Policy and practice in karst landscape protection: Bohol, the Philippines

The Geographical Journal, Vol. 167, No. 4, December 2001, pp. 305–323

Policy and practice in karst landscapeprotection: Bohol, the Philippines

PETER B URICH*, MICHAEL J DAY** AND FIONA LYNAGH**Department of Human Geography, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand and **Department of

Geography, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P O Box 413, Milwaukee 53201, USAE-mails: [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]

This paper was accepted for publication in June 2001

The karst landscape in the interior of the Philippines’ Bohol Province represents one ofthe world’s premier kegelkarst (cone karst) environments. Government efforts to protectsome of this karst, exemplified by the establishment of the Rajah Sikatuna National Parkand the Chocolate Hills Natural Monument, have proven to be significant catalysts ofsocial conflict. In Bohol there is a long history of traditional land tenure, which hasrecently been supplanted by a Westernized model. Protected area establishment is aresponse to deforestation, agricultural exploitation and uncontrolled quarrying. How-ever, the imposition of protective legislation to prevent further degradation hasdisenfranchized and marginalized many local farmers and residents. The conflictbetween the obligation of the State to ensure environmental protection and theperceived property rights of landowners and farmers has provoked an escalation in civilunrest and armed conflict.

KEY WORDS: Philippines, Bohol, karst, protected areas, Rajah Sikatuna National Park,Chocolate Hills Natural Monument, civil unrest

Introduction

Recent papers (e.g. Day and Urich 2000;Kueny and Day 1998 2000) have exploredregional trends in the designation of karst

landscapes as protected areas. These studies repre-sent significant preliminary steps in the assessmentof the overall status of the global karst heritage,and they accord with growing concerns aboutkarst landscape degradation (Williams 1993;Barany-Kevei and Gunn 1999) and the need toconserve karstlands for ecological, hydrological andother reasons (Watson et al. 1997; Vermeulen andWhitten 1999). Moreover, they alerted the scien-tific community both to the limited areas of karstdesignated as protected areas and the ad hocnature of many such designations.

In this paper, we demonstrate that while inter-national and national protected area policies arebeing increasingly adopted to protect the globalkarst heritage (corollary to the general principles ofenvironmental conservation), the realities of pro-tected area establishment are ultimately localaffairs, played out in locales with distinctive sets of

issues, actors, protagonists and victims. To under-stand these local situations a second tier of analysisis proposed.

Few studies have attempted to analyze the intri-cacies of karst conservation at a local level, particu-larly in tropical and developing areas, and Berryhillnotes that:

more research is needed in fields like applied ruralsociology in developing practical methods of confrontingdevelopmental forces.

Berryhil 1989, 163

In the only really comparable study, Day (1996)illustrated the importance of karst conservation at anational scale, employing a case study of Belize,Central America. That paper, which represents acatalyst for this analysis, suggested that the highdegree of karst area protection in Belize was facili-tated by a low population density in the karstlandscapes, and that opportune designation of pro-tected karst areas reflected their ecological,archaeological and recreational value, rather thaninherent concern for karst terrain, per se.

0016-7398/01/0004-0305/$00.20/0 � 2001 The Royal Geographical Society

Most previous studies of legislation designed tomitigate degradation of karst environments havefocused on the United States, and are specificto particular elements of the karst environment(Bade and Moss 1997; Davis 1997; Dougherty1989; Fischer 1997; Fischer and Lechner 1989;LaMoreaux et al. 1997; Panno et al. 1997; Smithand Vance 1997). None address the implications oflong-term human occupance of rural karst land-scapes and the conflicts that arise between resi-dents and governments over the conservation oftheir karst resources.

In this study we examine rural karst conservationissues, particularly the designation of protected areas,in the Chocolate Hills region of the Central Philippineisland of Bohol. This focuses on issues pertaining tothe establishment, management and conservation oftwo areas in particular: the Rajah Sikatuna NationalPark and the Chocolate Hills Natural Monument.

The Rajah Sikatuna National Park, which coversslightly more than 10 000 hectares, was establishedin 1990 (Urich and Bliss 1992). Adjacent to andoccasionally overlapping the National Park is themore recently proclaimed (1997) Chocolate HillsNatural Monument, which covers approximately14 350 hectares and incorporates 1776 individualmogotes, or conical hills. The establishment of theseprotected areas has engendered conflicts betweengovernment and local populations, which illustratebroader problems of attempting to conserve karstenvironments. Many of the difficulties we address arenot unique to the protection of karst, but in thisparticular situation the karst environment is central,not only with regard to government develop-ment policy for this impoverished area of Bohol, butalso to those who continue to resist government-imposed land tenure systems and environmentallegislation.

We set the scene by describing the karst land-scapes of Bohol and examining why the govern-ment is interested in protecting them from furtherdestructive exploitation. A review of Philippinegovernment legislative frameworks for designatingand managing protected areas follows, as does anassessment of the relevance of centrally-plannedpolicies to a locally complex social and politicalenvironment. The research has been conductedover a period of ten years, largely through fieldworkand personal interaction with the local popula-tion and government agencies involved in manag-ing the protected areas. The primary researchmethods employed are interviews with key govern-ment employees, members of non-governmentorganizations working with the population residenteither in the protected areas or in their bufferzones, and with residents of the aforementionedareas.

Protected area designation and managementThere is a growing body of theoretical literature –largely normative – relating to how local populationsshould be integrated into a protected area designa-tion and management (Larson 2000; Lynagh andUrich in press). This tendency is in reaction to thefact that there has largely been a lack of recognitionof local people by those that claim to be the‘managers’ of to-be-protected or protected areas,and hence a failure to use traditional and localknowledge in administration. In many countriesNational Park rights are well defined, legallyenforceable, and clearly vested with management(Day and Urich 2000). The rights to manage Parkshowever can be vested with either National Parkauthorities or the local people (Shah 1995). Forexample, joint forest management (JFM) is an agree-ment between government and local people aboutmutually sharing arrangement of forest manage-ment. The forest’s property rights are vested withone of the parties (Murty 1996). Rathore (1996)advocated park management being carried out ona joint basis with adjoining communities underexisting JFM interpretation.

From research in Nepal’s Royal Chitwan NationalPark conducted by Nepal and Weber (1994, 341),local people were in favour of managing theirreserves; ‘many local people were willing to assumea shared management responsibility’. Opinions dif-fered on the issue of the managing body – thosevillagers who favoured a government agency sawthe biological, technical and economic aspects ofmanagement as requiring knowledge that localpeople did not possess, while the proponentsof local management stressed the need for govern-ment support. Willingness to share managementin this case was mainly determined by age, level ofeducation, volume of crop-loss, household size,and landholding size. A strong emphasis wasplaced on local people’s better managementcapability.

Wells and Brandon (1992) see one of the biggestproblems with protected area management as theunlikeliness that limited benefits to local people willchange their behaviour or reduce pressure on theflora and fauna in the protected area, and therebyenhance the conservation of biological diversity.The few working examples of ‘healthy’ protectedarea management in the Philippines, South EastAsia and much of the South means that little logicalrationale is found for this expectation.

