CBFM areas. An EPMfield manual was developed to operationalize the criteria and indicators at the national level.This manual contained simple and easy-to-use methods to check improvements in water qualityand quantity, reduction of soil erosion, and increased presence of selected animal species. The fieldmanual was designed for upland communities.

It is deemed good practice for CBFM communities to draw up their own EPM so they can see forthemselves if their own forest management activities are generating the desired environmentalresults.

The DENR has been testing the suggested indicators and monitoring methods, and has beenpromoting the adoption of EPM in CBFM areas in Northern Luzon and Mindanao (the EPM has beenadopted by the NPPFRDC of Compostela Valley). A similar set of EPM indicators and guidelines havebeen developed for use in community-managed model forests in the Ulot watershed in Samar Island.

These ongoing DENR initiatives and the community experiences on the use of EPM have yet to bedocumented. There is, however, a model on community-based monitoring that was introduced inBukidnon in the early 1990s and which continues to be practiced up to the present. This ispresented in the following pages.



THE TIGBANTAY WAHIG IN LANTAPAN, BUKIDNON

HIGHLIGHTS Community-based water quality monitoringFormation of “water watch” NGO Water quality data analysis for planning and policy formulation

The USAID–funded Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource ManagementCollaboration Research Support Program (SANREM-CRSP) organized water qualitymonitoring teams in Lantapan, Bukidnon with members coming from the community.Through workshops and field exercises, the community team members were trained onwater quality evaluation. They were given portable test kits and other basic tools foranalysis. The group is now collecting credible water quality and quantity data essential toenvironmental policy formulation for watershed management. The team monitors the maintributaries of the Manupali River.

After several months of involvement in the project, the water-monitoring group decidedto form an officially registered non-government organization called the Tigbantay Wahigor “water watcher.” Their goal is to improve their ability to inform the community andinfluence local policy on matters of water quality. At present, the group continues tomonitor and evaluate water quality and quantity in the Manupali watershed. Since 1994, the following water quality and quantity data continue to be collected:

Total suspended solidsRainfall events. The collection of data at the four main sites in Kulasihan, Alanib,Maagnao and Tugasan rivers is being done monthly.

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING

93



Contact Information

Tigbantay WahigLantapan, Bukidnon

94



Stream discharge/soil exportWater chemistry using six parameters, namely: pH, alkalinity, hardness, dissolved oxygen, turbidityand temperatureBiological assessments

Because the community is involved in the monitoring of water quality and quantity in Lantapan,environmental awareness/education has increased. Farmers and planners, too, are being providedinformation that is valuable for planning and development.

The Tigbantay Wahig has now expanded its activities to other provinces and its membership continuesto increase.

Source: Garrity, Dennis P., et. al. “Landcare on the Poverty-Protection Interface in an Asian Watershed.”

Lantapan, Bukidnon ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING

REFERENCES AND TOOLSCHAPTERFIVE5


CHAPTER 5Study Tour Sites

REFERENCES AND TOOLS

INSTITUTION

Provincial Government ofNueva Vizcaya

Provincial Government ofAgusan del Sur

Provincial Government ofIloilo

AREAS OF INTEREST/

Model Projects: Tree for Legacy,Barobbob Watershed, BanganHill and Co-Management ofLower Magat Forest Reserve

Provincial Forest Land Use Plan:Process, Maps and Current Uses

Save Maasin Watershed Project(Galing Pook Awardee)

CONTACT

Governor of Nueva VizcayaProvincial AdministratorProvincial ENR OfficerBayombong, Nueva VizcayaTel (078) 321-255; 321-7209321-2758Email: [email protected]

Provincial Planning andDevelopment OfficePatin-ay, Prosperidad, Agusan del SurTel. (085) 343-7268

Provincial Planning andDevelopment OfficeProvincial CapitolIsmart St., Iloilo CityTel. (033) 337-1739; 337-4230

98



INSTITUTION

KAPAWA

Baguio City Government

Bukidnon Forest Inc. (BFI)

AREAS OF INTEREST

Maasin Sub-Watershed Project(reforestation, agroforestry,upland livelihood projects)

Eco-Walk Program, Busolwatershed

Industrial tree plantation of fastgrowing and commercialspecies; nursery operations;community involvement inplantation maintenance andprotection

CONTACT

Regional CBFM CoordinatorDENR Region VIIloilo CityTel. (033) 355-0002

The ChairmanKAPAWABrgy Bolo, Maasin, Iloilo

Office of the City MayorBaguio CityTel.: (074) 442-3939; 442-8920; 442-7220

Gen. Manager/Vice-PresidentBukidnon Forest, Inc.Malaybalay, Bukidnon

Asst. to the Gen. ManagerBukidnon Forest, Inc.Tel. (88) 221-2175; 221-2115 local 101; 813-2654Email: [email protected]

99

REFERENCES AND TOOLS 5


INSTITUTION

Mindanao Baptist RuralCenter (now known as AsianRural Life DevelopmentFoundation)

Provident Tree Farms, Inc.(PTFI)

International Center ofResearch in Agro-forestry(ICRAFT)

Ngan-PanansalanPagsabangan ForestResource DevelopmentCooperative(NPPFRDC)

AREAS OF INTEREST

Demonstration farms onSloping Agricultural LandTechnology (SALT); agri-livestock

Tree plantations of Gmelina,acacia mangium and otherindustrial species; nurseryoperations

Demonstration farms onagroforestry technologies andconservation farming; Landcaremovement in Mindanao

Community-based forestmanagement; livelihoodactivities of the PO: agriculturalproduction, timber utilization,saw mill operation, rice and cornmilling, livestock, meat

CONTACT

DirectorKinuskusan, Bansalan, Davao del Sur(0912) 750-0246Tel. (082) 221-1184/85

Resident Manager PTFI, ZilloviaTalacogon, Agusan del Sur(0918) 595-0677(0917) 703-0596(0919) 465-3112

Acting Site CoordinatorICRAFT Misamis Oriental State College ofAgriculture & Technology (MOSCAT)Claveria, Misamis OrientalTel. (88) 358-1059; 358-1057

ChairmanNPPFRDC

100



INSTITUTION AREAS OF INTEREST/

processing, kalamansi juiceprocessing, consumer store;participation of women;community-based forest protectionactivities

This PO has been a recipient of theTESDA Gawad KasanayanKabuhayan sa Kaunlaran 2000, MostGender Responsive Project Award(DENR national winner 2001), MostOutstanding Project Award (DENRregional winner). It is the only PO inthe country with certification from aUS forest management certifyingagency, SmartWood.

CONTACT

ManagerNPPFRDCNgan, CompostelaCompostela Valley(0919) 621-5448 (0919) 604-3193

101



❙ REFERENCES

◗ GENERAL REFERENCES

Acosta, Romeo T. “Community-Based Forest Management: A National Strategy for WatershedImprovement.” Paper presented in the Third National Policy Roundtable Discussion onCommunity-Based Forest Resources Management as a National and Local Strategy forWatershed Improvement in the Philippines, UP Diliman, Quezon City, October 2002.

Bhatia, R. “Sustainable Development and Poverty: The Role of Integrated Water ResourcesManagement.”Paper prepared for the Poverty and Water Meeting on Behalf of the Global WaterPartnership, n.p., February 2002.

Bonnell, J. and A. Baird. Community-Based Watershed Management,Undated.

Borlagdan, Salve B., Ernesto S. Guiang, and Juan M. Pulhin. Community-Based Forest Managementin the Philippines: A Preliminary Assessment. Ateneo de Manila University: Institute ofPhilippine Culture, 2001.

Browner, Carol M. Watershed Approach Framework. United States Environmental ProtectionAgency: Office of Water, June 1996.

Center for Southeast Asia Studies – University of California, Berkeley. Upland Philippine Communities:Guardians of the Final Forest Frontiers. Southeast Asia Sustainable Forest ManagementNetwork. Research Network Report No. 4, August 1993.

Forestry Development Center-UPLB College of Forestry and Natural Resources. Watersheds as aResource: State of the Art, Viewpoints and Experiences, 1998.

102



Governance and Local Democracy. Linking the Local Practitioners: Conference-Workshop on LocalExperiences and Collective Actions in Watershed Management: Workshop Proceedings,Cebu Midtown Hotel, Philippines, October 1999.

Guiang, Ernesto S. “Allocation and Management of Timberlands: Why Municipalities ShouldActively be Involved.” Paper prepared for the Philippine Environmental Governance Project(EcoGov), 2002.

Lina, J. D, Jr. “The Role of LGUs in Watershed Management”. Paper presented at the 4th MultisectoralForum on Watershed Management at the Batasan Pambansa Complex, Quezon City, March2000.

“No Forest Without Management.”Tropical Forest Update. Vol. 8 No. 4 (1998/1994).

The Water Resources Development Project-Watershed Management Improvement Component(WRDP-WMIC) Study Team. The Philippines Strategy for Improved Watershed ResourcesManagement. Forest Management Bureau-DENR, August 1998.

Walpole, P. “Role of Indigenous Peoples in Watershed Management.” Paper presented at the 4thMultisectoral Forum on Watershed Management at the Batasan Pambansa Complex, QuezonCity, March 2000.

World Bank. Agriculture Technology Notes, December 2001.

World Bank. Philippines Environment Monitor, 2000.

103

◗ MANUALS

CBFM Office – DENR and Environmental Science for Social Change. Community Mapping Manualfor Resource Management. Quezon City, Philippines, 1998.

Development Alternatives, Inc. Community-Based Environmental Performance Monitoring FieldManual. Manila, Philippines,1999.

Integrated Environmental Management for Sustainable Development Programme – DENR and NEDA.Guidebook on Sustainable Forest Land Use Planning and Management, Volume III: Guidebookson Sustainable Land Use Planning and Management. Manila, Philippines, 1997.

Natural Resources Management Project – DENR. Forest Land Use Planning Guidelines. Quezon City,Philippines, 1997.

Orient Integrated Development Consultants, Inc. Sourcebook on Mapping (for EnvironmentalManagement Planning.) n.p. ,1998.

Sajise, Percy E., et. al. Rapid Rural Systems Appraisal (RRSA): Diagnostic and Design Tool for UplandDevelopment Projects. 1990: EISAM-UPLB and OIDCI.

◗ DOCUMENTATION OF EXPERIENCES

Asian Institute of Management and Local Government Academy. Galing Pook Awards – Innovationand Excellence in Local Governance, 1996.

Asian Institute of Management and Local Government Academy. Galing Pook Awards – Innovationsand Excellence in Local Governance, 1998.



104

Asian Institute of Management and Local Government Academy. Galing Pook Awards – Innovationsand Excellence in Local Governance, 2000.

Asian Institute of Management (AIM) and Local Government Academy (LGA). “Watershed Co-Management Program: Nueva Vizcaya Province.” Galing Pook Awards - Innovation andExcellence in Local Governance, 1999.

Briones, Annabelle D. “Community-Based Resource Management: Maasin Watershed Experience.”Paper presented during the GOLD Conference-Workshop on Local Experiences and CollectiveActions in Watershed Management. n.p., October 1999.

Center for Development Management-Asian Institute of Management and Local GovernmentAcademy- DILG. Galing Pook Awards: Innovation and Excellence in Local Governance, 1998.

Center for Development Management-Asian Institute of Management and Local GovernmentAcademy-DILG. Galing Pook Awards: Innovation and Excellence in Local Governance, 1999.

Dolom, Buenaventura. “Watershed Management Practices, Issues and Concerns.” Paper presentedduring the LGSP II Roundtable Discussion on Watershed Management, Davao City, August2002.

Forest Land Use Plan of Agusan del Sur - Main Report. Province of Agusan del Sur, November 1999.

Galing Pook Foundation, Center for Development Management-Asian Institute of Management andLocal Government Academy- DILG. Galing Pook Awards: Innovation and Excellence inLocal Governance, 2000.

Garrity, Dennis P., et. al. “Innovations in Participatory Watershed Resource Management.”InternationalCenter for Research in Agroforestry, (Undated).



