Synopsis of the BCN Results Dissemination Workshop

February 4, 1999
Environmental Education Center - Miriam College, Manila, Philippines

 

BCN Program Background

The Biodiversity Conservation Network (BCN) was established to fulfill two main programmatic goals: (1) to promote community-based enterprises in 20 sites across Asia and the Pacific, and (2) to evaluate and disseminate the effectiveness of this approach to conservation. Its core hypothesis is that if the community-based enterprise approach to conservation is going to be effective, it must (a) have a direct link with biodiversity, (b) generate monetary and non-monetary benefits, and (c) involve the local communities at the site.

 

Workshop Rationale

The BCN Results Dissemination Workshop was held at Quezon City, Manila on February 4, 1999. This was part of an ongoing effort by BCN to bring communities, partners, other funding agencies and policy makers together for a dialogue and a common understanding of the key issues facing rural communities on the one hand and conservation on the other.

The specific objectives of the workshop were:

• To disseminate the learnings from the Philippine and Asia-Pacific BCN-funded projects; and

• To strengthen the working relations among the communities, partners and government institutions in responding to current issues facing conservation in the Philippines and the region.

The morning session saw presentations from the three BCN-funded projects in the Philippines namely Bendum, Palawan and Kalahan, alongside a presentation by BCN on the program's Analytical Framework and results to date from the different BCN-funded Asia-Pacific sites.

The afternoon session, on the other hand, had several presentations and discussions on key questions facing conservation efforts in the country:

• How do we use scientific research methods in strengthening community-based enterprises and monitoring?

• What does it take for community-based enterprises to succeed?

• Are our alliances strong enough to be a political force?

Overall, it was a successful workshop. There were over 70 participants from government, development agencies, NGOs, research institutes and universities, who expressed their appreciation of the sessions, and the opportunity for strengthening existing working relations.

 

THE BENDUM-PANTARON FOREST MANAGEMENT PROJECT

The following are information on the Bendum-Pantaron Forest Management Project, based from the reports of the Environmental Science for Social Change, Inc., and from the presentations of three of ESSC's project officers during the workshop namely Karen Lawrence, Jing Toledo and Eric Bruno.

Project Background:

The Pantaron range in Bukidnon, Mindanao, is one of the last remaining blocks of virgin forest in the Philippines, and serves as the headwaters for the Pulangi River which, is the country's second largest river. The BCN-funded Bendum-Pantaron Forest Management Project in Bukidnon aimed to conserve the biodiversity at three sites located within the Pantaron Range namely: Bendum [2,648 ha - 82 HH], Mahayag [2,379 ha - 29 HH] and Tawantawan [570 ha - 8 HH]. Project activities started as early as 1995 and officially ended in December 1998 with the Environmental Science for Social Change, Inc. (ESSC) as lead agency. Most of the project activities however have centered on the community of Bendum because it is the largest of the three communities and has the least degraded forest base.

The major BCN-funded activities at Bendum included: 1) planting and monitoring of abaca [Manila hemp] along secondary forest buffer zones for harvesting and weaving of high quality fiber, 2) skills training and production of traditional handicrafts, 3) developing marketing links and identifying potential traders in the neighboring village of St. Peter and the city of Malaybalay, 4) translation of training materials in the local language, 5) biological monitoring [training of community members as research teams, community mapping of rattan resources] and 6) ancestral domain management planning activities. Other [non-BCN-funded] activities included putting in a water system, setting-up of a school and literacy program in Binukid and linkaging with other communities and institutions along the Pantaron range.

Enterprise Approach and Results:

Although rattan was actually proposed as one of the original enterprises of the project, it required a license that had been given to a Cebu-based company [which the Lumads successfully had removed later on]. The community as a result requested for the cancellation of the rattan harvesting enterprise. The project livelihood activities consequently concentrated on two livelihood activities. The first was the return of Lumad backyard abaca growing. This practice helps lessen the threats of over-extraction of forest resources and clearing of additional land for agriculture, since income from abaca fiber provides the community with quick additional sources of funds. It has also helped with the creation of buffers that has enabled the Lumads to assert their land use rights in the area, thereby protecting their land and forest resources from further lowland encroachment. From 6 active Lumad groups in 1995, to 38 in 1998, ESSC hopes to continue this trend in order to strengthen the community's hold on their land. As of 1997, each Lumad grossed an estimated 700.00 pesos from abaca harvesting, which is actually around 30% of their cash income. ESSC hopes to significantly increase the earnings from this activity within the next year or so.

Another livelihood enterprise was the production of handicrafts by Lumad women. Though the Lumad women have only averaged the production and sales of a few items per year, its non-cash benefits were integral to the process of community empowerment. First of all, the enterprise project promotes cultural integrity. For example, the handicraft enterprise makes use of traditional skills, which the women transfer to their children. In addition, these same women are re-establishing their leadership roles in the community. As an example of how this is achieved, the handicrafts enterprise has allowed for better understanding of the relationship between men and women (i.e. men needed for production and women needed for financial management) thereby making communal labor and community participation more effective. As a result, more families are now staying in Bendum as an indicator of the community's increased self-esteem.

Other Key Learnings:

The community must be allowed to go at their own pace.

The positive impact of the abaca and handicraft livelihood activities can be attributed to the fact that the project did not pressure the community in any way to follow a specific enterprise model, nor did it demand any set of deliverables. This allowed the community the freedom it needed to develop from its own processes and learn from its own mistakes.

Articulation of the communities' "cultural biodiversity".

ESSC uses the term "cultural biodiversity to describe the communities' expression and knowledge of their relationship with the forest. The Lumads for example classify their forest into saldab (mossy), lagiit (transition), puwalas (primary), kagulangan (logged-over), lubas (regenerating) and uma (farmland). In addition, they have also identified indicators of good forest [temperature, occurrence of rain and fog] and bad forest [hot-slow winds, occurrence of illnesses in the community]. The result is that the project used processes that allowed the community to articulate its own interaction with the land, and at the same time provide a level of support that respects this relationship. The Bendum community Forest Committee for example has formulated a policy that prohibits hunting of dove species after community monitoring efforts have revealed the presence of these birds in their forest.

The employment of several strategies in achieving land security.

Critical to the empowerment of the Lumads, was the community's ability to secure tenure against internal and external threats. In June 1998, the Bendum community was awarded its Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). This is a significant step towards community-based conservation since the CADC serves as a legal stewardship instrument that allows Indigenous People to live, utilize and manage the resources within their ancestral domain. Despite this, and given the fact that Mahayag and Tawantawan have still not been awarded their CADCs, the communities alongside ESSC have decided to explore other options for securing land tenure. The DENR's Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) Program was identified as a viable and acceptable option for the community. With very similar goals and objectives to the CADC, the CBFM provides an alternative should the CADC fail, and a back-up should it proceed.

 

LESSONS FROM THE COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION AND ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES IN PALAWAN

The following are excerpts from the experiences of Agnes de Mesa, who served as Technical Adviser to the Palawan project from March 1997 to March 1998.

Project Background:

With 54% forest cover and being home to over 232 wildlife species or 23% of the entire fauna of the country, Palawan is often described as the last frontier of the Philippines. All 3 BCN-funded project sites are all located in important areas of biodiversity in Palawan. Cayasan [7,503 hectares - 58 Batak and Tagbanua HH] is adjacent to the St. Paul National Park, which is one of the most notable protected area in the country. The Campung Ulay [7,000 hectares - 240 Pala'wan and Tagbanua HH] and Punta Baja [8,092 hectares - 148 Pala'wan and Tagbanua HH] project sites, on the other hand, are located within the Mt. Mantalingahan Range, the highest peak in the province. The goal of the BCN-funded project is to promote conservation in these areas through the development of sustainable rattan, almaciga (resin) and honey trade. In doing so, the project exerted its efforts not only in areas of NTFP extraction, but in the development of the necessary legal and social organizations as well. This included the strengthening of the IP communities' local associations and the development of the NATRIPAL (United Tribes of Palawan) federation in providing the necessary project support and market linkaging.

