wetlands and indigenous rights in palawan

W E T L A N D S A N DI N D I G E N O U S R I G H T S

I N P A L A W A N

A PRELIMINARY ACCOUNT OF THE STATUS OF MANGROVES, CORAL REEFS, ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND INDIGENOUS RIGHTS IN RIZAL MUNICIPALITY,

SOUTHERN PALAWAN ISLAND (PHILIPPINES)

by Dario NovellinoMay 2000

A project of BANGSA PALAWAN-PHILIPPINES (BPP)and FOREST PEOPLES PROGRAMME (FPP)

W E T L A N D S A N D I N D I G E N O U S R I G H T S I N P A L A W A NA PRELIMINARY ACCOUNT OF THE STATUS OF MANGROVES, CORAL REEFS, ROAD CONSTRUCTIONAND INDIGENOUS RIGHTS IN RIZAL MUNICIPALITY, SOUTHERN PALAWAN ISLAND (PHILIPPINES)

by Dario Novellino May 2000

A project of BANGSA PALAWAN-PHILIPPINES (BPP) and FOREST PEOPLES PROGRAMME (FPP)

Table of contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2

A1. Palawan and its people 2

A2. Major threats to indigenous communities 2

B. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3

B1. The NIPAS and SEP laws 3

B2. CBFM: the new look of old forest policies 5

B3. The bird trade 5

B4. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) system 5

B5. Enhancing the authority of indigenous people to apprehend illegal intruders:Revised Rule of Court No. 13 6

C. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRALDOMAINS 6

C1. The IPRA law 7

C2. Alternatives to IPRA’s slow down 8

C3. Can indigenous land rights be sold? 9

D. THE IMPACT OF ROAD EXPANSION IN THE MUNICIPALITY OFRIZAL 9

E. THE PLUNDER OF MANGROVE FOREST 13

E1. A preliminary ethnobotanical account of mangroves in the municipality ofRizal 13

E2. A description of the mangrove sites visited 15

F. THE DESTRUCTION OF CORAL REEFS AND THE DECLINE OFMARINE RESOURCES 18

F1. Some recommendations for the conservation of mangrove forest andcoastal environments 20

Reforestation with Rhizophora 21

Nipa enhancement 21

G. CONCLUDING REMARKS 22

References 23

Schedule of activities 24

BANGSA PALAWAN-PHILIPPINES(Indigenous Alliance for Equity and Well-being)

In Pälawan language Bangsa refers to a large communityof people sharing a common country and history. BangsaPalawan-Philippines is a private, non-profit, community-based organization of indigenous peoples.The network ofcollaborators also includes non-indigenous members such

as scientists, human rights activists and workers in different fields,with or without institutional affiliations.The organisation is registeredwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of thePhilippines, with registration certificate number A199809038, issuedon June 1998.

The primary objectives of BPP are:

● to foster indigenous self-reliance, collective interests, culturalidentity and well-being through the empowerment of localpractices and decision making processes.

● to equip vulnerable indigenous communities with tools andskills to face socio-economic transition, including knowledge ofthe means of gaining, retaining and controlling access tonatural resources.

● to design and promote development alternatives that areenvironmentally sound and culturally specific, through theimplementation of locally bases participatory processes.

● to document cultural practices, and organize investigative fieldmissions to determine the impact of development andconservation projects on indigenous livelihoods.To publish theoutcomes of such studies.

FOREST PEOPLES PROGRAMMEThe Forest Peoples Programme was set up by the WorldRainforest Movement (WRM) in 1990 and has sinceemerged as an autonomous NGO with its owninstitutional structure and network of partners. It exists

to support the response of forest peoples to the global forest crisis. Itaims to secure the rights of peoples who live in the forests anddepend on them for their livelihoods, to control their lands anddestinies.The programme seeks to create political space for forestpeoples to exercise their rights to self-determination and to practicesustainable forest management.

The Programme has five goals:

● to help establish an effective global movement of forestpeoples.

● to promote the rights and interests of forest peoples inenvironmental and human rights circles.

● to coordinate support among environmental organisations forforest peoples’ visions.

● to counter top-down projects which deprive local peoples ofresources.

● to support genuine, community-based, sustainable forestmanagement.

First edition: March 2000

© Bangsa Palawan-Philippines and Forest Peoples Programme

Photos © D. Novellino,except photos on pages 18-19,© P. Ensomo

All rights reserved. No part of thisreport may be reproduced withoutacknowledging the source.

Bangsa Palawan-Philippines

P.O. Box 263, P.P.C., Palawan, Philippines.

E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Forest Peoples Programme

1c Fosseway Business Centre, StratfordRoad, Moreton-in-Marsh, GL56 9NQ, UK

E-mail: [email protected]

W E T L A N D S A N D I N D I G E N O U S R I G H T S I N P A L A W A N 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYA preliminary investigation of the mangrove and coastalecosystems, and of the threats posed to them by theexpansion of a new road took place in Palawan (Philip-pines) from 16 July to 10 August 1999.The initiative wasplanned and coordinated by Bangsa Palawan Philippines(BPP) – Indigenous Alliance for Equity and Well-beingtogether with the UK-based Forest Peoples Programme1.The findings and preliminary suggestions outlined in thisreport are part of a complex process that has involved awide range of people over a period of almost one month.This process has resulted in a large amount of informationbeing generated through open discussions, semi-structuredand open-ended interviews, and through the direct partici-pation of the mission members in people’s daily activities.The mission met with a wide range of mangrove and coralreef users in the barangay of Panalingaan, Latud,Taburi andCanipaan (municipality of Rizal) (picture right), and with rep-resentatives of local NGOs, barangay and district officials.

This report has several related objectives.At the mostbasic level, it aims to provide an orientation on the currentstatus and utilisation of mangrove and coral reefs in thesouthern municipality of Rizal in Palawan, and to identify the‘root causes’ of environmental destruction. Special atten-tion is also given to local ways of coping with the progres-sive decline of the resource-base.Particular attention is alsogiven to the priorities of indigenous peoples. It is hoped thatthe understanding of such priorities will lead to a dialogicprocess between different actors (conservationists, devel-opers, migrants and indigenous communities), paving theway for more culturally sensitive programmes for the pro-tection of the coastal ecosystem in Rizal municipality.

Chapter A provides a general orientation onPalawan and its people, with a list of the major threatsaffecting the local indigenous communities. In chapters Band C, an attempt is made to analyse various laws andgovernment options for environmental conservationaffecting indigenous peoples in Palawan.This descriptionof laws and regulations is intended to provide a bettercomprehension of both the pitfalls and the potentials ofthe present legislation.

Chapter D begins by describing the implications ofroad construction in Rizal municipality, highlighting theinterconnected factors and conditions under which roadexpansion generates a sequence of adverse and unin-tended consequences. Indications are provided on thelink between internal migration, road construction, forestdepletion, and loss of indigenous control over resources.

Chapters E and F summarise the present status ofmangrove forest and coral reefs in the Philippines.Emphasis is placed on the causes leading to the rapid lossof such ecosystems.The specific characteristics of Philip-pine mangroves are outlined with reference to prelimi-nary ethnobotanical field findings. Preliminary options forthe conservation of the coastal environment are alsoproposed, with some suggestions for the enhancementand regeneration of mangroves and nipa palm swamps. Inthe concluding chapter, some general considerations aredrawn. It is argued that the indigenous communities’ roleas sustainable stewards of the environment is a complexone. The role of NGOs in Palawan is also mentioned,particularly in relation to their capacity to deal withemerging indigenous and environmental issues.

Bangsa Palawanmembers meeting inSagi with localmangrove and forestusers.

1 The Mission consisted of Messrs. Dario Novellino, international advisor to Bangsa Palawan Philippines (BPP) and Visiting Researcher of the Institute ofPhilippine Culture (IPC), Mike Lacson (BPP National Secretary), and Nolly Eresmas (BPP National Advisor). Dario Novellino is responsible for the inter-pretation of field findings and for the writing of this report.

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTSCurrency Unit = Philippine PesosUSD 1 = 38 Pesos

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES1 gantang = 2.5 kg

ACRONYMSCADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim

CBSRM Comminity Based Sustainable Resource ManagementCBFMA Community Based Forest Management Agreement

CFSA Communal Forestry Stewardship AgreementCNPPA Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas

DAO Department Administrative OrderDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

EC European CommunityECAN Environmental Critical Areas Network

EU European UnionIC Indigenous Community

ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development ProjectIP Indigenous People

IPRA Indigenous Peoples Right ActIUCN World Conservation UnionNGO Non Governmental Organisation

NIPAS National Integrated Protected Area System (Act)NTFP Non-timber Forest Products

PENRO Provincial Environment and Natural Resources OfficeRA Republic ActSEP Strategic Environmental Plan (for Palawan)

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATIONA1. Palawan and its peoplePalawan is the fifth largest island in the Philippines.Forests cover between 38% and 44% of the landscape,making Palawan the island with the highest percentage offorest cover in the archipelago. Because of its rich diver-sity of animal and plant species, the entire province is thetarget of a large land management plan under RepublicAct 7611. The same Act is also known as the StrategicEnvironmental Plan (SEP). The population of mainlandPalawan was estimated to be 318,000 in 1983, but it hasrisen rapidly at an annual rate of increase of 4.64% due tocolonisation by migrants and landless farmers from allparts of the archipelago. Today, the present populationhas reached nearly 600,000 people.

The original inhabitants of mainland Palawan can bedivided into three main ethnic groups: Batak,Tagbanuwaand Pälawan.They all have a heterogeneous mode of foodprocurement, centred mainly on swidden cultivation.Depending on different circumstances, they shift fromone activity to another: hunting, gathering, and the com-mercial collection of non-timber forest products. Theyalso sometimes combine these mixed livelihood activitiessimultaneously. The local indigenous communities havewitnessed a dramatic transformation of the world aroundthem.Their territories are being occupied by migrant set-tlers, and their forest has been depleted by unabatedcommercial and illegal logging and mining activities. Morerecently, the government ban on shifting cultivation andthe very ambiguous regulations governing the use of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) have become the mostdangerous threats to the native population. Batak survivalis now being jeopardised in the name of environmentalprotection.

A2. Major threats to indigenouscommunities in Palawan ● The situation of indigenous people is rapidly deteri-

orating in the south-west portion of the island.Theroad linking the north to the south-west coast hasbeen carried out without environmental protectionmeasures being enforced.As a result, large portionsof forest have been cut down, and hundreds of set-tlers have entered indigenous lands.

● In barangay Bulalacao (Municipality of Bataraza), thePälawan community is being intimidated and forcedto vacate their land which was granted to themthrough a municipal resolution in 1967.Their land isnow claimed by the locally influential Narrazid fam-ily, that has strong connections with the local gov-ernment of Bataraza.The people fear that even thebarangay captain Dante Mihila has sided with theextortionists. Now the community is being threat-ened that they must pay 30,000 pesos per family tocontinue to live on their plot of land, or vacate thearea. Because of fear and intimidation, some Pälawanfamilies have already moved into the interior. OtherPälawan households are requesting urgent supportfrom NGOs and international advocacy groups.

● Occupancy rights have been released in indigenousterritories to a Federation of Land Reform Farmers

(FLRF).While FLRF is chopping down the remainingcoastal forest, Teddy Abendan (FLRF chairman) hasissued a public warning to indigenous advocates thatrecognition of the ancestral land could lead to severeclashes with the migrants - a “bloody revolution”.

● Further south another threat to indigenous ances-tral domains comes from the Rio Tuba Nickel Min-ing (RTN) company that has undertaken surveyswithin and even outside the limits of its concession.Unexpectedly, the company has been issued an envi-ronmental compliance certificate and granted a fur-ther extension. The close relationship betweenPresident Estrada and the Zamora brothers (own-ers of RTN) is well known, and it is unlikely that thecompany will be shut down.

● The operations of the Celestial Mining ExplorationCorporation in Brooks Point Municipality areseverely threatening the Palawan communities ofMaasin, Calasaguen, Mambalot and Ipilan. BothELAC (Environmental Legal Assistance Center) andPNNI (Palawan NGOs Network Inc.) are providinglegal assistance to the affected communities.A peti-tion against the activities of Celestial Mining is alsobeing signed by the local communities with theassistance of BPP (Bangsa-Palawan, Philippines).

● El Niño and La Niña effects have seriously affectedthe native agricultural economy and have causedstarvation and deprivation among the indigenouscommunities of Palawan. Interviews with indigenousinformants suggest that, during El Niño, agriculturalproduction of rice was reduced to about 50-60%.The usual harvest of 100 cabans (one caban=approx. 50 kgs.) per hectare of “basakan” (wet rice)dropped to 40 - 50 caban. Even cassava and bananaproduction was badly affected. In addition, when laNiña arrived, excessive rain meant that indigenousswidden cultivators were only able to burn smallportions of their cleared land. As a result, agricul-tural production has been very low.

● The possible expansion of the St. Paul SubterraneanNational Park in the North appears as an ominouscloud on the horizon. Under Republic Act No. 8371,the park will certainly include areas that are part ofBatak and Tagbanuwa ancestral domain, and this islikely to create conflicts. The local communitiesview the Park as a curse: they feel they have beenrobbed of their land, as well as of the animals andplants they once relied on for food.

● The situation of the Tagbanuwa communities inNapsan (North-central Palawan) is a critical one.The people have been severely affected by the banon shifting cultivation imposed by the City Govern-ment since 1994. Cases of indigenous rights viola-tion have also been reported.According to varioussources, Mr. Marcelo, a local business man, hasunlawfully occupied forest land and has used bull-dozers and local labourers to clear the area for treeplantation. According to Atty. Lito Alisuag, directorof the Palawan Council for Sustainable Develop-ment (PCSD), Mr. Marcelo has now been formallyapprehended, and his operations have beenstopped. It would appear that other influential

W E T L A N D S A N D I N D I G E N O U S R I G H T S I N P A L A W A N2


politicians are also manipulating the local Tagbanuwacommunities and trying to acquire their coastal areafor tourist resorts.According to one source, in Lab-tag, some parts of the land that were declared bythe Presidential Assistance on National Minorities(PANAMIN) as “tribal reservation” are going to beincluded in a large beach resort project. Some Tag-banuwa families are resisting the project while oth-ers are selling their rights to rich and influentialpeople.The local Tagbanuwa community is now splitinto two. Aside from this, other areas of barangayNapsan formerly utilised and occupied by Tag-banuwa people have also been converted into pri-vate land.

