Living Documents DGIS-WWF Tropical Forest...

DGIS-WWF Tropical Forest Portfolio

Forests cover nearly 75 percent of the small Philippine island of Sibuyan, making it astriking exception in the Philippines as a whole, where a meager 2 percent is stillforested. Small wonder then that much of Sibuyan has been declared a protected area.But the island is also densely inhabited with many people relying on the forest fortimber, agricultural land, firewood and other essentials.While the authorities are tryingto talk (and police) the islanders out of these activities,WWF-Philippines has tried tohelp them find alternative livelihoods that are sustainable. Experiments have beenconducted, loans granted and training provided.The results have been disappointing,with the positive exception of Sibuyan’s indigenous people whose rights have beenrecognized. In the process, however, many lessons have been learned.

How to Care for the Casualties ofConservation?

Laboring to Improve Livelihoods on Sibuyan Island, Philippines

• Rights of the forest’s gatekeepers formally recognized

• A case of implementing too much too soon

• ‘He who does not bet, does not play’

Living Documents

WWF-DGII-Filippines2 26-05-2004 14:06 Pagina 1

KKP,’ he says, ‘especially in the field of socialdevelopment. Some good things were achieved, butalso many mistakes were made. We learned what todo and what not.’

The lessons learned seem to cluster around twopoints. First, the KKP failed to establish goodworking relations with some of the mainstakeholders, including the municipal and provincialauthorities as well as local business. This resulted inan almost complete lack of cooperation from thatside, forcing the project into an increasingly isolatedposition. Secondly, most involved, blame the failureof the livelihood projects on the KKP’s lack of realbusiness sense. Too many new activities were startedwithout properly assessing their chances of success.Also, many people on the island who simply wantedto improve their livelihood, were forced to becomeentrepreneurs. Finally, the time factor also played anegative role: the pressure to produce solidlivelihood results within the project’s 5-year lifespan, became a heavy burden.

The experience in Sibuyan has already led toinnovations in other areas in the Philippines like theTurtle islands and the Sierra Madre, emphasizesKKP-president Tan. ‘The same faults will not berepeated. And should the activities on Sibuyan bedeveloped into a second phase, we can do a muchbetter job there too.’

But the KKP-president also insists that theSibuyan experience has in no way changed his or hisorganization’s conviction that a conservation NGO inthe developing world must aim for a triple bottomline: biological and social results and economicimpact. ‘Unless you are able to produce all three, andso create a better quality of life for the stakeholdersand partners you work with, you will fail,’ says Tan.‘In a country such as this – where one out of threepeople live below the poverty line – yourconservation program has to put more food on theirtable and a little more money in their wallet.’▲

‘Simply put,’says Sibuyan project leader EdTongson, ‘the livelihood activities proved to

be difficult, but the results of the work withthe indigenous people saved the day.’

Assistant project-leader Marisel Dino agrees, ‘It’shard. I feel really sorry for the people to whom

we gave expectations for a better future. We havefailed them.’The judgement of Jan-Willem Cools,the representative of the Dutch embassy in Manila(the Netherlands funded the 5-year project on theisland), is equally negative: ‘One cannot butconclude that, right down the line, the Sibuyanproject has failed to meet expectations.’

Just a few years ago, an external mid-termevaluation of the project concluded that ‘there is nodoubt that the livelihood program contributes to thereduction of destructive activities on Sibuyan. Thereis a very strong link between these destructiveactivities and securing a livelihood, and allstakeholders recognize the WWF’s role in providingsustainable livelihood options.’ Sadly, three yearslater, it is clear that none of the – more than twenty –livelihood experiments has been a success. Thenewly established joint venture farms have beenclosed down, the payback rate of the manyoutstanding loans has dropped dramatically andmany of the islanders involved have resumed theirformer activities of gathering forest products andcharcoal making.

So, what went wrong? Has the WWF fallen foul ofproblems which are inevitable when a conservationorganization tries to act as a (sustainable)development organization? Do the events on the tinyisland of Sibuyan simply show, once again, that thosewho try to be a jack of all trades will end up themaster of none? We put the question to Lorenzo Tan,president of WWF Philippines (locally known as theKabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas, or KKP). ‘The firstphase in Sibuyan was a learning process for the

• 2 •HOW TO CARE FOR THE CASUALTIES OF CONSERVATION? LABORING TO IMPROVE LIVELIHOODS ON SIBUYAN ISLAND, PHILIPPINES

LIVING DOCUMENTS DGIS-WWF Tropical Forest Portfolio

Introduction

Learning some painfullessons


aiming for the recognition of the rights of this group,as well as the improvement of their socio-economicposition, is to be reported.

With the help of the KKP-project, the IP-community in the mountainous areas of the islandfour years ago was clustered into seven villagegroups, which were federated in the association. Theassociation undertook a series of activities aimed atorganizational development and planning, includingexchange-visits to model IP-sites elsewhere in thePhilippines.

‘We identified the indigenous community as themost vulnerable of the several groups affected by theestablishment of the Mt. Guiting-Guiting NaturalPark,’ project leader Ed Tongson told me before themeeting. ‘Their traditional harvesting activities wererestricted during the most intense enforcementactivities under the conservation program. Theirlands, to which their ancestors had migrated to resistcolonial occupation by the Spanish forces in the1800s, were legally classified as public land, whichmade them squatters on their own lands.’

Without proof of land ownership, the indigenous

‘Welcome to the monthly meeting of theAsosasyon ng Tribung Sibuyan Mangyan

Tagabukid, says Celidonio Tamaio. He is thepresident of the Association of Indigenous People ofSibuyan. Some 25 people are gathered in the open-airMultipurpose hall at the village of Lumbang Weste.They have traveled from all over the island, somehave made long and tiring trips to come to this place.But they don’t want to miss this monthly event,where the progress made in the several programs

LABORING TO IMPROVE LIVELIHOODS ON SIBUYAN ISLAND, PHILIPPINES• 3 •HOW TO CARE FOR THE CASUALTIES OF CONSERVATION?

Sibuyan’s indigenous people

Rights of theforest’s

gatekeepersformally

recognized ‘Ignorant and illegal squatters of the forest.’That is how

most ‘lowlanders’on Sibuyan think of the indigenouscommunity that lives on the steep mountain slopes in the

interior of the island. The WWF-project, however,regarded them as the ‘gatekeepers of the forest’, and

decided to support their claims for land ownership. Muchhas been achieved in the past years, with regard to thejuridical and socio-economic positions of the upland

community. However, many islanders still flatly deny thereare real indigenous people living on Sibuyan.


Biophysical description• Sibuyan island covers a land area of 47,745

hectares, 75% of which is forested. Sibuyan hasone of the last remaining intact forests in thePhilippines.

• The forest of Sibuyan remains largely intact withfull elevational gradients from summit grasslands,mountain summit mossy forest and heath forest,montane forest and lowland forest, to beach forestand mangroves.

• Mt. Guiting-Guiting Natural Park, with an area of16,000 hectares, was declared a protected area in1996. An additional 10,000 ha was declared abuffer zone.

