The Philippine government recognizes the critical importance of protecting and maintaining biodiversity for the present and future generations. This recognition is formally articulated in Section 2 of Republic Act 7586, otherwise known as “The National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992″ or NIPAS Act. At the same time, the Philippine government recognizes and promotes the rights of the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) or Indigenous Peoples (IPs), who are mostly occupants of the protected areas. The State’s recognition of the ICCs/IP’s rights is embodied in the Philippine Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 22) and reiterated in Section 13 of the NIPAS Act. This recognition is further given substance by the enactment of Republic Act 8371, also known as “The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997” or IPRA. The passage of IPRA into law is a major victory for the ICCs/IPs who, for several decades, have struggled for the recognition of their rights over their ancestral domains. Both NIPAS and IPRA are aimed to improve the well-being and livelihood of the upland small holders while maintaining ecological diversity. It is in this context of multiple government policy objectives of preserving biodiversity, recognizing ICCs/IPs rights, and improving smallholder livelihoods that this study is conducted. In the province of Bukidnon, nine groups of indigenous cultural communities have already been granted with their Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADC). The processing of their applications was completed in a timely fashion primarily because their claims were not within a protected area. Among the indigenous cultural communities near and within the Mount Kitanglad Range Natural Park (MKRNP), their application for a tenurial instrument has not been granted in spite of the existence of NIPAS and IPRA laws that explicitly recognize their rights over their ancestral domains. The key question is what prevents governmental authorities from granting CADC to ancestral right claimants Do NIPAS and IPRA have procedures on how to deal with ancestral claims within and around a national park Do they provide clear provisions about the processes that will lead to complementary management approaches between ancestral domains and protected areas Do they have guidelines for how consultations with local communities are to be conducted What is the best way to propose and determine ancestral domain claims within the protected area When there is conflicting land use pattern within the protected area and ancestral domain, which law should be followed Mt. Kitanglad Range National Park provides a unique case study to answer these questions because it is both an ancestral domain claim of the Talaandig-Higaonon tribe and at the same time a protected area
Tag: ancestry
Ancestral domain and national park protection: mutually supportive paradigm? A case study of Mt. Kitanglad Range Nature Park, Bukidnon Philippines
This paper examines the close relationship of Bukidnon tribes with the forested slopes of the Mt. Kitanglad Range Nature Park in Mindanao, Philippines, and how their claims for ancestral domain may interact with the park’s conservation mandate. The study is placed into historical context by reviewing attempts to assimilate the tribes under successive Spanish, American and Philippines governments, and their steady displacement by waves of migrant settlers. Natives were quickly relegated to marginalized minorities in the new society, and invariably responded by retreating further up the mountain slopes. It was through this process that the tribes now find themselves pressed around some of the last intact remnants of their ancestral homeland, the Mt. Kitanglad Range. The park’s rich biodiversity is threatened by rapid deforestation on its lower slopes, fueled by logging, wildfires, vegetable gardening, swiddening and rising population densities from both high in-migration and fertility rates. Native belief that nature is controlled by a hierarchy of spirits whose wrath must be avoided, guides the tribes in a respectful attitude to the environment. Indigenous practices such as safe havens for wildlife, preservation of keystone tree species and restricting swidden size indicate a conservation approach to resource management. The tribes reacted to the degradation of their of their ancestral lands in 1993 by organizing and creating a network of ’tribal guardians’ to maintain vigilance on the forest margins. Some seizures of poached lumber have been made and the initiative appears to be gaining momentum. The community-based park protection (CBPP) that is evolving spontaneously in these forest margin villages is internally-driven and has been enabled by reviving and strengthening existing tribal institutions. This determined and highly organized surveillance of the forest warrants recognition by DENR, and argues for further empowerment of these communities by formally decentralizing forest protection to their control.