FPE @ 21: Looking Back... Moving Forward by AX Digital Palette Designs

Looking back... Moving forward

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings National Regional Advisory Committee-Partners Meeting

May 20 to 23, 2013 La Breza Hotel, Quezon City

Looking back... Moving forward

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings National Regional Advisory Committee-Partners Meeting

May 20 to 23, 2013 La Breza Hotel, Quezon City

ACKNOWLEDGMENT FPE is thankful to all resource persons and participants in the National Meeting of Regional Advisory Committees, Partners and Board of Trustees on May 20 to 23, 2013 at La Breza Hotel, Quezon City. The presentations of experts and partners, as well as workshop outputs and insights from participants are captured in this proceedings. FPE wishes to share this publication to key stakeholders toward improving biodiversity conservation and sustainable development projects and initiatives in the country.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms

Introduction

Opening Messages

Lessons and Innovations on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development

Open Forum

Revisiting The FPE and Partnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Regional Environmental Agenda

122

FPE BOT, RAC and Partners Dialogue

143

Ways Forward

148

Program

150

Directory of Participants

154

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

ACRONYMS

ABS

Area-based Strategy

ADSDPP

Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development Protection Plan

AFP

Armed Forces of the Philippines

BCSD

Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development

BFAR

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

BOT

Board of Trustees

CADT

Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title

CBCP-NASSA

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines-National Secretariat for Social Action Justice and Peace

CBD

Convention on Biological Diversity

CBFM

Community-based Forest Management

CBRM

Community-based Resource Management

CCA

Climate Change Adaptation

CCAs

Community Conserved Areas

CCP/NPA/NDF

Communist Party of the Philippines/New Peoples Army/ National Democratic Front

CLOA

Certificate of Land Ownership Award

CRISTAL

Community-based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation and Livelihoods

CSO

Civil Society Organization

DAR

Department of Agrarian Reform

DENR

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DOST

Department of Science and Technology

DRRM

Disaster Risk Reduction Management

EAP

Experts Advisory Pool

ECC

Environmental Compliance Certificate

EIA

Environment Impact Assessment

EMB

Environmental Management Bureau

Exploration Permits

European Union

FCDP

Forest Corridor Development Plan

FGD

Focus Group Discussion

Farmers Organization

FPE

Foundation for the Philippine Environment

FPIC

Free, Prior and Informed Consent

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

FTAA

Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement

ICCA

Indigenous Community Conserved Areas

IEC

Information, Education and Communication

IKSP

Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices

Indigenous Peoples

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPO

Indigenous Peoples Organization

IPRA

Indigenous Peoples Rights Act

KBA

Key Biodiversity Areas

LGU

Local Government Unit

MILF

Moro Islamic Liberation Front

MGB

Mines and Geosciences Bureau

MPSA

Mineral Production Sharing Agreements

NCIP

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

NEA

National Environmental Agenda

NIPAS

National Integrated Protected Areas System

NRM

Natural Resources Management

PAGASA

Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration

PAMB

Protected Area Management Board

PAR

Protected Areas and Reservation

PCREA

Participatory Coastal Resource Ecological Assessment

PhilDHRRA

Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas

Peoples Organization

PPP

Public-Private Partnership

PVCNA

Participatory Vulnerability Capacity and Needs Assessment

RAC

Regional Advisory Committee

REA

Regional Environmental Agenda

RCG

Regional Consultative Group

SMAT

Serendipitous Model Assessment Tool

TP3

Tailings Pond 3

United Nations

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

INTRODUCTION

he Foundation for the Philippine Environment (FPE) is the first and largest grant-making organization in the country for civil society biodiversity conservation and sustainable development (BCSD) initiatives. As part of its governance process, FPE has created one Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) each for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao to serve as FPE’s link in the regions and to advise the Board of Trustees (BOT) on policies, programs and governance. Each RAC is composed of 15 members from civil society organizations (CSOs) in the different regions. FPE organizes at least two regular meetings and a national meeting per year for RAC and partners. The national RAC meeting is usually a well-attended event that brings together the RAC members to meet the trustees and the project partners, in the exercise of their advisory function. This year’s National Regional Advisory Committee-Partners Meeting was themed “FPE@21: Looking back... Moving forward”. This year’s meeting contributed to the assessment of FPE’s work to shape the future direction of the Foundation, making it more relevant and responsive to BCSD in the country. This was timely to review the national and regional environmental agenda and the overall strategic direction of FPE as a grant-maker, catalyst for cooperation, and fund facilitator. The program opened on May 20. It featured an exhibit launch on its Knowledge Products. Documenting, sharing and expanding knowledge and experiences from projects and initiatives supported by FPE. Included in the Knowledge Products are eight case studies through FPE’s USAID-supported up-scaling forest restoration efforts in key biodiversity areas (KBA) in partnership with different CSOs. Also part

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

of the launching was the art exhibit “Back to Nature: Conservation on Canvas”, which was in partnership with the Illustrador ng Kabataan or Ang INK. Day 2 featured case presentations on relevant conservation initiatives of partners and emerging environmental trends and opportunities. Highlighted in these presentations were the gains, lessons and innovations on BCSD projects funded by FPE. The afternoon session was devoted to three workshops on BCSD and partnership. The solidarity night was filled with entertainment with the performance of the UST Dance Group and the serenading by Mr. Arthur Manuntag. A video presentation titled “A silent tribute to the unsung heroes of FPE” was also one of the highlights of the solidarity affair as well as the group dancing of the RAC partners from Mindanao. Day 3 looked into the National and Regional Environmental Agenda. There were presentations on the state of mining in the Philippines, the issues and challenges of indigenous peoples in environmental governance, integrating environment agenda in the peace and development of the Bangsamoro areas in Mindanao, and a presentation on climate change and biodiversity. The afternoon session was devoted to the workshops on the regional and national environmental agenda as well as assessments of FPE’s 21 years of contribution to BCSD. One hundred twenty nine (129) participants attended the conference, twenty five (25) of them came from Luzon RAC and project partners, twenty three (23) from the Visayas, and twenty four (24) from Mindanao. Meanwhile there were four (4) national partners who attended, twelve (12) from the Board of Trustees, thirteen (13) guests and speakers, and a total of twenty-nine (29) staff members were present during the activity.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

OPENING MESSAGES

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

n behalf of the Foundation for the Philippine Environment, may I welcome all of you to this National RAC and partners meeting with the theme “ FPE at 21: Looking back… Moving forward.” This event coincides with FPE’s 21 years as a catalyst for cooperation, grant-maker, and fund facilitator. The Foundation is not young anymore, but it is not old either. Just the right age for FPE to look back and cull the lessons from past projects and initiatives. Also just the right time to move forward by investing in our gains and innovations that could create greater impact in our work.

NESTOR R. CARBONERA

FPE Chairperson and CEO

It is in this connection that I would like to inform this assembly the following: In our quest to know our impact, we have partnered with the University of the Philippines Los Baños Foundation Incorporated, to do an impact study of our 21 years of existence. This is also being done to count lessons and come up with an insight on how to improve our operations, which will become a core of inputs when we revisit our strategic connection and craft a new one for the next five to 10 years. Another organization is also helping us in putting parameters and enhancing our biodiversity monitoring and evaluation framework. Going back to the highlight of this event, there will be sharing from partners on which projects and initiatives made a difference in conserving biodiversity to sustain communities. How do we monitor and assess our conservation impact? Are we giving full recognition to the traditional or real managers of our remaining forests and marine areas? These are among the exciting topics lined up for this event.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

There will be sharing sessions on innovative approaches in response to the growing complexities of environmental issues and discourse. There will be avenues to discuss opportunities and future conservation action. There will be time for solidarity and for some fun and learning at the newly renovated Philippine National Museum. Overall, the event aims to contribute to the future direction of FPE as it relates with civil society partners, with key government agencies, and with its wide and diverse stakeholders in priority biodiversity areas in the country. If I may emphasize, many of these areas are among our last frontiers, home of our indigenous peoples, and poverty-stricken if not war-torn areas. The challenges are complex and difficult, but surmountable if there are convergence of efforts and unity in action at all levels of governance. So we hope that as we move forward to our 22nd year and beyond, there will be mutual support and understanding to improve our work. Let us seize today to learn, share and discover many opportunities for cooperation and partnership. Let us continue our great journey together in conserving sites, saving species, sustaining communities, and securing life. Thank you and good afternoon.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

ccording to the United Nations, “The world economy has grown four times in the past 25 years. At the same time, 60% of the world’s ecosystem has been degraded or used unsustainably.” We do not have to be scientists to comprehend that the economy has been growing at the expense of our environment. This global situation is reflected in our country. Our forests have been reduced to 7.2 million hectares or only 24% of our land area. We have one of the most extensive coral reef areas in the world, but 40% are already in poor condition and only 2% are in excellent condition. Our biodiversity is among the most threatened in the world. The air and water quality in our urban centers suffers from pollution. We have various environmental problems and we cannot restore overnight what took us decades to abuse. But with all your support, we are now on the road to recovering the environment that we lost, especially under the Aquino administration.

DEMETRIO L. IGNACIO

Undersecretary for Field Operations Department of Environment and Natural Resources

In order to mitigate the degradation of our forests, we have imposed a total log ban nationwide, a first in our history. As a result, the number of illegal logging hotspots has been reduced by 84%, from 197 municipalities to 31 municipalities. Illegal logging still exists, mostly in Mindanao, Caraga area, Davao, Samar, and Sierra Madre, but it has been reduced and hopefully shall be eliminated eventually. In the past two years, we have confiscated 22 million board feet of illegally cut board products. If these were loaded on trucks, they would be equivalent to 2,200 ten-wheeler trucks. We have filed 921 illegal logging cases in the past years, and 109 people so far have been convicted. We are looking forward to convicting the big fish, but as we all know, it is

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

oftentimes just the drivers and porters who are caught and it is difficult to establish evidences against the big fish or the financier. Unfortunately, 25 of our people have died in the past two years because of illegal logging. We used to bid out and auction off what we had confiscated to earn revenues for the government. But oftentimes, it would still be the suspected illegal loggers who ended up buying the board products. Under President Aquino, this has changed – confiscated wood is instead given to schools. The Department of Education (DepEd) has so far received donation of 132,000 school chairs, tables and desks, for more than 2,400 pieces of other school furniture, and for the repair of 295 school buildings. We have received flak on this – people are asking us why we are wasting fine wood instead of selling it to earn money for the government. We respond by saying that our youth deserve only the best. In the past two years, all of us – including the Foundation for the Philippine Environment (FPE), which is seriously involved in the national greening program – have planted about 215 million trees in more than 350,000 hectares. This is more than what we planted in the past 13 years. We have also generated 381,000 jobs in the upland communities who are the main beneficiaries of the program. We are right on target to plant 1.5 billion trees in 1.5 million hectares in six years. This shall be the biggest reforestation in our history. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, the Philippines has now the third fastest growing forests in Asia, next to China and Vietnam. These trees will eventually contribute to our food security, expand the habitat of our biodiversity, and provide us more water. The national greening program is leading our fight against climate change by reducing carbon emissions and providing more trees, thereby reducing flooding. All these achievements are credited not only to the

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

government. Whatever the government does will never be enough unless we have the support of all sectors and organizations like FPE. Because of our cooperation, the Philippines was ranked as a strong environmental performer in the 2012 environmental performance index in Columbia University. We are very thankful especially to FPE for more than 20 years of strong cooperation. Our primary concerns jive and we are equally combatting the challenges posed by mining, logging and climate change. You are making great contribution to our country â&#x20AC;&#x201C; both through your advocacy and in providing funding for environmental projects. We have achieved a lot but still have many tasks ahead. We are facing a big challenge with climate change, and up to now, we are still conducting impact studies on our forests, biodiversity, etc. We have many problems, but we hope to surmount these. We remain undaunted by environmental challenges because we are confident that we would continue our cooperation to provide clean and abundant environment to all Filipinos. Thank you very much.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

Keynote Speech

I HON. SEC. CORAZON DINKY SOLIMAN

Department of Social Welfare and Development

t is an honor to be invited in this gathering, and I speak now not as the Secretary of the DSWD but more as a colleague who is privileged to have been part of the beginnings of FPE. It is so encouraging to see that 21 years after, the Foundation is still strong and still serving and working with the people to ensure that sustainable development is a reality at the level of communities. I want to congratulate everyone who has been giving the best times of your life to ensure that sustainable development is a reality in the different communities you work with. You all deserve a round of applause. Looking back and moving forward. What I want to share with you this afternoon will revolve in these concepts. What does looking back mean? Looking back means not just reminiscing about the past but actually analyzing and taking notes of the lessons learned during the previous years and refreshing our minds and hearts with our goals and intentions. I see some of my contemporaries even before FPE, and I know sometimes we grow tired too. This kind of coming together is important, not just for the cerebral part but for the heart as well. Moving forward on the other hand is an act of sustaining the efforts and initiatives, equipped with knowledge, informed by experiences, and most especially fueled by unending enthusiasm and energy. I call that frisky at 60. FPE turns 21 this year. It is a great achievement for a foundation that started during the early years of regained democracy. The year 1992 was the year that FPE began to focus on the mitigation of the destruction of the Philippines’ natural resources, and through the years we have seen some gains and victories. Of course we recognize that there are more challenges that continue to face us. What is reported is not just the government’s work but

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

the citizens’ – you have made sure that we can regenerate and that we can make policies that ensure that our biodiversity and natural resources will be regenerated and preserved. Throughout the years, FPE has been fueled by the vision to be dynamic, relevant, proactive, and a growing organization that enables civil society and other stakeholders towards effective biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Some may consider this as big concepts, but in its heart, FPE envisions communities that care and live in harmony with their environment even as these communities struggle to lift themselves out of poverty. I think that is one of the most important lessons of the last 21 years. I recall distinctly when we started this together with DENR Secretary Factoran. We used to have tripartite, but this we said was quadripartite because it was done with the DENR, USAID, international NGO World Wildlife Fund, and the group of NGOs in the Philippines, which at that time was led by Junie Kalaw. It was really a coming together of people who believed that we could not compromise the future of this generation thus had to look at the sustainability of the planet while we recognized the sustainability of the poor was as important. I remember our work in Mt. Banahaw, which FPE supported in the beginning. The vision of Mt. Banahaw at that time was bringing down 200 trucks of garbage every after holy week. That was how we first met Luntiang Alyansa para sa Mt. Banahaw, and I recall that the people there, because of their culture and mysticism, also believe in fairies and spirits. Before we submitted a project to FPE, we had a sustainable development workshop in Tayabas, and there was a lady in that workshop who went into a trance. Then somebody went up to her and could tell that the lady wanted to speak to the Mayor who was there at that time. They spoke and the Mayor told the workshop group, “Kayang says that if we do not help them save the mountain, all the snakes will come down because they will no longer have water sources to go to.” This happened during the flood. Kayang also told the Mayor, “What you need to do is make a fence in the perimeters of Banahaw. That fence shall not be a concrete fence but shall be the communities around Banahaw.” This shall be the social fence that would protect Mt. Banahaw. A proposal was thus made, and it was FPE that funded it in the beginning. With the help of FPE, Luntiang Alyansa was able to close Mt. Banahaw for

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

five years, which got extended. The mountain has now been regenerated and the communities around it have indeed become the social fence. They are the stewards and tour guides and they collect fees from anyone who wishes to climb the mountain. Climbers are not allowed to bring plastics to the mountain. The story of Mt. Banahaw has been replicated many times, in the Visayas, Mindanao, and in other parts of the Philippines where FPE supports innovative, creative and sometimes difficult-to -understand projects. For me, this is why FPE exists – it can fund and support cutting-edge programs and projects. If FPE is not yet supporting these programs and projects, I think you have to look back and move forward. Sometimes we can get lost in technology and science. But in the end, what is important is that change begins at the heart. These are the people in the community – this is where change will happen and will be sustained, where development is driven and carried out. Years have passed and we are still here, united by the same cause. I recommend that each one of us recall our intentions, our goals and our passion at the time we started giving our energy and life for this commitment. Because recalling why each one of us started and remains to fight for this belief and commitment will give us the renewed energy and sustained enthusiasm. It is important because it is by recognizing and understanding our intentions that we can know how to act in the future and move forward. In relishing, like the story I just told you about the fairies and elves, which brings a smile to my face, I know that the experience got me moving and believing in sustainable development to this day. I consider the past 21 years the triumph of the communities in protecting the environment while struggling to address poverty. I cannot divorce the two, because the poor communities are often victimized twice – by development projects and by people who falsely offer them better life. This is why it is important to think about sustainable development and biodiversity, bearing in mind always the people and their condition. Aside from consultation with the communities on their indigenous knowledge, we can also have access to technology and systems that would help them in protecting the environment and moving forward to be uplifted from poverty.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

However, there are also new challenges that the communities face with emerging technologies. We must keep in mind that technology should be our ally not our enemy in advocating for the protection and conservation of biodiversity. We should keep in mind that the future holds a great promise for an environment-friendly, people-driven, sustainable development. Today is a start for us to move forward with our mission of braving the challenges to fight for the future of the Philippine environment, its diversity and the people who are holding the key to the sustainability of these resources. Moving forward means facing the future. The two main purposes of this event are to assess FPEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work and to come up with recommendations. But together with the BOT, project partners and RAC members from Luzon Visayas and Mindanao, and around 150 members of the different civil society organizations, we are also tasked to know and recognize different regional perspectives. I think if there is anything that FPE has been able to do, it has translated respect for our own diversity and our own understanding of geographic specifics and regional differences in order to address them. No one-size-fits-all when we are talking about sustainable development, biodiversity conservation, and people-driven development. This knowledge is therefore valuable, because at the end of the day the communities are the ones who are really capable of protecting the environment and who should have the largest interest in the conservation and use of these resources. I would like to encourage everyone to keep up the good and green work. The shared memories will give us strength and energy. The challenges ahead are still formidable. We feel the global impact of climate change with 21 typhoons every year. The last 100 years, Davao Oriental and Compostela Valley did not have any typhoon, so when typhoon Pablo came, no one knew how to handle it. We have to move forward with strength and enthusiasm. FPE is now 21 years old but it is still young for us; we need to continue envisioning how communities can live responsibly and fully in harmony with the environment. The biggest challenge is for us not to lose hope and faith in the vision that prosperity will come without compromising the future of the next generation. I trust and believe that FPE will continue to support communities that believe and work with each other so that sustainable development is not a goal, not a dream but a reality in the lives of the people in the Philippines.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

LESSONS AND INNOVATIONS ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

CLIMATE CHANGE & COMMUNITYBASED DISASTER RISK REDUCTION MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE

e are presenting two research courses that we use for community-based climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction management (CCA/ DRRM) initiatives: the Serendipitous Model Assessment Tool (SMAT) and the Participatory Vulnerability Capacity and Needs Assessment (PVCNA). We have also incorporated Participatory Coastal Resource Ecological Assessment (PCREA).