Top-down approachProtected area creation and the approaches takenin their management are seen by a number ofacademics to be restricting, disregarding, and

306 Policy and practice in karst landscape protection: the Philippines

essentialising of local people (Colchester 1996;Ghimire 1994; Kothari 1996; McNeely et al. 1994;Nepal and Weber 1994; Neumann 1997; Sayer1991). The aim of the protected areas and theirbuffer zones is seen to be a ‘bribe’ to lessen localresistance to the establishment and expansion ofparks and reserves, rather than an alternativesustainable livelihood option (Ghimire 1994).

Protected area creation has meant settlementand common property areas have been further‘invaded’ by park authorities and livelihood oppor-tunities for local communities have been lost(Ghimire 1994). Proposals involving the integrationof conservation and rural development in protectedareas e.g. integrated conservation and develop-ment projects can actually involve different forms ofstate intervention and land use restrictions. Insteadof improving security of tenure for people whomight inhabit protected areas, projects ‘. . . extendstate authority over settlement and land use wellbeyond protected area boundaries, thereby height-ening the insecurity of local land tenure’ (Neumann1997, 575). Preservationist views have led toforced relocation, impoverishment, human rightsabuse and a breakdown of traditional systemsof resource management (Colchester 1996).Colchester notes that new policies have beenadopted by conservation organizations (Larson2000) for working with indigenous people, but atthe same time top-down conservation and globalenvironmental management by large developmentagencies threatens to undo this progress.

Conflict management, biosphere reserves, bufferzones, ecodevelopment and benefit sharing havemostly been ‘. . . initiated and directed by outsiders,have been of short duration and have focused onambitious but untried technologies to secureincreased economic benefits for local people’(Colchester 1996, 34). Colchester (1996) cites theNational Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS)in the Philippines, which professes to have the

. . . preservation of ancestral domain and customary rightswithin protected areas’ as a management target. YetNIPAS ‘. . . put protected areas under ‘‘close manage-ment, control and study’’ so that ‘‘experts’’ can decidewhere, when and how much natural resources localcommunities can extract’.

Colchester 1996, 34

Ghimire (1994, 225) states that ‘the idea of ruraldevelopment in buffer zone areas [of protectedareas] usually comes totally from above, with littleor no participation of local communities’. Althoughintegrated conservation and development projectsand protected areas are presented as being partici-patory and locally empowering, in actual fact

the rural communities to whom the projects areoften aimed have little to do with buffer zoneproposal, design, or enforcement (Neumann 1997).Neumann sees a long history of Western notions ofthe ‘primitive’ as structuring conservationists’ ideasfor local participation in buffer zones. The essential-izing of local people is seen to obscure politics ofland within protected areas, through positive andnegative stereotypes and assumptions. Neumann(1997) also recognizes that protected areas pro-posals generally suffer from a failure to recognize,let alone analyse, unequal power relations and howthey relate to land and resource access and, ulti-mately, the force of conservation politics. Protectedareas projects, rather than presenting a newapproach, are more similar to ‘colonial conserva-tion practices in their socio-economic and politicalconsequences’ and many represent a ‘geographicalexpansion of state authority . . . into rural com-munities’ (Neumann 1997, 564 emphasis inoriginal).

An emerging Western paradigm incorporateslocal and internal knowledge systems into a bufferzone management strategy. One example is thedevelopment of conservation targets and manage-ment methods through dialogue between indi-vidual farmers and those interested in resourcepreservation, acknowledging that these two per-spectives are seldom mutually exclusive. A secondmethod typically involves cash compensation foreither the loss of habitat or economic opportunitiesthat are forgone as a downstream effect of preser-vation. This method has been used widely bymining interests in remote and (possibly)biologically-rich regions (Banks 1996). The longer-term viability of each of these methods has notbeen thoroughly researched. However, in the caseof compensation payments for mine developments,anecdotal evidence from Melanesia and the SouthPacific leaves us with some doubt.

In conclusion, considerable controversy sur-rounds protected area theory – which illustrates apositive and worthwhile concept, and practice,where little contextual evidence proves that pro-tected areas are effective. The following case studyis used to address the contentious issues of theoryand practice. The outcome is a further refinementof the definition of protected area managementthat more clearly articulates local conditionality.

The karst landscapes of BoholBohol is a roughly circular island, centrally locatedin the Visayan island group of the Philippine archi-pelago. Covering nearly 5000 square kilometres,the island is partitioned physiographically into twoapproximately equal sized components divided

Policy and practice in karst landscape protection: the Philippines 307

between the North and the South (Figure 1). Thenorthern part consists mainly of gently rollingtopography, flanked to the east by a range of higherhills, and in the west by more deeply-dissectedterrain. The southern area is subdivided into twounits of about equal area in the east and west. Anarrow coastal plain and a series of east–westtrending mountain ranges characterize the easternhalf. By contrast, the western part consists of widercoastal plains that flank an extensive plateau-like interior. Further discussion is focused on thissouth-west quadrant, which is the site of thisresearch.

Pliocene-aged limestone is the dominant bed-rock throughout most of coastal and interior south-western Bohol. Raised shore platforms and marineterraces characterize the coastal environments(Hillmer and Voss 1987; Sison 1954). In the interioris a plateau-like limestone area ranging from 100 toapproximately 600 metres above sea level. Twosets of features dominate the plateau. The first

consists of three broad, flat, synclinal valleys, some-times described as poljes, inclined at approximatelyfour degrees and draining towards the south-west(Voss 1970). These valleys are limestone floored,covered by alluvium, and punctuated by isolatedlimestone residuals varying from 10 to 80 metres inrelief (Plates 1 and 2). Second, the valleys areseparated by distinctive upland limestone blocksrepresenting a series of prominent anticlines raisedup to several hundred metres above the surround-ing valleys. Each anticline is a relatively homo-geneous unit of limestone and is heavily dissected(Figure 2).

Superficially, the limestone appears homo-geneous, but there are significant variations inlithological composition, hardness and per-meability. At depths of up to over 100 metres,well-drillers have encountered more resistant lensesof less permeable limestone and, in isolated cases,impermeable conglomerates and sandstone lenses(Figure 3). These lenses strongly influence the

Figure 1 Geologic and physiographic regions of Bohol


groundwater hydrology and also the terminologyused to define local agro-ecozones.

Complex contacts between the deeply-dissectedlimestone anticlines and the synclinal lowlands, plusimpurities within each lithological unit result in acomplex hydrological situation in south-west Boholbut, in general, three distinctive karst geomor-phological units are involved. The dissected, anticli-nal uplands are critical hydrologic recharge areas.The limestone porosity is generally high, and theirelevation above the surrounding plains results in

the uplands receiving substantially more annualprecipitation than the lowlands (3000 mm asagainst 1750 mm) (Sison 1954; Urich 1993).Hydrologic inputs take two forms: rainfall and con-densation within the native forest. The formerremains significant, although the latter has dimin-ished considerably as deforestation has intensified(Urich and Reeder 1999).

Permeability of the anticlinal limestones is notrestricted by shallow, less permeable limestones orother rocks, and the water-table in the upland areas

Figure 2 Hydrologic relationship between main valleys and distinct uplifted blocks of southern Bohol (adapted fromQuiazon 1979)


is typically at a depth of over 30 metres –significantly deeper than below the interveningvalleys. Underground flow is via a variety of path-ways, and involves both diffuse and conduit flow.At the margins between the uplands and valleyssome of the underground flow is discharged tothe surface via mostly free-draining or gravitysprings.

