Estimation of the Total Economic Value of  the Proposed 

Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape        

March 2008 

2

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The study was undertaken to value the environmental services of the Mount

Mantalingahan Range, and determine the management costs of protecting critical

habitats within the proposed protected landscape. The total economic value (TEV)

framework was used to estimate the values of the goods and services that Mount

Mantalingahan provides. The use values include direct uses (timber, farming, livestock

production, non-timber forest products gathering, water and mining), and indirect uses

(carbon stock, soil conservation, watershed and biodiversity functions, and protection of

marine biodiversity). Non-use values were not estimated because of time and financial

constraints.

The present values of the net benefits from various uses were obtained using discount

rates of 2% and 5%. At 2% discount rate, the benefit from water for domestic,

agricultural and fishery uses was highest at P68.092 billion (or P1.362 billion per year),

followed by the benefit from carbon sequestration, valued at P33.788 billion. The TEVs

at 2% and 5% discount rates are P149.786 billion and P94.854 billion, respectively.

On the other hand, the value of mining was based on its total resource rent, and was

estimated to be P15.022 billion, consisting of P2.209 billion from sand and gravel, and

P12.814 billion from nickel. The figures suggest that the value derived from the

environmental goods and services produced by Mount Mantalingahan, including the use

of land by indigenous peoples living inside the proposed protected landscape, far

exceeds the net benefit from mining.

The management cost of protecting the proposed Mount Mantalingahan Protected

Landscape amounts to P115.560 million for five years. A potential source of fund is the

resource charge for domestic and agricultural uses of water. The average management

cost of P23.112 million per year is less than 5% of the water resource charge of

P603.031 million per year. This means that if at least 5% of the resource charge can be

collected, the management and protection of the proposed Mount Mantalingahan

Protected Landscape can be sustainably financed.

3

 

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Significance of the Study

The Mount Mantalingahan Range provides important environmental, economic and

aesthetic benefits to the five municipalities that have jurisdiction over it, i.e. Sofronio

Española, Brooke’s Point, Bataraza, Rizal and Quezon. It provides agricultural and

domestic water to these municipalities, serves as the habitat of indigenous peoples, and

is the source of non-timber forest products like almaciga and rattan. Recent studies

have also confirmed that the Range is endowed with rich floral and faunal biodiversity.

It is also the very richness of Mount Mantalingahan that has given rise to various

possible resource uses and land use options. While moves to declare the Range as a

protected landscape are gaining support from local government units and the Palawan

Council for Sustainable Development, pressures to exploit the Range’s resources are

also mounting. These are manifested in the occurrence of activities such as illegal and

unregulated utilization of timber and non-timber forest products, conversion of forestland

to agricultural land, tanbarking in mangroves and their conversion to fishponds, wildlife

poaching, in-migration, and mining claims, among others.

To some sectors, declaring the Range as a protected landscape is a big waste,

especially since there are material goods that can be extracted, such as timber,

almaciga, rattan, and minerals. Converting forestlands to agricultural and residential

areas and mangrove forests to fishponds can provide immediate and huge financial

gains. However, these financial gains may be huge only because the associated costs

of producing them may not have been accounted for. Particularly, only the direct

production costs are taken into account, but the social and environmental costs may

have been ignored.

Just like other protected areas and landscapes, Mt. Mantalingahan produces various

environmental goods and services. These include carbon sequestration, soil

conservation, flood control, biodiversity, and water. However, these environmental

goods are oftentimes non-market goods. Non-market goods are those that do not have

4

 

well-defined markets, and they are either unpriced or have prices that are so low and not

reflective of the goods’ real values.

In cases where the environment is involved, markets are often unable to provide socially

efficient results. We can say that there is no market for the environmental goods and

services that Mt. Mantalingahan provides, which can make some people argue that

these environmental goods and services do not have any value. Such point of view has

resulted in development projects being chosen because their outputs are easily

measurable and have market prices, to the detriment of conservation projects whose

benefits do not have markets and whose values are difficult to measure.

With the expansion of cost-benefit analysis to include environmental benefits and costs

that do not enter the market, there is no more reason why these should not be

considered in the decision-making process. Decision-makers should be fully aware not

only of the benefits that a land use option can provide, but also its costs. Failure to do

so may result in bad or inferior options being chosen, while rejecting good or superior

ones.

It is therefore the primary intent of this study to determine the best resource use option

for MMPL based on biophysical and socioeconomic merits.

1.2. Historical Background South Palawan has a central spine of mountain ranges of which the highest is the Mt.

Mantalingahan at 2085 m. It lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the 5 municipalities:

Sofronio Espanola, Brooke’s Point and Bataraza on the eastern side; Rizal and Quezon

on the western side. The Mt. Mantalingahan range plays a vital role in the socio-

economic development of southern Palawan. Aside from being the home of ethnically

homogenous indigenous peoples, it serves as the major watershed of the 5

municipalities that feed the surrounding lowlands including numerous irrigation systems

supporting agricultural lands. It supports a rich diversity of species including a number of

important endemic range animals, trees and plants. Many people residing in the forest or

on its edges use it as a source of minor or non-timber forest products such as almaciga

resin and rattan.

5

 

Recognizing the value of Mt. Mantalingahan, the 5 local government units of Bataraza,

Brooke’s Point, Sofronio Espanola, Quezon and Rizal have initiated and agreed for the

joint and collaborative management of Mt. Mantalingahan. Thus, after a series of

consultations, the Provincial Government of Palawan issued an executive order creating

the Mt. Mantalingahan Management and Planning Task Force tasked to formulate a

strategic management plan. The task force was later renamed as the South Palawan

Planning Council to encompass both the terrestrial and marine territories of the five

municipalities which has been proclaimed by the Palawan Council for Sustainable

Development as the South Palawan Planning Area.

In 2000, a Strategic Management Plan which outlines the various programs in Southern

Palawan Planning Area was approved by the Palawan Council for Sustainable

Development. One of the programs in the management strategy is the identification and

establishment of upland management areas or protected areas. Based on initial

assessments, the area was found to be suited under the Protected Landscape Category

under the definition of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) due

to the presence of communities inside and within the peripheries of the proposed Mt.

Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY Value the environmental services of Mt. Mantalingahan Range; and

Determine the management costs of protecting critical habitats within Mt.

Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.

3. METHODS AND PROCEDURES

To achieve the objectives of this study, the methods and procedures below were used.

3.1. Estimation of Total Economic Value and Communities’ Opportunity Costs

3.1.1. General Guidelines

a. Define the decisions that will be made. The goods and services that will be

valued will be identified, as well as their spatial and temporal scales. While total

6

 

economic value will be estimated, it does not mean that all goods and services

produced from the Range will be valued. It may be more realistic to focus on the

most dominant goods and services. Gregersen (1995 as cited by Kengen 1997)

observes that it is worthwhile to value only those aspects that will be used to

effectively accomplish something, in this case to influence the decision to declare

Mt. Mantalingahan as a protected area.

b. Clarify the purpose of valuation, its context and outputs. For the case of Mt.

Mantalingahan, the following attributes of forests that justify full valuation may

exist:

Many of the products, especially non-timber forest products (NTFPs), are

used for subsistence by the communities in the area;

Many of its environmental services do not enter the market;

There are many externalities; and

There are intergenerational considerations.

c. Identify the input and output needs and determine the information needs and

constraints to meet these needs.

d. Select the valuation methods to be applied.

3.1.2. Valuation of Mount Mantalingahan’s Environmental Services

The total economic value (TEV) framework was used to estimate the value of Mount

Mantalingahan’s environmental services, as follows:

TEV = UV + NUV

Where: UV = use value, which consists of direct use value (DUV),

indirect use value (IUV), and option value (OV); and

NUV = non-use value, which consists of bequest value (BQ) and

existence value (XV)

7

 

Because of time and financial constraints, the study focuses on the use values of Mount

Mantalingahan. These include: timber, IP’s use of land for agroforestry and NTFP

collection, and water (DUV); and carbon sequestration, soil conservation, watershed and

biodiversity functions, and protection of marine biodiversity (IUV).

3.1.3. Use Values: Direct Uses

3.1.3.1. Timber

The opportunity cost approach was used to estimate the value of Mount Mantalingahan’s

timber resources. This approach was chosen because timber harvesting is not allowed

in the area, and the value of timber resources in this case represents the value foregone

to keep the range as a protected landscape, which partly accounts for the protected

landscape’s total economic value.

There are available data about the areas within the range and the proposed protected

landscape by vegetative cover, as well as information about some of the species found

in the range. However, there is no timber inventory data available. In its absence,

secondary data from Angat Watershed in Bulacan, which is considered a well-protected

watershed, and the growth and yield models for residual forests in Region 4 and under

climatic type 4 (Uriarte and Virtucio 1999) were used.

3.1.3.2. Farm, Livestock and NTFP Uses

To estimate the benefits that households living inside the proposed protected landscape

derive from the range, a survey was conducted. Because of budgetary and time

constraints, the number of respondents in the sample was set at 100, to be distributed

proportionately based on the total number of households of the five municipalities.

However, a total of 105 respondents were actually interviewed. The number of

households and sample respondents are as follows: Bataraza – 585 (n=22); Brooke’s

Point – 1,200 (n=39); Sofronio Española – 12 (n=3); Quezon – 256 (n=10); and Rizal –

1,100 (n=31). The benefits of households inside the proposed protected landscape

were based on their net incomes from their farms, livestock and/or non-timber forest

products gathering. The questionnaire used for the survey is given in Annex 1.

8

 

3.1.3.3. Water

The value of raw water from Mount Mantalingahan was estimated based on the resource

charge formula from the National Strategy and Action Plan for the Water Supply and

Sanitation Sector (NEDA 2000). The formula is:

Base RC = [MC + AE]/C

Where: RC = resource charge

MC = annual management costs to implement a program to

administer and collect a resource charge

AE = annual expenditures for effective water resource

management programs that are not directly

recovered from users; include costs of supplying

water to the point where it can be effectively used or

treated, flood control, reforestation/afforestation, and

other environmental measures to arrest further

deterioration

C = forecast water consumption by all users for the year

Among other things, the resource charge is payable per cu m of water used, and can be

calculated for each river basin every year. It is based on the full recovery of all

expenditures to implement a raw water pricing structure as well as the costs required for

an effective water resource management.