MA. GENESIS CATINDIG Regional Coordinator PhilDHRRA Luzon

PhilDHRRA is a network of 67 NGOs in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, and most of our members are working with rural communities that include the poorest of the poor â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the farmers and fisherfolk who depend on natural resources. Climate change or change in environmental condition has a huge impact on the household food security and production income of the farmers and fisherfolk. But aside from this challenge faced by farmers as well as the lack of funds faced by our member NGOs, PhilDHRRA is challenged by uneven capacity on DRRCCM. This is because most of our members are deeply involved in issues such as agrarian reform, municipal water delineation, ancestral domain demarcation, cooperative development, cultural heritage protection, and biodiversity protection. For them, Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Mitigation (DRRCCM) is too scientific and too technical. One challenge thus is how to encourage farmers and fisherfolk to shift to

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

sustainable natural resources production, such as organic agriculture or sustainable agriculture and coastal resources management protection. We have come to realize that there is a great need to increase awareness among local communities and local partners on DRRCCM. We have realized as the IPCC has pointed out that the advocacy towards sustainable development by the NGOs is considered in itself as climate change adaptation. A study by the World Research Institute (WRI) in 2007, mapping various NGO initiatives in several countries, documents how poverty alleviation initiatives are considered as climate change adaptation. The WRI came up with three categories: serendipitous model, climate proofing, and discrete adaptation. This has inspired us to help our partners understand that what they are doing is climate change adaptation. We focused on the serendipitous model. With the help of FPE, we embarked on a short-term study to map the capacity of our local partners, NGOs and their rural communities as well as their levels on the issue of climate change adaptation. We came up with a simple tool called SMAT. SMAT is based on two tools: the Community-based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation and Livelihoods (CRISTAL) developed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), and the PVCNA, which is a set of participatory rural appraisal tools used by PhilDHRRA and Plan International in 2010. CRISTAL, however, is

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

computer-simulated and too technical to be taught to the communities who are already intimidated by the technical jargon on climate change. We combined these tools to come up with the simplest and easiest tool for farmers to understand, which they can also use on their own and long after we are out of the picture. We use the tool in a focus group discussion (FGD) where the facilitation team is composed of a lead researcher or the technical resource person and a facilitator, preferably local who understands climate change adaptation. An assistant researcher is also needed to document the process and results. Meanwhile, participants include representatives from the LGU, community (preferably farmers and fisherfolk leaders or indigenous peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s leaders), and local NGOs. We pilot-tested SMAT in four areas â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Benguet, Camarines Norte, Sorsogon in the upland, and Sorsogon in the lowland. The process has five steps. On the first step, we ask the participants their understanding of climate change. It is amazing how they would just translate the term in their vernacular. During the pilot test, some responses included: more floods, more landslides, or the typhoon transferring from Bicol to Mindanao. Fishermen also interpreted climate change by saying that the typhoon is no longer over the seas but already in Manila. After asking the participants, the field researcher would explain the concept of climate change using drawings for the communities to understand better. To explain the origins of CO2 and global warming, we show pictures of activities that contribute to global warming. On the second step, we ask the participants what hazards they are experiencing. Responses do not differentiate between climate-related

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

and non-climate-related hazards. For instance, in Benguet, participants identified mining as a hazard. We thus explain the differences between the two kinds of hazards, namely: hazards brought about by climate change and the human-made hazards. The third step involves identifying the impact of the identified hazards. We ask the participants to rank the hazards, identify the top three hazards, and identify the impact of the top three hazards on the household and community levels. On step four, participants are asked to share their coping strategies. Responses are quite practical, bordering on funny. For instance in Bicol, in coping with successive El Niño and La Niña, farmers said that they would cope by getting the neighbor’s chicken. On step five, we would then invite the local NGO to present its projects in the community. We would then conduct workshop for the participants to identify which of the project activities help boost and have direct links with their coping strategies. We then identify which project activities help strengthen the community’s adaptive capacity. We have realized that the projects of members and local NGOs are usually focused on the impact on the household level only. For instance, one project is to increase fishery production thus they immediately focused on the impact whereas we can strengthen our activities to direct them to the hazard that is causing low production.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

CAPACITATING VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES TOWARDS NATURAL RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT

he Institute of Social Order is a member of PhilDHRRA, working with around 17 municipalities in Quezon and San Miguel in Bicol. This project has been implemented with the help of FPE in the island municipalities of Quezon Province. We call this project, Jomalig, Quezon, referring to the farthest municipality in that group of island. Jomalig is surrounded by the Lahuy Bay and the Pacific Ocean, thus in terms of climate change, it is very vulnerable. The island is low-lying and considered one of small island communities, which according to the IPCC in its report, are the most vulnerable to climate change.

MARIE DELA ROSA

Research Manager Institute of Social Order

We are working with farmers and fisherfolk organizations on this project, together with PhilDHRRA Luzon and FPE. The resource base we are protecting includes mangroves and coral reef. The project started in June 2012 and will end in September 2013. The project intends to mobilize communities towards vulnerability reduction and integrated area development and management, to make them more aware and be able to manage local disasters. The communities raise their awareness on climate change and how to reduce disaster

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

risks. FPE intends to provide the scientific basis of local policies and coastal resources management. To achieve these objectives, we are adopting three strategic components, namely: Community Mobilization, Community Education and Empowerment, and Policy Advocacy and Applied Research. With regard to community mobilization, we have organized four farmers’ organizations (FOs), since there is a dearth of people’s organizations (POs) in Jomalig. Meanwhile, one existing FO is being revitalized. For the four FOs, we have secured the commitment of the community and the LGU to support the project. In terms of community education and empowerment, we conducted trainers’ training with the communities on PVCNA and PCREA so they would take charge of conducting their own studies. We formed one local research team composed of teachers, farmers, and staff of the LGU. Together, we conducted the survey and mapping in Jomalig and the experience was quite enriching since it was genuinely participatory. We also showed films on mangrove protection to raise their awareness on climate change and how natural resources can become the agent of protection from climate change impacts. Finally, we adopted training on establishment and management of mangrove nurseries. We believe that these mangrove nurseries are essential in reforestation projects to increase the crop survival rate. On the third component on policy advocacy and research, we conducted the PVCNA-PCREA study as mentioned. Through the project, we were able to merge existing tools of two institutions into one comprehensive tool that assesses vulnerability of coastal communities. These tools are PhilDHRRA’s on vulnerability and capacity assessment and ISO’s on coastal resources and economic assessment. The combined tool includes the conduct of household survey, community risk assessment, doing transect walk, participatory mapping, mangrove inventory, and coral reef assessment. In particular on mangrove inventory, we assessed certain sites of the areas and a total of 10 transects were confirmed in Jomalig, each measuring 5-10 meters. We were able to cover and assess almost half hectare of the mangrove area. In March, we conducted feedbacking and validation of results with the community.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

As mentioned, Jomalig is exposed to climate change hazards, since it is mostly flat and barren land and its highest elevation is only 30 meters. It is small and low-lying and exposed to the strong currents of Lamon Bay and the Pacific Ocean. It is difficult to evacuate when disaster comes, since the island is quite remote and only accessible by boat that takes 7 hours. There is air travel, but it is very expensive. We were able to conduct a survey of 144 households and FGDs with approximately 10 persons each in 5 barangays. Majority of the respondents are farmers and fishers, most of them have reached elementary and high school education. Very few have finished college; there is no tertiary education in the island. Their houses are made of light materials, such as plywood for walls and nipa/sawali for roofs. Families (the average size is 5) live below poverty conditions, earning less than Php6,000 a month and spending as much as Php10,000. To make ends meet, fishing and farming becomes a family affair. The daughters accompany the mothers to sell while the sons go with their fathers. The women are also engaged in cleaning or collecting fish near the store for additional food on the table. In terms of livelihood, the communities depend on the seashores. So any environmental change affects their economic activities, emphasizing the need for protection of marine and coastal resources, including land since many also depend on rice farming. The fishers rely on trade, i.e. consigning to Malabon for instance, instead of fishing for own consumption since they need money for other necessities. But then they can only afford to buy instant noodles and other food of low nutritional value. Most of the farmers do not have their own land. Jomalig is a vast agricultural land owned by private families who reside outside Jomalig. Farmers thus work as tenants. Meanwhile, majority of the small municipal fishers use non-motorized boats, which they still have to borrow. This condition lessens capability to get more fish especially during turbulent weather. The people employ unsustainable production practices such as swidden farming (kaingin), dynamite fishing, cyanide fishing, and cutting mangroves to make charcoal or house posts.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

Majority of the residents have cellular phones and they can communicate in times of disasters. Meanwhile, the sources of potable water are at risk of contamination from improper solid waste management. Most of the people have limited access to electricity and credit facilities. The LGU meanwhile is gearing up on promoting the area for ecotourism. The transect results show that the area has low mangrove diversity. There are 14 species, the most dominant being Bakawan Lalake, as shown in the graph. We look at it as a good sign because Bakawan Lalake, when grown, protects the place from storm surge and becomes the community’s line of defense. In the fish sanctuary, we conducted a current assessment using a transect line method. We surveyed two areas and found out that the condition of the coral reef is poor in the outer area of the sanctuary. It is exposed to illegal fishing methods. But the inner side of the sanctuary is in good condition. Then if we average it, the area will be classified ‘fair’ in terms of fish sanctuary. Still, we find good quality fish there, which adds to the people’s production and coping capacity in times of disaster. On resource inventory, we walked three kilometers in the entire barangays and we noted all the resources that we could find per change in landscape. Shown here is one of the resources. We can find the elevation, so the community can use it for identifying the high and low points to avoid hazards. As the landscape changes, the local research team puts the resources found along the transect – the water source, land

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

resources, and livelihood opportunities along the way, including the concerns of the community. The community members thus become aware of the available resources in their community and what they have to address in the long run. Some of the community members have learned of the resources only when they conducted the research, even if they have lived there all their lives. We have identified the resources of other barangays through mapping. We provided them a base map with known landmarks and reference points. They have 12 by 6 feet map, which is rather big. So, all the community members sat on the floor and map out the resources and hazards in their area. The highlight of that activity was the setting up of the boundaries, because apparently there were conflicts with other maps. They got to know their boundaries.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

This is the PVCNA map we created. From here we can identify the hazards, resources, boundaries, and landmarks. In terms of CCA and DRRM, hazards identified by the community include the occurrence of wildfire in grasslands especially during dry season and extreme temperatures, drought, flooding from rivers, storm surges, and sea level rise. Many of the respondents knew of climate change but when asked how much they know, only few really know substantially. So we plan to increase awareness. There were previous projects by other CSOs that led to the construction of two evacuation centers and the establishment of the municipal DRRMC. However, there is no DRRMC yet in the barangay level, so we are planning to establish one.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

In terms of good practices and lessons learned, we learned that sustaining a healthy LGU-NGO-PO partnership is really effective in engaging the community. Empowering the mass base, where fisherfolk and farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; organizations are hoped to become responsible coastal managers, is also a lesson. We have also learned to build upon previous gains, since there are previous efforts in terms of CCA/DRMM in Jomalig, we just need to enhance and fill out some data and make them more efficient. On our experience with PhilDHRRA, expertise was truly shared. Some of the lessons include: participatory action research, creating a community-based multi-faceted tool on disaster risk assessment, and participatory mapping that made the community more aware of what they have and their capacities. Our ways forward include the integration of research results into local development plans such as management plans; launching of IEC campaigns and capacity building activities on CCA, DRR, and sustainable food production for the FOs, FARMC, and the MDRRMC; setting-up of a pilot barangay DRRMC; establishment of mangrove nurseries that will provide seedlings in future reforestation projects; popularization of research results through publication and IEC materials development; exploration of climate-smart alternative livelihood projects; and exploration of external funding assistance for the community related to CCA and DRR.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

ARAKAN FOREST CORRIDOR & LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN HADASSAH FAITH CARIG

Project Coordinator Philippine Eagle Foundation, Inc

he Philippine Eagle Foundation is working for the conservation of the eagles around the world and to secure the survival of endangered species. We are based in Davao City. We are as old as FPE as an NGO. Today, we are going to talk about the Arakan Natural Resource Management Framework, which realizes the forest corridor initiative for the Philippine eagles. We will also highlight some of our accomplishments in natural resources management (NRM). We want to share the challenges and building blocks in Arakan, the NRM planning process and its salient features, and our goal in Philippine Eagle conservation in Arakan. Arakan is a young LGU founded in 1991. It is a sprawling valley of about 69,000 hectares, with only three KBAs, about 40,000 people, among them are IP, mostly Monobo. It all started when we discovered three Kahayags – it is a Philippine eagle. We started a small CBRFM initiative with FPE, with small households in some selected barangays. Then, we invested in ecological policy development and applied for the assessment of the Forest Corridor Development Plan (FCDP). Unfortunately, this development initiative did not take off fast enough. It was only

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

in 2008 that we had the FCDP and UFRE. Its goal is to contribute to the rehabilitation and conservation of biodiversity within the Arakan Valley. Its objectives include: to conserve three isolated forest islands and restore forests between them; provide livelihood and support for basic services; develop capacities of partner communities; and create a wider network of community partners and supporters. We call it initiative, but itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s more of a project now. It aims to correct the forest and enhance genetic diversity in Arakan. At first we had IPO farmers; originally it was five. One was a non-IP area. In the 1990s, the forests of Arakan comprised only 4% of its total area. This is our roadmap: Preparatory phase was in 2002. The Arakan Forrest Corridor measures around 40,000 hectares. We are celebrating small wins. We have increased the confidence of IPO farmers in forest restoration efforts, where 84 hectares in two years were reforested. We have also increased local awareness on Philippine eagle conservation. We have continued the protection of Philippine eagles in Mt. Sinaka and Mt. Mahuson. There is no more news of Philippine eagle execution since the incident with the Kahayag. We have also discovered that the direct cash incentive contributes to household income of partners, especially since our local partners are below the poverty line. We have also decreased the problem on seedling production.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

There are still challenges. These include low takers outside ancestral domains and limited partners. At the first level of reforestation stage, there is low LGU recognition and we oftentimes feel alone. We also have high seedling mortality after planting. The IPOs are trying hard to study this and how to reduce seedling mortality, especially since Arakan is a rainy place and may be affected by climate change. Lastly, community commitment to forest restoration is being challenged by other pressing needs of the IP. Forest restoration was a feat. There were natural obstacles, technology was new, and partner communities have other needs and priorities. But we continue to build on our partner’s initial success to get partners and we continue to address reforestation as a way to increase social services to the area. Our farmers are also studying DRRM, and we are leveling up conservation incentives with support from corporate partners and based on community aspirations. We have provided conservation incentives that we think will help our farmers. We have facilitated a community development process that identifies community priorities, and from there we try to provide those things that help them attain their aspirations. Then we continue to promote processes that provide ample space for decision-making and collaboration. We have facilitated two levels of planning. One is facilitating and following the indigenous people’s processes as shown here. The other is the Arakan Natural Resource Management Framework. We use the same tools, discussions, and focus groups, but we highlight the preservation. The stakeholders set their goals according to the developed plan and success indicators. Then we draw commitment and support to other projects of NGOs and other farmers in the area. The Arakan Natural Resource Management Framework focuses on the landscape approach. This is the common future for Arakan, its vision-mission.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

These are the guiding principles of the NRM Framework: people empowerment, commitment, holistic management, strong partnership, and gender and culture sensitivity. In our long experience with IPOs of the Philippine Eagle Foundation in Arakan, we have come to realize that their needs and aspirations should come from them. Their worldview, not ours, should be reflected. BCSD outcomes are best achieved when anchored on community aspirations. We also learned that when planning platforms are open, collaboration is easy. CBC processes in IP communities can only be empowering if worldviews were aligned and common grounds were established; vulnerable groups have meaningful participation; and if these are equitable and contribute to income and overall well-being of partners. Preservation, like hardcore conservation, should be combined with equitable distribution. So towards the future, we hope to implement and refine the planning process with other communities and civil groups in Arakan and expand efforts to provide conservation incentives for community partners. We also envision to pursue social learning and to generate legal and social support for the NRM framework. We are planning to talk to politicians who won in the elections to pursue social and legal support. As of now, we have completed at least 270 hectares of reforestation and will be allotting rainforestation of the corridor through LGU-led Farmer Field School. Bantay-Kalikasan council is also adopting rainforestation technology.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

TRANSFORMING LIVES, CONSERVING NATURE: LESSONS FROM THE “KALDERO APPROACH” TO CONSERVATION ALADINO MORACA

Executive Director Eco-Agri Foundation

he name of the project is Distilling Oil for Nature: Trade-Off in Community-Based Watershed Conservation and implemented in southern Negros. It takes three hours from the municipality proper to the project site. Why Negros? There are no NGOs that have given serious attention to protect the watershed in the southern and northern parts of Negros. The area is hot but has remaining forest patches critical for conservation and protection. Upland farmers are among the poorest of the poor. In 2010, we set up the distiller. On our first meeting, we advised the community to plant lemon grass while we would install the factory afterwards. Nothing happened, because the farmers felt that we were not serious. We reversed the process – we installed the factory, brought sample of the oil extracted from the lemon grass after 2 or 3 hours, and told them that we would buy the oil to the last drop if they would plant something like it. After one month, the barangay chairman texted us to tell us that they were able to establish 2-3

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

hectares of lemon grass plantation even without introducing segment of cropping material. After six months, they already had available oil, and we paid them through bank transfer. They delivered the oil after two weeks. Today, they are producing 220 liters of oil per harvest. We try to remove the burden from the farmer, especially on access to marketing, and allow them to concentrate on building up the plantation. On one hectare, there are 27,000 stalks of lemon grass. For every 250 kilos, we can extract an average of 1 liter per boiling for 2-3 hours. We use rice hull as fuel for the distiller. If it is not available, the community would look for wood fuel. We also decompose the dried lemon grass after processing for worms to feed on, while the worms’ feces would eventually serve as fertilizers for the lemon grass. The results of our fouryear study also show that oil extraction has high recovery because of the worms’ feces. We tried promoting the product to the assistant chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). We wanted to include this in the soldiers’ kit during their operations in the mountainous areas. But Gen. Luga said that it will be critical because the enemies will detect the plantation because of the scent. We also proposed to allow the enemies to use lemon grass as well so that the soldiers can trap them. The AFP suggested instead that we propose to the DOST. The city government of Bacolod is already promoting the product to control Dengue in the city. The farmers’ product thus is processed and sold to the LGU and resources flow back to watershed conservation. We hope to replicate this in other areas, such as my friend from Papua New Guinea who wants to bring home the technology. The lessons learned are quite simple. If the farmers are not hungry, it is quite easy to convince them to actively participate in watershed conservation. On other hand, NGOs can also be at fault pampering

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

the farmers and beneficiaries of the training. For instance, training cost is Php40,000, then we offer a premium price for native egg at Php7 (if lemon grass is not practical for instance). With Php40,000, we can encourage the community to get serious because there is a ready market. We set up an outpost advertising that we buy the eggs, and the farmers realize that since they have access to the market they would start raising the native chicken. Secondly, if you will be implementing a project, it is critical to commit to buy the farmers’ products at a premium price especially in the upland areas. Otherwise, the project will not succeed and we will only end up training the farmers to become entrepreneurs. The training cost is huge and there is the tendency for the community to compete for the money. CSOs or NGOs should facilitate the community to the market but have to remove the burden from the community. The next level is the Kaldero-Approach, because we are able to provide rice to the farmers as one liter of oil if bought subsidizes a sack of rice. After 1-3 years, our technical team earns an income from processing thus the kaldero (cauldron) of the community as well as the kaldero of the technical team is assured and sustained. We have learned to continue the conservation. Isn’t it that usually in our implementation, we have the “bantay-gubat allowances” during foot patrol operations? I do not know if this is also practical in your area but based on our experience this is one

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

of the best formulas to encourage people to protect the watershed. We are trying to convince the farmers that the conservation initiative is good for only 1-3 years, and that we shall turn over the allowances to the LGU thereafter. We are not sure if that is feasible, but based on our experience it is enough to commit to buy the farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; products. What will happen in the next 5 to 10 years? We are trying to produce a solar home system, based on the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s request. The people feel that since they have the money, they would also want to have electricity. People are migrating from the mountains to the urban centers dreaming of how it is to have electricity. We can link this to conservation as we try to imagine farmers walking around 18 kilometers just to charge their cell phones. The other point is this is practical for implementation in conflict areas. The other side has already contacted us to seek help in protecting100 hectares of forest. We hope to see its fruition by June or July this year.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

RIGORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

eople ask me why do we do these things that we do? Straightforward and without being overbearing, we reply, why not?

ROBERT CHAN

Executive Director Palawan NGO Network, Inc.

