Developing pro-poor markets for environmental services in the ...

Box 3.1 ‘Establishment and Management of Community-based Programs in PAs’: issuing
property rights to local communities living inside PAs
On 3 January 2002, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued an
Administrative Order (DAO) entitled ‘Establishment and Management of Community-Based Programs in
Protected Areas’. The order was meant to provide qualified migrant communities and interested
indigenous people tenure over established community-based programme (CBP) areas located within PAs
under the NIPAS system. CBPs should be consistent with the Protected Area Management Plans
formulated by the PAMB. Migrants should be certified by the PAMB as qualified tenured migrants (that
is, living in the area five or more years before the enactment of the NIPAS Act), while IPs should be
certified by the National Commission of Indigenous People (NCIP) as recognised IPs staying in the PA.
The CBP should describe the communities’ long-term vision, aspirations, commitment, and strategies for
protection, rehabilitation, development, and sustainable use of the resources within the PA. Procedures in
preparing the plan are contained in the ‘Manual on the Establishment and Management of Community-
Based Program in Protected Areas’, which in turn was drafted by the PAWB-DENR.
All fees collected from the implementation of the CBP will likewise revert back to the IPAF, and will be
subjected to the same procedure of disbursement of IPAF funds.
Source: DENR Administrative Order 2002-02 (January 2002), ‘Establishment and Management of Community-Based
Programs in Protected Areas’. DENR
Even among government personnel, the PAMB served as a venue for rationalising
government programmes in the area. Because all relevant levels of government were
members of the PAMB, it became a venue for coordinating their own development
programmes and projects among themselves, something that was not a common practice prior
to the NIPAS Act. Not only are they able to detect gaps and overlaps and resolve conflicts,
they are also able to complement their programmes through the IPAF funds generated by the
PA.
As in all pioneering efforts, birth pains are to be expected. The composition and rationale of
the PAMB are to be lauded. But in order for the whole system to work, there is the premise
that every member is equipped with the same level of negotiating skills. Unfortunately, this is
not the case. In particular, representatives of Indigenous Peoples’ (IP) groups and local
people’s groups sometimes get marginalised when discussions ensue. In the end, they are not
able to articulate their positions, and they sometimes feel that their views become
misrepresented. Nevertheless, these are problems of capacity building, rather than problems
inherent in creating the PAMB per se. They are not seen as justification for changing the
PAMB and its role in PA management.
Box 3.2 Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Project (CPPAP)
The Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Project or CPPAP, a biodiversity conservation project
funded by the World Bank, was implemented in the Philippines from 1994 to 2002. Its main objective was
to pilot-test the NIPAS Act in chosen areas. Ten priority sites were chosen on the basis of their biogeographical
location, peace and order condition, legal status, size of area, and financing needs, among
other criteria.
The ten priority sites identified for CPPAP intervention are the following:
• Mt Kanlaon Nature Park
• Mt Kitanglad Range Nature Park
• Apo Reef Nature Park
34