INTRODUCTION

The Philippines is one of the most biologically diverse countries in the world. Its biological wealth, represented by its flora and fauna, is enormous and has an extraordinarily high rate of endemicity being considered as the “center of the center” of marine shore fish diversity1. However, it is also the “hottest of the hotspots” in terms of biological diversity because of the rapid rate of habitat destruction, inadequacies in the environmental framework, and ineffective implementation of existing laws.

Thus, the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992 (Republic Act No. 7586, NIPAS Act) was enacted “to secure for the Filipino people of present and future generations the perpetual existence of all native plants and animals through the establishment of a comprehensive system of integrated protected areas within the classification of national park as provided for in the Constitution” (Section 2, NIPAS Act).

For almost two decades, protected area (PA) management has gained attention as a resource management strategy primarily due to global concerns over the loss of biological diversity, which is essential to human survival. The establishment of protected areas is considered as the most cost-effective means for preserving genes, non-mobile species, habitats and ecological processes. Protected areas are also considered as one of the most important on-site tools for biodiversity conservation.

In the Philippines, the conservation of biodiversity is among the ten major strategies adopted in the Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development, which aims to achieve economic growth without depleting the stock on natural resources and degrading the environment. A centerpiece of the government’s action in this regard is the establishment of an integrated protected area system.

The NIPAS Act provides the legal and developmental framework for the establishment and management of protected areas (PAs) in the Philippines. The implementing guidelines of the law are further set and defined under DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 2008-26.

NIPAS is the classification and management of all designated PAs, in order to maintain essential ecological processes and lifesupport systems, preserve genetic diversity, ensure sustainable use of resources found therein, and maintain their natural conditions to the greatest extent possible.

In the context of environmental governance in the Philippines, the NIPAS Act is recognized as both a legal and policy instrument. As a legal instrument, it sets the regulatory bounds and stipulations for identifying, delineating, and managing PAs, including who shall do so, how they are to do so, and how their activities and efforts are to be funded. It thus also sets the basis for adjudicating conflicts over PAs. As a policy instrument, it provides the basis for

1Carpenter, K. and V. Springer 2005. “The Center of the Center of Marine Shore fish Biodiversity, Philippines. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 72:467:480

Introduction

how government is to mobilize its political, administrative and fiscal resources and capabilities toward achieving the intentions of the Act and to otherwise pursue the environmental, moral and social imperatives of protecting certain areas and biophysical and cultural assets of the country. It also provides the basis for all other entities involved and which have interests and stakes on effectively managing PAs, to collaborate with or oppose and correct the actions of government.

Under the NIPAS law, the management of a particular PA is placed under a Protected Area Management Board (PAMB), which is a locally based multi-sectoral body. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) maintains oversight function over all PAs through the Regional Executive Director (RED), who chairs the PAMB. The PAMB issues the policies that govern the specific PA and issues the necessary clearances for specific proposed activities within the PA. The PAMB draws representation from different sectors, such as government agencies, non-government organizations, peoples’ organizations and the local government units (LGUs). The implementing arm of the PAMB is the Protected Area Staff, headed by the Protected Area Superintendent (PASu). The PASu serves as the secretariat of the PAMB and is the chief operating officer of the PA. The PASu is directly responsible to the PAMB and the RED of the DENR.

The Philippine government has given priority to reviewing the NIPAS law primarily because since its enactment in 1992, no thorough review has been carried out while new legislation has come into force. Moreover, in its implementation, the NIPAS law appears to be strong in protecting habitats but weak in terms of protecting mobile species like birds, whales and dolphins. Consequently, the strengthening of the NIPAS law is needed, as well as its harmonization with different laws. This strengthening and harmonization should be based on a thorough analysis of how these laws interact in practice, as well as how the policies established by the law are implemented at the grassroots. This study aims to provide a thorough policy and legal analysis of the NIPAS law in order to identify areas and policy of the law which need to be improved or changed.

This undertaking was prompted by an interest shared by the Philippine Government and the GIZ to strengthen the effectiveness of managing protected areas (PAs) in the Philippines. It was their shared belief that one particular way to do so would be to re-examine the National Integrated Protected Areas (NIPAS) Act to identify how it might be strengthened by way of amendments, based on evidence from the ground.

The task at hand for which Silliman University has been engaged by DENR and the GIZ is to review the NIPAS Act for the purpose of identifying which of its provisions, if any, may be amended to improve its ability to provide stronger legal and policy backstops for multi-scale (local to national) PA management in the Philippines. The task involves doing a review of the letter, spirit, and legal constructions of the Act against (1) findings of recent field assessments by Silliman and some German students of factors determining

Introduction

the effectiveness of ground-level management of 6 coastal and terrestrial PAs, and (2) the provisions of other laws on natural resources and land-uses in the Philippines.

Accordingly, Silliman undertook the following approach of work to accomplish this task:

1. Review the findings of the Silliman-German field assessments and of other related studies and experiences from elsewhere, to identify and list the factors that seem to have the most prominent effects (either facilitate or subvert) effective ground-level management of PAs.

2. Review the NIPAS Act for which of its provisions relate to the identified factors of effectiveness. The provisions were assessed for (a) relevance to the factors, and (b) how they either weaken or strengthen each factor.

Relevance and ability to weaken or strengthen a factor are determined on the basis of the strength of the legal construction of the

NIPAS provision, and on how the provisions of other pertinent laws may boost or erode the legal and policy teeth of the provision, in relation to a factor.

3. Engage PAWB, GIZ and other experts to validate the team’s findings on which provisions of the NIPAS Act seem to affect most the factors, to solicit from them viewpoints and information on the policy dimensions, relevance and implications of the provisions.

4. Based on (1), (2) and (3), formulate amendatory statements on the NIPAS

Act, which the DENR might consider for proposing to Congress.

This Report describes what Silliman has accomplished as of August 31, 2011, which is the end date of its engagement by GIZ. All efforts have been expended by Silliman to do quality work on this task within the timeframe of its engagement by GIZ, including ensuring sufficient advice and inputs from PAWB, GIZ and others, as would be commensurate to the critical importance of this endeavor.