Primer on Governance-Oriented

Integrated Ecosystems Management (IEM)

Getting Each Stakeholder to Contribute

Towards Common Goals

National Program Support for Environment and

Natural Resources Management Project

DENR Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects Office

This primer was prepared by the project team of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources-
World Bank (DENR-WB) Environment and Natural
Resources Management Project/Global Environment
Facility (ENRMP-GEF), DENR Foreign-Assisted and
Special Projects Office.

The project team is under the leadership of National

IEM Specialist Dr. Ernesto Guiang. The members are
Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Dr. Gem Castillo,
Payment for Environmental Services Specialist Ms.
Noela Lasmarias, Knowledge Management Specialist Dr.
Rogelio Serrano and Project Management Specialist Ms.
Moonyeen Manrique.
 A Primer on Governance-Oriented
Integrated Ecosystems Management (IEM):
Getting Each Stakeholder to Contribute
Towards Common Goals

National Program Support for Environment and

Natural Resources Management Project

DENR Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects Office

This document discusses key concepts, processes, and guidelines
in implementing integrated ecosystems management (IEM), which
is the recommended approach in managing watershed ecosystems
and diverse landscapes. The Department of Environment and Natural
Resources is set to adopt IEM as an official management approach/
framework through a Department Administrative Order (DAO),
which will contain recommended process flows as well as the roles
of key players and institutions.

NPS ENRM Project, DENR FASPO

December 2013, Quezon City, Philippines
iv

Table of Contents

iv Table of Contents

iv List of Figures

iv List of Tables

v List of Abbreviations

1 I. Introduction

4 2. The Philippines’ Governance Framework on IEM

7 2.1 The ENR Governance Framework as Controls
8 2.2 Governance-Designated Entities with Responsibility, Accountability, and Authority
11 2.3 Governance for Regulating Investments, Uses, and Developments
12 2.4 Models for Launching Governance-Oriented Integrated Management of Ecosystems
15 3. From Models to Formulating the Governance-Oriented IEM Strategy

21 4. Implementing the IEM Strategic Plan

25 5. Summary
26 References

List of Figures

6 Figure 1. Sectoral Governance of ENR and Lands of the Public Domain

19 Figure 2. Template Process in Preparing IEM Framework, CDPs, and Sector Plans
22 Figure 3. A Framework for Governance-oriented IEM Implementation

List of Tables
9 Table 1. Allocated and unallocated lands of the public domain in the Philippines
12 Table 2. Possible mix of net impacts of interventions in a watershed-ecosystem
23 Table 3. Multiple and Different Levels of RAAs and Management Units in an Ecosystem
 v

List of Abbreviations
ADSDPP ancestral domain sustainable development and protection plan
CADC certificate of ancestral domain claim
CADT certificate of ancestral domain title
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CBFM community-based forest management
CBFMA community-based forest management agreement
CDA choose, decide, and act
CDP Comprehensive Development Plan, City Development Plan
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
DA Department of Agriculture
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DENR FASPO DENR Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects Office
DRR disaster risk reduction
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMB Environmental Management Bureau
ENR environment and natural resources
ENRM environment and natural resources management
EO executive order
ERDS Ecosystems Research and Development Service
FLUP Forest Land Use Plan
FMS Forest Management Service
GEF Global Environment Facility
IEM integrated ecosystems management
IPRA Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act
IRA Internal Revenue Allotment
KBA key biodiversity area
LGC Local Government Code
LGU local government unit
M & E monitoring and evaluation
NCI National Convergence Initiative
NGA national government agency
NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System
NPS-ENRMP National Program Support for Environment and Natural Resources
Management Project
PAMB protected area management board
PASu protected area superintendent
PAWCZMS Protected Areas, Wildlife and Coastal Zone Management Service
PDP Provincial Development Plan
PDP 2011 Philippine Development Plan of 2011
PMO Project Management Office
RAA responsibility, accountability, and authority
RDC Regional Development Council
RBME results-based monitoring and evaluation system
REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus
SFM sustainable forest management
TWG technical working group
 1