105

Garrity, Dennis P. The Farmer-Driven Landcare Movement: An Institutional Innovation WithImplications for Extension and Research. n.p.: International Centre for Research in Agroforestry,n.d..

GOLD-PBSP and OIDCI. “Bringing Back the Wilderness of Negros Occidental.”LGU Initiatives in ForestManagement. n.p., 1999.

GOLD-PBSP and OIDCI. “Forest Land Use Planning: A Tool for LGU Participation in SustainableForest Management.” LGU Initiatives in Forest Management. n.p.,1999.

GOLD-PBSP and OIDCI. “Kaakuhan ug Katungod: A Shared Responsibility in Forest Managementand Protection.” LGU Initiatives in Forest Management. n.p., 1999.

GOLD-PBSP and OIDCI. "Towards Regaining the Lush Forest of Agusan del Sur." LGU Initiatives inForest Management. n.p., 1999.

“Linking the Local Practitioners: Conference-Workshop on Local Experiences and Collective Actionsin Watershed Management.”Workshop Proceedings. n.p., October 1999.

Local Government Academy-DILG. Innovations: Galing Pook Awards, 1996.

Maloles, M. M. “How LGU Collected Real Property Tax and Utilization of Natural Wealth from MetroIloilo Water District.” Paper presented at the Conference on Institutionalization of EconomicInstruments in Managing Philippine Natural Resources held at Manila Galleria Suites, OrtigasCenter, Pasig City, November 2001.

Mercado, Agustin R. Jr., Marcelino Patindol, Dennis P. Garrity. “The Landcare Experience in thePhil: Technical and Institutional Innovations for Conservation Farming.” International Centerfor Research in Agroforestry, (Undated Report).



106

Philippine Business for Social Progress-Governance and Local Democracy Project, and OrientIntegrated Development Consultants, Inc. LGU Initiatives in Forest Management: FeatureArticles. Prepared for the League of Provinces in the Philippines, 1999.

Serrano, Rogelio C., Antonio M. Dano and Juan M. Pulhin. “Landscape-wide Analysis of theEnvironmental and Socio-Economic Impacts of Upland Farming in Manupali Watershed,Philippines.” (Undated).

Tiongson, Virgilio A. “Redeeming the Environmental Integrity of a Watershed Haven: ParticipatoryNRM Initiatives in Nueva Vizcaya.” Paper presented at the Conference on Sustaining UplandDevelopment in Southeast Asia: Issues, Tools and Institutions for Local Resource Management,Makati City, May 2001.

Tiongson, Virgilio A. “Revolutionizing Natural Resource Management: The Nueva Vizcaya Experiment.”Presented during the LGSP II Roundtable Discussion on Watershed Management, Davao City,August 2002.

Tongson, Edna. “Agusan del Sur Forest Land Use Planning (FLUP): Adoption of Watershed Frameworkin Planning.” Paper presented during the LGSP II Roundtable Discussion on WatershedManagement. Davao City, August 2002.

Uriarte, Nicolas S. “Concepts, Principles and Related Policies on Watershed Management.” Paperprepared for the LGSP II Roundtable Discussions, Davao City, August 2002.

Water Resources Development Project Study Team/Watershed Management ImprovementComponent. The Philippines Strategy for Improved Watershed Resources Management.Manila: Forest Management Bureau-DENR, August 1998.




ENDNOTES

1 Uriarte, Nicolas S. “Concepts, Principles and Related Policies on Watershed Management.”Paperprepared for the LGSP Roundtable Discussions on Sustaining LGU Support to WatershedManagement, Davao City, August 2002.

2 The Water Resources Development Project-Watershed Management Improvement Component(WRDP-WMIC) Study Team. The Philippines Strategy for Improved Watershed ResourcesManagement. Forest Management Bureau-DENR, August 1998. p. 29.

3 “Chapter 2: Basic Framework and Principles, ”Forest Land Use Planning Guidelines. NaturalResources Management Project –Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Februrary1997. p. 6.

4 Ibid., p. 8

5 The Water Resources Development Project-Watershed Management Improvement Component(WRDP-WMIC) Study Team. The Philippines Strategy for Improved Watershed ResourcesManagement. Forest Management Bureau-DENR, August 1998. p. 21.

6 Ibid., pp. 24-27

7 Ibid., pp. 20-21

8 Ibid., pp. 49-101

108

9 Further work to establish the guidelines for co-management of watersheds is being done underthe Philippines Environmental Governance Project.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT



The Philippines Strategy For ImprovedWatershed Resources Management: A

SynopsisWRDP-WMIC/FMB-DENR

STRATEGY SYNOPSIS

1. The Strategy’s Underlying Philosophy

The underlying philosophy of the strategy for improved watershed resource management is that:

There should be a demand driven, community based, approach to watershed management involvingtwo parallel components. First, one where the demand is determined by national priorities andconcerns. Secondly, one in which the direct stakeholders can articulate their needs and activelyparticipate in the conservation, planning, management and sustainable utilization (for multiplepurposes) of their local watershed resources. The aim of both is to provide the optimum social, cultural,economic and environmental benefits to the greatest number of people, particularly those living in,adjacent to, or downstream of, individual watershed areas, while maintaining the biological andcultural heritage of the Philippines.

ANNEXES

110

2. Goal of the Strategy

The twin goals of the strategy are:

a. the sustainable multiple use of the natural resources within all watershed areas of the Philippinesin a manner that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially acceptable; and

b. the prevention of further watershed degradation and the restoration of a productive andprotective function to currently degraded watershed areas.

3. Guiding Principles

The strategy for improved watershed resource management is based on the following guidingprinciples:

Ecological SustainabilitySocial and Cultural SustainabilityEconomic SustainabilityInstitutional Sustainability

4. Nature of the Problem of Watershed Degradation

Watershed degradation is taking place, to a greater or lesser extent, in all regions and provincesof the Philippines. Although quantitative estimates differ, the weight of evidence is clear thatwatershed degradation is widespread, and has reached a severe degree in many areas. Withinindividual watershed areas degradation has led to a:

decline in the productive capacity of the soil resource as a result of soil erosion and changes inthe hydrological, biological, chemical and physical properties of the soil;



111

decline in the quantity and/or quality of both surface and ground water resources and increasedrisk of downstream flood damage;decline in the quantity and/or quality of the natural biomass resource and a decrease inprotective vegetative ground cover; anddecline in genetic, species and ecosystem diversity (with possible extinction of some speciesof fauna and flora) within and downstream of the watershed area.

5. The Consequences of Poor Watershed Resource Management

The consequences of past, and present, mismanagement of the watershed resources of thePhilippines are a significant reduction in the economic, social and environmental benefits tosociety, at the local, provincial and national levels, that would have otherwise been realized frombetter management of these resources.

6. The Causes of the Problem

They key causes are:

improve human activities – arising from a lack of knowledge of, and/or a failure to pursue,suitable forms of land use and the appropriate land management practices;increasing population – arising from the natural population growth of upland communitiesand inward migration from the over crowded lowlands, puts pressure on the finite, and oftenecologically vulnerable, natural resource base of the uplands;poverty and economic disadvantage – arising from limited livelihood opportunities, resultsin an over reliance by upland households on the use of the natural resources (for farmingand/or forestry) to meet their short term welfare needs;inadequate institutional support services – arising from the restricted (and often conflicting)territorial and commodity focus of the different government line agencies, LGUs and NGOsengaged in promoting improved watershed management activities;

ANNEXES


112

inappropriate land use restrictions – arising from policies and legislative issuances thathave imposed over restrictive land use regulations on watershed areas for water sourceprotection (watershed proclamations) and/or biodiversity preservation (NIPAS multiple use zones);andinsecure land user rights – arising from the fact that private title cannot be given withinareas legally designated as Forest Lands, as they are part of the public domain and are notalienable and disposable.

7. Some Myths About Watershed Resource Management

As a result of past over simplistic environmental education messages, and the extrapolation ofresearch results to areas for which they are not valid (e.g., from the temperate conditions of the USAto the tropical conditions within the Philippines), there are a number of false technical assumptions,or myths, about the problems and causes of watershed degradation in the Philippines. Whereasthere is a basis of truth underlying many of these, it is important to recognize that the problemsand solutions are more complex than the simplistic assumptions would suggest. Dispelling theseinvolves recognizing that it is not so much what is being done (e.g., whether the watershed’sresources are being utilized for agriculture and/or forestry purposes) but rather how it is done (i.e.,the specific land management practices followed).

The following incorrectly perceived wisdoms, or myths, as to the field level realities of whatconstitutes watershed degradation, and how to tackle it, are widespread in the Philippines:

Myth 1. Present water shortages are all due to watershed degradation. It is true that watersheddegradation has resulted in reduced dry season flows in many parts of the Philippines, howeverthis is only one of the factors contributing to the present water shortages within the country. Themajor culprit for the water shortages experienced in 1977 and the first half of 1998 was lowrainfall (drought), a natural climatic factor associated with the latest El Niño event. In addition towatershed degradation the effect of the drought induced water shortages have been exacerbated



113

by: a) increased industrial and domestic demand from a growing urban population; and b) highlosses (typically exceeding 50%) from the municipal/metropolitan water supply delivery systemsdue to broken/leaking pipes and illegal connections. Improved watershed management on its ownwill not solve the present water shortage problem. Tackling the problem also requires managingdemand, through the adoption of more water efficient irrigation practices, adoption of waterconserving practices by industrial and domestic consumers, and the rehabilitation and maintenanceof the country’s metropolitan and municipal water delivery systems.

Myth 2. Logging will automatically lead to flooding and a decline in water supplies. Poorlogging practices have been a major contributory factor to present levels of watershed degradation.However there are areas within the Philippines where selective logging has been practices for manyyears without causing floods or reducing dry season river flows. Examples of well-managedsecondary forests can be found where logging is in to its second and third cycles. It is not loggingitself that is the problem, it is the use of inappropriate logging practices, combined with a failureto enforce existing forestry laws, that has resulted in watershed degradation. There is evidence withinthe Philippines that with the appropriate management practices, natural forests can be sustainablymanaged as renewable economic resources, without increasing the risk of flooding or adverselyaffecting downstream water supplies.

Myth 3. The kaingeros are to blame for watershed degradation. The term kaingin covers a widerange of different upland farming systems, some of which are conservation effective while othersare decidedly conservation negative. Studies have shown that the traditional shifting cultivationpractices of many upland indigenous cultural communities have evolved in balance with their localenvironment. Under low population densities such practices can be sustainable with erosion atacceptable levels over the course of the cropping and fallow cycles. However other upland farmingsystems are non sustainable, notably the slash and burn systems, with very short fallow periods,typically practiced by lowland migrants who have no indigenous knowledge of upland farming.It is technically inaccurate to describe all forms of kaingin as incompatible with good watershedresource management. What is needed is to assess the conservation effectiveness of individual

ANNEXES


114

kaingin systems and their component management practices and to determine the futurecultivation intensity within a given area. This should serve as the basis for determining whetherupland farming systems using sustainable kaingin practices could form one component of an overallwatershed management plan based on the concept of multiple use.

Myth 4. Reforestation alone will solve the problem. Poor plantation establishment andmanagement practices can result in higher losses than from well managed hillside farms. Theextensive undergrowth and ground cover to be found within many of the traditional Philippinecoconut based multi-storey farming systems means that such systems will often provide as good,if not better soil and water protection (as well as better economic returns) than commercialtimber plantations. Fast growing exotic tree species have high water demands. The unintendedeffect of planting them for watershed protection purposes may be a reduction in total wateryield, particularly when planted close to springs, reservoirs and along stream banks.

Myth 5. Land under 18% slope is suitable for agriculture, land over 18% slope is not. The risk oferosion under agriculture is a combination of factors notably soil type, rainfall intensity, ground cover,slope length and steepness, and the type of land management practiced. There is thus no scientificbasis for fixing the sage limit for agriculture solely on the 18% slope limit. Where the soils are deep,and resilient, annual crop cultivation can be practiced on slopes steeper than 18%, providing theappropriate conservation effective land management practices (e.g., contour tillage and vegetativestrips, or terracing) are used. Crops have been grown on the Banaue terraces for centuries. Equallythere are other soil types that are highly sensitive to mismanagement and even on slopes asgentle as 2-3% are subject to severe degradation if used for agriculture. Thus the safe limits foragriculture within watershed areas should be based on a full land suitability assessment not justan arbitrary slope limit.