● The creation of the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA) and itspossible impact on the indigenous peoples ofPalawan should be noted. In 1998, the Asian financialcrisis had apparently slowed down most of the so-called “growth opportunities” envisaged under theBIMP-EAGA, but a resurgence of the proposedactivities is likely to take place in the near future.The programme aims at strengthening co-operativeventures to accelerate improvements in trade andinvestments. This will imply an intensification ofextractive activities (mining, logging, oil exploration,and plantations), and the expansion of the manufac-turing sector (wood, and wood products such asplywood, the processing for export of palm oil,cocoa, fruits, copra, etc.). As stated in one BIMP-EAGA report:

“Mindanao and the Island of Palawan...remain heavily dependent on agriculture, fish-ery and mining. Natural resources include theworld’s richest nickel deposit, iron and coalreserves, as well as non-metal resources oflime-stone, gypsum, nitrate, sulphur andkaolin.Therefore, the region offers a wealth ofopportunities to make use of these richresources”.

Private sector investment opportunities for Min-danao under BIMP-EAGA include oil palm develop-ment and processing, wood-based industries,industrial tree plantations, rubber production andprocessing, cattle grazing, joint oil and gas surveyand expansion, aquaculture development, and otherinvestments which threaten the survival of localethnic minorities. It is likely that the implementationof the BIMP-EAGA will speed up a number of gov-ernment priorities which are highlighted under theYear 2000 Development Plan.This will have signifi-cant repercussions for fisher-folk in Palawan, andnationwide. In fact, the Philippine government isplanning to convert traditional fishing grounds intoacquaculture to double commercial productionfrom 1.2 to 2.4M metric tons.This implies that tra-ditional fisher-folk and indigenous coastal communi-ties will lose access to important marine zones andresources. It has been established that since thebeginning of the Ramos government, about 76,000fisher-folk have been alienated from their environ-ment and continue to live below the poverty line(PNF, June 9 1994, quoted in Segovia 1995). BIMP-

EAGA priorities in Palawan are clearly reflected inHouse Bill No. 6414 proposing the transformationof the southern municipalities into a “special eco-nomic zone”.The Bill proposes the establishment ofmanufacturing industries (electronics, garments, fur-niture, plastics, toys, shoes, ships and boat building,etc.), and the maximum use of available naturalresources. There are already disturbing reportscoming from the southernmost island of Balabac(between Palawan and Sabah). Balabac island is nowopen to intensive trade and economic expansion,and the construction of a major port is on its way.Illegal logging and the smuggling of timber to Sabahis rampant, and the lifestyle of the local Molbogcommunities is now threatened as never before.

B. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORKFOR ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION

There are 61 national parks in the Philippines, but mostof them exist mainly on paper. Due to a lack of politicalwill, there are no funds and personnel to manage suchareas. In one of its publications, the NGO Kalipunan ngmga Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas (KAMP)reports that none of the country’s national parks meetinternational standards of protection and conservation.Undoubtedly, the National Integrated Protected AreaSystem law (NIPAS) has the merit of being the first law inthe Philippines to recognise the differences betweenindigenous peoples and migrants from among those liv-ing in forest and upland areas. The law establishes thatunlike migrant settlers, indigenous communities shouldnot be evicted from protected areas without consent.However, NIPAS also establishes that communities andsettlements are not permitted within the strict protec-tion zones.This implies that forest rangers will have theauthority to use various means of persuasion to con-vince those communities to transfer elsewhere. InPalawan, as elsewhere in the Philippines, indigenous com-munities have been pushed so far into the interior thatthey are now occupying areas which are likely to fallwithin the strict protection zones of NIPAS.

B1. The NIPAS and SEP lawsNIPAS and the Republic Act 7611– or SEP (StrategicEnvironmental Plan) – are relatively new laws, enacted inFebruary and June 1992 respectively. Such laws establishthe legal basis for the protection and management of theenvironment in Palawan (SEP) and nation-wide (NIPAS).Protective measures proposed by the law include thedemarcation of areas either as off-limits to the humanpopulation, or reserved for local “indigenous culturalcommunities” (ICCs), or both (Novellino 1997b, 1998,1999). Local communities are expected to limit orrefrain from certain subsistence activities when their ter-ritory becomes divided into management zones with dif-ferent levels of protection ranging from strictlyuntouchable to controlled use.

Even a cursory glance at NIPAS and SEP land defini-tions will reveal that each category is somehow viewed

as a self-regulating unit whose “preservation” is ensurednot by virtue of its linkages, but rather by the degree ofinsulation from the other categories. Such a unitaryapproach towards land use has the ultimate effect ofbreaking down indigenous people’s territory and weak-ening indigenous linkages with the land that are embod-ied in past experience and reproduced through differentdaily practices. Rigid and exclusive land categories there-fore undermine the meaningful relationships that indige-nous people sustain with the multiple physical andbiological attributes within their landscape. Under thisconservation legislation, human communities are treatedlike any other organism and converted into componentsof the environment and thus deprived of social life (Nov-ellino 1998, 1999).As established by NIPAS, total protec-tion is likely to be enforced in areas defined as:

Strict Nature Reserve: “possessing some out-standing ecosystem, features and/or species offlora and fauna of national importance”;

Natural Park: “relatively large areas not materi-ally altered by human activity where extractiveresource uses are not allowed”;

National Park: “forest reservation essentially ofnatural wilderness character which has been with-drawn from settlement, occupancy or any form ofexploitation”;

Wildlife Sanctuary: “areas which assure the nat-ural conditions to protect nationally significantspecies, groups of species, and biotic communities”.

On the other hand, human occupancy and resource utili-sation are contemplated in categories such as:

Protected Landscape/Seascape: “areas ofnational significance, which are characterised bythe harmonious interaction of man and land”;

Natural Biotic Area: “an area set aside to allowthe way of life of societies living in harmony withthe environment to adopt modern technology attheir own pace”.

Clearly, indigenous communities represent one of thepatchwork pieces to be placed in the most appropriatespot (a Natural Biotic Area), provided they continue tolive “in harmony with the environment”. In other words,“the harmonious interaction of man and land” is almostviewed as a precondition for residing in “areas of nationalsignificance” (Novellino 1998, 1999). Undoubtedly, a pol-icy such as NIPAS, treating both indigenous communitiesand wildlife as species needing protection, is far frombeing neutral and innocent. It is rather a political act to“ontologize” cultures. Crucially, assigning a different exis-tence to indigenous populations has the effect of detach-ing people from the space they occupy, thus deprivingthem of agency and history (Fabian 1993).

The same criticism applies to the Strategic Environ-mental Plan (SEP) for Palawan, as well as to other pro-jects pursuing similar objectives (e.g., the EU financedPalawan Tropical Forestry Protection Programme). TheSEP law provides a comprehensive framework for sus-tainable development and contains a package of strate-gies for preventing further environmental degradation.The centrepiece of the strategy is the establishment of

the Environmentally Critical Areas Network (ECAN),which places most of the province under controlleddevelopment.The areas covered by ECAN include threemajor components:Terrestrial, Coastal/Marine and TribalAncestral Lands. Core Zones are defined as areas ofmaximum protection and consist basically of steepslopes, first growth forests, areas above 1000 metres ele-vation, mountain peaks, and habitats of endemic and rarespecies.The law establishes that core zones:

“shall be fully and strictly protected and main-tained free of human disruption ... exceptions, how-ever, may be granted to the traditional uses oftribal communities in these areas, for minimal andsoft impact gathering of forest species for ceremo-nial and medicinal purposes”.

Interestingly enough, the ECAN core zone coincideswith significant portions of the indigenous hunting andgathering ground. For instance, the resin of the Agathistree is usually extracted in commercial quantities aroundand above 1000 metres above sea level. In addition, sev-eral game animals, and especially flying squirrels(Hylopetes nigripes nigripes) are trapped for food at thesealtitudes (Novellino 1997a, 1998, 1999).

Buffer Zones represent the most elaborate compo-nent of the ECAN and are designed to serve a multiplic-ity of purposes. According to RA 7611, they fall intothree categories known as Restricted Use Areas, Con-trolled Use Areas, and Traditional Use Areas where “man-agement and control shall be carried out with the othersupporting programs of the SEP”.The only area within theso-called Terrestrial Component which mentions agricul-tural practices is the Multiple/Manipulative Use Zone:“areas where the landscape has been modified for differentforms of land use such as extensive timber extraction, grazingand pastures, agriculture and infrastructure development”. Itis noteworthy that a large number of indigenous commu-nities are occupying marginal upland areas, which fallunder the wider definition of buffer zones. Furthermore,the law never mentions indigenous swidden farmingpractices; hence we may easily come to the conclusionthat only imported agricultural methods such as terrac-ing and hillside farming will be allowed in Multiple/Manip-ulative zones.At this stage, there is no specific indicationof where such zones are located, but it is reasonable topresume that these areas are occupied mainly bymigrants rather than by “traditional” indigenous commu-nities (Novellino 1998, 1999). However, the law doespartly recognise indigenous land use in some areas. Inrelation to Tribal Ancestral Lands, Sec. 11 of RA 7611specifies that:

“these areas, traditionally occupied by culturalminorities, comprise both land and sea areasidentified in consultation with the tribal communi-ties concerned and the appropriate agencies ofgovernment”.

It is frustrating to learn that even Tribal Ancestral Lands“shall be treated in the same graded system of control andprohibitions except for stronger emphasis on cultural consid-eration”. At the same time we are assured that “theSEP...shall define a special kind of zoning to fulfil the materialand cultural needs of the tribes using consultative processesand cultural mapping of the ancestral land”. It is clear that,with a high degree of naivety, SEP on the one hand pro-



poses to protect indigenous culture while on the other itintends to implement non-native and western zoning cri-teria within tribal lands. So far, the law and its promotershave been unable to provide a convincing argument ofhow this can be achieved. (Novellino 1998, 1999).

B2. CBFM: the new look of old forestpolicies The Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR) has frozen all pending applications for therecognition of ancestral land claims. Presently, the gov-ernment’s package for tenurial security and sustainableforest management is far from being acceptable.There is,in fact, a resurgence of repressive forest policies reintro-duced under apparently benevolent rubrics andacronyms such as the “Community Based Forest Man-agement” (CBFM). CBFM is a DENR policy that allowslocal communities to manage forests that have been con-verted to non-timber uses. Its ultimate objective is todevelop self-sustaining production systems in the uplandsby substituting indigenous swidden practices with per-manent forms of agriculture which, in reality, are not cul-turally acceptable and cannot provide an adequateamount of staple food. A closer look at CBFM revealsthat the policy violates indigenous peoples’ rights totheir ancestral land, and it perpetrates government con-trol over indigenous peoples’ livelihoods. In fact, withCBFM, indigenous peoples’ role in their own territory israther reduced to that of stewards of public land. Forinstance, the agreement between the Provincial Environ-ment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) and theAssociation of Batak of Tina (18/12/98) specifies that theindigenous beneficiaries should:

“immediately assume responsibility for the protec-tion of all forest land within the CBFM areaagainst illegal logging and other unauthorisedextraction of forest products, slash and burn agri-culture (kaingin), forest and grassland fires, andother forms of forest destruction, and assist DENRin the prosecution of violators of forestry and envi-ronmental laws”.

Clearly, the contract requires that the Batak themselvesmust guard their area from their own practices, such asswidden cultivation. This uncharacteristic turnaroundfrom indigenous rights under IPRA, does nothing torecognise the claims of indigenous communities overtheir ancestral domain. It rather places indigenous forestmanagement under government control, and uses thepeople as subcontractors of DENR. Not surprisingly, inthe CBFM penalty clause we learn that:

“in the event of default in any of the above under-taking by the PO nothing herein shall preclude theDENR from resorting to such judicial remedies,civil or criminal, to which it may be entitled underexisting laws”.

It is worth noting that this CBFM agreement, beforebeing signed by a Batak representative, had been evalu-ated by members of the Haribon Palawan (a local envi-ronmental group). The other members of thecommunity, however, claim to be unaware of the realcontent of the CBFMA, which is written in English ratherthan in the national language (Tagalog). Furthermore,

they complain that the agreement was signed by PerfectoSalvador (one of the Batak of Kalakuasan) withoutproper co-ordination with the other community mem-bers. On 22 February BPP representatives have visitedagain the CBFM area, in Kalakuasan. According to someBatak informants, a percentage from the proceeding oftheir sale of almaciga resin under CBFMA has been usedto pay the salary of a technician assigned to the area byDENR. The same informants complain that the DENRtechnician has never performed his task nor has visitedtheir area. BPP is presently investigating this matter.

B3. The bird tradeSpecific legislation has been enacted for the protectionof birds and wildlife in the Philippines. Under Proclama-tion No. 219 of 1967 the entire province of Palawan hasbeen declared a game refuge and bird sanctuary, and thesmall islands of Palawan are designated as nationalreserves. Furthermore, DENR Administrative OrdersNos. 90 and 96 of 1988 provide for an annual allowablequota for certain wildlife species that may be collectedand traded under a permit system. Such administrativeorders are pursuant to the provisions of Republic ActNo. 2590 as amended, Presidential Decree No. 705 asamended, and Executive Order No. 192 of 1987 in accor-dance with CITES and DENR’s sustainable resourcedevelopment policy.

In Palawan, uncontrolled trade in birds seems tohave increased during El Niño. In fact, food scarcitycaused by the drought has coincided with the birds’breeding seasons (from March to June). Birds fromPalawan are mainly shipped in boxes to Manila and Cebu.The nests of Blue-naped parrots (Tanygnathus lucionensis),Cockatoos and Talking Mynas (Gracula religiosa palawa-nensis) have been raided extensively and the intensity ofexploitation of these rare birds has now reached anunprecedented level. Indigenous informants claim thatspecies such as the Philippine Cockatoo (Cacatuahaematuropygia) are now very rare, and other specieshave dramatically decreased in number. Authoritativesources report that:

“in Palawan, a full-time collector earns 40,000pesos in a year, based on an estimated 500 birds(of these, 55% would be Blue-naped Parrots, 35%would be Hill Mynas, and 10% would be PhilippineCockatoos).A part time trapper/hunter might earnan estimated 15,000 pesos annually from bird col-lection” (Juan and Baril 1992, quoted in SRDP-Haribon Foundation publication 1992).