Enforcement work is a paradox. We started out as naive and then we eventually ended up profound. It is a paradox, because when justice is slow we want the results to be quick. When they say that it cannot be done, communities prove them wrong. They will criticize it as illegal but you will also learn that reports have not been responded to. But it is exactly that experience that will create the initiative for you to make things happen. They will brand you as vigilante, yet the communities will strengthen you. Out with the old, in with the new. You may find that you may have to give more of yourself, but I assure you, the results will be far more than what you have waged for. In the process, you will find yourself criticizing the very people who have criticized you. They will find out that these institutions hold the very remedy. On our part, we give our creativity, our skills, our resources, perhaps even our poetry. Truly I say to you it is the gift of giving yourself that will make the difference. Is it wise for us to count or make money often? We decided to turn it into art, because art is liberating. So I surrender the few chainsaws to the DENR, but I have 400. But a man does not live on chainsaws

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

alone, so we change our sights on kaingin, illegal occupants in our watershed areas, wildlife smuggling, more wildlife smuggling, endless wildlife smuggling. These are eagles in shoeboxes, disrespecting our own growth, fishponds for the few, slow death for the many, and we blast and we poison and we eat the rare. Soon an uprising will begin. It will confiscate your commercial fishing vessels. It will have your partners, and with them you can seize illegal logging vessels and even stop your cyanide operations. There will be pain, even losses, heartaches, doubts and betrayals, but I assure you that in the end we will all resurrect. Can one man make a difference? Let me amend that, can one poor person make a difference? Noah was a drunk. Jacob was liar. Leah was ugly. Peter denied Jesus Christ. Abraham was very old. Joseph was abused. Gideon was afraid. Saul persecuted the Lord. Elijah wanted to commit suicide. David and Solomon were womanizers. Jonah ran away from God. Job was bankrupt. Jeremiah was a cry baby. The disciples fell asleep while praying. and most of all. Lazarus was dead, but they were all saved by the Lord in saving inspiration. Thank you very much.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY CONSERVED AREAS

I DAVE DE VERA

Executive Director Philippine Association for Intercultural Development

will share something that you have always known. We just need to reiterate it as part of permanent policy and institution. I will also share trends and results of what we have been advocating for so long. What are indigenous community conservation areas? These are the natural and modified ecosystems, including significant biodiversity, ecological services and cultural values voluntarily conserved by the indigenous communities. These are guarded by the community itself and are not declared protected areas but declared by the indigenous people as their own conservation areas. This is the oldest form of conservation. It is not recognized by the government, but it is there. It predates all forms of projects, policies and conservation efforts. Indigenous community conservation areas have existed since time immemorial. All ancestral domains have indigenous community conservation areas. Indigenous conservation is found in almost all ecosystems. Motivations for establishing and sustaining conservation areas vary among indigenous communities. For instance, many IP communities established conservation areas to sustain their traditional nutritional needs. In Aurora for example, certain parts of the riverbed were protected because these

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

served as shrimp nurseries. There were not ordinances or zoning, simply common understanding among all clans not to touch those parts of the riverbed for a certain period. You may see from this picture of the Palawan people taken four years ago and notice that the boar is huge. They agreed that hunting season would only be from September to December. In case others would want to hunt during offseason, there is only a designated area. This is in Aurora. For the Agta, many water sources are considered sacred. They have specific names to indicate the sacredness of the place. They have strict rules regarding the movement and activities near water sources. There are three defining characteristics of ICCA, which have been agreed upon through years of consultations among indigenous communities globally. There are specific indigenous peoples or local communities that are closely concerned about that area, related to them culturally and/or because of livelihood. Such communities are major players and hold power in deciding, implementing and enforcing management decisions. For instance, if you go to Mt. Dimacili in Bukidnon, some places there do not have fences or notices, but the people fear to go near these places because of legends. Rules were â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;establishedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; by the elders, such as Amay Lakandilang. The third definition states that voluntary management decisions and efforts of such communities achieve conservation results, although their intention may not be necessarily related to conservation. More often people say that superstitions are not true, but the conservation zones

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

established by communities are actually the areas that sustain life in the Philippines. What is the significance of ICCA in the Philippines? It is clear that almost all ancestral domains have ICCAs because these define the identity of coverage of the indigenous territories. For instance, if someone files an ancestral domain claim, the first markers would be the tombs. I have been working with indigenous people for 27 years, and if you want to learn the trail, you ask for the markers and they would point the sacred mountain, the lake, and their burial grounds, and by that they define their territory. The ICCAs provide habitat for nature, host environmentally critical areas, and sustain life. In the Cordillera, conflict areas are declared common conservation areas, and these contribute to conflict resolution. They agree on rules in preserving the gulongs. When we go to Banaue, we notice the rice terraces. But these rice terraces will not exist if there is no irrigation coming from the flood forest. It is not a government policy, it does not have funding, yet for thousands of years the watershed has sustained the terraces. The whole Daguma range is considered sacred by the Dulangan. The lowlanders have become rich because of the bountiful agricultural harvest, and yet very little has come back to the Dulangan people for having ensured water that irrigates the lowlands of the Daguma range. These places prevent mining as well, even if there is strong pressure for mining in the Cordillera. In Mountain Province, if the area

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

is declared tayan area, it is not opened to mining activities. The batangan, the old fine trees in Sagada are common conservation areas of the people of Sagada. Mt. Dimacili, on the other hand, is the best area that exemplifies everything that I am talking about, and it is not even a protected area. The DENR wanted to declare it a park, but the people said no. It is already a park, according to them, and they have been given the roles of being stewards by the diwata. You will find the elders there taking the responsibility of protecting the area. Meanwhile, the lakes in Coron, the sacred place of the Tagbanua, are already in the hall of fame. Forests in Abra and Kalinga are called lapat areas or conservation zones.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

ICCAs in the Philippines include sacred sites, natural features, indigenous territories, cultural landscapes and seascapes as well as marine areas. ICCA sites represent different biogeographic regions. They can be found from the mountain ranges all the way to the other zones in the Philippines to the coral reefs. They provide habitats to a high diversity of flora and fauna. Almost all ancestral domains have ICCAs. It will not be an ancestral domain if it does not have sacred and traditionally conserved areas. Based on the IUCN definition of ICCAs, at the very least, there could be as many ICCAs as there are indigenous cultural communities in the Philippines. There could even be more because ICCAs are not limited and exclusive to areas conserved by indigenous peoples but include other areas conserved by other local communities. These are the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) that we identified through a national biodiversity strategic action plan. These are the ancestral domains. Government strategy is simply to declare these as protected areas and reservations (PARs). Our progress is slow, maybe because of money, politics, etc. But who is giving de facto management of the ancestral domain? The indigenous tribes. KBAs are huge in Mindanao, but the performance of PARs remains slow. Why wait for PARs when in reality, these are ancestral domains. Can you imagine the opportunity if we partner with the tribes when the system of conservation proven since time immemorial is already in place? Besides, there is a legal framework such that we can explore other options beyond PARs.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

But ICCAs are under siege by private organizations and NGOs that have emerged as the new actors and ‘managers’ of the resources. You will notice the billboard reads, “You are now entering Tagaytay Area Protected Forest Reserve. Gathering of forest product is strictly prohibited and punishable by law.” The people however did not agree since their livelihood only comes from the area. In fact there is still conserved area in Aurora because of the indigenous people, yet the government spends millions of pesos to criminalize them, not even understanding that their governance is exactly what we need to conserve the resource. Up to now, that billboard exists, criminalizing the people who actually conserve the area. Control of the local conservation areas had been removed from the indigenous community. This picture is just about one hour from here. It is the closest CADT. It is in the boundary of Bulacan and Quezon City in Karahume. Karahume is actually an important term for the Agta, but suddenly they see this sign stating that their conservation area is now a Palmera Homes Subdivision, courtesy of a very famous senator. The Agta are now prohibited from entering the area. Conflicting national policies, commercialization, strict competition and indifference have exacted its toll on the ability of indigenous peoples to sustain their management and governance of their conservation areas. The lack of understanding of traditional governance and prejudice towards the skills of IP communities in managing the environment has been prevalent. The belief that they cannot manage the resource because they are not professionals has continued. Commercialization and the entry of market economy and the pressure of popular culture have brought about a drastic change in values. Traditional culture and people’s relationship with the environment have been diluted. In South Cotabato, it is heart-breaking to learn that the B’laan kids who are scholars of the mining company are the same youth

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

who are now signing the petition to declare their elders incompetent to decide for them. The ‘educated’ are saying now that their elders are incompetent because they are preventing development from coming in. This is Boracay. This is the most expensive golf course in the world. This picture was taken right after the developers dug out the cemetery of the Ati and gave the Ati 17 sacks containing the bones of their fellow tribes people. The Ati have a CADT, but they are forbidden to build their houses on their ancestral domain. This order was issued by the President himself. This has had the tremendous impact on many IP communities in the world. The very important link of indigenous cultures to the environment has in many communities been broken. In many instances, the indigenous knowledge systems crucial in protecting and conserving the environment have been permanently lost. There are many communities in Central Luzon where the Aeta children and next generation know sugarcane but cannot recognize the balite tree and other old wood. Today we are losing a broad range of traditional knowledge systems along with the lifestyle and culture that has been successful in managing our forest and environmentally critical areas for a very long time. The real experts are diminishing in number. But there are shifting paradigms that we should all be aware of. In 2010, the global Biodiversity Outlook 3 was released and it was on the Convention on Biological Diversity or CBD. It defined national policies. CBD itself said that “in addition to officially designated protected areas, there are many thousands Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) across the world including sacred forests, wetlands, and landscapes, village lakes, catchment forests, river and coastal

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

stretches and marine areas. Some studies show that levels of protection are actually higher under community or indigenous management than under government management alone. We have been saying that there is no budget for the traditionally conserved areas. Yet, these areas keep our world from the tipping point. If we remove these areas, it is the world’s downfall, yet there is very little support and recognition. The World Bank came up with an independent review in 2009 stating that traditional resource management practices in indigenous cultural communities are more effective than the government strict protected zone. The CIFOR, the global think tank on forestry, also has a study that states “levels of forest destruction are higher in areas that have been declared as strict protection parks by the government compared to traditionally protected areas by ICCs.” NGOs have not done this – there are already quarters that acknowledge the role of the indigenous people. There is already an international framework. There are three major articles that Philippine government is signatory to, which promote respect and recognition of areas declared by the tribes as conservation zones. The CBD itself states that government should recognize the indigenous community conservation areas. It has a compliance mechanism, and the Philippines government is a signatory. It is now in the process of recognizing traditional conservation zones at par and same value as natural parks. IPRA itself provided the local legal framework, providing the indigenous people’s right to manage and conserve natural resources within their territories. They can also create sustainable development and management plan for their ancestral domain or where the conservation areas shall be identified and zoned.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

The problem is how to measure the level of awareness as well as the effectiveness of the management and governance plan. Many of us are resistant to the idea that there is traditional knowledge and governance on the health of the environment. We are also resistant to the belief system of people on healthy forests, but now we have a legal backhoe that we can use to actually zone out extractive activities in indigenous community conservation zones. As a summary, indigenous community conservation areas have long existed in the Philippines and predate current initiatives of environmental conservation and protection. Ancestral domain areas offer the clearest illustration of self-determination through various forms of traditionally governed conservation systems that have proven to be very effective in protecting the environment and ensuring the sustainability of our natural resources for the future generation. So it is better that we learn more from the experience of the indigenous cultural communities that we continue to listen, because by listening we believe in our minds that their systems do work. We should strengthen and support the indigenous cultural communities in their governance of ICCAs, and harmonize policies to strengthen IP governance in their ICCAs. There are various overlapping plans that communities make while our land use plan is incoherent. Let us not allow that the indigenous people lose the relationship between governance and their conservation zone.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

MONITORING CONSERVATION IMPACT

f you will recall, Albert Einstein was controversial because he said that if the beast would be lost, mankind has only four days to live. Although he was a physicist, he had respect for ecology. He also said that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted countsâ&#x20AC;?. If we talk about measuring success, we want to see numbers, but our theme in our 3 or 4 days is beyond numbers.

ALDRIN MALLARI

Country Director Fauna & Flora International

When FPE was established, the prevailing issues were protected areas and National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS). What we are trying to do is to see and answer this question: Are protected areas fulfilling their twin objectives of biodiversity and sustainable livelihood? . We may have two premises: The first is that protected areas do not match biodiversity needs. The second one is that government is too slow to react. On the first hypothesis, we may say that protected areas and biodiversity needs do not match, because our science is just starting to develop. On the second hypothesis, on the other hand, now that we have science, government counterpart action is however slow. In the past 30 years, we have increased sophistication in science and the selection of protected areas, and this has been the basis of FPE for selecting its projects, namely the Key Biodiversity Areas.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

I have designed a 4-way test. The first question is: Do KBAs and protected areas match? The second question is: If they do match, do management systems truly deliver? The third question is whether management systems deliver on conservation to biodiversity. The fourth is: Is there capacity in protected area system to implement and monitor biodiversity conservation-targeted management? Let us answer the questions one by one. On the first question. The second column shows the coverage of KBAs at about 90,000 square kilometers. The third column shows the coverage of protected areas and the last column is the shortfall. Notice that Siquijor has no protected area but has irreplaceable KBAs. In Greater Sulu shortfall is 97 percent. Government is indeed so slow to react. In sum, shortfall right now is 64 percent. Now I ask the question: Are protected areas positioned properly to protect representative biodiversity? Are the sites of our partners the same sites that are irreplaceable? On the second question. Half of our protected areas are declared under the category 5 – protected landscapes and seascapes. The reason for declaring protected landscape and seascape or lowering the protection status is because there are people. The highest protection status is strict nature reserve. There are no 1A or 1B areas, which means that almost all important areas that are irreplaceable have

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

people in them and the government lowers the protection status, which is an easy way out. The other half are National Parks, and half of these are under Habitat Species Management. The country boasts in its 4th national report to the CBD that 12.8% of the land is protected. But when we analyze the inhabitants in these areas, only 7.8 % are under categories 1-4, which means that the emphasis is biodiversity. Under categories 5-6, the emphasis is geological formation and scenic spots. But if we look at the global target, it should be 10% of the total land area that is under protection for biodiversity. Still, if we look at the 7.8%, almost half are integrated habitats while 5% are simply scenic views, mostly natural habitats. On the third question.

These are some of the threatened bird species we are studying in Palawan. Notice what type of habitat they need. Most of them need lowland forest to survive. Notice government response â&#x20AC;&#x201C; red is core zone while non-red is buffer zone. Red also indicates forest above 1,000

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

meters. We have just said that the birds need lowland forest, but why is the core zone in above 1,000 meters? To us, a protected area is a death certificate for all lowland species of birds.

Let us see if this is true in Mindanao. Lowland forest is the needed habitat. But the governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s habitat map shows that its core zone is light green not pink which is the lowland forest. I think we fail in Mindanao.

Let us look at another centerpiece program, Negros and Panay.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

Again, lowland forest is needed. The lowland forest shown in the map is categorized multiple-use zone and cultivated land instead of high protection or management zone. In short, it is the same story â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the core zone is atop the mountain that is not normally reached by lowlanders while the lowland forests that are easily converted are classified multiple-use zone. This is because the paradigm of protected areas is focused on fines and fences. If you go beyond the core zone, you are considered criminal. More than 80% of our protected areas have people living in them. Protected areas are like a dragnet, especially for communities. On the fourth question. The Philippines is too ambitious to have 240 protected areas, when its government does not have money. The United Kingdom has the same island size, maybe one million times richer than the United States, and its protected areas number 225. But look how many have been approved by the Philippine Congress â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 5% for terrestrial and 1% for

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

marine, which means that only 20 of the protected areas have budget and enabling laws. What is even more worrisome is the number of management plans, which supposedly facilitate the protected areas. And if ever there is a management plan, there is no PAMB, no management board to implement. And if there is a PAMB, there is no management plan to implement. If we talk about conservation success, let us not count the projects but instead really measure success. If we are talking about impact, we have to have baselines. Do we have baselines in FPE and in RAC partnership? For instance, we start with one protected area, after 20 years, what should be our baseline? How could we have defined success 20 years ago? What might have happened anyway? Was the success bound to happen, or is it because we had intervention? The third bullet point only means that conservation is like a watch â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it has moving parts and roles. Maybe we need recalibrated expectations. Success may be relative to ongoing decline. Maybe we want slowing in decline rather than a reversal. The decline is in ecological terms, it does not happen overnight. Do we want to make the members of the community police one another? We know some people who jail their relatives, but do we want that paradigm of fines and fences? Or do we want a shift in paradigm? We always forget in our projects that there are unanticipated results and changes can be negative. When we talk about conservation success, we may be just looking at the level of the projects, that once the projects or grants are

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

finished, we feel to have already achieved conservation success. We are looking at the project impact instead of conservation success, results against specific aims. We should be starting to measure organizational impact? What is the impact of FPE and its partners? Let us talk about evidence. Do we need quantitative or qualitative measures? There should be complementary approaches. Again this depends on our audience and what we do need. We have to have consultation on these approaches. Secondly, we do not have to match. We have to look at the whole structure of FPE â&#x20AC;&#x201C; there are many tools to monitor change, but as an organization and partnership, do we agree on a common framework? One of the most difficult is attribution of success. This is one problem with partnership organizations. How do we interpret organization contribution â&#x20AC;&#x201C; is it the result of one partner or the contribution of FPE as a whole. Success of projects versus organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relative contribution. Whose results are these? When it comes to partnership, we have a lot of monitoring protocols, but how are these done and who is driving these? Are you happy with the monitoring tool? Is it useful and relevant? One of the important issues with partnership organizations is overburdening. We all know that FPE is not

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

the only source of funds of many partners, and if there are other funders we also have insertions in our implementation. The community thus is overburdened where we work with the same people but expect different outputs. We should bear in mind the good results or future of our communities not to make our portfolios look good in the eyes of the EU, USAID, or other funding agencies. We have so many indicators. Maybe we should go back to the community and ask them to identify the basis of success. Another issue in partnership organizations is how to measure biodiversity projects. Are we measuring direct capacity impact by FPE or conservation impact of partners? Who is monitoring? Some NGOs don’t include conservation targets in their business plan. They do not set targets, and in fact in all 36 management plans we are looking into, their first goal is to protect, conserve and enhance biodiversity. Those three things are oxymorons: protect means ‘no use’, conserve means ‘used’, and enhance does not mean anything. It confuses the community more. What is a business plan? Does an individual organization of RAC partners have a business plan? Does FPE have a business plan? Do you have target baseline in the next 10 years? We would like to increase the coverage of ICCAs in the next five years or

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

we will eradicate poverty. That is better than not having targets at all at least midway up to 2015. There must be a target. Do we have one? We even set targets just to get money. There are organizations that have ambitious targets, but what happens if there are no funds? We do it based on our advocacy. For us as a conservation organization, conservation is increasing the likelihood of persistence of native ecosystems, habitats, species and/or populations in the wild. Conservation success is the achievement of this without adverse impacts on human well-being. As a conservation organization, our paradigm is quite simple: Biodiversity Conservation is the good sign. All activities outside enable biodiversity conservation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; site management, species management, capacity building, IEC, research, policy work, etc. However, most of the time with our projects, we are just on the activity level and report what we have done and not the impact on biodiversity and on the communities we want to serve. After 20 years of NIPAS, are the critically endangered species including the Philippine eagle safer now because of protected areas? Have the Philippine eagles increased in number because of the protected areas? I guess we need to recalibrate our expectations. The same with activities and policy legislation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; we are reporting these but fail to report the effect of conservation. Have we enabled site and species management because of policy legislation activities? What is the conservation effect? The same with capacity building, we are measuring the activities. At this point, after 20 years, most of us are not measuring our impact, we are only measuring activities. In research, as scientists, we are lead to our own devices â&#x20AC;&#x201C; we cannot even finish 2,000 years of survey.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

In summary, we need to recalibrate our expectations. We need to define the target and see how we can structure our projects to hit the target. One simple ecologist is state pressure. We are glad to report against the response model, but report only the activities based on the responses. What is the state of biodiversity and the community after the response? If we are looking for the matrix of ecosystem declaration, we may start at state 2 and at the end of that project reach state 1, then we are in a better state. There are two thresholds: biotic and abiotic. We only need to match our activities where the threshold is. For example, if you are in B where there is fragmentation and land is not yet dry, it probably needs recovery. If you are in C where the land is already dry and it is sloping and without water, it is not matched if you will do reforestation.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

Not because we have learned reforestation, it applies to anything. We should also attach our activity with the skills and awareness of the community. For example in this case using the same matrix, in places like Upper Marikina Watershed where most of the people are not indigenous to the place and were only relocated from the urban areas, it is wrong to go there and distribute seedlings and expect the people to plant 20,000 per hectare. In the last two years of our experience, the community there does not know that aratilis is a tree. Forest for them is a mythical idea. Now, we are asking them to reforest the place. People ask us, “If we have already planted trees, where will we live?” There should be matching between community’s expectations and levels of awareness. We must match science with the local reality. Measuring conservation success should also be apt to the design of our projects. We may be endeavoring to deliver in three years what can actually be delivered in 20 years. Language is important too. Are we both measuring using the same terms? We might be measuring the same thing, but we call it differently. As a partnership, that is something that we need to do. We may be insane because we keep on doing the same thing and expect different results.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

NATIONAL SITUATIONER: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE HON. BRIGIDA ZENAIDA PAWID Chairperson National Commission for Indigenous Peoples

would just like to share the situation of the IP in terms of the environment. I want to discuss that the IP will be greatly affected in the new problem of the environment. The problem of IP is that if we are talking about the environment, the IP are among the birds, beasts, and flowers. We are not recognized in the national planning programs and national configuration of data. There is dearth of data and statistics especially in the NCIP. We do not have the exact number of IP. The IP population, belonging to 110 ethno-linguistic groups, was estimated in a wide range of 11 to 14 million. This huge discrepancy of 3 million was accepted by the National Statistics Office. However, in 2010, the estimate even went down to 8 million. IP in Muslim areas, such as the entire ARMM and Bangsamoro areas, were also removed. It is a political question that is still on the negotiating table of the MILF and NCRP panels. Until that is resolved, we cannot assert, because there is the much bigger problem of peace and development in Mindanao, which has to be tackled. Thus the Lumad in ARMM and other Muslim majority areas are not complaining, since Bangsamoro includes them as well as the migrants and the Bisaya.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

When the poverty program, Pantawid Pamilya was identified in 2011, the IP were among the poorest of the poor. But in the so-called cleansing in 2012, most of those removed from the Pantawid Pamilya list were IP. We found out that when the census for the national household targeting system was conducted, they went to the IP who could be reached while majority of the IP were in the hinterlands. When they verified those in the list, it turned out that the IP had properties such as tricycles and jeepneys. The IP thus were removed from the list of the poorest of the poor. The bigger problem than the IP not being counted is that they are not located. That is the more important problem that the NCIP cannot solve. Also, IPRA and national laws are contradicting one another. For instance, one law has ECC as a problem, which however is under the DENR. FPIC on the other hand is under our jurisdiction. All of these, however, pertain to issues of the environment, logging, plantation forms of agriculture, and mining. But the DENR and NCIP do not understand each other in discussing these issues. The IPRA law is 15 years old. IPRA should have a basis now, but the problem is up to now the DENR is not recognizing ancestral domain. The DENR maintains its case filed in the Supreme Court saying that IPRA is unconstitutional. Thus, two government agencies such as the DENR and NCIP are still fighting over laws. To sum, the first problem is to identify who the IP are and how many they are. The second problem is to identify which laws should prevail. We are always going back to legality. Allow me to explain. The real problem of RAC and partners on the ground is sustainability. Money is not a problem; the real issue is with the government departments or institutions that do not know how to reach out to IP. For example, last Tuesday the World Bank and NCIP had a meeting to identify where the World Bank could help. But the World Bank does not know the IP program and where to find them, because the DENR is interfering with the issue. This only means that the biggest

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

funding for the environment is with the DENR although the beneficiary communities are IP. CBFM, IPRA, logging permit, mining permit, mining patent – all these are under the DENR. All these are following the Regalian theory, which means that everything is owned by the State. But the IP assert that even before there was a Republic of the Philippines, they were already occupying the land, thus the ancestral land is theirs – private in form but not owned by an individual, a family or a clan. When the DENR issues CBFM, it destroys the concept of ancestral domain on which the IP depend. It issues the permit or ECC. How can the DENR issue this when it should be the owners of the land, not the government, who should be doing this? When it comes to program implementation, the project holder or government agency expects the IP to implement the program. In many of the IP programs, funds are not used or are just wasted. Another problem, especially in Mindanao as I have seen, and also in areas where the influence of the CCP-NPA-NDF is strong, is the question of peace and development. Peace and development are inseparable issues. IP are in the remote places or in the hinterlands and cannot be reached easily by projects. Social services support, such as for education, health or infrastructure, does not reach the IP areas. Yet, there are 264 new mining exploration permits received by the DENR. Before that when they did the cleansing and had moratorium on permits, the DENR was holding 134 permits. Another perfect example are the Balbalasang and Baligkog areas where FPE operates. These are considered biodiversity area and national park but also one and only community mine site that is not operated by the community and a small-scale mine that is huge. How do we make it a biodiversity area when it has a mining permit, logging concession, and ‘community mining’? How can one area be declared biodiversity area and national park when it is also a mine site? What is FPE’s program there and how is it going to implement the program?