Photo: Libmanan-Pulantuna Watershed Project Management Office (PMO)

I. Introduction

N atural disasters, such as the 2012 landslides and flashfloods during the habagat
monsoon and the 2011 Sendong and 2009 Ondoy typhoons, triggered urgent
responses, actions, and suggestions for crafting better policies and programmatic
solutions. Community and volunteer groups, private sector, and local and the national
governments came in droves to help in whatever they could. Everybody had something
to offer. However, in most cases, when emergencies are over, the calls for long-term
solutions again go unheeded; that is, until another disaster occurs.
Watershed-dominated and highly diverse ecosystems over a ridge to reef landscapes
are highly vulnerable to natural disasters. In these areas, the resiliencies of forests,
rivers and lakes, mangroves, coastal, mangroves, fishing grounds, agricultural lands
and others are tested when disasters hit. Consequently, communities, livelihoods,
upland and lowland enterprises, freshwater water bodies, wetlands, and coastal areas
are also affected.
In watershed-dominated landscapes, disasters show the need for a multi-dimensional,
multi-sectoral, inter-sectoral, and holistic approach to governance and management.
During these times, weakened ecosystems, degraded catchments, and denuded sub
watersheds are highlighted as the problem. In reality, however, these are equally
matched by misaligned and improper land uses and zoning regimes in the upstream
and downstream areas. Moreover, weak and fragmented governance and management
systems on environment and natural resources (ENR), lands of the public domain, and
ancestral lands worsen the situation.
With increasing erratic weather patterns that are expected to result from global climate
change, a country such as the Philippines, which is located in at least 70% watershed-
dominated landscapes, requires passionate leaders who can rally the key stakeholders
to develop and implement strategies that will achieve common goals and objectives.
After all, in these highly diverse landscapes, individual and collective efforts benefit
everybody. And when stakeholders respond, they alone can put effective ecosystems
governance in place. They cannot control or regulate erratic weather patterns nor
change the configuration and location of the ridges, the flow of water, emergency of
highly diverse habitats, and watershed divides. However, they can collaborate and
adopt an integrated management of the ecosystems (IEM) over watershed-dominated
landscapes that will ultimately reduce disastrous on- and off-site impacts.
2

Photo: Libmanan-Pulantuna Watershed PMO

Collaboration provides the anchor for governance-oriented IEM approach. However,

to make it effective, stakeholders at the local and national levels must work together
to arrive at a consensus of “non-negotiables,” common vision and goals, individual
and collective strategies, individual and co-financing arrangements, and disaggregated
output- and outcome-based measures of performance.
Scientists, policy makers, most local stakeholders, and advocates have been
promoting the IEM approach as the Philippines’ most suitable strategy for managing
its watershed-dominated landscapes. The Philippine Development Plan for 2011-2016
supports this management approach. Scaling up this approach, however, continues
to be a challenge. At the operational level, there is a continuing need to generate
and refine functional, doable, simple, and effective tactics. Tools and effective best
practices are needed to translate the seemingly “complex adaptive IEM systems” into
simple, efficient, and workable activities. Moreover, for each ecosystem, the need is to
clearly define responsibility, accountability, and authority (RAA) of each governance-
designated entity. This will facilitate coordination and oversight of individual and
collective efforts to achieve common IEM goals and objectives.
The environment and natural resources (ENR) sector plays a major role in leading the
IEM process. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and
the local government units (LGUs) have to work together in adopting IEM to mitigate
climate change, improve adaptation of vulnerable and affected communities, conserve
highly diverse forests and protected areas, and restore degraded critical zones that
will, in turn, support agricultural and socioeconomic development in downstream
communities. IEM tactics are expected to increase resiliencies of ecosystems and
communities, thereby reducing risks and disasters in watershed-dominated landscapes.
IEM shows the inter-connectedness and interdependence between and among the
uplands, lowlands, and coastal areas and how these may impact future generations.
Issues and threats are better understood, considered, and addressed in developing
engaged and sustainable communities, upholding the conservation of ecosystems, and
supporting ENR-dependent industries, enterprises, and livelihood systems.
IEM demands complementary collaboration between and among local and national
stakeholders. Collaboration provides the anchor for setting up the appropriate IEM
governance framework. It facilitates the process of arriving at a consensus on non-
negotiables, commonly defined vision, individual and collective strategies, individual
and co-financing arrangements, and common measures and indicators of outcomes
and outputs. In a watershed-ecosystem, non-negotiables are determined based on
 3