B4. The Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) system Since 1977 and 1978 Presidential Decrees (PDs) 1151and 1586 have defined activities involving heavy industry,industrial resource extraction (e.g. mining, quarrying,fishery, etc.) and infrastructural works (e.g., dams, powerplants, roads and bridges) as “environmentally criticalprojects” (ECPs). On the other hand, national parks,areas occupied by cultural communities, critical slopes,mangroves, coral reefs, etc. are defined as Environmen-tally Critical Areas (ECAs).The law mandates all govern-ment agencies, including government-owned orcontrolled corporations, as well as private corporations,

firms and entities, to prepare environmental impactstatements and to acquire an Environmental ComplianceCertificate (ECC) before implementing projects fallingunder the above mentioned categories.The implementa-tion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) systemis further strengthened by DENR Administrative OrderNo. 96-37 of 1996.The ECCs for Environmentally Criti-cal Projects are issued by the Environmental Manage-ment Bureau (EMB), and signed by the DENR Secretary.ECCs for projects located in Environmentally CriticalAreas are issued by the Regional DENR Offices andsigned by the Regional Executive Directors. Exceptionsare considered for projects that do not fall within thescope of the EIS system, and those that are exempteddirectly by the President for reasons of internationalcommitment and national security. Exceptions are fur-ther considered for projects having less than or equal to500,000 pesos capitalisation (c.US$13,000). Otherexceptions may include projects employing 20 people orless and those that generate small discharges that can bemanaged easily.

The EIS should be prepared in a way that takes intoaccount all the environmental consequences which theproject is expected to cause, and it should contain thefollowing: 1) description of the existing environment; 2)description of the various activities to be undertaken fora particular project and the environmental parametersaffected by the same; 3) discussion of alternatives; 4) dis-cussion of resources necessary; and mitigating measuresfor unavoidable impacts.

Finally, those proponents complying with therequirements of the EIS system will be granted an Envi-ronmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) by DENR tocertify that the project under consideration will haveminimal environmental effects.

Presidential Decree No. 1586 imposes penalties fornot securing an ECC. Failure to posess an ECC mayresult in a fine not exceeding 500,000 pesos and/or theissuance of a closure order.According to some Philippinelawyers and commentators, the law regulating EIA proce-dures falls short of clear guidelines, criteria and stan-dards about the types and uses of certain environments.In addition, they argue that the EA system is mainlyrestrictive (regulatory) and does not function as an effec-tive environmental management and planning tool (Cen-ter for Environmental Concerns-Philippines 1993,unpublished manuscript). Furthermore, the agenciesresponsible for the administration of EA procedureshave very limited staff, restricted funds, and little knowl-edge of the procedures for conducting an EIA. In addi-tion, even when an ECC is granted, monitoring andevaluation of a project’s compliance with ECC conditionsis often neglected.

Today, road construction in Palawan is being carriedout in environmentally critical areas and within indige-nous ancestral domains with total disregard for existingregulations, such as Presidential Decrees No. 1586 andNo. 1151. The same can be said for gravel quarryingwithin the Puerto Princesa and Roax municipalities.Gravel for the expansion and paving of the northernstretch of the national road is presently being extractedin commercial quantities.Within the traditional territoryof Batak communities, the river beds of Tanabag andMauyon rivers are being seriously damaged by the heavymachinery of the Weing and Hanjin companies.All these

activities have failed to secure an ECC as required underthe law. They should therefore be suspended forthwithuntil all EIA requirements are duly fulfilled.

B5. The authority of indigenous people toapprehend illegal intruders: Revised Rule ofCourt No. 13There is much space within the existing legislation toallow indigenous people to take matters into their ownhands. For instance, Sec. 9 of the Revised Rules of Courtestablishes the right of arrest by a private person. Con-sequently, there is a need to increase the number ofparalegal seminars among the indigenous communities ofPalawan to make people aware of their new statutorypowers. Such seminars would aim to strengthen indige-nous peoples’ capacity to protect their own resourcesusing their powers of search, arrest and seizure. In thiscontext, villagers require adequate training in lawful andproper methods of arrest in order to be able to confis-cate illegally extracted resources (rattan, resins, timber)and apprehend illegalistas.

Evidence shows that indigenous people who haveacquired a legally recognised form of land tenure arewilling to risk and expose themselves personally in orderto protect their land from intruders and illegal activities.For instance, the Tagbanuwas and Batak of Kayasan haveapprehended several outsiders found illegally extractingalmaciga resin within an ancestral domain with legal title(awarded February 28, 1996):

“The first arrest was made on July 15, 1997 involv-ing 51 sacks of almaciga resin transported on abalsa through the Babuyan river. On August 3,1997, a second arrest was made which involved96 sacks transported on the same river.The thirdand fourth arrests were made in the mountains onNovember 25 and 26 1997, involving 19 and 30sacks respectively” (ELAC Bulletin January1998).

Some of the barangay officials interviewed during themission seem to favour the idea of creating voluntaryauxiliary forces in charge of patrolling and protectingtheir environment from illegal activities. Barangay cap-tains could be in charge of selecting volunteers fromboth indigenous and migrant communities.

C. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORKFOR THE RECOGNITION OFANCESTRAL DOMAINS “Those who plunder our land come from otherplaces. They come here to strip away mangrovebark, to cut timber, to poison the sea, to kill all thefish, they take what they need and go.They makeour land poorer and poorer, they make us poorerand poorer. They go back to their place, but westay here to suffer the consequences of theiractions.The government allows this to happen, theyignore our land, our race.We heard that we may beevicted from our land, because we have neithercertificates nor titles.We cannot go further into the



interior. How can we survive on the mountainpeaks? No matter what, we are not afraid to die inthis land. If they ever ask us to leave, we’ll hangourselves” (a Pälawan from Sagi)

There are already disturbing reports about Pälawancommitting suicide because of land controversies anddisputes.The BPP-FPP mission received information thatin the village of Tagsitäk (Bataraza), a Pälawan committedsuicide after being charged with a fine of 10,000 pesosfor failing to submit the yearly tax declaration for his landover several consecutive years. Further investigationrevealed that the area cultivated by the Pälawan had beeninherited from his grandfather. In addition, under DENRregulations, the area was classified as forest land, andthus not subject to annual taxation.When Republic ActNo. 8371 (Indigenous Peoples’ Right Act: IPRA) was firstenacted in 1997, it seemed to address serious indigenousconcerns. However, the failure to implement the law isnow leaving thousands of indigenous communities indesolation.

C1. The IPRA lawOn January 15th 1993, DENR enacted Special Order No.25 for the creation of a task force responsible for identi-fying, delineating and recognising claims to ancestrallands and ancestral domains. Subsequently, in 1997, the“Indigenous Peoples’ Right Act” (IPRA) was enacted withthe primary objective of recognising, protecting, and pro-moting the rights of indigenous cultural communities.Chapter 4 of IPRA provides indigenous peoples with therights to self-governance and empowerment. It includesthe right to use local juridical systems and conflict reso-lution mechanisms, and other customary laws and prac-tices as long as these are compatible with the nationallegal system and internationally recognised human rights.Furthermore, chapter 5, section 21, provides for equalprotection and non-discrimination of indigenous peoplein addition to the recognition of their distinctive charac-teristics and identity. More importantly, sections 29 and33 of chapter 6 state that:

“the state shall respect, recognise and protect theright of Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs)and Indigenous Peoples (IPs) to preserve and pro-tect their culture, traditions and institutions. It shallconsider these rights in the formulation and appli-cation of national plans and policies...ICCs/IPs shallhave the right to manifest, practice, develop andteach their spiritual and religious traditions, cus-toms and ceremonies”.

The reference to religious freedom is a crucial point ofthe law, since in Palawan, as elsewhere in the Philippines,different religious sects compete to obtain the highestnumber of followers in a single community, with the ulti-mate effect of exacerbating social frictions and commu-nity fragmentation.

The IPRA law also distinguishes and provides spe-cific definitions for indigenous “tenurial” rights overancestral domains and ancestral lands.Within the formerset of rights people are allowed to claim ownership overtheir land and the resources therein.They have the rightto occupy and develop their territory and naturalresources. In addition, they posess the right to opposedisplacement and to regulate the entry of migrants etc.

Rights to ancestral land include the power to recoverland-property rights obtained by members of non-indige-nous communities through vitiated consent or otherquestionable means within a period not extending 15years from the date of transfer. Under the same chapter,indigenous people acquire the right to transfer the prop-erty right to land to other members of their own com-munity.

Interestingly enough, the law also allows indigenouspeoples to secure individual land rights over those terri-tories which have been occupied for not less than thirtyyears prior to the enforcement of Republic Act No.8271. This implies that people can receive such rightsthrough the issuance of a Certificate of Title under Com-monwealth Act No. 141, or the Land Registration Act496. It is noteworthy that this provision includes as alien-able and disposable even those areas with a slope ofeighteen per cent or more.

Undoubtedly, the legislation on ancestral land repre-sents a fundamental step in favour of indigenous peoples.On the other hand, it imposes alien and cumbersomeprocedures relating to the submission of proofs for theidentification and recognition of ancestral domains (seesec. 51 of chapter VII).These include:

“the testimony of elders of the community underoath and other documents directly or indirectlyattesting to the possession or occupation of thearea since time immemorial, written accounts ofindigenous customs and traditions, political struc-ture, survey plans, anthropological data, genealogi-cal surveys, photographic documentation of burialgrounds, agricultural improvements, huntinggrounds, traditional landmarks, etc.”

Paradoxically, indigenous peoples are required to utilisewestern analytical tools to make claims to ancestralresources and to interpret, document, and explain theirown culture. If local communities want to enforce theirland claims, they therefore need to request the assis-tance of foreign experts, NGO representatives and gov-ernment officials. Again, criteria for what constitutelegitimate ancestral rights over land are grounded in theassumed authority of western scientific methods. In con-trast, local criteria for valid land claims are not taken fullyinto account (Novellino 1998, 1999).

There are other sections of IPRA that would neces-sitate a revision. Sec. 57 of chapter 8 specifies that “theICCs/IPs shall have priority rights in the harvesting, extraction,development or exploitation of any natural resources withinthe ancestral domains”. It has been pointed out that “pri-ority rights” are not “absolute rights” (IWGIA 1988) andthis implies that even non-indigenous people can claimrights to indigenous resources. Furthermore, the possi-ble inclusion of other legal land categories such as water-sheds, wildlife sanctuaries, and protected areas inindigenous ancestral domains (see section 58) may havethe effect of weakening indigenous control and access tothe resources found within such categories. Anotheranomaly of IPRA is that it says nothing about the rights ofindigenous people to refuse the entry of authorisedcompanies (e.g. mining, logging, industrial exploitation,etc.) in their ancestral domain. Only in Section 7, para-graph C, do we learn that:”No ICCs/IPs will be relocatedwithout their free and prior informed consent, nor throughany means other than eminent domain”.

It seems almost certain that, in a country whereindigenous communities have already been confined tothe most marginal and inhospitable areas, there is littlethat IPRA can do to recover the lost territories forthose who have been misplaced forcibly. For instance, insection 56 we learn that: “property rights within the ances-tral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivelyunder this act, shall be recognised and respected”.This mayimply that leases for mining, logging and cattle ranchingwill continue to exist even when a certain area isdeclared as an ancestral domain under the IPRA law.

C2. Alternatives to IPRA’s slow downUnder the Estrada administration the IPRA law has finallysunk. Indigenous advocacy commentators have arguedthat:

“the creation of the National Council of IndigenousPeoples (NCIP), the national body mandated toimplement IPRA, has been marred by politicalsquabbles. Parties and groups close to Malacanangare vying for the Chairmanship against the wishesof the indigenous peoples’ advocate groups”(IWGIA 1999: 187).

When and whether the NCIP controversy will beresolved remains an open question. It is significant topoint out, however, that no funds have yet beenrequested and secured for NCIP to carry out its task.Even more worrying is the fact that Mr. Cerilles (DENRSecretary) has ordered that all pending Certification ofAncestral Domain Claim (CADC) applications to befrozen.

In Palawan, the suspension of all CADC applicationshas created much disappointment among indigenousgroups and NGOs. Different organisations are now try-ing to come up with alternative solutions to secure theindigenous ancestral domain in spite of the wishes of theDENR secretary. One such alternative is being promotedby Atty. Lito Alisuag, the director of the Palawan Councilfor Sustainable Development (PCSD). PCSD is a uniquegovernment body formed by Republic Act No. 7611 witha mandate for the protection of the environment withinthe province. Indigenous interests are very poorly repre-sented within the council whose decisions clearlyexpress the views of the authorities.

A draft resolution on “adopting the revised guide-lines for the identification and delineation of the tribalancestral zone under SEP (Strategic Environmental Law)”was in the process of being revised by the PCSD inAugust 1999. Republic Act No. 7611 empowers PCSD togovern, implement and give policy direction to the SEP,and provides for the recognition of tribal ancestral landsas a main component in the Environmentally CriticalAreas Network (ECAN). In Section 1 (Chapter IV) of theproposed draft it is stated that:

“the Palawan Council for Sustainable Developmentshall create a special committee composed of thePCSD as Chair, DENR-PENRO as Vice-Chair andthe NCIP-Provincial Office, the Environment andNatural Resources Office-Province, the ProvincialPlanning and Development Office, the ProvincialLeague of Municipalities, the DAR-Provincial Agrar-ian Reform Office and Local Government Units asmembers.The NGO and IP representatives shall be

appointed by the PCSD upon the recommendationof the NGO representative to the Council.The com-mittee shall be called the Palawan Special Com-mittee on Tribal Ancestral Zones, hereinafterreferred to as PSCTAZ”.