Biodiversity significance• 665 species of plants of which 112 vascular plants

are endemic.• Nine endemic mammals, three restricted range

birds, seven endemic lizards, and two endemicamphibian species.

• 131 species of birds.

Social setting• 50,000 people residing along or near the coastline.• Indigenous people called Sibuyan Mangyan

Tagabukid with a population of some 1,600,residing on the slopes of Mt. Guiting-Guiting.

• Island economy is limited to small-scale agriculture(rice, coconut, backyard poultry and vegetables,marginal fishing) and harvesting of timber and non-timber forest products (vines and honey).

• Essential commodities (e.g. vegetables, poultry)mostly imported from outside Sibuyan island.

• Island economy vulnerable to external factors(e.g., transport costs, high fuel prices).

• Low skills levels, low-value added, infrastructureimproving though with many problems still (i.e.,roads, power, telecommunications).

• Logging culture ingrained in social and politicalsystems (e.g., debt peonage, political patronage).

Pressures on resources• Threats to the forest include swidden agriculture,

shifting cultivation, selective logging, poaching ofwildlife, charcoal making, unregulated gatheringof non-timber forest products, cutting ofmangroves for firewood and fishponddevelopment, and small-scale unregulatedtourism.

• Freshwater on Sibuyan suffers from toxicchemicals used in shrimp capture and riversiltation caused by erosion of upland areas.

• Shift in destructive activities from forest to marineresources (i.e., blast fishing, cyanide) after parkcreation in 1996.

Sibuyan island


community of Sibuyan, some 1,600 people in total,even faced threats of eviction from the newlyprotected area. Also, without the prospect of secureland tenure, there would be no incentive for the IP toconserve the forest resources and to renounce theirdestructive activities. For these reasons, the KKP-project decided to give full priority to the assistanceof the indigenous communities (and, to a certaindegree, also to the other tenured migrants in theupland buffer zones around the protected area). In1997, several land tenure options were presented tothe IP-community. These tenure instruments aregranted by the Philippine government for publiclands and ancestral domains. After a long lobbyingprocess - together with support NGOs such asAnthropology Watch, the Legal Assistance Centerfor Indigenous Filipinos (PANLIPI) and thePhilippine Association for Intercultural Development(PAFID) - the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titlewas finally awarded to the Sibuyan IPs on January17, 2001. The claim was mapped throughparticipatory 3-D relief modeling and ground truthedto verify plots for swidden farms, burial grounds,sacred groves and hunting and harvesting areascovering rivers, streams and mountains. Afteracceptance of the claim and the map, public noticeswere placed all over the island, and advertised in theprovincial newspaper.

At the meeting in the Lumbang WesteMultipurpose hall, all representatives agree that theaward of the title and the acceptance of the map wasan historic event. The contribution of the KKP to this

LABORING TO IMPROVE LIVELIHOODS ON SIBUYAN ISLAND, PHILIPPINES


• 5 •HOW TO CARE FOR THE CASUALTIES OF CONSERVATION?

Almost three years ago, we met Purita Romano in the IP’s first tribal hall in Hagimit. At that time shecomplained bitterly about the lack of educational possibilities for her children and herself. Now shehas come down from the mountains for a meeting in Lumbang Weste’s multipurpose hall. Many thingshave changed in the meantime, she says, mainly for the better. Most IP are now occupied in planting— illegal logging has disappeared. Now and then she accompanies the men of her village on theirpatrols. Education is now within reach for the children, albeit mostly non-formal.Thanks to the Belgianpriest, father Louis, a chapel was built in the mountain area, as well as solar panels for electricity,waterworks and a hanging bridge near the village of Lumbang. Food for the schoolchildren is beingsubsidized.The changes have made Purita more optimistic about the future, and she is also thankfulto the KKP for its support.Her personal life has also changed. She is now involved in day-care for 3-5 year old children, threedays a week. Purita also stood in the local elections. She missed office by just four votes.Which is apity, because she would have been the first IP-representative to be chosen on the island.The mostpressing problem for Sibuyan’s indigenous people, she feels, still has to do with education: althoughpossibilities have been created for the children to attend formal education, the high costs preventmost of them actually attending lessons. ‘That is also true for our daughter, we have a problem inpaying the college fees.’ Asked for her inspiration she says she works for the love of God and for theconservation of the forest. ‘I feel that first of all we have to treat other people well, and secondly, thatwe have to be proud of our IP-identity.’

‘Life is good now’River in the

dry season


of one of the seven villages, Hagimit, tells that thetribal hall that was built in his village is used as aschool, but also as a meeting hall, twice a month: ‘Itis there that we organize the patrolling in our area,’ hesays. ‘We coordinate this with the authorities in thelowland barangays (villages). Without theirpermission, no one is allowed to cut a tree.’

An elder man, Epifanio Regla, adds that illegallogging is now minimal: ‘Our rights are nowrecognized. Even the mayor now has to ask forpermission. Also illegal fishing has stopped. Sometime ago we stopped a few men who wanted to fishwith poison. They were not able to pay the fine, butdid not come back.’

Another man tells about how, after the parkrangers left, they took over the patrolling themselves.‘If we see someone cutting a tree, we politely askwho gave the order to do so. Most of the times thisturns out to be a mayor or a barangay chief. We thengo to that person. Of course he denies it, but that’senough to put a stop to the cutting. Lowland peopleare now more afraid to go up the mountains forcutting, than they used to be. The system ofprotection has more or less been recognized.’

More or less. The problem is the almost total lackof institutional and political support on the island forthe IP. The government agency tasked to implementthe – very progressive – Philippine law onindigenous people’s rights, the National Commissionon Indigenous People, is crippled by a lack ofresources and organizational problems. Theirrepresentative on the island complains that his budgetfor regular operations only allows him to rent anoffice and to make one boat trip a year to the capital.

Years after the ending of the European-fundedpark project, there is still no new management plan(which should integrate the IP’s rights and

achievement is widely praised. ‘Now we are able toprotect and conserve our ancestral domain,’ one ofthe women says. ‘Lowlanders always questioned ourownership. “Do you have a title?” they asked. Nowwe do. The awarding of the title is a greatrecognition.’

After a series of community dialogues, a futureland use plan was developed which identifiedindigenous conservation areas and agricultural areas.In their land use plan, the IPs agreed to ban clearcutting to establish new swidden farms, prescribedsetbacks for settlements along rivers and streams andbanned the use of cymbus, a local pesticide that isused to catch ulang (freshwater shrimp). In supportto these plans, the KKP-project provided logisticalsupport such as the construction of a tribal hall, radiohandsets, base stations, solar power and farmimplements. Some livelihood assistance was given inthe form of support for abaca plantations (atraditional fibrous plant). The ten abaca farms thatwere introduced under the joint venture scheme areproducing good quality fiber, but market prices aretoo low to make it a worthwhile operation at present.The KKP is now trying to attract the interest of alocal trader.