requirements of current policies, agreed upon criteria among stakeholders, and “givens”
such as topographic divides, boundaries of habitat and political units, geohazard
areas, net environmental impacts, and prohibitions. The non-negotiables cannot be
compromised. Hence, stakeholders arrive at a consensus on the location and extent of
conservation areas, protection forests and forestlands, highly hazardous areas; as well
as prohibited investments, land uses, and resource uses in the ecosystem. The non-
negotiables are the ecosystem’s foundation for the long-term resilience, sustainability,
and supply of valuable ecosystems goods and services.
The ideals of ecosystem approach as stated by the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) in 2000 have triggered innovations. In the Philippines, the ecosystem approach
needs to highlight convergence and interactions of all ENR concerns and subsectors at
the ecosystem and political unit levels. A political unit may be part of larger watersheds,
ecosystems, and sub-watersheds. Large ecosystems over a ridge-to-reef landscape
may also include different types of ecosystems.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines the ecosystem approach as:
“… a strategy for the integrated management of land, water, and living resources
that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way…based on the
application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological
organizations, which encompasses the essential structures, processes, functions and
interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans,
with their cultural diversity, are integral component of many ecosystems.”

Important Concepts

watershed-dominated landscapes
Defined as the land area within the topographic divide of a ridge to reef landscape that
includes the uplands, lowlands, freshwater water bodies, wetlands, and coastal areas.
In watershed-dominated landscapes, various ecosystems are found such as forest,
grasslands, rivers and lakes, agricultural areas, urban and settlements, mangroves,
coastal and sea water, others. The topographic divides of the headwaters, tributary
rivers, direction of the water flow, and downstream service areas define the complete
boundary of a watershed-dominated landscape.

integrated ecosystems management as a process-oriented approach and strategy

IEM involves process by which political and resource management units in a
certain ecosystem jointly recognize the benefits of collective efforts and decide to
work together in planning and implementing individual programs so that each will
contribute towards common goals.

non-negotiables
Based on current policies, agreed upon criteria, ecosystem’s biophysical features,
assessments, and consensus by local and national stakeholders, the modification or
conversion of designated land and resource uses cannot be compromised or changed
because these are intended for the following: conservation areas, protection forests
and forestlands, high hazard zones, and prime agricultural lands. Non-negotiables
also include prohibited investments, land uses, and resource uses in an ecosystem.
4

Photo: Kanan-Agos River Watershed PMO

The DENR Administrative Order on IEM in 2013 defines and describes IEM as:
“…a holistic and integrated approach in the governance and management
of ecosystems for conservation, socio-cultural preservation and economic
development. It is a process by which political and resource management units in
a certain ecosystem jointly recognize the benefits of collective efforts in planning
and implementing individual programs to achieve common goals. It will serve as a
guide to investments that will enhance the ecosystem’s resiliency and comparative
advantage and support the value chains of competitive goods and services.”
To make IEM effective, LGUs and sectoral national agencies especially DENR,
Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), and the
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) need to align their individual
programs in watershed-dominated landscapes. After all, land owners, ancestral domain
holders, tenure holders, protected forests and conservation areas, ENR-dependent
industries and enterprises, urban and settlement areas are all physically located in the
areas that are under the jurisdictions of local government units. A unifying concern,
a common rallying point, and champions are needed to get national agencies and
concerned LGUs to work together in an ecosystem unit.

