SPECIAL REPORTS
Description and Analysis
of the Protected Area
System in the Philippines
By SAHLEE C. BUGNA and
TESS BLASTIQUE
General Information
T
he combination of the Philip-
pines’ complex geological
origins and its location in the
warm tropics between the bio-rich
regions of Sundaland Southeast
China and New Guinea have given
rise to an extraordinary biological
richness of unique life forms.
The different islands that make
up the country have multiple origins.
Some have risen out of the seabed
as a result of tectonic and volcanic
activity, while others are fragments
of the New Guinea plate that have
broken free and drifted over the last
50 million years to their present
positions. Some are fragments from
the Asian mainland and Palawan is
partly an extension of the Sunda
shelf. There is no evidence that any
of these islands have had any re-
cent land bridges to China,
Sundaland or New Guinea, so the
plants and animals that have
reached and colonized the archi-
pelago have evolved with a high
level of isolation on their respective
islands.
Although none of the Philippine
islands is unusually species-rich, so
many separate islands have differ-
ent endemic species which collec-
tively makes the archipelago have a
large species total in relation to its
size. During the Pleistocene period,
when sea levels were as much as
200 meters lower than today, con-
nections occurred between some
neighboring islands and a general
sharing of species occurred. Thus,
we recognize major bioregions:
Greater Mindanao including
Basilan, Samar, Leyte, and Bohol,
28 JANUARY - JUNE 2001
with similar flora and fauna. Greater
Negros-Panay was linked to Cebu
and Masbate, while Greater Luzon
was linked to Catanduanes, Polilo
and Marinduque. Greater Palawan
was linked to Calamian and almost
touched Northeast Borneo. Mindoro
remained distinct. Greater Sulu linked
Jolo to Tawi-tawi. In addition to these
six major bioregions, many small
islands such as Camiguin, Siquijor,
Sibuyan and Batanes were never
linked to any larger islands and are
distinct bioregions in their own right
The first significant
law that governed
protected areas was
Republic Act 3915 of
1932, whch provided
for the establishment
of National Parks.
with endemic species found nowhere
else in the world.
The resultant richness and diver-
sity allows the Philippines to be rec-
ognized as one of the planet’s 20
biological “hotspots”; some of our
biologists would claim it as the
“hottest” of them all. Unfortunately,
the Philippines ranks high in terms of
biodiversity loss, which can be traced
to both natural (volcanic eruptions,
earthquakes, natural fires, typhoons,
and pests and diseases) and man-
made causes (land conversion, in-
troduction of exotic species, unsus-
tainable logging, pollution, human-
induced fires, siltation, destructive
fishing methods, and encroachment
and occupancy in protected areas).
Population pressure, poverty and
lack of livelihood opportunities,
changes in values, and the “open
access” nature of many bio-re-
sources are all contributing to the
over-exploitation and non-sustain-
able use of the country’s natural
resources.
All these causes have severe
impacts on the environment. From
an estimated 93.3% of total land-
mass in 1575, Philippine forest
cover has been reduced to 22% as
of 1992 due to unregulated log-
ging and conversion of forests to
agricultural land (Protected Areas
and Wildlife Bureau, 1998). Coral
reefs are constantly threatened by
sedimentation, pollution (from up-
land and coastal developments),
illegal and destructive fishing meth-
ods, and a rapidly growing popu-
lation. Of 27,000 kms of coral
reefs 1 only 5% is still in pristine
condition (White, 1998). Man-
grove cover of about 450,000 ha
in 1920 is now less than 140,000
ha, as a result of shrimp farming
and urban development. Wetlands
take much toll from chemical, in-
dustrial and household wastes,
mine tailings, fertilizers and pesti-
cide run-offs.
These developments have been
at the expense of species endemic
to the country. As of 1998, about
342 species of birds, mammals and
reptiles are recognized as threatened
with extinction. The most famous
threatened endemic mammal is the
Tamaraw (Bubalus mindorensis),
while the best known threatened
endemic bird is the Philippine Eagle
(Pithecophaga jefferyi). Both are
estimated to have less than 200
individuals in the wild, and are now
the subject of captive breeding stud-
ies (PAWB, 1998).
The Protected Area System
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
To protect biodiversity, selected
portions of land and water with
unique biological significance, are
1
A length corresponding to 54% of
the world’s circumference!