For Mount Mantalingahan, however, there is no program to collect a raw water price;

therefore, there are no estimated of the annual management costs to implement such a

program. For this reason, the above formula was revised as follows:

RC = AE/C

Where AE = P5,000/ha/yr (Mendoza 2002)

C = 1,594,930,000 cu m/yr (Cruz & Bantayan 2008)

9

 

3.1.3.4. Use Values: Indirect Uses

3.1.3.4.1. Carbon Stock

The benefits transfer method was used to estimate the carbon stock value of Mount

Mantalingahan. This approach adopts the values generated by primary research

studies. The data used include the areas within MMR and MMPL by vegetative cover,

secondary data from Angat watershed, carbon studies by Lasco et al. for different

vegetative covers, and a carbon price of US$15/tC.

3.1.3.4.2. Soil Conservation

The replacement cost method was used to estimate the value of the soil conservation

service that Mount Mantalingahan provides. The data used include soil erosion

estimates under current, ECAN and three other scenarios, and secondary data on

replacement cost from Pabuayon et al. (2001).

3.1.3.4.3. Watershed and Biodiversity Functions

As in other areas in the Philippines, there is no market for raw water from the range and

its function as a habitat for biodiversity. For this reason, the value of Mount

Mantalingahan as a watershed and biodiversity habitat was estimated using the

contingent valuation method (CVM). A CV survey was undertaken, where 122

respondents from the five municipalities that have jurisdiction over the range were

interviewed. The respondents were asked about their willingness to pay (WTP) for the

protection and conservation of Mount Mantalingahan.

3.1.3.4.4. Protection of Marine Biodiversity

The contribution of a well-protected Mount Mantalingahan to the integrity of the

surrounding marine ecosystems was valued using the benefits transfer method. The

study of Subade (2005) estimated the willingness-to-pay of people from three cities in

the Philippines for the conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park. The

social WTP estimate derived in the study was used as a conservative estimate of the

people’s non-use value for the marine resources of South Palawan. These resources

10

 

can be jeopardized if there will be drastic land use changes in Mount Mantalingahan that

will increase the amount of sediments that will be deposited in the marine waters.

3.1.4. Valuation of Mining Potential

The potential incomes from mining, specifically of sand and gravel and nickel, were

estimated using the potential sand and gravel and nickel reserves derived by Cruz and

Bantayan (2008), and the unit resource rents reported in the PEENRA for Palawan

(2002). The resource rent is the residual value after the costs of non-capital extraction,

return on the industry’s financial assets and depreciation are subtracted from the total

annual revenue from resource extraction.

3.1.5. Determination of Present Values

The monetary value estimates of the various uses of Mount Mantalingahan were

converted to present values using discount rates of 2% and 5%. The use of relatively

low discount rates is justified in this case. The people of Palawan have a high level of

environmental awareness, which enables them to realize the importance of properly

using their natural resources for both the present and future generations. McNeely et al.

(1990 as cited by Subade 2005) note that the use of high discount rates encourages the

depletion of biological resources rather than their conservation. In fact, the use of high

discount rates tends to favour the rapid depletion of most resources for that matter.

3.1.6. Comparison of Net Benefits with and without Mining

The net benefits of the with- and without- mining scenarios were compared to evaluate

which between the two will generate more values for society.

3.1.7. Management Costs for the Protected Area

The costs of managing the proposed MMPL were based on the standards of the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, as applied to the Master Plan for

Development of the Libmanan-Pulantuna Watershed (Cruz-ENRMP 2006).

11

 

3.2. Mode of Implementation To the extent possible the study will be executed with the active participation of the

LGUs. The intention is to maximize the opportunity for learning and competence building

of people who will be at the forefront of land use management in the project site. At the

same time their involvement will facilitate the process of legitimizing and implementing

the outputs of the study.

The involvement envisioned is that the LGUs will do most of the actual map analysis and

the related activities. For this to happen, the training workshops will be so timed that they

take place right during or ideally before a major activity is undertaken.

12

 

4. KEY RESULTS

4.1. Site Description

4.1.1. Location

Geographically, the proposed protected area is located about 140 km southeast of Puerto Princesa City, the capital city of Palawan (Figure 1). The proposed protected

area has for its bounding coordinates from 8 degrees 40 minutes 28.16 seconds to 117

degrees 26’ 55.52” east longitude and 9 degrees 9’ 53.42” to 117 degrees 59’ 52.47”

north latitude. Its centroid is located at 8 degrees 55’ 10.78” latitude to 117 degrees 43’

23.99” longitude. The proposed Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape covers a total

area of 126,348 hectares. The Victoria Peak in the north and the Mt. Bulanjao in the

south bound the Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.

4.1.2. Geographic Coverage

With a total land area of 126,348.162 hectares, the proposed protected landscape

covers thirty-six (36) barangays, namely, Labog, Pulot Interior, and Punang of the

Municipality of Sofronio Espanola; Amas, Aribungos, Calasaguen, Imulnod, Ipilan,

Maasin, Mainit, Malis, Mambalot, Pangobilian, Salogon, Samariniana, Saraza and

Tubtub of the Municipality of Brooke’s Point; Bono-bono, Bulalacao, Inogbong Malihud

Marangas and Tarusan of the Municipality of Bataraza; Tagusao Calumpang Malatgao

Quinlogan Sowangan of the Municipality of Quezon; and Bunog Campong Ulay

Candawaga Culasian Iraan Panalingaan Punta Baja and Ransang of Rizal (Figure 1).

4.1.3. Climate

The climate in southern Palawan belongs to Type IV, which is characterized by no

pronounced dry or wet season. Heavy rains are expected from May to December and

light rain in the “dry” season of January to April. Table 1a and 1b and Figures 2a and 2b

show the monthly climatic averages in the MMPL.

13

 

4.1.4. Topography

The terrain of the range is rugged with slopes of over 50% which covers most of the area

above 500m. Slopes of 36% or more predominate at altitudes over 100-300m. Most of

the steeper slopes are covered by natural forest. The east slopes of the middle part of

the Mantalingahan range in Bataraza, Brooke’s Point and the south part of Espanola

terminate abruptly at around 100m and give way to fairly flat land. Further north in

Espanola and around to the west side through Quezon and the northern part of Rizal,

the steep slopes are separated by more or less rolling terrain (Figure 3).

Figure 1. Location Map of the Proposed Mt. Mantalinghan Protected Landscape (Source: Conservation International-Philippines).

14

 

Figure 2a. Monthly average rainfall, Aborlan (PAGASA) 2000-06.

Figure 2b. Monthly average maximum and minimum temperature, Aborlan (PAGASA) 2000-06.

15

 

Figure 3. Slope map of MMPL.

4.1.5. Geology and Soils

Much of the Mantalingahan range is of limestone formation with outcrops of karst e.g. in

Quezon and caves. The higher parts of the range including Mantalingahan Peak and

ridge of Malis Peak consist of intrusive ultramafic part of the Palawan ophiolite complex.

Most part of the area in the east side belongs to inceptisols group with high fertility.

Areas in the west side belong to inceptisols group but with moderately fertile soil. On the

eastern side of the range there are bands of cement and relict beach deposits in the

form of sand and gravel beds close to the coast. The common geological materials in

MMPL are, Mt. Beaufort Ultamafics, Panas Sandstone and Espina Basalt (Table 2a and

Figure 4). Table 2b and 2c show that MMPL is rich in nickel deposits with the largest

potential in Lamikan, Mambalot-Pilantropia and Pulot Watersheds.

16

 

Table 2a. Geological characteristic of MMPL.

MUNICIPALITY

GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL 

Alluvium Espina Basalt 

Mt. Beaufort 

Ultramafics 

Panas F. Sandstone 

Pandian F. Arkosic sandstone 

Ransang F. Sandy 

Stave Range Gabbro 

S. ESPANOLA 3591  3908  909  27314  0  0  8518 

BROOKE'S POINT 22153  14291  18998  4762  0  0  905 

BATARAZA 9268  6686  115  8798  0  0  0 

QUEZON 5270  5754  5256  10184  5837  0  8493 

RIZAL 8471  12034  15819  37467  28336  1047  4877 

TOTAL 48753  42674  41097  88525  34173  1047  22793  Table 2b . Estimated mineral deposits in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.

Geological Material Area

(Hectares) Estimated Mineral Deposit Alluvium 2177.32

Espina Basalt 33117.29 Chromite and Nickel

Mt. Beaufort Ultramafics 34503.51 Deposits of Berong (Cr); Ramarao (Cr);

and Ibatong (Ni) Panas F. Sandstone 33363.01 Chromite and Nickel Pandian F. Arkosic

sandstone 6615.23 Chromite and Nickel Ransang F. Sandy 1046.85

Stave Range Gabbro 15519.40 TOTAL 126342.606

Table 2c. Potential mineral reserve in MMPL.

