The Preventive Systems Approach (PSA) to protected area management: the case of Mt. Kitanglad Range Nature Park, Bukidnon, Philippines

While current thinking looks at why degradation is happening and tackling the underlying causes, it is better appreciated that natural resources within protected areas and watersheds can be used for economically productive purposes while maintaining its ecological functions. Degradation does not have to be a consequence for using land for agriculture and forestry. Farmers can engage in farming and management of natural forest resources in both a productive and resource-conserving manner (Garrity DP, 1999). The Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP, 1992) attempted to emphasize the balance of conservation and development in managing natural areas. A review of ICDPs however, revealed that no ICDP could succeed without the support of various sectors external to the natural area, and that, preventive rules can be placed to support the implementation and gain success in ICDPs. The Philippine milestone in protected area management is manifested in the declaration of the National Integrated Protected Area Systems Act (NIPAS Act) in 1992. The Act provides that the management, protection, sustainable development, and rehabilitation of protected areas shall be undertaken primarily to ensure the conservation of biological diversity and that the use and enjoyment of protected areas must be consistent with that principle. It is further acknowledge that the effective administration of NIPAS will require a partnership between the Government through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and other interested parties including the indigenous cultural communities. This was in support of the government’s center piece for local governance through the enactment of the 1991 Philippine Local Government Code (LGC) which elucidates the roles, functions, powers, and authorities of Local Governments Units (LGUs) in shaping the development template of their localities. Among others, the LGC explicitly mandated the LGUs to manage their natural resource endowments and perform the devolved functions of DENR in order to ensure the maintenance and protection of the environment’s integrity. Moreover in 1997, the national government enacted the Indigenous People’s Right Act (IPRA Law). IPRA is another milestone in the arena of environment and natural resource management within the context of indigenous culture and life. It embodies a culture-sensitive layer of management regime in protected area and ancestral territories. In some cases where protected area and ancestral domain are one, the IPRA and NIPAS Law are expected to implement a co-management and holistic approach in protecting and managing these areas. While in cases where they are not necessarily one, but, with some parts geographically overlapping each other, the overarching issues and concerns should be addressed through the complimentary efforts of both management entities as stipulated in the NIPAS Law and IPRA. There is much legal space for forging efforts towards environmental sustainability. However, these management entities seemed working in isolation with each other

---

• View source