being conserved to shield them from
destructive human exploitation.
Biodiversity protection was first
legislated in the Philippines with the
passage of the Protection of Game
and Fish Act in 1916, which was very
limited in scope and severity of
penalty.
The first significant law that gov-
erned protected areas was Republic
Act 3915 of 1932, which provided
for the establishment of national
parks. Significantly, this Act:
• Declared all national parks as
concurrently game refuges and
bird sanctuaries.
• Created the predecessor of the
currently existing Protected Area
Management Boards as an
advisory committee, which aided
the Director of Forestry in the ad-
ministration of each park.
• Provided penalties for occupa-
tion and destruction of national
parks, as well as the harvesting
and hunting of flora and fauna
within these areas.
Box 1: Ratification of
International Agreements
• Agenda 21 – 1995
• RAMSAR Convention – 1994
• Convention on Biological
Diversity – 1993
• Bonn Convention – 1993
• CITES – 1981
In 1981, the Philippines signed
the Convention on International
Trade of Endangered Species
(CITES), one of a number of inter-
national agreements focusing on
biodiversity conservation. Other sig-
nificant international agreements
were similarly endorsed as indicated
in Box 1.
The Integrated Protected Areas
System (IPAS), a project of the De-
partment of Environment and Natu-
ral Resources (DENR) and the Pro-
tected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
(PAWB), became the first serious
effort to analyze the biodiversity
profile of protected areas in the
country. The project was contracted
out to two NGOs: the University of
the Philippines Science Research
Foundation, Inc. and the Founda-
tion for Sustainable Development,
Inc. under the supervision of the
World Wildlife Fund – Philippine
Program. It was initiated in 1986 with
funding from the Japanese govern-
ment under the administration of the
World Bank.
The IPAS Project identified 10
priority sites for protection, which were
selected according to:
• Ecosystem type considerations –
selected sites should be represen-
tative of terrestrial, marine and
wetland ecosystems.
• Conservation values – factors
include endemism, biodiversity,
endangered species, remaining
pristine habitats, size, uniqueness,
and scenic values.
• Other considerations – legal,
security and financing factors.
The IPAS then provided the basis
for the National Integrated Protected
Areas System (NIPAS) Act (Republic
Act 7586), which was passed in
1992. The Law was developed
because of the difficulty in imple-
menting prior Philippine protected
area legislation as well as the world-
wide push for biodiversity conserva-
tion. Special features of the Act in-
clude:
• Introduction of measures where
government can work with the
public, non-government organi-
zations, local government units,
indigenous cultural communities
and tenured migrants.
• Designation of buffer zones as
an added layer of protection.
• Recognition of ancestral domain
rights as well as those of tenured
migrants.
• Decentralization of protected
area management through a
multi-sectoral Protected Area
Management Board (PAMB).
• Development of protected area
specific General Management
Plans (GMP).
• Establishment of an Integrated
Protected Areas Fund (IPAF) for
SPECIAL REPORTS
Box 2: THIRTEEN
LEGAL STEPS
1. Compilation of maps and
technical descriptions
2. Initial screening
3. Public notifications
4. Initial Consultation
5. Survey & Registration of PA
Occupants
6. Resource Profiling
7. Initial Protected Area Plan
Delineation (on the ground)
8. Public Hearings
9. Regional Review and Recom-
mendation
10. National Review and Recom-
mendation
11. Presidential Proclamation
12. Congressional Action
13. Demarcation
the sustained financing of the
System.
All areas that have been previ-
ously proclaimed, designated or set
aside by law (by presidential decree,
presidential proclamation, or execu-
tive order) as national park, game
refuge, bird and wildlife sanctuary,
wilderness area, strict nature reserve,
watershed, mangrove reserve, fish
sanctuary, natural and historical
landmark, protected and managed
landscape and seascape before the
effectivy of the Act in 1992 constitute
the initial components of the NIPAS.
Under the NIPAS Act, protected
areas are established after the
completion of thirteen legal steps
(Box 2) and are categorized as:
• Strict nature reserve
• Natural park
• Natural monument
• Wildlife sanctuary
• Protected land and seascape
• Resource reserve
• Natural biotic area
INSTITUTIONAL SET-UP
In 1987, Executive Order No.
192 issued by then President Corazon
C. Aquino, reorganized the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and re-
named it as Department of Environ-
ment and Natural Resources (DENR).