Watershed Total Length (km) 

Ave Width (m) 

Ave Thick‐ness (m) 

Potential Sand and Gravel (m3) 

Nickel MPSA (ha) 

Potential Mineral Reserve (mt) 

Total Metal Content (mt) 

Aplian‐Caramay River  43.6  28.4  1  123809.3  216.3  324450.7  4866.7 

Babanga River  24.1  15.7  1  37830.4          

Barong‐barong River  45.6  29.7  1  135373.1  262.9  394422.3  5916.3 

Bono‐bono River  21.3  13.8  1  29435.3          

Bulalacao River  26.0  16.9  1  43942.4          

17

 

Watershed Total Length (km) 

Ave Width (m) 

Ave Thick‐ness (m) 

Potential Sand and Gravel (m3) 

Nickel MPSA (ha) 

Potential Mineral Reserve (mt) 

Total Metal Content (mt) 

Buligay River  36.4  23.7  1  86250.2          

Candawaga River  35.1  22.9  1  80187.6          

Culasian River  78.3  51.0  1  399371.4          

Idyok River  13.9  9.1  1  12611.8          

Ilog River  58.8  38.3  1  225040.6          

Inogbong River  54.0  35.2  1  189940.9          

Iraan River  146.6  95.5  1  1399594.6          

Iwahig River  174.9  113.9  1  1991065.8          

Kinlugan River  53.0  34.5  1  182868.8          

Labog River  41.5  27.0  1  112311.3  211.3  316998.8  4754.9 

Lamikan River  132.8  86.5  1  1148187.7  3982.2  5973345  89600.2 

Malambunga River  76.9  50.1  1  385530.9          

Mambalot‐Pilantropia River  89.4  58.2  1  520990.1  3558.8  5338218.7  80073.3 

Marangas River  50.1  32.6  1  163161.9          

Panalingaan River  53.7  35.0  1  187640.6          

Panitian River QZ  132.9  86.5  1  1149679.3          

Pulot River  122.8  80.0  1  982337.6  3252.6  4878945  73184.2 

Ransang River  57.0  37.1  1  211785.0          

Salogon River  28.9  18.8  1  54538.7          

Samare±ana River  53.3  34.7  1  184698.5          

Saraza River  21.3  13.9  1  29647.1          

Summerumsum River  12.5  8.1  1  10194.2          

Tagbuaya River  47.6  31.0  1  147297.7          

Tagusao River  40.9  26.6  1  108935.9          

Tarusan River  26.8  17.4  1  46762.4          

Tasay River  31.5  20.5  1  64450.8  427.3  640957.8  9614.4 

Tigaplan River  95.2  62.0  1  589530.8          

wat1 (polygon 37)  3.6  2.3  1  838.1          

wat2 (polygon 38)  11.3  7.3  1  8262.8          

Note: Total mineable length of rivers for sand and gravel is 10% of total length of all rivers in a watershed.  Assumed weight of nickel mineral reserve is 1,500 mt/ha  and average grade of 1.5% 

18

 

Figure 4. Geological map of MMPL. 4.1.6. Watersheds and Water Resources

There are some 33 watersheds in MMPL of which 2 are micro with area of less than

1,000 ha, 21 watersheds are small with area between 1,000 to 10,000 ha and 10 are

medium watersheds with area between 10,000 and 50,000 ha (Table 3a and Figure 5a).

Most of these watersheds are located within the jurisdiction of Rizal and Brooke’s Point

(Table 3b and Table 3c). South Palawan has about 60 principal rivers and about 45 of

which drain the Mantalingahan range (Figure 5b).

Table 3a. Watersheds in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.

Watershed Size Number Total Area (ha) Micro 2 1,064.49 Small 21 102,646.19

Medium 10 153,792.01 Large

River Basin TOTAL 33 257,502.69

19

 

Figure 5a. Subwatersheds inside the MMPL.

20

 

Table 3b. Municipality jurisdiction per watershed in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.

Municipality

Area (ha) of Municipality inside the

MMPL Watershed

Total Area (ha) of

Subwatersheds

S. Española 7070.62 Mambalot-Pilantropia River

Lamikan River Aplian-Caramay River Pulot River 18,192.31 Labog River 5,365.92 Panitian River QZ

Brooke's Point 31499.39 Marangas River

Inogbong River Babanga River 1564.42 Idyok River 951.10 Salogon River 2492.34 Samareñana River 7065.58 Candawaga River Saraza River 3836.27 Buligay River 4800.61 Tigaplan River 17248.77 Iraan River Barong-barong River 6079.11

Mambalot-Pilantropia River 12363.42

Tagbuaya River Lamikan River Aplian-Caramay River 6896.40 Pulot River

Bataraza 8011.21 Tarusan River 2811.51 Iwahig River Bulalacao River 2510.68 Tasay River 2668.48 Bono-bono River 1326.23 Marangas River 4,840.48 Inogbong River 3,347.05 Idyok River

21

 

Municipality

Area (ha) of Municipality inside the

MMPL Watershed

Total Area (ha) of

Subwatersheds

Culasian River Unnamed River

Rizal 60294.04 Tarusan River Iwahig River 17,834.89 Panalingaan River 7,107.03 Bulalacao River Tasay River Marangas River Samare±ana River Candawaga River 7,914.09 Ransang River 8,915.92 Summerumsum River 3193.47 Ilog River 10,809.76 Tigaplan River Malambunga River 14,512.93 Iraan River 18,356.83

Mambalot-Pilantropia River

Tagbuaya River 7,251.98 Lamikan River Kinlugan River Culasian River 10791.75

Quezon 13582.00 Tagbuaya River Lamikan River 15,778.33 Kinlugan River 6,999.88 Pulot River Panitian River QZ 17,903.02 Tagusao River 5,658.74 257389.30

22

 

Table 3c. Watershed area per municipality in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.

Watershed

Total Area of Waters

hed (ha)

Area of Waters

hed inside MMPL (ha)

Area of Watershed Inside MMPL per MUNICIPALITY (ha)

Española Brooke's Point Bataraza Rizal Quezon

Aplian-Caramay River 6896.4 280.4 100.7 179.6

Babanga River 1564.4 555.4 555.4 Barong-barong

River 6079.1 1752.1 1752.1 Bono-bono River 1326.2 703.4 703.4 Bulalacao River 2510.6 1923.9 1383.1 540.8

Buligay River 4800.6 1476.7 1476.7 Candawaga River 7914.0 4375.2 508.80 3866.4

Culasian River 10791.7 7713.0 7.39 7705.6 Idyok River 951.1 228.5 168.40 60.14 Ilog River 10809.7 7852.4 7852.4

Inogbong River 3347.0 1703.8 726.73 977.15 Iraan River 18356.3 12632.9 411.48 12221.4

Iwahig River 17834.8 3054.75 118.62 2936.1

Kinlugan River 6999.88 4368.15 2023.8

7 2344.2

8 Labog River 5365.92 224.18 224.18

Lamikan River 15778.3 10379.9 612.71 170.24 1181.6 8415.3Malambunga River 14512.9 7153.75 7153.7

Mambalot-Pilantropia River 12363.4 4394.95 75.52 4308.1 11.32 Marangas River 4840.48 3845.06 897.69 2456.2 491.10

Panalingaan River 7107.03 3537.35 3537.3 Panitian River QZ 17903.0 2093.02 673.00 1420.0

Pulot River 18192.3 6158.38 5384.4 18.20 755.73Ransang River 8915.92 5094.30 5094.3 Salogon River 2492.34 1617.73 1617.7

Samare±ana River 7065.58 4183.08 3817.0 366.03 Saraza River 3836.27 2373.46 2373.4

Summerumsum River 3193.47 1090.90 1090.9

Tagbuaya River 7251.98 3062.20 1.00 2952.7 108.48Tagusao River 5658.74 538.11 538.11Tarusan River 2811.51 681.67 633.58 48.09 Tasay River 2668.48 1683.02 1558.1 124.93

23

 

Watershed

Total Area of Waters

hed (ha)

Area of Waters

hed inside MMPL (ha)

Area of Watershed Inside MMPL per MUNICIPALITY (ha)

Española Brooke's Point Bataraza Rizal Quezon

Tigaplan River 17248.7 13611.5 12516.4 1095.0 Unnamed River 113.39 113.39 113.39

Total 257502.6 120457.2 7070.6 31499.3 8011.21 60294.0 13582.0

Figure 5b. Drainage map of MMPL.

24

 

4.1.7. Biodiversity Profile The main driving force behind the proposed MMPL is its rich diversity of plants and

animals that are under serious threats from the intensifying uses of timber and other

non-timber resources associated with the growth of population and increasing

industrialization. There are currently 4 species (2 plants, 1 bird and 1 reptile) that are

listed by IUCN as critically endangered, 1 reptile and 1 mammal as endangered, and 15

plants, 9 birds, 7 mammals and 3 amphibians as vulnerable (Table 4a).

Table 4b shows a full listing of key plants and vertebrates that are vulnerable. Two plant

species are critical while 15 species are vulnerable all of which are found in the lowland

forests that are under most severe pressure from the upwardly expanding activities of

lowland communities.

Among vertebrates, 2 species are listed as critical, 2 are endangered, 16 species are

listed as restricted-range, and 19 species are vulnerable. Most of these species are

either found in lowland forests, riverine ecosystems and mangroves all of which are

habitats being seriously threatened by expanding agricultural and other human activities.

Should the lower limit of the proposed MMPL recedes these species of plants and

animals are the first that will be affected.

Table 4a. Summary of threatened plants and vertebrates in MMPL (IUCN, CITES).

Taxon

IUCN Category CITES list (not in RDB)

TOTALCritically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Appendix I Appendix II

Flowering plants 2 0 15 0 0 17

Amphibians 0 0 3 0 0 3

Reptiles 1 1 0 0 0 2

Birds 1 0 9 0 0 10

T. Mammals 0 1 7 0 1 9

TOTAL 4 2 34 0 1 41

25

 

Table 4b. Key plants and vertebrates in Mt. Mantalingahan.  