In Palawan, some NGOs have raised doubts about thecapacity of the proposed PSCTAZ to perform all taskspertaining to the identification and delineation of tribalancestral zones. For instance, Offie Bernardino, executivesecretary of PNNI, has argued that, until now, DAO 2remains the single instrument for ensuring that the rulesand regulations of ECAN tribal zones are properlyimplemented. She adds that it is unlikely that any DENRofficials joining the PSCTAZ will support any processthat recognises tribal ancestral zones as this would con-tradict the wishes of their national secretary. Anothermajor weakness of the PCSD draft resolution is its lackof innovation. Rather then moving forwards, it replicatesmost of the implementing guidelines set out by the DAO.In addition, both the DAO and the IPRA have been criti-cised for the complicated procedures that indigenousclaimants must follow in order to apply for a Certificateof Ancestral Land Claims (see Novellino 1998, 1999).Asnoted in C1 above, indigenous people are expected tosubmit numerous and complex proofs of their landclaims to government officials. In addition to this, thePCSD draft resolution reaffirms one of the weakest andmost ambiguous points of the ECAN criteria for landzoning:

“...except for the stronger emphasis on culturalconsiderations, tribal ancestral land shall betreated in the same graded system of control andprotection as other areas within ECAN’s terrestrialand coastal/marine zones”

What is at stake becomes clearer towards the end ofsection 1 (Chapter VI) where we learn that the guidelinesfor implementing the Environmentally Critical AreasNetwork (ECAN) will also apply to “tribal ancestrallands”, provided however that:

“the material and cultural needs of the tribal com-munities concerned are fulfilled... (and that)... thetribal communities will be allowed minimal andsoft impact gathering of forest species for ceremo-nial and medicinal purposes in the core zone.”

It is evident that the resolution drafted by the PCSDmakes no significant departure from the “culturallyunsound” land zoning criteria proposed by the SEP (seeB1 above). To be genuinely innovative and “pro-native”,the resolution should abandon any attempt to implementwestern zoning criteria within tribal ancestralzones.Instead, it must push for the participatory mappingof such areas, and for the adoption of indigenous landclassification criteria for defining different vegetationtypes and land use categories. These points should bemade explicit in Section 1 (Chapter VIII) named “Distinctand Special Treatment of Ancestral Lands and Domains”.

C3. Can indigenous land rights be sold? The BPP-FPP mission discovered that an increasing num-ber of indigenous people are “selling” their land to Fil-ipino migrants. Surprisingly, most of the land involved in



these transactions is in fact defined by the government as“forest land” within the public domain. According toPresidential Decree (PD. 705 of 1975), such land isinalienable. An environmental lawyer from ELAC claimsthat the practice of “selling rights” can be contestedunder Sec. 68 of PD 705.This establishes and describesthe penalties for the “unlawful occupation or destructionof forest lands”. Such penalties range from fines toimprisonment, and are applied to:

“any person who enters and occupies or pos-sesses, or makes kaingin for his own private use orfor others, on any forest land without authorityunder a license agreement, lease, license or permit,or in any manner that destroys such forest land orpart thereof, or causes damage to the timber,stand and other products and forest growths foundtherein, or who assist, aid or abet any other personto do so, or who set a fire, or negligently permits afire to be set in any forest land...”

Given these restrictions, PD 705 clearly prohibits indige-nous people, as well as migrants, from freely undertakingagricultural practices within forest territories. Crucially,the same law deprives upland communities of the rightto acquire any form of security of tenure over their landsand settlements located on steep ground. Specifically, PDNo. 705 applies an “18% slope rule” that states that:

“no land in the public domain, with a slope of eigh-teen per cent (18%) or over shall be classified asalienable and disposable, nor any forest land witha slope of fifty per cent (50%) or over, as grazingland. Lands with a slope of eighteen per cent orover which have already been declared as alien-able and disposable shall be reverted to the classi-fication of forest lands”.

During the BPP-FPP mission, several government officialswere interviewed on issues relating to the unlawful occu-pation of forest land, and especially on the commonpractice of “buying rights” to land from indigenous occu-pants.According to several barangay officials, land is notactually being sold to migrants in a straightforward com-mercial way. Instead, they argue that the indigenous occu-pants who first developed the land (e.g., through clearingof forest, planting of perennial crops, etc.) are simplytransferring to migrants the right to continue agriculturaldevelopment on the land. This “transfer of rights” isacknowledged by the barangay captain under the pres-ence of both parties (the indigenous sellers, the migrantsbuyers), and later certified by the Municipal Mayor.Before a certificate is released, barangay officials(cagawad) inspect the area to determine its present useand the degree of development on the land.

Most of the barangay officials interviewed by themission are well aware of the exploitation taking place atthe expense of the local indigenous people. Althoughofficials claim to have received instructions from theMunicipal level that they must encourage native peopleto develop their existing clearings permanently, ratherthen selling them, they have not been able to slow landsales. In fact, native people are selling more and moreland to new and old migrants. The sale of “land rights”has involved serious exploitation. For example, before1980, indigenous people in Palawan would reportedly“sell” hectares of land in exchange for a few sticks of

tobacco, a few packets of biscuits, a radio or a metal pot.Today, the price requested for one hectare of land is stillridiculously low, averaging between 2000 to 3000 pesos(c.US$53 - $79). BPP-FPP mission members receivedinformation that members of acculturated indigenouscommunities often act as “land sale” agents. Confusionand conflicts usually arise when the same piece of land is“sold” to more then one buyer, either by an agent, ordirectly by the “indigenous owners” of such land.

D. THE IMPACT OF ROADEXPANSION IN THEMUNICIPALITY OF RIZAL“We are like birds, if the government tell us to moveout, we’ll fly away. We have no idea whether thisroad will bring good or bad things, no one has talkedto us, no one has consulted us. A group of peoplecame here to take measurements, to write downnumbers and then left. Now, the only thing I know iswhat I see: the bulldozers are entering our forefa-thers’ land” (A Pälawan elder from Panalingaan).

“Unless our land is titled to us, with or without theroad, land grabbing will continue. The road itselfdoes not scare us as long as we have the rights tocontrol the entrance of migrants to our land. Butthe government does not recognise our land rights,so when the road reaches us, we will have no otheroption than to leave this place. I think it is better tosell our land to migrants now, before the roadreaches here. Better to get some money now, ratherthen abandoning our land later without a peso inour pocket” (a young Pälawan from Tagbitok)

The completion of the “circumferencial” road enclosingand crossing the entire Palawan province is a key ambi-tion that the government intends to achieve before theend of the year 2000.The multiple impacts of the rapidlyexpanding road on fragile ecosystems have so far beingignored, and no effective measures have been taken tocounterbalance their harmful consequences.As a result,large portions of forest have been cut down, and migrantsettlers have entered indigenous lands. Local Pälawancommunities are now requesting that their claims toancestral domains be recognised before the road is fur-ther expanded.

The BPP-FPP mission visited different portions ofthe road under construction in the barangay of Panalin-gaan,Taburi, Latud and Canipaan.The mission discoveredthat sections of the road pass through steep and brokenterrain often across or alongside streams and channels,thus causing a substantial amount of soil deposition andsedimentation in rivers and mangrove swamps during theconstruction phase. Stretches of the road cross or passclose to delicate ecosystems, which are highly prone tosoil erosion and landslides.

The main stretch of the road was opened in 1992. Itis now being enlarged and completed. Rather than pro-tecting the existing forest on the road side, the local gov-ernment has encouraged the unregulated settlement ofmigrants on such forests. BPP members began to docu-ment forest destruction along the road in April 1998.

During that time, uncontrolled fires were used to clearpatches of forest in Ransang (Balin Balin site) to expandthe barangay settlement area. The mission returned tothe area in July 1999 to discover that the same area hasnow been occupied by several migrant Filipino house-holds.

Portions of forest land crossed by the national roadhave also been released to the Federation of LandReform Farmers (FLRF). It would appear that in 1996,during the administration of the former Mayor of Rizal,Nicola Montaño, the FLRF was granted an additional 500hectares of forest with tree cover for conversion to set-tlement and agricultural land. The indigenous Pälawantraditionally utilising the area have been forced to moveelsewhere. Furthermore, large tracts of forest alongsidethe road have been released to influential businessmenand politicians. According to one informant, more than40 hectares of forest in good condition in Punta Baja(Rizal Municipality) have been released to one of thepoliticians that ran for Mayor during the last ‘98 election.This area is now being converted into tree plantations.

The impact of road construction on the environ-ment is particularly severe in the last stretch of theCulasian-Panalingaan road that crosses a forested area. InPanalingaan and Taburi proper, the road also poses agreat threat to adjacent mangrove forest. In all areasinspected during the mission, local timber from the sur-rounding forest is being utilised without proper authori-sation by the road companies for building bridges and forother construction purposes. Section 68 of PD 705establishes that such extraction of timber species isunlawful:

“any person who shall cut, gather, collect, removetimber or other forest products from any forestlands, or timber from alienable or disposable pub-lic land, or from private land, without any authority,or possess timber or other forest products withoutthe legal documents as required under existing for-est laws and regulations, shall be punished with thepenalties imposed under Articles 303 and 310 ofthe Revised Penal Code”.

In fact, according to Philippine law, any person cuttingtimber must first secure a permit from the local Com-munity Environment and Natural Resources Office(CENRO). Even the municipal Mayor has no authority toissue permits to cut trees. Not only do private contrac-tors lack the proper documentation for extracting wild

tree species, they also fail to take adequate measures tominimise the impact of road construction on the ecosys-tem. In summary, contractors are forced to economise atthe expense of the environment due to the limited bud-get available for road construction.

As well as the direct impacts of road building, theroad has also caused serious indirect impacts on theenvironment. Field evidence shows that forest areas havebeen converted into swidden field and wet rice cultiva-tion adjacement to the newly constructed road. Forestconversion has been undertaken by Filipino migrantswho hire indigenous people to clear undergrowth andfell trees. Pälawan native people that are suffering foodshortages accept this wage-labour in order to obtainmuch needed cash.The mission was able to establish thathouseholds settled along the newly constructed road areoften “old migrants” rather then “recent migrants”.Theformer are the first to take advantage of the new oppor-tunities offered by the road.We met Filipino householdsopening new fields along the road sides, after having dis-tributed their previous agriculturally developed land totheir married children.

In some areas, (Panalingaan proper), the missionfound that road construction is also affecting productiveresources and land managed by indigenous people (e.g.,coconut and other fruit trees). The government hasreportedly established compensation prices for treecrops cut in the course of government infrastructureprojects (e.g., road construction). However, most of thenative people interviewed had no knowledge of this, andare afraid to ask for compensation for their domestictrees destroyed by the road. Crucially, government com-pensation prices do not seem to apply to “wild” treespecies like wild rambutan and wild durian. Such speciesare often planted by native people in their house gardensand swidden fields. As vegetation succession proceeds,these species become part of the productive forest land-scape managed by indigenous households.

Indigenous peoples and government officials clearlyhave contrasting perspectives and hold different expecta-tions regarding the new road. So far, roads have beenconceived and constructed for motor vehicles. Littleconsideration has been given to the fact that road userswill also include “barefoot” community members. In thefuture, traffic will increase and fast moving vehicles maybecome a threat to the lives and safety of the local peo-ple.Therefore, road construction should include lanes for


Above left: Thepristine mangroveforest of Panalingaanbeing threatened byroad construction.Note the largequantity of soilpushed by bulldozersinto the mangrovesswamp below.

Above right: Landslide on the newlyopen stretch of thenational road inPanalingaan proper.


pedestrians and safe crossings from the main roads tothe paths leading to fields and villages.

Road planners think mainly in terms of “breakingdown isolation” and enhancing the movement of goodsand people through motorised transport. On the otherhand, those community members in favour of the roadare more interested in increasing their marketing oppor-tunities. In particular, the more acculturated members ofsuch communities hope that enhanced road links willfree them from the exploitative trade of middlemen, andallow them to sell their products directly to the market.Others hope that the road will give better access tohealth services and legal assistance. Local people there-fore believe that road expansion must be coupled withimproved services in order to bring real benefits to theircommunities. Other indigenous communities met duringthe mission are worried about the future impact of theroad (e.g., the Pälawan of Buhog). The people of Buhoghave already experienced settler encroachment as aresult of logging operations in their area during the sev-enties.Today they blame the South Wood Logging Com-pany for having degraded and eroded areas traditionallyutilised by them for swidden cultivation.

Other Pälawan met in the community of Tagbitok(Taburi proper) have already given up hope that roadconstruction will stop.They are aware that without anyform of tenurial security it will be impossible to stopmigrants settling on their land. Some households in Tag-bitok are therefore planning to sell their agriculturalimprovements and vacate the area before the roadreaches their homes. In the same community, otherinformants claim that their village territory has becomeunsafe because migrants have destroyed their sacred for-est (liaqan).They say that the area is no longer guardedby benevolent non-human agents, and is thus susceptibleto misfortune and attack by pests. In sum, road buildingand colonisation causes physical damage to forest landand habitats which in turn can also be detrimental to thespiritual well-being of indigenous communities.

Road construction can also lead to social and eco-nomic change. For example, road development willarguably reinforce and increase the economic disparitybetween migrant settlers and disadvanted indigenouscommunities. In particular, road improvement will fosternew economic opportunities for those migrant house-holds trading prime commodities, while indigenous peo-ple will lose access to traditional food zones as migrantsappropriate and deplete the local resource base. With

the decline in local food sources, indigenous householdswill become even more dependent on unscrupuloustraders. Furthermore, improved roads are expected toproduce better opportunities for the unauthorisedtransportation of non-timber forest products to themunicipal centres. DENR has established check points toregulate the transportation of NTFPs all over Palawan.However, the implementation of DENR regulations isgenerally weak. Some officers at the check points areeven in league with the traffickers in forest products.Many commentators also believe that business in so-called “ecotourism” will increase and become a majorsource of dollars in southern Palawan when the newroad is completed. Indeed, the Department of Tourism(DOT) has so far:

“identified 17 protected areas all over the countryas suitable for ecotourism. It is important to notethat majority of these areas are the territories ofindigenous peoples” (de Chavez 1999)

Not surprisingly, Palawan is becoming the major destina-tion for “adventure tourist packages”. Pälawan communi-ties such as the Tau’t Batu (in Singnapan valley, Ransang)have been publicised as pristine cave dwellers, and theirculture has become an object of commercialisation foran increasing number of self-promoting guides bringingtourists to their villages.Tourists visiting the area tend toassume that their presence has no harmful effects on thepeople they visit. They are attracted by the “millenary”practices of the people, but they also become indignantupon discovering the presence of radios and moderntechnology in the communities they visit. Likewise, theydeplore the loss of cultural “authenticity” that theyblame on the advent of modernity, unaware that theirpresence in the area is itself an agent of cultural transfor-mation.Taboos have been constantly broken by touristswho have bathed naked in the Sumuron river (Signapanvalley).Village women have complained about foreignershaving sexual intercourse in the surrounding forest.Veryold rock drawings have also been vandalised by a touristin Singnapan valley. Overall, the National Museum policyof requiring permits to visit the Tau’t Batu area (asrequired by RA 4846 as amended by PD 374) has beentotally ineffective in regulating the entry of tourists andsensationalists to indigenous territories.