2. The Philippines’ Governance Framework on IEM

As part of the adoption of sustainable forest management in the Philippines, Executive
Order 318 (2004) has promoted the implementation of integrated watershed
management (IWM) or watershed-ecosystem management (WEM) approach.
As defined in EO 318, IWM is the “development and management of forests and
forestlands including the coastal forests in a holistic, scientific, rights-based, technology-
based, community-based and collaborative manner for the highest and widest public
benefit and based on inherent productive capacity and sustainable use of these
resources for the present and future generations.” IWM integrates management of and
investments in forests and forestlands including the coastal forests to generate public
benefit.
In the coastal and marine areas, EO 533 (2006) and EO 578 (2006) mandate the
adoption of “integrated coastal management (ICM)” as a “dynamic process of planning
and management involving stakeholders and requiring the analysis of the environmental
 5
and socioeconomic implications of development, the ecosystems processes and inter-
relationships among the land-based and marine-related activities across jurisdictions.”
ICM focuses management and investments in coastal and marine areas in the context
of the larger land and marine ecosystems.
The IEM approach covers the total landscapes and all types of ecosystems in a given
area. In watershed-dominated landscapes such as the Philippines, IEM provides an
overall strategy for linking IWM in forests and forestlands including the coastal forests
with those of ICM in coastal and marine areas. IEM links investments in forests and
forestlands, protected areas, coastal and marine areas with those in the agricultural,
industrial, and urban areas. Through participatory and science-based processes, IEM
identifies the unifying focus with common strategies as basis in harmonizing various
governance frameworks that allow individual and collective efforts to achieve the
common vision for the public good in a watershed or an ecosystem. The unifying
focus—the non-negotiables—is to ensure the resiliency of ecosystems over the
landscapes, communities, livelihoods, enterprises, and industries.
IEM moves from sectoral to inter-sectoral, holistic, and integrated management of land,
water, and living resources in an ecosystem (CBD 2000). The IEM is operationalized
through the stakeholders’ adoption of the non-negotiables as the unifying focus and
translated into strategic programs, projects, and activities (PPAs) by each governance-
designated entity for implementation. An ecosystem-specific governance mechanism
is developed by the stakeholders to ensure accountability of all actions.
Existing sector policies including lessons from completed
and ongoing IEM-related efforts are providing guidance
responsibility, accountability,
on how to clearly define responsibility, accountability,
authority (RAA)
and authority (RAA) for governance-designated
entities in an ecosystem. The governance-designated governance entities with
entities with RAAs carry out individual and collective jurisdiction over a given
strategies to achieve common IEM goals and objectives. watershed-ecosystem or part of
Moreover, entities with RAAs have to choose, decide, the ecosystem have the RAA to
and act (CDAs) based on the principles and practices choose, decide and act (CDA) in
of transparency, accountability, and participatory terms of planning, implementing,
processes. CDAs are considered based on their negative monitoring, evaluating, and
or positive impacts to on- and off-site communities, financing relevant integrated
upstream and downstream stakeholders, and “now and ecosystem management programs
then” time horizon. Indecisiveness is not an option in and activities. RAA-designated
watershed-dominated landscapes since the net public entities in an ecosystem are
costs may greatly outweigh the private and public identified based on institutional
benefits. mandates, land classification,
political boundaries, tenurial
Under IEM, the total benefits from improved ENR
instruments, ancestral domain
management (ENRM) are expected to be larger than the
claims and titles, reservations,
sum of benefits from individual actions or piecemeal
and others.
interventions. Thus, the governance framework—policy
and regulation on water, land, forests, biodiversity,
and cultural integrity, among others—must serve as controls, limits, and guides in
coordinating, integrating and directing the planning and implementation of different
management interventions in an ecosystem. DENR, DA, and DAR interventions must
be woven and integrated with those of the LGUs and other stakeholders so the total
benefits of an IEM approach can be realized.
The ENR component of the Philippine Development Plan of 2011 (PDP 2011) states that,
“In order to improve the conservation, protection, and rehabilitation of the
country’s natural resources, the sector shall pursue their sustainable use and
integrated management. Natural resources management activities shall be directed
6
at enhancing the state of the different ecosystems and the natural resources within
them to provide resource-dependent communities with sustainable livelihoods.
Priority shall be given to the implementation of national action plans on forest,
biodiversity, coastal and marine resources and wetlands. In line with the National
Framework Strategy on Climate Change, integrated ecosystem-based management
will continue to be adopted as a major strategy for sustainable natural resource
management as well as a means to adapt to climate change scenarios.”
The Philippines’ watershed-dominated landscapes offer opportunities to innovate
at all levels and in key areas of collaboration—technical, legal, social, cultural,
economics, management and institutional arrangements, enforcement, financing, and
local governance. However, developing and implementing an IEM strategic plan for
an ecosystem as a launching pad for individual and collective programs and actions
present a challenge. Strategies will have to be consistent with the national ENR and
related laws, Indigenous People’s Right Act (IPRA), the Local Government Code (LGC)
of 1991, and other pertinent policies and regulations since most ecosystems cut across
political boundaries and institutional mandates.
IEM requires the adoption of different technical but complementary strategies,
especially in ridge to reef ecosystems. It highlights the need to strengthen local
capacities to harmonize overlapping mandates, resolve conflicts between local and
national policies, secure adequate financing for ENR and disaster risk reduction (DRR)
activities, enforce laws, improve capacities, expand limited ENR devolutions, explore
innovative collaborative institutional arrangements, and define common outcomes
and individual outputs for multi-stakeholders approach to monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) activities (PDP 2011). IEM is not just the initiative of DENR. However, as the
agency mandated to ensure ENR management, it has the main responsibility to rally
other sectors and engage LGUs to jointly pursue the common ideals of ecosystem
management.