The following can be considered as the positive factors that contributed to the successful implementation of the BCN-Funded program:

1. The acquisition of tenurial rights or the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim or CADCs for all three sites. The CADC is legal stewardship instrument that entitles IPs to live, manage and utilize their ancestral domain. It was important in providing the IPs in Palawan with a sense of ownership and security over their ancestral lands, which enhanced their protectiveness over their areas. The CADC also gave them the legal basis to trade NTFPs from within their area.

2. The making of the Ancestral Domain Management Plan (ADMP). In connection with the CADC, the ADMPs serves as the guide for the utilization and management of the natural resources within the 3 BCN-funded sites, including the rates of extraction and marketing for NTFPs. The process of making the ADMP is also worth noting as this enhanced the cultural heritage of the IPs and showed their ability to undertake democratic processes.

3. Erecting an implementing structure that was suited to the goals and demands of the project. The Natripal and project organizational structure greatly aided the implementation of the project and provided the necessary marketing linkage. This was because the structure was designed to address all the different needs of the project i.e. legal, social, enterprise, community development and institutional building.

4. Appropriate trainings and seminars for both the project staff and the beneficiaries. Capability building measures enabled the project staff to guide and develop the different components of the project. On the other hand, trainings were also given to the beneficiaries to ensure the transfer of the management of the project to them. These trainings consisted of literacy-numeracy, leadership, financial management systems [like bookkeeping], planning, monitoring and evaluation, credit-investment and paralegal seminars.

5. The nature of the existence, culture and way of life of the indigenous people. Indeed, their way of life, their connection with and respect for Mother Earth proved that the fit group of people who should undertake biodiversity conservation, especially rainforest conservation, are the indigenous peoples themselves.

The following can be considered as the negative factors that had hampered the successful implementation of the program:

1. Too many organizations and consultants were involved in the implementation especially from the side of Manila-based institutions. In the absence of clear-cut definitions of functions and role among these organizations and consultants early on in the project, confusion arose and accountabilities for the negative experiences could no longer be traced. Rather than aiding Natripal, these numerous external links confused the federation more.

2. The internal organizational crisis within Natripal. It was not clear as to whether the IP Board of Directors (BOD) would limit their functions to policy-making, or would be a "working board" that would likewise undertake project management functions. As a result, conflict between project staff and management was constant and at times hampered many activities of the project early on. [This is not to mention the existing conflicts within the communities that included "power struggles" among the IP themselves for leadership in the community.]

3. Lack of a monitoring base. Though the IPs alongside project staff and consultants were able to undertake initial bio-monitoring activities, the data still has to be re-validated and analyzed. Initial findings show for example that rattan resources will only last 4 more years given the present rate of extraction. The IPs with the aid of Natripal should then adjust accordingly and include formal monitoring as part of their priorities.

Conclusion:

Despite positive gains such as the apprehension of illegal gatherers and the initial sales of NTFPs by the IPs, the implementation of the ADMPs and hence conservation at the Palawan sites still have question marks. The main issue is the sustainability of the current efforts of the Natripal Federation and the IP people's organizations to continue to provide the community development and enterprise leadership. However, looking back at the Palawan experience, the valuable lessons above show that the BCN framework and hypotheses are realizable and attainable.

 

KALAHAN FOREST FARMS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

The following are information on the Kalahan Forest Farms Development Project, based from the reports of the Kalahan Educational Foundation (KEF), and from the presentations of two of their officers during the workshop namely Pastor Delbert Rice and Tamano Bugtong.

Project Background:

The Kalahan Reserve is part of the larger Cordillera and Caraballo mountain ranges of Northern Luzon. The Ikalahans have lived here for centuries relying mainly on hunting, gathering and traditional swidden agriculture to survive. In 1974, the Kalahan Educational Foundation (KEF) was able to negotiate an agreement with the now defunct Bureau of Forest Development that gave the Ikalahans full and legal stewardship, management and utilization rights for 25 years (MOA1). With this agreement nearing its end, the KEF from 1996 through 1998 was then able to attain three Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADCs) in the adjacent provinces of Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya and Pangasinan that would expand their management activities to 45,000 ha by 1999. The BCN-funded Kalahan Forest Farms Development Project had three main objectives. The first is to strengthen the existing KEF Mountain Fresh jams and jellies production. Second, was to explore other possible livelihood niches from the forest and lastly, to assist in the various researches and conservation related activities of the KEF.

Mountain Fresh Jams and Jellies:

The main product of KEF is the Mountain Fresh line of jams and jellies. This enterprise has actually been supplying to major supermarkets in Manila since the late 80's, and so BCN's objective was to strengthen the current operations and examine its link and contribution to conservation in the area. Analyses of sales and production show that gross revenue has tapered off to around 2,000 bottles or 650,000 pesos of sales annually in the last three years. At this level, the enterprise is able to cover its variable cost but has not yet been able to cover fully all of its fixed cost. "The biggest challenge then at the present time is to bring the Food Processing Center to the point where its net profits can support the other activities of the KEF" acccording to Pastor Rice. To do this, KEF is strategizing with the Upland NGO Assistance Committee (UNAC) and the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP), ways by which to increase Mountain Fresh sales. [KEF is likewise looking at ways by which to lower the cost of production]. Aside from promotions and of increase marketing efforts, KEF will soon be introducing a line of low-sugar jams and jellies, which they expect will add to their gross sales significantly.

Other Outputs of the Kalahan BCN-funded Project:

Documentation of changes in vegetative cover and land-use classifications helped in evaluating the overall impact of conservation efforts during the project period. Initial learnings reveal that land tenure, institutional strength of the KEF, the homogeneity of the Ikalahans [447 out of 550 families are Ikalahans] and the "decentralization" of decision making and monitoring responsibilities to the five different barangays [towns] are all factors that have greatly facilitated the conservation of biodiversity at the site. KEF will be applying such lessons in the creation of Ancestral Domain Management Plans (ADMPs) for the larger 45,000 hectare CADCs that were recently awarded to the Ikalahans for when the MOA1 expires by this year.

Documentation of the endangered flora and fauna within the project site served as one of the basis for the cancellation of the proposed national highway that was supposed to dissect the Kalahan Reserve. The biodiversity research component of the project has been able to identify within the project site, several species of flora and fauna listed by IUCN as endangered. This was one of the major arguments used by the KEF when it recently won its case in having the proposed national highway linking Nueva Vizcaya and Pangasinan rerouted away from the Kalahan Reserve.

Monitoring of fruit production and harvesting methods ensured the existence of an adequate supply of raw materials for the continued production of jams and jellies. Studies from the forestry teams reveal that the quantity of fruits that are sold by harvesters to the food processing plant does not limit production nor threaten the regeneration of fruit trees and production of fruits within the Kalahan Reserve. For example, less than 15% of the total fruits produced within the Reserve are harvested for food processing. [In addition, the KEF sources raw materials from outside the Reserve.]

Timber Stock Improvement studies are assessing the feasibility of sustainable lumber production and culling from within the Kalahan Reserve. The goal of the TSI would be to maintain the culling rate of timber from the secondary forests to 10% of the annual growth rate. Initial KEF estimates place current extraction levels at around this figure.

 

BCN ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The following are excerpts from the presentation of Ganesan Balachnader, director of BCN, on the program's Analytical Framework and results to date from the different BCN-funded sites.