Taxon Common Names Status and Remarks

Main Habitat

FLOWERING PLANTS 1 Alangium longiflorum “Malatapai” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 2 Antidesma obliquinervium IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 3 Ardisia squamulosa “Tagpo” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 4 Dillenia luzoniensis “Malakatmon” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 5 Dipterocarpus gracilis Panau IUCN: Critical Lowland forest 6 Dipterocarpus grandiflorus “Apitong” IUCN: Critical Lowland forest 7 Intsia bijuga “Ipil” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest

8 Knema latericia ssp. latericia

IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest

9 Macaranga cogostiflora IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 10 Polyalthia elmeri IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 11 Protium connarifolium IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 12 Pterocarpus indicus IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 13 Sandoricum vidalii IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 14 Semecarpus paucinervius IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 15 Vitex parviflora “Molave” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 16 Xylosma palawanense “Porsanbagyo” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest

17 Ziziphus talanai “Balakat” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest AMPHIBIANS

1 Barbourula busuangensis

Philippine Discoglossid Frog

IUCN: Vulnerable Riverine forest

2 Megophrys ligayae Palawan Horned

Frog Restricted-range; Palawan only

Lowland forest

3 Pelophryne albotaeniata Palawan Toadlet IUCN: Vulnerable Montane forest

4

Ingerana mariae Mary Inger’s Frog IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland-lower montane forests

REPTILES

1 Heosemys leytensis Philippine Forest

Turtle IUCN: Critical Riverine forest,

wetlands

2 Pelochelys cantorii Cantor's Giant

Softshell IUCN: Endangered

Wetlands

BIRDS 1 Egretta eulophotes Chinese Egret IUCN: Vulnerable Wetlands 2 Anas luzonica Philippine Duck IUCN: Vulnerable Wetlands,

riverine forest 3 Polyplectron emphanum Palawan Peacock-

pheasant IUCN: Vulnerable; Restricted-range

Lowland forest

26

 

Taxon Common Names Status and Remarks

Main Habitat

4 Ducula pickeringii Grey Imperial Pigeon

IUCN: Vulnerable; Restricted-range

Forest, second growth

5 Cacatua haematuropygia

Philippine Cockatoo

IUCN: Critical Mangroves, second growth

6 Prioniturus platenae Blue-headed Racquet-tail

IUCN: Vulnerable; Restricted-range

Lowland forest

7 Otus mantananensis Mantanani Scops-Owl

Restricted-range Forest, second growth

8 Otus fuliginosus Palawan Scops-Owl

Restricted-range Lowland forest

9 Spizaetus philippensis Philippine Hawk-eagle

IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest

10 Collocalia palawanensis Palawan Swiftlet Restricted-range Open areas, second growth

11 Anthracoceros marchei Palawan Hornbill IUCN: Vulnerable; Restricted-range

Lowland forest, second growth

12 Chloropsis palawanensis

Yellow-throated Leafbird

Restricted-range Forest, second growth

13 Hypsipetes palawanensis

Sulphur-bellied Bulbul

Restricted-range Forest, second growth

14 Copsychus niger White-vented Shama

Restricted-range Forest, second growth

15 Parus amabilis Palawan Tit Restricted-range Lowland forest 16 Trichastoma cinereiceps Ashy-headed

Babbler Restricted-range Lowland forest

17 Malacopteron palawanense

Melodious Babbler

Restricted-range Lowland forest

18 Ptilocichla falcata Falcated Wren-babbler

IUCN: Vulnerable; Restricted-range

Lowland forest

19 Stachyris hypogrammica

Palawan Striped-babbler

Restricted-range Montane forest

20 Ficedula platenae Palawan Flycatcher

IUCN: Vulnerable; Restricted-range

Lowland forest

21 Cyornis lemprieri Palawan Blue-flycatcher

Restricted-range Lowland forest

Terpsiphone cyanescens

Blue Paradise-flycatcher

Restricted-range Lowland forest

Prionochilus plateni Palawan Flowerpecker

Restricted-range Second growth, lowland forest

MAMMALS 1 Crocidura palawanensis Palawan Shrew IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 2 Tupaia palawanensis Palawan Tree

Shrew IUCN: Vulnerable; CITES App II

Forest, second growth

3 Acerodon leucotis Palawan Fruit Bat IUCN: Vulnerable; CITES App II

Mangroves, second growth

4 Sundasciurus rabori Palawan Montane IUCN: Vulnerable Forest, second

27

 

Taxon Common Names Status and Remarks

Main Habitat

Squirrel growth 5 Palawanomys furvus Palawan Soft-furred

Mountain Rat IUCN: Endangered

Forest

6 Mydaus marchei Palawan Stink Badger

IUCN: Vulnerable Riverine forest, mangroves

7 Arctictis binturong whitei Palawan

Binturong IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest

8 Sus barbatus ahoenobarbus

Palawan Bearded Pig

IUCN: Vulnerable Forest, second growth

Note: Conservation status based on Heaney et al. (1998), Mallari et al. (2001), IUCN (2002, online version), CITES (2003, online version)

4.1.8. Services of MMPL to Key Stakeholders The MMPL is a vital source of goods and environmental services for the people in

Southern Palawan. Through a workshop involving the LGU planning officers and a few

other key stakeholders, a list of environmental and economic services being provided by

MMPL are presented in the table below. Services related to food supply, biodiversity

conservation, climate change mitigation, soil conservation and water resource

conservation.

Table 5a. Key services of MMPL to local stakeholders.

Key services of

MMPL

Española Brooke's Point

Bataraza Quezon Rizal ALL

Protection Stability of food prodn system

Biodiversity conservation

Birds e.g. mynah; cockatoo

Soil and water conservation

Soil nutrients for lowlands

Carbon sequestration

Climate change mitigation

Conservation of coastal resources and ecosystems

Maasin Marine Reserve

Fish sanctuary of San Antonio Bay

Use of cyanide is a problem

Source of food for fish; fish sanctuary

28

 

Key services of

MMPL

Española Brooke's Point

Bataraza Quezon Rizal ALL

Production Domestic water supply

Level 3 water supply

Waterworks Level 3

Irrigation supply

Tamlang; Samarenana; Maasin

Tigwayan-Marangas river

Tagbuaya; Lamikan, Quinlogan

Ilog2; Iraan; Candawaga; 2 CIPs

Fuelwood supply

Cooking is mostly wood-based

Agriculture Bgy Maasin Mambalot, & Pangubilian

4 CIPs; SWIP; potential irrigated is 4000 ha; currently at 2000 ha

Agri area is saturated; 7 CIS

Will expand irrigated lands

SWIP

Agroforestry Non-timber forest products

Collection of almaciga resin

Rattan;

Ecotourism ElSalvador Falls

Mainit & Sabsaban Falls

Kapangyan Falls

Mining Olympic; Pulot Interior

Exploration stage of MacroAsia in Maasin & Ipilan; quarrying in Mainit

Quarrying in Marangas

Application of Hillsborough mining within the proposed CADC

Exploration in Candawaga

Food items Wild fruits: durian, rambutan, honey; bagtik; rattan; bamboo

Bird's nest not first class

Medicinal Herbs Settlement Conversion

of agri to settlement

40% of pop is katutubo

For katutubo

29

 

5. The Economic Value of MMPL

5.1. Direct Use Values of Mount Mantalingahan

5.1.1. The Opportunity Cost of Timber Resources If Mount Mantalingahan will be declared a protected area, it will necessarily mean that

any form of commercial timber harvesting will not be allowed. That is not to say,

however, that at present it is, because there is a current ban on logging in the province

of Palawan.

The forests in the range are classified into old-growth and residual; both forest types are

further subdivided into closed canopy forest (with mature trees comprising more than

50% of total) and open canopy forest (with mature trees comprising less than 50% of

total). For both the proposed MMPL and the whole MM Range, old-growth, closed-

canopy forests dominate.

In the absence of data, the volumes per ha of old-growth dipterocarps and non-

dipterocarps were based on the timber inventory conducted in the Angat Watershed in

Bulacan (2007), which is a well-protected watershed. These are 88.80 and 87.50 cu m

per ha, respectively. The volume per ha of the old-growth open canopy forest was

assumed to be half that of the old-growth closed canopy forest. On the other hand, the

volumes per ha for residual dipterocarps and non-dipterocarps were based on the

estimate and periodic annual increment (PAI) derived by Uriarte and Virtucio (1999) for

Climatic Type 4, to which Southern Palawan belongs. These are 63.48 cu m/ha for

dipterocarps and 14.7 cu m for non-dipterocarps (based on a PAI of 0.49 cu m/year for a

30-year cutting cycle). The stumpage prices used were P1,785 per cu m (dipterocarps)

and P1,400 per cu m (non-dipterocarps) from Liwag (2007). Stumpage price is the price

of the standing tree and excludes harvesting and processing costs.

For the proposed MMPL, the stumpage values of dipterocarps and non-dipterocarps are

P10.65 billion and P8.03 billion, respectively, or a total of P18.68 billion (Table 1a). On

the other hand, the stumpage values for the whole MM Range are P14.15 billion

(dipterocarps) and P10.29 billion (non-dipterocarps), or a total of P24.44 billion (Table

30

 

1b). These values are the benefits that will be foregone from timber revenues since

timber harvesting will not be (and is currently not) allowed in the Range as well as in the

whole province of Palawan. They represent part of the value of protecting and

conserving the Range because they are the potential revenues that will be sacrificed just

to ensure the integrity of the Range.

Table 1a. Stumpage value of timber inside the proposed MMPL, 2003.

Forest Type

Area

(ha)

Volume (cu m/ha) Stumpage Value (P)****

Dipterocarp Non-dipterocarp Dipterocarp Non-

dipterocarp

Old growth*

Closed canopy, mature trees>50%

56,232.45 88.80 87.50 8,913,293,185 6,888,475,125

Open canopy, mature trees<50%**

17,701.65 44.40 43.75 1,402,926,569 1,084,226,063

Residual forest***

Closed canopy, mature trees>50%

2,112.98 63.48 14.70 239,425,567 43,485,128

Open canopy, mature trees<50%**

1,593.73 31.74 7.35 90,294,208 16,399,482

Total 10,645,939,528 8,032,585,798

GRAND TOTAL 18,678,525,326

Table 1b. Stumpage value of timber in the whole MM Range, 2003.

Forest Type Area

(ha)

Volume (cu m/ha) Stumpage Value (P)****

Dipterocarp

Non-dipterocarp Dipterocarp Non-dipterocarp

Old growth*

Closed canopy, mature trees>50%

73,253.26 88.80 87.50 11,611,227,736 8,973,524,350

Open canopy, mature trees<50%**

18,281.21 44.40 43.75 1,448,859,017 1,119,724,113

31

 

Forest Type Area

(ha)

Volume (cu m/ha) Stumpage Value (P)****

Dipterocarp

Non-dipterocarp Dipterocarp Non-dipterocarp

Residual forest***

Closed canopy, mature trees>50%

7,658.73 63.48 14.70 867,824,482 157,616,663

Open canopy, mature trees<50%**

3,981.13 31.74 7.35 225,554,503 40,965,828

Total 14,153,465,739 10,291,830,954

GRAND TOTAL 24,445,296,692

5.1.2. IP’s Direct Use of Mt. Mantalingahan As of 2005, the total number of households within the proposed protected landscape

was 3,153. The number of respondents in the sample was 105.