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

The Aquino administration has issued Executive Order 79, which created the NPCC. There will be a meeting on June 3 to release the new fiscal regime of the mining industry. The President wants two questions answered before granting mining permits or concessions. First: What is responsible mining? The agreed upon definition of responsible mining is mining that will leave something for next generations. Second: What is the fair and equitable share of the government from the natural resource of the country? On the first question. The DENR, DAR and NCIP release tenurial instruments. NCIP releases the certificate of ancestral domain claims and ancestral domain titles; the DENR releases titles, mining permits, ECC, etc.; the DAR releases CLOA. Those are the three types of tenements if we are talking about tenurial security of the people you work with. In coming with the IRR, however, we find many conflicting policies. The Joint Administrative Order (JAO) was formulated for this purpose, and each region has a JAO joint committee, which shall decide which permits or titles should prevail. If these are resolved at the lower level, issues are brought up to the higher levels, and the principals – the different secretaries involved – shall answer the claims. Something needs to be changed in Congress, but the JAO is supposed to take care of the interdepartmental differences of policies. The most difficult issue here is mining. The fiscal regime was promised by the President to be released by end-June. The fiscal regime shall change the concept of mining, unlike before when whoever held the mining rights owned the gold, silver, copper, and nickel. This government is saying now that “the metals belong to the Filipino people and the Philippine government is entitled to a fair and equitable share of the natural wealth.” In other countries, 40% of the gross production of mineral wealth as government share is the best practice, which already includes national, provincial, regional and municipal shares. Excise taxes as well as other perks and priorities given to the mining company will also be removed, including at least 1% for the IP. The government wants the IP to be entitled to more than 1%, which shall be translated to deliver basic social services and infrastructure.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

Please notice that it is not just social services. We need basic infrastructure in the issues of social equity and social justice. We should link the rural and urban areas where the market can interact, not just having hospitals without doctors or medicines or building dilapidated schools. The President also orders to “map all the areas and identify all the go and no-go zones for mining.” But the DENR was the first to map those areas, such as forest cover, land mass, the super-imposed ancestral domain areas, high agricultural food security areas, and irrigated areas. The MGB submitted 3,000 polygons to NAMRIA only last week. That is why our meeting was postponed to June 3. Once that map is done, hopefully FPE and RAC members could access it, as the biodiversity areas shall also be indicated there. But then again, national parks, biodiversity areas, national forests – all these shall be covered by mining permits. We have to know where we are moving and it is important to look at the map. The JAO’s matrix on policies will also emerge from the map, thus we shall know where we shall be agreeing and where there shall be conflicts. We should also know where the mining footprints are in Sierra Madre, especially in Quezon-Aurora area, Caraga, Compostela Valley, and Zamboanga area. How will you tackle your objectives given this situation? How will you plan, if tomorrow a mining permit is issued to TVI, Oceana or Lepanto, which are so big that they will not only leave behind footprints but boot prints? Where are FPE, the regional advisors and councils, and the partners on the ground? You have to understand where we are standing, because whatever conflict is happening, we cannot argue. If a mining permit has been issued, we cannot contest and do we have the capacity to question the ECC or EIA? These are two different things. Do we know how to use them in order to stop the DENR? How do we use the FPIC if there are IP? I am giving the FPE the revised omnibus rules on delineation and recognition of ancestral domain and

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

the revised guidelines on FPIC. We will be able to give some more pamphlets if I will know how many you need and for whom are they to be given. This is the instrument of the NCIP. When we investigated whatever happened to IPRA, there were 200 pending cases in the Cordillera and 100 in Caraga. These are cases that have reached the Supreme Court. We sought the help of NGOs to see if these should be taken up with the lawyers. We threshed out the issues and our solution now, which we call IPS-IPON customary law. We are reviving for the first time the quasi-judicial court and right now all cases that have reached the Supreme Court are being returned to the RHO in the quasi-judicial commission in order to apply the customary law. What is the meaning of customary law? It is taking it up with the community, since admittedly when it comes to legal issues, we at the NCIP and the IP are at a disadvantage. Those appealing are Angara, Drilon, The Firm (Cruz), Fortun, and Enrile – we look like ants in front of elephants. So when it comes to IPRA, sometimes we cannot understand their English. Beginning last year and perhaps until the end of the Commission, we are hoping that we could come up with one issue to fix the process against fraudulent IP. We have also sought the help of anthropologists to tell us what happened to the CADT and ADSDPP – why we were given a grade of 5 out of 10 in CADT and 3 out of 10 in ADSDPP. We are asking help from other departments and the government in the form of an additional budget so we can look into all ADSDPP this year. From there, we shall forward ADSDPP to be the community’s tool to stop the entry of projects in the ancestral domain. FPIC has become a ‘small-scale industry’ in the NCIP. That has to be changed – the people in the NCIP should not use the FPIC as double compensation. On June 3 we shall talk about the fiscal regime. It shall be the convergence of IP, host community, upstream and downstream communities, local governments, and national offices. We shall talk about how much we get from the mining industry and how we are going to divide it. The Chamber of Mines has said that before money is spent by the government, there should be a plan on where to put the money

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

and there should be accountability and transparency. They have many plans that will come in waves, including environmental accounting or what you call ‘green accounting’. They will require all the mines to go under the so-called environmental mining industry. Companies will have to state the minerals, how much is being profited, and where the royalties and taxes are based. Those pieces of information should be transparent. We told Secretary Joson when she showed us the accounting that we could not understand it even if we were given a week to study it. “It doesn’t matter if you sit here for one month, you have to understand it,” she said. That is how serious this government is. I am not telling you to vote for the Liberal Party or praise PNoy. What I am saying is in my two years in office, I saw that it was not only PNoy but majority of the officials of the government want to see mining and other development projects more guaranteed for the succeeding Filipino generations, which is the very concept of ancestral domain. That is NCIP’s message. Look at us please, we have many scars, we have many wounds and we have many warts. But please understand that there are those inside the bureaucracy not just NICP but the entire bureaucracy including and especially inside the DENR, no matter how minority, whose environmental concerns are heart-felt. They will face their bosses and fight. We have to unite. That is our problem – the FPE has areas, CODE-NGO has areas, Gawad Kalinga has areas, and everyone is saying “this is mine, and do not mind me.” Why don’t you just build a house in the watershed? One planted a nursery in the ancestral domain without permission, then destroyed the house, had squabbles with Gawad Kalinga and NCIP, and killed the nursery. When will we learn to unite? I think the most important is to talk in front of each other without excuses or individualism.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

In the meantime, we have conflicting programs and we lose initiative. If for instance, there is denuded area, one agency would say, “the soil is this and so on” and can be rehabilitated. But later, the agencies would say, “oh that’s DENR, oh that’s DAR, oh that’s NCIP.” This only shows that agencies do not care about others’ jobs thus in the end fight with each other and the people on the ground end up confused yet are expected to implement the project. My prayers for FPE is to continue as I have seen first and foremost how clearly you define your objectives and how nicely you develop the responsibility of the partners to identify the problems. FPE has a way of cutting through all kinds of issues. FPE partners and the RACs are assisted precisely to understand the bigger picture, I have seen this in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The challenge is how FPE can join all your areas and your projects together to make a big impact on all that is happening and how you can each share the pain and the joy. The IP are the lowest in the identification of the poorest of the poor. But the problem is we do not understand who really are the poor. For IP, losing ancestral domain is not only about being poor, it is about being very very poor. Yet, if the ancestral domain is there, the IP can also be very very rich overnight. If that happens within a year, IP culture is destroyed. I am here to ask for your kind understanding of the complicated problems of the IP in order to help them. They are the last remaining window to our past, and if they diminish which can happen in the next 10 years, we will no longer see natives. We were like that before, we are like this today, how will we all be tomorrow?

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

STATE OF MINING IN THE PHILIPPINES: THE CASE OF PHILEX MINE TAILINGS

JOYCE PALACOL

Ecology Coordinator CBCP-NASSA

hen I was in first year at UP, in the College of Engineering, we had a subject called mining surveying in the Geodetic Engineering course. But our concept was different from the common impression. It was purely surveying as we talk about regarding certificate of ancestral land ownership title under IPRA as well as management. It also includes the Presidential Decree on titling lands. In Cilvil Engineering course, there is geology subject, we learned further, but still there are puzzles and debates. Let me start the presentation with data from the DENR itself. As seen in the map, mineral resources are found all over Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, especially in

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

Palawan up to the side of Cebu. Mineral resources include gold, copper, nickel and chromite, among others. As the NCIP said, there is the need to overlay different permits in order to identify the no-go zone. This is where the companies granted mineral production sharing agreements (MPSA), exploration permits (EP), and FTAA are located. Not all companies operate. Apparently securing permits is also a business, as these are sold to others with capital, which is allowed under RA 7942. This, on the other hand, is the map of areas being mined at present. This map shows that the MGB has granted exploration permits for MPSA and FTAA for the future. If we will overlay the past, present and future, it is interesting to note that only a few areas are left devoted for other land uses like agriculture, residential, or institutional. Our government, as we can see, has narrowed its focus on mining. It is saying that mining is the solution to the problem of the economy. But later I will discuss that the Philippine government gets only a miniscule out of mining. Under the Philippine Mining Act, there is a plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; excavation, extraction, utilization. The government should be on top of these components. But during the Arroyo administration, EO 270 and 270-a were passed regarding the revitalization of the mining industry in the country. The

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

government forwarded that the solution to the economy was mining. From EO 270 and 270-a, there were 23 flagship projects. The first was La Fayette on its Rapu-Rapu project. But sadly, there was a mining disaster. The first showcase of the Arroyo government on EO 270 and 270-a was a failure. When we were reviewing the environmental impact assessment approved by the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) under the DENR, La Fayette extracted gold ahead of the schedule, supposedly October 2006 approved by the MGB. The company started extracting in July that year and failed to follow an approved design. Out of the 23 flagship projects, the map shows the list of reported contaminated rivers. Not including other areas not yet tested by other NGOs and government agencies, we have estimated the total mineral endowment to be around US$840 billion. We do not see any difference between the thrusts of the current and past administrations when it comes to mining. As the NCIP had discussed, IPRA is an old law, but mining still prevails over it. The Aquino administration has even released its EO 79, the results of which are quite predictable. Under the Arroyo administration, we appreciated what the social action centers did to remove around 125 MPSA. But overtime, more were approved again, especially during the time of DENR Secretary Mike Defensor.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

As of January 2012, there are 458 mining agreements, which shall be taken up on June 3, as the NCIP mentioned. Mining investments continue to rise. These are investments that yield high returns. But the graph does not show the location of mining operations, which are usually in areas where the poor are, such as the IP. The World Bank commissioned a study with the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB) on the poverty index, and if we overlay the 2003, 2005 and 2007 poverty data of the World Bank on the map, we will also find the mining companies there. The Philippines is 3rd in global mining production after Russia and Indonesia. We can’t see the real returns from taxes, fees and royalties. If ever we see them, shall we be satisfied even if they meant the destruction of the environment? Responsible mining is still the issue, but will it be addressed simply by complying with the provisions of environmental laws and other pertinent laws? We are still debating on the acceptability of ‘responsible mining’. My law professor used to say that any system of uniformity is called a law. But there are a lot of overlapping jurisdictions among government agencies. The contribution of mining excise taxes from large-scale, small-scale and nonmetallic in 2000-2009 to total BIR excise tax collections amounted to only about 0.07 percent.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

I would like to recommend an article by Prof. Winnie Monsod on “zero, share from mining wealth”. Clearly, we have to differentiate sharing agreements between joint venture and MPSA. Prof. Winnie Monsod is saying that for joint venture, it should be at least 50 percent. For example, there is always the 60-40 equity share in corporate law, which we can’t see with the mining industry. It is clear that we should no longer allow this. It is even harder to accept that there is supposed to be sharing, but nothing goes to the community. Many communities nationwide are complaining to the CBCP that they cannot see the benefit sharing from mining. We have 85 social action centers and ecclesiastical boundaries. Each boundary gets the feedback from the social action centers, and based on interviews with the social action centers, mining does not have social acceptability when it comes to the preparation of EIA to secure the ECC. The position of Prof. Monsod is that government share should be at least 50%, if the government goes into some form of a joint venture with a foreign corporation. The argument is based on Section 80 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 on the government share in MPSA, which provides the following, to wit “the total government share in mineral production sharing agreement shall be the excise tax on mineral products as provided in RA 7729, amending Section 151 (a) of the National Internal Revenue Code as amended”. How much is the excise tax? Two percent on metallic and non-metallic minerals. How much do we get from agriculture? We get 16-17 percent. Which then should the government prioritize – the 2% from mining or the 16% from agriculture? Let us use economics. Perhaps the 2% could be more because of the investments and we are talking about dollars while in agriculture admittedly is small. However, earnings from agriculture are big for the farmers, like in Nueva Vizcaya where the community is earning per hectare per year from citrus alone. For example, my colleagues in the College of Engineering,

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

if they lose their job in three months, how will they survive? But the IP are not earning much, but as long as they have the land, in 3-10 years they will eat and survive everyday. The peak contribution of mining to excise taxes from 2000-2009 was only 1.7 percent, compared with tobacco and alcohol. On poverty alleviation, mining has the highest poverty incidence at 48.7% of any sector in the country. This is based on the report by Atty. Christian Monsod in the Senate hearing. We were with Atty. Monsod in our investigation on Philex in Padcal. He was always asking for the documents. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s really hard to get documents from government institutions. It is also difficult to seek audience with them. It takes a while if we ask for a meeting, then they will send people who are not authority. We were asking for a copy of environmental impact assessment, but we got the conditions and subconditions of the ECC. We were asking for the Environmental Protection Enhancement Program, but until now we have not seen it. The investigation that the Church did together with other NGOs was not to pin down Phillex but to provide information for the Senate hearing and for legislation. Same thing with the fact-finding mission we did on La Fayette. We should understand the EIA principle that the life of a mining company and other mining entities is in the ECC. Without the ECC, they cannot operate, or else the EIA will issue a notice of violation. The EIA is most important. I wrote one time which I discussed with Elmer Mercado and others. I havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t seen a scoping process or an EIA report that contains an agreement or notice of agreement with the community. The life of EIA is social acceptability. Our call in the Church is if the host community refuses, do not go on with the project, no matter how good it is and no matter how scientifically you can explain it, and no matter how financially feasible it is. Without social acceptability, it is not feasible.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

What is clear now is that it would be better to focus on agriculture. Who benefits from mining, anyway? Not us nor the community. This is the trend of human rights violations against ecologists. The British Member of Parliament, Cliare Short was quoted in his book, “I have never seen anything so systematically destructive as the mining programme in the Philippines. The environmental effects are catastrophic as are the effects on people’s livelihoods.” I will not deepen on the Philex investigation, since it is currently being discussed in the Senate inquiry. We were with Agham in our investigation, yet we could not secure the documents from the DENR. The DENR people were passing us to the regional office. There will be an independent fact-finding team that will go there but should get hold of the documents before that. Meanwhile, Philex has already paid the government Php1.03 billion and Atty. Christian Monsod was asking where the amount would be used. It turns out that the amount will be used for rehabilitation in relation to the disaster that happened. But we are not compromising. Our position at CBCP-NASSA is always, ‘what is legal is legal’.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

Philex is the third company that has had disaster. We are focusing on the Tailings Pond 3 (TP3) whose lifespan has expired. It has maximum lifespan that has to be reinforced. What happened with Philex was that TP3 was over that maximum already. It is not true that what happened was force majeure. The problem is structural and not just lapses in operations. Philex should no longer be using the TP3. But the EMB has given the TP3 an ECC again. It should be a public document once approved, but the EMB is referring us to Philex considering it is a government document. Again this is not to pin down Philex but to aid the DENR when they are saying that they do not have the capacity in other components, like they do not have the structural engineer to test the integrity of TP3. We are focusing now on the structural analysis. For the independent fact-finding team for Philex, we already have the composition of the team. The problem is the availability of MGB, EMB, and BFAR. This watershed and relief map of Philex was created by Dr. Gaudeliano of the DA. There are several maps coming out for simulation, because the Senate inquiry is looking into the reason why the TP3 broke down and did not simply overflow. For your information, the mining process is simple, like washing clothes. The first wash is up to the polishing pond â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it may be 10, 15 times until the water becomes almost clear. In Philex, there is the TP3, but rainfall that time was high. The mining company may claim that the cyanide (cyanide is very volatile) they are using for the extraction of gold is biodegradable and negligible. Is it an act of god or an act of greed? Remember that the Php1.03 billion paid by Philex is not much

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

and remains questionable. It shall be used for rehabilitation. Aren’t they closing it down yet? They cannot answer that question. This is the statement of CBCP-NASSA in the Senate investigation. “The Philex spill incident invites us to see the need to go beyond the myopic monetary valuation of our natural resources to give weightier consideration to the demand for ecological protection, promotion of environmental justice and the common good. We recognize the flaw is in the government’s framework which regards the natural resources as something to be exploited rather than a crucial reserve to be sustained and protected in order to preserve the ecological balance and to ensure sustainability for all – both for the human community and the threatened ecosystems.” For us at the CBCP-NASSA, we believe in “a land with streams and pools of water, with springs flowing in the valleys and hills; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.(Deut. 8:9).” The Old Testament is also telling us to get only what we need. That is our standard in the Church. Our standard is to take each step with admonition. According to the Letter to the Corinthians, everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial. From the speech of Fr. Edu, “Protecting the rights of the poor must take precedence over corporate greed. Genuine development must prioritize the need to ensure ecological sustainability over market profitability. We should never sacrifice people and the environment for short-term benefit of the few.” We always clarify and hold on to this: “If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, forgive their sins and heal their land.” In behalf of the CBCP, this is our call: Repeal the Mining Act of 1995, replace it with a new one, and the government should issue a moratorium on the issuance of exploration permit, MPSA and FTAA.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENT AGENDA IN THE PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BANGSAMORO AREAS IN MINDANAO

always try my best to help my birth place - Mindanao. During my younger days, I experienced running around because of the conflict in our place. My forefathers tried to build a ‘school’ in Camp Abu Bakar, which the military allowed so they would know where to find the Muslims.