Measurement of Conservation Impact:

At each of the project sites, the most important variable being measured is the degree of biodiversity conservation. The change over the course of the project period is being measured in a number of ways, including traditional biological methods and through threat reduction assessments. The factors affecting biodiversity include those related to:

• enterprise (linkage, ownership, management, profitability and market demand)

• benefits (scale, variability, distribution, non-cash, timing, and frequency)

• stakeholders (existence of group, representativeness, leadership, and governance)

• contextual (social, economic, and chaos)

The analyses currently under way include single factor and case studies. Preliminary results from such analyses were then presented. In order to meet the ultimate test of sustainable development, BCN-funded enterprises have to not only:

• meet the financial tests for economic viability,

• they also have to be evaluated on social and ecological grounds.

Enterprise Results:

15 of the enterprises are generating revenues, nine are covering all the variable costs and a portion of the fixed costs, six have reached break-even point, where all the variable and fixed costs are being covered by the revenues from sales, and four are meeting all expenses on a fully-loaded cost basis, including monitoring costs, except the cost of capital. The value-added chains, and the financial performance of several of the BCN-funded enterprises were graphically presented on posters that were displayed.

Several general lessons are emerging from a review of project performance:

• The importance of a cohesive community organization

• A critical resource which is in short supply is good management

• Marketing is key to enterprise success

• The need to mainstream the enterprise, if it is to be weaned from subsidies, and

• A recognition that enterprise-based approaches are at best part of the solution to conservation problems (best employed where a major threat is local people's need for cash, and where a viable enterprise is possible).

Several issues and concerns, which have arisen during the course of the projects, were also noted. These include operationalizing sustainability, economic incentives to further conservation, and costs of monitoring. There were also several design and implementation challenges to effective project implementation, including:

• what is meant by 'local community'

• the development strategy to be adopted in the context of a three to four year project cycle (capital intensive and with significant external resource inputs vs. lower cost, locally managed development), and

• the role of local knowledge vis-a vis scientific knowledge.

"How do we use scientific research methods in strengthening community-based enterprises and monitoring?"

In trying to tackle the above question, Gilbert Braganza, a community mapping expert from PLAN International, made a short presentation on community mapping as a tool for empowerment.

Introduction

Community mapping focuses on the social and agro-forestry practices of the people, out of which, zones of activity emerge, including boundaries with other communities. He further defined "ethnomapping" or "cultural mapping" as a process wherein the local community's perceptions of the landscape as well as their activities and histories are used to depict their surroundings. These kinds of maps present the relationship of the people and their resources in a spatial manner. This kind of representation is dynamic, evolving, participatory and non-formulaic. It is a completely flexible process, which emphasizes the community's perspective and their relationship with their environment. Through this participatory map-making process, the community is empowered through cultural strengthening. The map gives them something to hold and say: "this is where and how we live." The map provides "power" in that it allows the community to assert or lay claim to their resources and use these rights to negotiate with outsiders. It also enhances social stability and opens up dialogue when it comes to community resource-use planning.

Use of Local Knowledge, Materials and Processes

Simplicity and creativity are encouraged when bringing the method of resource mapping down to the community level. The speaker has seen maps made of different media. Leaves, seeds and fruits from a certain tree species, for example, are used to depict an area where a high density of these trees are found. Tree bark, instead of paper can also be used. Three-dimensional maps that you can walk through have also been used in Thailand. He urged the audience to try this kind of "experiential" and participatory mapping. He stressed the need to keep the technology simple and innovative. He urged mappers to promote a "low-tech," local-GIS (Geographic Information System) where it is the community members themselves, which make the maps out of local materials that are more accessible and more meaningful to them. After all, GIS is simply a way of storing data in a raster format that can then be overlayed to see how things relate spatially. In community mapping, much emphasis is given to the local's perspective. Although the map may not be 100% technically accurate, there is no "wrong" map since the perspective of the community members making the map is the lens through which we see the world. The local community's perceptions of their resources are often a function of their importance or frequency of use. Distance, too, is usually measured by time and their maps can have a little "distortion." Later on, however, these maps can be integrated onto technical maps through a tedious process called "warping." Validation can then be done during a site-visit by ground-truthing and discussions with the community. In talking with community, he says this takes time and requires trust, which can take a long time to build up. Having rapport with the community elders is also very important since they are a repository of local knowledge, history and topography of the area. A community map, once "warped" onto a technical map and evaluated with the community becomes an integrated map.

Community Mapping as a Tool for Research and Empowerment

As a practitioner, the speaker reflected on the usefulness of this kind of community mapping approach. Aside from empowering the community, it is a very effective land management tool but one that needs to be complemented with other methods and approaches. He also challenged the audience to integrate more indigenous knowledge in the process as well as to simplify the technology to the point where locals can do it themselves from start to finish. He also discussed the need for the community to be the scientists - for them to monitor their resources and interpret this data. In using indicators, species that are both economically important/relevant and which adequately reflect the health of an ecosystem, should be used. He encouraged variety, creativity and innovation in map making. Lastly, he stressed the need for deriving utility out of these maps. They are not meant to be hanging masterpieces but rather, a living and working document to be used by the community members for managing their resources. He concluded that there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to build the science, in bringing it to the community level, and that it had great potential as an effective tool for nature-based enterprise development.

A Participant's Reaction

Dr. Manuel F. Bonifacio, Professor Emeritus of Sociology from the University of the Philippines, observed that technical maps should be used by the researcher as the basis of reorganizing the cognitive map of the community and that this is the key to empowerment. He also noted that a crucial theoretical issue that this process must solve is whether there is a need to fit the map drawn by the community with the technical map. The whole issue of fitting must be given appropriate attention by the researcher. What should the researcher do if and when the discrepancy between the two is substantial? Should the discrepancy be reduced immediately? Should it be reduced gradually? Since the action will have an effect on the structure of the cognitive map of the community, then doing it gradually is a better option to take. Its developmental impact can then readily be plotted.

What does it take for community-based enterprises to succeed?

Continuing on the theme of BCN-funded enterprises as the engines that power socio-economic development within the communities and help raise conservation awareness, the two speakers in this thematic presentation, Boy Abelgas, a consultant to the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) and Rudy Coronel of the International Institute for Rural reconstruction (IIRR) reviewed the progress of enterprise in development/conservation projects.

A Review of the Record

Reviewing the record of the past 30 years, Boy Abelgas asserted that there was hope for enterprise efforts in development. In the late 60s, any discussion of enterprises in social action relegated it to backyard or livelihood scale. In the 90s, this stereotype has given way to the jargon of micro-and Small and Medium scale Enterprises (SME). In terms of bias, then it was exclusively urban. Rural enterprises were almost unthinkable in the sense of commercial viability. These days we are able to think of a range from urban, to rural, to environment-specific enterprises. In terms of linkage requirements, enterprises then were imagined as stand-alone entities requiring no further linkages beyond the individual entrepreneur's risk-taking and business savvy. Today, there is sensitivity to the larger ecological, and socio-economic contexts, the economic policy environment, as well as to the institutional linkages with financial intermediaries. These observations do not yet constitute a scientific conclusion about the evolution of enterprise efforts in development. These milestones also represent a more sophisticated appreciation of the possibilities as well as the realities of enterprise.

What are these realities? These are 1) the need for physical infrastructure support, 2) the need for a cohesive community organization, or social infrastructure, 3) the need for a close relationship with target markets, and 4) the need for a calculated risk-taking of the investors concerned. These realities constitute the major themes of enterprise project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation considerations.

In what areas of enterprise development have we progressed? The specific areas are 1) in project design, the realization of the different requirements for enterprises in different community groups, 2) in project implementation, the awareness of, and the provision for the multifarious tasks required as the enterprise is implemented with and/or by the various types of communities and their organizations, 3) in project monitoring and evaluation, the consciousness of the reality that the eventual success of the enterprises is not to be considered in a vacuum, but in the specific and time-bound socio-economic context of the particular time period of the enterprises considered.