Myth 6. Watersheds are socio-economic and socio-political units. A watershed is a clearlyrecognizable natural hydrological unit. However it is not a socio-economic and socio-political unitas its hydrological boundaries rarely, if ever, coincide with the cultural, administrative and political



115

boundaries of the watershed’s various stakeholders. The socio-economic and socio-politicalboundaries in which upland communities and LGU officials operate are those of their respectivesitios, barangays, municipalities and provinces, not individual watersheds. Likewise the ancestraldomains of indigenous cultural communities usually straddle the divide between two or morewatersheds. Watershed management planning, when upland communities are involved, requiresthat the planning boundaries should take into account the social and cultural boundaries of theparticipating communities, rather than being narrowly restricted to the topographic boundary ofthe watershed itself.

8. What Should be Done to Arrest Watershed Degradation

Changes in the present policy environment to allow for multiple use management of watershedareas in a manner that is conservation effective, productive and equitable;Clearly defined national and local land use, and economic development, priorities that providethe development framework for the formulation of individual national and local level prioritywatershed management plans;Field level knowledge as the prerequisite for the adoption of suitable forms of land usefollowing appropriate land management practices ,thereby enabling the resources of individualwatersheds (climate, soils, water, vegetation, and fauna) to be used for multiple productivepurposes on a sustainable basis;The skills and resources, at both the national and local level, to undertake the identification,formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of watershed management plans(using an appropriate combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches) in ways thatpromote community level participatory planning within a national planning framework;Rapid delineation of the permanent forest line so as to determine the specific limits forForestlands and National Parks and to classify as Alienable and Disposable those areas, outsidethe redefined boundary, not required for timber production and forest/watershed protectionpurposes – this to be done in a manner that reconciles the de facto land use situation on theground with the suitability of the land to be used for different purposes, while taking into accountnational land use priorities;

ANNEXES


116

Granting of tenure over de facto open access Forest Land resources so that they become eitherthe common property of a recognized user group (e.g., CADC, CADT or CBFMA) or reserved forthe exclusive use of an individual entity (e.g., CSC, TPSA or IFMA);An integrated, multi-sectoral land collaborative approach that would broaden and strengthenthe present institutional base for watershed management at the national, regional, provincial,municipal and community levels.That resources be devoted to market based income generating mechanisms for stimulatingprivate investment in productive and sustainable use of watershed resources;Generation of the funds for watershed management using innovative and sustainablemechanisms such as trust funds, service charges and imposing user fees (e.g., water pricing);Greater involvement of the LGUs in the management of specific watersheds, or portions of oneor more watersheds, within their area of jurisdiction, by devolving shared responsibility tointerested Municipalities (and/or Local Water Districts), through such mechanisms as a MunicipalWatershed Management Memorandum of Agreement;Effective information education and communication (IEC) campaigns on the principles andpractice of improved watershed resource management, designed to raise awareness amongstpolicy makers and the general public as to the options, and safeguards, for multiple use in waysthat are both productive and sustainable;Promoting biodiversity preservation by making rural land users aware of the uniqueness of thefauna and flora in their area, and installing in them a cultural pride in its preservation;A national institution with the authority to coordinate and oversee the implementation of aninteragency and multi-sectoral national watershed management programme;A national watershed information system to meet the need for the collection, collation andanalysis of data of relevance to watershed resource management, at the local and national levels,and the dissemination of the resulting information to decision makers, planners and otherinterested parties.



117

9. What is Being Done to Arrest Watershed Degradation

Elements of what is required are already being done:

Several bills for the delineation of the permanent forest line have been prepared and submittedfor deliberation to both houses of Congress over 10 years ago – none of the bills have beenwithdrawn and their approval is still pending;The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to exertjurisdiction over the management of the watershed resources within their ancestral domains;Within the Water Resources Development Project there is on-going work to improve theplanning, development and management of water resources;A bill to establish the Watershed Resources Authority of the Philippines has been filed beforeCongress;The implementing rules and regulations of the NIPAS Act provides the framework for theestablishment of protected areas for biodiversity conservation;The watershed proclamation policy, its links with the NIPAS Act and the possibilities fordevolving management responsibility for individual watersheds to the LGUs communities,the private sector and other stakeholders, are under review;The recently issued DENR DAO 98-42 allows the harvesting of government plantations inproduction areas within protected areas;The Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) Strategy provides the framework for thegranting of the rights to communities and individual households to manage portions of forestland for productive purposes (to grow crops and trees, and harvest forest products);A few small watersheds have been devolved to a limited number of LGUs, while some largerwatersheds are currently managed by agencies other than DENR, notably NIA, NPC, PNOCand individual Water Districts;A small number of interagency river basin authorities/watershed management councils havebeen established;

ANNEXES


118

There are successful farmer led organizations within the Philippines (such as the Claveria LandCare Association) which provide models of community based peoples’ organizations for theparticipatory development, and dissemination, of improved soil and water conservation andforest management practices;Some funds are available to support community and LGU watershed resource managementinitiatives through financing mechanisms (e.g., the CBFM Special Account, the IPAS Trust Fund,MDF and the DOE, PO.OO5/K levy on electricity sales);The issue of how to apply principle of water pricing according to the true economic value of wateris currently under investigation, likewise there are continuing efforts to improve the determination(and generation) of the economic rent that could be realized from the harvesting of forestproducts;A limited range of hill farming and forestry technologies are being demonstrated to uplandcommunities through the Centers for People Empowerment in the Uplands (CPEU) andindividual watershed management/upland conservation and development projects;Number of local, national and international level GIS/MIS initiatives exist with data sets and datahandling methodologies of relevance to a national watershed information system.

10. Gaps that Required Filling


There are still gaps in the policy and legislative environment that require filling:

Resolution of present land use policy conflicts to allow for the multiple use of watershed areascombining water source and biodiversity protection with compatible uses that are economicallyviable, ecologically sustainable and socially acceptable;There is a need to promote improved resource management in all watersheds of the Philippines,not just those defined as ‘critical’, or which have been proclaimed;



119

Sustainable development in the context of watershed resource management should embracethe economic use of those resources for commercial, not just subsistence, purposes;The present land classification impasse should be resolved through the speedy passing of thepending bills giving DENR the mandate to delineate the permanent forest line in line with nationalland use planning priorities and area specific land suitability assessment criteria;Decision on allowable land uses should be based on area specific suitability assessments ratherthan rigidly defined national standards;The policy for biodiversity preservation should not require that the entire area of a watershedbe withdrawn from productive use, the need is for effective policies that will ensure that thoseportions of individual watersheds, that are still rich in the original biodiversity of the locality, orare required to protect the habitat of rare/threatened/endangered species (flora or fauna), receivethe level of protection appropriate to their specific circumstances;There is a need to increase the rate at which the rights and responsibilities for the sharedmanagement of watershed resources are devolved to the stakeholders, through speedy enactmentof the provisions of the IPRA, extension of the CBFM strategy to non project areas and thedevolution of specific watershed areas to the LGUs through a Memorandum of Agreementmechanisms;In line with the principle of ‘water pricing’an effective policy mechanism needs to be designedfor charging agricultural, domestic and industrial users the economic value for the water theyuse and reserving a proportion of such service charges and user fees for funding watershedmanagement activities.

Institutional

There are still gaps in the institutional support services for watershed management that requirefilling:

Whereas most watershed resource utilization activities have been spontaneous and unplanned,there is a need to develop the institutional capability to provide support to all watershedresource management initiatives, in whatever watershed they may occur;

ANNEXES


120

To date most watershed resource management and development projects have been designedfrom the top, to balance this there is a need for a bottom-up demand driven approach, whichwould enable concerned communities and/or LGUs (not just DENR) to become the keyproponents of local level individual watershed management initiatives;In the past watershed management planning has been undertaken on an ad hoc basis, thereis a need for a comprehensive national watershed resource management programme thatprovides the planning framework within which individual watershed management plans canbe formulated;There is a need for a national level watershed management institution to oversee theimplementation of the national programme, and with a recognized interagency institutionalmandate and the necessary resources to promote, coordinate and backstop local and nationallevel watershed resource management initiatives;Creating the critical mass required for sustaining and spreading improved conservationfarming/forest management practices depends on having a network of community level,people initiated and led organizations coming together as voluntary associations;Better public and private sector partnerships are a prerequisite for improved watershed resourcemanagement planning at the municipal, provincial, regional and national levels;There is a need to overcome restricted and conflicting institutional mandates for watershedmanagement, amongst government line agencies and LGUs, and to promote sharedmanagement responsibility and improved coordination of field level activities;Where NGOs have a comparative advantage in their ability to work with upland communitiesthey should be partners in the planning and implementation of improved watershed resourcemanagement activities;Sustainable mechanisms for the generation of the funds are required for improved watershedresource management activities, so as to lessen the reliance on donor funding for theimplementation of watershed management plans;Attempts should be made to show the links between the costs and benefits of bettermanagement of watershed resources, in order to justify the raising of the funds requiredthrough the imposition of service charges and fees on watershed products (e.g., raw water, hydro-and geo-thermal generated electricity, forest products, etc.);



121

Upland households/communities currently receive little, if any, extension advice on how to sustainand increase the yield of their traditional dryland food corps, or how to manage their naturalforest areas on a sustainable yield basis, likewise there is little extension support to those whowish to grow trees in A&D lands, there is thus a need for a CENRO/LGU based extension supportservice that would operate in both Forest and A&D lands;There is a need for the strengthening of existing multi-sectoral and inter-disciplinary researchconsortia so that they can undertake basic and applied watershed management research todetermine the impact of different forms of land use on the soil and water resources of individualwatersheds;There is a need to strengthen the capacity of the LGUs and CENROs to work in partnership,specifically in the formulation of comprehensive watershed resource management/land use planswith the fill participation of the stakeholder communities;Effective protection of forest resources and protected areas from encroachment and illegal landuse activities (e.g., logging) requires a sufficient level of local and national political will to actagainst the offenders, backed up by locally adopted and enforced land use by laws andgovernment agencies, at the national and local levels, with the ability, and credibility, to enforcethe provisions of the forestry and NIPAS laws;Promoting the principle of improved watershed management, through conservation effectiveand economically productive multiple use, requires a national information, education andcommunication programme to challenge present misconceptions amongst policy makers,politicians, and the general public and to raise their awareness as to the possibilities forcombining conservation with production;There is a need to establish an operational national watershed information system (NWIS, to filla gap within the current natural resources management information technology systemsoperating within the Philippines.

ANNEXES


122

Technology

There are still technology gaps that require filling:

There is a need for better documentation of existing conservation effective hill farming and forestmanagement practices, both indigenous and research derived, and an effective mechanism forthe dissemination of such information to extension workers and land users;There is a need for the adoption of a participatory technology development approach toenable extension and research staff to work together with the land users in developing areaspecific technologies that match the local bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances;There is little incentive for upland communities to improve their upland agriculture and forestmanagement practices when they have difficulties selling their surplus produce, hence thereis a need to improve market access for those products that can be sustainably produced in theuplands;There is currently a lack of practical field level technical guidelines on how upland communitiesmight manage natural forest areas on a sustainable economic yield basis, while the technicalguidelines for forest management by corporate bodies need updating;The limited numbers of extension workers available require the development of innovativemethods for inter- and intra-peer group training and dissemination of information on new uplandfarming and forestry practices.

11. The Key Elements of the Strategy

The key elements of the strategy for improved watershed resource management represent asynthesis of the findings and conclusions of a study undertaken under the auspices of the WaterResources Development Project Watershed Management Improvement Component (WRDP-WMIC). The study involved a review of: a) the issues related to the prioritisation of watersheds; b)the role and scope of a national watershed information system; c) the policies and legal instrumentsimpacting on watershed management; d) past and on-going watershed management/upland



123

conservation and development projects and programmes; and e) the institutions involved inwatershed management. For ease of presentation, the key elements are categorized into Policyand Legislation, Institutions and Technology although it is recognized that many of the individualelements cited do not fit exclusively within one or other of these categories.