The foregoing discussion has outlined some of themost controversial and negative implications of roaddevelopment in Southern Palawan. It is now necessary to

Above left and right:Last portions of theCulasian-Panlingaanroad stretch. Clearlyas it appears theroad crosses areas ofsecondary forest andit’s quite prone toland slides.

consider the potential benefits that a new road couldbring to local communities. It is possible that the road-way might provide a source of paid employment. Forexample, during the rainy season, the road will need con-stant maintenance. Part-time contracts at prevailing wagerates could be given to groups of villagers (road mainte-nance associations) employed periodically for repairingthe road surface and clearing drainage ditches. Thesecontracts would provide an alternative source of incometo local farmers and indigenous people especially duringthe season of food shortage.

Although some potential benefits might stem fromthe road in the future, these are not assured. In contrast,there is already hard proof that road construction is hav-ing direct negative impacts on the environment and facili-tating increased migrant colonisation on forest land.TheBPP-FPP mission therefore recommends that the govern-ment and relevant officials immediately suspend all roadconstruction activities until an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) is prepared, as required by DENR Admin-istrative Order no. 96-37. Information obtained in thefield suggests that the road contractors have no DENREnvironmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) to certifythat the project will have minimal environmental effects.On August 9, 1999, the national secretary of BangsaPalawan, Mike Lacson and BPP National Adviser NollyEresmas, visited the Department of Public Works andHighways (DPWH) - 2nd Engineering District - in Narra,to enquire about the ongoing road construction in RizalMunicipality. They met with Engineer Isidoro Tumimbangand with Mr. Daniel Abela (field specialist monitoring offi-cer).The following information was obtained:

● The DPWH was the agency in charge of surveyingand opening the road in the southern part ofBataraza and Rizal municipality. At present, privatecontractors are responsible for the final construc-tion of the road (widening, gravelling, etc.). TheDPWH should have been responsible for the prepa-ration of an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) tomeet the requirements of an Environment Compli-ance Cerificate (ECC) from the DENR. Engr.Tumim-bang, however, admitted that they have no ideaabout how to prepare an EIS, since they have neverreceived specific training on EIS procedures.

With reference to the second piece of information, Mr.Abela explained that his office is only responsible forpreparing an EIS once it has received funds disburseddirectly from the National Government. However, wherefunds are channelled through a province, the local gov-ernment is in charge of preparing an EIS (i.e., the agenciesof the municipalities and barangay concerned). Further-more, Mr. Abela admits that, in the past, the DPWHregional office did organise a seminar on EIS proceduresin Manila, but that district officers could not afford to paythe15,000 pesos cost to attend the seminar.Not only theofficers of DPWH, but also the public affairs informationofficer of Palawan province told BPP mission membersthat: “none of the projects implemented in Palawan have aEnvironmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) because it takestoo long to obtain an ECC from the DENR”.The foregoingevidence indicates that ongoing road construction inSouthern Palawan is being carried out in total contraven-tion of existing environmental laws and regulations.


Above right: Evidenceof large forest treesbeing converted intolumber by theconstructioncompany (phototaken in closeproximity toPanalingaanbarangay center).

Right:The very laststretch of the roadportion connectingCulasian toPanalingaanbarangay center.Note the forest onthe side of the roadbeing converted intoagricultural fields bymigrants.


E. THE PLUNDER OFMANGROVE FORESTS

A number of laws and regulations for the protection andmanagement of mangroves in the Philippines have been pro-mulgated through Presidential Decrees since 1974: PD No.389, 704, 705, 950, 1041, 1121, 1152, 1559), Special Orders(SO No. 3, 309), Letters of Instructions (LOI. No. 917), andAdministrative Orders (BFD AO No. 74). Finally, in 1981,former president Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2155declaring the entire province of Palawan and certain parcelsof the public domain as a mangrove swamp forest sanctuary.

However, the lack of political will to uphold the lawhas meant that the indiscriminate destruction of man-groves has continued in Palawan and in other provinces.Since 1918, the Philippines has lost 78% of its mangroves.In the 1920s, there were about 500,000 hectares classi-fied as mangrove areas. According to a SPOT satellitesurvey, in 1988 only 150,000 ha remained of a total of240,000 ha. of mangrove forest recorded in 1980. Thesurvey found that the remaining mangrove areas werefound mainly in Palawan (about 22%), the East and South-West coast of Mindanao (32%), and Eastern Visayas andBohol (23%).

Many mangrove habitats in the Philippines havebeen cleared to make way for fish farms.About 95 per-cent of present commercial fishponds in the Philippineswere formally mangroves. One national federation offishermen (PAMALAKAYA) claims that the conversion ofmangroves into fishponds has continued unabated inZambales and Davao because of corruption, and the con-nivance of local government officers with law-breakers(illegalistas) (cf. Segovia 1995). It is well known that, in thePhilippines, the largest illegally built fish-pens are ownedby military and police generals, colonels and majors(ibid.). Not surprisingly, the order of former PresidentRamos to blast illegally constructed fishponds has beendelayed in Region VI, upon discovering that they wereowned by the provincial governor and a member of theCabinet (ibid.).

There have been several attempts to convert man-groves into fishponds in Palawan. Recently, the Barangaycaptain of Panalingaan (BPP treasurer) was approached bysome illegalistas and offered 20,000 pesos to allow theclearing of a mangrove area for a fishpond. CaptainManzul refused the offer, and advised the illegalistas tovacate the area. The case of Panalingaan shows that,

despite all limitations, the local government can play anactive role in protecting the mangroves in their respectivebarangay. In other areas of Palawan, the local governmenthas been unable to impose environmental laws and, as aresult, large mangrove stretches in the municipalities ofBataraza and Brook’s point have been severely damaged.The BPP-FPP mission found recent evidence of man-groves being converted into fish ponds in the Barangay ofRio Tuba (Rizal municipality). According to local infor-mants, such fish ponds are part of the livelihood projectssupported by the Rio Tuba Nickel Mining Corporation.

E1. A preliminary ethnobotanical accountof mangroves in the municipality of Rizal

“In the mangroves we collect the tuwaj, we eattheir inner flesh and make lime from the shells.Wechew the lime with areca nuts and betel leaves.Bungäl bungäl shells are also found here.They arevery tasty. The tamiluk worms lives in the innerpart of the decaying mangrove trees and are goodto eat.We also catch usäd (mangrove eel) and thesumbilang (cat fish) with harpoons and by meansof tuba (derris elliptica).The balud pigeon (Daculaaenea) nests in the mangroves. It is easier to huntbirds there, because trees are not as tall as theyare in the rain forest.We often hunt bugan (grayheron), tälalaw (kingfisher), bintis (a small kingfisher), and a few monkeys that also roam insidethe mangroves.

“When we are bitten by the salubay (jellyfish),we pound the bark of mangrove trees and place iton the affected part.The decoction of the bark isalso good against scabies and it prevents woundinfections. We boil the mangrove bark until thewater becomes red. We use it to dye ropes andclothes.The katungan is the place where we get allthese things. The outsiders are destroying thissource of life. No one can make a forest again, sowe appeal to the government to stop the plunder-ing of our mangroves now!” (A Pälawan from Sagi)

Rhizophora is the most abundant plant genera found inthe mangrove swamps of Palawan. Rhizophora trees dif-ferentiate from all other species because of the elongatedhardy seeds that germinate and grow on the parent tree(vivipary or “live birth”).When ripe, the seeds drop fromthe tree and get stuck in the soft mud at low tide. In thePhilippines, the family Rhizophoraceae is represented by

Below left: Oldmangrove forestconverted in fishponds in rio Tuba.

Below right: Interiorview of a Swamp ofRhizophora alongthe coast of Taburi atlow tide.

three genera:Rhizophora,Bruguiera and Ceriops. In virginswamps, the most common species include Rhizophoracandelaria, R. mucronata; Ceriops tagal, C. Roxburghiana;Brughiera conjugata, B. parviflora, B. cylindrica and B. sexan-gula. Trees of the genus Rhizophora are easily distin-guished from all other trees by their numerous aerialroots that form an impenetrable environment.The aerialroots of these mangrove species grow upward above themud and absorb oxygen from the air at low tide.

The variety of mangrove species can combine to formseveral different types of plant community. The combina-tion of species is related to local physiography, tidal inunda-tion and salinity levels. Interviews with indigenous Pälawanhave revealed that the people classify the mangrove envi-ronment under two major categories: bakawan and katun-gan. The term bakawan is applied to those areas colonisedexclusively by Rhizophora species. Such areas are alwaysflooded at high tide, and other then seedlings of the samespecies, these forests are free from undergrowth. In theupper portions of rivers and along streams flowing throughthe mangrove, nipa palms (Nypa fruticans) are abundant.

The category katungan refers to a mixed vegetationenvironment that is found between mangrove swampsand dry forest. Here, the most common mangrove treesare of the genus Bruguiera (e.g., pututan - Bruguiera sexan-

gula, and langadej - Bruguiera parviflora).The outer fringesof these mangrove swamps, where the soil is mixed withsand and coral limestone, are mainly colonised by speciessuch as pärätpat (Sonneratia caseolaris) - one of the largesttrees in the area, reaching a maximum diameter of 80centimeters or more. Other common species includetäbigiq (Xylocarpus granatum), dungän (Heritera littoralis),bunäg (Garcinia vidalii), ulanguq (Pandanus amaryllifolius),anibung (Oncosperma tigillaria) and Avicennia officinalis.Themixed mangrove forest (katungan) is also abundant inepiphytes like Hoya, Dischidia and orchids (Cymbidiumand Dendrobium species). Ferns such as Drynaria querci-folia, Polypodium sinuatum, and Aspelenium nidus alsothrive.The margins of the katungan forest (e.g., in Panalin-gaan proper) feature other interesting patches ofendemic plants such as Aguhu (Casuarina equisetifola) andwild pandan laut (Pandanus sp.).

Palawan people commonly use the leaves of pandanlaut for weaving mats. In some communities, as amongthe muslim people of Mangsi island in Southern Palawan,the mats are produced on a commercial scale for trade.However, in Mangsi, the wild supply of pandan laut hasbeen exhausted. In view of the accelerated loss of wildpandan plants in other parts of Palawan as well, urgentattention should be given to pandan protection and sus-tainable extraction in areas where the plant is still abun-dant (e.g., Panalingaan). According to native people inPanalingaan, one particular area that is still abundant inPandan laut is also the traditional nesting ground for seaturtles.The population of sea turtles has been severelyreduced in recent times due to the over-harvesting of itseggs. A conservation strategy for Pandan laut stands


Above left:ABruguiera tree inforeground, and treesof Rhizophora in thebackground.

Above right: Highdiversity of epiphytes(Hoya, Dischidia,orchids and ferns) inthe mangrove forestof Cadawan.

Left:Two Pälawanboys from Kalawitonready to set theirtraps for crabs in thenearby mangroves.

Right:A Pälawanfrom Cadawanextracting tamiluk(edible invertebrates)from a rottenrhizophora trunk.


could therefore also be combined with efforts to con-serve breeding colonies of sea turtles.

The BPP-FPP mission was able to document someof the most common indigenous uses of mangrovespecies. According to one Pälawan informant theseinclude the use of tängär bark (probably Ceriops rox-burghiana) to enhance the fermentation of rice wine.Barks of mangrove species are also used for dyingclothes and ropes. Some barks are also pounded andapplied directly to skin infections and even jellyfish bites.In addition, mangrove poles are occasionally used forhouse building. For example, being resistant to salt water,Bakaw wood is especially suited for use as house founda-tion piles that must withstand regular submersion undertidal water.

Mangroves are also an important source of incomefor local communities. Large alimango crabs are certainlythe most valuable NTFP available in mangrove forests.Thecrabs are captured by the local Pälawan by means of con-ical fish traps and other devices. Regardless of their size,alimango crabs are sold by the natives to local traders forbetween 25 to 35 pesos per kg. However, in PuertoPrincesa City the crabs are selected and valued accordingto their size.The price for small and medium size alimangocrabs averages around 80 or 90 pesos, or between 90 and120 pesos per kilogram respectively. Given the economicvalue of alimango crabs, future conservation strategiesshould aim to combine the protection of mangroveforests with the sustainable harvest of crabs. In this way,mangrove habitat conservation would feature a sustain-able livelihood component that would aim to ensure thatcoastal Pälawan communities continue to enjoy significantbenefits from their local environment.

Discussions with indigenous mangrove users haverevealed that local knowledge of this specific ecosystemis well developed. Local mythology features importantlegends about mangrove forests. One Pälawan informanttold the BPP-FPP mission that bakaw is the strongest(mäksäg) tree created by God, and that: “even if the worldcollapses (malnäb) and is submerged by the ocean, thebakaw forest will survive”. Other legends narrate that, longago, God used the fruit of the bakaw tree to punish anincestuous couple. When the couple were having inter-course in their dugout canoe, a mangrove fruit fell fromthe canopy, transfixing their bodies. Other legends nar-rate that bakaw fruit can transform itself into eels andtamiluk (an edible mangrove invertebrate).