What are some of the milestones of these claimed areas of progress? These are 1) existing enterprises are easier to assist than new ones, 2) retail and service enterprises are easier to assist than manufacturing ventures, 3) better-off beneficiaries are easier to assist than the less well-off. These reflections are not intended to be discriminatory insofar as possible selection decisions about beneficiaries; rather these are stated simply as part of the experience from the point of view of assisting institutions. On the aspect of project monitoring and evaluation, the experience strongly suggests that the general socio-economic context needs to be taken into account just as carefully for micro-and small-enterprises just as for any corporate venture.

Finally, what has been the record of NGOs in the field of enterprise? The record here is indeed a checkered one. It counts more failures than successes, but perhaps this is not too different from the enterprises in the formal sector. An inherent difficulty already exists in that NGOs account for more enterprise efforts among "high-risk" groups, in severely depressed target geographic areas, and with the major constraints of investment funds and market linkages. Boy Abelgas concluded that while these are not intended as poor excuses for failure, these, however, constitute a major distinction for enterprise efforts in general, and NGO-assisted enterprise efforts in particular.

Success Factors of Community-Based Enterprises

Rudy Coronel started off by pointing to the burdens being placed on community-based natural resource enterprises. They not only have to be financially viable, but also must be ecologically sustainable and socially equitable. In his presentation, he focussed on the factors that contribute to the success of community-based enterprises (from IIRR's experience). These are:

1. There must be a natural desire for people to organize themselves and form an enterprise to answer common needs or problems
2. Recruitment procedures and training programs should stress responsibility and ownership as a prerequisite to deriving benefits from the cooperatives
3. Commitment and service orientation among the leaders
4. Concern for financial viability to sustain the pursuit of social goals
5. Support from the membership by patronizing its products
6. Expansion of membership as a resource and market base, and
7. Members' participation in contributing capital, time, effort, knowledge/skills.

He also emphasized the important roles partner NGOs can play in assisting communities:

1. Partner NGO should strive to increase awareness of people in the community
2. Assist them in community appraisal (PRA) and facilitate in the identifying of opportunities
3. Assist the community to do a thorough feasibility study of enterprises to be undertaken
4. Facilitate peoples' participation in terms of capital, time, effort, and knowledge in all facets of enterprise development to increase their sense of ownership and responsibility
5. Assist in the training of people to prepare them to assume greater responsibility. Also contributions of capital (though not necessarily a large amount) is necessary to cushion the impact of "operational experimentation" at the early stage of the enterprise operation
6. In the pre-development stage, the communities' awareness as to the rigors of business activity should be raised, stressing that the financial viability is the means to pursue the social goals of the enterprise
7. Assist in market development, and
8. Regular monitoring and evaluation should be done by both the partner NGO and the people concerned, to be able to evaluate operations and adapt quickly, and also to transfer the skills to the community members.

Are our alliances strong enough to be a political force?

One of the most important factors affecting the success of conservation and community-based enterprises is security of land tenure. The following are excerpts from the presentation of Dave de Vera, executive director of the Philippine Association for Intercultural Development, Inc. (PAFID), on the factors that are preventing the implementation of IPRA, and the issuing of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) by the Philippine government.

Background on the IPRA:

On October 1997, the Philippine Congress with then President Fidel Ramos passed into law Republic Act No. 8371 commonly known as "The Indigenous People's Right Act of 1997" or IPRA for short. IPRA is an "act to recognize, protect and promote the rights of indigenous cultural communities [by]: (a) creating a National Commission on Indigenous People's (NCIP); (b) establishing implementing mechanisms; (c) appropriating funds therefore and for other purposes".

The IPRA's significance is that for the first time in the history of the Philippines, the 10-12 million IPs [out of roughly a country population of 70 million] who live on "public lands", will now be granted land titles recognizing their legal ownership of their ancestral domains. This is definitely a progressive development from the "Regalian Doctrine" introduce by Spain 350 years ago where the state retains ownership of all classified public lands i.e. mineral, forest, agricultural lands including national parks and reserves.

Fight for the Uplands - Who Controls It?

a. Commercial Mining-Timber Sector vs. the NGO-IP sector

Half the area of the Philippines is classified as uplands. These are areas possessing a slope gradient of 18 degrees or more. 11 million hectares or 66% of these uplands are degraded; old growth forest stand only at 2.7% [8,100 sq. km.] while secondary forest, sub marginal, mossy and pine forest are at 15.55%. [46,650 sq. km.].

Given this, there is a fierce fight that exists between the commercial mining and logging sectors versus the IP's and NGO's for control over the remaining upland resources. At present, it is estimated that corporations have legal control over 4,272,625 million hectares, while the IP communities only have control over 2,780,233 million hectares. [One of the most popular tenurial instruments is the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim or CADC. Though it does not grant ownership, it does award the IPs with legal rights to live, utilize and manage their ancestral domains. [BCN's three projects in the Philippines all have CADCs.]

If all mining applications and community stewardships are approved, along with the existing corporate leases and licenses, many potential flashpoints will erupt in over half of the Philippines' land area. The corporate sector will have legal control of 14,490,000 hectares compared to a measly 2,780,233 for upland communities. [Note: There are overlapping commercial applications.]

b. The Politics Preventing the Implementation of the IPRA

1. Filing of cases against the IPRA:

Attacks are now being launched by the mining and logging sector for the abolition of IPRA on the grounds of its unconstitutionality. On September 28, 1998, retired Justice Cruz along with Atty. Europa filed a taxpayer's petition to the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the IPRA, instigating a heated battle between the corporate and IP/NGO camps.

2. Filing of cases against the commissioners:

The first appointed IP leaders of the National Commission on Indigenous People's (NCIP) were one of the first to be hit by the controversial politics of IPRA. Civil and criminal cases were filed against the IP commissioners in court for various related and unrelated offences. This eventually added to the pressure that led President Estrada to request for their "courtesy resignation". Acting-Secretary Cerilles of the DENR then placed in his own equally controversial appointees. The result is that the NCIP to date has not been able to perform its function of spearheading the implementation of the IPRA.

3. Conflicting government attitudes and action:

With the NCIP in limbo, acting DENR Secretary Cerilles then issued Memo Order No. 98 on September 22, 1998, for the stoppage of processing of all Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADCs). On December 10, 1998 however, President Estrada declared that: "the Estrada Administration shall fully implement the IPRA, and shall soon start issuing Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles or CADTs over 2.5 million hectares of ancestral domains already identified".

4. Lack of collaboration between NGOs and other development agencies:

The NGO and IP response to the above issues has been slow and ineffective. While the mining and logging corporations are able to issue official statements signed by all of their members in a matter of days, NGOs, communities and development agencies have yet to produce any unified response on an agreed course of action. This is rather ironic given the fact that the IPRA is a much-needed instrument for upland development efforts to succeed.

Collaboration Between Asian Countries: The Asia Forest Network (AFN) Experience

The following is a report prepared by Karen Lawrence, regional coordinator of the Asia Forest Network (AFN), highlighting some of the collaborative experiences within the region.

The State of Collaboration in Asia

Though there are several collaborative organizations that operate in the region, the Asia Forest Network (AFN) is different in that it particularly focuses on supporting the role of communities in the protection and sustainable use of their natural forests. Research topics of AFN include natural regeneration, NTFP systems, conflict resolution, and the institutional arrangements that support participatory management. AFN has been facilitating collaboration among practitioners for over 10 years in more than twelve countries [(1) Thailand, (2) Philippines, (3) Indonesia, (4) India, (5) Nepal, (6) Sri Lanka, (7) Bangladesh, (8) Laos, (9) Vietnam, (10) China, (11) Cambodia and (12) Malaysia]. Initially, these activities focused around annual conferences and country profile documentation with the first being in 1992. Later activities have broadened to incorporate other more effective strategies. The Network is comprised of a select coalition of Asia planners, foresters, and scientists from government agencies, universities, and NGOs. There are now three secretariat offices based in Berkeley, Manila and New Delhi, which serve to promote and disseminate research findings within countries and across nations by working through four broad categories: (a) facilitation, (b) research design, (c) training and writing workshops and (d) publications.