Policy and Regulatory Framework: Land Classification, Allocation, Uses

Agricultural Timber or Protected Areas Mineral Lands

(A & D) Forestlands (Natural Parks)

• Agricultural- small & • Revised Forestry Code • NIPAS

CARP farmers, fishers, • EO on CBFM • Specific PA laws
entrepreneurs, private • EO on sustainable forest • Wildlife Act
sector management • International • Mining Act
• Comprehensive • RA -Forest Charges commitments • Small-scale
Agrarian Reform Law
• Public Land Act • Energy reservations • Energy law Mining Act
• AFMA • JMCs-DENR and DILG • DENR-DAR-NCIP
• Fisheries Code • EO on log ban in natural • EO on log ban in
forests natural forests

Ancestral lands - IPRA

LGC of 1991, EO 192 of DENR, Climate Change Law, DRRM Law, EIA Law, ESMW Law,
Biofuels and Renewable Energy Act, Clean Air Act, Water Act

Figure 1. Sectoral Governance of ENR and Lands of the Public Domain

 7

2.1 The ENR Governance Framework as Controls

Figure 1 depicts the relevant ENR and related national policies and regulations that
serve as controls for the governance and management of ENR and other ecosystems.
These controls are applied at the ecosystem, LGU, and resource management units
(RMUs) such as holders of tenure in forestlands, agricultural area and those with
certificate of ancestral domain title/claim (CADT/CADC). Natural resources that are
under the different RAAs of governance-designated entities exist in and below the
surface of watershed-dominated ecosystems.
As earlier mentioned, these physical landscapes, including coastal areas, fall within
the jurisdictions of local government units–province, cities, and municipalities. DENR
regulates the use, management, and development of the forestlands, protected areas,
and mineral lands, environment, and natural resources. Enforcement of zoning regimes
is primarily the LGU responsibility in collaboration with DENR and NCIP especially
those areas under the lands of the public domains and ancestral lands, respectively.
Thus, by virtue of their mandates, the local governments, DENR, and NCIP are the
key institutions in making the IEM functional, operational, and effective to serve the
general welfare and public interest.
The main IEM beneficiaries are the farmers and owners of agricultural lands, ENR-
dependent industries and enterprises such as water districts and ecotourism facilities,
urban and settlement areas, fisherfolks, and others. DENR and the LGUs have to ensure
that the private land owners, RMUs including the holders or stewards of reservations
manage their land and natural resources in accordance with sound ENRM principles
and practices.
The controls lay down the limits and boundaries of ENR-based development
directions. They function as valves in designing and implementing sector-specific,
cross-sectoral, and site-specific ecosystems management initiatives. They guide the
process of generating consensus among various stakeholders to balance conservation
and development in ecosystems. The ENR controls are currently embodied in:
• Various statutory (legal) issuances under the Constitution, laws, orders, presidential
decrees, presidential proclamations, and department administrative orders, among
others; and
• Customary (traditional) laws of communities as part of their indigenous knowledge
system and practices.
Executive Order (EO) 192 mandates DENR to conserve, manage, protect, and develop
the ENR in the country, which include all the ENR located in watershed-dominated
ecosystems. In these ecosystems, different natural resources and lands of the public
domain—timber/forestlands, national parks/protected areas, agricultural, and mineral