The age of the respondents ranged from 16 to 70 years old. Some respondents could

not say how old they were (Table 2a). The average number of years spent in school

ranged from 1.05 years (Bataraza) to 3.64 years (Brooke’s Point), while the average

household size ranged from 2 to 4. The respondents from Sofronio Española and

Brooke’s Point had the longest average stay inside Mount Mantalingahan at 33 years,

while those from Quezon and Rizal averaged 19 years.

Table 2a. Socio-economic characteristics of respondents.

Characteristic S. Española Bataraza Brooke's

Point Quezon Rizal

Age range (yrs) 30-48 25-56 16-70 20-55 20-70

Average no. of years in school 2 1.05 3.64 2.1 1.19 Average household size 4 4 4 2 2 Average no. of years in the area 33 30 33 19 19

32

 

Table 2b. Socio-economic characteristics of respondents.

ATTRIBUTES S. Española Bataraza Brooke’s

Pt. Quezon Rizal Total

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Sex                              

Male 3 100 17 77 16 41 10 100 28 90 74 82

Female 0 0 5 23 23 59 0 0 3 10 31 18

Total 3 100 22 100 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100

Civil status                              

Single 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 10 1 3 3 4

Married 3 100 20 91 38 97 8 80 25 81 94 90

Widow(er) 0 0 1 5 1 3 1 10 3 10 6 5

No answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 2 1

Total 3 100 22 100 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100 Average no. of members per household

Male 1 2 2 1 1

Female 3 3 2 1 1

Religion                              

Christian 3 100 8 36 25 64 5 50 8 26 49 55

Catholic 0 0 2 9 9 23 1 10 1 3 13 9

Muslim 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 1

No answer 0 0 12 55 3 8 4 40 22 71 41 35

Total 3 100 22 100 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100 Source of income (multiple answers)                              

Farming 3 100 22 100 34 87 10 100 29 94 98 96 Livestock

production 2 67 17 77 35 90 2 20 9 29 68 57

NTFP gathering 2 67 5 23 5 13 7 70 26 84 45 51

Paid labor 1 33 6 27 11 28 5 50 5 16 28 31

Handicraft 3 100 6 27 15 38 1 10 0 0 25 35

Others 2 67 6 27 15 38 0 0 0 0 23 26 Average distance of household (km) to:

Market 12 3 2 1.5 7 Non-formal learning

centers/schools 4 1 1 0 2

Access Roads 4 2 1 4 2

33

 

Furthermore, most of the respondents were male (82%), married (90%), and Christians

(55%) (Table 2b). The main sources of income were farming (98%), livestock production

(57%) and NTFP collection (51%). The average distance from the farm to the market

was greatest for Sofronio Española at 12 km, and shortest for Quezon at 1.5 km.

From among the three uses, the value of farm benefits was highest at P23.474 million/yr

(Table 3). The average household farm incomes of four municipalities, except for

Sofronio Española, were quite close and ranged from P6,211/HH/yr to P8,780/HH/yr.

The average household farm income for Sofronio Española was much higher at

P11,577/HH/yr. Furthermore, 100% of the respondents in the five municipalities were

engaged in farming inside the proposed protected landscape.

Fewer respondents (46% of the total) were engaged in livestock production, ranging

from 6% for Rizal to 77% for Brooke’s Point. The estimated value of benefits from this

use was about P5.734 million/yr. On the other hand, 45% of the respondents were

involved in NTFP gathering, and the annual benefits from this use were about P6.238

million/yr.

All in all, the total benefits that households residing inside the proposed protected

landscape derive amount to P35.445 million/yr. Inasmuch as the IPs will be allowed to

continue their activities even after the declaration of the protected landscape, for as long

as these are consistent with the management plan, these benefits will continue to be

realized.

The respondents were also asked if they had plans of migrating from Mount

Mantalingahan, as well as their knowledge of and attitude towards the plan to declare

Mount Mantalingahan as a protected landscape. All but one of the respondents said that

they had no plan of leaving Mount Mantalingahan, and only 16% said that some of their

family members have migrated from the area. Seventy percent (70%) of the

respondents indicated that they were aware of the plan to declare Mount Mantalingahan

as a protected landscape, and 97% said that they favour its declaration as a protected

landscape.

34

 

Table 3. Benefits from Mt. Mantalingahan of households (IPs) residing inside proposed PA.

Income Source S.

Espanola (n=3)

Bataraza (n=22)

Brooke's Pt. (n=39)

Quezon (n=10)

Rizal (n=31)

Total

Area of farm (ha) Total (P/yr) 3 21 69 10 42

Average (P/HH/yr) 1 1 2 1 1 Total No. of Households 12 585 1,200 256 1,100 3,153

Net income from farm

Total (P/yr) 34,730 171,885 541,000 83,850 257,750

Average (P/HH/yr) 11,577 8,284 7,841 8,780 6,211 N 3 22 39 10 31 105 % 100 100 100 100 100 100

Total net income, farm 138,924 4,846,140 9,409,200 2,247,68

0 6,832,1

00 23,474,

044 Net income from

livestock

Total (P/yr) 1,000 51,715 137,550 800 2,600 Average (P/HH/yr) 1,000 4,310 4,585 267 1,300

N 1 12 30 3 2 48 % 33 55 77 30 6 46

Total net income, livestock 3,960 1,386,743 4,236,540 20,506 85,800 5,733,5

49 Net income from

NTFP

Total (P/yr) 44,410 23,100 33,600 19,700 111,000

Average (P/HH/yr) 14,803 3,850 3,733 3,940 4,625 N 3 6 9 5 24 47 % 100 27 23 50 77 45

35

 

Table 4. Residents’ migration plans, awareness and attitude towards proposed MMPL

Aspect Española Bataraza Brooke’s

Pt Quezon Rizal All

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Plan to migrate to areas outside MM

Will migrate 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1

Will not migrate 3 100 22 100 38 97 10 100 31 100 104 99

Total 3 100 22 100 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100

Migration of family members to other areas within MM

Have migrated 0 0 4 18 7 18 3 30 3 10 17 16Have not migrated 3 100 18 82 32 82 7 70 28 90 88 84

Total 3 100 22 100 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100

Awareness of plan for MM to be a PL

Aware 2 67 13 59 20 51 10 100 28 90 73 70Not aware 1 33 9 41 19 49 0 0 3 10 32 30

Total 3 100 22 100 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100

Attitude towards declaration of MM as a PL

Favor 3 100 21 95 37 95 10 100 31 100 102 97Not favor 0 0 1 5 2 5 0 0 0 0 3 3

Total 3 100 22 100 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100

Reasons why PL is important (multiple answers)

Reason 1 2 67 13 59 39 100 8 80 23 74 85 81Reason 2 0 0 10 45 32 82 6 60 16 52 64 61Reason 3 0 0 8 36 29 74 7 70 16 52 60 57Reason 4 1 33 16 73 39 100 9 90 26 84 91 87Reason 5 1 33 12 55 39 100 5 50 14 45 71 68

36

 

5.1.3. Water for Domestic, Agriculture and Fishery Uses

The water demand volumes for domestic, agriculture and fishery uses (2003) are 17.97

MCM, 688.28 MCM and 888.68 MCM per year, or a total of 1,594.93 MCM per year

(Table 5). The annual expenditures for watershed management amounted to

P5,000/ha/yr which, according to Mendoza (pers. comm. 2002) better reflects the cost of

managing a watershed that is less susceptible to encroachment and fire. From these, a

resource charge of P0. 8538/cu m was derived.

The value of raw water for fishery is highest at P759 million per year, followed by

agriculture at P588 million per year. The value for domestic use is lower due to the lower

water demand volume. The present values of raw water benefits from Mount

Mantalingahan at 2% and 5% discount rate are P68.092 billion and P27.237 billion,

respectively.

Table 5. Value of raw water from Mount Mantalingahan Range.

Scenario Water Demand Volume(MCM/yr)

Resource Charge1

(P/cu m)

Value of Raw Water

(P/yr) Domestic 17.97 0.853849385 15,343,673 Agriculture 688.28 0.853849385 587,687,455 Fishery 888.68 0.853849385 758,798,872 Total 1,594.93 1,361,830,000

PV 2% 68,091,500,000 PV 5% 27,236,600,000

1Based on AE of P5,000/ha/yr for 272,366 ha

5.2. Indirect Use Values of Mount Mantalingahan

5.2.1. Carbon Stock

The carbon stocks of the different land covers in MMPL and MM Range were estimated

using carbon density estimates for different land covers in the Philippines, mainly by

Lasco et al. (1999). The carbon density of old growth forests is highest at 349.81 tC/ha,

followed by residual forests at 336.40 tC/ha (Tables 6a and 6b). A conservative carbon

price of US$15/tC was used. Only the carbon stock values of old growth, mossy,

residual and mangrove forests were included; the carbon stock values of brushland,

agricultural land, and other areas were excluded because these may be considered as

transient carbon stocks.

37

 

Owing to its area, the carbon stock value of old growth forest is highest at P13.61 billion

for the proposed MMPL and P21.17 billion for the whole MM Range. The total carbon

stock values for MMPL and MM Range are P19.76 billion and P33.79 billion,

respectively.

Table 6a. Carbon stock values of different land covers inside the proposed MMPL (2003).

Land cover

Carbon Density Total

(tC/ha) Area (ha) Value at US$15/tC (P)**

Old growth forest 349.81 61,752.33 13,608,802,562 Mossy forest 204.25 14,350.61 1,846,601,223 Residual forest 336.40 19,817.78 4,200,020,984 Karst forest 204.25 - - Mangrove 174.90 935.44 103,074,751 Brush,coco,grass,crop,rice* 49.60 23,004.01 NA Cropland* 5.80 597.09 NA Bare/rocky areas* - NA Built up areas* - NA

TOTAL 120,457.26 19,758,499,521 *Excluded from the total value of carbon stocks because these are transient stocks **1US$:P42 ***Total carbon stock value is only for old growth, mossy, residual, and mangrove forests.

Table 6b. Carbon stock values of different land covers in the whole MM Range (2003).