DR. HUSSEIN SINAUAT LIDASAN

Professor School of Urban and Regional Planning University of the Philippines Diliman

Even before there was a Philippine government, our family or clan already belonged to one of the Sultanates. Unlike common notion, the Sultanate was not simply about “Datus”, but about helping one another, similar as the IP’s. How then do you understand a development plan in the context of Bangsamoro areas? What should be in the Bangsamoro agenda for peace and development? How do we incorporate environmental sustainability in this agenda? The Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) signed an agreement to define a framework for peace and development in Mindanao. In particular, we need to define the Bansamoro areas and the ingredients for development in Mindanao. Most of us will agree that we should not only be looking at the development

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

in the Bangsamoro areas but also in our country in general. Take the case of ARMM. It has been left behind, because every time the national government would plan, it would exclude the ARMM thinking the region has its own plan. We need to define sustainability. It is simply having something to leave behind for our children and grandchildren and the succeeding generation. We also have proper understanding of the people in the Bangsamoro areas – they are not just the Moros but also the Lumads and settlers from Luzon, Visayas and other places in Mindanao. Then, related to the Bangsamoro framework, how do we incorporate environmental concerns or agenda? How do we address what is called “environmental” when we talk of development? We have to know what people really want in order to address the issue of impacts. For example in mining, I am not totally against mining. What I am against is if its impact cannot be addressed properly. On the other hand, it would be double-standard if I say I don’t need mining when I have two cellphones, one tablet, one laptop – all coming from copper – and say “mining is okay, just do it somewhere else”. So before we start proper planning, we already know the limits of what we want and our land use, specifically where mining can be done, so it will not be in places that may threaten forestry and biodiversity. Before I came here I opened our training on biodiversity in connection with local development planning. I also emphasized the need to look at biodiversity not just in the context of planning but more importantly in the context of social interaction. This means knowing people’s real benefits. People are easily drawn into ‘developments’ by giving them schools, money, etc. but mining should be more than that. It is more on how we identify sustainability. Secondly, how do we address climate change, because for instance if we have Mindanao or Liguasan Marsh denuded, let us stop thinking of development for the area. The Bangsamoro framework should reject that. One of my relatives is a commander of the MILF. It appears that it was better when there was war, because no one touched Liguasan Marsh. But that should not be the precondition – we need peace for people to benefit from proper development and sustainability.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

We all know that long before multinational corporations have already started mapping Mindanao. They already know the areas of natural resources, and it is up to us to be on guard. But it is not acceptable that they get all the raw materials and return these to us as processed products. This is what happens perennially. What is important, aside from coming up with an environmental agenda as it is easy to do anyway, is to know how we can come up with a mechanism to implement in order to impose laws or whatever we devise for monitoring. We need to come up with a roadmap to ensure that environmental sustainability is in place in the Bangsamoro framework. We have to define sustainability in the context of the Bangsamoro framework. Secondly, we have to identify how this will be in the environmental agenda for peace and development in the Bangsamoro areas. Lastly, we need to come up with the information and database we need for planning. As I said earlier, we have to plan where to put the schools, where to allow mining, where the flood zone, etc. We thus need a database, hopefully not as old as 1930s data, however. Continuous data gathering is important, although it is going to be expensive, but the FPE through its partners may help with this. Investment in a database is huge, but it is for our future. Understanding sustainability involves five things. We are not just talking about economic sustainability or environmental sustainability and how to address biodiversity. It is also related to the efficient utilization of natural resources in order to preserve these for the benefit of the next generation. As in our term in transport and logistics, we have two things: diverse logistics which is related to energy and natural resources, and green logistics which is related to the environment. How can we address the impact of transportation on our environment? On the other hand, how can we address the impact of the environment on transportation? For instance, we need malls like SM, Ayala, Robinsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, but we have to address their impact on transportation. When they were not existent, our travel time was 30 minutes, but now with the malls, travel time has become one hour. The fourth element is social interactions. We have to know the negative impact of development on social interactions. If communities are built around mine sites, for instance, beerhouses may also be established along with different criminalities, so we have to address the social

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

interactions. The anthropologists or social scientists may provide a better term. The last, which I think is quite important not just for the people of Bangsamoro but also for the Lumads and others, is the conservation of their cultural practices. My son is asking me why I am called a Datu. I also have to explain why we have to take off our slippers upon entering the house of a Lumad or a Moro. There are many things whether on the negative or positive side, that we have to sustain and preserve. Now I will jump to the Bangsamoro agenda. I will give an example on what I previously presented on Ligawasan Marsh. Let us find out what the people want, not what the government or the planners want. If we talk about balance, are we saying 60% economic, 30% environmental sustainability, and 10% for the others? The people will know, and here civil society organizations, in particular FPE, may enter the picture. FPE is a huge umbrella of organizations, and I am glad that they are still here to really look after the concerns of the people. Some plans are not clear. For instance, the public-private partnership or PPP, which the government peddles as necessary for economic development. It sounds like a good concept, but we have to know the risks associated with it and what is appropriate for Mindanao and the Bangsamoro areas. I am a bit skeptical about this because I am not sure if we really need PPP in the crafting of the Bangsamoro framework. We are not sure who shall benefit from it, as in the movie “Robocop” when they privatized enforcement and the private sector took advantage of it. The PPP will have the same approach. PPP should have respect for environmental planning. If we do not incorporate environmental concerns, the government will forget the appropriate PPP mechanism towards specific development. Take land use as example. If we have it, we can apply the map not only in

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

Bangsamoro areas but in Mindanao in general. If we have mining in Tampakan, where will the waste and effluence go, where will the human settlements and infrastructure be â&#x20AC;&#x201C; biodiversity and forest areas will be reduced. What we are saying is that there should be proper land use of the area. When I came back from Japan in 1995, there was a bill in Congress on the national land use planning. Up to now, however, it is still on the level of discussion. There is always someone, whose name I will no longer mention, who blocks the passage of that bill. So what do we really need to do for the general development framework of Mindanao? First of all, we need information, we need data so we will know how to plan properly for the Bangsamoro areas. We have to have first the physical and social characteristics â&#x20AC;&#x201C; we should know where the natural resources are located and the nature of the people in the areas. We have to know the appropriate resources for development. Thirdly, we have to have the geographical patterns, to know where the watersheds and river basins are, so that there would be a plan which shall be appropriated for the Bangsamoro. I am still not sure what to call it â&#x20AC;&#x201C; authority, administrative, or what not. But how do we incorporate the Bangsamoro in our form of government? The fourth proposal is to have an inventory of the current planning exercises, and perhaps the Mindanao Development Authority, NEDA, DENR, and the others can help on this. And of course this should be supported by a proper database that is easily accessible and easily updated, and planning tools such as statistics, etc. There is also the need to come up with environmental policies or strategies that will support our planning exercises. Monitoring is also important for planning not to be useless. What else should we include in the environmental framework that defines our environment agenda? What is urgent is a policy framework that will ensure environmental and natural resources sustainability. The good thing with this is that the FPE has already identified which is good to duplicate for what can be applicable in the Bangsamoro areas. Why not recommend it to those who are framing the Bangsamoro framework if they are really serious in addressing peace and development? Some

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

people are saying that if there shall be peace and development in Mindanao, a lot of people will lose their jobs, which I hope is not true. Secondly, it is urgent to have safety net for social preparation and addressing moral hazards. I think you are more expert on this than I am. We need this even in transport planning, because without the support of the people, for instance, and we build an MRT or intermodal transport system, it is meaningless. Also, it should be complementing the development framework of the Bangsamoro. Thirdly, we need institutional mechanisms. If for example there will be a Bangsamoro community while the national government exists, how will they help each other? What if at the local level, there is a municipality that is 1/3 Bangsamoro and 2/3 remains with the local government. The Mayor cannot simply ignore the Bangsamoro. If that happens, there is imbalance, and if there is imbalance, there will be informal settlers. This is why they call Mindanao a conflict area. There was a big discussion with the Japanese consultants, because we were always going to Davao and Cotabato. I explained that conflict affected areas are not only Maguindanao or Jolo but also others such as Zamboanga, Davao and Cotabato. This is because if there are skirmishes, people from the conflict areas will go to relatively peaceful areas, thus called “conflict affected”. We have to include them in planning therefore. We must have the same approach here, where we have a mechanism that addresses all concerns in the environment agenda.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

CLIMATE CHANGE AND BIODIVERSITY

limate change and biodiversity are among the more pressing issues that confront our society for the 21st century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides the science of climate change and has come up with its 4th assessment report. If you want to be familiar with climate change, think about this graph. The uppermost graph is the global average surface temperature, which is increasing. The middle graph is the global average sea level, which is increasing as well, and the bottom graph is the Northern hemisphere snow cover, which is going down.

DR. JUAN PULHIN

Dean College of Forestry and Natural Resources University of the Philippines Los Ba単os

If temperature rises, sea level also rises, which is like water in a pot when heated. The water molecules expand. But the sea level rise in terms of thermal expansion is both the expansion of water molecules and melting of glaciers. Because of these, our climate changes too. The Philippines is surrounded by water and oceans where our typhoons are formed, thus we experience stronger typhoons recently.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

Science has developed rapidly, and even after 2007, the reference year of most of the key findings in my presentation, science has continued to develop. Recently, events have further reinforced what science is saying.

This is from the US government, which earlier refused to believe in the phenomenon of climate change. Yet, 10 out of 10 indicators of a warming climate are there already. The IPCC conclusion indicates that it is unequivocal. Seven of the indicators are high (temperatures, etc.) while three are going down (sea ice, etc.) All 10 out of 10 confirmed that completely there is a warming climate confronting us. These are some of the effects that we experience – floods, storms, droughts, and extreme temperatures. From 1980-2011, we may observe that incidence and intensity of these disasters have increased. We are also aware that among the continents, Asia is the most vulnerable region. In terms of incidence, Asia has the most number of hydro meteorological disasters. In terms of overall losses, other continents like North America, have big destructions but they are insured. In fact they get bigger insurance than the actual destruction. But in

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

the context of Asia, destruction is so huge, but out of 70%, only 44% is covered by insurance. In other countries such as Vietnam and Thailand, floods are more intense than before. Yet our record includes Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng in 2009, where agriculture alone lost Php20.4 billion, which beat the 2006 record. To summarize, if you think of climate change, remember temperature is increasing, sea level is also increasing, and precipitation or incidence of rain is changing depending on where you are in the Philippines or in the world. Climate change has sectoral impacts. In other places, these impacts can be more positive than negative. Yet, on the average, impacts are negative in the whole world â&#x20AC;&#x201C; this is why it is the greatest threat in the 21st century. Of course there are some limited places like in some parts of Canada, where an increase of 2 degrees in temperatures may make the area agricultural. But in most parts of the world like the Philippines, an increase in temperature will have negative impacts from health to agriculture, water resources, coastal area, and biodiversity. In the Philippnes, PAGASA had already established that there was an increase in temperature from 1951-2006 of 0.6Â°C, which may be considered minimal if we only think of the air conditioner being warmer. But think of its impact on agriculture, health, water, including biodiversity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it is tremendous.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

Data on ENSO or EL Niño and La Niña shows that both phenomena have also become more intense overtime. Science has established the intensity but not the frequency. I remember when I was a child, the strongest typhoons reached only signal Number 3. Then 80 kph or 130 kph already indicated a strong typhoon. But nowadays, strong typhoons are in the category of 180 kph and above, and we even have typhoon signal Number 4. It has also been established that in many parts of the country, especially in the cities, sea level has also risen. This is the projection, and we still have to learn a lot as far as science is concerned. But some of the available projections of PAGASA show that in all the regions we are anticipating an increase in the next 20-30

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

years of up to 2°C. In climate science, scientists have identified 2°C as the tipping point, beyond which, effects shall be adverse. This means that the Philippines can reach the tipping point so easily. In terms of rainfall on the other hand, these are some of the available projections. These are not carved in stones, but we are yet advancing in science. PAGASA’s initial analysis shows Mindanao still lacking in rainfall. So if the situation of drought is bad right now due to scarcity of water supply, it looks like it is going to be more intense in the future. So we anticipate that summer will be drier and rainy season will be wetter. That is our dilemma as far as water is concerned – we need the water during dry months when it is not available but we have excess water during the wet months when we do not need excess. Then the dams are even opened so they will not collapse. The story can be quite pessimistic, because they are saying that the worst is yet to come. It is a debate – is this climate change or simply an extreme weather event and we are yet anticipating the worst scenario. Based on our available models, and we are not prophets of doom, science tells us that that based on all available scenarios, the worst is yet to be expected as far as climate change is concerned. Let me just shift now to biodiversity and then link those two quickly. We already know these standard figures. We know that the Philippines is one of the world’s 17 megadiversity countries. But on a per unit basis, our rank is even higher. We are 2nd to Madagascar.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

The Philippines is one of the areas in the world with high biodiversity areas. Yet, it is also one of those with high extinction among vertebrates. So the country is a megadiversity area but also a hotspot. Again, only two countries fall in that category – Philippines and Madagascar. The Philippines is 3rd globally in terms of having a high number of threatened birds and 8th in terms of having high number of threatened mammals. The country has inadequate protection and high human-induced forest fragmentation. We also suffer also from severe coral bleaching. Now we link climate change and biodiversity. We say that the millennium ecosystem assessment states that climate change is the second greatest threat to biodiversity, in addition to human induced activity. Climate change is impacting on species through shifting habitat, changing life cycles, and the development of new physical traits. Climate change is reducing the survival ability of indigenous and local communities who are dependent on biodiversity resources. Some other examples include die-offs, extinctions, life cycles, and physiology. This is the central message that is being communicated by the IPCC 4th assessment report in relation to biodiversity. Accordingly, with an increase of 1.5-2.5°C, we can wipe out around 20-30% of what is there already in terms of biodiversity resources. If you increase that to 3.5°C then potentially you can wipe out 40-70% of species assessed.

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

Let us go back to the issue of tipping point, which the Philippines can easily reach by 2015. If we are talking about 1.5-2.5°C, then probably in the next 30 years or so if not much appropriate intervention is done, potentially there is a risk or threat that we loose around 20-30% of our biodiversity resources. Dry forest is more vulnerable in the country, although the positive thing is that the moist forests, with increased rainfall, may increase. The likely reduction of forest areas means that we can no longer provide employment and sustainable livelihood to our forest-dependent communities. Climate change is likely to reduce forested areas because of upward movement of lowland farmers. Occurrence of pests and diseases may alter the species composition, structure and functions of ecosystems. We are dealing with quite complicated model here, but the message we are saying in terms of responses to climate change is that there are two aspects of response: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation is to enhance what we call “carbon sink” like forests but at the same reducing emissions. Examples of mitigation are the introduction of energy-saving and reduction of emissions from transportation. Adaptation on the other hand is a real thing – climate is already changing and you have to minimize the impact immediately. Adaptation is reducing the adverse impact or using all possible opportunities to adapt. These two aspects are interlinked. There are direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss. Our approach is integrated and systemic at the global and national levels. We recognize the interconnectedness of problems and the solutions should be integrated as well. We cannot just focus on one sector or one element of the society or one approach, we should promote a more integrated approach. So that’s the key message.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

As far as adaptation is concerned in relation to biodiversity conservation, we may have an identification of ecosystems and species at risk and location of vulnerable ecosystems and species. Risk and vulnerability assessment is very important. This includes mapping the vulnerable areas and the location of threatened species. Secondly, we may also enhance the biodiversity management to reduce risk and vulnerability. Protection of the remaining forests is one, while rehabilitation of degraded forestlands is another. Under enhancing biodiversity management is improving harvesting technologies. So the rotten wood when released can also contribute to emissions. You can utilize it, convert it to a chair or table and lock the carbon there. The third potential adaptation strategy is mainstreaming climate change in biodiversity management. This means integrating the issue of climate in the management, protection, and conservation of biodiversity areas through policies and programs. Current policies need to be re-assessed and updated to focus more on how forest resources management may be improved. Our previous policies and laws may be integrated with climate change. The same with current and proposed programs, we also need to mainstream these into the development plans that integrate the aspect of climate change including monitoring. As I said, our science is still wanting. Yet if we have monitoring plots in different places in the Philippines, especially in high biodiversity areas, we may see through time the effects of the changing climate. There are many countries that do that, as shown in the USAID’s “Guidebook on mainstreaming climate change in biodiversity planning and management in the Philippines”. It is a simple guidebook but a quite useful one. In each chapter, it explains climate change and its impact on biodiversity and how it can be mainstreamed. This guidebook will be handy for us working on the ground or even working as policy-makers. Its last section is on the practical ways by which we can mainstream climate change in biodiversity conservation. The fourth potential adaptation strategy is securing sustainable financing mechanism. Payment for environmental services is a new concept emerging and can be potentially used to continue biodiversity conservation. The fifth strategy is to pursue multiple approaches including taking care of the livelihood of forest-dependent

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

or biodiversity-dependent people. It is also important to integrate sustainable livelihood to release the pressure on our biodiversity. To sum up, the IPCC report is telling us that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal. It has adverse impacts on both natural and human systems, including biodiversity. Some appropriate responses to climate change to promote biodiversity conservation include: promoting a more integrated approach in all aspects of governance, management policy, etc.; advancing the science and practice of climate change adaptation that mainstreams BCSD (The IPCC says that by promoting sustainable development you are also addressing climate change and by addressing climate change you are promoting sustainable development); securing sustainable financing; and ensuring sustainable livelihoods. Humans historically have always been left with two choices: one is to wait and see until catastrophes overtake us, and of course a more proactive approach is to be more aggressive and proactive by promoting social check and balance to correct systemic distortions. We view climate change and biodiversity loss as systemic failures. We are left with two choices and everyone has an important role to play as far as the second option is concerned. After all, the future of our children depends on how well we prepare and adapt to changing climate and biodiversity. And the issue or the time frame is now.

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

OPEN FORUM

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

CLIMATE CHANGE AND COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER REDUCTION MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE By Ma. Genesis Catindig, PhilDHRRA

WILLIAM GRANERT of Soil and Water Conservation Foundation Get rid of the word reforestation because it has a bad connotation in the Philippines due to the failure rate, which is about 20% for the last 30 years. You have intermixed reforestation with restoration. Use the word restoration because in your project, you are interested in the whole forest, not just planting trees. You said that the LGU has low recognition of your work with the forest. Is this because it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t understand what natural resources management is? One of the strategies could be giving them special trainings.

MS. CANTINDIG: PhilDHRRA is looking at a long-term program but for the first year, we are doing research and awareness-raising. The outputs of this first year will be used in identifying the succeeding initiatives. Actually it is rainforestation. It is indigenous seedlings, we have six species, depending on the availability in the barrio. This year, rainforest restoration is actually incorporating agroforesty, because we noticed in the past that survival rate was low. Also, the LGU of Arakan is resolved on conservation. Our problem has been opening the communication channels and building the partnership.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

SHANE VELASCO Bulacan: The speaker mentioned that the LGU is more interested in DRRMC rather than CCA. Do you think the LGU created provincial or municipal CCA? If not, then, they are not following Republic Act 8929, which is mandatory in the Climate Change Act.

MS. CATINDIG: On the localization of climate change adaptation framework or plan, we have the NCCAP that was formally approved last year. It is taking a while to localize it in the LGUs. There is a gap in efforts, as there are already provincial climate change councils but none at the local level, down to the barangay. Mayors are saying that there are a lot of new plans that have to be done.

Follow-up by SHANE VELASCO of Bulacan State University: As ordinary citizens, especially in the urban areas, we should be vigilant about this. The Climate Change Act has been in effect since 2009. No matter how nicely crafted our laws are, if they are not implemented at the local level, our aspirations will go to naught. We may include this in the five-year plan of FPE.

MYRNA OGOC of NCEP: My question is about the serendipitous model. Is it a computer-based model? Is this a survey- questionnaire model? What does PhilDHRRA use? If we are pilot-testing a model, we should have validation so we can duplicate it in other communities. How do we duplicate this? What are the technicalities of the tool and how do we inter-link it with the resource ecological assessment? We already have too many models. Even in our university, graduate students would device models. How practical is this model if used by the grassroots?

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

MS. CATINDIG: Serendipitous model is the category given by the World Resources Institute, which has three models of climate change adaptation and sustainable development initiatives that overlap. We have focused on the first level where efforts for sustainable development initiatives consciously address climate change adaptation and poverty alleviation. The tool is an FGD guide. There is a format of guide questions on how to facilitate the FGD in one community. As for the technicalities of the tool, we have a printed manual. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m sorry that I did not have much time to discuss the step-by-step use of the tool or the difficulties that may be encountered. But the manual contains the steps, definitions, etc. We hope to distribute the manual to the CSOs. As for the validation, after we did the pilot-testing last December, we had a workshop where the initial results were presented, attended by the partners who joined the pilot testing and other NGOs and local POs. We validated the correctness of the tool and the results. We shall publish the details in a manual and we may send it to you through our Visayas office.