More assertiveBut it is the increased level of confidence among theIP that KKP staff regard as probably the mostimportant result of the whole ancestral-domain claimmaking process. ‘Without doubt they are now moreknowledgeable and assertive about environmentallaws, their rights and responsibilities, and are moreprepared to face lowlanders who are involved inillegal activities in the forests,’ says Ed Tongson.

This observation is borne out by the stories told atthe meeting in the Multipurpose hall. The chairman



IP's burial grounds support their claim for traditional land rights


everybody wants to be an IP, because they see thepossibilities of getting land and money. The problemis that people in the rich countries are so fond of IPand give them their support. But why should wedistinguish between IP and other Filipinos? It’sextremely difficult to identify who is really Filipino,because we are a mixed population.’

A few days later we meet Alfredo, who runs a runa sari-sari (grocer’s) shop in the barangay Dulangan,near Magdiwang. He tells that all villagers recentlysigned a petition opposing the awarding of landclaims to the neighboring IP. These claims coverparts of land and forest that had previously beenconsidered to belong to their barangay. ‘They’vealready planted their signs around here,’ he says, ‘andwe don’t like that. It’s painful that part of ourbarangay is now suddenly part of the IP-area. Theyshould have consulted us about that beforehand.Than we could have shared the area.’

Alfredo emphasizes that he is not against the IPbeing awarded specific rights. ‘We considerourselves IP,’ he says. ‘Our ancestors have lived herefor a long time. We were called Mangwens. Thewhole barangay, we would also like to claim anancestral domain. We will soon apply for that.’ ▲

obligations). The park’s management board, which isdominated by the local elite, has unanimouslyrejected the IP’s ancestral claims. Althoughofficially, Sibuyan’s indigenous people arerepresented in this management board, they nowrarely turn up to meetings. This is partly due totransport problems involved in getting to themeetings, especially in the rainy season, but it is alsodue to their disappointment in the process. SaysKKP-assistant project leader Marisel Dino: ‘In thebeginning the IP-representatives did attend meetings,but the cultural gap between them and the mayorswho are also represented in the board is so huge, thatthey hardly dared to say a word.’

Most people on Sibuyan are still questioning theextent of the overlap of the IP’s claim and theProtected Area, as well as the number andauthenticity of the Sibuyan indigenous people.Mayor Julie Monton of Magdiwang for instance,flatly denies there are any IP in his municipality.‘These are people from the city, who went up themountains to find land, to cut trees and to hunt. Butthese are not indigenous people. We have a problemwith the KKP on this issue. I feel the claims of thesepeople are not valid. Of course, these days,




Output • Completed the 13 steps in the Certificate Ancestral Domain Title application process.• First ethnographic and cultural study on the Sibuyan IP.• Various training courses conducted on resource management, community organizing and enterprise development

- exchange visits to model sites undertaken.

Outcome• Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title covering 7,905 hectares signed on January 26, 2001 for 315 IP households.

65% of the ancestral domain is forested and almost half of it overlaps with the protected area.• Heightened vigilance by IP groups deterred illegal logging in domain areas.• Net island out-migration - no longer a haven for illegal loggers.

Lessons learned• Quality entry for a project requires a thorough and adequate understanding of the context, socio-economic forces

and target groups that contribute to the problem of biodiversity loss.• Addressing food security and delivery of basic services are powerful incentives for resource management but are

no substitute for strict enforcement.• Tenure instruments are only translated to conservation by fulfilling its provisions. In addition to land tenure, there is

a need to install a support infrastructure for farmers/IP to address credit, marketing, capacity-building andtechnology transfer.

• The strategies to promote indigenous people’s rights must not only protect an individual but an entire system.Theoperation of such system in today’s fast changing world is ensured only if they retain their right to self-determination.

Objective: to assist communities affected by the creation of the protected area in improving their social,political and economic conditions through formation and/or strengthening of community organizations,improved land tenure, and security and equitable sharing of economic benefits.


‘It’s just getting worse. Nowadays, everything hasbeen declared illegal.’ Clarita speaks with

bitterness. ‘Yesterday the authorities confiscated sixsacks of charcoal. We had to sign a declaration thatwe will not produce any more charcoal. But how canwe promise that? We need the cash, it’s the only waywe can make some money. And vine-gathering hasalso been forbidden – but we depend on the forest. Ithink that local politicians should concentrate onimproving our lives, not on making them harder.’

Other members of the two former credit groupsthat are assembled in the sitio Kabitangahan, nearSan Fernando, mutter their agreement. While seatedin the sitio’s gathering place, under a wooden roofthat gives some protection against the burningafternoon sun, we talk with representatives of two ofthe first groups to be organized by the project. Both



Originally the KKP project aimed to help local people usenatural resources in a more sustainable way. This was

based on the assumption that the authorities would drawup and implement management plans that would clearly

define the rights and obligations of those islanders livingnear the protected area. When this did not happen, the

KKP project management team decided to shift their focusto creating alternative livelihood activities which wouldkeep people from plundering the forests (or the ocean).

For a variety of reasons this turned out to be far moredifficult than envisaged. ‘Most people on the island don’t

want to be entrepreneurs. They want loans for theirregular living. In fact they want to be employed. We

misjudged that.’

Livelihood

A case of too much too soon

Drying of rice after harvest


groups took out loans, but disbanded when theproject ended. The loans left the lives of the groupmembers unchanged, and most of the money still hasto be repaid.

‘The loan did help us to improve our boats,’ saysRomito, a fisherman, ‘but it has not helped us fulfillour expectations. Our catches are small, and we stillcan’t cope with the dynamite fishing and the use ofcyanide.’These illegal fishing methods are used byfishermen from other areas, he and his colleaguessay. According to these men, the authorities on theisland who say that, thanks to their patrols, illegalfishing has diminished in recent years, are talkingrubbish. ‘They don’ t see the daily practice.’

Clarita and the members of her group used theirloan for improving their sari-sari, or grocery shop.For some time this kept them out of the forest butnow they have gone back to their old ways. Part ofthe loan was also spent on non-commercial activities,like buying medicines. ‘The money helped to curemy husband, and I am grateful for that,’ one of thewomen says. ‘But I don’t know how to pay back theloan. I don’t want to go to jail for that.’

Most of the men and women gathered here saythey would accept another loan, should it be offered,but only on an individual basis, not as group. ‘Wedidn’t wanted to be organized in groups, in the firstplace,’ they say, and all now agree that this strategyproved counter-productive.

‘It’s very simple,’explains assistant-project leaderMarisel Dino, ‘we got funding for the project for fiveyears. After two years’work, the authorities had stilldone nothing towards setting up community-basedforestry management schemes. Consequently it madeno sense to continue collecting the baselineinformation on natural resources use as this wasintended to become the base for the communityresource user plans. We had to come up with results inthe next three years, so we decided to shift our focus.’