The hydrologic regime in the valleys or poljes isalso maintained by direct precipitation inputs, but ismost dependent upon springwater discharge to thevalley surface, which represents the local base level,at the junctions between the valleys and the inter-vening uplands. A secondary, lesser spring inputoccurs around the bases of the numerous residualhills within the valleys. In the local vernacular, the

Figure 3 Geological composition and depths to the groundwater table at four sites in Batuan and Bilar, Bohol (based onwell-log data from the Bohol Department of Public Works and Highways, various dates)


general term for a spring is tubud, but two distincttypes are distinguished: sapa ang tubig (gravitysprings) and bugwak (upwelling or artesian springs).

The lowlands have an extremely shallow water-table that during wet periods rises to the landsurface, but which during periods of extremedrought may decline by several metres. Within thevalley system there are significant discrete changesin the hydrologic regime that correlate withdecreased permeability caused by either underlyinglenses of impure limestone or some other lesspermeable rock. Analysis of over 170 well logs insouth-western Bohol shows that this change inlithology can occur at depths ranging from two toover 40 metres (Figure 3).

The coastal platforms and raised terraces play buta minor role in the karst hydrology. They areextremely permeable, with essentially no surfacedrainage and with no significant terrestrial springs.This relative aridity increases the importance of theinland valleys to the regional agricultural economy.Hydrologically, these valleys represent the primaryaccessible groundwater reservoir, fluctuations inthe level of which have considerable impacts onagricultural practice. Water-table levels depend pri-marily on the peripheral spring discharge fromthe surrounding uplands, although they are influ-enced also by precipitation within the valleysthemselves.

Karst features and cultural landscapesDominating the perception of conservators incentral Bohol are the limestone residuals ormogotes, which are among the classic typeexamples of this landform and which have attractedinternational scientific studies of their geomor-phology, hydrology, agricultural development,archaeology, species diversity and tourism potential(Denes 1974; Faustino 1932; Hillmer and Voss1987; Kroener 1973; Ng and Sket 1996; Quiazon1979; Reeder 1990; Solheim 1964 1964a; Teves1947; Uhlig 1980 1987 1993; Urich 1989 1993;Voss 1970).

Also of particular significance, both for theirscientific interest and tourism potential, are theextensive cave systems. Until quite recently, it wasassumed that cave development in the young lime-stones of the interior was limited (Voss 1970), butrecent speleological expeditions have documentednumerous and extensive systems, with over 60caves now surveyed (Reeder et al. 1989; Urich andBliss 1992; Urich et al. 1997; Vedenick 1997).

Other regional karst landforms include poljes,towers, dry valleys, including steep-sided canyonsand hanging valleys, pocket valleys and estavelles(Kroener 1973; Urich 1990; Voss 1970). Several

cenotes have been surveyed in or adjacent to thebuffer zone (500 m from the boundary) of RajahSikatuna National Park (Reeder 1990; Urich 1993),each containing water to depths exceeding 30metres and with volumes in excess of a half millionlitres. Complementing the cenotes are several majorsprings with discharges in excess of 1000 ls-1. Thetotal groundwater discharge for the limestonewatersheds of southern Bohol is estimated atapproximately 131 000 000 cumecs per year(Quiazon 1979).

Bohol’s karst landscape has been extensivelymodified by human activity (Urich 1990 1991a1991b). In particular, extensive terraces have beenconstructed, along with elaborate and extensiveirrigation systems, some with cumulative canallengths of greater than ten kilometres. Most of thesprings are integrated into the irrigation systemsand some of the irrigation canals are supplieddirectly by caves draining the uplands and isolatedmogotes. Streamsinks are managed (plugged andunplugged) either to retain or to drain surfacewater. The local population has developed anexcellent understanding of the local hydrology andthe relationships between hydrologic managementand land productivity, a theme which is critical tounderstanding local reaction to conservationlegislation and the establishment of protectedareas.

Biodiversity conservation in the PhilippinesDuring the twentieth century, but particularly overthe last 50 years, forest cover has decreased in thePhilippines as the country has accelerated its timberproduction, and as increasing human populationshave converted forests to agricultural lands(Kummer 1992; Poffenberger and McGean 1993;Table 1). It is estimated that the Philippines loseabout 150 000 hectares of forest a year (Arquiza1993), with a national deforestation rate of oneper cent per annum (MacKinnon 1997), whichKummer (1992, 91) regards as a consequenceof ‘. . . desperately poor people trying to find aplace where they can at least feed their families’.Deforestation, particularly in the uplands, hassevere repercussions for both upland and lowlandcommunities. Upland livelihoods become under-mined by accelerating soil erosion on agriculturallands and reduced forest product flows, whiledownstream flooding and sedimentation result inlowland farmers losing fertile croplands, and expe-riencing erratic water supplies and frequent powercuts (Poffenberger and McGean 1993; Urich andReeder 1996). In addition, forests still play animportant part in the Philippine national economy;as recently as 1987 the Philippines earned US$306


million from exporting wood-based products and,although employing only around 16 000 people,forest-based industries contribute US$500 millionannually to the nation’s foreign exchange (Leonen1993). More recently, however, the state of thePhilippines’ forests has been described as arguablythe worst in tropical Asia (Collins et al. 1991).

The Philippines has high levels of biodiversity andendemism compared to other South East Asiannations and, although the total number of animalspecies is relatively low, most are unique to themajor island groups (MacKinnon 1997; PSDN1999). The country contains eight endemic birdareas and six sites of global biological significance;31 species of mammals, 43 birds and 604 plantspecies are endangered (MacKinnon 1997). ThePhilippines recently was ranked eighth on theGlobal Biodiversity Hotspots List, based on the twocriteria of number of endemic species containedin an ecosystem, and the degree of threatthe ecosystem faces (Conservation International1999).

Protected areas in the PhilippinesTo conserve these natural resources, protectedareas have been established in the Philippines since1910, with the first law on National Parks enactedin 1932 and the first National Park designated in1940 (PSDN 1999). The Philippines is also signa-tory to a number of international and regionalconventions and programmes concerned with theconservation of natural areas. These include theWorld Heritage Convention (19 September 1985),and the ASEAN Convention (1967) (Collins et al.1991). Nevertheless, the Philippines is both one ofthe most biologically important countries in SouthEast Asia, yet also one of the most degraded andunder-protected (MacKinnon 1997).

Prior to the establishment of the Chocolate HillsNatural Monument, there was a total of 38 pro-tected areas in the Philippines, covering 5970square kilometres (597 000 hectares), or 2.6 percent of the total land area (MacKinnon 1997). Ofthis total, it is estimated that 29 per cent comprisekarst landscapes (Day and Urich 2000). Like thePhilippine forests, the protected areas have beengradually deteriorating since the 1950s. NationalParks suffer from varying degrees of humanencroachment, timber and animal poaching,kaingin, or slash and burn agriculture, and generallyconflicting land uses (PSDN 1999). Low publicexpenditures and lack of adequately trained per-sonnel bedevil the management of parks andreserves, and the administration of the protectedareas system is fragmented. A number of agencies(not only the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources, DENR) have control over someprotected areas, and they have differing, oftenconflicting ideas about park management (Espiritu,pers comm 1999; PSDN 1999; Ranjitsinh 1982).Overall, standards of protection are poor tomedium (Braatz et al. 1992; MacKinnon 1997).