CAPACITATING VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES TOWARDS NATURAL RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT By Ms. Marie dela Rosa, Institute of Social Order WILLIAM GRANERT of Soil and Water Conservation Foundation Get rid of the word reforestation because it has a bad connotation in the Philippines due to the failure rate, which is about 20% for the last 30 years. You have intermixed reforestation with restoration. Use the word restoration because in your project, you are interested in the whole forest, not just planting trees. You said that the LGU has low recognition of your work with the forest. Is this because it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t understand what natural resources

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

management is? One of the strategies could be giving them special trainings.

MS. DELA ROSA: The organization is engaging the youth. Some young people are also members of the local research team. We also invite them in IEC campaigns and they are also members of the farmers and fishers organization. In terms of participatory action research, we plan to transfer technology using QGIS in making maps. In the long-term we want to involve the youth in making their own maps, so that even if we will no longer be in the community, they can sustain the project. In terms of educating them, we have not yet discussed about it. In terms of relocating the community, we have not yet discussed with the NGOs; we will take note of this and consult the community about it. On mono-cropping, part of the project is to establish mangrove nurseries. From the area, the dominant specie is the Bakawan specie because of recent reforestation efforts, and also because there are centuries-old Bakawan trees in the area. But through the mangrove nurseries, we can address the low diversity of the mangrove specie in Jomalig by planting other mangrove species such as Pagatpat, which is the sturdy specie.

ARAKAN FOREST CORRIDOR & LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN By Hadassah Faith Carig, Philippine Eagle Foundation, Inc. DR. REYNALDO NAGUIT of Bulacan State University: On rainforestation in Arakan, what has been your approach in planting on 270 hectares of grassland? How did you mobilize the people? Was

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

the LGU part of this? The area is quite huge. In Bulacan, we planted in Biak na Bato on five hectares only and we found it already difficult to get volunteers. Based on our experience, people in the community would want to get paid, but we did not have the budget and we are volunteers too. I called for volunteerism among teachers and students, but it was also hard.

MS. CARIG: Our partners in Arakan are indigenous people whose income is below minimum wage. We have always advocated for people’s mobilization. The IP volunteers and partners volunteer their land for reforestation even if they could have used it for other purposes. Still we provide them with cash incentives for maintaining the reforestation area. It is like giving an incentive for ecological service. So it is a service that is provided by the indigenous people. It is not a big amount; it is just to compensate for the opportunities lost during the maintenance and during planting. Since the IPs have limited opportunities, we promote reforestation as a way to increase their income.

TRANSFORMING LIVES, CONSERVING NATURE: LESSONS FROM THE “KALDERO APPROACH” TO CONSERVATION By Aladino Moraca, Eco-Agri Foundation ELLEN GALLARES RAC Visayas: I was looking at the distilling machine and I think that it is very viable. But since you’re using this as livelihood, perhaps you should consider what is sufficient and what is enough, so that the quality of life of the target participants in the particular watershed area will be maintained. Do you also consider in your plan policy advocacy and caring capacity of this area?

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

MR. MORACA: We calculated the area to be developed and also to cover the capacity of the distiller to operate for farmers as an income source. Farmers are playing on an additional income ranging from Php4,000 to Php7,500 per month. As far as caring capacity is concerned, the approach is that the existing farms of lemon grass are on the boundaries of their farmlands. They did not alter their existing practices of planting rice and corn. Lemon grass per boiling can only be accommodated in 8-10 hectares if it is monocropping. But during the actual distribution, we reached up to 62 hectares because the lemon grass was planted sporadically in their farms. The issue is that the lemon grass might destroy the watershed if it’s already commercial farming. We don’t enter the watershed areas. We are trying to regulate the capacity that has to be introduced and planted, because the only controlling mechanism is the capacity of the distiller. If it distills more than its capacity, the lemon grass will not be cooked anymore. That’s our control mechanism.

Question (did not mention name): You don’t have plans of increasing the number of distillers in the area?

MR. MORACA: Maybe we can do it on the next clustered community. But in that area, that is enough.

ELLEN GALLARES: Do you have a policy for that particular watershed, as it is earning thus attracts migrants? Now you are probably talking about one community of 500 or 200 households, but if you have migrants who are businessminded, anything can happen because of the economic factor. If economic gains are not properly guided, as far as our beneficiaries and farmers are concerned, like putting their income to education, health, or in a particular financial or formal system, what are the economic

100

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

gains they will receive so that their income will not just go to Chinatown, cellphones, etc.?

MR. MORACA: So far people are happy that they have a credit line. If they boil lemon grass they can use the credit line for their rice needs. What will happen after 3-5 years? That is also the scene that we are trying to study. When we started the project, we studied it for seven years before we did it in the area. Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s see that will happen. But right now, the project has created a tangible effect on the ground. I am optimistic that people will realize to the end that forest is important. I have also come to realize that one who receives a salary to protect the watershed is not serious. The one living in the watershed is more serious, as his life is attached to it. Temporary intervention is critical, that is why we try to position ourselves.

ATTY. DAN VALENZUELA FPE permanent member: I would like to push on the point of Ellen. That is the point for consideration when we evaluated the project, which was passed on to the executive office for approval. Although you mentioned a little bit about the army, I would like to know if it figures in the sustainability aspect. Have you tried to look into that factor in so far as the sustainability of the program is concerned?

MR. MORACA: It also takes a long process before we can perfect it. As far as sustainability is concerned, the point is if we buy the oil, they have cash with which to buy food. Then it becomes easy for our team to conduct patrol operations because they have money for food. Until now we have not turned over the factory to them. We are anticipating that if we turn over the factory, they will fight with each

101

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

other. We can only assure them that if they use the factory, and we have oil, they have assured market. We have a policy on the limit of what each member can cook because we want the wealth to be distributed equally. On sustainability, we do not know what will happen in 5-10 years, but our commitment is that when destruction happens, we will not stop advocating best options to protect the remaining forest.

JOSEFA PIZON, Rural Development Institute-Leyte, Inc. As a woman, I am looking for the gains of women, which may be simply lacking in the presentation. I am happy that women are recognized as peacekeepers. Do we have documentation to prove that there are changing roles and improved relationships among women in the community. Gender issues usually come in if there is a livelihood project. In the countryside, women play a big part on watershed protection as our life also depends on it. I want to see the gains of women from projects like this.

MR. MORACA: Women are part of the foot patrol operations. We have an experience where one of the bantay-gubat was killed, and we realized that women are the best negotiators. Meanwhile, women, men and children have harmonious relationships.

CARLITO DOMULOT of Zambales/RAC-Luzon: On the machinery for making oil, up to what extent should people have control over the machinery?

MR. MORACA: On the question on the extent that people have control in the factories, they have total control. We set up the factory; it is up to them to manage as long as the output is oil. If they would return the factory because it is depreciated, we will receive it.

102

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

RIGORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT By Robert Chan, Palawan NGO Network, Inc.

MARILOU ELAGO Dean of College of Science and Math, Zamboanga City: My attention was focused on the second presentation. I was curious because in our area, we have a barangay captain who is on one side of the fence while some councilors are on the other side. The one that you did was quite dangerous in all aspects. If you are in the same neighborhood, you know the people and you know the hazards, what would be the strategies? I come from Zamboanga and I’m an academician. When I saw the video I had goose bumps, and said, how will we do that? That’s very dangerous. So what are some of the highlights and challenges that you can share to us?

ATTY. CHAN: As I said this whole thing is really new to me. When I graduated from law school I was always of the idea that I would be saving the environment from the courtroom and I found myself either in the high seas or in the forests. But I think what will work for you is that you know the answer. You are just afraid to sit down and think about it. When we started this thing, I started on environmental education to teach communities on how to save the environment and to manage their resources. But it’s hypocritical for you to start teaching when you hear blast fishing and chainsaws on the side. I decided to stop these things and planned how to do it. The problem with us is that we have been fed with First World solutions to a Third World problem. You’re looking at research and workshops but nobody is looking at stopping these things first before you get to study. That’s why I pitched in this project – nobody wanted to put money into enforcement. People actually thought it was dangerous and foolhardy. They said that it is something that the government should be doing, not us, and that they can’t do it. But if you look at the video, none of them bore any firearms. They were not supported by the PNP and did not have the DENR with them, but they did it!

103

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

It takes a lot of thinking and planning. But there are different situations for different areas. If you have NPAs in your area, if there are different adversities, you have to sit down and think of them and plan how to solve them. The only one who will solve this is you.

DR. GRACE REBOLLOS FPE BOT: I would like to refer to a big company engaged in logging. It has a wide compound with hectares of logs and a factory for processing the logs. It is obscene. The DENR gave this company an IFMA. So if we talk about the local government, down to the barangay level, the supposed stewards of the environment are the ones giving permits to companies that extract our forest products. The company is even covering the logs when we go inside the compound. But it also has a military detachment inside its compound. It’s not just an uphill climb but a futile climb to work on enforcement.

ATTY. CHAN: In 1991, I was in second year college of law. The Jesuits threw me to Palawan. We had this Ateneo Human Rights Program and they sent us to different fields. I wanted to go into labor law, but they put me in the environmental sector. I was a young intern and I started work on one of the biggest logging firms. I was not an investigator; I was just plain Bobby Chan. I saw things and said they were not right. What can we do to change these? I think the problem with us is that we are already in step 5. We don’t really take time to deal with steps 1 to 4. You look at my presentation. You see 400 chainsaws that I’ve made into a Christmas tree. Each chainsaw was difficult. But this is what you have to deal with. It’s a lot of planning and it’s a lot of self-denial and it’s a lot of sacrifice. Whether it’s a small or large logging corporation. It you set your sights on closing it down and stopping the violation, never mind if you do not get the result as long as you are doing something.

104

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

DR. GRACE REBOLLOS: There is an intimidation process going on. You hear stories on how these people are going to donate wooden chairs to certain elementary schools, which makes the principals and the LGUs happy, or how they are able to put the bishop in their helicopters so that they are able to ship him off to some place in the Visayas to spend his birthday. What I’m saying is they know how to connect and these are the people who are supposed to help you. I do not want to play hero but I would like to express that it’s not just somebody like Bobby Chan but there are people in the frontlines.

ATTY. CHAN: Thank you and I agree. It should not just be one man. It should not even be just one NGO. I’m sorry if we made the conclusion that this is something that we are great in doing at. We would not have done it if it were not for our communities. We’ve had many deaths, and sometimes we just want to do it by ourselves. But we want communities to be involved even at the risk of putting them in danger. It is a risk we want to assume. You do it because you feel it has to be done. You do it with communities not because you want to risk their life too but because they have a stake.

DR. NAGUIT Bulacan State University: Based on our experience, we have realized that it is not enough to preserve biodiversity. People have to get involved. That is why we plant in the forests and coastal areas. Still, we have realized that there are many laws on the environment that we only need to implement them. But the government and the LGUs are not acting on the environment – they give permits for mining for instance. What we do, in Biak na Bato for instance where mining is happening on one side while we are planting on the other side, we mobilize people and hold rallies in front of the trucks carrying the mined marble and stop them from going further. We also rallied the DENR Secretary by writing a petition to Malacanang.

105

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

We made noise and people joined us. We were able to stop mining in Biak na Bato. If we will just conduct researches and implement the results to regenerate the environment while laws are not being implemented, our efforts will go to naught. Even the government allows exploitative entities to put our efforts to waste. I do not know if FPE has such struggles, but there are people and associations with the same advocacies.

PROF. AGERICO DE VILLA of PESAN/RAC-NCR: Is it correct that when we teach our students to fight, we ask them first to walk the ground? Which is exactly what the Jesuit priests have been telling us all along. Before we go anywhere as professionals, go down the ground first, establishing partnership with everyone and more importantly, discovering the treasure of our land. You discover biodiversity and add value to the land, and because you add value to the land, you fight for it! Nobody will even have to tell you, you die for it! You will fight for it because you have seen the treasures of the land, and that is the basic philosophy of the Foundation for the Philippine Environment.

CARLITO DOMULOT of Zambales: For Atty. Bobby Chan, he might get disbarred because of the video. This is the reason why we are not progressing – we cannot even defend the law. I am also wary because my son is taking up law – he might also sell me out. You know, whoever the President is and whoever sits in the DENR, he is influenced by foreigners. Even before he becomes President, he is already indebted to the big shots since he has been given the chance to use the elections. The country thus is not developing when it comes to the environment, since the law is not being implemented. For us as organizers and to you as NGOs, we are diligent because we have funds, we must utilize that. We are your partners in environmental development.

106

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

ATTY. CHAN: I went to law school. I read a lot of things and got disillusioned because nobody was doing them. For example, citizen’s arrest. Something happens in front of you. You know it is illegal, but will you stop it? Can you stop it? The answer is yes. Why aren’t we using it? When I got out of law school, I saw someone using the chainsaw, will I stop and ask if it has participatory approach or sustainability? You will not ask those questions that you’ve received so much consultancy work on. The thing is when that tree falls, the thing you have to do is say wait, stop! Unless you stop it, everything that you read will only come after. So I hope you implement it in your area. All I know is if that’s wrong, the first thing is you say, that’s wrong, stop it!

VICENTE ARREZA of Lanuza Bay Development Alliance: In one Manobo area, the Manobos asserted their rights, closed the access road to the mining site, and for more than a month mining operations were stopped. The lawyers of the mining company along with the military and police went to the Manobos and told them that they did not have the right to do what they did. The problem is that the employees of the mining company are also being accompanied by other Manobos. They are divided – others demand the source of livelihood while the leaders urge the members of the tribe to look at the bigger picture such as the effects of mining on the population. We want to address this problem. Now through networking, we know some people abroad who send sacks of rice, food, etc. I hope we can still suggest some solutions.

Question (did not mention name): Maybe even if we give people livelihood, they will still be poor. What we often miss is the body formation of the people. Secondly, I want to ask Atty. Chan if they can create a group with the specific advocacy to implement the law on environmental protection.

107

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

ATTY. CHAN: I will wager the point that when it comes to resources, it is not an economic activity for the violators. I will wager the fact that if you really sit down and reflect on it, it is not an economic activity because even if you put down all the livelihood activities in that community, you will find more of the general rule rather than the exception that the violators will log or fish because it is a cultural activity for them. The way to answer that cultural activity is to match it with another cultural activity, and I’ve always found it best that we are deeply religious people. Right now we are mobilizing the Church on trying to make enforcement work as part of its services. It is a deeply cultural thing for the violators, and we can only counter it with a deeply cultural thing, which is religion.

BERNARDO LIMIKID of Limpong/RAC-Mindanao: I wanted to ask this to the DENR Undersecretary. If you would do what Atty. Chan presented earlier, i.e. reprimanding loggers, in Compostela Valley, your days would be numbered. Logging there does not get our of the territory of the sellers, since illegal mining is already happening there, which needs timber to be used for tunnels. Miners can influence the politicians and are above the law. What should the IP do? Sometimes we just think of not relying on the laws and the LGU. We are thinking of doing it on our own and taking matters into our hands to protect our territory.

ATTY. CHAN: The best thing to do is for you to start it. Each area has its own situation, and the answer is not something you will get from me. The situation of Palawan is different from your situation. Maybe the struggles in your area are more intensive. If you will bring me there, for a month, I might be able to study the situation and will have an answer for you. But why bring me there when you are there. You said your days might be numbered, which means that your enemies are stronger, so look for your allies. Who are your allies? Your fellow IP. How do we show that we are strong? Let us show our strength and our bravery. If you sit on it, you will not find the answer at once.

108

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY CONSERVED AREAS By Dave de Vera, PAFID

Question (did not mention name): There are changes in the way of living of the indigenous people. Is it possible to measure impact by looking at resources in the downstream? Is it possible to use the new technologies like GIS?

MR. DE VERA: The problem in Philippine environment concerns in terms of the indigenous people is the mainstream thought that traditional governance has something to do with the condition of the natural resources. For instance, MWSS is negotiating with the biggest ancestral domain in the country. The indigenous people are asking for concrete evidence that the flow of the water going to the reservoir of the MWSS has something to do with the way of living of the IP. There is strong resistance by people not accepting traditional governance. We can measure water by cubic meter, but how can you measure the nurturing made by the community? The way of living of the community affects the quality of water. People are starting to understand the reality of traditional management. In the case of using GIS, always put it side by side the community base mapping. Technology is too disenfranchising and alienating that communities will only do two things: will not join you and will not believe you and will not have ownership of your knowledge output. Mapping can be done even without GIS.

Question (did not mention name): When can we see the research output where there is emphasis on the traditional beliefs in nature?

109

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

MR. DE VERA: There are many researchers that are avoiding that kind of field, but the United Nation’s CBD has released a global biodiversity output stating that “It is not the national parks and protected areas that prevented the destruction of the earth, it is the tribes who prevented it by guarding their ancestral domain.”

MONITORING CONSERVATION IMPACT By Dr. Aldrin Mallari, FFI

PROF. AGERICO DE VILLA: I agree with Dr. Mallari. We have our own language. I also agree with Dr. de Vera. It is clear to the IP what their wealth is. Are these lessons read by the youth? Does the World Bank’s policy still hold true? During Cory Aquino’s time, the World Bank sought ‘universal environment’. FPE’s output is clear – times are changing, more and more things have to be done, and we are dwindling. Let us change the paradigm in a way that we shall include two target conservation – livelihood and sustainability. Involve the youth; introduce their environment, so that they will treasure it. Question (did not mention name): Maybe we can have an input especially in terms of protected areas management.

DR. MALLARI: A business plan is stating what you want to achieve in one particular area. You are setting a target. Many protected areas are very generic: protect, conserve and enhance biodiversity but none of them is stating a concrete plan. A good management plan has a time frame, identifies

110

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

the stakes, pressure and response. The challenge to FPE with its RAC partners is to complete the project cycle. Project success is a consideration.

Question (did not mention name): Facing climate change, the ideal protected areas will be obsolete eventually because the home ranges of the plants and animals will change. What do you foresee in the future to preserve biodiversity?

DR. MALLARI: Most of our forests have people living within. We are not losing sight of natives, native ecosystems and native species. The mental construct of protected areas today is based on fines and fences. The new paradigm should be looking at the fact that we have production areas surrounded by protected areas or community conservation areas rather than a protected area being in the middle of sea of people.

NATIONAL SITUATIONER: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE By Hon. Chairperson Brigida Zenaida Pawid, NCIP BERNARDO LIMIKID: One, you said earlier that the IP are difficult to find and there are those who are easy to find but are not reached by social services and prioritized by the LGU. Second, we requested for a research with the FPE in our territory, but the NCIP in the province said that we had to go through the FPIC process. We were trying to rush that research in order

111

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

to create an ordinance to install IP representatives in the municipalities. Maybe we should not be going through the FPIC process anymore. Third, why did the NCIP defend the CADT registration?

HON. PAWID: CADT registration does not have a budget. The LRA does not want to register because it wants to remove all property titles inside its jurisdiction. We have the JAO at the moment, which was joined by the DENR, NCIP, DAR and LRA in the last meeting. “The registration of any tittle unless impugned is superior to any administrative function,” Secretary De Lima said. There should be a memo stating that there shall no longer be a choice whether or not CADT should be registered. It is an issue of funds but a policy that should be pushed. On the FPIC, we are asking FPE to have a MOA with the NCIP. We are holding on to the FPIC process on the large-scale extractive industries. But for FPE’s projects, FPIC is also needed but it does not have to be tedious and expensive. FPE will pay for the FPIC, but not like what is being done with mining. We have similar objectives. We recommend the FPE to bring the projects to the NCIP so we will know which of the projects are beneficial to the IP. We are thankful to Commissioner Sarmiento for 100% registration of the IPs as voters. The DSWD and NCIP agreed on the May 29 and 30 planning how to launch census in seven pilot areas inside ancestral domain. If successful, we shall replicate this in all 184 ancestral domains. By that time, we would have 70-100% census among voters. In your areas with IP, please give us data. We are requesting the FPE to talk with us on the modified FPIC.

AGUSTIN DOCENA of Samar Island, ESSDO: Do you support the National Land Use Act? If so, do you know that the NCIP shall be affected?

112

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

HON. PAWID: The problem with the Philippines is that it does not have a land use plan. We support the passage of a law that shall be followed by all departments. The government is having difficulty in passing the land code, because each department has vested interests. We badly need the land code, and we are supportive. Ancestral domains are not the only ones to be affected but several other types of lands.