Land cover Carbon Density Total (tC/ha) Area (ha) Value at US$15/tC (P)**

Old growth forest 349.81 96,050.63 21,167,363,711 Mossy forest 204.25 15,384.38 1,979,623,950 Residual forest 336.40 45,827.90 9,712,399,536 Karst forest 204.25 - - Mangrove 174.90 8,430.46 928,940,539 Brushland* 31.90 60,101.39 NA Coconut plantation* 86.00 18,696.81 NA Paddy field* 3.1 14,339.52 NA Other plantation* - NA Grassland* 10.8 285.49 NA Cropland* 5.8 13,054.83 NA Bare/rocky areas* - NA Built up areas* 195.04 NA TOTAL*** TOTAL 272,366.45 33,788,327,735 *Excluded from the total value of carbon stocks because these are transient stocks **1US$:P42 ***Total carbon stock value is only for old growth, mossy, residual, and mangrove forests.

38

 

5.2.2. Soil Conservation

The value of the soil conservation function of a well-protected Mount Mantalingahan was

based on soil erosion estimates for current, ECAN and scenarios with 250 m, 500 m and

750 m retreats in the core zone. The costs of damage avoided under the different

scenarios were estimated using the replacement cost method (Pabuayon et al. 2001).

Table 7 shows the total erosion estimate in 2003, which is about 1.137 million tons/yr.

This is higher than the erosion rate under ECAN of 1.047 million tons/yr. The difference

in erosion rate is 90,693 tons/yr, which translates to damage avoided valued at P57.227

million/yr. This value estimate is based only on the physical replacement of soil, and can

therefore be considered a conservative estimate because it does not capture yet the

conservation and improvement of soil nutrients and structure under a well-managed

forest.

Table 7 also shows that a 250-m retreat in the size of the core zone increases the total

erosion by 42,330 tons/yr over the ECAN total erosion, and will result in a reduction in

the soil conservation value by about P26.710 million. Further reducing the core zone by

retreating the boundaries by 500 m and 750 m also mean increasing the potential

erosion from the range. In fact, retreating the boundary by 750 m will result in a potential

erosion greater than the current (2003) erosion.

Table 7. Cost of damage avoided (based on replacement cost) for soil erosion under different core zone scenarios.

Erosion and Cost

of Damage Avoided 2003 ECAN 250 m Reduction

500 m Reduction

750 m Reduction

Total erosion (ton/yr) 1,137,284.50 1,046,591.60 1,088,921.20 1,096,126.10 1,141,246.90 Erosion rate (ton/ha/yr) 4.42 4.06 4.23 4.26 4.43

Difference with 2003 90,692.90 48,363.30 41,158.40 (3,962.40) Cost of damage avoided (P/yr)*

57,227,219.90 30,517,242.30 25,970,950.40 (2,500,274.4

0) *Replacement cost of P631/t (Pabuayon et al. 2001) **Negative value is the cost needed to replace the soil to 2003 level

39

 

5.2.3. Watershed Function and Biodiversity

A contingent valuation (CV) survey was undertaken to estimate the South Palawan

residents’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the conservation of Mount Mantalingahan for its

watershed and biodiversity services. A total of 122 respondents were interviewed in the

survey, distributed as follows: Bataraza – 23; Brooke’s Point – 26, Sofronio Española –

14; Quezon – 22; and Rizal – 37. The findings of the survey are presented in Annex 2.

A mean WTP of P26 per household per month for the conservation of Mt. Mantalingahan

for its watershed and biodiversity services was estimated using a logit model. Among

the 5 municipalities surveyed, the highest proportion of respondents who expressed

WTP was Rizal, with 62% of respondents answering “yes” to the WTP question (Table

8). This was followed by Brooke’s Point and Bataraza with 50% and 48%, respectively.

Using the proportions of respondents in the sample who said “yes” and the number of

households in the five municipalities, the WTP values of households were estimated. As

expected, this was highest for Rizal, with a WTP of P2.957 million/yr, followed by

Brooke’s Point and Bataraza at P1.780 million and P1.461million, respectively. The total

WTP value for Sofronio Española is only P0.577 million.

The total WTP of households in the five municipalities is P7.722 million per yr. This

represents the total amount that the households are willing to pay to conserve Mt.

Mantalingahan because they recognize its importance as a watershed and for its

biodiversity.

Table 8. WTP values of households in five municipalities of South Palawan for the conservation of Mt. Mantalingahan.

Municipality No. of Households (2005) Growth Rate

Total HH

% of Yes Value

Urban Rural Total 2007 (P/mo) (P/yr) Bataraza 1,741 7,505 9,246 2.71 9,754 48% 121,729 1,460,748 Brooke's Point 4,267 6,551 10,818 2.38 11,412 50% 148,360 1,780,316

S. Española 4,174 1,873 6,047 2.15 6,379 29% 48,099 577,189 Quezon 5,360 3,630 8,990 2.52 9,484 32% 78,906 946,869 Rizal 4,439 10,053 14,492 5.40 15,288 62% 246,444 2,957,332 Total 19,981 29,612 49,593 52,317 643,538 7,722,453

PV 2% 86,122,641 PV 5% 4,449,056

40

 

5.2.4. Protection of Marine Biodiversity

In his study on the valuation of biodiversity conservation for Tubbataha Reefs National

Marine Park (TRNMP), Subade (2005) assessed the WTP of people from three cities in

the Philippines, namely Quezon City, Cebu City and Puerto Princesa City. Thorne-Miller

and Catena (1991 as cited by Subade 2005) identified the threats to marine biodiversity,

which include pollution on land where dissolved nutrients, dissolved toxics and

suspended particles are washed into the oceans. The pollutants come from agricultural,

urban and industrial activities, deforestation and construction. This was supported by the

findings of the Investigation of Coral Reefs of the Philippines project, which identified the

serious threats to marine biodiversity to be siltation, coastal land development,

agricultural fertilizer runoff, industrial pollutants, and destructive fishing methods, among

others.

The eastern side of Mount Mantalingahan Range faces the Tubbataha Reefs National

Marine Park. The estimates of Cruz and Bantayan (2008) show that reducing the core

zone of the proposed protected landscape will result in higher erosion rates, and most of

the sediments will find their way to the sea. It is not farfetched to say, therefore, that a

change in the current land use of the Range, which is mainly forest, will adversely affect

the integrity of the surrounding marine resources, the Tubbataha Reefs included.

The social WTP to conserve the TRNMP was estimated to be P269 million per yr. This

can be considered a conservative estimate because it reflects only the WTP of people

from the cities of Quezon, Cebu and Puerto Princesa, and not the WTP of the entire

population of the Philippines. This value can be used to reflect the benefits that will be

lost if the TRNMP will deteriorate.

5.3. Potential Sand and Gravel and Nickel Reserves

The team was not able to get data about the sand and gravel and nickel reserves

specifically for Mount Mantalingahan. The PEENRA Report for Palawan (2002) gives

some information about the nickel reserves in areas held by various mining companies

as of 1996, but most of these are outside the proposed MMPL. There are also estimates

of sand and gravel reserves, but only two of the rivers reported are within the proposed

MMPL, i.e. the Panitian and Pulot Rivers. For these reasons, the reserve estimates

generated by Cruz and Bantayan (2008) were used to derive the value of the potential

sand and gravel and nickel reserves (Table 9).

41

 

Table 9. Values of potential sand and gravel and nickel reserves in the MMPL.

Watershed Total

Length (km)

Ave Width (m)

Ave Thick-ness (m)

Potential Sand and

Gravel (m3)

Total Rent for Sand and Gravel (P)

Nickel MPSA (ha)

Potential Mineral

Reserve (mt)

Total Metal

Content (mt)

Total Rent for Nickel

(P)

Aplian-Caramay River 43.6 28.4 1 123,809 24,761,852 216.3005 324,450.77 4,866.76 232,679,873

Babanga River 24.1 15.7 1 37,830 7,566,089 Barong-barong River 45.6 29.7 1 135,373 27,074,617 262.9482 394,422.31 5,916.33 282,859,957

Bono-bono River 21.3 13.8 1 29,435 5,887,065 Bulalacao River 26.0 16.9 1 43,942 8,788,474 Buligay River 36.4 23.7 1 86,250 17,250,031

Candawaga River 35.1 22.9 1 80,188 16,037,525 Culasian River 78.3 51.0 1 399,371 79,874,287

Idyok River 13.9 9.1 1 12,612 2,522,364 Ilog River 58.8 38.3 1 225,041 45,008,113

Inogbong River 54.0 35.2 1 189,941 37,988,173 Iraan River 146.6 95.5 1 1,399,595 279,918,923

Iwahig River 174.9 113.9 1 1,991,066 398,213,151 Kinlugan River 53.0 34.5 1 182,869 36,573,755 Labog River 41.5 27.0 1 112,311 22,462,265 211.3326 316,998.84 4,754.98 227,335,717

Lamikan River 132.8 86.5 1 1,148,188 229,637,549 3982.23 5,973,345.00 89,600.18 4,283,784,367 Malambunga River 76.9 50.1 1 385,531 77,106,188

Mambalot-Pilantropia River 89.4 58.2 1 520,990 104,198,026 3558.812 5,338,218.73 80,073.28 3,828,303,559

Marangas River 50.1 32.6 1 163,162 32,632,379 Panalingaan River 53.7 35.0 1 187,641 37,528,116 Panitian River QZ 132.9 86.5 1 1,149,679 229,935,859

Pulot River 122.8 80.0 1 982,338 196,467,524 3252.63 4,878,945.00 73,184.18 3,498,935,407

42

 

Watershed Total

Length (km)

Ave Width (m)

Ave Thick-ness (m)

Potential Sand and

Gravel (m3)

Total Rent for Sand and Gravel (P)

Nickel MPSA (ha)

Potential Mineral

Reserve (mt)

Total Metal

Content (mt)

Total Rent for Nickel

(P)

Ransang River 57.0 37.1 1 211,785 42,356,998 Salogon River 28.9 18.8 1 54,539 10,907,746

Samare±ana River 53.3 34.7 1 184,698 36,939,692 Saraza River 21.3 13.9 1 29,647 5,929,422

Summerumsum River 12.5 8.1 1 10,194 2,038,842 Tagbuaya River 47.6 31.0 1 147,298 29,459,538 Tagusao River 40.9 26.6 1 108,936 21,787,173 Tarusan River 26.8 17.4 1 46,762 9,352,472 Tasay River 31.5 20.5 1 64,451 12,890,151 427.3052 640,957.77 9,614.37 459,662,865

Tigaplan River 95.2 62.0 1 589,531 117,906,169 wat1 (polygon 37) 3.6 2.3 1 838 167,620 wat2 (polygon 38) 11.3 7.3 1 8,263 1,652,553

Total 11,044,104 2,208,820,703 11,911.56 268,010 12,813,561,743 Total for Sand and Gravel and Nickel 15,022,382,446

Note: Total mineable length for sand and gravel is 10% of total length of all rivers in a watershed.