The same order created the Protected
ASEAN BIODIVERSITY 29
 SPECIAL REPORTS
Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB), the site, and is directly responsible other income for the Integrated
which presently undertakes the es- to the PENRO. The PASu’s duties and Protected Areas Fund (IPAF).
tablishment and management, de- responsibilities include: • Preparing the Annual Work and
velopment and conservation of • Enforcing established rules and Financial Plan of the protected
protected areas in the Philippines regulations to protect and pre- area for approval by the PAMB.
and serves also as the National serve the protected area from
Biodiversity Reference Unit (NBRU). damage and illegal occupancy. ONGOING CONSERVATION
Under the DENR, PAWB serves as • Establishing a productive partner- PROJECTS
the lead unit for system-wide plan- ship with the local community, A certain number of protected
ning and coordination of technical NGOs, and other government areas has been given priority status
assistance among department pro- agencies in the operation of the and is being managed with addi-
grams and projects in protected protected area. tional funding through special
area management. It is responsible • Coordinating the implementation projects of the DENR-PAWB.
for implementing national and re- of all relevant activities related to The 10 priority sites identified
gional policy in accordance with the tenured migrants and the ances- under the IPAS Project are being
1992 NIPAS Act, through the tral domain claims, subject to managed by the Conservation of
department’s Regional Executive Di- Republic Act No. 8371 (IPRA Law) Priority Protected Areas Project
rectors (REDs), the Provincial Envi- and related issuances. (CPPAP), with funding from the Glo-
ronment and Natural Resources Of- • Leading the preparation and bal Environment Facility (GEF) and
ficers (PENROs), the Community implementation of the General the World Bank. CPPAP works in
Environment and Natural Resources Management Plan. tandem with NGOs for Integrated
Officers (CENROs) and its other • Collecting and receiving pertinent Protected Areas Inc., a consortium
field offices. fees, charges, donations, and of local NGOs engaged in devel-
The DENR RED chairs the Pro-
tected Area Management Board Sites Managed through the Conservation of Priority
(PAMB), which administers each Protected Areas Project (CPPAP) and the National Integrated
Protected Areas Programme (NIPAP)
protected area. As PAMB Chair, the
RED shall:
• Implement policies adopted by
the DENR and PAMB for pro-
tected areas under his/her juris-
diction.
• Represent and ensure that the
interests and concerns of local
and indigenous communities are
addressed.
Each site has a PAMB, composed
of representatives from stakeholders
in the protected area, specifically
local governments, non-government
organizations, indigenous peoples,
and tenured migrants. The PAMB
essentially decides on:
• Matters relating to planning and
general administration of the area
in accordance with the General
Management Plans, including the
approval of action plans, regula-
tion of construction within the pro-
tected areas, the evaluation of
personnel, and others.
• Allocations for the budget.
The Protected Area Superinten-
dent (PASu), on the other hand, is
the chief operating DENR officer at

30 JANUARY - JUNE 2001


opment, environment and social
preparation activities.
Another special project is the
National Integrated Protected Areas
Programme (1995-2002), which
implements the NIPAS Act in eight
sites, and is jointly funded by the
European Union and the Govern-
ment of the Philippines.
Other ongoing projects include
the World Bank-supported Technical
Assistance for Improving Biodiversity
Conservation in Protected Areas
(1999-2001), and GEF-funded pro-
grams such as the Samar Island
Biodiversity Conservation Project
(2000 – 2008) and the Coastal and
Marine Biodiversity Component of
the Mindanao Rural Development
Project (2000 – 2003).
The Asian Development Bank
(ADB) is about to embark on a
project on Integrated Coastal Re-
sources Management under the
DENR. The project aims to adopt
an integrated approach to promote
sustainable management of the
coastal resources and related eco-
systems, conserve coastal resources,
control land-based pollution and
siltation and reduce extensive pov-
erty in coastal areas by providing
opportunities for increasing income
and improving living standards of
communities living along the coasts
and in uplands adjacent to the
coasts.
SUSTAINING THE
MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Like most operations provided with
sound administration, the availability
of funds is a key factor in determin-
ing the success of protected area
management. Raising income is es-
sential to protected area viability and
sustainability. For this reason, the
NIPAS Act provides for the establish-
ment of the Integrated Protected
Areas Fund (IPAF) to help sustain
protected areas, stating that all in-
come generated from the operation
of the system, donor support or other
funds as provided by law shall ac-
crue to the IPAF.