lands—may be found. Only agricultural lands may be alienated. All natural resources—
water, forests, fisheries, minerals—are owned by the State, and these are all within the
political jurisdictions of the local governments.
Depending on their locations, ecosystems may be dominated by a certain type of land
of the public domain or a natural resource such as minerals. Given that a watershed
may have sub-watersheds or ecosystems that cover more than one political unit, such
as a province, city or municipality, IEM joint planning and implementation must be
done with concerned LGUs. LGUs with national sectoral agencies with RAAs and
designated RMUs must work together to ensure sustainability, maintain and improve
land productivity, minimize the negative impacts of uplands-lowlands interface, ensure
that ecosystems services continue to benefit the public, and facilitate collaborative
governance systems.
8
To summarize, DENR has the mandate (through EO 192, Environmental Impact
Assessment and various related laws) to ensure that the ENRs are properly regulated,
managed, conserved, and developed for the benefit of present and future generations.
LGUs in partnership with DENR must ensure that within their political jurisdictions, the
ENR sector continues to sustain, support, serve, and protect their constituents. DENR
and the LGUs with the governance-designated RMUs must work together to improve
the resiliency of the ecosystems and communities from the possible impacts of erratic
weather patterns resulting from global climate change. LGUs must work with other
agencies to help the communities adapt properly depending on their locations within
the ecosystems.
In addition, in areas where CADTs/CADCs exist, DENR and the LGUs must work with
the domain holders to conserve biodiversity, adopt sustainable forest management
(SFM), reduce risks and damages from disasters, mitigate climate change, and support
downstream socio-economic development. The Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA)
has empowered the IPs over their ancestral domains. Any activity or intervention in
their claims will need free and prior informed consent (FPIC) from the indigenous
peoples (IP) as CADT/CADC holders. Site-specific customary laws and practices are
addressed during the preparation, review, and approval of the CADT/CADC holders’
ancestral domain sustainable development and protection plan (ADSDPP). In areas
where CADTs/CADCs overlap with areas covered by the National Integrated Protected
Areas System (NIPAS), earlier issuances of tenure agreements, and others, the key
provisions of the IPRA and the relevant law (e.g., NIPAS law) and agreements are
harmonized between and among the parties.
IP groups may be involved through their participation in the governance bodies of
ecosystems such as PAMBs, watershed management councils, and DENR-LGU steering
committees. They also have to be actively engaged during the Forest Land Use Plan
(FLUP) planning and implementation, which is a major component in preparing and
implementing an IEM strategic plan. The LGUs have to recognize that ancestral domain
holders may cover not only protected areas/national parks or timber/forestlands, but
also agricultural and mineral lands. To enable the IPs’ meaningful participation in
the planning and implementation, there has to be a gradual process of developing
their capacities to protect and manage their ancestral domains. DENR, LGUs, national
government agencies (NGAs), and NCIP have to collaborate to capacitate the IPs to be
active players in managing watershed-ecosystems and their ancestral claims.