Although there are serious difficulties in safe-guarding the protected areas of the Philippines,large tracts of these highly biodiverse habitatsremain. With determination and resources, thesesites can still be rescued from ecological declineand maintained as protected areas. In recent years,local and international non-governmental organiz-ations (NGOs) have taken interest in the protectedareas, and they have earmarked significant portionsof their financial resources for some of theNational Parks (PSDN 1999). The over-riding issue,according to McNeely et al. is:

The quest for a balance between the generalized desireto live harmoniously with nature and the need to exploitresources to sustain life. The problems facing protectedareas are thus intimately related to socio-economicfactors like poverty, land tenure, and equity.

McNeely et al. 1994, 198

McNeely et al. (1994) identified a number of majorissues that need to be addressed in the Philippinesif protected areas are to be an integral part ofnational development planning: improving relationsbetween protected areas and local communities,improving management of the protected areas,making protected areas part of modern societythrough education, training and research, andincreasing international cooperation. Failure toaddress these priorities leads to problems, as is thecase in Bohol.

The NIPAS ActBohol’s Rajah Sikatuna National Park andChocolate Hills Natural Monument are com-ponents of the National Integrated Protected AreaSystem (NIPAS), which is the ‘umbrella’ legislationpertaining to environmental protection in thePhilippines. The Philippines Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (DENR) beganimplementing the NIPAS Act in 1993, although itoriginated in 1988, when the Haribon Foundationof the Philippines proposed an ‘IntegratedProtected Areas System’ to then President Aquino.The Act, formally enacted in 1992 as the RepublicAct (RA) 7586, refers to the classification andadministration of all designated protected areasthroughout the Philippines. It is designed to main-tain essential ecological processes and life-supportsystems, to preserve genetic diversity, to ensure


sustainable use of resources, and to maintain theprotected areas’ natural conditions to the greatestextent possible (PSDN 1999). The system wasdesigned to halt the depletion of forest and marineresources throughout the country, and aims tosecure for present and future generations of Filipinopeople the continued existence of native flora,fauna and landscapes. It also strives to provide thebasic human needs that are dependent on a healthyenvironment (Arquiza 1993).

The initial phase of the NIPAS project was theidentification of ten priority sites to be protected,based on information from the DENR, conservationgroups and the academe. This phase began in1990, and was funded by the World Bank, as wasthe next seven-year implementation phase (Arquiza1993). This funding was crucial to the programme,as it has been a lack of funds, among other localissues, that has led to the degradation of thePhilippines’ protected areas.

The NIPAS programme is one of the majorimplementing strategies for Republic Act 7586, withthe first five years of implementation financed bythe European Union with increasing contributionfrom the Philippine Government. The objective ofthe programme is to achieve the following goals foreach protected area:

+ establishment of a Geographic InformationSystem and integrated database;

+ execution of socio-economic surveys andconsultations;

+ preparation of a General Management Plan;+ delineation and demarcation of protected area

and buffer zone boundaries and strengtheningthe capability of protected areas managementstaff;

+ promotion of locally identified alternativeeconomic activities;

+ enhancement of the effectiveness and sustain-ability of the PA management and consultationmechanisms foreseen in the NIPAS Act, throughthe provision of appropriated training and adviceof all levels;

+ implementation of a public awareness pro-gramme; and

+ provision of the necessary facilities and technicalinput (DENR 1999).

DENR personnel are responsible for these activities.The DENR is mandated to be the primary govern-ment agency responsible for the conservation,management, development and proper use of thecountry’s environmental and natural resources(DENR 1999).

A National Park is defined by the NIPAS Act(Section 4e) as:

a forest reservation essentially of natural wildernesscharacter which has been withdrawn from settlement,occupancy or any form of exploitation except in conform-ity with approved management plan and set aside as suchexclusively to conserve the area or preserve the scenery,the natural and historic objects, wild animals and plantstherein and to provide enjoyment of these features insuch areas.

A Natural Monument is described (Section 4f) as:

a relatively small area focused on protection of smallfeatures to protect or preserve nationally significantnatural features on account of their special interest orunique characteristics.

Groombridge (1992) notes that the primary objec-tives of National Parks are to maintain sampleecosystems in their natural state, preserve ecologi-cal diversity through environmental regulation,to conserve genetic resources and maintainwatershed/flood control, to provide recreation andtourism service, to protect scenic beauty, and tocontribute to rural development. Generally, naturalresource exploitation is prohibited in NationalParks, meaning that agricultural and pastoral activi-ties, hunting, fishing, lumbering, mining, publicworks construction, and residential, commercial orindustrial occupation are all disallowed (IUCN1985). By contrast, and significantly, the primaryobjectives of other protected area designationsunder the NIPAS Act are unclear, particularly in thecontext of the role of local populations. Suchambiguity in the stated objectives is pertinent to theareas considered here.

Protected karst areas in BoholRajah Sikatuna National Park (RSNP)The majority of the current RSNP was originallydesignated as ‘timberland’ in 1928, and was incor-porated into the Loboc Watershed ReforestationProject in 1953. An eight-hectare Boy Scout Campwas developed in the 1950s, and this was desig-nated a National Park on 7 October 1987. In 1990the Philippine Government also designated theadjacent 9023-hectare limestone karst area (pre-viously designated as public forest land) as part ofthe National Park under Proclamation 129 (Arco1998; PSDN 1999; Urich and Bliss 1992). The Parkwas expanded again in 1999 to cover 10 485hectares, and the implications of this most recentexpansion have been discussed elsewhere (Lynaghand Urich in press; Figure 4). The previous publicforest lands and Boy Scout Park were accorded


National Park status with the goal of boostinginvestment in reforestation of the area, while pro-tecting the island’s hydrological resources (Urichand Bliss 1992).

RSNP covers 29 barangays (villages) in the sevenBohol municipalities of Batuan, Carmen, Sierra

Bulloñes, Garcia Hernandez, Valencia, Dimiao, andBilar. The special attributes of the park include thefact that it is the last remaining forested portion ofBohol, and is one of only five old-growth forestsremaining in the central Philippines. It also containsdiverse and little-studied plant and animal

Figure 4 The Rajah Sikatuna National Park and Chocolate Hills Natural Monument


resources, including the very rare flying lemur andthe Philippine tarsier, and it is one of ten sitesearmarked for World Bank-Global EnvironmentalFacility Integrated Protected Area System Projectstatus (BWF 1999; PSDN 1999; Urich and Bliss1992).

The management problems facing other NationalParks in the Philippines affect RSNP similarly.According to the park superintendent, the numberof rangers in the park has declined from 30originally to five in 1999 because DENR’s funding isinsufficient to cover additional wages. Other con-tacts maintain that there are, in fact, only tworangers, although four ranger stations are availablefor use. In addition, local politics militate againststrict implementation of forest laws, as it is notalways in an individual’s best interest to obey thelaw if that conflicts with the wishes of local politi-cians or other influential people (Espiritu, ParkSuperintendent Rajah Sikatuna pers. comm. 1999).