For nickel, assumed weight of mineral reserve is 1,500 mt/ha and average grade of 1.5%.

43

 

The unit rents of sand and gravel reported in the 2002 PEENRA for the years 1990 to

1999 had an increasing trend, starting at P11.69/cu m in 1990 and valued at P117.41/cu

m in 1999 (Table 10). The highest value was in 1998 at P118.51/cu m. The year 2008

value of the unit rent was obtained by compounding the 1999 value using a 5% interest

rate over nine years, rounded off to the nearest hundred, or P200/cu m. On the other

hand, the unit rents for nickel from 1988 to 1996 were more erratic due to fluctuations in

the market prices of nickel. For this reason, the average unit rent of nickel for the 11-

year period of P47,810/mt was used.

Table 10. Unit rents of sand and gravel (1990-1999) and nickel (1988-1998).

Year Unit Rent

Sand and Gravel (P/cu m) Nickel (P/mt)

1988 - 46,689

1989 - 68,163

1990 11.69 51,277

1991 14.10 55,496

1992 12.28 43,240

1993 25.23 26,968

1994 31.79 36,604

1995 59.03 45,940

1996 77.33 48,150

1997 102.06 50,303

1998 118.51 53,085

1999 117.41 -

The estimated values of the sand and gravel and nickel reserves are given in Table 9.

The volume of sand and gravel reserve was estimated on the assumption that the total

mineable length is 10% of the total length of all the rivers in the watersheds. At P200/cu

m, the total value of the sand and gravel reserve is P2.209 billion.

44

 

The nickel reserve was estimated only for the watersheds where there are existing

mining production sharing agreements (MPSA), which are in six (6) watersheds. The

total metal content was estimated to be 268,010 mt, and at P47,810/mt, this translates to

P12.814 billion. The total resource rent for sand and gravel and nickel reserves in Mount

Mantalingahan is P15,022,382,446.

5.4. Total Economic Value of Mt. Mantalingahan

The total economic value of Mt. Mantalingahan was based on the following use values:

timber, IP’s use of land for agroforestry and NTFP collection, and water (direct use

values); and carbon stock, soil conservation, watershed and biodiversity functions, and

protection of marine biodiversity (indirect use values). These are the major uses of the

Range. The value estimates of timber and carbon stock are already present values as

they are not annual benefits. On the other hand, benefits of the IPs, water, soil

conservation, watershed and biodiversity functions, and marine biodiversity functions are

annual benefits. These were converted to their present values using discount rates of

2% and 5% (Table 11).

Among the direct uses, water benefits from Mount Mantalingahan for domestic,

agriculture and fishery uses have the highest value of P1.362 billion per year, or a

present value of P68.092 billion at 2% discount rate. This underscores the importance

of Mount Mantalingahan as a watershed. The other components of the direct use value

are timber and the use of indigenous peoples of the range for agroforestry and NTFP

collection. The total direct use value of Mount Mantalingahan is P94.309 billion.

On the other hand, the carbon stock value of the Range is the highest among the

indirect use values, followed by its role in the protection of the surrounding marine

biodiversity. Both these values can be considered conservative estimates. The carbon

stock estimate does not include yet the value of the carbon sequestered by the

vegetation through time. On the other hand, the non-use value was derived specifically

for Tubbataha Reef, and does not include non-use values for the other marine areas that

may be affected by the condition of Mount Mantalingahan.

45

 

The total economic values of Mount Mantalingahan (excluding mining) at 2% and 5%

discount rate are P149.786 billion and P94.854 billion, respectively.

5.5. Comparison of the Values of MMPL’s Environmental Services and the Potential Benefits from Mining

The Briefing Kit on the Philippine Minerals Sector specifically identifies South Palawan’s

potential for metallic mineralization (Fig. 4, p. 4, MGB 2004). The metallic minerals that

have been mapped in Palawan include nickel, chromite, copper, mercury, antimony,

lead, gold, manganese, radioactive mineral uranium, pyrite, and iron (NSCB-PCSD

2002). Of these minerals, nickel accounts for the biggest share. From 1985 to 1997,

Rio Tuba Nickel Mining Corporation, one of the two major mining companies in the area,

produced an average of 73% of the country’s annual production (NSCB 2000 and MGB

various years, as cited in NSCB-PCSD 2002).

As shown in Table 12, the five municipalities comprising South Palawan have 58% of the

area with application for MPSA (127,410 ha), 49% for exploration permits (222,348 ha),

and 20% for small scale mining permits (370 ha). Table 9 shows that the total area with

MPSA for nickel within the proposed MMPL is 11,911.56 ha.

The non-metallic minerals that are commercially produced are silica and sand and

gravel. The demand for sand and gravel continues to increase because of the

requirements of the construction industry. Both nickel mining and quarrying for sand and

gravel are perceived to result in severe environmental damage. Palawan’s adoption of

the Strategic Environmental Plan as its development framework restricts some uses in

certain areas, and mining is one of these uses (NCSB-PCSD 2002). However,

pressures are mounting for mining to be allowed. Even the PEENRA Report points out

that mining and quarrying can still be pursued for as long as the operations are closely

monitored, both in terms of volume, manner and actual location of extraction.

The question that is asked now is, are the net benefits from mining greater than the net

benefits from declaring Mount Mantalingahan as a protected landscape and therefore

effectively ban mining in the area?

46

 

Table 11. Direct and indirect use values of Mount Mantalingahan Range.

Use Valuation Method Estimated Value (P)

Present Value, i=2% (P)

Present Value, i=5% (P)

Direct Use Timber Opportunity cost 24,445,296,692 24,445,296,692 24,445,296,692 IP's uses Market prices 35,445,339/yr 1,772,266,950 708,906,780 Water Resource charge 1,361,830,000 68,091,500,000 27,236,600,000

Subtotal 94,309,063,642 52,390,803,472 Indirect Use Carbon stock Benefits transfer 33,788,327,735 33,788,327,735 33,788,327,735 Soil conservation Replacement cost 157,227,220/yr 7,861,361,000 3,144,544,400 Watershed and biodiversity functions Contingent valuation method

7,722,453/yr

386,122,641

154,449,056

Protection of marine biodiversity Benefits transfer

268,815,689 /yr

13,440,784,450

5,376,313,780 Subtotal 55,476,595,826 42,463,634,971

Total for All Uses 149,785,659,468 94,854,438,443 Total Excluding Timber 125,340,362,776 70,409,141,751

47

 

At 2% interest rate, the estimated TEV of Mount Mantalingahan excluding mining is

P149.786 billion. On the other hand, the estimated resource rent from mining (gravel

and sand and nickel) is P15.022 billion, which is about 10% of the Mount

Mantalingahan’s TEV. Increasing the interest rate to 5% gives a TEV of P94.854 billion,

which is still much higher than the resource rent from mining. These figures suggest that

Mount Mantalingahan can produce goods and services whose values far exceed the

benefits from mining. It should also be noted that the total resource rent for mining was

derived considering only the direct costs of extraction, but not the environmental and

social costs. Including these costs can further shrink the value of mining’s net benefits.

If Mount Mantalingahan is declared a protected landscape and timber harvesting will not

be allowed, the opportunity cost can serve as an indication of the South Palawan

people’s value for the protected landscape. This is because they are willing to forego

the revenues from timber harvesting just so the Range will be able to produce other

goods and services from uses that can be allowed.

However, it can be argued that including the opportunity cost of timber will result in the

double counting of benefits, inasmuch as the value of carbon sequestration, which can

largely be attributed to the biomass of trees, is also included. The removal of the

opportunity cost of timber results in TEVs of P125.340 billion and P70.409 billion at 2%

and 5% interest rates, respectively which are still higher than the benefits from mining.

5.6. Management Costs of Protecting Mount Mantalingahan

The management activities and budgetary requirements for five (5) years to protect

Mount Mantalingahan are summarized in Table 13. The activities include IEC, the

development of GIS/MIS, assessment, management planning and restoration of key

conservation areas, watershed ecosystem and biodiversity monitoring, forest protection

and law enforcement, social and community development, project management and

supervision, and sustainability planning.

The cost for Year 1 is P22.470 million and increases to P32.310 million in Year 2, and

taper down to P9.800 million in Year 5. The biggest share of the total budget of

48

 

P115.560 million is for management planning and restoration, which will require P49.500

million or 42% of the total budget. Of this amount, P44 million will go to the

comprehensive rehabilitation of the key conservation areas.

The next concern is where funds for the management of the proposed MMPL will be

sourced. While there may be funds coming from government and non-government

organizations, these may not be sufficient to undertake serious management and

protection of MMPL, and they may not be sustainable. It will be best, therefore, if

revenues can be generated from the MMPL itself that can be used to finance these

activities.

From among the different uses enumerated in Table 11, the use value with the highest

potential of being collected is the resource charge for water. The use of water for

fisheries can be considered a non-consumptive use, and converting the value to a price

may be complicated, and collecting the price may be difficult. On the other hand, the

domestic and agricultural uses of water are consumptive uses, and it is possible to

monitor the water consumption of households and farms.

The annual values for domestic and agricultural uses are P15.344 million and P587.687

million, or a total of P603.031 million per year. The highest budgetary requirement is for

Year 2 at P32.310 million. This is about 5% of the total resource charge for domestic

and agricultural uses. This means that if at least this value can be collected, the

management and protection of MMPL can be financed.

49

 

6. CONCLUSION

The value of water for domestic, agricultural and fishery uses is highest among the direct

and indirect uses of Mount Mantalingahan, followed by the carbon stock value. The total

economic values at 2% and 5% discount rates are P149.786 billion and P94.854 billion,

respectively. On the other hand, the total resource rent from mining was estimated to be

P15.022 billion, consisting of P2.209 billion from sand and gravel, and P12.814 billion for

nickel. The resource rent is the residual value after the direct costs of extraction have

been subtracted.