In practical terms, the PAMB and
the Protected Area Office (PAO) staff
must identify and quantify appropri-
ate charges that can be made to the
public (tourists and other visitors) and
to all other interests, including public
utilities and commercial entities ben-
efiting from facilities, amenities and
natural resources within the protected
area. The income derived should
contribute to offsetting protected area
operation and maintenance costs.
The PAMB and the PAO may also
seek out alternative means of fund
raising, such as direct mail (appeal
for donations through a mailing
package), special events (that gen-
erate publicity for the organization
and are done to raise funds), major
gifts (from satisfied donors), capital
campaign (structured campaign to
raise funds for specific needs),
planned giving (gifts that mature at
a later time), and grants (endow-
ments).
Another option is the use of Trust
Funds, which is an endowment of
a large sum of money and is used
for specific purposes, such as con-
servation (Morakinyo, 2001). The
capital of the Fund is not spent but
is invested to yield regular yearly
interest, which is treated as income.
An example is the Trust Fund gen-
erated by a debt-for-nature swap
between the World Wide Fund for
Nature (WWF) and the Government
of the Philippines, which finances
environmental and conservation
projects through the Foundation for
the Philippine Environment (FPE). If
interest stays ahead of inflation, the
Trust Fund can provide a regular
income without erosion of the origi-
nal capital.
Assessing The Philippine
Protected Area System
As of 2001, 209 sites were in-
cluded as initial components of the
national protected area system
(PAWB). Of these, 147 fall under
IUCN categories 1-6, with a total
area of 27,041 km2. The terrestrial
portion comprises 3.7% of the land-
SPECIAL REPORTS
mass of the country, which includes
viable examples of all major habi-
tat types, areas of high diversity,
ecologically important watersheds,
migration routes, breeding, spawn-
ing and wintering sites.
The implementation of the NIPAS
Act provides an opportunity to re-
view the current state of protected
areas, the first of which is the Mt.
Makiling Forest Reserve, established
in 1933. Over the years, the Phil-
ippine landscape has changed dras-
tically, and the current state of pro-
tected areas may be a far cry from
what they were when initially pro-
claimed. Unfortunately, about two-
thirds of Philippine protected areas
contain human settlements. Illegal
logging has destroyed much of the
original vegetation. Effective mea-
sures to prevent this as well as hu-
man encroachment are severely
hampered by inadequate staffing
and funds.
A review of the Philippine pro-
tected area system during the Na-
tional Biodiversity Conservation Pri-
ority-Setting Workshop (UP-CIDS,
PAWB-DENR, CI. 2000) also reveals
the following:
• Under-representation of ecosys-
tem and habitat types.
• Inclusion of a high proportion of
degraded and converted habitat.
• Presence of a high percentage
of manmade structures within
protected areas.
• Under-representation of species
and mammal richness.
• Bias of the system in terms of
location and species richness.
The issues mentioned represent
just a fraction of the problems in
the Philippine protected area sys-
tem. A comprehensive review of the
current state of protected areas
should be undertaken to ensure that
these sites are still viable for con-
servation.
The Way Forward
While the current situation of the
Philippine protected area system
leaves much to be desired, it must
ASEAN BIODIVERSITY 31
 SPECIAL REPORTS
be emphasized that adequate natu-
ral lands still exist in most areas to
make a truly representational pro-
tected area system. Some of the
following steps are recommended
to improve the protected area sys-
tem (MacKinnon, 2000):
• The system should be enlarged
and redesigned.
• Remaining ‘natural’ habitats
should be gazetted into the NIPAS.
• Lowland and secondary forests
of high biodiversity value should
be acquired for protection.
• Small forest fragments should be
preserved and extended by re-
forestation.
The use of advanced methods
and technology, such as Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) and sat-
ellite imagery, should be encour-
aged in redesigning protected area
systems. It allows planners to exclude
major human activities from pro-
tected areas, as well as incorporate
intact habitats into the sites.