Question (did not mention name): We have a similar experience. We in Bukidnon cannot ask for help from the NCIP if we do not have Php800 per person. Our local NCIP is taking almost 10 years in facilitating us. It was a good thing that we had a budget last year. But the NCIP provincial office still does not want to endorse our request, even if they were there during the formulation. The other thing is about our CADT. We still do not have it. Two geodetic engineers from the regional NCIP office already said that it is okay to have private farmland included in the ancestral land, but that is the reason now why our CADT cannot be registered.

HON. PAWID: CADT recognizes the ancestral land as you have identified and defined. We fight for our ancestral domain; it is not just on paper. Regarding registration, it is more complicated at the lower level. Let us help each other. I hope we can incorporate what we have shared into an action plan.

INOCENCIO MAGALLANES of Haribon-Palawan: We are from Haribon Palawan. We work with IP. Based on our experience, the policies of the NCIP just come down to us, although you said that these are already being discussed in JAO. When it comes to sustainable development, we need to have the participation of all

113

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

stakeholders. But we see in Palawan that the LGU is not involved. If JAO would be holistic, why not include the mainstreaming of the NCIP and its policies and see the LGU participate. Is it because there is no order or policy from the national government?

HON. PAWID: The LGU has a mind of its own. Not even the President can command the LGU. Some LGUs use their funds to survey CADTs. In March, the LGUs and the NCIP had a meeting, along with the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), which identifies the ancestral domain. The problem in Palawan is that it has too many laws that are not harmonized, and the PCSD is one example.

DR. OLIVER GIMENEZ of CERD: What should the Commission do to account the IP in the Philippines? Regarding the Bangsamoro and the framework of the MILF, does it include the Lumads and the Christians? There are 184 ancestral domains in the claims book. We will try to get statistics region by region this year until December. The attempt of the DSWD is bigger in order to expand the coverage of statistics and the COMELEC. Bangsamoro is a political entity. It is an area, a people, and governance. The Muslims and non-Muslims cannot be distinguished anymore because of the Bangsamoro.

ANNE FUERTES of IDIS: Don’t you think it’s high time to change the current procedural manual that the DENR follows, which is the DAO 36 of 2003? It is a step backward to the previous DAO 96-37. In the previous DAO, participation

114

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

was ensured. We think this is the reason for the proliferation of destructive projects like mining. They removed â&#x20AC;&#x153;mandatoryâ&#x20AC;?. What about the environmentally sensitive projects? Then, the bias for investment is obvious. The DENR is given 30-100 days to approve, and if the period lapses, it is considered automatic approval. Given the limited number of people in the DENR, it may lack in analysis. We conducted a legal research through FPE support to come up with an alternative administrative order. We need your support on this.

HON. PAWID: Tampakan had an ECC but was rejected by SMI. Regarding FPIC, we are having a hard time. Even the community does not have the capability to answer to the DENR, which in turn does not have the capability to tell the truth. You know what is in there, what insect disappeared, how the climate has changed, etc. After typhoon Sendong, we looked at the beneficiaries of the relief operation of the DSWD. We were wondering where the IP were. No IP died in that disaster, because apparently they saw that the wind velocity was different so they went up the mountains. You have more knowledge about climate change. The DENR does not know anything, not even about ancestral domains. Many of the information is in your hands. Do not look to government. Participate in governance.

DR. GRACE REBOLLOS: I have two questions: Is there a formal official space for community for civil society? Are there concrete steps to protect the rights of the Manobo who are being displaced?

HON. PAWID: The MICC is an inter-cabinet cluster. It is not a law-making body. What is responsible mining and what is equitable and fair share of the Philippines? We will talk about that on June 3. Go to the government offices, get involved.

115

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

MARIA BENITA CLAMENTE: We are from the Zamboanga Peninsula. What should we do to be heard? An NCIP officer is sitting in Misamis Occidental who is not a Lumad but was assigned by the former governor who ran for Congress. There are many complaints that have been validated that the NCIP officer has allowed projects in ancestral domain and protected area, now called the Asian Heritage Mountain, and a buffer zone was passed by the former governor. Can you help install a Subanen or an IP who can understand the culture of the Subanen?

HON. PAWID: I learned of the Subanen Federation in Sulu. The Commission will be finished soon, then new appointments will take a while. That is bureaucracy. We must all focus on self-empowerment. Whatever happened to the Subanen Federation? That is my answer.

STATE OF MINING IN THE PHILIPPINES: THE CASE OF PHILEX MINE TAILINGS By Joyce Palacol, CBCP-NASSA BERNARDO LIMIKID: Why is it that before, the priests’ advocacy on various issues was clear and strong. Now, particularly in our diocese of Tagum, their advocacy is no longer that strong. For instance, in mining, the priests are not mentioning the real score, like the killings that are happening.

MR. PALACOL: Admittedly, our office had a slow process regarding that diocese and failed to give immediate action. In our Church, we have the social

116

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

action centers, and we at the NASSA serve the social actions. In the case of Tagum, the delay was from the ground or local. We at NASSA took action. The CBCP issued a statement without the approval of the local. We at the national secretariat also issued a statement on aerial spraying on the banana plantation, also in Tagum. When it comes to the mining issue, we consistently rely on what the Bible says, even if we had glitches on the local level. Repeal the Mining Act of 1995 and support the Alternative Minerals Management law. We also consistently sit in Congress.

BERNARDO LIMIKID: What I am wondering about is that the banana plantation has huge donations to the diocese, so the diocese is tied not to say the reality.

MR. PALACOL: I am not familiar with what you are talking about.

AGUSTIN DOCENA: You mentioned that the Php1.3 billion shall be used for rehabilitation, but isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t there a rehabilitation plan where certain percentage of Philex should go?

MR. PALACOL: Regarding the Php1.3 billion. Based on the implementing rules of the Water Act, 50 mil per liter is allowed. Based on the study of the MGB, Philex Corp. released beyond 50 mil per liter, reaching 4,000 plus and even increased overtime. For the rehabilitation issue, we may also invoke the IRR of the Mining Act of 1995. If the Senate would allow us to use the rehabilitation, it would be beneficial because Php1.7 billion would be huge for testing and sampling sites. We bank on what the law provides, but we still have a weak regulatory system.

117

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

INOCENCIO MAGALLANES: On the monitoring team of the Php 1.3 B rehabilitation plan. Is the agreement on rehabilitation? Is this part of social responsibility or is it a corporate violation?

MR. PALACOL: Our call is to treat the Php1.03 billion as fine for going over the allowable 50 mil liter. We are not saying that it should be for rehabilitation or part of corporate responsibility. For instance, you accidentally wrecked your house, the amount will not be used for your wrecked house – that would be self-serving. There should be a separate amount for rehabilitation. The Php1.7 billion with the DENR was given by Philex, but what is that for? We also foresee that they will even gain from insurance.

INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA IN THE PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BANGSAMORO AREAS IN MINDANAO By Dr. Hussein Sinsuat Lidasan, UP-SURP DR. OLIVER GIMENEZ: Regarding the Bangsamoro and the framework of the MILF, does it include the Lumads and the Christians?

DR. LIDASAN: Regarding Ma’am Pawid’s comment a while ago, we just provide the information while the government implements. One problem is even if there is information, if the decision-maker does not understand it, it is useless. Capacity building is important, especially among politicians.

118

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

Regarding the Bangsamoro, the MILF uses a holistic plan that includes the Lumad, Manobo, settlers from other islands and areas. We should understand that the Transition Commission is not just for the Moros. Planning is not just for a particular people, but for all. What if your frameworks fail? We will go back to the mountains. The elders want peace, but we must all be reminded what we have to do.

DR. GRACE REBOLLOS: I want to know the extent of your involvement in development planning. We are looking at two existing platforms: peace talks and the Framework Agreement signed in October. There are four annexes, one of which is the Transition Commission that is now in place to help in the crafting of the law. The three other annexes are power sharing, wealth sharing, and normalization which is the demobilization and disarmament. What we would like to see is the extent of involvement of people like you, so that we are able to draft appropriate configuration of a peaceful Mindanao.

DR. LIDASAN: My personal involvement is on advocacy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; to let people know what is really happening. My purpose is to provide information for people to know which to focus on. Even in our researches and studies, I always try to include Mindanao in government agencies. Regarding statistics, the government has census every five years, which includes the question on which ethnicity you belong to. Regarding planning, it should include economic and environmental sustainability as well as socio-political and other aspects.

119

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

CLIMATE CHANGE AND BIODIVERSITY By Dr. Juan Pulhin, UPLB-CFNR AGUSTIN DOCENA: You mentioned that we need sustainable financing mechanism, how can you claim social justice with it?

DR. PULHIN: Climate justice is a wide issue. If anybody should pay, it should be the culprit. I have discussed payment for environmental services but I mean only within the local area. You are right about injustice that results in climate change must be explored. The challenge however is that negotiations are happening at high level, in the conference of parties. Although it is important, we are unsure about the sustainability of that financing. Right now, the focus is on reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation, where the culprits are giving corresponding although insufficient amounts not to pay but as contribution for their emissions. We really have to explore that payment.

ZURAIDA ANAYATIN: Have you studied how much carbon can be absorbed or sequestered by one fully grown mangrove tree? Secondly, on Bangsamoro, Christians are Bangsamoro of course. My only basis is respect for one another. We are children of God, thus we really have to talk about peace.

DR. PULHIN: Mangrove is really important in terms of carbon sequestration. Each species is different. We have a study that we can share, which shows that different species have different carbon content.

120

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

DR. JONATHAN ANTICAMARA: I noticed that biodiversity conservation did not really emerge from the discussion. How do we ensure that the term biodiversity will not disappear? How do you ensure your role in these areas?

DR. PULHIN: It will take actually a century for a new process of denudation to happen. Certainly, it will take a lot of effort. The key word is ‘integrated’, and it is our collective responsibility. There will be a detailed workshop on actions to address and flesh that out. I can understand that we are unveiling the issues right now. There are always challenges that call for us to support our strategic action. The history of human beings is the history of adaptation; it’s a history of resilience. There is an unknown future but if we put our act together, the situation is not hopeless. I still believe in our collective wisdom and effort is very much needed. We can argue but at the end of the day, we move together forward. My advocacy is to educate the youth values and attitudes. Biodiversity is talking about future and younger generation and those who will be coming after them. We are seeing a certain transformative effort that is taking place, and I hope that this afternoon, we will be more concrete in terms of bringing out what it is to be done to bring back the issue of biodiversity and sustainable development.

121

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

REVISITING THE FPE AND PARTNERS’ REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA

122

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SITUATIONER: REVISITING THE CIVIL SOCIETY’S NATIONAL AND REGIONAL AGENDA

llow me to review the chronology and the evolution of the regional ecosystem agenda of FPE and partners, then later environmental agenda as well as the NEA or the National Environmental Agenda.

ARMANDO PACUDAN

FPE Regional Manager for Mindanao

Context of National and Regional Environmental Agenda

The first wave of crafting of the REA was in 1999 by the Regional Advisory Committees and the project partners of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao through the National Stakeholders’ Meeting and the series of workshops. The national gathering was held in Pampanga at that time. Aura dela Paz was the chairperson. In 2000, regionalization of FPE took place by implementing the so-called Area Based Strategy or ABS. The mechanism to help implement the REA was through the adoption of ABS, while on the other hand ABS was hoped to provide support to the implementation of REAs in Luzon, Visayas

123

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

and Mindanao. At that time, a Php3 million budget was allocated to operationalize REAs in 3 regions. It was earmarked to support REAs in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao in terms of activities. The REAs in 1999 were placed against community-based resource management (CBRM), FPE’s central strategy in focused intervention, which was adopted at that time. We were looking at how the regional agenda could be applied in furthering or strengthening the regional agendas of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. Luzon focused on the REA in two issues, namely sustainable agriculture and institutionalization of strong advocacy program. Visayas also did two-point agendas watershed and river basin management and sustainable integrated area development or SIAD. Mindanao crafted a more expanded 7-point agenda. One is to support IP, second is to review national and local legislations namely RA 7942, which is the Philippine Mining Act. We are proposing an alternative mining bill. Specific to Mindanao, Dinagat Island was declared a mineral reserve in 1939 by Presidential Decree (PD) 391 and as a mangrove or swamp forest reserve by PD 21. So there is immediately a conflict in the land use declarations. When we entered Dinagat Island, it was a love-hate relationship with biodiversity conservation. The partner had a

124

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

hard time to move BCSD forward vis-Ă -vis the island being declared as a mineral reserve. The decree had to be repealed. Third on Mindanao, we also had to review intellectual property rights or IPR, protected areas, indigenous knowledge systems and practices or IKSP, and the establishment of complete Mindanao Resource Center. Databanking and the development of IEC further improved awarenessraising and implementation of BCSD. The fourth agenda was the adoption of biodiversity corridor system as a major strategy in biodiversity conservation. At that time, Mindanao was a pilot in response to that agenda, which was materialized through the Arakan Forest Corridor. Fifth, some advocates in the regional level would have wanted for FPE to be replicated by establishing an endowment fund for protected areas in Mindanao. The proponents are here, Mr. Magdulot and Mr. Tosh Daulog. Some partners recognized the importance of setting up small endowment funds for protected area management and CBRM at that time. There were attempts to further it, but the approval of the localized endowment fund did not push through. Sixth agenda was to review and add additional FPE biodiversity sites. We proposed to add more sites to the three regional sites. I think it happened in other parts of the country, where the initial 10 sites increased, some were replicated while others were graduated. Lastly for Mindanao, we were also thinking of doing Biodiversity Fairs. A few of them took off the ground. There were initial stages of implementation but were not sustained. There was only one full year of implementation. After that it had to be assessed and evaluated. There was an in-house evaluation conducted, and one glaring result was that there were no concrete outcomes and indicators of what was supposed to happen and no clear list of other programmatic activities. Except for what had been earmarked, there was no longer a succeeding budget allocated by the board of FPE. Also, it was not clear how to operationalize these and integrate these with regional plans and unit activities.

125

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

We thus came up with recommendations. There is the need to review the agenda to assess its alignment with the new strategy plan of FPE. It has to be anchored with the REA and the strategy plan to harmonize these. Second, there’s the need to define and prioritize the agenda that is responsive to the new FPE strategic plan. Third, there is the need to formulate an annual doable action agenda of the regular RAC meetings in order to see what is doable annually in relation to the crafted respective REAs. Then in addition there is a need to design programmatic and appropriate implementation mechanism for REA. While the regional units were expected to take on, through their drafts and through the approval of projects, it was still not clear how to break down the day-to-day activities of the operations group. Fourth, there’s a need to improve identification of success indicators of REA for better measurement of accomplishments and to come up with clear monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. We have REA, but how do we implement it, what should be mechanism for doing monitoringevaluation, and how much is the budget. These were the related elements we had to link together and improve. Fifth, we recommended to come up with clear support mechanism from the regional units in REA implementation and to expand it beyond FPE priority sites to improve regional presence. We usually anchor it in the focus site, but we have to go beyond because there are initiatives that are also responding to the respective REAs of RACs in the regional units. Lastly, we recommended to provide more focus on areas of funding. REA may be used by the regional units in approving action or grant proposals. We also need to look into this to focus FPE funding. Are the objectives within the REA or NEA? What is the use of supporting a particular initiative or activity if it is not harmonized with FPE.

126

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

As a result, we had second wave to enhance the NEA and the REA. The take-off was the strategic planning in 2003-2004, as recommended. In 2006-2007, there were series of regional RAC meetings and regional consultative group (RGC) meetings to validate and identify new priority issues and find a national common ground for action. It resulted in the National Environmental Agenda. From the regional level to the national level, we identified 30 major issues across the regions, and from the 30, we shortlisted top 10 priority issues for funding. The top 10 issues are: environmental education, governance, IKSP, land-use, mining, logging, renewable energy and climate change, unsustainable agricultural practices, unsustainable fisheries, and watershed management. We also identified FPEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s top 3 priorities, namely mining, logging, and climate change. In 2011, we had REA enhancement through RAC meetings, where we put indicators, key activities, outcomes, and timeframe. We had action planning in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao RAC to thresh out their REAs beyond just the listing of issues, so we would know where to go, what results to expect, what key activities to do to achieve the outcome, and what timeframe as well as the budget. In 2012, through the RAC, Board and expert advisory pools (EAPs), a presentation of the three enhanced REAs took place. We conducted a workshop in Sulu Hotel where details were presented to provide policy direction in the implementation of REAs in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. We will go back to this later especially to clarify indicators to look at the outcomes that we have achieved. So with the specific regional agenda, Luzon has 10, Visayas has 8, and Mindanao has 8. Cross-cutting issues are mining, sustainable practices, climate change, and renewable energy.

127

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

Environmental education for some is considered strategy, but for the Visayas, they want to highlight this as an important continuing process. One nuance in Mindanao is peace and development, because without development there is no peace, and vice versa. Further, integration of population health and environment was added in Mindanao REA. They are seen as interlinked issues. In moving forward, there is a need to review the set parameters: outcomes, measurements of success and action plans. Secondly, we have to provide clean mechanism for REA implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Yesterday, Dr. Mallari presented clear conservation outcomes and mechanism to connect these to the REAs. Everything falls in the right place and the right time. We have to review the board and its operations as well as the relation of impacts and outcomes in the supported project. There are many stories to tell, but we have to narrow down in terms of number, quantity and quality. We have to go back to baselines. Third in moving forward, we have to provide further earmarked budget for regional REA implementation. We want to do so many things while the budget is good for Php1 million each. Go back to the mechanism that should be budgeted in order to support effective implementation of REA. Otherwise it will just remain on paper. Finally, we also see the need to involve RACs, EAPs, and the project partners at the regional level. We have to join hands and link arms in helping each other ensure effective implementation of REA at the regional as well as the national level.

128

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

WORKSHOP OUTPUTS The workshop aimed to revisit and update the regional environmental agenda of FPE and civil society partners in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. As such, the RACs worked on their respective agenda to discuss and agree on the immediate next steps in responding to priority environmental concerns.

A. Output 1: RAC Luzon REA Action Plan from 2014-2018 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

ACTIONS Mining Support refilling of the Alternative Mining Bill -Support

STRATEGY - Education, Advocacy, Mobilization

INDICATORS - Passage of Alternative Mineral Bill

â&#x2C6;&#x2019; Extractive industries

Monitoring and - Research, Education, documentation of violations Advocacy, Mobilization a. policy regime in of current mining law mining b. logging Support local initiatives c. ECC/EIA against mining - Documentation, Processes/FPIC Advocacy, Education, Mobilization, Direct Support biodiversity lobbying inventory in mining areas Research/Endefense ECC/EIA/FPIC - support IP Ancestral Domain principles based on customary laws Documentation of areas with existing tenurial instruments Research on actual forest cover

Number of violations documented and number of mining permits revoked Increasing local-CSO led initiatives against mining

Documented experiences and practices on customary laws to assert ancestral domain Documented reports

Research reports

129

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

ACTIONS

STRATEGY

Support enactment of Forest Resources Bill

Passage of Bill

Strengthen monitoring of forest resources and capacity building for parataxonomy - Support the passage - lobbying, 2. Land Use National Land Use Plan a. ancestral domain Bill

. non-ancestral domain b/1/ farming agricultural area

b.2. coastal resource management

b.3. waste issues

INDICATORS

Review of IPRA Law Support and closely monitor Research Organic Agriculture Act implementation Promotion of sustainable farming practices Capacity Building Assessment of marine Research and aqua ecosystems and habitat

- Enactment of the Law

Documentation reports; monitoring reports

Increase in SA adopters in specially in non-AD areas Research reports, baseline data

Inventory especially on critical MPAs/monitoring Review of RA 8550 implementation Conduct studies of waste issues and practices (coastal), upland, abandoned mining sites

Lobbying Research

Promotion of best practices Capacity building

Recommendations for effective enforcements or/ and amendments Research report

Number of organizations / LGUs reached by promotional activities with good practices - localization of national - Education and lobbying - local promulgation and 3 DRR/CCA climate change action plan implementation of the a. renewable energy and national risk reduction national risk reduction plan. plan

130

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

B. Output 2: RAC Visayas REA Action Plan from 2013 to 2018 REA ISSUE & Goal

LOGGING

CARES Strategy

Research

Goal: To support activities that oppose destruction of biodiversity through logging activities in the 23 KBA’s in the Visayas

ACTION

RESULTS / IMPACT

INDICATORS

Baselining: • Obtain a profile • 100% of the • looking at the (mapping) KBA’s in the following: of logging Visayas with - where / areas situation in the illegal logging (in the context Visayas are profiled of being a PBCPP; PA/ECA; - baseline sustainable use information area); and maps - user/loggers are available - size & scale of through operations participatory • Existing policies, research instruments • Local dynamics • # community and processes consultations

TIMEFRAME

2013-2014 (1 yr)

• reports, case studies, policy papers, IEC materials

Policy Advocacy

Conduct advocacy activities with LGU’s, and other stakeholders.