Implementation of strategy calls for a number of policy and legislative changes and interventions.They key policy and legislative elements of the strategy are therefore:

Watersheds to be managed on a sustainable development and multiple use basis –thereby accepting that sustainable development includes the use of watershed resources forcommercial (not just subsistence) purposes and that multiple-use watershed management cancombine water yield and biodiversity protection with compatible economic land use activities(e.g., tree, crop, livestock, and fish production, and recreation/eco-tourism).Promote improved watershed resource management in all watersheds – thereby focusingon all watersheds identified as having a priority need for improved management, not justthose defined narrowly by PD 705 as critical, or those that have been proclaimed.Multiple use to be based on land suitability – land suitability assessment to be undertakenas a routine part of watershed management planning. This being undertaken in order toidentify areas within a watershed suitable for particular uses, and to match potential land useactivities with the appropriate areas.Integrate watershed management planning concepts and principles – into provincial andmunicipal level comprehensive land use planning procedures.Encourage the establishment of local by-laws – for regulating land use within watershed areas,these to be formulated, agreed on and enforced by the affected communities.Apply national forestry laws consistently and transparently – with the aim of gainingwider respect for the laws and re-establishing the credibility of the law enforcers.

ANNEXES


124

Enact the National Land Use and Water Resources Authority Bills – as matters of urgency,to provide the framework for guiding land allocation and water resource development, fordetermining the appropriate land and water uses, and for resolving conflicts between short-term development needs and long-term conservation of the country’s watershed resources.Rapid delineation of the permanent forest line – so as to resolve the present uncertaintiesand conflicting claims, over the legal land classification within the uplands. The aim is toclearly determine the legal status of land within different parts of a watershed as this willdetermine the type of approach to be used and the practices that might be promoted withinthe context of improved watershed resource management.Define the safe limits for agriculture – and thus the division between A&D Land andForestland, on the basis of a comprehensive land suitability and soil erosion risk assessment, andnot the present arbitrary18% slope limit. When using this to determine the revised permanentforest line, all remaining natural forest should be included in the permanent forest estate,irrespective of soil erosion risk classification.Restrict the issuance of future watershed proclamations – given that existing proclamationshave often not led to improved watershed protection. The policy of using presidentialproclamations for protection purposes should be restricted to those few watershed areaswhere the legal restrictions on use are accepted, and/or can be enforced, by the stakeholders,and where watershed protection cannot be achieved by other means.Develop municipal and community based legal and tenurial instruments – fortransferring/sharing responsibility for the protection and improved management of individualwatershed to/with the direct stakeholders and use these as an alternative to watershed proclamations.Devolve shared responsibility to the LGUs – for the management of specific watersheds, orportions of watersheds, within their area of jurisdiction through the mechanism of a MunicipalWatershed Management Memorandum of Agreement. The MOA to spell out the rights andresponsibilities of the LGU and the technical backstopping and regulatory role of DENR. Whereappropriate similar mechanisms to be used to devolve watershed management responsibilityto other agencies including the private sector.



125

Continue and expand the granting of legal and user rights and responsibilities overspecific upland areas – (with locally appropriate conservation provisions) so that de facto openaccess resources become either the common property of a recognized user group or arereserved for the exclusive use of an individual entry.Promote private investment in watershed resource management – by granting secure rightsto use areas on a sustainable basis for economically productive purposes (forestry andagriculture), and overcoming financial constraints through the provision of affordable creditand/or community based revolving funds.Undertake improved watershed resource management in a socially equitable, culturallysensitive and gender aware manner – thereby ensuring that:

a. Watershed management plans do not increase social inequalities (i.e., upland communitiesshould not have to change their livelihood activities, for the benefit of better off lowlandirrigated rice farmers, without receiving compensatory benefits);

b. Interventions for improved watershed resource management do not conflict with localcultural values, beliefs and knowledge systems (i.e., the customs of IPs should be respectedand there should be no unacceptable development activities in areas of cultural/religiousimportance to individual ICCs);

c. Rules and regulations for the use of proclaimed watersheds protected areas do notcondemn upland communities to perpetual poverty (i.e., they should not unnecessarilyrestrict their opportunities to engage in commercial activities);

d. The specific needs and circumstances of rural women and disadvantaged groups aretaken into consideration when planning and implementing all watershed managementactivities.

Set aside for total protection only those specific portions of a watershed needed – topreserve the original biodiversity of the locality, to preserve the habitat of rare, threatened orendangered species of flora and fauna; and/or to protect critical water sources (e.g., springs).Entire watersheds should not be withdrawn from any form of economic utilization if all that needsto be preserved is just a portion of the watershed.

ANNEXES


126

Adjust current prices on raw water and other watershed resources – to reflect their trueeconomic value taking into consideration the full cost of protecting and harnessing individualresources (especially water) for public consumption. A percentage of all fees, levies and taxesraised from the use of watershed resources (water, grazing rights, timber/other forest products,etc.) to be set aside for financing watershed management activities.Identify and encourage private incentives for improved watershed resource management– by designing watershed management interventions that offer the practitioners tangibleprivate incentives (financial and social/cultural benefits) to improve their present managementpractices.Only use direct incentives (cash payments, food for work, free inputs) when there is noalternative – and they can be sustained from non-donor sources. Utilize indirect incentives (e.g.,land use rights, pricing policies, support services) as appropriate to change the external policyenvironment so as to facilitate, and/or encourage, the adoption of improved watershedmanagement practices.

Institutional

Implementation of the strategy calls for a number of changes and interventions to strengthen theinstitutional support services for improved watershed resource management at both the nationaland local levels. The key institutional elements of the strategy are therefore:

Broaden the institutional base – for improved watershed resource management planning by:a. Adopting a multi-sectoral and inter-agency approach to watershed management;b. Developing partnerships between DENR, the LGUs, Water Districts, NPC, PNOC, other line

agencies, NGOs, and CBOs;c. Recognizing the comparative advantages of NGOs in working with upland communities

compared to LGU and government line agencies;d. Reassessing, revising and expanding current institutional responsibilities while strengthening

their capabilities; and



127

e. Encouraging the direct participation of groups of land users in field/community leveloperational planning, implementation and review of watershed management plans andactivities.

The formulation and operation of a demand driven national watershed managementprogram – comprising two parallel components: a) where the demand is determined bynational priorities and concerns; and b) where the primary initiative for the planning andimplementation of individual watershed management plans comes from the local communityand the LGU in response to a locally perceived need (demand) to tackle the problem. Thenecessary resource inputs (labor, cash, materials, etc.) for implementation of locally identifiedand formulated plans, should initially be sourced from within the community and the LGU. Underthe umbrella of a national programme external technical assistance and supplementarycounterpart funds (as a grant and/or loan) could be provided from national sources, on alimited need basis. The role of the national programme would be to:

a. encourage the local generation of project ideas for improved watershed resourcemanagement;

b. respond to locally identified needs for watershed management planning;c. support and strengthened community/LGU led resource management initiatives; andd. build on local demand to achieve the ‘critical mass’ for extending and sustaining an

effective countrywide programme.Stimulate and support the demand for improved management at the community level –by scaling up from local level successes so as to achieve the critical mass needed to make asignificant impact on the present levels of watershed degradation. This to be assisted by theformation and operation of people led organizations such as Municipal Land Care Associationswith constituent Land Care Chapters at the community/barangay level.Establish multi-sectoral Watershed Resource Management Committees/ Councils – atthe municipal, provincial, and regional levels to foster public, and private, sector partnershipsin improved watershed resource management activities. Such committees/councils to beused to overcome restricted and conflicting institutional watershed management mandatesamongst government line agencies and LGUs, thereby promoting shared management

ANNEXES


128

responsibility and improved coordination of field level activities. Whenever possible the duties,responsibilities and membership of the existing development committees, at the local andregional levels, should be expanded to include watershed management concerns, rather thancreating separate committees/councils solely for this.Establish a national high-level inter-agency watershed management council – to overseethe implementation of the national demand driven programme and to facilitate cooperationbetween, and involvement of, the various national, regional and local level agencies with a directinterest in the management and utilization of watershed resources.Establish a national level ‘apex’watershed resource management institution/organization– to serve as the secretariat for the high level watershed management council, and from whichit would receive an interagency institutional mandate to promote, coordinate, and assist withthe implementation, monitoring and evaluation of local initiatives under the auspices of thedemand driven national programme. This body to assume responsibility for the identification,formulation and where appropriate arranging for the implementation of improved managementplans for nationally determined priority watershed areas, where the ‘demand’ for interventioncomes from national, rather than local, stakeholders.Establishment of a national watershed information system (NWIS) – to carry out thesystematic collection, review and dissemination of information for improved watershed resourcemanagement. This to be undertaken in collaboration with other GIS/MIS systems within DENRand other agencies to encourage the mutually beneficial sharing of data.Develop sustainable mechanisms for generating the funds required – for improvedwatershed resource management by:

a. establishing a national watershed management fund (with an initial input from centralgovernment and donor sources);

b. sustaining the fund from the imposition of charges and fees on the services/ benefitsobtained from improved watershed resource management (notably fees for raw water anduse the existing levy on electricity generated by hydro- and geo-thermal power stationsfor non-NPC and PNOC watershed areas);

c. encouraging private stakeholder investment;d. making use of affordable credit/evolving funds at the community level;



129

e. allocating a proportion of the development and O&M costs of water dependentinfrastructure projects;

f. charging environmental levies/polluters fees on commercial companies exploiting specificwatershed resources.

Develop an integrated upland agriculture/forestry extension support service – by bringingtogether both subject matter specialists/grassroots extension staff from the CENRO/PENRO, andLGUs (MAO/PAO and ISF) and experienced farmers/foresters from within the community todevelop integrated programmes and extension messages for improved agriculture and forestryby upland communities. The service to include:

a. a CENRO forestry extension cadre working in both A&D lands and ISF/CBFMA areas, able toadvise on which species of trees to plant and how to grow them for multiple end use purposes;

b. community-based inter-disciplinary upland extension teams using ‘farmer-to-farmer’people centered learning processes to develop and disseminate improved uplandconservation farming practices.

Develop and implement a comprehensive training programme – (with supporting regionaland provincial training facilities) designed to improve the watershed resource management skillsand capabilities of both the resource users and the extension and research support staffemployed by the LGUs, line agencies, and NGOs.Adopt people centered learning processes – and develop new and innovative methods for inter-and intra-peer group (‘farmer-to-farmer’) training, and dissemination of information, on new uplandfarming and forestry practices, so as to overcome the constraint of having limited numbers ofextension workers available, and the difficulties of traveling into and around upland areas.Develop effective multi-sectoral and inter-disciplinary research consortia – to undertakebasic and applied watershed management research. Provide additional resources to strengthenthe skills and capabilities of existing consortia, and where needed establish new ones.Promote participatory technology development – by giving extension and research workersthe skills and resources to work with upland farmers/forest managers, in the development ofimproved conservation farming and sustainable forest management practices, that matchtheir area specific bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances.

ANNEXES


130

Develop and conduct a national information, education and communication (IEC) programme- or improved watershed resource management that will enhance environmental awarenessamongst all Filipinos. The key IEC message to be that improved watershed resource managementcan be achieved in ways that are both conservation effective and economically productive withina multiple use framework.