The figures suggest that the value of the environmental goods and services produced by

Mount Mantalingahan, including the use of land by indigenous peoples living inside the

proposed protected landscape, far exceeds the net benefit from mining.

The management cost of protecting the proposed protected landscape amounts to

P115.560 million over five years, or an average of P23.112 million per year. A potential

source of fund is the resource charge for domestic and agricultural uses of water. The

average management cost of P23.112 million per year is less than 5% of the water

resource charge of P603.031 million per year. This means that if at least 5% of the

resource charge can be collected, the management and protection of the proposed

Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape can be sustainably financed.

50

 

Table 12. TMPSA, TEP and TSS applications in South Palawan*.

Municipality

Total MPSA

Application

TMPSA Application

Area

(ha)

Total Exploration

Permit Application

TEP Application

Area

(ha)

Total Small-Scale

Application

TSS Application

Area

(ha)

Total Applied

Area

(ha)

Total Allowable

Area

(ha)

Total No. of Applications

Española 5 20,542.21 5 25,082.31 2 199.99 45,824.51 13,915.33 12

Quezon 12 34,551.34 17 58,390.49 6 120.00 93,061.83 10,376.00 35

Rizal 1 29.00 9 24,784.45 1 20.00 24,833.45 2,981.20 11

Brooke’s Pt. 14 52,129.18 22 73,606.85 1 10.00 125,746.03 7,261.00 37

Bataraza 6 20,158.54 11 40,483.76 1 20.00 60,662.30 16,124.00 18

Total for So. Palawan

38  127,410                64  222,348                11               370  350,128   

50,658             113 

Total for Palawan 74 219,080              144  449,573                97           1,844  670,497 

  76,001 

            315 

% for So. Palawan

51  58  44  49  11  20  52  67  36

*Source: PNNI Secretariat, July 2007

51

 

Table 13. Management activities and budgetary requirements for MMPL.

Activities Cost Y1

(P'000)

Cost Y2 (P'000)

Cost Y3 (P'000)

Cost Y4

(P'000)

Cost Y5

(P'000)

Total Cost

(P'000) I. Information Education Campaign (IEC)

A. Multimedia production and approaches 1750 1250 1250 1250 1250 6750

B. Operating cost of IEC campaign team 500 500 500 500 500 2500

II. Development of GIS/MIS

A. System design 300 300B. Acquisition of softwares and

hardwares 5000 5000

C. Training of operators 200 200D. Implementation/maintenance 500 500 500 500 500 2500

III. Assessment of Key Conservation Areas

A. Resource-base inventory cum geohazard assessment and mapping 3000 2000 5000

IV. Management Planning/Restoration of Key Conservation Areas

A. Comprehensive rehabilitation 12000 20000 12000 44000B. Assisted Natural Regeneration

(ANR) 4000 4000

C. Mangrove reforestation 1500 1500

V. Watershed and Ecosystem/ Biodiversity Monitoring

A. Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS)

1. Establishment and monitoring of Transect Walk

200 200 200 200 800

2. FGD meeting 80 80 80 80 3203. Photo documentation 80 80 80 80 3204. Field diary 50 50 50 50 2005.Data analysis and report

packaging 200 200 200 200 800

B. Coastal resource management planning (technical assistance to LGUs)

300 200

500

C. Identification/marking of mother trees 300 300

D. Hydrological monitoring 650 60 60 60 830

E. Land use monitoring 100 30 60 30 220 VI. Forest Protection and Law Enforcement

52

 

A. Operating cost for forest protection activities

1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 5000

B. Deputation, training and mobilization of Special Deputy Environment and Natural Resources Officers (SDENROs)

500 200 200 200 200 1300

C. Formation of multisectoral protection bodies

VII. Social and Community Development C2.iv

A. Formulation and implementation of IP Development Plan 600 1,000 500 250 250 2,600

B. Identification and implementation of sustainable livelihood improvements that support IEM

1,600 4,000 3,000 2,500 1,500 12,000

VIII. Project Management and Supervision

A. Operationalization of project management team 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 6000

B. Monitoring and evaluation 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 6000C. Purchase of equipment

1. Vehicle 1300 13002. Motorcycle (200 cc) 1200 12003. Desktop computer (w/ printer

and scanner) 500 500

4. Laptop computer 150 1505. LCD projector and accessories 100 1006. Photocopier 120 1207. Digital camera 125 1258. GPS 100 1009. Binoculars 75 7510. SLR camera 150 15011. Soil and water testing kits 50 5012. Steel cabinets 1200 120013. TV, DVD, Karaoke for IEC 50 50

IX. Sustainability Planning 1500 1500 22470 32310 30250 21330 9800 115560Note: Capacity building = consists of 2 trainings per year at 200,000 PhP per training

53

 

REFERENCES Cruz, R. V. O. and N. C. Bantayan. 2008.

Cruz, R. V. O. 2006. Master Plan for Development, Libmanan-Pulantuna Watershed.

Environment and Natural Resources Management Program.

Mendoza, Marlo. Personal communication. August 1, 2002. 

Mines and Geosciences Bureau. 2004. Briefing Kit on the Philippine Minerals Sector.

Quezon City.

National Economic and Development Authority. 2000. Final Report of the Water Supply

and Sanitation Sector Plan Study Volume V: Economic Pricing of Raw Water.

Philippines.

NSCB-PCSD. 2002.

Pabuayon, I., R. V. O. Cruz, M. M. Calderon, and M. C. N. Rivera. 2001. Valuation of

Philippine Bamboo Resources (Research Completion Report). Funded by the

International Network for Bamboo and Rattan.

Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc. 2001. Conserving

Biodiversity in Samar Island Forest Reserve: Which Benefits, At What Costs, and

Whose Choices?

Uriarte, M. T. and F. D. Virtucio. 1999. Growth and Yield of Residual Forests in the

Philippines. Philippine Lumberman, pp. 34-38.

54

 

Annex 1. List of issues and concerns in MMPL gathered during community consultations on April-October 2006.

 The key issues and concerns in MMPL were gathered during community consultations conducted by PASA Team composed of:

1. DENR 2. PCSDS 3. SPPC/LGU 4. CI (NGO representative) 5. A Palaw’an interpreter/facilitator

 

BATARAZA

1. Regulations timber-cutting wildlife poaching uncontrolled gathering of non-timber forest products

2. Resource Managers lax/nil law enforcement by government right of the community to apprehend violators indigenous communities of upholding customary law

3. Establishment of Mt. Mantalingahan as a Protected Area

4. Ancestral Domains sustainable methods of upland farming other livelihood options resistance to further entry of migrants resistance to management by other people

 

BROOKE’S POINT

1. Regulations confusion on barangays’ issuance of clearance/certification & permit to cut from

the CENRO existing stewardship contracts issued by CENRO concerns on cutting trees in private lots, cutting salvage trees, use of chainsaw,

process and fees for getting permits

2. Resource Managers People tasked to protect/manage should be communities; clarify rights & give

protection Information on proper procedures of arrest

3. Establishment of Mt. Mantalingahan as a Protected Area Delineation from mining area

55

 

Supposedly initiated by the SPPC and yet the mayors (SPPC members) allowed mining

Community support to shield threat of mining Integrate water & people in objective of protection Barangay-level declaration of protected areas

4. Ancestral Domains Confusion over tribal leaders Which traditional practices are allowed within the protected area Need assistance in applying for concessions Need to continue kaingin farming Need inputs on more productive and sustainable farming Other livelihood alternatives Assistance in marketing of products

5. Mining Delineation from protected area Effects on rivers Destructive activities: digging and forest clearing Effects: siltation of rivers, landslide Indigenous people disallowed from gathering rattan Allowed without any consultation

6. Other Concerns Security of tenure of current occupants Need for timber for house construction

 

ESPANOLA

1. Regulations timber-cutting wildlife poaching uncontrolled gathering of non-timber forest products

2. Resource Managers lack of action or assistance from municipal government in apprehending violators

and during forest fires ECAN Board not functioning

3. Establishment of Mt. Mantalingahan as a Protected Area

4. Ancestral Domains No eviction or relocation Procedure for selection of panglimas Non-recognition of native titles in spite of IPRA Sale of ancestral land Reclaiming previous parts of domain

56

 

5. Mining want to claim benefits but uncertain what right to assert unfulfilled promised jobs and development threat because of effects: forest-clearing, flooding, landslide, loss of water source confusion during consultations because of misrepresentations community decided but leaders should have guided community or rejected mining

knowing its ill-effects process of petitioning should never be allowed within the Protected Area

6. Land Recognition of tenure & provision of instrument Land anomalies such as issuance of titles within the core zone, survey in steep

areas, land-grabbing by migrants Procedure for land dispute settlement

7. Other Concerns source of timber for house construction Previous livelihood projects either unsuccessful or inappropriate

 

QUEZON

1. Regulations Wildlife poaching; deal with traders Illegal logging Almaciga resin-gathering permits

2. Resource Managers Confusion if many agencies PAMB composition

3. Establishment of Mt. Mantalingahan as a Protected Area Effects on ADMPs/ADSDPPs

4. Ancestral Domains Slow approval Continue kaingin but open to other technologies & livelihood options Parts being sold by chieftain

5. Other Concerns Legal wood sources for house construction Mining allowed in spite of SEP Law Land tenure instrument

 

57

 

RIZAL

1. Regulations Illegal logging Wildlife poaching; deal with buyers/traders Licenses/permits procedures

2. Resource Managers Provide legal authority & protection for community to apprehend

3. Establishment of Mt. Mantalingahan as a Protected Area Boundaries & objectives What benefit to upland communities Overlap with ECAN zones Inclusion of mangrove area to protect from occupation & cutting PA plan should be harmonized with ADMPs

4. Ancestral Domains Who are real panglimas (tribal chieftains) No funds for CADT applications Access to resources not affected negatively Respect decision-making process

5. Other Concerns Timber for house construction; allot area for such purpose Sustainable/alternative livelihood Settlement of land disputes Land tenure instruments