One of the more significant de-
velopments to come out of the imple-
mentation of the NIPAS Act is the
development of a process known as
Participatory 3-Dimensional Model-
ing. The method integrates partici-
patory resource mapping and GIS
methods, and has proven to be a
user-friendly and relatively accurate
research, planning and management
tool. The precision of the final 3D
model of the protected area is as-
sured by confirming geo-referenced
data with knowledge provided by
members of the local community. It
also provides stakeholders with a
replica of the site where they can
actually see and relate to manage-
ment zones and boundaries. The
method has since been institutional-
ized by the DENR on January 4, 2001
through Memorandum Circular No.
2001-01, which recommended its
nationwide adoption in protected
area planning and sustainable natu-
ral resource management.
An assessment by PAWB on the
status of protected areas in 1997
also stressed the need for:
32 JANUARY - JUNE 2001
• Enhancement of knowledge of
the NIPAS Act and the need to
protect biodiversity among vari-
ous stakeholders.
• Development of a framework of
cooperation among concerned
institutions to ensure efficient
implementation of the NIPAS Act.
• Determination of fund sources to
address financial gaps in the
system.
• Provision of policy guidelines by
the Department of Interior and
Local Government to clarify the
extent of involvement of local
government units in protected
area management.
• Evaluation of the mechanisms in
accessing the Integrated Protected
Areas Fund (IPAF).
In a series of recent meetings
spearheaded by Conservation Inter-
national (CI) and PAWB with sup-
port from ARCBC, a review of the
current protected area system was
completed and over 100 priority sites
for conservation were identified.
About half of the identified sites are
currently not protected so a major
program of field checking, determin-
ing suitable boundaries and gazet-
ting these new areas lies ahead. CI
in partnership with the World Bank
and MacArthur Foundation are rais-
ing funds, which can be used to
secure protection for these sites in
the Philippines’ biodiversity
“hotspots.”
Continued assessment and moni-
toring of protected areas by PAWB-
DENR and other concerned agen-
cies, efficiency of protected area
management, availability of funds,
continued cooperation of various
stakeholders, and increased aware-
ness of the significance of
biodiversity provide the keys to the
sustainability of protected areas. Still,
it would not be enough to assess the
NIPAS based on the status of pock-
ets of protected areas. The NIPAS,
after all, is a system, and the future
of biodiversity conservation in the
country rests primarily on how well
it is set up and managed. Current
efforts should not focus on ensuring
the success of a small number of
areas to the detriment of the major-
ity. The coordination of various
projects to ensure that a balance is
met in achieving national conserva-
tion goals should be emphasized to
secure the stability of the system. The
process of assuring the strength of
the system will take years of con-
stant monitoring and evaluation.
The structure will have to undergo
a number of changes, if only to
make sure that a truly representa-
tive and viable protected area sys-
tem would be set in place.
Sahlee C. Bugna is a writer-
researcher of ARCBC. Tess Blastique
is a Senior Ecosystems Management
Specialist at the Protected Areas and
Wildlife Bureau.
References:
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, United Nations
Environment Programme. 1997.
Philippine Biodiversity: An Assessment
and Action Plan. Bookmark, Inc.:
Philippines.
MacKinnon, John (Ed.). 1997.
Protected Area Systems Review of the
Indo-Malayan Realm. Asian Bureau for
Conservation and the World Conserva-
tion Monitoring Centre. England.
MacKinnon, John. 2000. Powerpoint
presentation on the Status of the
Philippine Protected Area System.
Morakinyo, Tunde. Trust Funds for
Conservation. Suhay. Vol. 4, No. 3.
October 2000 - January 2001.
NIPAS Act (Republic Act No. 7586)
and Implementing Rules and Regula-
tions, (DAO 25, S 1992).
Protected Areas and Wildlife
Bureau. 1998. Implementing the
Convention on Biological Diversity in
the Philippines: The First Philippine
National Report to the Convention of
Biological Diversity. DENR. Philippines.
Rambaldi, G and J. Callosa-Tarr.
2001. Manual on Participatory 3-
Dimensional Modeling for Natural
Resource Management. Essentials of
Protected Area Management in the
Philippines, Vol. 7. NIPAP, PAWB-DENR,
Philippines.
Simpson, S. and S. Bugna. 2001.
Biodiversity Conservation and the
Community: A Literature Review and
Inouts from the NIPAP Experience.
Essentials of Protected Area Manage-
ment in the Philippines, Vol. 1. NIPAP,
PAWB-DENR, Philippines.