Technology

Implementation of the strategy calls for a number of technological changes and interventions forimproved watershed resource management at the field level. The key technology related elementsof the strategy are therefore:

Appraise all field level technical interventions – according to whether they are: a) technicallypossible; b) practically feasible; c) productive; d) financially desirable; e) stable; f ) sustainable;g) universally applicable; and h) socially and economically acceptable.Land suitability assessment to serve as the basis for improved watershed resourcemanagement planning – thereby ensuring for individual land use enterprises:

a. that they are suited to the bio-physical conditions of the parts of the watershed in whichthey are undertaken; and

b. that the appropriate land management practices are adopted.Ensure improved watershed resource management technologies are locally appropriate – by:

a. identifying practices that are simple, low cost, productive, maintainable, low risk, flexibleand conservation effective;

b. recognizing and building on the indigenous watershed resource management practicesof traditional upland communities;

c. developing appropriate technologies, with the participation of local communities, so thatthey conform to their economic, social and cultural norms;

d. exploring cost and conservation effective alternatives, to the present plantation reforestationapproach, for rehabilitating denuded watershed areas.



131

Develop a technology documentation database – within NWIS as a really accessible sourceof information on alternative upland conservation farming/ sustainable forest managementtechnologies that have been used successfully (in the Philippines or elsewhere) for improvedwatershed resource management).Manage the demand for water from downstream users – through the adoption of waterconservation practices. Given that water is a finite resource, in addition to improved managementwithin the upper watershed area, there is a need to ensure that the downstream users do notwaste what water is available. Options for conserving scarce water resources could include:

a. the adoption of improved irrigation water management practices to improve the efficiencyof present water use;

b. in water shortage areas switching from the growing of a second crop of irrigated rice tothe planting of less water demanding crops to compensate for reduced water availabilityin the dry season;

c. adoption of water conserving measures in urban areas by both domestic and industrialconsumers; and

d. the rehabilitation and maintenance of the country’s metropolitan and municipal waterdelivery systems so as to reduce leakages.

Prepare new, and update old, technical guidelines – for improved watershed resourcemanagement so as to provide guidelines on:

a. participatory planning for improved watershed resource management;b. participatory development of upland conservation farming systems;c. land suitability assessment for multiple use watershed resource management;d. community based management of natural forests on a sustained yield basis; ande. sustainable natural and plantation forest management by corporate bodies.

Develop and utilize simple, primarily qualitative, bio-physical indicators – that can beadapted to the local situation, rather than rigid national standards, for monitoring theenvironmental impact of specific watershed management interventions and detecting trendsin the degradation status of watershed areas.

ANNEXES


132

Develop and utilize simple monitoring tools – for capturing the socio-economic benefits ofimproved watershed resource management and detecting trends in poverty alleviation amongstthe affected communities.Promote participatory watershed resource monitoring and evaluation – with the aim ofstimulating critical self-awareness amongst rural upland households as to the impact, at thecommunity and watershed level, of their farming and forest management practices, therebyproviding the motivation to make improvements.Devote resources to market based mechanisms – for stimulating private investment inproductive and sustainable use of watershed resources. In particular improve market accessfor upland communities by:

a. improving access trails/roads to suitable areas (while avoiding opening up upland areasthat are environmentally sensitive/fragile);

b. identifying market opportunities for existing or potential new upland commodities;c. developing local market information systems;d. adding value to upland agricultural/forest products by encouraging the development of

local processing capabilities.Support the establishment of small-to-medium scale forest based industries – accessibleto upland (and lowland) communities to stimulate private investment in small-holder treefarming in both CBFMA and A&D areas and to provide a market for products obtained from thesustainable management of natural forest areas.Undertake both basic and applied research – into the agricultural and agro-forestry problemsfacing upland communities and to determine the impact of different forms of land use on thewater, soil and forest resources of individual watersheds representative of the different watershedtypes within the Philippines.The plot, micro- or small watershed level – should be the focus for field level technicalinterventions, while planning at the large watershed and river basin level should focus onbroad sector development and land use zoning.



133

12. The Key Actors

The key actors for the implementation of the strategy are:

The resource users/direct stakeholders – the principal actors are the individual ruralhouseholds, upland communities and corporate bodies that utilize the resources of a watershedfor pursuing agricultural, forestry, ranching or fisheries enterprises. They should be seen as theprimary stewards of a watershed’s resources, as the success of improved watershed managementdepends on their ability and willingness to manage these resources on an environmentallysustainable and economically productive basis.DENR – would serve as the apex institution for the development, operation and coordinationof a national watershed management programme. At the local level it would assume a new andmore proactive role in technically backstopping the watershed resource management effortsof the LGUs. It would also provide a CENRO based forestry extension service to those wishingto grow trees on private land.LGUS – would gradually assume lead responsibility for the planning, implementation, monitoring andevaluation of community based improved watershed resource management activities within theirarea of jurisdiction. The MAO and devolved ISF staff (where they are still performing ISF functions)would work jointly with the CENRO and community level conservation farming/forest user peoplesorganizations to field combined upland/watershed resource management extension teams.The Department of Agriculture- the constituent bureau of the DA, notably the Bureau of Soilsand Water Management, the Agricultural Training Institute and the Bureau of AgriculturalResearch, would have a key role to play particularly with regard to providing technicalbackstopping, in the areas of training, technology development, and information, to provincialand municipal level improved watershed resource management initiatives.

Within individual watersheds a number of other agencies, notably NIA, PNOC, NPC and DAR, arecurrently and in the future could be expected to play a key role in the planning, implementation,monitoring and evaluation of improved watershed resource management activities.

ANNEXES


134

13. Paradigm Shift in Watershed Management

The Shift in approach to improved watershed resource management as advocated by the strategycan be summarized as follows:



From looking at watershed degradation (soil erosion,deforestation, siltation etc.) in terms of what ishappening (treating the symptoms);

From management of watersheds for a single purpose– protection of water yield;

From assuming that management of critical andproclaimed/protected watersheds requires thewithdrawal of the whole area from any form ofeconomic utilization;

From de facto open access status of watershedresources, even in proclaimed and designated criticalwatersheds;

From a priority focus on the off-site/down-stream costsand benefits of watershed management (waterquantity and quality, and reduced risk of damage fromfloods and sedimentation);

To looking at watershed degradation in terms of why itis happening (tackling the underlying causes);

To sustainable multiple-use management ofwatersheds that combines water yield and bio-diversity protection with compatible economic landuse activities (e.g., crop, livestock, fish and treeproduction, and recreation/eco-tourism);

To recognizing that by selecting suitable land uses andadopting appropriate management practices thenatural resources within individual watersheds can beused for economically productive purposes whilemaintaining the delivery of water to downstreamusers;

To the use of appropriate tenurial arrangements todevolve the rights and responsibilities for themanagement of a specific watershed or parts of awatershed to the concerned communities, LGUs orother suitable organizations/agencies;

To giving at least equal priority to the on-site costs andbenefits of watershed management (maintenance andenhancement of upland farm, forest and pastureproductivity);

135

ANNEXES


From a piecemeal project approach in which individual‘critical’ watershed management plans are identified,prioritised, formulated and funded according to nationaldevelopment criteria;

From restricted and conflicting institutional mandatoryfor watershed management amongst government lineagencies and LGUs;

From upland communities having limited or no access toextension advice on how to improve the productivityand sustainability of their natural resource basedlivelihood systems;

From a top-down transfer of technology mode in whichthe land user is a passive recipient of externallyformulated extension messages and researchrecommendations;

From information of relevance to watershedmanagement either lacking or scattered amongstdifferent agencies.

To a demand driven programme approach where locallevel activities are undertaken within a national policyand institutional framework that promotes theformulation of watershed management plans at thecommunity and LGU level in line with local priorities,resources and external assistance needs;

To shared responsibility and improved coordinationthrough multi-sectoral watershed resource managementassociations/councils;

To the development of a CENRO/LGU based extensionsupport service, that would operate in both forest andA&D lands, to provide advice to those engaged inupland farming and forest management/tree planting;

To a stakeholder centered participatory learning andtechnology development process that recognizes andbuilds on the knowledge and capabilities of the landusers to learn for themselves through participating in,observing and discussing their own trials and learning-by-doing field exercises;

To the systematic collection, documentation, analysisand dissemination (to potential users) of watershedmanagement information under the auspices of aNational Watershed Information System.

Source: The Philippines Strategy for Improved Watershed Resources Management Forest Management Bureau, DENR, August 1998


ANNEXES

Allocation and management of timberlandsWhy municipalities should actively get

involvedBY DR. ERNIE S. GUIANG

Chief of Party, EcoGov Project1

The Local Government Code of 1991 opened a window of opportunity for local government units(LGUs), municipalities included, to take a hands-on role in the management of their environmentand natural resources. These resources include forests and forest lands (or timberlands), which arekey natural resources within the political jurisdiction of each LGU. In many municipalities andprovinces, timberlands comprise a significant percentage of the total land area under each LGU.These lands are included in the computation of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA).

Under the existing Regalian doctrine, timberlands cannot be alienated and titled because they areowned by the State. Only the State can allocate the forests and forest lands for protection,development, and management (such entails responsibility, some authority, and accountability).The State, mainly through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Congress,Office of the President, or the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), “allocates”public forests and forest lands to various stakeholders and users2 as a means to put these areasinto effective “on-site” management.

LGUs, even with the Local Government Code, may appear to have a minimal part in the allocationof public forests and forest lands. However, LGUs who are able to realize the economic, political,and environmental impacts of this process take pro-active action in “allocating” public forestsand forests lands. Rather than becoming an unwilling victim, LGUs should be involved in determining

138

how the allocation of forests and forest lands could best serve the destinyof their constituents. It can be said that the allocation of timberlands couldeither make or break the future of an LGU as most of these resources are partof upper watersheds, food and fiber production areas, ecotourism andbiodiversity sites, and buffers for many kinds of pests and natural disasters.

LGUs should take special interest in public forests and forest lands that havenot been “allocated”or areas already “allocated”but “abandoned”as they area major source of “headaches” as far as management of forests and forestlands is concerned. These areas are considered “open access” — anybodycan just get in and out -- as there is no one owning the responsibility ofproperly “guarding” or managing these resources.

LGUs should take special interest in public forests and forest lands that havenot been “allocated”or areas already “allocated”but “abandoned”as they area major source of “headaches” as far as management of forests and forestlands is concerned.

In the case of “abandoned” areas, this means that the “current holders ofallocation instruments3“ have no long-term desire to “exercise” theirmanagement rights or claims over the public forests and forestlands. Thissituation invites forests and forest lands “intruders” and encourages

mercenary behavior --illegal cutting of remaining forest stands, collusions, conversion of forestedareas into slash-and-burn farms, and other environmentally-destructive activities. With increasingdemand for employment, arable land, food, timber and other forest products, the tendency tooverexploit the forests and forest lands to serve personal ends without regard for the needs of thesociety will definitely intensify in an open-access condition.



The allocation oftimberlands could

either make or breakthe future of an LGU asmost of these resources

are part of upperwatersheds, food and

fiber production areas,ecotourism and

biodiversity sites, andbuffers for many kinds

of pests and naturaldisasters.

139

Check-points, periodic enforcement, and environmental advocacy may beresorted to as an interim measure. In the long run, however, putting the“open access” areas into effective, responsible “on-site” management willprovide the ultimate “enforcement” mechanism as holders of “allocationinstruments” — who could be the communities working hand-in-handwith the LGUs -- exercise their rights and privileges over the forests and forestlands.

ASSISTANCE TO LGUS IN THE ALLOCATION PROCESS

The importance of allocating timberlands within an LGU has propelledthe Philippine Environmental Governance (EcoGov) Project to providetechnical assistance to interested LGUs.

As part of its program components, EcoGov promotes a more active role forLGUs in the allocation of public forests and forest lands and encourages themto take advantage of keeping their “natural assets” intact, protected,developed, and managed for the present and future generations. Thecollaboration of LGUs and DENR in the transparent, participatory, andaccountable process of allocating forests and forest lands will reduce thecritical threats to the country’s forests, primarily illegal cutting and conversion of natural forests.The joint processes of municipal-based forest land use planning (FLUP) require DENR, LGUs,communities, coalition groups, media, and other members of civil society to take actions and makedecisions towards the closure of “open access” in a given municipality or province.

The EcoGov assistance to LGUs is now directly available in Mindanao (particularly in Regions 9, 12,and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao), Central Visayas, and Northern Luzon. LGUs inother regions may get assistance on FLUP by participating in EcoGov-sponsored training activities.