Shortcuts were made in the social preparationprocess and the project staff dedicated theirremaining time to setting up a livelihood program.The first new activity was the credit facility. Groupswere organized within the population sectors thatwere most affected by the creation of the naturalpark: loggers, indigenous people, nito- and vine-gatherers and weavers, seaweed growers. Plans forincome-generating activities were drawn up and,after approval, loans disbursed. Not all targetedsectors showed interest in the credit facilities,however. Especially within the lowest incomegroups, many people were risk-averse and preferredregular employment to the prospect of becomingentrepreneurs themselves. The agricultural joint-venture scheme was designed for this purpose.Besides generating employment, it was also intended




‘No more loans for us’In the old days, they admit hesitantly, Vicenteand Susan earned a good living by loghauling in the forests around Lumbang Weste.But when the word spread that the KPP wasissuing loans, the couple applied for 85,000ps. to expand their copra business.The KKP,however, didn’t approve their proposal, sothey decided to follow its advice and invest inpig-breeding.This wasn’t a success. Severalpigs died of foot and mouth disease, the resthad to be sold.The premature end of theirbusiness means that, of the loan of 25,000ps., an amount of 15,000 ps. still has to berepaid.Vicente and Susan now work aslaborers on someone else’s land.What wentwrong? Many things, they say, partly due totheir inexperience with this specific business.They bought many pigs, but left no money tofeed the animals.They also blame KKP forthis however, because they were forced to buyimported fodder, instead of feeding theanimals with copra residue, as they normallydo. ‘These were native breeds,’ Susan says,still indignant, ‘so of course we knew whatwas good for these animals.’ She also seesthe lack of coaching in marketing as a reasonfor the failure.The problems they have in paying back therest of the loan has made them cautiousabout further external assistance. ‘No moreloans for us,’ says Vicente. ‘I’ve become afraidof borrowing money.’Their hope for a betterfuture is based on the money their oldestdaughter sends home. She works as a maidin Manila.This money is used for theeducation of the other kids. Asked what isbetter, a loan or a scholarship, Vicenteimmediately chooses the scholarship. ‘Toinvest in your children is the best guaranteefor a better future.’


to make vast tracts of idle, privately owned, landmore economically productive.

‘The success of the livelihood projects, for thepeople as well as for conservation, was premised ontwo conditions,’ adds project leader Ed Tongson.‘Firstly they required favorable soils, prices andenhanced yields that would enable the targetcommunities to benefit from their chosen livelihoodsthrough increases in cash income. Secondly itassumed there would be strict enforcement by theauthorities of park laws to draw communities awayfrom their unsustainable activities and to make ourprogram more attractive.’ Both assumptions turnedout to be too optimistic.

Micro credits Following the micro-financing approach that hasbeen successful in many other areas, the projectorganized a total of 36 groups who took out loans. Atthe end of the project term only 10 were likely to besustained. Most livelihood schemes (e.g. hog-raising,poultry, fishing) faltered as the groups of formerloggers and charcoal makers failed to adapt andnurture their new ventures.

‘These people were used to earning easy moneythrough timber poaching,’Marisel Dino says. ‘Shiftingto agro-based livelihoods that earned less but demandedmore work was a difficult undertaking for them.’

For the majority, these KKP-supported livelihoodswere intended to supplement their other forms oflivelihood (i.e. rice, copra, fishing) and to buffer risksduring lean months. The fact that there was nocollateral requirement for loans may havecontributed to the lack of zeal for paying back theloans – repayment rates averaged only 35 per cent.‘Lending activities’, concludes the project’sTerminal Report, ‘are viable to the extent whereeconomic activities that they support are themselvesviable.’And in most cases, those economic activitieswere themselves only marginally viable. The lack offarm-to-market roads, poor soils, lack of irrigation,limited domestic demand, high transportation costsand little agricultural history, drastically limits thefarming potential on the island.

The project’s emphasis on organized groups as thebasis for the alternative livelihood schemes was alsoproblematic. Due to the shift in focus, the project’sstaff could no longer support the groups in any otherway than through the livelihood schemes and thissupport proved to be too weak and tenuous as a basisof unity.

Many islanders were unwilling to work togetherwith people outside their own family, let alone takeresponsibility for their neighbors’ financial behavioror working speed. Many groups came to a prematureend as a result of internal quarrels. ‘We had highly



A second try at seaweed farmingMang Vic used to work for the KKP-project.After it was down-sized, he decided to go intobusiness for himself and started a seaweedfarm in Agnonoc, Silum, not far fromMagdiwang.Traditionally, wild seaweed isgathered on the reefs of Sibuyan at low tideand eaten as a vegetable or processed tomake gelatin. However, because more andmore people have begun collecting it, theseaweed has became scarce.The KKP-project organized a study tour on thepossibilities of raising cultured seaweed,thereby generating considerable interestamong the islanders.This led to severalinitiatives for establishing seaweed farms.However, the farms failed, mainly because ofthe damage to rafts and lines caused by highseas during typhoons, as well as diseasewhich infected the cultivated seaweed(probably caused by the traces of dynamiteand cyanide in the water due to illegal fishing).The area Mang Vic has chosen for his secondattempt is less typhoon-prone, he hopes. Also,so far, no traces of the feared disease has beenfound.‘This could be a multi-million pesosenterprise,’Mang Vic says, ‘but is also a highrisk thing.’He has not made any profits yet, butthere is considerable interest in dried seaweedwith entrepreneurs from other parts of thecountry. But they need much larger quantitiesthan Mang Vic is able to produce at themoment. For this reason he is encouragingother fishermen and farmers in theneighborhood to start seaweed farms too. Initself, the technique is very simple: cages madeof wood and nets provide support to the saltycrop as it floats in the sea.While the weeds aregrowing, they need no special attention. Afterthe harvest, simple drying is sufficient, afterwhich further processing is possible.


instrumental reasons for creating groups,’ saysMarisel Dino. ‘But we underestimated thedifferences, between men and women, the ‘haves’and‘have-nots’, the literate and the illiterate, the activeand the passive. We should have realized this. Theydon’t have the priorities – like mutual help – that weassumed. Livelihood was probably not the best placeto have them learn to work together. They alreadyhave nine kids and their family to take care of.’

‘Another lesson learned is that we should havefocused more on relations with the informal industry,the middlemen and the moneylenders,’ says projectleader Ed Tongson. The project failed to capitalize onthe island’s existing credit system, extensive andcomplex networks of informal lending whichdifferentiate between the requirements of variousproduction groups like rice farmers or fish dealers.All systems operate with wide flexibility and providepersonalized service. The project superimposed onthis system a formal one, based on cash andcontracts. The enterprises of some credit userscompeted with the existing enterprises. In one area,the competition resulted in social conflict and inanother, the projects credit users lost out, leading todeep frustration. ‘It would have been better if we hadsupported the traditional system,’Tongson and Dinoconclude. ‘Try to get them behind you. Because theyare the ones that are willing and able to takeeconomic risks. And if a business turns out not to besuccessful, they will simply stop it.’

Further, several of the newly created livelihoods,had to compete with more established business (e.g.pigs, poultry, gasoline trading). Price wars occurredin the same barangays (e.g. gasoline vending) whengroups tried to lure customers. This wasuncharacteristic of how commerce operated in theisland and soured existing social relations.