AFN fills a specialized niche and focuses on issues that relate to community forest management i.e.:

• Natural regeneration, incorporating indigenous management systems and biodiversity,

• Watershed Management, involving government agency restructuring and decentralization processes.

• Devolution processes, which include participatory methods and local government strategies for resource management.

Practitioners are working on similar issues throughout the region, but are often isolated from each other, either in the field or tied behind a desk. Researchers have identified a common need to decentralize the management of public lands and devolve control to the community to assure sustainable forest use. They recognized that planners formulating policy reforms would require accurate field information reflecting emerging community concerns and resource systems to guide management transitions. Over the years, with or without adequate funding, the secretariat has continued to follow their work, finding ways to support and share their learnings through some of the following products and activities:

• Workshop manuals;

• Conferences in 1992, 1994, 1995, and 1996;

• Cross-visits;

• Training on conflict resolution tools, participatory research tools;

• Exchange and development of research methods;

• Documentation of research findings;

• Analysis and synthesis of research and policies, and;

• Working groups.

Over the years AFN has increased its number of practitioners to over 600, which receive updated policy and research analysis through the use of the Web, maps, newsletters, monographs, regional profiles and policy analysis papers. These various activities and events have highlighted the growth of AFN and although support continues with grass roots research, learnings from the field are also fed into the IUCN through the Working Group on the Intergovernment Forestry Forum.

Collaboration among Members

The practitioners in each country are working within a particular cultural and policy context. One strategy that AFN has tried to facilitate in each country or among member countries is the implementation of the "working group" concept. Examples of these are:

• Philippine Working Group (PWG) - Informal group of representatives from DENR, Academe, Donor Groups, and NGOs, that go on four field visits a year.

• Indian Working Group - JFM Cell in the Ministry of Forestry and among district officers.

• Indonesian Working Group - FKKM, communication forum on community forestry, in Java and East Kalimantan.

• Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and Northern Thailand - Mekong River Committee.

Another example of collaboration within the region can be found by looking at the AFN experience in the Philippines. The PWG, the first and most successful of the working groups so far, grew out of the AFN meeting in Hawaii in 1994. Since that time, the group has visited a total of eighteen sites. The Philippines, with a flexible culture, is able to operate in an informal arrangement, where its members join site visits with the intention of simply listening to the communities and local people. Members come as committed individuals, with hats off on their visit. When and where it is appropriate, individuals will provide advice or open some of the issues or concerns found at the community to the attention and understanding of those in local government and DENR. This simple mechanism and the commitment of its members contributed to the insertion of community mapping into the CBFMA process. Each Working Group has to figure out its own operating strategy. The informality and flexibility in the Philippines won't work in Thailand or Indonesia, which require formal government approval.

No one country has the answers. The Philippines with a history of rapid resource degradation and a vast array of tenure instruments that can be applied in the uplands by both communities and local governments, is becoming a learning ground for other countries in the region. However, a comment from AFN members visiting communities and meeting with supporting organizations is the lack of cohesion at the grassroots level. Cultural cohesiveness of the communities in Indonesia (Dayak communities in East Kalimantan) and Thailand (and the Karen people of Chiang Mai) are much stronger than those found in the Philippines. Indeed, there is still much to learn from each other.

AFN has tried to support the efforts of its members and facilitate quality collaborative efforts. We have been successful in part because the founders of AFN, and key members in India, Philippines and other countries have been willing to use their own project funds to support the network goals so that AFN can go beyond project cycles. The strength of AFN is the commitment of its members to supporting community forest management in their own country and within the region. As the network secretariat, our role is to synthesize the learnings into "what's working and what's not" and then to disseminate them to those in other communities, governments, NGO and the global policy makers. Over time, people's efforts are maximized and they can see their work being acknowledged and contributing to the bigger picture, which seeks a global paradigm shift in forest management practices from a centralized government control to the local communities.

Closing Remarks

Concluding remarks are provided by Carlos Encarnacion, BCN Program Officer

One of the participants commented, that just like any other BCN activity, the workshop was very enriching but at the same time very exhausting! Indeed, the difficult part about the community-based enterprise approach is not that it requires the pursuit of multiple goals, but more importantly, it requires that the achievement of these multiple goals be merged into a cohesive process that is able to fulfill the needs and requirements of each component. - This is the challenge!

The first three presentations from the Bendum, Palawan and Kalahan BCN-funded sites in the Philippines exemplified this when each of the presenters not only discussed conservation and enterprise, but also tackled the components that were not immediately linked but necessary for the success of the enterprise approach. Examples of these were leadership, land tenure, and progressive government policies to name a few. The BCN program has recognized this from the start and so has placed special emphasis on measuring conservation impact through various variables such as threat reduction, enterprise linkages, community of stakeholders and generation of benefits.

This does not mean however that the business aspect of the enterprise approach can be "sacrificed" for the sake of the socio-political. As Ganesan Balachander indicated, there are only a few BCN-funded enterprises that are currently meeting their cost on a fully loaded basis. It is true that 3-4 years is not enough time to set-up a fully sustainable business. Furthermore, the communities are faced with the twin challenges of attaining economic and conservation sustainablity of their enterprises. As Boy Abelgas has shared, the Philippine record here is a checkered one as there are more failures than successes. To complement this idea, Rudy Coronel identified from IIRR's experience, the factors that make these enterprises financially viable, ecologically sustainable and socially equitable.

To achieve this, Gilbert Braganza showed how community mapping acts as one of the tools by which communities are able to achieve these goals. The map is a way to transfer power so that the community is strengthened to manage their resources. Ed Mangaoang also shared how the forestry curriculum in ViSCA is being changed to incorporate indigenous knowledge and be more socially participatory as a change from the utilitarian approach that forestry had in the previous decades. Lastly, Dave de Vera of PAFID discussed the how the fight for the [Philippine] uplands is also a political one. The current pro and anti-IPRA signifies the battle between corporations and communities, and reflects the current lack of cohesion of government efforts and NGO collaboration. Karen Lawrence of the AFN commented that though the Philippines seems to have a long way to go and is in the process of an uphill struggle, the achievements are still significant compared to other countries in the region.

It is BCN's hope that the workshop and overall program has contributed to these principles, and that these are incorporated and strengthened in existing and future conservation and empowerment efforts in the Philippines and the region.