ANNEXES


LGUs should takespecial interest in publicforests and forest lands

that have not been"allocated" or areas

already "allocated" but"abandoned" as theyare a major source of"headaches" as far as

management of forestsand forest lands is

concerned.

140

REASONS FOR LGU INTERVENTION

There are at least four reasons municipal or provincial LGUs should intervenein the process of planning, allocating, and managing public forests and forestlands.

(1) First, the “interconnectedness”and “interdependence”of natural resourcesdemand that local stakeholders become actively involved in determininghow resources, especially forests and forest lands, are going to be allocatedand managed. The uplands are very much a part of the lowlands --whathappens in the uplands directly impacts on the lowland communities.Most timberlands are part of upper watersheds that supply water forirrigation and domestic needs of lowland communities. In addition towater, many communities depend on the forests and forest lands for theirlivelihood, fuel wood, and food and fiber requirements. The destruction of

forests and forest lands in the upper watersheds has implications on the security and protectionof communities, public and private infrastructures, coastal resources, crops and livestock. Theuplands and the lowlands are economically, politically, ecologically, and biophysically interconnectedand interdependent.

Therefore, the allocation process should include local stakeholders — such as communities,irrigators’association, municipal fisherfolk, local officials, private sector groups, church groups, waterdistricts, etc. They should have a voice and “stake” on how timberlands will be managed and bywhom. LGUs and its constituents should be given the opportunity to “veto” proposed allocationsthat are not consistent with their overall vision and strategy for development. A top -downapproach to assigning responsibility, accountability, and authority in managing timberlands willnot ensure sustainability as it does not guarantee local participation that leads to obtaining a senseof local “ownership,”an essential ingredient in getting local people continually involved in forestsand forest lands management.



“In the long run,however, putting the

“open access” areas intoeffective, responsible

“on-site” managementwill provide the

ultimate enforcementmechanism...”

141

(2) Second, the economic potential of forests and forest lands demands thatLGUs and stakeholders must intervene on how these scarce resources be“allocated” and managed. Local needs and “de facto resource managers”should be given first priority in the allocation of timberlands. Timberlandsare economic assets --LGUs and local stakeholders can best put theseassets into sustainable use if they are given the right of first refusal,considering that they are physically present where the resources are.Forests and forest lands are potential production areas for high value cropsthat are consistent with environmental management objectives.Inadequately-stocked timberlands are potential areas for forest plantationsand tree crops managed by local communities or groups. The economicvalues of water resources, biodiversity products, and ecotourism potentialare better managed by local entrepreneurs who are committed to thesustainable development of a municipality or a province. LGUs that will not actively participate inthe allocation of forests and forest lands give up their right and the opportunity to put these assetsinto their premium uses that will best serve the interest of their constituents, and the society as awhole.

(3) Third, LGUs (at the province, municipal, and barangay levels) can best plan and direct their publicinvestments, especially for roads, bridges, communal irrigation, water system, schools, etc. if theyknow how these could best serve the short-, medium-, and long-term objectives of sound forestsand forest lands management. For instance, access roads construction could be judiciouslyplanned, taking into consideration the necessity to keep high biodiversity forests and protectedforests from easy access and poaching activities, and the need for trails to connect timberlands thatare devoted to productive upland agriculture and agro-forestry systems. Communal irrigation anddomestic water systems should be built in relation to upper watersheds that are within the controland management of LGUs or adjoining LGUs. Schools should be provided for communities in uplandbarangays. Other LGU investments, such as those for dumping sites, cemeteries, etc., could bestbe identified through FLUP.

ANNEXES


“The uplands and the

lowlands are

economically,

politically, ecologically,

and biophysically

interconnected and

interdependent.”

142

(4) Lastly, LGUs should intervene in the process of allocating forests andforest lands to enable them to effectively participate in the protection andmanagement of these lands. Allocating timberlands to the most responsibleand accountable resource managers will minimize, if not eliminate, illegalcutting and forest conversions, thus, preventing flash floods, destruction oflives and properties, shortage of water supply, etc.

It will also minimize corruption and collusions in the issuance and approvalof allocation instruments, especially to communities and the private sector.By actively participating in the allocation decision, LGUs can then demandfrom national government agencies concerned to “close”open access areasand make the “holders” of allocation instruments accountable for theirobligations as resource managers of the forests and forest lands within theirmunicipal jurisdiction. The LGUs can also plan and re-align their localresources in support of sustainable forest management.

SUMMARY

Although LGUs may not be clearly mandated to actively participate in theallocation of forests and forest lands within their political jurisdiction, it is

to their best interests to vigorously take part in this process. LGUs that are prepared to invest andtake a proactive action in allocating and managing their forests and forest lands could minimizeenvironmental destruction, serve their constituents better, and ignite local economic activities.



LGUs that will notactively participate in

the allocation offorests and forest landsgive up their right andthe opportunity to putthese assets into their

premium uses that willbest serve the interestof their constituents,and the society as a

whole.

143

ENDNOTES

1 The Philippine Environmental Governance (EcoGov) Project is a technical assistance grant from the United States Agency

for International Development (USAID) to the Government of the Philippines, with the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources (DENR) as the implementing agency. EcoGov’s implementation is from November 2001 until

November 2004.2 The State allocates public forests and forest lands for protection, development, and management to: (a) itself (State

through DENR) by setting aside portions of public forests and forest lands as protected areas, watershed reservations,

wildlife reservations, etc. (b) communities especially for indigenous peoples and legitimate upland migrants, (c)

private sector, (d) local government units through communal forests and watersheds, and (e) other government

agencies such as the National Power Corporation, military establishment, National Irrigation Administration, universities,

Philippine National Oil Company.3 Examples of these are Community-based Forest Management Agreement, Industrial Forest Management Agreement,

Socialized Industrialized Forest Management Agreement, etc.

ANNEXES



ANNEXES

COMMUNITY-BASED FOREST MANAGEMENTA National Strategy for Watershed

Improvement1

ROMEO T. ACOSTA2

I. PIONEERING PROGRAMS ON CBFM

In the Philippines, people-oriented forestry programs started as early as the 1970s with thelaunching of the Forest Occupancy Management (FOM) Program, Communal Tree Farm (CTF), andthe Family Approach to Reforestation (FAR). These programs were primarily designed to rehabilitateopen and cultivated areas and contain occupancy in forestlands.

On July 28, 1982, the Integrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP) was launched under Letter ofInstructions (LOI) No. 1260 with the goals of alleviating poverty, promoting social justice, anddeveloping and protecting forest resources through proper stewardship of the uplands. Consideringthe similarity of objectives and target participants the ISFP consolidated FOM, CTF and FAR topromote a more holistic approach in the development of open and occupied areas within theforestlands.

1 Paper presented in the Third National Policy Round Table Discussion on Community-Based Forest ResourceManagement as a National and Local Strategy for Watershed Improvement in the Philippines on October 07, 2002 atUP Diliman, Quezon City

2 Director, Forest Management Bureau, Quezon City

146

The implementation of these people-oriented forestry programs marked a shift in the orientationof government policy from the traditional regulatory-oriented forestry management towards a moredevelopmental, people and service-oriented approach. It recognized upland farmers includingIndigenous Peoples (IPs) as partners of the government in the rehabilitation of denuded forestlandswhile they participate in activities aimed at improving their socio-economic condition.

II. MODIFIED PROGRAMS ON CBFM

Over the years, several programs were implemented to further respond to the need of involvinglocal communities in the protection and management of forestlands. These include the RainfedResources Development Project, Upland Development Program, National Forestation Program, ForestLand Management Program, Community Forestry Program, Low Income Upland CommunitiesProject, Regional Resources Management Project, Integrated Rainforest Management Project,Coastal Environment Program, and Natural Resources Management Program.

The government recognizes the importance and urgency of the issues and problems confrontingthe forest-dependent communities as manifested by the various people-oriented forestry programsthat were implemented by the government. However, despite these programs, there are stillconcerns that need to be addressed to promote forest management that recognizes people-forest interactions. These include the following:

A unifying strategy for sustainable development of forest lands and resources;Effective partnerships and agreements between and among DENR, Local Government Units(LGUs), Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), POs, financial institutions and other governmentand private institutions to pursue forest development;Harmonization of various tenurial instruments over forestlands and resources;Getting over the community pilot project approach and proceeding to the expansion phase usingthe lessons from previous experiences;



147

Institutional capability building for effective community resources management implementation;andRecognition of the community’s forest resources access and utilization rights.

Adoption of a Sustainable Strategy

Based on the lessons learned and experiences in more than two (2) decades of implementing variouspeople-oriented forestry programs in the Philippines, the government has developed a strategythat is more equitable and holistic.

Now, all efforts geared towards the development of forestlands adopt Community-Based ForestManagement (CBFM) as the principal strategy to ensure sustainable development of the country’sforestlands resources and achieve social justice in consonance with the provisions of Executive Order(EO) No. 263.

Briefly, CBFM as a strategy refers to all organized efforts of all forestry stakeholders to work withcommunities in and adjacent to public forest lands with the intent to empower and entrust to themthe protection, rehabilitation, management, conservation and the utilization of forest lands andresources.

Through the CBFM, the DENR advances the cause of forest-dependent communities in their questfor improved well-being as well as for the legitimization of their rights to peacefully occupy,manage and reap the benefits from their forestlands in a responsible and sustainable manner.

Basic Policies

The enabling policy for the implementation of CBFM is embodied in Executive Order No. 263. Itpursues the constitutional provisions on social justice, respect for the rights of the Indigenous Peoplesto their ancestral domains, and the protection and advancement of the right of the Filipino peopleto a healthful and balanced environment.

ANNEXES


148

It is also the policy of the State to acknowledge and support the capacities and efforts of localcommunities and Indigenous Peoples to protect, rehabilitate, develop and manage forestlands andcoastal resources. Under the CBFM, the State provides legal and technical support to ensureequitable access to and sustainable use of natural resources.

Objectives of CBFM

The primary aim of CBFM is to promote social justice and improve the well being of localcommunities especially the Indigenous Peoples living within or near the forestlands. It also aimsto ensure the sustainable management, rehabilitation, protection and utilization of forestlandsresources.

Scope and Coverage

CBFM applies to all areas classified as forestlands, including allowable zones within protected areasnot covered by prior vested rights. The program integrates and unifies all people oriented forestryprograms.

III. PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

The principal participants of the Program are local communities to be represented by theirorganization known as the People’s Organization (POs), whose members are Filipino citizens whoare:

actually tilling portions of the area to be awarded, ortraditionally using the resource for all or a substantial portion of their livelihood, oractually residing within or adjacent to the areas to be awarded.

Indigenous cultural communities or indigenous peoples may participate in CBFM provided theirclaims over the ancestral domain/land have been recognized.



149

Features of CBFM

1. Security of Tenure— CBFM Agreement entitles the forest communities to use and develop theforestlands and resources for a duration of 25 years, renewable for another 25 years. Developmentof the area as well as utilization of its resources shall be done only in accordance with anaffirmed Community Resource Management Framework and Resource Use Permit.

2. Social Equity- Social justice is a basic principle underlying CBFM in granting forest communitiestenure and comprehensive rights to use and develop forest resources.

3. Partnership and Collaboration- DENR and LGUs as partners provide technical assistance to localcommunities in collaboration with other government agencies, non-government organizationsand resource institutions to help them attain sustainable forest management.

IV. KEY PROCESSES OF CBFM

Preparatory Stage- focuses on the creation of local institutional arrangements by which LGUscenter into partnership with DENR in promoting CBFM. As a team, it will undertake land-useplanning, identify and select political CBFM sites, assist the communities link with othergovernment agencies, NGOs and private sector as well as access to resources and services.

PO Formation and Diagnostic Stage- leads to the formation or strengthening of a CBFM-focusedpeople’s organizations, assist communities to undertake perimeter survey and situation analysis,community profiling using mapping and participatory rapid appraisal techniques. This leads tothe awarding of CBFMA.

Planning Stage - focuses on the POs preparation of its Community Resource ManagementFramework Annual Work Plan, and Resource Use Plan, and the CENRO’s affirmation of these plans.