Agricultural joint ventures‘Of course, at that time we already understood that itwas best to stimulate the activities with which thepeople were already familiar, such as nito-weavingand fishing,’ say Tongson and Dino. ‘But the problemwas that these were not the things which brought insufficient extra money to stop people from going tothe forest. So we had to come up with newenterprises.’This resulted in the creation of the jointventure farms.

In a short time, no fewer than 28 farms under jointventure arrangements were created with landownersand tenure holders. Over 100 ha was planted with awide variety of crops and tree species. Over 400people, mostly the landless poor that previously hadno other option than to turn to the forest or the coast,profited from the labor that was created. Most ofthem regret that the farms came to a premature end,




‘Our life has improved’Elma en Alfredo run a sari-sari shop in thebarangay Dulangan, near Magdiwang.This is,however, only one of their income generatingactivities: they also work as seasonal laborersin the rice harvest, they have a business innito weaving and, like many other peoplehere, they pick coconuts to dry for sale ascopra. Besides that, Alfredo is a councilor inthe barangay committee, in charge ofenvironmental affairs.This job earns him1,600 ps a month.The couple applied, with afew other family members, for a loan of35,000 ps. to expand the shop and the nitobusiness.The loan was a success, they say.Other villagers now make nito products forthem.The extra income they generate withthis has improved their life. Only 800 ps.remains to be paid back. Alfredo is a firmsupporter of the conservation activities on theisland: ‘ In this area we still have virgin forest,because we have always protected the forest.We have to keep it this way for our children.’Some of the nito and other vines they use forthe basket weaving come from the protectedarea.This gathering however can be done in asustainable way, he feels.


but express gratitude to the KKP for this rareopportunity to earn some cash income.

It seems that the rush to deliver tangible results atthe end of the 5-year project period was the primaryreason for the premature ending of the joint venturefarms. Because of this rush, the lessons gained fromseveral decades of rural development experiencewere ignored. For, as the project’s final reportstipulates, ‘there is no shortcut to agriculturaldevelopment, particularly in areas like SibuyanIsland where no crop adaptability trials were everconducted.’After which it concludes: ‘This was acase of implementing too much too soon.’

The report also notes that the joint venture farmsbore little resemblance to the originally planned‘community-based management’. Instead of usingcommunity resources such as indigenous plantingmaterials, local knowledge, technology and inputs,the farms planted exotic species and hybrid crops,and imported fertilizers. Instead of starting small andmanaging the farm within the capacity of communitymembers, they were operated on a commercial scale,with hired farm workers and laborers. As opposed torisk-sharing that the community-based modelsimply, risks had to be fully absorbed by the projectespecially in testing and piloting new types oflivelihoods and farm systems. As the final reportsays: ‘This made the community more dependent onoutside input and markets instead of building self-reliance. This made the farm a lot more difficult tomanage and sustain.’

The consequences of this can be clearly seen inSibyuan today. A poorly maintained mango farm inTampayan, near Magdiwang, was turned into adynamic business with 28 cultivated crops and up to70 laborers during plantation or harvesting time.However, the whole operation turned out to becommercially non-viable and it was shut down evenbefore the project came to an end. Near the mainbuilding of the farm we speak with a handful of menwho used to be employed here. All of them havereturned to their former activities, mainly thegathering of forest products. Why do they think thefarm had to close down? ‘Poor management,’ theysay unanimously. ‘Including poor understanding ofthe weather.’ Rainfall in this area close to Mt.Guiting-Guiting turned out to be much heavier thanwas assumed from the statistics delivered by theweather station on the nearby island of Romblon.The rains affected the yields. Rain-tolerant specieswould have been more appropriate in thesecircumstances. Another problem was the amount offertilizer needed, the men say, which made thebusiness too costly. The large farm building that wasconstructed, can possibly be used in the future as aneco-lodge, the project staff hopes.



Trial and errorIt takes an hour of steep climbing to reachRano’s agroforestry farm near LumbangWeste. Here, on the land that belonged to hismother, 59-years old Conrado Rano tries tofulfil a dream. After many years of working inother countries, Rano returned a few yearsago to the island where he was born andannounced his plans to create an agroforestryfarm on the steep, largely deforestedmountain slopes. ‘The people in the villagelaughed at me,’ he says, ‘because I was well-dressed and so, and they didn’t believe I couldhandle the tough life here, all alone on themountain.’ But Rano carried through his plan.KKP offered him a loan, on condition that hewould work in a team.Which he refused: ‘I’m asolo performer,’ he says. So he only acceptedthe seedlings that were offered to him by theproject. Now, large parts of the area arereplanted with all kind of trees, ranging frommahogany to abaca, coffee, durian, etc. ‘I amnot an expert’, he says, ‘so I go along bysimple trial and error.’ Now Rano is applying tothe island’s sole rural bank for a loan whichwill enable him to replant even larger areas. Itwill take time, maybe ten years or so, beforehis business will be able to make some profit.For agroforestry you need to be long-winded,Rano says, and smiles.


costly failure. After a training program and a studytour to Luzon, which has a long history of sericulture,a pilot project was started in barangay Tampayan.Three breeding houses for the silk worms were builton the land of farmers who showed interest in the newundertaking. The surrounding hills were planted withmulberry bushes, on the leaves of which the silkworms feed. When visiting the farms now, one seesonly deserted breeding houses and hills that areovergrown by wild mulberry shrubs. ‘We used to herdour carabo here’, a woman says dejected, ‘and weplanted some root crops. Now it’s only uselessmulberry bushes. It will cost a lot of money to get ridof it, and who is going to pay for that?’

The main problem here were was that the soil

Near Magdiwang we take a stroll with 63-year oldDionisio Modena, who leases a mountainous patchof forest from the government. On the insistence ofthe KKP-project, he planted abaca and coffee inbetween the trees. The abaca is now ready forharvesting. However, Modena has no money to hiremen to do the job. Besides that, prices for abaca areso low that it is hardly worth the effort. The coffee isnot growing well. Soil testing was only done after theplanting, which made clear that growing coffee herewas not a very smart idea. ‘I knew it would not growhere,’ Modena says, ‘but the KKP insisted on it. Theyshould have listened better to the farmers.’

Without doubt, the project’s effort to introducesericulture to the island became the greatest and most




The hills around the former sericulture farms are overgrown by wild mulberry shrubs


which were beyond the reach of our people onSibuyan. Like the three-year period in which theytried to build the livelihood projects, while it is

common knowledge thatcommunity-based models need atleast a decade to mature. But youalso have to acknowledge that thestaff was not listening enough, notconsulting or asking local peoplefor advice. Simply enhancing whatalready exists would have been thebest. Why is that man growingcassava, or catching shrimp?Understand that there is logicbehind this. Everybody knowsthese simple truths, but it’s hard toact on it. Most of us come from thecity, where everybody thinks heknows everything.’ ▲

layer could not absorb enough water, which meantthat the mulberry leaves did not contain enoughmoisture to feed the worms. This problem was notanticipated during the design stages and subsequentsoil analysis made clear that irrigating the mulberryfarms would cost 3 million pesos. The wholeenterprise was eventually dropped as a result of thesoil and water studies – after considerableinvestments had already been made. Of course theKKP management is to blame for this, says SulficioRobis, one of the three landowners. Also thebreeding houses are much too big, he says. ‘Whenwe visited Luzon, people warned us to start small.But this was ignored.’ Robis is now trying to start upa chicken farm in the former breeding house.