 

BCN RESULTS DISSEMINATION WORKSHOP

February 4, 1999

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

BCN REGIONAL OFFICE (MANILA) STAFF

Mr. Ganesan "Bala" Balachander Director Biodiversity Conservation Network 151 B.Gonzalez St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1108 Tel: (63-2) 426-5312 or 433-5515 Fax: (63-2) 426-5313 e-mail: gbala@mozcom.com	Mr. Carlos "Chuck" Encarnacion Program Officer Biodiversity Conservation Network 151 B.Gonzalez St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1108 Tel: (63-2) 426-5312 or 433-5515 Fax: (63-2) 426-5313 e-mail: chucke@mozcom.com
Mr. Manuel "Dindo" Mejia Intern Biodiversity Conservation Network 151 B.Gonzalez St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1108 Tel: (63-2) 426-5312 or 433-5515 Fax: (63-2) 426-5313 e-mail: mmejia@mozcom.com	Ms. Rosario "Chato" Capili Regional Accountant Biodiversity Conservation Network 151 B.Gonzalez St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1108 Tel: (63-2) 426-5312 or 433-5515 Fax: (63-2) 426-5313 e-mail: ccapili@mozcom.com
Ms. Hazel Mascuñana Senior Program Secretary Biodiversity Conservation Network 151 B.Gonzalez St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1108 Tel: (63-2) 426-5312 or 433-5515 Fax: (63-2) 426-5313 e-mail: HazelBCN@mozcom.com	Mr. Narciso "Nars" Dajalos Office Support Biodiversity Conservation Network 151 B.Gonzalez St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1108 Tel: (63-2) 426-5312 or 433-5515 Fax: (63-2) 426-5313

 

Note:

After March 31, 1999, please direct all communications to BCN Washington c/o Mr. John Parks, Ms. Connie Carrol, Ms. Cheryl Hochman. Biodiversity Conservation Network - Biodiversity Support Program c/o World Wildlife Fund - US 6th floor, 1250 24th street, N.W. Washington DC, 20037, USA Tel: (202) 861-8348 Fax: (202) 861-8324 E-mail: BCNTemp@WWFUS.ORG

 

BCN PROJECT PARTNERS

KALAHAN EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION (KEF)
Pastor Delbert Rice Executive Director Kalahan Educational Foundation Santa Fe, Imugan, Nueva Viscaya, Philippines or c/o Friendship House #4 Judge Luna st., San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Telefax: (63-2) 372-1146	Mr. Tim Rice KEF Consultant and Director - Bible College Santa Fe, Imugan, Nueva Viscaya, Philippines Tel: (0917) 846-7423 or c/o Friendship House #4 Judge Luna st., San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Telefax: (63-2) 372-1146
Mr. Ramon Camutiao Forester Kalahan Education Foundation Santa Fe, Imugan, Nueva Viscaya, Philippines	Mr. Ano L. Sagwayan Forester Kalahan Educational Foundation Santa Fe, Imugan, Nueva Viscaya, Philippines
Mr. Tamano Bugtong Forester Kalahan Educational Foundation Santa Fe, Imugan, Nueva Viscaya, Philippines
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL CHANGE, INC. (ESSC)
Ms. Angela Grace "Jing" Toledo Research Associate Environmental Science for Social Change (ESSC) c/o Manila Observatory 1st floor, Ateneo Campus, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 426-5921 to 23 Fax: (63-2) 924-4399	Mr. Eric Bruno Research Associate Environmental Science for Social Change (ESSC) Lope Damaso Street, Impalambong 8700 Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Mindanao, Philippines Tel.: (63-88) 813-28-39 Fax : (63-88) 813-2840
Mr. Vergel Medina Forester Environmental Science for Social Change (ESSC) c/o Manila Observatory 1st floor, Ateneo Campus, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 426-5921 to 23 Fax: (63-2) 924-4399	Ms. Karen Lawrence Asia Pacific Network Coordinator Environmental Science for Social Change (ESSC) c/o Manila Observatory 1st floor, Ateneo Campus, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 426-5921 to 23 Fax: (63-2) 924-4399
PALAWAN
Ms. Agnes Rio De Mesa Vice-chairperson People's Mend 70 Matahimik Street, Teacher's Village, UP Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila Telefax: (63-2) 435-4533

 

INTER-AGENCY

UNITED STATES-ASIA ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIP (US-AEP)
Ms. Lisa Lumbao Communications Specialist IRG-USAEP 12th Flr. Sagittarius Bldg., dela Costa st., Makati, MM Tel: (63-2) 750-7087 Fax: (63-2) 750-7085
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE (ATI)
Mr. Frank Tolentino Program Manager ATI Vermida I Building, Armosolo Street, Legaspi Village,Makati City, Metro Manila Tel: (63-2) 893-2887 or 893-3554 Fax: (63-2) 893-3354
CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL (CI)
Ms. Lina Bruce Enterprise Specialist Conservation International 7 Cabanatuan Road, Philam Homes, Q.C. Telefax: (63-2) 412-8195
FOUNDATION FOR THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENT (FPE)
Mr. Juju Tan Executive Director FPE 77 Matahimik st., Teachers Village Central, Diliman Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 927-2186 or 927-9403 Fax: (63-2) 922-3022	Ms. Sylvia Mesina Environmental Affairs Officer FPE 77 Matahimik st., Teachers Village Central, Diliman Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 927-2186 or 927-9403 Fax: (63-2) 922-3022
Ms. Buenafe Solomon Consultant FPE 77 Matahimik st., Teachers Village Central, Diliman Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Hm Telefax: (63-2) 931-6243 Pager: 125-7013934 e-mail: bsolomon@epic.net
VOLUNTARY SERVICE OVERSEAS (VSO)
Mr. Jocel Pangilinan Project Officer VSO Philippines Program P. O. Box 2440 Quezon City - Central Post Office 7 Dansalan Road, Philam Homes 1164 West Avenue, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Phil. Tel.: (63-2) 925-2367 Telefax: (63-2) 426-2761
THE NERTHERLANDS EMBASSY
Mr. Jose L. Antonio Project Officer The Netherlands Embassy 9/F Kings Court Bldg., Pasong Tamo Ext., Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 812-5981 to 82 Fax: (63-2) 815-0593
INTERNATIONAL MARINELIFE ALLIANCE PHILIPPINES (IMA-Phil.)
Mr. Gerry Reyes Vice-President IMA - Philippines 17 San Josa St., Bo. Kapitolyo, Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 631-4993 Fax: (63-2) 637-7174	Ms. Bek May Program Officer IMA - Philippines 17 San Josa St., Bo. Kapitolyo, Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 631-4993 Fax: (63-2) 637-7174
ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
Dr. Edy Brotoiswora Senior Environmental Specialist Office of Environment and Social Development Asian Development Bank 96 ADB Ave., Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, Philippines 4001 Tel: (63-2) 632-4444 Fax: (632-) 636-2191
AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL (ACEC)
Ms. Joy S. Abelardo Director for Business Development - ACEC Thomas Jefferson Cultural Center, 1st Floor, 395 Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue, Makati City, Philippines Tel.: (63-2) 899-7328 Fax : (63-2) 899-7328 E-mail: jabelardo@pacific.net.ph
PLAN INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Gilbert Braganza Project Manager PLAN Int'l c/o Isabel Sate University (ISU) Cabagan, Isabela, Philippines Tel: (63-78) 636-3068 or Mla: (63-2) 932-6975
FORD FOUNDATION
Mr. Steve Golub Ford Foundation Unit 3E Corinthian Plaza Bldg. 121 Paseo de Roxas, 1226 Makati City, Philippines Tel.: (63-2) 892-8311 to 14 Fax : (63-2) 811-3109	Mr. Eddie Dorotan Unit 3E Corinthian Plaza Bldg. 121 Paseo de Roxas, 1226 Makati City, Philippines Tel.: (63-2) 892-8311 to 14 Fax : (63-2) 811-3109

 