E2. A description of the mangrove sitesvisitedThe BPP-FPP mission visited six major mangrove sites inthe following areas: Cadawan (barangay Canipaan),Taburibarangay proper, Pamimbawan (barangay Taburi),Tagbitok(barangay Taburi), Bäsaj (barangay Taburi) and the man-groves along the Canipaan river up to the settlement ofKalawiton (see attached map). The mangrove forestsalong the Panalingaan river and in Barangay Latud werevisited in previous years by BPP members and, accordingto local Pälawan informants, they are still in very goodcondition. Some patches of coastal forest in Latud, how-ever, have been converted to agriculture during the pasttwo years, and this could make mangrove forest moreaccessible to intrusion. At this time, Panalingaan is stillthought to possess the largest area of old-growth man-grove forest in the region.The road connecting Panalin-gaan to the other barangay is now being completed.Immediate measures are therefore needed to protectthe mangrove forets of Panalingaan from illegal exploita-tion. While Panalingaan mangroves have not beenexploited to date, wild stocks of nipa palms along themain river have reportedly been over-harvested.Accord-ing to indigenous informants, wild nipa vegetation hasbeen subjected to ruthless exploitation. The same infor-mants claim that members of Bantay Palawan (an appre-hending branch of DENR) were involved in theover-harvesting and trading of nipa leaves. BantayPalawan was created in 1993 through executive orderNo. 4, issued by Provincial Governor Salvador P. Socrates,with the specific mandate to protect coastal resources.However, due to shortage of funds, Bantay Palawan hasencountered serious difficulties in performing its task.

Cadawan

On the 19th of July the mission left Panalingaan barangaycenter on foot. In the late afternoon, the mission groupreached the community of Cadawan. Here, goodstretches of mangrove forest are still found.The forest onthe surrounding hills is mainly converted into swiddenfields with a few patches of secondary forest still standing.Some of the local households own numerous coconutpalms aged between 20 to 70 years. Such householdsobtain much of their income from the production andsale of copra. Fishing and the gathering of shells and crabsserve to supplement the people’s diet in this community.Several fruit tress such as mango, manti (Nephelim sp.),

Below left: Onestretch of the roadconnectingPanalingaan toCadawan and othersouthern villages.Note the goodpatches of forest inthe background.

Below right: Oldkatangan forestbeing converted intonipa plantation, nearTaburi barangaycenter.

durian (Durio sp) and nangka (Arthocarpus heterophyllus)are also planted around houses and in the swidden fields.In the upland fields, dry rice and cassava are the dominantcrops. Pineapples are also grown and are sold to the localmigrants at a price of between 5 to 10 pesos each,depending on the size. Like other indigenous communi-ties in Palawan, the inhabitants of Cadawan have beenbadly affected by La Niña and El Niño.

On the upper portion of Cadawan creek, missionmembers found that the newly built road is cuttingthrough the inlet where it forms an obvious source of sil-tation for mangrove swamps and coral reefs. The fewgood stands of nipa palms (Nypa fruticans) found alongCadawan creek show signs of continuous but sustainableutilisation. Nipa leaves are harvested periodically for roofthatch. Nipa thatch of about 1.5 meters in length is soldfor between 120 and 150 pesos per piece, while thatchof gumbja leaves (Metroxylon sagu) is sold for about 200pesos per piece. Palm leaf thatch (mainly nipa) is highlysought after locally, and is even traded in the larger citiesof Puerto Princesa and Quezon, as well as the outerislands of Bangsi and Bankalaan. The BPP-FPP missionfound evidence that Pälawan people in other areas areengaged in the commercial exploitation of wild nipapalms (e.g., along the Canipaan river).

Taburi proper

Mangroves are found along the beach very close to thecentre of Taburi proper. Unfortunately, this old growthmangrove forest is being destroyed at an alarming pace.Tracts of old mangroves have been converted into nipaplantations, or very poor agricultural land, where evenbanana and cassava have difficulty growing. The missionmembers have interviewed Winsislao Torrecampo, one ofthe local Filipino migrants responsible for the destruc-tion of old mangrove trees through felling and girdling.BPP members took photographic and film evidence ofthe destruction and asked the barangay captain to takeproper action against Torrecampo.There are only a fewhouseholds of Pälawan in the community of Mapait that

still live near this mangrove area. In fact, most of the tra-ditional inhabitants moved to the interior when the SilicaMining Corporation began its operations in 1972. If noaction is taken, the mangrove forest along the estuary ofthe Kulbi river faces the risk of disappearing within thenext couple of years.

Pangultaban towards Pamimbawan

About one hour’s walk along the seashore from Taburicentre, the mission reached a temporary Pälawan settle-ment. Here, the local inhabitants engage seasonally inkugita (Octopus) fishing, and exploit food resources avail-able in the mangroves and coral reefs. Proceeding furthernorth, the mission reached the Pälawan settlement of Pan-gultaban where local inhabitants rely on swidden cultiva-tion and fishing for their livelihood. Pangultaban peoplecomplained about the dramatic decline of marineresources in the region. Interviews with community mem-bers reveal that this group does not use the mangroveenvironment frequently.Their swidden fields are found inthe surrounds of the coastal settlement, and the peoplerarely travel far into the interior.A little towards the northof Pangultaban, there are good stretches of mangrove for-est, with some evidence of limited exploitation (mangrovepoles for domestic use). Towards the settlement ofPamimbawan, the mangrove forest gives way to patches ofsecondary vegetation interspersed with swidden fields.

Tagbitok

This Pälawan settlement is in a valley located one hourby foot from the centre of Barangay Taburi. There areabout 19 households living in the area.The last stretch ofmangrove forest reaching this community creates a cor-ridor between the rhizophora swamp and the dry forestof the interior. Mixed katungan mangrove forest in Tag-bitok is also under threat. Certain portions have alreadybeen converted into paddy fields. Even a liaqang (a sacredforest area) bordering the last stretch of katungan hasbeen destroyed by the migrants despite of the prohibi-tions imposed by the old shaman Täking, who died a few


Left: Mangrove treesare also killed bypoisonous girdling.

Above Right:APälawan temporaryfishing settlement inTaburi proper.


years ago. Most of the migrants owning part of the ricefields are former employers of Tagbita Silica IndustryCorporation (TSIC).These migrants settled in this areawhen the company shut down in 1993.Walking towardsthe community of Bäsaj, portions of thick mangrove for-est can be spotted. One such area is crossed by the oldroad constructed by the silica mining company, and themangroves here have now recovered and are in goodcondition. However, the BPP-FPP mission received infor-mation that this road will soon be enlarged andexpanded to become part of the national road system.

Bäsaj

The mission reached Bäsaj from Tagbitok after a fourhour walk. Bäsaj is located on the sea shore in a strategicposition at the fringe of a well conserved mangrove for-est near the mouth of a large estuary.The people in Bäsajstill practice a traditional pattern of land utilisation,which includes the sustainable exploitation of bothupland and coastal resources on a cyclical basis. Whenproteins are scarce, they visit the seashore to fish and tocollect seashells and crabs along the mangroves. Theythen return to their upland swidden fields. Members ofthis community rarely use mangrove timber as a house-building material.They do, however, occasionally receivepayments from migrants to gather a limited number ofmangrove poles for house construction.

Canipaan

The old growth mangrove forest along the Canipaan riveris spectacular and is certainly one of the most intact inPalawan.A motor boat was used by the mission to inspectthe area. During the survey, mission members spent onenight in the upriver community of Kalawiton. Althoughforests are in good condition along the Canipaan river,some Pälawan informants report that mangrove forests inthe southern portion of Canipaan proper are beingdestroyed. Such destruction includes the large-scaleexploitation of mangrove bark around the settlements ofBatu Batu, Kolang Danum, Imbu and Talukun.Although the

tan bark industry seems tohave declined a few years back,the large-scale collection ofbark for tanning leather andother uses is now on theincrease. In the Philippines,Ceriops bark has been tradi-tionally imported from Sabahand used as an ingredient for processing a beverage simi-lar to coca cola. Today, mangrove forests in Sabah arehighly depleted, and it is possible that Ceriops bark usedby the drinks and tanning industries is now being suppliedfrom southern Palawan. Mangrove bark is also reportedlysmuggled illegally to Malaysia where it used for the indus-trial production of dyes, tannin and medicine. The BPP-FPP mission received information that armed gangs fromthe outer islands (Balabac,Mangsi, Bankalaan) are control-ling the bark trade and other illegal activities.The missionwas therefore advised not to visit the mangrove areaswhere such gangs are operating.

According to Pälawan informants, villagers are hiredby unauthorised persons to work in a mangrove forest forperiods of up to three months, and bark harvesting isseverely damaging the forest. Fresh mangrove bark is soldfor 40 cents per kg., while dried bark is sold for one pesoper kg. Indigenous employees build themselves temporaryshelters around the mangroves and obtain provisions ofrice directly from the illegal traders who charge high pricesfor the food. It seems that the food scarcity caused by elNiño has driven an increasing number of Pälawan to workas bark collectors.As well as cash, bark gathering providesindigenous people with the opportunity to buy food locallyfrom the bark traders.Nonetheless, the inflated food pricestrap indigenous employees within an exploitative system ofdebt-bondage as they must collect bark to repay debts totheir employers. Disturbingly, indigenous people do notalways enter bark collection work on a voluntary basis.Some informants claim that they may be physically threat-ened if they refuse to work for the gangs.

Left: Mangroveforest recoveringalong the sides ofthe old road openedby TSIC (TagbitaSilica IndustryCorporation).

Right:A Pälawanfrom Bäsaj with its“mangrove” catch(shells, fish andcrabs).

F. THE DESTRUCTION OFCORAL REEFS AND THEDECLINE OF MARINERESOURCES “The stones in the ocean (i.e., the corals) are alivebecause they grow but they can also die when thepoison (cyanide) hits them.They break into piecesand transform into sand. The small fish havenowhere to go, the big fish come and eat them, thekugita (octopuses) migrate to deeper waters.Thisis what happens when the ‘corals’ are destroyed”(A Pälawan fisherman)

Approximately 90% of the coral reefs in the Philippinesare found in four regions: Palawan, the Visayas, Sulu Arch-ipelago, and the Turtle islands (Segovia 1995). There areabout 400 species of hard and soft corals in the Philip-pines and at least 2,000 fish species are associated withthe reef complex (ibid.). Fish caught in and around coralreefs make up as much as 15% of the national fish catchin the Philippines. Moreover, the high species diversity ofthese marine coral environments supplies three-quartersof the global market for tropical ornamental fish (ibid.). Ina 1989, a World Bank environmental study consideredthat only 30% of the remaining reefs in the Philippineswere in “good to excellent” condition (World Bank1989). Other sources suggest that the quality of existingcoral reef habitats could be much worse. Hofilena andGloria, for example, considered that only 5.5 percent ofthe country’s coral reefs were in “excellent” condition in1990 (cf. Segovia 1995).Today, about 137,000 small-scalefishermen in the Philippines suffer economic dislocationdue to the extensive destruction and loss of coral reefs.The main causes of reef degradation and destruction arecynanide poisoning, damage by harmful fishing methodsand, particularly, the use of underwater explosives. Thecombined use of cyanide and dynamite is held responsi-ble for 70% of the coral reef destruction in the wholecountry.

Cyanide is used primarily to stun fish and catchthem alive for aquariums. It has been estimated that eachyear, about 150,000 kg. of sodium cyanide are pouredinto Philippine waters to catch fish for commercial pur-poses (Segovia 1995). Some reports indicate that fishmortality in catches for aquariums can be as high as 90%.Paradoxically, as natural marine stocks of ornamental fish

decline, increasing amounts of cyanide are used nation-wide to stun viable catches.The use of cyanide can seri-ously harm coral ecology, and repeated applications cankill both soft and hard corals in three months. Coralsdestroyed by cyanide have no chance of recovery.

Dynamite fishing for the edible fish trade is alsoextremely damaging to coral reefs. Various studiesrecord that a single blast can destroy corals within a cir-cle of one to three meters in diameter. Research carriedout in the late 1970s by the University of the Philippinesshows that coral re-growth is very slow in areas of dyna-mite destruction.The same study estimated that a periodof 40 years would be needed for full recovery of coralreefs in just half of the dynamited area of the Archipel-ago. Despite the obvious environmental destruction itcauses, dynamite fishing continues all over the Archipel-ago. This is because in the immediate and short-termdynamite fishing makes economic sense for fishermen. Inparticular, explosive methods can cut the labour inputrequired for normal fishing by two thirds (World Bank1989).

Although banned in 1986, destructive muro-amifishing techniques are still being employed in the Philip-pines. Muro-ami fishing utilises long ropes with heavyweights at one extreme. These are bounced repeatedlyagainst the corals to drive fish towards waiting nets. Inthe process, the corals are heavily damaged, with severeconsequences especially for those marine species breed-ing in the reefs.

Reef ecosytems in the Philippines are also threat-ened by contamination and sedimentation caused by themining, logging and construction industries. Mining oper-ations, for example, use cyanide in the process ofextracting gold and silver from ore. Runoff from tailingpiles can carry cyanide, toxins and sediments out intocoastal waters. Likewise, cutting trees and opening roadsin forests to access timber can cause soil erosion andrun-off into watercourses that discharge into the seaalong the coast. The BPP-FPP mission found that sedi-mentation due to mine tailings and illegal logging seemsto have played a less important role in the depletion ofthe coral reefs in Rizal. However, there are areas (e.g., inbarangay Panalingaan) where road construction is notonly threatening one of the most pristine mangrovesanctuaries, but it is likely to cause sedimentation of thenearby coral reefs.

In Panalingaan, the mission observed that duringroad construction substantial amounts of soil had been


Above left:Algae ondead corals.

Above right: Schoolof small fish withinliving corals.Southern part of8°36.5’N 117°14.5’E,Canipaan.


dumped in the surrounding forest close to the edge ofthe mangrove zone. Elsewhere in Palawan (Bacuit bay),research findings show that coral larvae are inhibitedfrom settling due to very fine sediments (Segovia 1995).It may be anticipated that road construction in steep andfragile coastal areas is likely to accelerate coral reefs sed-imentation, and also to inhibit the regeneration of dam-aged corals.Although the BPP-FPP mission did not carryout an underwater inspection of the coral reefs in RizalMunicipality, it did obtain information and photographicevidence from Pedrito Ensomo, a local environmentalist,photographer and diver. Ensomo has inspected the coralreefs in the south-western portion of mainland Palawanon various occasions between June 9-13/1995;April 30-31/1997; June 17/1997 and July 12-18/1998.