In Manila, KKP president, Lori Tan, says that, inretrospect, ‘there were many reasons for the failure


Loan used for buying medicinesThe sari-sari shop in Lumbang Weste is runby three sisters.To expand their shop, theyapplied for a KKP-loan. At first everythingwent fine, they say, ‘the money flowed well.’Problems however started when one of them,Myrna, was diagnosed as diabetic. Unable tocontinue her regular job at the rural bank, shewas unable to draw her salary and had to buymedicines with the money from the loan. Atpresent they are unable to pay back theremaining sum of 66,000 pesos.

Owners on front of their deserted silk

worm breeding house





‘We regularly have to skip breakfast’Both Ramon and Lilibet are former workers at a joint venture farm inEspaña. After the closure of the farm, they returned to their regular life.Ramon (41) is married and has nine kids. He earns a modest living as acaretaker farmer of some 4 ha, the owner of which lives nearby. Ramon gets10 percent of the output. He and his wife also regularly gather vines in theforest. For their own consumption, they have planted some vegetables intheir backyard.Their eldest son has just finished school, and is about toenter high school. However, Ramon does not earn enough to pay theschooling costs — the uniform, the books, etc. Sometimes he earns extraincome when his labor is hired for construction of houses for the Germanpensionadas, who live on the island. Ramon swears he is not, and never hasbeen involved in logging.Yes, of course he is aware that it goes on, but heknows that protecting the forest is the best for everybody. But, Ramon says,‘I’m sure that some people make big money from logging here on the island.’

Lilibet (49) also has nine children.The eldest is 21, the youngest, just oneyear old.Together with her 29-years old (second) husband she buys andsells used bottles and metal scraps.This brings in a little cash, but hardlyenough to feed the whole family.That is why they are also involved in thecharcoal business.They collect the wood in the nearby forest, prepare it andsell the charcoal to people in the barangay.This causes no problems withthe authorities, because, as Lilibet says, ‘it is allowed for local consumption.’Lilibet and her husband own no land, except for the small piece where theyhave their house.There is never enough food available to feed everyone,says Lilibet. ‘We regularly have to skip breakfast.’Three of the children go toschool, one to high school.The family has debts at the school, because theycan’t pay the costs. Lilibet also has debts at the grocery, the sari-sari shop.‘With God’s help we will pay it back, some day,’ she says. Having nine toeleven children is the normal situation on Sibuyan, says Lilibet, but shedoesn’t approve of it. ‘It contributes to our poverty. But you know how it goesin marriage.We don’t know much about birth control, many women areafraid of the negative consequences for their health. A lot of stories are told.’




Output • 36 enterprises supported through the credit program (released US$ 81,288).• 28 farms under joint venture arrangements with the landowners and tenure holders planted to different crops and

trees in 100+ ha. Farms established to absorb surplus labor and generate economic opportunities to benefit targetsectors.

Outcome• 175 forest-dependent households belonging to 36 groups supported through loans for small-scale livelihoods.

Only 10 groups very likely to succeed. Business expansions are more likely to succeed than business start-ups, asin the case of alternative livelihoods.

• 103 ha. planted to 17 vegetable crop species with at least 35 varieties and 12 tree species. Project succeeded ingenerating 33,274 person-days of farm employment that benefited 400+ individuals, 60% of which are women.

• Gender program mainstreamed. Group enterprises participated in by 116 women and 147 men. 43% of projectstaff and volunteers are women. Established equal pay scales for men and women for farm labor.

• Lending rates reduced market-based rates from 5-7% to 3% per month.

Lessons learned• Enterprises that build on existing knowledge, systems and skills are more likely to prosper but linkages to

conservation projects must me made explicit.• The private sector is the best livelihood provider but needs to use natural resources in a more sustainable manner.• Returns from illegal logging will still be greater compared to more sustainable alternatives.• Although more time-consuming and costly, the ‘transformative’ approach to community organization and

participation is more effective as it results in more comprehensive changes in environmental, social and politicaldimensions in a community.

Objective: to develop community-based livelihood enterprises that will contribute to the reduction offorest-based destructive activities.


‘To be frank,’ says mayor Nick Ramos, lookingup from his desk in the Cajidiocan city hall,

‘the coordination between us and the KKP in recentyears has not been good.’ For a moment he stopssigning the endless stream of papers brought to himby his employees. ‘Local government didn’t get anybenefit from the project. There was no transparency,we didn’t know what they were doing – that’s why itfailed.’ For this reason, says Ramos, all three of theisland’s mayors agreed some time ago that theywould not allow the organization to start a newproject phase on the island.

Despite the mayors’ apparent opposition, however,it seems that not all is lost. Some recent personnelchanges within the project management havesoftened the mayors’ mood a little. ‘Maybe we can dobusiness again,’ Ramos says, ‘but they have to want agood relationship with us.’And, as proof of its good




Politics dominate daily life on Sibuyan andrivalries during election time can be

particularly fierce. Two municipal electionswere held during the project term. Despite

the neutral position taken by the staff beforeeach election, both camps accused the KKP-

project of siding with their opponents. Thisin turn affected the support they were able to

obtain from the incoming mayors.Preventing oneself becoming a plaything of

local or national politicians is difficult.‘This is Asia, which means that it is very

important to know the person who makes thedecisions.’

Politics and partnerships

‘He who does not bet,does not play’




made the mayors and other officials believe that theKKP wanted to force the project down their throats.Clearly, that doesn’t work. Now they say: give us aboat and it’s ok with us, you can go ahead. Thatdoesn’t work either. Real partnership means there is acollective responsibility.’

In the Philippines, local government – bothprovincial and municipal – has the mandate to createlaws – including environmental ones. In theory, thisgives NGOs lots of opportunities for policy advocacyand policy change at the local level (also bearing inmind that local government has to work withminimal budgets, which makes the NGOs’ projectmoney even more interesting). ‘We very muchrealize that, from the very beginning of a project, youhave to work in partnership, with local governmentunits, local business, other NGOs,’ says Tan. ‘But wealways ask them: if we put our money into yourorganization or your area, what are you going tocontribute? The concept amongst Filipinos is that hewho doesn’t bet, doesn’t play. You have to putsomething in, otherwise you’re not part of the game.That doesn’t necessarily have to be money – acommunity can also put in labor. They can say: wewill volunteer and give our time to patrol with theboats. And than we sign a contract that also coverssustainability: we ask the municipality to guaranteethat it has the budget to maintain that speedboat forthe next five years.’