ANNEXES


150

Implementation Stage - the POs put to action the affirmed work and resource use plansconsistent with the CRMF. A viable PO managed forest-based enterprises, institutionalarrangements and organizational skills, and effective forest management actions leading toimproved livelihood opportunities arc the hallmark of this stage.

V. RELATED INITIATIVES ON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Watershed Management continues to be a challenging task in the Philippines. Its general goal isto manage, develop and utilize watersheds and water bodies therein on a sustainable basis to meetthe needs of the people. In some areas, it may even require total protection and rehabilitation ofwatersheds in order to produce water in its best quality and quantity.

At present, there are a number of watershed programs and projects currently implemented by thegovernment to promote participation of local communities in watershed management followingthe CBFM strategy. Among these are:

Establishment and Management of CBFM Projects Within Watersheds

DENR Administrative Order No. 98-41 provides the guidelines on the establishment and managementof CBFM projects within watershed reservations in accordance with the provisions of the NIPAS law.It is also consistent with the principles of multiple use, sustainable development and biologicaldiversity conservation.

Among others, the implementation and management of CBFM projects within watershed areas aimsto provide livelihood opportunities to local communities, tenured migrants, and indigenouspeoples and enhance their economic well-being. Likewise, it encourages support and activeparticipation of local communities and strengthens their capacities to manage watershed resources.



151

Implementation of Forestry Sector Project (FSP)

The FSP is a community-based forest management project that aims to counteract the deforestationand environmental degradation in the country. It principally aims at the rehabilitation andmanagement of critical watersheds primarily to sustain water yield and promote the socio-economic development of the people living within the watershed.

Water Resources Development Project (WRDP) (Watershed Management ImprovementComponent)

The WRDP formulates the policies and institutional framework for the water resources sector.Through the project, the DENR was able to design the Philippines Strategy for Improved WatershedResources Management which spells out the policy direction of the government in the managementand development of the country’s watersheds. It follows a philosophy of a demand-driven,community-based approach to watershed management addressing both national developmentpriorities and local stakeholders concerns.

Adoption of Ecosystems and Watershed Planning Framework

The Forestry Reform Code considers watershed areas as special natural system that need to bemanaged. To underscore its importance, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR) promulgates regulations and guidelines focusing on watershed areas.

For example, DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 99-1 was issued mandating the adoption of thewatershed as a basic planning unit. Similarly, DAO 97-02 requires the conduct of watershedcharacterization before any watershed management plan is formulated.

ANNEXES


152

Multiple Use Concept

The ecosystems and watershed planning approach recognizes the multiple uses and functions offorestlands. Multiple use in the context of watershed management recognizes that within awatershed, there is a potential to pursue a number of alternative uses, combining water yield andbiodiversity protection with compatible economic land use activities. Here, environmentalprotection and forest production purposes shall be balanced and optimized consistent with thecarrying capacity and overall goals of watershed ma management

The primary aim of multiple use concept in watershed management is to obtain optimum level ofbenefits from each of the component use without sacrificing the other uses and the condition ofthe watershed as a whole.

MAJOR ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Making the CBFM Inter-Agency Collaboration Work

Under Executive Order No. 263, various National Government Agencies (NGA) are mandated tosupport the implementation of CBFM as the national strategy to ensure the sustainable developmentof the country’s forestlands and resources.

Building Partnership with LGUs

Local Government Units are key players in the implementation of CBFM. They are expected to assistlocal communities to effectively undertake sustainable forest development activities. The LGUs alsoact as a primary catalyst of local development and bridge the efforts of government andcommunities in pursuing the goals of CBFM Projects.



153

This policy is very appropriate. However, the expected partnership is, in most cases, not happeningnor working because of the lack of counterpart resources being channeled by LGUs to CBFMprojects in their jurisdiction. This is the case because LGUs themselves have scarce resources,especially those in the rural areas where local government revenues are low to start with.

DENR-DILG-LGU Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) No. 98-01 was issued primarily to strengthenpartnership and collaboration on the development of devolved functions and projects to LGUs.Unfortunately, JMC No. 98-0 1 is not yet fully implemented.

Providing Long Term Security of Tenure to CBFM Participants

Consistent with the policy of sustainable and multiple use forest management, participatingorganized communities in the CBFM are granted access to the forestlands and resources throughthe issuance of long-term tenurial agreement. This gives them a guarantee for peaceful occupationand entrusts to them the responsibilities to protect, develop, manage and utilize forest resourcesunder the principle of stewardship. The dominant concern is to give participating families and localcommunities a secured stake in the lands they develop under the CBFM strategy to encourage themto carry out sustainable forest management practices and livelihood activities.

To date, out of 9 million hectares targeted for CBFM, only 4.26 million hectares are covered withland tenure instruments issued under the various people-oriented forestry programs and projects.Of these, 905,000 hectares are covered by 727 CBFMAs that were granted by DENR to organizedlocal communities.

Enhancing the Capabilities of Local Communities

The success of CBFM approach depends on how the participating local communities are organized,trained and empowered towards sustainable forest management. With the turnover of responsibilityof managing forestlands and resources, the government especially at the field level needs to

ANNEXES


154

develop and strengthen the POs to provide them the necessary technical skills and managerialcapability to undertake various CBFM activities.

Setting a More Responsive Organizational Structure for CBFM

In 1995, the Philippine government declared CBFM as the national strategy towards sustainableforest development. This requires a lot of activities especially on awareness building, communityorganizing, developing and strengthening the capability of local communities, and linking themwith resource institutions to ensure development of the CBFM areas and facilitate establishmentof livelihood projects that are appropriate to the needs of the community.

At present, a CBFM Division is created out of the then Social Forestry Division at the central levelunder the Forest Management Bureau. As part of a staff bureau, the CBFM Division gives emphasison the review and development of policies, review and consolidation of CBFM plans and programs,provision of technical assistance and monitoring of CBFM activities. On the other hand, CBFM inthe regional offices only operates as a small unit, under the Forest Resources DevelopmentDivision, composed of limited staff who are on detailed arrangement from other units of theregional office. The unit is not enough to cope up with the increasing activities of CBFM includingmonitoring of projects that adopt tile CBFM strategy. At the CENR Office level, where field activitiesof CBFM are directly implemented, very few staff are assigned. In most cases, one CBFM staff isassigned to coordinate and facilitate the activities of the participants in an average of 3-5 sites.

For CBFM to be implemented effectively, DENR needs to set up and put in place a more responsivestructure that can fully support and provide the necessary extension services to local communitiesthat are implementing the CBFM strategy.

Strengthening the Federations of the Peoples’ Organizations

A national and regional federation of POs composed of CBFM participants was organized in 1998.However, there is a need for these groups to be strengthened and develop further in order to make



155

them effective partner of government in the development, protection, conservation, utilization andmanagement of the forest lands that were constructed to them through the issuance of theCommunity-Based Forest Management Agreement. These federations could also be an effectivegroup to help DENR lobby for the passage of laws and policies that are supportive of CBFM.

Establishing Community-Corporate Partnership in the Development of Forest Resourcesin CBFM Areas

To facilitate development of resources in CBFM areas and help local communities implementeconomic activities, joint venture undertakings and other similar forest management agreementsbetween communities and private investors need to be established. Primarily, the strategy aimsto encourage the corporate forestry sector to participate and invest in the development,management and utilization of forestlands and resources. Eventually, this is expected to generatefinancial capital for the implementation of development activities envisaged by the POs in theirCommunity Resource Management Framework.

Making Government Support for Forest Protection Activities Available to POs

People’s Organizations under the CBFM help the government in forest protection. Immediately afterthe approval of the CBFMA, local communities assume the responsibility for protection of the entireforestlands within their CBFMA. Forest protection groups or communities are being organized bythe PO to guard their forest against illegal logging, timber poaching forest fires and other formsof forest destruction.

The POs have been urging the government to provide them funds for forest protection activities.They are also asking government to develop mechanisms for group insurance for the officers andmembers of the POs who were deputized as forest officers. However, because of government systemsand requirements, nothing is clear yet on this issue.

ANNEXES


156

Providing Reasonable Budget for CBFM

CBFM suffers from insufficient funding to support project activities. There are loans and grantsreleased by foreign funding institutions but project strategies and activities are usually donor-drivenand limited in scope and geographic coverage.

Most CBFM projects are funded through the regular budget appropriation of the government. Forthe past three (3) years, CBFM nationwide received an average budget of P3 5.21 M covering all itsmaintenance and operating expenditures, constituting about 2.26% of the national forestmanagement and develop uncut budget.

Creating a More Favorable Environment for Watershed Management

Many of the Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders declaring portions of the public domainas watershed reservations were issued several decades ago. They contain provisions that do notreflect actual condition and are therefore not responsive to the current needs and realities ofwatersheds

In the current work on developing the Philippine Forestry Sector Policy within the ENR ShellFramework, we recognize the need to re-visit and update our watershed management strategiesand approaches and come up with a more reasonable and work-able policies that are sensitive tothe needs of the ultimate beneficiaries of watershed management. It is necessary to strengthencommunity forest use rights and promote innovative ways of working with local communities andother stakeholders in watershed management.



157

Among others, these policies include the following:

Improving the Incentive System

Many of the local communities contend that they are only used to protect and maintain theecological stability of the watersheds. But those that benefit from their efforts are the lowlandcommunities who only wait for water to come out of their faucets. And if water is transformed intoelectricity, they contend that only big industries and rich urban dwellers are benefited.

There is a need to review and update government policies to provide more incentives for localcommunities for developing the watersheds. This must include access to and benefits out of theimprovements they have introduced within the watersheds. They should be allowed to harvest andshare from the products of what they have planted within the watersheds.

Under the existing policies, participating local communities in many development projects are notallowed to cut even the trees that they have planted within the watersheds. There should be aconscious attempt to ensure that benefits must be enjoyed by the local communities thatintroduced such development projects through, for example, a Watershed Plowback Fund.

Shared Responsibility in Watershed Management

Co-management of community watersheds is now possible as illustrated in the Joint MemorandumCircular (JMC) No. 98-01 of DENR, Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), andthe concerned Local Government Units (LGU) following the provisions of the Local GovernmentCode. Under this scheme, the LGUs share with DENR in the sustainable management anddevelopment of community watersheds within their territorial jurisdiction. These agencies agreeto prepare strategic plan on how to strengthen and institutionalize the DENR-DILG-LGU partnershipon the management of community watersheds.

ANNEXES


158

To achieve a long-term effect, a similar scheme of watershed management has to be worked outwith the local communities. The necessary policy framework, institutional arrangements andimplementing guidelines for such undertaking must be developed to define and delineate thespecific roles of local communities and other stakeholders under this arrangement. They shouldnot only be taken as stewards of the watersheds.

Institutional Mechanisms

Sharing of management responsibilities among various sectors, agencies and organizations isnecessary to pursue sustainable management of watershed areas. However, to put this mechanismin place the institutional or organizational arrangement must be defined indicating how thegovernment and non-government sectors perform or decide on matters pertaining to watershedmanagement.

Apparently, there is a need to have a clear policy that would ensure the involvement of theseinstitutions in watershed management. The roles and responsibilities of each sector or agency mustbe made clear to avoid conflict and overlapping of activities.



159

CONCLUSION

Today, most of our watershed areas are dominated by local communities. Their livelihood, and generalwell-being are already intimately linked with these areas. These people live and directly bear theconsequences of deforestation and watershed destruction. On the other hand, they could serveas a social fence to maintain the integrity of watersheds.

Obviously, the role of local communities in watershed management is crucial and indispensable.They are the ones closest and in the most strategic location to protect and take good care of thewatersheds. Hence, the government needs to draw more local programs that can promote thehighest level of interest and widest participation of local communities and support of variousstakeholders in watershed management. This is consistent with the government policy for moreequitable access and promotes participation of local communities in watershed management.