The NIPAS Act requires that a Protected AreaManagement Board (PAMB) be created for eachprotected area. PAMBs are responsible for budgetallocation, approval of funding proposals, planning,and administration of protective measures in theprotected area. A PAMB’s required membershipcomposition is described in the NIPAS Act, andincludes various governmental representatives, arepresentative from each barangay (village) in theprotected area, plus at least three NGO representa-tives. The RSNP PAMB was not organized until1994, and was formalized a year later by the DENRsecretary (Arco 1998). One NGO representativeon the RSNP PAMB is from the Soil and WaterConservation Foundation (SWCF), whose researchdemonstrates that, prior to SWCF inclusion, thePAMB board was ineffectual, lacked understandingof its functions, and had little knowledge of struc-turing programmes in specific areas. The SWCFreports that the board was also:

lacking skills in policy formulation, strategic planning,collective decision-making and general park management. . . [and showed] very little attempt to identify and resolveconflicts among members and other stakeholdersparticularly on natural resource utilization.

Arco 1998, 6

The location of RSNP in a heavily-populated area isreflected in the extensive use of the park by peoplefrom the surrounding district. RSNP encompassesparts of seven municipalities and 29 barangays,within which there are a total of 4388 households,or 25 331 people (Soil and Water ConservationFoundation 1999). The intensity of use of RSNPland in these barangays varies, as some parts of

the National Park contain resident populations,defined as ‘. . . those individuals, families andcommunities – ‘‘traditional’’ or ‘‘modern’’ – thatoccupy, reside in, or otherwise use, on a regular orrepeated basis, a specific territory within or adja-cent to an established or proposed protected area’.(West and Brechin 1991, 6), whereas other parts ofthe park are uninhabited, but are readily accessiblefrom neighbouring barangays.

The National Park provides a variety of oppor-tunities for local people. Many use the land forgrowing crops, hunting, collecting housingmaterials and foods, and for a variety of othersmall-scale activities, including the harvesting fromcaves of edible swiftlet’s nests for culinary use, andthe collection of cave formations (SWCF pers.comm. 1999). There is dispute about the primarymotivation behind this hunting, food and fuelgathering. Ghimire (1994) reports that most officialssee profit as the main motive, rather than basicsurvival needs. Others maintain that local peopleare forced to exploit protected resources becauseof diminishing survival options and/or resentmentarising from unfair treatment (Raval 1994). Alterna-tively, they manage resources simply to secure theirdaily subsistence, giving little thought to long-termresource productivity (Dalton 1989).

It must be recognized that the legal assignationof protected area status does not immediatelychange the local use of the area, nor does it erect abarrier between the protected area and the sur-rounding environment (Garratt 1982; Zimmerer2000). In particular, the establishment of protectedareas in developing countries has often resulted inconflict

1between local communities and those

responsible for protected area management (Nepal1997; Zimmerer and Young 1998).

The Philippine Government has been accused bya Boholano NGO of ‘disregarding the masses oftheir right to survival’, when it declared RSNPa protected area (Bohol Chronicle 1999, 14).Kinabuhi, a network of various cause-orientedgroups in the region, maintains that althoughPresidential Proclamation 129 appears to be eco-logically upright, it ignores the plight of small land-owners and poor farmers, who have not beentaken into consideration in reaching the decision.Arrests of farmers and confiscations of land haveoccurred under ‘the guise of environmental protec-tion’, while Kinabuhi claims that increased tourismand foreign investment are the real objectives ofthe declaration and are behind the harsh penaltiesfor farmers2, many of whom have long relied on theforest resources and produce for their livelihoods,and who claim that they have not been offered anyalternatives with the establishment of the protectedarea (Bohol Chronicle 1999, 14).


PLATE 1 Mixed land use and extensive road network within the Chocolate Hills Natural Monument

316Policy

andpractice

inkarst

landscapeprotection:the

Philippines

PLATE 2 Intensive, centuries old, wet rice agricultural landscape in the vicinity of the main tourist centre of the Chocolate Hills Natural Monument, the ChocolateHills Resort

Policyand

practicein

karstlandscape

protection:thePhilippines

317

The Chocolate Hills Natural MonumentThe establishment, in 1997, and the subsequenthistory of the Chocolate Hills Natural Monument(hereafter CHNM), though more recent, bearsseveral similarities to the establishment of RajahSikatuna National Park in that the Monument is partof NIPAS, and is managed by the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (Figure 4).There are important differences, however, in termsof how and why the protected area was defined.

The CHNM was designated in order toconserve the landscape for its scenic beauty andtourism potential. By contrast, RSNP was desig-nated because of its biodiversity, its hydrologicalsignificance, and its attractiveness to foreign inves-tors for reforestation. Critically, the area designatedin July 1997 as the CHNM had been held pre-viously as ‘alienable and disposable’ land (i.e. pri-vate land) since the initial surveying of the area inthe early half of the twentieth century (Governmentof the Philippines 1997). It is this aspect of theMonument’s establishment – the abrogation of pri-vate ownership and the subsuming of the land tothe state – that has resulted in civil strife.

The Natural Monument, which incorporates1776 individual mogotes, or residual limestone hills,encompasses an area of 14 435 hectares. Thestated objective of defining the Monument was toprotect the mogotes from further exploitation bywell-financed and technologically advanced quarry-ing interests. In defining the area to be protected,the number of mogotes involved was clearly speci-fied and they were mapped in relation to eachother (Figure 4). However, and significantly, thelegislated protected area extended beyond the hillsthemselves to encompass the surrounding plains,hence the designation of a contiguous area of over14 000 hectares.

Proclamation No. 1037 states, ‘All public andprivate lands within, around and surrounding thehills shall not be converted to other purposeswhich are inconsistent with the objectives of thisproclamation’. The proclamation further reads,‘. . . regardless of the existence of prior privaterights, no activity of any kind including quarrying,which shall alter, mutilate, deface, or destroy thehills shall be conducted’. It is these impositions,representing the curtailment of private propertyrights, which have proven the catalysts for civilunrest. The concept of private property, while intro-duced only quite recently (1902) to the greaterPhilippines (Elliot 1917), has gained widespreadacceptance, and the imposition of controls by thestate over the use of private land is viewed by someas inimical to basic human rights.

The signing of Proclamation No. 1037 bythen President Fidel Ramos resulted in almost

simultaneous civil uprising, led by the long-established New Peoples Army (generallydescribed as Maoist guerrillas) establishing a new‘front’, known as the Chocolate Hills Command.

. . . the Chocolate Hills Command came to exist after asweeping presidential proclamation which declaredthe Chocolate Hills area a protected site. For somefarmers, the proclamation is a government scheme, whichsuppresses their right to own lands.

Arigo 1999, 1

Conflicts between the ‘command’ and governmentmilitary forces have since escalated, culminating intwo major engagements. The first was the com-mand’s raid on a military detachment situatedwithin the Chocolate Hills Natural Monument itselfin early 1999 (Amora 1999). Nobody was injuredin the raid, although the command relieved themilitary detachment of 80 M-16 and M-14 rifles,three grenade launchers, one 60 mm mortar and anM-60 machine gun along with ammunition, com-munications equipment and combat uniforms(Amora 1999). The second important engagement,again within the area of the Natural Monument,was the ambush, in October 1999, of a militarydetachment, which resulted in the death of tenmilitary personnel. Several other altercations haveoccurred resulting in the loss of life, namely militaryor other persons of standing being assassinated byso-called ‘sparrow units’ (small, plain-clothedgroups armed with handguns) of the New PeoplesArmy (NPA). Property and the physical plant ofroad building and quarrying companies have alsobeen burned by the NPA.