Wavering supportSo partnership is essential to the success ofconservation. But how is it to be put into practice in asituation like Sibuyan, with its surfeit of politicalintrigue, weak civil service, lack of entrepreneurialtradition and absence of other NGOs working on theisland?

The KKP-project tried to solve that last problemby creating a new NGO on the island. The project’ssustainability plan and phase-out scheme was basedon the successful establishment of such a local NGO,which would be formed out of local staff andinfluential people from the island. Funds to sustainits operation would be generated by the livelihoodactivities. The failure of those activities, however,also dashed hopes for creating a viable NGO.Another reason not to put up another parallelstructure on the island was the authorities’ waveringsupport for the protection of Mt.Guiting-Guiting,partly due to the intense political rivalries. After theend of the European Union-funded park project, theisland’s mayors shifted their priorities to coastalmanagement. As mayor Ramos of Cajidiocan says:‘The mountains are no longer a problem. We are ableto control that area. Sometimes we tolerate somecutting by people who need construction wood. But

intent, the project has to put something on the table.‘We really need a speedboat in our municipality tostop the illegal fishing,’ says the mayor. ‘If the KKPprovides us with a boat, and some assistance for localcoastal management, we will work with them again.’

In the course of our conversation, the mayorcomes up with another condition: ‘The projectshould also consult with us when hiring people. Wewant a say in that.’

The request for the speedboat is partly motivatedby the fact that the municipality of San Fernando wasprovided with such a boat by the KKP-project,because of the many illegal activities taking place inits waters including dynamite and poison fishing aswell as timber smuggling. As a result, says mayorJulie Monton of Sibuyan’s third municipality,Magdiwang (who also wants a speedboat...), theillegal activities have moved to his area. ‘Thesefishermen use fast boats and arms. We have to chasethem away but presently we don’t have theequipment to do that.’

Back in Manila, KKP-president Lori Tan says heunderstands the mayors’ wishes. ‘The project staffhave tried to avoid getting involved in the manypolitical feuds on the islands. And rightly so. But this

FundingRecognizing the environmental significance of the island andthe need to address the threats to biodiversity, the threemunicipalities of Sibuyan (Magdiwang, Cajidiocan and SanFernando) worked together to promote the conservation ofMt. Guiting-Guiting. A large part of the island was proclaimeda Protected Area under the Philippine National IntegratedProtected Areas System on February 1996.With theseefforts being undertaken, WWF-Philippines initiated a projectin October 1996 to address threats to the natural resourcesof Mt. Guiting-Guiting Natural Park, and in particular to assistcommunities affected by the proclamation of the protectedarea.The project was designed to complement the EuropeanUnion-funded park project called National IntegratedProtected Areas Programme (NIPAP).The project,‘Protecting the biodiversity of Mt. Guiting-Guiting through thedevelopment of sustainable livelihood enterprises in SibuyanIsland’, was sponsored by the Royal NetherlandsGovernment with a total contribution of US$ 1.6 million, for afive-year period. After an extension period, the project finallycame to an end in March 2002.The KKP was in the processof formulating Phase II of the project, when in the summer of2003 it became clear that, due to changes in Dutch foreignpolicy, the Philippines will no longer be a recipient country forDutch development cooperation. Because of that, the Dutchembassy was no longer able to consider the Phase IIproposal.


deeper and deeper into the forest to find the vines.‘There is simply too much extraction going on,’ oneof the rangers says.

From the park office the situation looks bleak. Ofthe yearly budget of 6 million pesos that the parkmanagement plan regards as necessary for lawenforcement and awareness raising, less than 30,000ps. is received. The two education officers have beenfired. The general management plan, written byoutside consultants, contains fine statements on localownership, but in reality, it has never been discussedwith the population.

The Protected Area Management Board (PAMB),based on the concept of participativestakeholdership, no longer meets regularly.Sibuyan’s present three mayors do not recognize theBoard, which they see as a creation of theirpredecessors. ‘We do not cooperate with that board,’says mayor Julie Morton of Magdiwang. ‘We shouldnot be guests at their meetings, we should be thechairmen. It’s our municipality. We are supposed tokeep law and order here, and that’s what we’ll do.’

The challenge for phase II (should there ever beone), says Ed Tongson, will be to integrate theproject’s activities within the development andconservation plans of the province and the threemunicipalities in the island. Local government unitsare the logical institutions to deliver services –education, health care and infrastructure – to ruralcommunities beyond the immediate project context.‘These services are key factors in improving incomelevels and living standards in communities near thepark, thereby affecting the pressure likely to beexerted on park resources.’ Critical to forest

ok, people do not build houses every day. Most of thecutting is done on private land, anyway. Our concernnow is fisheries. There are too many fishermen whoinvade our waters.’

Not everybody shares this view. Most of thedissenters, however, are reluctant to be cited.

One councilor we talk to says that illegal activitiesin the protected area have resumed recently. ‘Thedaily patrols, which were carried out for some years,were very efficient. Nowadays, when the policemenconfiscate the lumber, they cannot do anything withit. They sometimes sell it, to adjust their allowance.So I heard, off the record. But I know for certain thatthe illegal logging is still going on. And so is thecharcoal making.’ It wouldn’t be too hard to stop allthis, the councilor says, if there was the political willto do so – ‘but that is lacking.’

At the park office, situated near the entrance of theprotected area, we talk to the few staff who remainafter the European funded project ended. They admitthat they operate in isolation and have no clear pictureof the actual forest encroachment. It is impossible forthe two remaining forest rangers to control the entireprotected area: they only take action when the localpopulation contacts them. ‘The initial plan,’one ofthem says, ‘was that local government would providesupport after the end of the project. But they have notkept their promises. The mayors are afraid to losetheir voters and the illegal loggers in the baranguaywould turn against them.’

The pressure on other forest’s resources is alsogrowing. The large numbers of people active in nito-and rattan-weaving on the island leads to growingscarcities of these resources. The gatherers have to go




The remaining

staff at the

Park's office




Like all Filipino government institutions, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has its headquartersin Manila.The department is located in a non-descript office building, where the Information Age has yet to arrive.Rooms are packed with civil servants, working on old-fashioned typewriters. According to Regional ExecutiveDirector Clarence L. Baguilat, this is due to the tight financial situation. ‘We have a budget problem here. Actually, it isconstantly diminishing.We can just maintain facilities, nothing else.’Because of these financial problems, the DENR could not maintain the protection of the Mt. Guiting-Guiting NatureReserve when the European Union-funded project ended, says Baguilat. ‘We realize this is not good for the park, butwithout assistance from foreign organizations we really can’t do the job.We need partnerships and that’s why we arehappy that the KKP is helping us.’Baguilat says he is hoping there will be new external funding for the Sibuyan park. ‘That will allow us to work on themanagement plan.’Which, in his opinion, should also include coastal management and proposals to developecotourism on the island, which could bring in much-needed extra cash.Critics in the Philippines say, however, that the DENR should not be involved in park management, being a typicaltop-heavy government institution that is unable to adapt to changing conditions. Eighty per cent of its budget is saidto be spent on the salaries of its 30,000 personnel.Which hardly makes sense in the light of the recentdecentralization policy of the Philippines government, under which responsibility for environmental management(including protected area management) has passed to the local level - diminishing the need for a centralistbureaucracy.