UNIVERSITIES

MIRIAM COLLEGE
Dr. Angelina Galang Executive Director Miriam-PEACE Katipunan Road, Loloya Heights 1108 Quezon City Tel.: (63-2) 920-5093 or 435-9240 to 46 Loc. 217 Fax : (63-2) 920-5093 E-mail: epg@mc.edu.ph
DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Jose Carandang Professor Biology Department College of Science, DLSU Taft Ave., Manila Tel: (63-2) 536-0228 or 524-4611 loc. 460 Fax: (63-2) 524-0451
VISAYAS STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE (ViSCA)
Dr. Eduardo O. Mangaoang Head, Department of Forestry Visayas State College of Agriculture (VISCA) Baybay, Leyte 6521-A, Philippines Tel.: (63-53) 335-2675 Res.: (63-53) 327-5716 Fax : (63-53) 525-6849 E-mail: ed-darwin@mozcom.com
ISABELLA STATE UNIVERSITY (ISU)
Dr. Roger Z. Guzman Professor / Project Manager - COMFREP Cabagan, Isabela, Philippines Tel: (63-78) 636-3068 or Mla: (63-2) 932-6975
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES - DILIMAN
Dr. Manuel Bonifacio Professor / Development Specialist C/o Department of Sociology, CSSP University of the Philippines 1101 Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Home telfax.: (63-2) 921-9773 Pager: 152-625050	Dr. Joy Natividad Vice-Chair Office of Academic Affairs, University of the Philippines 1101 Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Department: (63-2) 426-1514
UNIVERSITY THE PHILIPPINES - LOS BANOS
Mr. Richard B. De Vera University of the Philippines, Los Banos, Laguna Tel.: (63-49) 536-3493 Fax : (63-49) 536-3206	Ms. Merlyn Panyin University of the Philippines, Los Banos, Laguna Tel.: (63-49) 536-3493 Fax : (63-49) 536-3206
Dr. Antonio Contreras Consultant CIFOR/UPLB-(DSFFG, CFNR) University of the Philippines, Los Banos, Laguna Tel.: (63-49) 536-3493 Fax : (63-49) 536-3206 E-mail: anpc@mudspringuplb.edu.com
ATENEO de MANILA UNIVERSITY
Dr. Emilyn Espiritu Assistant Director Environmental Science Department, Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) c/o Manila Observatory Katipunan Road, Loyola Heights, Q.C. Tel: 426-4321 Fax: 426-6088	Ms. Agnes David Faculty Environmental Science Department, Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) c/o Manila Observatory Katipunan Road, Loyola Heights, Q.C. Tel: 426-4321 Fax: 426-6088
Ms. Raquel Unson Faculty Environmental Science Department, Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) c/o Manila Observatory Katipunan Road, Loyola Heights, Q.C. Tel: 426-4321 Fax: 426-6088

 

LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS AND NETWORKS

LEGAL RIGHTS CENTER (LRC)
Mr. Francis Victoria Paralegal Researcher Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center 2nd Floor Puno Building 47 Kalayaan Avenue, 1101 Diliman, Quezon City Tel.: (63-2) 927-9670 Fax : (63-2) 920-7172	Mr. Alvin Pagayatan Paralegal Researcher Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center 2nd Floor Puno Building 47 Kalayaan Avenue, 1101 Diliman, Quezon City Tel.: (63-2) 927-9670 Fax : (63-2) 920-7172
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION FOR INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (PAFID)
Mr. Dave de Vera Executive Director PAFID 71 Malakas st., Diliman, Quezon City, 1100 Manila Tel: (63-2) 928-6267 Telefax: 927-4580 e-mail: PAFID@PSDN.org.ph	Ms. Cecillle Tuzon Project Officer PAFID 71 Malakas st., Diliman, Quezon City, 1100 Manila Tel: (63-2) 928-6267 Telefax: 927-4580 e-mail: PAFID@PSDN.org.ph
Ms. Kail Zingapan Mapping Officer PAFID 71 Malakas st., Diliman, Quezon City, 1100 Manila Tel: (63-2) 928-6267 Telefax: 927-4580 e-mail: PAFID@PSDN.org.ph	Ms. Felicity Smith Mapping Assistant PAFID 71 Malakas st., Diliman, Quezon City, 1100 Manila Tel: (63-2) 928-6267 Telefax: 927-4580 e-mail: PAFID@PSDN.org.ph
PHILIPPINE BUSINESS FOR SOCIALPROGRESS (PBSP)
Mr. Boy Abelgas Enterprise Specialist Consultant for PBSP - Cebu 476-F Molave st., Lahug, Cebu City,.Philippines Tel: (63-32) 232-5283 Fax: (63-32) 232-5286
Mr. Rene Guarin Unit Manager Upland Marketing Program PBSP Real St. corner Magallanes St., Intramuros, Manila Telefax : (63-2) 527-3747	Mr. Ariel D. Galo Upland Marketing Program Philippine Business for Social Progress Real St. corner Magallanes St., Intramuros, Manila Telefax : (63-2) 527-3747
PHILIPPINE AGRARIAN REFORM FOUNDATION FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (PARFUND)
Mr. Damon Lynch Program Officer PARFUND c/o CCS Bldg., 2nd floor, Ateneo Social Development Complex, Loyola Heights, Q.C., Metro Manila telefax: 426-5658 tel: 426-6001 loc. 4629
NGOS FOR INTERGRATED PROTECTED AREAS INC. (NIPA INC.)
Atty. Ipat Luna Project Manager NIPA Inc. Rm 701 P. Garcia Tower, 140 Kalyaan Ave., Cor Mayaman st., Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 929-6214 and 925-3426 Telefax: (63-2) 924-8566
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES (CEDAR)
Atty. Brenda Jay Angeles Executive Director CEDAR Unit 326 Eagle Court Condimiuns #26 Matalino st., Diliman Quezon City Telefax: (63-2) 921-8930	Atty. Eunice Agsaoay Program Manager CEDAR Unit 326 Eagle Court Condimiuns #26 Matalino st., Diliman Quezon City Telefax: (63-2) 921-8930
KABANG KALIKASAN NG PILIPINAS (KKP) WORLD WILDLIFE FUND - PHILIPPINES
Ms. Chrisma Salao Project Manager WWF-P / KKP 23-A Maalindog st., U.P. Village, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1101 Tel: (63-2) 433-3220 to 22 Fax: (63-2) 426-3927 and 921-2912 E-mail: kkp@mozcom.com	Mr. Ed Tongson Program Officer WWF-P / KKP 23-A Maalindog st., U.P. Village, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1101 Tel: (63-2) 433-3220 to 22 Fax: (63-2) 426-3927 and 921-2912 E-mail: kkp@mozcom.com
PHILIPPINE FEDERATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
Ms. Janet Ganapin Board PFEC #28 Colombia st., Cubao, Quezon City, Metro Manila Telefax: (63-2) 912-4056	Ms. Rodelia Albotra Project Coordinator PFEC #28 Colombia st., Cubao, Quezon City, Metro Manila Telefax: (63-2) 912-4056

 

RESEARCH-DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL RECONSTRUCTION (IIRR)
Mr. Rudy Coronel Coordinator International Institute of Rural Reconstruction Y. C. James Yen Center, Silang. 4118 Cavite, Philippines Tel.: (63-46) 414-2417 Fax : (63-46) 414-2420 E-mail: tsg-iirr@cav.pworld.net.ph	Mr. John Freeman Coordinator, Community Forestry International Institute of Rural Reconstruction Y. C. James Yen Center, Silang. 4118 Cavite, Philippines Tel.: (63-46) 414-2417 Fax : (63-46) 414-2420 E-mail: tsg-iirr@cav.pworld.net.ph
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPLEX - ATENEO CAMPUS
Ms. Salve Borlagdan Research Associate Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC) Social Development Complex, Ateneo Campus, P. O. Box 154 1108 Loyola Heights, Quezon City Philippines Tel.: (63-2) 426-60-67 or 68 Fax : (63-2) 426-56-60 E-mail: ipc@pusit.admu.edu.ph

 

DEPARMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR) AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS & ATTACHED AGENCIES - DENR
Atty. Irwin Ambal Legal and Legislative Affairs & Attached Agencies DENR National Office Visayas Ave., Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Telefax: (63-2) 927-9107
FIELD OPERATIONS - DENR
Mr. Willie Obien Penro-Region 3 DENR Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City Telephone: 920-18-52
FOREST MANAGEMENT BUREAU
Mr. Joey Austria Coordinator, Ancestral Domain Management Program (ADMP) FMB-CBFMO DENR - National Office Visayas Ave., Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel.: (63-2) 925-2142 Fax : (63-2) 925-2142 E-mail: admp@netasia.net	Ms. Isabelta Austria Enterprise Forest Management Specialist FMB-CBFMO DENR - National Office Visayas Ave., Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel.: (63-2) 927-7278 Fax : (63-2) 925-2125
Ms. Ceilo O. Liwanag Information Officer II DENR - National Office Visayas Ave., Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel.: (63-2) 925-2125 Fax : (63-2) 920-8650	Ms. Lourdes Wagan Supervising Forest Management Specialist FMB-CBFMO DENR - National Office Visayas Ave., Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel.: (63-2) 925-2125 Fax : (63-2) 920-8650
Mr. Victor Malenab FAG-Team Leader NRMP-DENR DENR, Annex Building, Visayas Avenue Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila Tel.: (63-2) 927-0461 to 65 Fax : (63-2) 928-4912	Mr. Todd Johnson Technical Advisor Development Alternatives Incorporated (DAI) NRMP-DENR DENR, Annex Building, Visayas Avenue Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila Tel.: (63-2) 927-0461 to 65 Fax : (63-2) 928-2226
NATIONAL INTEGRATED PROTECTED AREAS PROGRAMME (NIPAP) - PAWB
Mr. Giacomo Rambaldi Agriculture Specialist National Integrated Protected Areas Program (NIPAP) PAWB - DENR Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife Nature Center North Avenue P. O. Box 1614 Quezon City-Central Post Office 1156 Diliman Quezon City, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 926-9163 Fax: (63-2) 928-0805	Ms. Ma. Luisa Fernan Anthropologist National Integrated Protected Areas Program (NIPAP) PAWB - DENR Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife Nature Center North Avenue P. O. Box 1614 Quezon City-Central Post Office 1156 Diliman Quezon City, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 926-9163 Fax: (63-2) 928-0805
Mr. Fernando Ramirez Senior Agriculturist National Integrated Protected Areas Program (NIPAP) PAWB - DENR Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife Nature Center North Avenue P. O. Box 1614 Quezon City-Central Post Office 1156 Diliman Quezon City, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 926-9163 Fax: (63-2) 928-0805
GOVERNANCE AND LOCAL DEMOCRACY PROJECT (GOLD)
Mr. Eduardo Queblatin Environment Management Specialist Governance & Local Democracy Project 7/F Alpap 1 140 Alfro Street Salcedo Vilage, Makati City, Philippines Tel.: (63-2) 893-9760 Fax : (63-2) E-mail: ardgold@mnl.sequel.net

 

CONSULTANTS

Mr. Joel Magsaysay Enterprise Specialist 8 Ilog Maria, Km 47 Aguinaldo Highway, Lalaan 1, 411 Silang Center, Cavite, Philippines Cell: (0912) 318-7517 Land: (63-46) 865-0018	Mr. John Ong Hydrogeologist / GIS-Mapping Specialist 23 Lourdes Castillo st., Quezon City, Metro Manila 1100 Philippines Res. Tel: (63-2) 712-0804 Res. Fax: (63-2) 732-7387
Mr. Axel Kornerup Enterprise Specialist 21 Rosa Alvero St., Xavierville Subdivision, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Res. Hm: (63-2) 920-7305 Cell: (0918) 826-5312	Mr. Lino Moleta Institutional Development Specialist LAWIG Foundation 53 Mercury st., GSIS Heights, Matina, Davao City, Philippines Tel: (63-82) 297-0381 Cellphone: (0973) 349-734
Mr. John Tria EIA - Specialist Environmental Councelors Incorporated Unit E 9th floor, Strate 100 Building, Emerald Ave. Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 637-6626 to 27 Fax: (63-2) 632-7316	Mr. Emmanuel "Jojo" Pastores El Nido Foundation
Mr. Mauro Silvestre Marketing and Management Consultant #4 Miranda Street, Saog, Marilao Bulacan 3019 Philippines	Ms. Juliet Bertuben Marketing and Management Consultant #6 Miranda st., Saog, Marilao, Bulacan 3019 Philippines (63-44) 711-1732 mikeb@blcn.pworld.net.ph
Mr. Delfin Ganapin c/o PFEC Blk 28 Lot 17 Diego Silang, New Capitol Estates, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 931-4687

 

 

---

BCN Results Dissemination Workshop
4 February 1999
Manila, Philippines

Background:

The Biodiversity Conservation Network (BCN) was established in September 1992 under the United States - Asia Environment Partnership (US-AEP). The six and half year program was initiated (1) to support enterprise-oriented approaches to biodiversity conservation at a number of sites across the Asia-Pacific region and (2) to evaluate the efficacy of these community-based enterprises to biodiversity conservation. From over 400 project proposals, 35 were selected for feasibility studies in 10 countries, and out of these, 20 projects were selected for implementation including three in the Philippines.

Rationale:

"Enterprise", "conservation" and "monitoring" are usually the first few words that come to mind when one speaks of the BCN program. But given the marketing needs of the different enterprises, and the program's objectives of disseminating results and learnings, "networking" is another equally important component necessary for the success of the program.

BCN has identified networking to occur at different levels from the community level up to the national and eventually to the regional / international level. These activities usually take the form of (1) market linkaging and product promotion for enterprises, (2) information dissemination for conservation monitoring and assessment and (3) the sharing of learnings in the light of policy evaluation and development. Targeted audiences include field-based practitioners, policy makers, researchers, office-based managers, donors and of course the community of stakeholders themselves.

Objectives:

The BCN Results Dissemination Workshop to be held at Quezon City, Manila on February 4, 1999, is part of an ongoing effort by BCN to bring communities, partners and government together. The specific objectives of the workshop are:

1. To disseminate the learnings from the Philippine and Asia-Pacific funded projects; and

2. To strengthen the working relations among the communities, partners and government institutions in responding to the current issues facing conservation in the Philippines and the region.

Networking and Conference Strategy:

(1) Strengthening of existing networks:

The strategy of BCN in the Philippines has always involved integrating the program's objectives and activities with the existing networks in the country. In this way, the long term commitment needed for the success of the projects is achieved. Examples of the networks BCN actively participates with in the Philippines are:

(a) Upland NGO Assistance Committee (UNAC): specializes in the market linkaging of community-based products.

(b) Asian Forestry Network (AFN): aims for the promotion of social forestry in the Asia-Pacific region.

(c) National Interagency Planning Group (NIPG): coordinates conservation related funding in the Philippines.

(2) Use of Asia-Regional approach:

One of the most valuable approaches of BCN is its Asia-Pacific wide coverage in testing the community-based approach. The learnings then from the program can be used not only to foster conservation at a given locale, but in promoting regional cooperation as well.

(3) Tackling of key issues in identifying the next steps:

In order to foster better cooperation in the Philippines, the BCN workshop will be posing certain key questions in identifying the next steps facing conservation efforts in the country.

How do we use scientific research methods in strengthening community-based enterprises and monitoring? This will examine techniques [such as community mapping] that can be employed to strengthen informal and formal community-based monitoring in the field.

What does it take for community-based enterprises to succeed? This will involve a an appraisal of the past efforts to promote community-based enterprises and an identification of the conditions that lead to their success or failure.

Are our alliances strong enough to be a political force? This will be a candid review and an identification of what could be done to improve the collaborative strength of conservation NGOs, government and international agencies in the Philippines and the region.

WHY BIODIVERSITY   FIELD STORIES   PARTICIPATE   RESULTS   MARKETSPACE ABOUT THE NETWORK   WHAT'S NEW   LEARNING MATERIALS   SEARCH   LINKS   SITE MAP   HOME