Beyond the NPA use of the CHNM as a stagingground and site for ambushing government troopsand harassing road builders, the area has significantagricultural value, with much of the lowland undercultivation in rice, corn, root crops and coconuts ormaintained as pastureland for the water buffalowhich are used as draught animals. Small, isolatedpatches of land designated as part of the NaturalMonument are also either within the Rajah SikatunaNational Park or designated as public forestlands,but most of the designated land (93%), both low-land and mogotes, is privately-owned and culti-vated. Some non-resident government officialsperceive the mogotes as under-utilized land, andthose who manage them through seasonal burninghave been repeatedly chastized, but they areactually an integral part of the agro-ecosystem.With the cultivation of large areas of the surround-ing lowlands in the wet season, the mogotes repre-sent valuable pasture for cattle and water buffalo,which must be grazed on the hills during the wet


season to avoid the hoof rot which results fromstanding for extended periods in the flooded low-lands (Urich 1989).

The value of the mogote land has also increasedin the last decade as reforestation programmeshave intensified (Urich and Reeder 1999). Manyfarmers now are trying to purchase unused, or whatthey perceive to be underused, mogote land for theestablishment of tree plantations.

Given the substantial resident population, thelong history of agro-ecosystem development, andthe civil unrest provoked by establishment of theMonument, a redesignation of the status of theprotected area might not be inappropriate, as rec-ognized by the Bohol Provincial Government(Cambangay 1999). For example, Section (4j) ofthe NIPAS Act (DENR 1993), pertaining to pro-tected landscapes/seascapes might suggest a moreappropriate possible designation:

Protected landscapes/seascapes are areas of nationalsignificance, which are characterized by the harmoniousinteraction of man and land while providing opportunitiesfor public enjoyment through recreation and tourismwithin the normal lifestyle and economic activity of theseareas.

Proclamation 1037 included special reference toquarrying, which was the issue that initiated thedesignation of the Natural Monument. This termi-nology is not integral to the NIPAS Act legislationbut can be incorporated when the appropri-ate measure is passed through the Senate andCongress of the Philippines.

Designation of the area as a Natural Monumentalso may be seen as less than totally appropriate onthe basis of the area concerned. The NIPAS legis-lation refers to Natural Monuments as being ‘small’areas with ‘small’ features. Extending to 14 435hectares and incorporating 1776 individualmogotes, the CHNM might not really be considered‘small’.

The issue of the long-established resident popu-lation suggests that another piece of NIPAS legis-lation might also apply to this case. Section 4l refersto the following:

‘Tenured migrant communities’ are communities withinprotected areas which have actually and continuouslyoccupied such areas for five (5) years before the desig-nation of the same as protected areas in accordance withthis Act and are solely dependent therein for subsistence.

The settlement history of much of the currentlydesignated Natural Monument would certainlyjustify its classification under Clause 4l. Most of the

designated area was cleared and used as pasturebefore World War Two (Allied GeographicalSection 1944). After World War Two, as pressuresof population on the land intensified, large-scalesettlement of the area occurred and small,intensively-cultivated farms were established. Cen-sus data for the affected villages clearly substanti-ates this change and documents the presence ofsettlements in the area well before 1994.

ConclusionWithin the overall context of designation of pro-tected karst landscapes in South East Asia, thePhilippines has made considerable progress (Dayand Urich 2000). Several significant karst land-scapes are now incorporated into protectedareas, including those in Bohol. Establishment ofthose protected areas has not been without contro-versy, and each represents unique sets of localcircumstances.

The importance of Rajah Sikatuna National Parkin the context of biodiversity conservation, watersupply, reforestation and potential tourism clearlyjustifies protected area designation, particularlysince conservation measures have been in place formost of the area since 1928. Establishment of theprotected area has caused some local controversy,especially where private lands have been incorpor-ated, but the Park has generally been accepted asrepresenting a redefinition of the status of publicland. Issues that have arisen of late that challengethe designation are largely based on misinformaton.The potential for such situations to turn violent isalways present and local actors with correct infor-mation are becoming more active in quellingrumours and undermining the spread of misinfor-mation. In essence, fulfilling the roles ofco-managers of the karst resource.

By contrast, the designation of the ChocolateHills Natural Monument was hasty and poorlyconceived, in part because it was a ‘quick fix’ inresponse to negative national press coverage of thedestruction wrought by quarrying, and it hasresulted in serious local conflict. Nevertheless,there is a general consensus both nationally andinternationally that the Chocolate Hills are a karstlandscape of scientific importance and aestheticsignificance and, as such, their conservation shouldbe ensured, although perhaps under some aegisother than as a Natural Monument. The BoholProvincial Government has itself suggested that thelegislation defining the Natural Monument shouldbe changed (Cambangay 1999), which will requirethat the proclamation be redrafted and ratified byboth the Philippine House and Senate. This is acumbersome and costly process, on which noprogress has been made to date.


What is apparent in both cases, however, is thatthe enactment of legislation to protect both theRSNP and the CHNM has neglected to incorporatelocal constituencies adequately. In the case of theRSNP, future conservation will be aided by devel-oping more integrated and transparent methods ofdesignating protected land and determining permis-sible land uses. In the Chocolate Hills, consultationwith the resident population, understanding thehistory of land settlement, the intricacies ofthe agro-ecosystem and the local perceptionsof the environment will facilitate the establishmentof a less controversial but equally or more effectivecategory of protected area, which will conserve theChocolate Hills not only as a site of internationalscientific significance but also as a cultural land-scape indicative of sensitive human adaptation tothe karst environment.

In a South East Asian and wider developing worldcontext the processes and reactions analysed in thislocal case are important. There are important par-allels not only in the way that global strategies forincorporating species-rich and aesthetically import-ant places are being incorporated into a protectedareas system but also in the forms of resistance thathave and will arise. The violence arising from thisone case in the Philippines we fear, might just bethe beginning of wider conflagrations in the region.While such conflict is complex in origin we contendthat somewhere in the matrix of underlying issuesthere is a relationship between local families,poverty, subsistence and the threats posed by aglobalized eco-conservation and preservationistconstituency that essentializes local people andtheir communities. The links are thus articulatedthrough global institutions, to national governmentsand to local actors and agents. Those yet to beheard and considered are those most acutelyaffected by protected area designation.

AcknowledgmentsM Day acknowledges the award in 1999 by theUniversity of Waikato of a visiting scholarship,which facilitated the writing of this paper. P Urichand F Lynagh received financial assistance from theFaculty of Arts and Social Sciences Research Grantprogramme of the University of Waikato for thefieldwork component of this research. Thanks aregraciously extended to Max Oulton of the Depart-ment of Geography, University of Waikato for hiswork on the Figures.

Notes

1 Bohol island has a long history of armed insurrection andmilitary activity. Recorded conflicts include the ‘Tamblot

Uprising’ of 1622, the ‘Dagohoy Rebellion’ of 1744–1825,the longest recorded resistance to Spanish colonization inthe world, the Filipino-American War, the Second WorldWar, and the most recent armed insurrection by membersof the New People’s Army against the Philippine State. Thelatter uprising began in the 1970s over issues of landgrabbing (Jones 1989) and continues to focus on landgrabbing either by influential persons or the State. Thehistory of armed conflict on Bohol is distinctive both inthe number of revolts and their length, and warrantsinvestigation in another paper.