All funds spent on salaries

conservation are also the formulation andenforcement of land use plans and the managementof community forests and watersheds. But the civilservice on the island is weak, resulting in thefrequent intrusion of political interest into theiroperation. Tongson: ‘For this, the bureaucracy inSibuyan needs to be capacitated. Political decisions

must be based on well-prepared plans, technicalfeasibility and backed by a competent bureaucracyrather than based on whims of an incumbent official.This would provide the needed continuity acrosspolitical terms. A stronger civil service could alsodeliver conservation, by just carrying out itsmandate.’ ▲





• The integrated conservation and development program (ICDP) is part of a larger framework andshould be nested within the development plans of the province and the three municipalities in theisland.

• Tapping existing institutions and groups for conservation is more sustainable and efficient thanforming new ones.

• Partnership is essential to the success of conservation.The institutional arrangements toimplement successful ICDPs require a range of expertise that no single organization can addresson its own. Complementation and strategic partnerships are important ingredients in producingconservation results.

• Time-bound projects can only make conservation sustainable by ensuring that they are nurtured bylocal resources.

• Institutional constraints can make or break conservation projects (e.g., lack of funding from theDepartment of Environmental and Natural Resources, ‘politics’ within the Protected AreaManagement Board, lack of political will, corruption, ‘paper’ management plans, ambiguous landtenure policies).

• Foreign-assisted projects tend to displace local initiatives.

A few more lessons learned




government knows us. But many people ask: “Whereis KKP now?”You can’t stop so suddenly.’

But there is also self-criticism: ‘Probably it wastoo ambitious to do conservation and development atthe same time,’ says one ex-team member. ‘But wewere not used to this. It was an experimental thing.’

‘We did far too much alone,’ another formeremployee contributes. ‘For such difficult goals likeconservation and development, you can’t go alone.Have all the actors do their thing in a proper way,instead of doing it yourself.’

‘I feel we should have focused more on a resource-based approach,’ says assistant project leader Marisel

‘We have ploughed, the crops are growing butwe aren’t harvesting them. That is sad.

Reaching conservation goals in five years time is tooshort.’

During a focus group discussion with the formerproject staff, frustrations run high. The commitmentof all those gathered here is striking, even thoughthey are no longer employed by the project. ‘Ourhearts and minds were involved in this project,’ oneof them says. ‘We put in so much energy. You have torealize how difficult it has been to move people hereon the island. At the very beginning they had no ideawhat conservation meant. Now they know. Local

Conclusion

‘Our hearts and minds wereinvolved in this project’

'Maybe the

focus should

have been

more on

rehabilitation

of mangroves'


close correlation between increases in income andlivelihood opportunities with the presence of vitalinfrastructure (good roads, schools, inter-islandtransport, communications) – conditions that areabsent in Sibuyan. Tongson: ‘Credit systems andfarm extension work and other micro-interventionsare doomed to fail in island settings because of thestructural weaknesses of the island economy. Bytheir multi-occupational nature, fishers cum farmershave adapted through time shifting their subsistencefrom land to sea depending on the season. Thedevelopment community should try to make farmersmore adaptive and less vulnerable to external shockslike typhoons, that regularly confront their sector –not to give them more loans nor teach them newskills. These new skills and loans will not prosperanyway if there is no access to markets and to inputs.’

While it is still unclear if KKP will get a chance toexperiment with those new ideas on Sibuyan itself, itis finally good to realize here that the project didbring substantial change to the island in the form ofthe transformation of the indigenous community.From passive beneficiaries to principal actors in theirquest for self-development, from indifferent actors tovocal advocates and guardians of forest resources,the IPs have gone a long way. The fact that traditionalpower wielders such as the island elite, financiers,loggers, and politicians have come to oppose andquestion these land claims should come as nosurprise. Probably the main reason for localgovernment to lobby for the ejection of KKP fromthe island was because of its work in facilitating theempowerment of the indigenous people. Says projectleader Tongson: ‘We learn from other rights-basedadvocates and Sibuyan partners that this is anexpected outcome – something not to fear or beembarrassed about but a cause to celebrate.’

▲

Dino. 'Like reforestation or rehabilitation of themangroves. Growing trees for charcoal production.Those kinds of things. The benefit of that would havebeen greater than just helping a few families. It's amatter of finding a balance though, and that is alearning process.'

'The competition between the instant money to bemade from cutting timber and the hard labor ofstarting another business was too unfair,' says formerlivelihood manager Mang Vic. The loans given toformer loggers became a burden for most of them, hesays. 'These alternative businesses were completelynew to them. They should have been given trainingbefore they were lent the money. That is realempowerment.' And, Mang Vic emphasizes, theoption of going back to the forests should have beentaken away. 'Without strict control, our activitieswere doomed to fail. If necessary, you should bringin the military. But you have to force them to stoplogging.'

The project's Terminal Report concludes: 'As ayoung and inexperienced NGO, WWF-Philippineswas ill prepared to implement complex projects suchas integrated conservation and development in 1996.At that time, it needed guidance and programmaticsupervision from more experienced members of theWWF-network or from development NGOs such asCARE, etc.'

We also have to realize, says project leader EdTongson, that there have not been many successes sofar of islands-based livelihood systems in thePhilippines. ‘Even the well-respected PhilippineBusiness for Social Progress has had problems withlivelihood projects in several sites. Particularly inMarinduque island, which has similar conditions toSibuyan.’Tongson also points to a recent study fromthe Asian Development Bank, which establishes a



HOW TO CARE FOR THE CASUALTIES OF CONSERVATION?


Acknowledgements

All texts written by Hans van de Veen of Bureau M&OEnvironment & Development Productions

© WWF May 2004

Published by the DGIS-ICD Programme based at WWF International.For further copies contact Chantal Page, DGIS-ICD ProgrammeWWF International, Avenue de Mont Blanc 27, 1196 Gland, SwitzerlandTel: +41 22 364 90 34, Fax +41 22 364 0640, E-mail: [email protected]

Pictures: All pictures by Bureau M&O, except for the one on the cover (Jose NoelDumaop), and on page 3 and this backside (Ivan Sardenas).Layout and design: MMS Grafisch Werk, Amsterdam,The Netherlands Production: Bureau M&O, Amsterdam,The Netherlands

This publication receives outside financing. Citation is encouraged. Shorts excerpts may betranslated and/or reproduced without prior permission, on the condition that the source isindicated. For translation and/or reproduction in whole,WWF International should be notified inadvance. Responsibility for the contents and for the opinions expressed rest solely with theauthor; this publication does not constitute an endorsement by WWF International or thefinancier.The material and the geograpical designations in this magazine do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of anycountry, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Printed on environmentally friendly paper


Living Documents DGIS-WWF Tropical Forest...

Documents

Transcript of Living Documents DGIS-WWF Tropical Forest...