2.2 Governance-Designated Entities with Responsibility,

Accountability, and Authority

In an ecosystem unit, there is a need to create a local governance body to oversee

individual and collective programs of governance-designated entities with RAAs over
the physically-delineated area. IEM in PAs, declared watersheds, ancestral domains, and
the like works with legally-defined physical boundaries. Their local governance bodies
such as watershed management councils (WMCs) and protected area management
boards (PAMBs) are mandated to oversee the management and regulatory activities.
On the other hand, IEM in delineated areas using topographic divides (basin, sub-
watershed, habitats, and portions of KBAs) do not have legally defined boundaries
to work with. In these cases, the areas under each LGU and RMU serve as the legal
boundaries for ensuring governance in an ecosystem unit.
The guidance and direction of local governance bodies are critical to the RMUs that
have management responsibilities in ecosystems. Without proper direction, RMUs
are left on their own to plan and implement activities without a common roadmap.
Without effective local governance bodies, resource management effectiveness of the
RMUs becomes a non-issue. In this case, either the LGU or DENR as the governance-
 9
designated entity suffers the brunt of mismanagement, gets the blame or is accused
of incompetence.
Over the years, the dynamic nature of ENR policy and regulatory environment in the
Philippines has gradually altered the configuration of allocating lands of the public
domain. Areas allocated for sustainable forest management (timber or forestlands),
national parks or protected areas, agricultural, and mineral lands have significantly
increased. Areas for forest and forestlands management under the for private-, profit-,
and privilege-driven schemes as part of the concession system declined as more were
shifted towards the objectives of biodiversity conservation, protection forests, and
community forestry. This change is largely the influence of the changing perceptions
on the values of forests as a natural resource. It has become clearer that forests provide
not just timber and minor forest products such as rattan and bamboo but also direct and
indirect ecosystem services. In many areas, water has become the major ecosystem
service and is much more valuable for irrigation, energy generation, and domestic use
when compared to the forest’s total direct values. This realization opened the entry of
other stakeholders in determining the governance and management of forests as part
of the lands of the public domain.
The current allocation of lands of the public domain as shown in Table 1 presents a
challenge in planning and implementing IEM in ecosystems. The local and national
governments simply do not have enough resources to carry out the expanding ENR role
as a key provider of various ecosystems goods and services. The shift in the allocation
of lands of the public domain will require time to clearly delineate, improve, and level-off
the business environment for private sector investments. Proactive policies and programs
have to lay down the short, medium, and long term solutions to address the competing
and increasing demand for various ecosystems goods and services such as fuelwood,
charcoal, construction timber, water, and support for ecotourism in the country.