2 An example of a motive for destruction of the forestincluded statements such as ‘the defendant is a farmeraged 45 years who has finished only Grade 2 and is thefather of ten children. He claimed he decided to cut thetrees so that they will not overshadow his cacao and coffeeplants. He cut up the timber and sold them as firewood atthe town proper in order to buy a few kilos of rice’(Records of the Regional Trial Court, City of Tagbilaran,1988). The defendant was sentenced to ‘two to threeyears’ imprisonment and was fined P1262.16; and more-over, he was required to turn over all improvements on theland and any domestic animals or equipment ‘of any kind’used in the commission of the offence.

References

Allied Geographical Section 1944 Southwest Pacific series:Cebu-Bohol Allied Geographical Section United StatesGovernment, Washington DC

Amora F 1999 AFP special forces sent to hunt Batuan raidersBohol Times 18 June Tagbilaran City: 1

Arco E S 1998 Rajah Sikatuna National Park (RSNP) ProtectedArea Management Board (PAMB) planning and capacitybuilding project Soil and Water Conservation Foundation,Bohol

Arigo V C 1999 NPA returning short firearms thru ChurchBohol Chronicle 4 July Tagbilaran City: 1 19 20

Arquiza Y 1993 New Philippine biodiversity programmebraves the odds Development Hotline 2 January 2000

Babilonia Wilner Foundation (BWF) 1999 http://www.bwf.org/efforts.html#protarea Accessed 9 July 1999

Bade J and Moss P 1997 Studies and regulations in theSouthwestern Illinois karst in Beck B F and Stephenson J Beds The engineering geology and hydrogeology of karstterranes A A Balkema, Rotterdam 439–42

Barany-Kevei I and Gunn J eds 1999 Essays in the ecologyand conservation of karst Szeged, Budapest

Berryhill W S 1989 The impact of agricultural practices onwater quality in karst regions in Beck B F ed Engineeringand environmental impacts of sinkholes and karst: AABalkema, Rotterdam 159–64

Bohol Chronicle 1999 Sikatuna Park proclamation lawquestioned by NGO 9 June 14

Braatz S, Davis G, Shen S and Rees C 1992 Conservingbiological diversity: a strategy for protected areas in the


Asia-Pacific region World Bank Technical Paper 193 WorldBank, Washington DC

Cambangay N 1999 Provincial Planning and DevelopmentCoordinator, Province of Bohol pers. comm.

Colchester M 1996 Beyond ‘participation’: indigenouspeoples, biological conservation and protected areamanagement Unasylva 186 33–39

Collins N M, Sayer J A and Whitmore T C 1991 Theconservation atlas of tropical forests: Asia and the PacificIUCN, Washington DC

Conservation International 1999 http://www.conservation.org/science/cptc/capbuild/network/ Accessed 16 June

Dalton M 1989 Managing denuded watersheds:proven approaches, strategies and techniques forcommunity-based resource management in the Philippinetimberlands Philippine Geographical Journal 33 49–61

Davis S B 1997 Interstate assessment of governmentalregulations on landfills in karst areas in Beck B F andStephenson J B eds The engineering geology and hydro-geology of karst terranes: AA Balkema, Rotterdam 433–8

Day M J 1996 Conservation of karst in Belize Journal of Caveand Karst Studies 58 139–44

Day M J and Urich P B 2000 An assessment of protectedkarst landscapes in Southeast Asia Journal of Cave andKarst Science 27 61–70

DENR 1992 NIPAS Act RA No. 7586: an Act providing forthe establishment and management of National IntegratedProtected Areas System, defining its scope and coverage,and for other purposes Department of Environment andNatural Resources, Quezon City

— 1993 Administrative Order 25, National Integrated Pro-tected Areas System (NIPAS) implementing rules andregulations Department of Environment and NaturalResources, Quezon City.

— 1999 Republic of the Philippines Department of Environ-ment and Natural Resources http://www.denr.gov.ph/sAccessed 1 November 2000

Dougherty P H 1989 Land use regulations in the LehighValley: zoning and subdivision ordinances in an environ-mentally sensitive karst region in Beck B F and StephensonJ B eds Engineering and environmental impacts ofsinkholes and karst AA Balkema, Rotterdam 341–8

Elliot C B 1917 The Philippines to the end of the com-mission government: a study in tropical democracy TheBobbs-Merrill Company, Indianapolis

Espiritu A 1999 Philippine Department of Natural ResourcesPark Superintendent of Rajah Sikatuna National Park30 August pers. comm.

Faustino L A 1932 The development of karst topography inthe Philippine Islands Philippine Journal of Science 25203–12

Fischer J A 1997 Limestone ordinances of New Jersey andPennsylvania: a practitioner’s experiences in Beck B F andStephenson J B eds The engineering geology and hydro-geology of karst terranes AA Balkema, Rotterdam 463–6

Fischer J A and Lechner H 1989 A karst ordinance – ClintonTownship, New Jersey in Beck B F and Stephenson J B eds

Engineering and environmental impacts of sinkholes andkarst: AA Balkema, Rotterdam 357–61

Garratt K 1982 The relationship between adjacent lands andprotected areas: issues of concern for the protected areamanager in McNeely J A and Miller K R eds National Parks,conservation and development: the role of protected areasin sustaining society IUCN Commission on National Parksand Protected Areas, Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington DC 65–71

Ghimire K B 1994 Parks and people: livelihood issues inNational Parks management in Thailand and MadagascarDevelopment and Change 25 195–229

Government of the Philippines 1997 Proclamation No. 1037Chocolate Hills Natural Monument Manila, DENR

Groombridge B ed 1992 Global biodiversity: status of theEarth’s living resources World Conservation MonitoringCentre and Chapman and Hall, London

Hillmer G and Voss F 1987 Zur geologie und morphologieder strandterrassen von Cebu und Bohol PhilippinenBerliner geographische Studien 25 363–76

IUCN 1985 United Nations list of National Parks and pro-tected areas (Liste des Nations Unies des Parcs Nationauxet des Aires Protégées) IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

Jones G R 1989 Red revolution: inside the Philippine guerillamovement Westview Press, Bouolder CO

Kothari A 1996 Is joint management of protected areasdesirable and possible? in Kothari A, Singh N and Suri Seds People and protected areas: towards participatoryconservation in India Sage, New Delhi

Kroener H E 1973 Der tropische kegelkarst auf BoholPhilippinen Aachener geographische arbeiten. Beitrage zurregionalen geographie 6 159–77

Kueny J A and Day M J 1998 An assessment of protectedkarst landscapes in the Caribbean Caribbean Geography 987–100

— in press Designation of protected karst areas in CentralAmerica: a regional assessment Journal of Cave and KarstStudies

Kummer D M 1992 Deforestation in the postwar PhilippinesAteneo de Manila University Press, Manila

LaMoreaux P E, Powell W J and LeGrand H E 1997Environmental and legal aspects of karst areas. Environ-mental Geology 29 23–36

Larsen P B 2001 Co-managing protected areas with indig-enous peoples: a global review WWF International http://iucn.org/themes/spg/index.html Accessed 10 April 2000

Leonen M M V F 1993 The Philippines: dwindling frontiersand agrarian reform in Colchester M and Lohmann L edsThe struggle for land and the fate of the forests The WorldRainforest Movement, The Ecologist and Zed Books,London

Lynagh F and Urich P B in press A critical review of bufferzone theory and practice: a Philippines case study Societyand Natural Resources