ANNEXES



ANNEXES

No Forest without Management

In 1992, during the meeting of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Developmentat Rio, the international community made a commitment to sustainable development —development that would maintain the potential of natural resources to provide for the changingneeds of humanity. Such development was urgent because of the huge and growing number ofpeople living in unacceptable poverty and the continuing and often irreversible deterioration ofresources and the earth’s life support system. Although it is impossible to predict what people willneed or want in the future, there is now a widely accepted moral obligation to keep open optionsfor the future while providing equitably for present needs (WCED 1987).

Sustainable development, especially as far as the poor are concerned, must include sound forestry.Many of the world’s poor depend directly on forests for food, medicines, fuel and simple rawmaterials; forest destruction renders many of them destitute (Hamilton 1992). But the importanceof forests is not confined to the poor. Forests provide a multitude of goods and services to the worldat large, to all sectors of society. And, moreover, being renewable, they are capable of providingthese indefinitely; but only if they are managed effectively to that end. This is what the sustainablemanagement of forests is about; it is an essential component of the sustainable development towhich most nations are now committed.

Yet, despite the impetus provided by Rio, we are still locked in discussions, controversies, atargetless Agenda 21 and a plethora of recommendations emerging from international fora suchas the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests(IFF). All these are a measure of the immense importance placed by the numerous interested partiesin the future wise management of forests, and of the controversial nature of many of the issues

162

involved. Yet, in spite of all this international activity, little real progress has been made on the groundand forests continue to be degraded and lost.

Nevertheless, the ground swell of public opinion has been changing everywhere: an arousal ofgreater moral responsibility towards ethical land stewardship —that land management mustbecome more equitable, socially responsible and ecologically rational, and that someone has topay, through the market or taxes, or both (UNCED 1992). This is reflected by some moves in the rightdirection, such as the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) targetsfor the elimination of global poverty (Government of the UK 1997).

FORESTS MUST BE MANAGED

If forests are to survive, there is a great need to move promptly beyond controversy to constructiveaction. The problems grow more urgent every day and much of the current degradation of forestsis irreversible. Forests may recover from one fire, but not from repeated fires (Dawkins and Phillip1998; see also, Trapnell l959:Trapnelletal 1976; Brookman-Amissah et. al. 1980). The forest may notbe sufficiently resilient to recover from repeated mining for timber. Massive loss of soil and lossesof species are losses forever.

We are convinced that forests can be managed, indeed must be managed, to produce theconservation, production and other benefits that societies will increasingly demand for thealleviation of poverty, sustainable development and the prevention of the irreversible damage orloss of forest ecosystems (UNCED 1992).

There seems to be too little understanding of what acceptable forest management is attemptingto achieve within the context of development. We see it as, in essence, an attempt to optimize ina sustainable and equitable manner the contribution of forests to the prosperity and well-beingof a wide variety of interested parties (Poore et. al. 1989, Dawkins and Philip 1998). This involvesproviding a mix of goods and services (which may change to keep pace with changes in needs and



163

aspirations) while maintaining the ecological integrity of the forest, its overall biodiversity and itsproductive capacity. It is evident that not all functions can be fully provided in any one area of forest.Experience has shown that some zoning may be necessary for particular purposes — for thepreservation of biological diversity, the protection of soil and water, the production of timber orother forest products, recreation, the enhancement of landscape quality etc. (Poore and Sayer 1991).Although these uses may often be combined in the same area of forest, the most efficient deliveryof one may require some sacrifice in others (Gentry 1990). For example, the near-total preservationof biological diversity may preclude or constrain the harvesting of timber; conversely the bestmanagement of natural forests for timber production may involve some loss of biological diversity.Some tradeoffs are inevitable.

FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

Three elements of planning are essential for environmentally sound and socially acceptable forestmanagement: (a) that areas of forest to provide for all these uses should be set in a wider, nationalor bioregional, land use context which provides adequately for all of them in suitable locations; (b)that forests should be available to meet the various needs of society; and (c) that each area of forestis carefully managed for the purpose for which it is suited and intended. The exact details will varygreatly from country to country according to the area and nature of its forests, its population density,its state of development and many other conditions. This pattern should retain or even enhancethe ‘potential’ of forests and give them the flexibility to respond to changing conditions whethersocial, economic or ecological. The best use of a forest cannot be considered in isolation. Forexample, forest plantations play an important part in producing timber and may thereby reducepressure on natural forests; if established on degraded lands they may also increase biologicaldiversity. In general, planning for agricultural expansion, for new settlements and for roads shouldtake into account the possible effects of these developments on adjacent forests.

Protected areas are widely recognized as the essential cornerstone of any system for the conservationof biodiversity; but few if any countries can afford or are willing to set aside a very large part of their

ANNEXES


164

forests as completely protected areas. The first priority should be the choice, protection andeffective management of the most important areas. But these efforts by themselves are unlikelyto provide enough protection unless they are surrounded or connected by other areas of forestwhich provide corridors or stepping stones between them and constitute a buffer from competingkinds of land use. Such ‘buffer’forests may readily be managed for the sustained production of timber,non-wood forest products or both (Hawthorne and Abu-Juam 1995). Such production forestsshould also include areas that are specially protected because of their vulnerability to erosion, andfor their value as water catchments or for their exceptional biological diversity. Such a network offorested areas is particularly important if forest ecosystems are to remain able to respond tochanges of climate and human needs.

SHARING THE COSTS AND BENEFITS

But these are not the only conditions. The social context is of equal importance. Forests should hemanaged in the interests of all stakeholders with special consideration given to those in weakbargaining positions. Management should be based on consensus and, where appropriate,planning and management should be collaborative. There are roles for government, for the privatesector, for communities and for partnerships between these (ODA 1996). It is important thatgovernments should create the conditions in which effective forest conservation and managementcan succeed. These are, at very least: a legal framework which is enforceable and enforced; stablepolicies which inspire confidence and are not changed arbitrarily; open and transparent processesfor resource allocation and decision making; committed forest management staff; freedom fromcorruption; security of access to resources; adequate facilities for education, technical training andresearch; and adequate and freely available information about resources and their management.

Under the prevailing socio-economic circumstances, all areas of forests except those that arevery remote and inaccessible require some form of management. The costs of this must be borneby society and any income should equally accrue to society. Some financial contributions may, ofcourse, come from outside in the form of external investment, carbon offsets, loans or aid but much



165

should come from the forestry sector itself. The relative costs and revenues from forests managedfor different purposes are likely to be very different. The largest income is likely to come from timberor pulpwood; the least from remote protected areas with little potential for tourism. It is importantthat a reasonable proportion of surplus income should be used to ensure the sustainablemanagement of the national forest estate as a whole.

Perceptions of value differ significantly among stakeholders from place to place and time to time.The costs and benefits should be shared equitably and participatory processes are important toagree on the mechanisms by which they may be assigned. Such participation possible with alsohelps in negotiating the different ways in which forests can be managed and to agree on objectivesof management that reflect the various values of the parties involved.

BEST PRACTICE

It is impossible to be certain at any moment that a forest is being managed sustainably. We willrequire several centuries to be able to prove empirically that current forest management practiceshave maintained productive potential, biodiversity and other environmental values. Nevertheless,many of the elements of best practice are known, should be rigorously applied and can be verifiedusing broadly accepted means such as the sets of criteria and indicators for sustainable forestmanagement developed for forests world-wide and the standards of the Forest StewardshipCouncil. All of these are being constantly improved in the light of experience and new knowledge.The goal should be to apply best practice everywhere, and we endorse the World Bank support forConservation Forestry, defined as follows:

Conservation Forestry is the application of verifiable best practices the management of forestresources, including woodland and trees, in ways that are ecologically sound, economically viable,socially responsible and environmentally acceptable and which do not reduce the potential of theseresources to deliver multiple benefits, now and in the future.

ANNEXES


166

Social and economic pressures make it almost certain that substantial areas of what is still primaryforest will eventually be converted to agricultural production. We believe that the internationalcommunity should discourage investments that promote or accelerate this process. Where thereis a serious risk that extension of agriculture or infrastructural developments will destroy foreststhat are of great ecological, social or cultural value, a conservation forestry approach should beadopted which will in some cases include management for sustainable production.

We are convinced that sustainable development is unattainable without the sustainablemanagement of forests; and that sustainable forest management is important for everyone, butespecially for the very poor. We are equally convinced that sustainable forest management, asdescribed above, is of great significance for the long-term prosperity of humanity and that it ispossible with full commitment and collaborative endeavor. Without sustainable management offorest ecosystems, the planetary ecosystem will be significantly impoverished and future prospectsfor human societies substantially diminished.

1. Among experiences which illustrate the possibility of repeated, sustainable harvests of timberare: (a) Sarawak, two cuts in muted peat swamp forest: (b) India, seven cuts in Nilambur teak;(c) Belize, three cuts in mahogany forests; (d) Peninsular Malaysia, harvests from Matangmangroves for over 100 years.

Sustainable harvests of non-wood forest products are illustrated by the following examples: Illipenuts harvesting every live years in Borneo, Brazil nut harvesting every two years in Brazil andBolivia, resins, gums, oils, damar, latex from a wide range of species and localities on an annualbasis.

2. The tropical rain forests, spread over more than 60 countries, are diminishing at a rate ofaround 15 million hectares a year. (FAO, 1997, State of the World Forests, Rome.)



167

3. The World Bank has set targets for the year 2005 in the field of Forest Conservation and ImprovedManagement, working through the World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation andSustainable Use. The first of these is: an additional 50 million hectares of new protected forestareas, plus a comparable area of existing reserves under effective protection. (World Bank,Environment Matters, Annual Review, Fall 1998.)

4. This definition is comparable with the definition of ‘conservation’ in the World ConservationStrategy (1968) with the concepts of ‘New Forests’ and ‘Ecosystem Management’ of forests,and with the definitions of sustainable forest management developed by the ITTO and the HelsinkiConference, 1994. It has been refined by many sets of criteria and indicators for the assessmentof changes and trends in the quality of forest management.

5. The second target set by the World Bank for the year 2005 in the field of Forest Conservation andImproved Management, working through the World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservationand Sustainable Use, is: 200 million hectares of independently certified forest under management— 100 million hectares each in tropical and temperate/boreal forests. (World Bank, EnvironmentMatters, Annual Review, Fall 1998.)

REFERENCES

Brookman-Amissah, I, Hall, J B, Swaine. M D and Attakorah, J Y. 1980. A re-assessment of a fireprotection experiment in north -eastern Ghana savanna. Journal of Applied Ecology 17:85.99.

Dawkins, H C and Philip, M S. 1998. Tropical moist silviculture and management: A history of successand failure. Ndola plots, Ghana from 1930 and 1960. CAB International. Oxford.

Gentry, A H. (ed). 1990. Four neotropical rainforests. Yale University Press. New Haven.

ANNEXES


168

Government of the United Kingdom. 1997. Eliminating world poverty: A challenge for the 21stCentury. White Paper on International Development. Cm 3789. HM stationery Office, London.

Hamilton, L. 1992. Guess comment: storm disasters —has logging been unfairly blamed? IUCN ForestConservation Programme Newsletter No. 12. IUCN. Gland.

Hawthorne. W and Abu-Juam, M. 1995. Forest protection in Ghana, with particular reference tovegetation and plant species. IUCN Forest Conservation Programme. Gland.

ODA. 1996. Sharing forest management: key factors, best practice and ways forward: findings from ODA’sreview of participatory forest management. Overseas Development Administration. London.

Poore, D et al. l989. No timber without trees. Earthscan, London.

Poore, D and Sayer, J. 1991. The management of tropical moist forestlands: Ecological considerations.2nd ed. HJCN Forest Conservation Programme. Gland.

Trapnell, CG. 1959. Ecological results of woodland burning experiments in Northern Rhodesia. Journalof Ecology 47:129-168.

Trapnell, CG. Friend. M T. Chamberlain, GT, and Birch, H F. 1976. The effects of fire and termites ona Zambian woodland soil. Journal of Ecology 64:577-588.

UNCED. 1992. Forest Principles.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987.



watershed - sd with impact

Documents

c e d e

watershed writersaileen

r e s o u r c e b o

futurewatershed management

g o v e r n

i v e r y w

s f o r

local governmentcopyright