• action plan for anti-logging action • LGU champions • # of LGU and policies on champions anti-logging supportive of anti-logging

2014-2018

• # of LGU’s in the KBA’s with anti-logging resolutions/ ordinance

131

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

REA ISSUE & Goal

LOGGING

CARES Strategy

Capacitybuilding

Goal: To support activities that oppose destruction of biodiversity through logging activities in the 23 KBA’s in the Visayas

MINING Goal: To support activities that oppose destruction of biodiversity in mining sites in KBA’s the Visayas

ACTION

Development of a multi-stakeholder lobby group for forest protection

Conduct skills development for advocacy, lobbying and legal action

RESULTS / IMPACT

INDICATORS

Established / • experts pool 2015 strengthened local formed and mechanisms for mobilized advocacy 2015 • Formation of a multistakeholder lobby group Local advocates • # of capacity2014-2018 are able to push building activities for reforms conducted Increased • logging issues 2014-2018 awareness among becomes an locals for policy agenda and reforms pursued by LGU legislative bodies

Research

Baselining / • Mining activities looking at the following: - where / areas (in the context of being a PBCPP; PA / ECA); - size & scale of operations • Existing policies, instruments • Local dynamics and processes

Profile of mining situation in the mining sites in KBA’s

• 100% of the KBA’s in the Visayas with mining are profiled

5 years

5 years Profile of IP practices on mining

- baseline information and maps are available through participatory research • # community consultations; • reports, case studies, policy papers, IEC materials • action plan for mining action

132

TIMEFRAME

5 years

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

REA ISSUE & Goal

MINING Goal: To support activities that oppose destruction of biodiversity in mining sites in KBA’s the Visayas

CARES Strategy

ACTION

RESULTS / IMPACT

INDICATORS

Research

Conduct of Economic, social • Conduct of Environmental Impact and ecological participatory EIA Assessment (EIA) valuation of a in KBA’s with potential mining mining area Policy Review the concept • Highlight the • Review of EO 79 Advocacy of responsible and pro’s and con’s sustainable mining of the concept or if feasible / applicable in the Philippines Environmen- Strengthen endefense • Communities • # of communities tal Defense program able to pursue that are pursuing environmental environmental legal action legal action (cases, etc.) CapacityDevelopment of a Established / • # of local building multi-stakeholders strengthened local researchers lobby group mechanisms for capacitated advocacy to pursue documentation, etc.

TIMEFRAME

2014-2016

2013-2014

2014 onwards

• Formation of a multi-stakeholder lobby group

Conduct skills development for advocacy, lobbying and legal action

Local advocates are able to push for reforms

• experts pool formed and mobilized • # of capacity2015 building activities conducted • # mining issues 2015 popularized and reforms pushed at the local and national level

133

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

REA ISSUE & Goal

CARES Strategy

ACTION

WATER (COASTAL)

RESULTS / IMPACT

Participatory Conduct baseline • Enhanced Research biophysical and integrated socio-economic coastal and Goal: profiling including marine resource resource access and management Support action use in affected areas plan (CRM, related to FLUP) conservation CapacitySupport coastal and • Improved of coastal building & marine protection ecosystem and marine Sites and rehabilitation quality ecosystems with emphasis on establishment and rehabilitation of MPA’s and MPA networks

Goal: support action related to conservation of watershed ecosystems

134

Research

TIMEFRAME

• Maps: 2013-2018 - Biophysical, zonation, etc. • Inventory of resources • Improved 2013-2018 seagrass, coral, mangrove, seaweeds cover • Increased fisheries catch

Support review of existing CRM plans to incorporate climate change, DRR and PHE

Integrated CRM plans

Strengthening of PO’s / communities

PO’s / communities 2013-2018 capacitated for self-determination and accessing assistance by themselves # of marine 2013-2018 management councils assisted

Assist in the creation and/or strengthening of marine management councils / bodies WATER (WATERSHED)

INDICATORS

Visayas-wide baselines : • critical watershed areas

• utilization of • Watershed science-based management watershed plan and maps management & development plan using the baseline data

2013-2018

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

REA ISSUE & Goal

WATER (WATERSHED)

CARES Strategy

Research

Goal: support action related to conservation of watershed ecosystems

ACTION

• groundwater vulnerability mapping • carrying capacity of the watershed

Capacitybuilding

Sites

Assist in the creation and/or strengthening of watershed councils

RESULTS / IMPACT

INDICATORS

TIMEFRAME

• improve conflict • Conflict 2013-2018 management management mediation map/ case studies • strengthened watershed • Report and Policy 2013-2018 management recommendation policies carrying capacity Improved • Management 2013-2018 watershed systems and governance structures in place supported by ordinances

• Local and national legislations Trainings on Reduced • # trainings ecosystems-based degradation of the conducted planning watershed Conduct participatory Monitoring reports monitoring activities Support local Local/Community- • Local programs conservation action based protection in place for critical sites of critical watersheds • # of site-focused projects funded

2013-2018

2013 onwards 2013-2018 2015-2018

2015-2018

• # of hectares of 2015-2018 forest restored / protected • # of critical watersheds

2015-2018

135

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

REA ISSUE & Goal

RE / Climate Change Goal:

CARES Strategy

Participatory Inventory and Research assessment of capacities and vulnerability of communities in KBA’s

Promote communitybased support for RE and resiliency to climate change through Climate Change Action

RESULTS / IMPACT

INDICATORS

Knowledge on capacities and • # inventories vulnerabilities for conducted and appropriate action assessment reports

Inventory of all the possible affordable mitigation and CCA options for local communities

Capacitybuilding

Advocacy

136

ACTION

Increased • CCA handbook available RE for communities information for local communities • # of LGU’s using and LGU’s use the information in Climate for CCA planning, Change Action implementation (CCA)planning, and monitoring implementation and monitoring Community training to Enhanced • # communities set-up and maintain community trained on mitigation and resiliency in mitigation and adaptation technology adapting to CCA using locally applications climate change developed tools (e.g., PACDR; PCVA; W/DRRM)

Lobby for the integration of mitigation and CCA technology in the local policy Campaign against use of fossil fuels

Increased governance for RE and DRR implementation

TIMEFRAME

2014

2016 2017

2013 onwards

• # of communities adapting CCA technology (e.g., community seed banking) • # of local policies 2015 passed and onwards implemented

Increased # campaigns, awareness to etc. initiated and implement RE and pursued CCA

2013 onwards

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

REA ISSUE & Goal

CARES Strategy

ACTION

RESULTS / IMPACT

RE / Climate Change

Advocacy

Promote Visayas Showcasing that as the center of RE climate-friendly development and use communities are possible

Farming Systems and Cropping Patterns

Research

Inventory and assessment of changes observed by communities in farming and cropping patterns as a result of climate change Support research on impact of GMO’s and inventory of native crop species

Goal: Develop farming systems and cropping patterns that are environmentfriendly and resilient to climate change

Advocacy

Advocacy / Sites / Capacitybuilding

INDICATORS

# of communities adopting RE and CCA practices

Baseline info for • Reports and use in planning publications appropriate farming responses • Other IEC to climate change materials

TIMEFRAME

2015 onwards

2013

• Better • # Research understanding conducted as to the impact of GMO’s • # Case studies

• enhanced biodiversity conservation of native /endemic crops Dissemination and • Informed action sharing of research by farmers, info (eg., regional lobby groups road maps for organic and other agriculture) stakeholders Support projects and • Encourage action that encourage energy-efficient, efficient use of enhancement resources, use and of local promote endemic biodiversity or native species, and climatereduce greenhouse friendly farming gas emissions from practices agriculture and farming processes

• # Inventory of endemic crops

• # Information materials produced and disseminated

2014

• # of projects supported

2015

• publications, case studies disseminated

137

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

REA ISSUE & Goal

Urbanization

CARES Strategy

Research

Goal: Support and encourage programs for comprehensive planning of urban areas Advocacy that provide for future growth and development that addresses economic, environmental and social problems and opportunities, and ensure that public and private investments are supportive of this vision Food and Safety Advocacy Goal: Promote lifestyle, including eating habits that are dependent on local resources and contributory to a healthy environment

138

ACTION

Support research on identification of critical areas for conservation, issues on urbanization / land conversion that impact on the environment, and related issues Support land use planning activities including dialogues and community consultations

RESULTS / IMPACT

Information is available for appropriate action and decision-making by LGU’s and other significant stakeholders

INDICATORS

TIMEFRAME

Publications and 2013 research results including case studies, and others

LGU’s and • # Land use 2014 concerned planning onwards agencies are activities provided proper supported guidance Enhanced • # facilitated Support awareness on dialogues environmentallythe issues and friendly technologoes concerns related • local policies (e.g., regulation of to urbanization that encourage rainwater infiltration more livable for the water table; Communities are communities are rainwater catchment, adapting to green passed etc.) lifestyle

Support projects that Increase • # of social promote safe (healthy, awareness of marketing organic) food and adaption to activities healthy lifestyle healthy eating and conducted lifestyles, including widespread • # of adoption of waste organizations reduction, re-use promoting and recycling healthy lifestyle and food safety supported • # of project supported

2013 onwards

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

REA ISSUE & Goal

CARES Strategy

Food and Safety Advocacy

Sites

ACTION

Support action that reduce waste and excessive consumption Encourage communities to practice organic farming Promotion of organic farms

RESULTS / IMPACT

Production of organic and safe food

INDICATORS

• # of projects supported

TIMEFRAME

2013 onwards

• list of farms producing organic food products

C. Output 3: RAC Mindanao REA Action Plan

139

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

140

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

141

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

142

National Regional Advisory Committee-Partners Meeting

FPE BOT, RAC AND PARTNERSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; DIALOGUE

143

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

On May 22, 2013, before the event was concluded, the FPE BOT, RAC and project partners had a productive dialogue on how FPE should relate with partners, improve governance and related concerns. Below is the abridged version of the said dialogue:

Clarifications/Questions/Suggestions Response of BOT by RAC and Partners 1. Regarding itemizing the admin cost, • FPE adopts a 70:30 budget ratio: 70 for operaa sign of not trusting your partner tions and 30 for admin cost. On office rent, FPE ogranization is telling them how to does not cover this because most probably the run the project. Assuming that the NGO partners pay their own rent or if possible project outcomes are satisfactory have their own office. (Nestor Carbonera) that is the indication that the admin cost is used wisely for the project. For an NGO to sustain its operation it has to spend money to maintain its office. (Bill Granert) 2. How does FPE respond to staffing • FPE Human Resource Committee is looking inadequacy, e.g., only two staff in the into that already (Jessie Manuta). regional office? (Bill Granert) • As to the staffing, the new set of BOT came in a transition where there is already an approved policy and implementation is in progress. The BOT can review the policy if staff are really spread out too thin, but we also need to balance staff requirement and other resources. FPE is dealing with both the central office and regional offices reguirements. (Grace Rebollos) 3. Can FPE post on its website the • The National Museum has information on the different species of the Philippines. number of species. if not in the DENR. FPE It doesn’t mean to post eveything perhaps can facilitate the process wherein the but rather to provide information on members can access that data through our biodiversity (e.g., # of threatened website or can be shared to partners. species of mammals and birds). (Bill Granert)

144

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

Clarifications/Questions/Suggestions Response of BOT by RAC and Partners 3. Can FPE post on its website the • Acually FPE is the only NGO member in the different species of the Philippines. inter-agency body on the Natural EnvironIt doesn’t mean to post eveything ment Statistics. It is composed of different but rather to provide information on government agencies. They have developed an biodiversity (e.g., # of threatened all-in-one website that contains environmental species of mammals and birds). (Bill information. You can check this with the DENR Granert) and you can access that particular information. We can also link you there if you do not get any information. (Godofredo Villapando) • We can also make FPE be the entry point in accessing those information. We can put this in our website. (Jessie Manuta) • FPE is now tapping its experts pool to enrich the information that we already have. (Socorro Atega) 4. It maybe worthwhile for the other • Registration is not necessary because anyone NGOs to register as a unit within the can file cases with the Ombudsman. (Liza office of the Ombudsman so they file Osorio) cases directly if they have problems with governement agencies. (Bill Granert) 5. Who will implement the regional • Implementation of the REA would be different environmental agenda? (Rey, RAC from the Luzon,Visayas and Mindanao; also, Mindanao) these agendas will be brought up to the BOT. The reality is that there are so many environmental agenda that can’t be funded by FPE alone. The implementating funds for RAC and BOT projects is limited only to P 200,000.00. It is up to the region on how to implement their agendas. (Nestor Carbonera) 6. How does FPE ensure its strategies • The FPE Program Development Unit takes care are national in scope? of that. • There is a National Environmental Agenda that consolidates all regional environmental agenda, and provide national strategies for implementation.

145

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

Clarifications/Questions/Suggestions by RAC and Partners 7. How are we going to connect the national agenda of FPE to the international agenda? Maybe we should study the outcome document of RIO+20. What are the challenges especially the post 2015 scenario;the end of Milleneum Development Goals and Kyoto Protocol. Second point is how to capture the seat of Philippine Council for Sustainable Development? 8. Ilan na ang nadevelop na lugar na tinaman ng iba’t ibang puno? Mungkahi na ipagpatuloy ang relasyon at pagtutulungan ng FPE at partners para sa pagprotekta sa kalikasan. (Carling of RAC Luzon) 9. May we suggest to review the section on qourum which states to have a 50% + 1 to have a qourum. RAC Luzon suggests to declare a quorum based on 1/3 attendance to constitute a quorum provided those who are not able to attend will send formal communication that they are unable to attend and they will sign a waiver indicating they will not question any decision that will be agreed by the body in the event that they were not able to attend. It is also important that any meeting that is announced should include information to the alternates. (Prof. Austria of RAC Luzon) 10. It might be important for FPE to come up yearly with what we would like to term as a “green sona.”

146

Response of BOT • The outcomes of this gathering will form the assessment. We need to come up with documents to put together the past, the future, and the connectivity to the national commitments in terms of sustainable development. (Jessie Manuta) • We are supporting the Civil Society Counterpart for Sustainable Development of the UNCSAC. (Godofredo Villapando) • We have the data at FPE for supported projects. We really need to know the scientific impact of our projects so we have the ‘More Than Numbers’ project, an evaluation study of FPE’s 21 years of work on BCSD (Nestor Carbonera) • It will become a national policy. RAC Visayas and Mindanao will be asked later about this matter. (Nestor Carbonera)

• Regarding the “green sona”, it is the same as the general assembly of FPE, where its projects, fund management and impact to communities are presented. (Nestor Carbonera)

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

Clarifications/Questions/Suggestions Response of BOT by RAC and Partners 11. Can RAC have the support from • In case that there is no action grant for this, FPE through its action grant to be RAC can avail of a small grant up to a maxiable to facilitate an effort similar to mum of P200,000 for each proposal. (Nestor Green Convergence? Carbonera) 12. It has been observed that key • FPE discussed how to move forward aside biodiversity areas like Ligawasan from workshops and technical working group. Marsh receive very limited support We can also tap other NGOs to help the funding from FPE. for the Liguwasan Marsh. It is very complex because of the peace context, and FPE can’t afford to fund it alone because of the limitation of its resources. 13. Does the FPE have a data bank of • There is a data bank and it can be uploaded the NGOs that they have worked in the website as soon as completed by our with? If yes will it be possible for “More Than Numbers’ project. (Godofredo the list to be posted on the website Villapando) to serve as a help for the RACs? 14. Will it be possible for FPE to grant • FPE is strictly for NGOs. A lot of schools have their foundations, they can also access that. project proposal coming from an That foundation can reach FPE especially if the educational institutions especially project is a pure research. (Nestor Carbonera) for the environmental research? 15. Most of the RAC members • The FPE will review its policy regarding the are also affiliated with other matter. (Nestor Carbonera) organizations,what is the written policy of FPE for the RAC members applying for a grant for their organizations? 16. Is it possible for the board to al• We have to think of it so that we will not be locate a certain amount to those able to set aside other projects. It can be done relatively successful projects or but not immediately. sites supported by FPE? 17. We would like to propose a sustain- • FPE can make a special committee to able financing mechanism, some discuss the suggestion. We can include the sort of a small endowment for local technical group from the regions to help the NGOs to reach as many local partboard discuss the sustainable mechanism, ners in Mindanao. It can be viewed hopefully before the yearend we have a as an invetment hence it can be concrete proposal. FPE will coordinate the leveraged for more funding. It can technical group with the participation of RAC be used in KBAs or in the barancoordinators. gay level. (Martiniano Magdolot, MAHINTANA)

147

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

MOVING FORWARD Closing Message

I NESTOR R. CARBONERA FPE Chairperson & CEO

t has been a productive 3 days. We take all the challenges that Sec. Dinky Soliman forwarded during the opening of the event, that FPE would continue to support communities who believe and have worked with each other so that sustainable development is not a goal, not a dream but a reality in the lives of the people involved. We also take the challenges presented by partners from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, for FPE to carry the aspirations of the communities when we: plan to implement projects; marry hard science and economic support to transform lives and make conservation possible; ensure our plans are keeping our targets and our targets are based on evidence and evidence based on information; and ensure our projects have sustainability mechanisms. Your recommendations during open forums were carefully noted as well, particularly: to engage the youth in our BCSD projects; to capacitate indigenous people or communities in financial management; to develop a research agenda for the environment that considers socio-cultural and economic aspect; to make a stand on critical and priority environmental issues such as mining; and to assist our overall performance and fill in the gaps.

148

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

In moving forward, we must first infuse our funds in our site focus projects as requested and verbalized by Mindanao. This will allow us to implement a holistic and not a piecemeal approach to BCSD. This is also geared towards greater connectivity or initiatives and priority sites so that investments will be sustainable. Second, foster new partnership and assist the CSOs but also local government units, government entities and business community. Through this we hope to achieve a convergence. Third, invest in knowledge management to a systematic sharing and adoption of innovation and reflection of approaches or strategies. This area we would like to improve because a lot of information is not yet available on our website. Fourth, embark on more aggressive resource mobilization or to bring in more funds on the ground on CSO initiative for BCSD. Last but not the least, encapsulate all of these in FPEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new five-year strategy plan that will take effect in 2014. As FPE looks back to analyze lessons learned in past projects and initiatives, our RACs and partners play a very significant role. Likewise, it is also our commitment to support and make FPE move forward and continue the fight for a better environment for the Philippines. Thank You.

149

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

PROGRAM

150

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

151

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

152

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

153

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

ANNEX

DIRECTORY OF PARTICIPANTS

Additional BOT members who were not able to sign the scanned list. Kathleen Deckmyn attended the first day Julio Galvez Tan attended the second day Fr. Francis Lucas attended the third day Edicio dela Torre attended the first day

154

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

Additional National Partners who were not able to sign the scanned list. Atty Jose Andres Canivel of PTFCF attended the third day Cauchie Garcia of PEF attended the second and third day Kathy Mana Galido (not listed), representative of NTFP, attended the third day

155

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

Additional Luzon RAC and Partners who were not able to sign the scanned list. Atty. Robert Chan attended but listed under Guest Speakers

156

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

157

â&#x20AC;&#x153;FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forwardâ&#x20AC;?

Additional Visayas RAC and Partners who were not able to sign the scanned list. Maricel Jarencio of GIZ CBFM-Iloilo Office attended the second and third day

158

National Regional Advisory Committee and Partners Meeting Proceedings

159

“FPE @ 21: Looking back... Moving forward”

160

CREDITS

Overall Project Supervision

Godofredo T. Villapando Jr.

Fernando M. Ramirez

Publications Coordination FPE Information and Communication Unit Translation and Editing Rosario Bella Guzman Design and Layout Ryan G. Palacol Cover and Divider Photos FPE

www.fpe.ph

Main Office

Luzon Regional Unit

Visayas Regional Unit

Mindanao Regional Unit

77 Matahimik Street Teacher’s Village Diliman, Quezon City 1101 Philippines Tel: (632) 927 2186/ 9269629 / 9279403 Fax: (632) 922 3022 Email: info@fpe.ph

77 Matahimik Street Teacher’s Village Diliman, Quezon City 1101 Philippines Tel: (632) 927 2186/ 9269629 / 9279403 Fax: (632) 922 3022 Email: fpeluz@fpe.ph

Room 23, 2nd Flr. Vel-Ouano Bldg. 1 M.C. Briones corner A.S. Fortuna Sts., Highway, Mandaue City, Cebu 6014 Philippines Tel: (63 32) 345 6255/ 346 6254 Fax: (63 32) 345 6254 Email: fpevis@fpe.ph

Door 4, Eliza Townhouse 6th St., Phase 1 Ecoland Subdivision Matina, Davao City 8000 Philippines Mobile: (+63) 9166039081 Email: fpemain@fpe.ph