MacKinnon J ed 1997 Protected areas review of the Indo-Malayan realm: Asian Bureau for Conservation, Hong Kong


McNeely J A, Harrison J and Dingwall P eds 1994 Protectingnature: regional reviews of protected areas IUCN, Gland,Switzerland

Murty M N 1996 Contractual arrangements for sharingbenefits from preservation: joint management of wildlife inKothari A, Singh N and Suri S eds People and protectedareas: towards participatory conservation in India Sage,New Delhi 127–34

Nepal S K 1997 Sustainable tourism, protected areas andlivelihood needs of local communities in developingcountries International Journal of Sustainable Developmentand World Ecology 4 123–35

Nepal S K and Weber K E 1994 A buffer concept forbiodiversity conservation: viability of the concept inNepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park EnvironmentalConservation 21 333–41

Neumann R P 1997 Primitive ideas; protected area bufferzones and politics of land in Africa Development andChange 28 559–82

Ng P K L and Sket B 1996 The freshwater crab fauna(Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura) of the Philippines IV ona collection of Parathelphusidae from Bohol Proceedings ofthe Biological Society of Washington 109 695–706

Panno S, Weibel C, Krapac I and Storment E 1997 Bacterialcontamination of groundwater from private septic systemsin Illinois’ sinkhole plain: regulatory considerations in BeckB F and Stephenson J B eds The engineering geology andhydrogeology of karst terranes AA Balkema, Rotterdam443–7

Poffenberger M and McGean B eds 1993 Upland Philippinecommunities: guardians of the final forest frontiers South-east Asia Sustainable Forest Management Network,Research Network Report 4 Center for Southeast AsiaStudies International and Area Studies, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley CA

Philippine Sustainable Development Network Foundation(PSDN) 1999 http://www.psdn.org, Accessed July 92000

Quiazon H P 1979 Groundwater availability in BoholPhilippines Hydrogeology Geological Survey DivisionBureau of Mines, Quezon City

Ranjitsinh M K 1982 Keynote address: the IndomalayanRealm in McNeely J A and Miller K R eds National Parks,conservation and development: the role of protected areasin sustaining society IUCN Commission on National Parksand Protected Areas, Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington DC 148–53

Rathore B M S 1996 Joint management options for protectedareas in Kothari A, Singh N and Suri S People andprotected areas: towards participatory conservation in IndiaSage, New Delhi 85–92

Raval S R 1994 Wheel of life: perceptions and concerns ofthe resident peoples for Gir National Park in India Societyand Natural Resources 7 305–20

Reeder P 1990 The Camaro cave project: Batuan, Bohol, thePhilippines Geo2 18 1–4

Reeder P, Day M and Urich P B 1989 The caves and karst ofBatuan, Bohol, Philippine National Speleological SocietyNews 47 292–5

Roth D M 1983 Philippine forests and forestry: 1565–1920 inTucker R P and Richards J F eds Global deforestation andthe nineteenth-century world economy Duke Press PolicyStudies, Durham NC 30-49

Sayer J 1991 Rainforest buffer zones: guidelines forprotected area managers Nature Conservation Bureau,Berkshire

Shah A 1995 The economics of Third World National Parks:issues of tourism and environmental management EdwardElgar, Aldershot

Sison M T E 1954 Bohol as a geographic unit Natural andApplied Science Bulletin 10 259–93

Smith T and Vance B 1997 Greene County, Missouri’ssinkhole regulations in Beck B F and Stephenson J B edsThe engineering geology and hydrogeology of karst terranesAA Balkema, Rotterdam 457–61

Soil and Water Conservation Foundation (SWCF) 1999Population in barangays which contain Rajah SikatunaNational Park Annex 3–5 SWCF, Manila

Solheim W G 1964 The archaeology of central Philippines: astudy chiefly of the Iron Age and its relationships Bureau ofPrinting, Manila

— 1964a Pottery and the Malayo-Polynesians CurrentAnthropology 5 360 376–84 400–3

Teves J S 1947 On the haycock hills of Bohol PhilippineGeologist 1 27–30

Uhlig H 1980 Man and tropical karst in Southeast Asia:geo-ecological differentiation, land use and rural develop-ment potentials in Indonesia and other regions Geojournal4 31–44

— 1987 Agricultural geography and geoecology of karst-regions in Southeast Asia [with special reference to Bohol,Philippines] in Kunaver J ed Karst and man University PressLjubljana, Ljubljana 137–57

Urich P B 1989 Tropical karst management and agriculturaldevelopment: example from Bohol, Philippines GeografiskaAnnaler 71B 95–108

— 1990 Hydrologic management in upland karst, Bohol, thePhilippines: implications for development unpublished MAthesis University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

— 1991 Exploitation of tropical karst resources for thecultivation of wet rice in Sauro U, Bondesan A andMeneghel M eds Proceedings of the International Confer-ence on Environmental Changes in Karst Areas – IGU – UISItaly 15–27 September Quaderni del Dipartimento diGeografia n. 13 Universita di Padova, Padova 39–48

— 1991a Stress on tropical karst resources exploited for thecultivation of wet rice in Sauro U, Bondesan A andMeneghel M eds Proceedings of the International Confer-ence on Environmental Changes in Karst Areas–IGU–UIS.Italy 15–27 September Quaderni del Dipartimento diGeografia n. 13 Universita di Padova, Padova 49–60


— 1993 Stress on tropical karst cultivated with wet rice:Bohol, Philippines Environmental geology 21 129–36

Urich P B and Bliss E 1992 New karst park in the PhilippinesNational Speleological Society News 50 41–2

Urich P B, Mandronero G, Vedenik T and Prestor J 1997International caving expedition: Philippines 1995 NaseJame 39 15–28

Urich P B and Reeder P P 1996 Environmental degradation inthe Loboc River watershed, Bohol Province, PhilippinesAsia Pacific Viewpoint 37 283–93

— 1999 Plantation forestry in tropical limestone uplands:environmental constraints and opportunities TheProfessional Geographer 51 493–506

Vedenik T 1997 1st Slovenian International CavingExpedition, Philippines 1995 report Nase Jame 39 7–12

Vermeulen J and Whitten T 1999 Biodiversity and culturalproperty in the management of limestone resources TheWorld Bank, Washington DC

Voss F 1970 Typische oberflachenformen tropischenkegelkarstes auf den Philippinen Geographische Zeitschrift59 159–70

Watson J, Hamilton-Smith E, Gillieson D and Kiernan K eds1997 Guidelines for cave and karst protection IUCN,Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

Wells M P and Brandon K E 1992 People and parks: linkingprotected area management with local communities WorldBank, Washington DC

West P C and Brechin S R 1991 National Parks, protectedareas and resident peoples: a comparative assessment andintegration in West P C and Brechin S R eds Residentpeoples and National Parks. Social dilemmas and strategiesin international conservation The University of ArizonaPress, Tucson 363–400

Williams P W ed 1993 Karst terrains: environmental changesand human impacts Catena Supplement 25

Zimmerer K S 2000 The reworking of conservation geogra-phies: nonequilibrium landscapes and nature-societyhybrids Annals of the Association of American Geographers90 256–369

Zimmerer K S and Young K R eds 1998 Nature’s Geography:new lessons for conservation in developing countries:University of Wisconsin Press, Madison WI


Policy and practice in karst landscape protection: Bohol, the Philippines

Documents