During his underwater recognisance, Ensomo wasable to establish that reefs between 2 to 10 miles fromthe shore are the most affected by dynamite blasting andcyanide. On the other hand, the coral reefs nearer theshoreline are in much better condition, and they stillexhibit a high diversity of marine species (Ensomo, per-sonal communication). It would appear that the bestcoral reefs are those closer to the shore, and thus thosemore easily protected by local fishermen againstunscrupulous outsiders.

Additional information on the present status of coralreefs was obtained directly from the local indigenous andmigrant users of coastal resources.The mission has iden-tified five major groups utilising and exploiting coral reefsin Rizal municipality:

● Members of the Pälawan indigenous commu-nities. They employ Derris elliptica (tuba) and occa-sionally other poisonous plant species to stun fish inthe coral reefs. Stunned fish are caught with spearguns or conical scoop nets. They also collect mol-luscs, bivalves and crabs in the surrounding man-grove forest. They seasonally engage in kugita(octopus) fishing, utilising locally made stone lures(kokati). Occasionally, they acquire fishing nets ofsynthetic fibres, and use dug out canoes to set themalong the mangrove shore. Some of these Pälawancommunities use sea resources on a daily basis, oth-ers only visit the seashore for two or three days,returning later to their inland settlements.

● Old migrant. They are the first migrants to havesettled on the shores, during the sixties and seven-ties.They have fished for decades by means of netsand by using a hook and line in deep water.Womenand children collect molluscs and shells from thecoral reefs during the low tide. Recently, oldmigrants have been forced to use illegal methods tocompete with new migrants employing dynamiteand cyanide in fishing.

● New migrants. They employ the same fishingmethods as the old migrants, but seem moreinclined to use dynamite and cyanide, and otherfishing devices similar to “muro-ami”. Some of themobtain legal fishing permits from the local authori-ties. However, they employ undersize fishing netsthat are illegal.

Above left: Survivingcoral beside brokenones.

Above right: Heavilydamaged portion ofa reef.

The status of coral reef habitats in SW Palawana

Location Name of the area Condition

8°46.5’N – 117°24.5’E Bulaloc Bay (covering a radius of about 1 mile). Coral reefs are in fair to good condition. Some portions show evidence ofdamage.Visibility u.w. is between 15 to 30 feet. Marine turtles have beenspotted in this area.

8°38’N – 117°20’E The area falls within the barangay proper of Tagbita. Coral reefs in Tagbita are in fairly bad condition.A good portion have beendestroyed.

8°38’N – 117°15.5’E The area falls within the barangay proper of Latud. Latud coral reef shows less damage, and portions are in good condition.Thearea, rich in sea grass, is a popular feeding ground for dugong, especiallybetween December and May.

8°36.5’N – 117°14.5’E The area falls within the barangay of Canipaan. The corals in Canipaan, like in Latud, present less evidence of destructioncompared to other areas.The area, rich in sea grass, is a popular feedingground for dugong, especially between December and May.

a Information supplied by Pedrito Ensomo

● Illegal fishermen from Bancalaan, Mangsi and Bal-abac islands. They are responsible for the massivedestruction of coral reefs and the extinction ofmarine life in southern Palawan.They use dynamiteand cyanide to collect live groupers and other fishfor restaurants and the aquarium trade.

● Taiwanese, and other foreign fishing boats.Aside from large-scale commercial fishing (e.g.,trolling for tuna), such fishermen are also interestedin harvesting sea turtles, giant Tridacna shells, andother marine species which are protected by law.

BPP-FPP mission members interviewed several localindigenous and migrant fishermen who provided equallydramatic accounts of fish decline. In Cadawan, we metthree Pälawan returning to shore in their dugout canoes.They told us that they had been to sea from early morn-ing to midday without catching a single fish. As notedabove, these fishermen use traditional fishing methodssuch as the roots of Derris elliptica and hand-made spearguns.The same fishermen told us that during kugita fish-ing seasons only three years ago, they could catch up toten kugita (octopuses) in one hour, earning between 300to 700 pesos per day. Customary octopus fishing repre-sented an important source of income for the lowlandPälawan communities especially during the months ofJanuary-February (this is a period of food shortage inPalawan, since indigenous communities have nearlyexhausted their rice supply and must wait for the newharvest in August). Today, according to local informants,the number of kugita has dramatically decreased due tooverexploitation by illegal fishermen who use compres-sors to dive in deep waters. A large kugita is sold forabout 45 - 50 pesos per kg (US$1.18 - $.1.31). Mediumand small size kugita are sold between 30 - 45 and 10 - 15pesos respectively (US$0.79 - $1.18, and $0.26 - $0.39).

Nanäk, a Pälawan from Panimbawan of barangayTaburi told us that, during the last three years, his fishcatch has been reduced from 15 to 20 kg per night to 1to 5 kg per night, in spite of the fact that he has doubledthe length of his net. The decline in fish catches is alsohaving negative repercussion for the economy of thebarangay as a whole. According to the barangay captainof Canipaan the amount of sea fish landed in Puerto hasfallen to 1.5 tons/month, while only in 1995 the averagefish catch delivered monthly was more than 4 tons.Nanäk attributes the serious decline in marine resourcesto the widespread use of illegal fishing methods. It wouldappear that the raw material for making explosives isnow more easily available, and chemical fertiliser is alsoused for this purpose. Poor fishermen sometimes receiveexplosives directly from illegalistas in exchange for chick-ens and other locally produced goods.

The mission received other disturbing reportsabout Taiwanese vessels that are alleged to cruise aroundPalawan shores loaded with live sea turtles. It should bepointed out that MNR Administrative Order No.1, series1983, deputises as conservation officers the ProvincialGovernors, and vice-governors, municipal mayors, vice-mayors, and barangay captains in areas critical for theprotection of marine turtles in the Philippines. Theadministrative order establishes that the deputised offi-cers are authorised to arrest, even without warrant, anyperson violating any rules and regulations on marine tur-tles as administered by the Ministry of NaturalResources/Task Force Pawikan. In addition, the officersare allowed to seize and confiscate boats, gear, tools andany other equipment used to commit an offence. Evenmore importantly, Memorandum Order No. 6, series1982, declares a total ban on exploitation activitiesrelated to marine turtles. Once again, the implementa-tion of such laws and regulations continues to be weak.

The overall finding of the BPP-FPP mission is that thePalawan coast is being plundered at an alarming rate inspite of its reputation as a pristine marine sanctuary.Theonly area in Palawan that is legally designated a nationalmarine park is the Tubbataha Reefs. So far, governmentmeasures to halt the destruction of the marine environ-ment have been totally ineffective. Not only is coastpatrolling virtually absent, but when culprits are appre-hended, only minimum fines are imposed. In Rizal munici-pality, the remoteness of the area, the lack of governmentcontrol over the territory, and the absence of coastguards has encouraged the entry of illegal fishermen.

F1. Some recommendations for theconservation of mangrove forest and coastalenvironmentsThe mission has identified a number of priorities for pro-tecting the mangrove and coastal ecosystem from indis-criminate exploitation, including the following:

● Promoting mangrove and nipa palm reforestationprojects to provide complementary income-gener-ating opportunities for those coastal communitiesparticularly hit by El Niño and La Niña.

● Organising para-legal training for traditional man-grove and coral reefs users in those areas especiallyaffected by illegal activities. Barangay officials should


Right:A Pälawanfisherman fromCadawan holdingroots of tuba, Derriselliptica (atraditional fishpoison).


be actively involved in this process and receivedetailed information on violations of fishery lawsand ordinances. Furthermore, those communitiesthat successfully complete the training programmeshould receive the necessary technical assistance toguard their area (a radio hand set, motor boats,etc.).

● Increasing the speed of implementation of tenurearrangements under IPRA or DAO 2 to guaranteeindigenous peoples’ jurisdiction and authority overthe protection of coastal resources.

● Enhance a process whereby indigenous communi-ties and migrant settlers begin to identify and worktogether for the achievement of common goals forthe sustainable management of mangroves andother coastal resources.

● Planning and implementing livelihood projectsspecifically for the new migrant communities toincrease productivity and divert pressure away frommangrove forest and coral reefs.

● Suspending the construction of the national road inRizal until an environmental impact statement (EIS)is obtained, and an Environmental Compliance Cer-tificate (ECC) secured.

Reforestation with Rhizophora

The mission noticed numerous mangrove seedlings andthe rapid growth and recuperation of mangrove speciesin depleted areas. For example, the mangroves that weredamaged through the construction of the Silica MiningCorporation road have fully recovered. Mangrove refor-estation in brackish or salt water swamps may representan attractive opportunity for those communities whichhave experienced drastic food and cash shortage duringEl Niño and La Niña. According to our preliminary sur-vey, seedlings are generally abundant in all areas wheremangroves are in good condition, but the gathering ofwild seedlings may be easier from low-growing trees atthe edge of bays and near streams. Seedlings should bekept in a shaded nursery for about two weeks to allowthem to develop (Brown 1950-54). Fresh seedlings leftin-situ are susceptible to damage by crabs and othermarine animals that feed on them (ibid.). Seedlings shouldbe planted in very soft muddy soil, and spaced 40 to 100centimetres apart. At 40 centimetres apart, about125,000 seedlings can be planted per hectare.Accordingto Brown, young plants are killed if they are submergedfor more than three days; or if they are exposed contin-uously to fresh water during river floods (ibid.). Goodtiming in transplantation is therefore important toreduce seedling mortality rates. Different species maynot reach maturity at the same time. Generally, specieslike Rhizophora mucronata begin to flower in the thirdyear, but only bear fertile fruits in the fourth or fifth year(ibid.).

Nipa palm enhancement

Nipa palms (Nypa fruticans) usually border mangroveforests at the margins of rivers, streams and swamps.Thesustainable management of nipa palm stands is likely toincrease people’s monitoring over mangrove forests.Themission believes that people’s direct interest in theregeneration of nipa groves may represent an effective

means to protect the whole mangrove environmentfrom illegal activities. Small concessions for the sustain-able extraction of nipa could then be released by DENRto Pälawan households, with the condition that the lattershould guard the surrounding mangroves from unautho-rised intruders. Mangrove areas such as those in BatuBatu and Kolang Danum feature creeks and rivers thatoffer an ideal environment for nipa reforestation andmanagement. Such areas are also the ones most affectedby the illegal cutting of mangrove trees for bark extrac-tion (see E2 above).

The people of Cadawan have manifested a stronginterest in replanting nipa in suitable riverine/mangroveareas to enhance their living conditions and improvetheir environment. According to the indigenous propo-nents, after initial planting, the nipa palm takes aboutthree years to grow and produce leaves sufficiently largeenough for economic use.The maintenance of nipa palmsis quite simple, and mainly consists in the clearing ofunderbush around palm trunks at least four times a year.Nipa fruits are also edible, and in the Philippines they arethe source of sweet kahong, a national delicacy. To pro-duce sweet kahong, the fruit pulp is cooked with sugarand stored in cans. In Puerto Princesa, a medium size canof sweet kahong can be bought for 120 pesos.The pro-duction of sweet kahong is not a customary practice forthe local Pälawan communities, but it could be intro-duced to them as part of a livelihood project focusing onthe planting and sustainable extraction of nipa. Nipapalms bear flowers throughout the year, and fruits can beharvested every two or three months.The fruits of thenipa palm are also a source of vinegar and sweet sap maybe extracted to produce alcohol and sugar, although thisis not practised by the Pälawan. Although the palm hasmany uses, the most valuable sub-product of the nipapalm is definitely sweet kahong.

Above:A Pälawanfrom Cadawanextracting ediblepulp from the seedsof Nypa fruticans.

G. CONCLUDING REMARKSMembers of the local communities are developingdynamic coping strategies to adapt to the new social andecological changes confronting them. Indigenous peopledo not aim at escape from national development policies,they just wish to be regarded as active negotiators in theprocess of change.Any management plan for the conser-vation of mangroves and coastal areas must be groundedin the suggestions and proposals of local communities.Additional funds and human resources will be needed tocomplete the socio-economic profiling and resourceinventory of such areas.This will be indispensable for theformulation of site-resource management plans and thediversification of existing livelihood strategies to avoidany over-exploitation of ecological habitats, and to alloweffective regeneration of already depleted animal andplant stock.

At present, even the legal recognition of indigenousclaims to their ancestral domain would be insufficient toprevent the exhaustion of resources in such areas.This isbecause the causal agents of mangrove exploitation,coral reefs destruction and other forms of environmen-tal degradation in Palawan can no longer be attributed toa single source. As this report points out, illegal fishingtechniques are not solely utilised by outsiders, but aremastered with various degrees of proficiency by bothmigrants and indigenous people. Thus stopping “out-siders” from exploiting local resources would not neces-sarily stop the locals from overexploiting their ownresource base. In fact, even indigenous people tend toadopt new technologies (e.g., illegal fishing devices) whentheir traditional techniques become ineffective. Whenconfronted with diminishing fish resources, people tendto refine their fishing strategies by doubling the size oftheir nets, or even by employing dynamite.

The same can be said for hunting technologies. Effi-cacy in catching game is achieved through the acquisitionof more sophisticated weapons. Not surprisingly, Pälawanhave almost abandoned the use of blow pipes, while air-guns and hand made rifles are now widely employed. Itwould appear that the scarcity of resources (plants,games, fish, etc.) is often linked to the acquisition of moresophisticated, and often more destructive, equipment,and by the narrowing down of the traditional repertoireof sustainable resource use strategies.The role of indige-nous communities as “sustainable stewards of the envi-ronment” is therefore not a straightforward one.Furthermore, the ongoing depletion of natural resourcescannot be halted by simply increasing governmentrepression against those using “illegal devices”, or byrecognising indigenous claims to their ancestral land.Thefacts of the situation seem to suggest that even wheneffective measures against illegal fishing are implemented,there are no assurances that presently depleted marineresources will be able to support the needs of thoselocal communities that are still employing traditionaltechnologies.

There are additional considerations to be made inrelation to the objective of safeguarding the coastal envi-ronment in Palawan. For instance, future conservationprojects should not assume that migrant or indigenouscommunities are homogeneous groups. In fact, there canbe factions, competitive groups and hostilities within the

same community of people. Therefore, the selection ofcommunity leaders as local counterparts in conservationproject’s may have the effect of excluding non-leadersfrom participation in the planning process. Furthermore,even when ancestral domains are recognised, well estab-lished tenurial arrangements between migrant Filipinoand indigenous people may continue to exist. Thus oldmigrants should not be evicted from indigenous territo-ries, unless the request for eviction comes from theindigenous people themselves.This also implies that par-ticipatory mapping of mangroves and neighbouring areasmust take into account the claims of all the differentresource users, and their acceptance of the resultingboundaries. Future conservation and livelihood projectsin such areas should consider a range of “tenurial” mech-anisms and extractive rights suited to small productiongroups and households units. Moreover, upon delineationof mangrove and coastal sanctuaries, all users must alsobe involved in discussing the legal framework underwhich their area will be protected. In fact, the holders ofland-use rights will have to defend their land claims whenthese are contested, even in the absence of NGOs per-sonnel and members of advocate groups. Hence, policiesand regulations should be translated and communicatedto people in the local language. Indeed, it is unrealistic toexpect that local people will facilitate the implementa-tion of such policies or will enter into partnership withthe state in the sustainable management of resources,especially when the state continues to be absent fromthe area, or in connivance with illegalistas. Equipping theapprehending branches of DENR with patrol boats andsophisticated machinery will not stop illegal activitiesunless DENR representatives are willing to fight corrup-tion seriously.As one government official has claimed:

“to upgrade the DENR field force so that itbecomes super efficient will only make them alsohighly efficient in their corruption”.

To conclude, a few comments must also be maderegarding the role and potential of local NGOs in safe-guarding indigenous rights and resources. Overall, inPalawan, NGOs have confined their participation in sus-tainable development mainly to the task of protectingthe physical environment. Issues related to indigenouswell-being and cultural rights have been given much lessattention. As a result, NGOs have often supported orsilently accepted environmental laws such as SEP, or thecity government ban on shifting cultivation, without con-sidering the impact of such laws and ordinances onindigenous livelihoods and practices. In most cases, con-ventional NGO packages for ecological sustainability inthe uplands have proven to be ineffective (agroforestry,marketing assistance, health and education). The verypoor performance of IUCN and BCN-financed projects,their failure to demonstrate the ecological, economicand cultural viability of introduced stable farming tech-nologies and other livelihood alternatives validate thisobservation.

Furthermore, the involvement of “beneficiaries” insuch projects has been limited largely to the implementa-tion stage, primarily through the contribution of labour.Undoubtedly, the new social and economic transforma-tion taking place in Palawan requires an approach whichgoes behind the ecological sphere.There is an increasingnecessity to switch from the conventional top-down



treatment of environmental problems (the macro viewor state-centred perspective) to the micro level and thusto the diversity and creativity of local approaches to theuse of resources. In this context, NGOs need to con-sider more seriously the importance of concepts such aslocal knowledge, self-reliance, participation, and empow-erment.The constant use of such “fashionable” conceptsin everyday NGO discourse creates the impression thatsuch objectives are being met, while in reality the role ofindigenous participation in project proposals remainsmarginal.

Members of the indigenous communities complainthat they have been included in conservation-develop-ment projects without proper consultation, and in mostcases, they claim to have a limited understanding of pro-ject goals and objectives. In several cases, communitieshave found themselves in the crossfire between rivalNGOs that claim rights over a certain area, and struggleto retain control over community members. Members ofthe indigenous communities also complain about the lackof transparency in project funds use and distribution.They feel that if they are included in project proposals asmajor partners and beneficiaries they should have theright to have more information on the funding sourcesand on the consistency of such funds, and ultimately onhow they should be utilised.

NGO initiatives to establish security of access andtenure for indigenous communities have also laggedbehind schedule.While CADC applications under IPRAare now frozen, the local NGOs have yet to agree on acommon strategy to secure indigenous lands. The keypoint here is that NGOs should come up with a moreunitary policy and define where they stand on questionsof power, political alliance and indigenous rights inPalawan. Certainly, NGOs such as Haribon Palawan,Palawan NGOs Network Inc. (PNNI), and ELAC (Envi-ronmental Legal Assistance Center) have gone a long wayin terms of advocacy. Nonetheless, there is a real dangerthat such gains could be overturned by the lack of tangi-ble and coordinated NGO action against controversialunsustainable projects and legislation that undermineindigenous well-being and restrict indigenous self-deter-mination. (e.g., road construction in Rizal Municipality,the City government ban on shifting cultivation, forestdestruction by the FLRF, etc.). So far, member organisa-tions of the PNNI still disagree about whether theyshould support or counter-attack the developmentframework of the BIMP-EAGA project (see A2). LocalNGOs therefore need to consolidate their political voiceas soon as possible. In particular, they must develop moreeffective strategies for influencing the agenda of thePalawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD),and for monitoring large programmes financed fromoverseas (e.g., the EC financed “Palawan Tropical ForestProtection Programme”). All this will require a highdegree of interaction and collaboration among differentNGOs who also need to establish the capacity tomobilise human resources and respond quickly to sensi-tive issues as they arise.

This report is based on fieldwork carried out in Palawanwhile the author was a Visiting research Associate of the Insti-tute of Philippine Culture (IPC) of the Ateneo de Manila Uni-versity.

ReferencesBROWN W.S. 1950-1954 Useful plants of the Philippines (3 Volumes). Manila

Bureau of Printing (Vol. 1: 1950,Vol 2: 1951,Vol 3: 1954), Manila

de CHAVEZ, R. 1999 Globalization and tourism: deadly mix for indigenouspeoples. Tebtebba Magazine Vol 1, Issues no. 1: 23-27

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES(DENR) 1992 The St. Paul Subterranean National Park Manila

DENR 1993 Special Order no. 25, S, 1993 Manila

DENR 1993 Administrative Order no. 02, S, 1993 Manila

DENR. 1996 A.O 96-37, series 1996: Revising DENR administrative order 21series of 1992, to further strengthen the implementation of the environmen-tal impact statement (EIS) system Manila

DENR. 1998 A compilation of policies on community-based forest management(CBFM) Community-Based Forest Management Office, Manila

DENR. and Panlipi (Legal Assistance Center for Indigenous Filipinos) 1993.Northern Palawan Batak-Tagbanuwa Ancestral Heritage Reserve (NP-BATAHR) Management Plan, prepared by Dario Novellino for DENR andPanlipi, Manila

DEVELOPMENT LEGAL ASSISTANCE CENTER (DLAC) 1990. Lawand jurisprudence affecting the indigenous peoples of the Philippines.Quezon City, DLAC.

FABIAN, M. 1993 Time and the Other: how anthropology makes its objectColumbia University Press, New York

HARIBON PALAWAN and IUCN 1996. Sustainable Utilization of Non-tim-ber Forest Products, Phase I: Final Report Palawan, Philippines

HUNTING TECHNICAL SERVICES LIMITED. 1985 Palawan: A StrategicEnvironmental Plan. Management and Development System Inc. and Sir.M. Mac Donald and Partners Limited

KUMMER, D. M. 1992 Deforestation in the Post-war Philippines. Ateneo Uni-versity Press, Manila

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE CENTER 1998. ELAC Bulletin,January issue, Philippines

GATMAYTAN, D.B. 1992 “Ancestral domain recognition in the Philip-pines: trends in jurisprudence and legislation” Philippine NaturalResources Law Journal, 5 (1): 43-90.

GATMAYTAM, G.B. 1992. “Land rights and the land tenure situation ofindigenous peoples in the Philippines” Philippine Natural Resources LawJournal, 5 (1): 5-41.

INTERNATIONAL WORK GROUP FOR INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS(IWGIA) 1998. The Indigenous World 1997-98 IWGIA, Copenhagen

IWGIA. 1999 The Indigenous World 1998-99 IWGIA, Copenhagen

NOVELLINO, D. 1997a. The Relevance of Social Capital in Theory and Prac-tice:The Case of Palawan (The Philippines). FAO, Rome

NOVELLINO, D. 1997b “I Tau’t Batu, cavernicoli nel 2.000?”. In Ligabue, G.(Ed.) Popoli in Bilico Venezia, Erizzo

NOVELLINO, D. 1998 “Sacrificing People for the Trees: the cultural costof forest conservation on Palawan Island (Philippines)” Indigenous Affairs4: 4-14.

NOVELLINO, D. 1999 “The Ominous Switch: from Indigenous ForestManagement to Conservation.The Case of the Batak of Palawan Island,Philippines” Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Indigenous Rights andProtected Areas, (Kundasang, Sabah, 14-17 December 1998) pp. 250-297,Denmark, Copenhagen.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. 1916 Act No. 2590 (An act for the pro-tection of game and fish)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 1981. Proclamation 2152 (declaring theentire province of Palawan and certain parcels of the public domain and/or parts of the country as mangrove swamp forest reserves)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Congress of the Philippines 1992.Republic Act no. 7586: National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of1992 Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Congress of the Philippines 1992.Republic Act no. 7611 Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Congress of the Philippines 1997.Republic Act no. 8371 Manila

SCIENCE AND RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OF HARI-BON FOUNDATION 1992. “An Overview of the bird trade in thePhilippines”, Vol 2, no 1:1-8

SEGOVIA, R. 1995. A Dictionary of the crisis in the Philippines EcosystemPhilippine environmental action network, Manila

SERNA, C.B. 1990 “Rattan resources supply situation”. In Toreta N K andBelen E H (Eds) 1990. Rattan, Proceedings of the NationalSymposium/Workshop on Rattan Cebu City

WORLD BANK 1989. Philippines: Environmental and Natural Resource Man-agement Study. Washington D.C.

WORLD BANK 1994. Forest policy implementation review Agriculture andNatural Resources Department.Washington D.C.

ZAINUDDIN,T.D. 1997. “Growth opportunities in the East Asian GrowthArea”. In Hj. Johari, M Y, Kurus B and Zaini J (Eds.) BIMP-EAGA Integration:Issues and Challenges. Institute for Development Studies, Sabah

Schedule of Activities: 16 July- 10August 199916/07 (early morning): departing Puerto Princesa City bybus, and reaching Rizal town proper (Southern Palawan)in the late afternoon. Meeting with the representatives ofBangsa Palawan and local government officials about thepurpose of the mission. Participants:Abdulhamid Manzul,barangay kapitan of Panalingaan and BPP’s treasurer;Gabriel Batul, barangay kapitan of Taburi and BPP’s vice-president; Felimon Vicente, BPP’s president and ex-barangay kapitan of Latud, Pepito Mestiro, barangaytreasurer of Latud and BPP auditor; Vilma Gimotea,barangay treasurer of Taburi and BPP assistant to thenational secretary; Pablo Lacson senior, BPP board oftrustees and ex barangay kapitan of Taburi, Mike Lacson,BPP national secretary; Nolly Eresmas, BPP national advi-sor; Dario Novellino BPP International Advisor; Yolandaventura, BNS (Barangay Nutrition Scholar and BPP mem-ber; Emily Geronimo,Taburi Barangay Council Woman; IdaArsega, Barangay Tabury health worker; Ruby Algopera,LUPON and BPP member; Anita Mistero BPP memberfrom Latud, Ayona Abaca (KALIPI); Commander Padi,Southern Philippine for Peace Development Council.

17/07 (early morning): Travelling from Rizal city properto Panalingaan.Visual inspection of forest destruction onthe road’s side. Meeting in the evening with BPP barangaychapters.

18/07. Inspection of the last stretch of the Culasian-Panalingaan road still under construction. Visual docu-mentation of the impact of the road on the environment.Interviews to migrants and indigenous people on theirperception of road construction.

19/07. Six hours trek from Panalingaan to the village ofCadawan located at the edge of a mangrove forest.Inspection of an additional stretch of the road underconstruction, interviews with the people being affected.

20/07. In the morning: consultation with the people ofCadawan. Identification of livelihood options for safe-guarding the mangrove ecosystem. In the afternoon:inspection of the nearby mangroves by dugout canoe.

21/07. Trek in the mangroves of Cadawan with localindigenous guides. Interviews to indigenous Pälawanabout the drastic decrease of marine resources and coralreef destruction. In the afternoon, a trip by boat tobarangay Tagbita.

22/07. Recognisance of the mangrove forest in thebarangay proper, and documentation of illegal cutting ofmangrove trees by Filipino migrants along the Kulbi river.Visit to the Pälawan community of Mapait, to discussissues related to migrants’ encroachment and exploita-tion of the mangrove ecosystem.

23/07.Three hour trek along the northern seashores ofPanalingaan, to inspect the status of the mangrove forestand to interview Pälawan mangrove users in the commu-nity of Pangultaban and nearby areas.

24/07. Four hour trek to the Pälawan community ofBuhog, to understand peoples’ development expectationand perceptions of road construction.

25/26/27. Field trips in the surroundings of Taburi todocument the status of the remaining coastal and man-grove forest and to interview members of the indigenousand migrant communities. Reordering of the field data.

28/07. One hour trek to the community of Tagbitok.Visitto the nearby mangrove forest and documentation of theroad construction affecting the area. Two hour trek tothe Pälawan temporary sea shore settlement of Bäsaj.Night spent in the community.

29/07. Open discussions and visual documentation inthe settlement of Bäsaj. Trekking back to Tagbita in theafternoon.

30/07. Boat trip from Tagbita to Canipaan barangayproper. Interview to the Barangay Kapitan and upriverexcursion through the mangroves along the Canipaanriver. Reaching the Pälawan settlement of Kalawiton inthe afternoon.

31/07. Meeting with the people of Kalawiton about ille-gal activities taking place in their territory. In the after-noon, trekking for three hours to reach the Pälawancommunity of Sagi.

1/08. Meeting with the community of Sagi

2/08. Trekking from Sagi to Sumbiling. “Jeepney” ride toRio Tuba.

3/08. From Rio Tuba back to Puerto Princesa City.

4-8/08. Reordering of field findings. Meeting with NGOsin Puerto Princesa.

9/08.Visit to the Department of Public Works and High-ways (2nd Engineering District) in Narra, to enquireabout the ongoing road construction in Rizal Municipality.

10/08. Reordering of the field findings, and last meetingwith NGOs representatives.


PALAWAN

Study area

wetlands and indigenous rights in palawan

Documents