Table 1. Allocated and unallocated lands of the public domain in the Philippines

Allocations of Lands of Governance-designate Entity with % of 15+ million ha

Public Domain Responsibility, Accountability &
Authority
Protected areas and DENR and other government 26% (4+ million ha)
reservations agencies (PAs and reservations)
Allocations to civil and Recipients of reservations (military, 2%
military reserves state universities, etc.)
Allocations to LGUs LGUs with co-management minimal
agreements, communal forests
Allocations to community Communities with tenure; IPs with 35% (>5.5 million ha)
forestry and ancestral CADTs, CADCs, claims
domains
Allocations to the private Private tenure holders in forest lands 10% (>1.5 million ha)
sector
Unallocated forestlands (no None (State as the de facto) 19% (>3 million ha)
tenure, open access)
Unclassified forestlands None (State as the de facto) 8% (>1 million ha)
(and to be allocated)
Agricultural lands (A & D) Title holders and landowners 14+, mil (47%)
Source: Adapted from FMB. 2007. Forestry Statistics. FMB, DENR,
Visayas Avenue, Quezon City
 10
Except for lands that have been alienated, the protection, conservation, and management
of lands of the public domain, closed and open canopy forests, and watersheds are
directly under DENR, especially those in protected areas and watershed reservations. IPs
are responsible, accountable, and have authority to protect, conserve, and manage their
ancestral domains consistent with the IPRA Law. In managing the various land allocations,
there are great gaps in capacities for governance and resource management. Available
human and financial resources to carry out effective ENRM are inadequate. Community
tenure holders and IPs are going to largely depend on government support and subsidy
unless regulations are put in place to open up opportunities for the private sector to invest
in socially- and environmentally-oriented enterprises and still generate profits.
In the present allocation of lands of the
public domain, there is an increasing need
for establishing effective governance
mechanisms for IEM at the ecosystem,
LGU, and RMU levels. This task can be
done by DENR, NCIP (as necessary), and
the LGUs. Under a governance-oriented
IEM, DENR enters a new world and
explores the opportunity of working with
LGUs in capacitating RMUs to improve
their ENRM practices. This provides
avenues to link ENRM with agricultural
production, ecotourism, energy
Memorandum of agreement signing on IEM among RAA- development, disaster risk reduction
designated entities of Libmanan-Pulantuna Watershed in Bicol and management (DRRM), and local
Region. Photo: Libmanan-Pulantuna Watershed PMO. economic development.
With the government’s limited budgetary resources and increasing responsibility, it is
no wonder why most ecosystems continue to be degraded. The State through DENR
cannot directly conserve and protect conservation areas, rehabilitate degraded lands,
and arrest illegal activities in forestlands, protected areas, and unclassified lands. LGUs
and RMUs including the private sector have to be part of the concerted IEM efforts.
Despite having tenurial security over their areas (through Community-based Forest
Management Agreements or CBFMAs, CADTs/CADCs), upland communities and IPs
are simply incapable of carrying out effective resource management functions. The
Protected Area Superintendents (PASus) of 240 protected areas with the PAMBs as
their oversight bodies are also in need of sustained and long-term support and capacity
building with relevant and timely mentoring and on-site coaching. The LGUs, DENR,
civil society, and other NGAs must be capacitated and incentivized in carrying out their
responsibilities as they assist the community tenure and title holders to effectively
protect, conserve, develop, and manage their tenured areas or ancestral claims. The
various oversight bodies, LGUs, PASus, and RMUs need to join hands to carry out
effective resource management in most ecosystems.
Each ecosystem, especially the country’s 267 critical watersheds (PDP 2011) and 240
protected areas, has a different configuration with respect to the allocation of land of
the public domains and ancestral lands. Some are located in unique biogeographic
locations with dissimilar ridge to reef topographic characteristics. Several LGUs may
also have political jurisdictions over the same watershed. Each configuration implies a
different mix of governance-designated entities with RAAs in managing and regulating
the ecosystems. In each configuration, however, every governance-designated entity
has to contribute to the improvement and integrity of the ecosystem. It follows that
each ecosystem unit will have a different strategy for conservation, forest protection
and development such as tree farming, agroforestry, soil and water conservation,
stream bank stabilization, enforcement, waste management, allocation of funds to
priority initiatives, responsive policy, and zoning. The bottom line is that governance-
 11
oriented IEM does not have a one-size-fits-all approach. There are simply no shortcuts
such as command and control approach to achieve commonly agreed upon objectives.
Common interests, individual and collective incentives, complementary institutional
mandates, and willingness to work together are the key factors in collaborative
management of ENR, especially in complex ecosystems.
In ecosystems, DENR field units, provinces or cluster of provinces, cities, and
municipalities are in the forefront of sound IEM. The LGUs, with technical and
governance support from DENR, have to ensure sound ENRM through the RMUs
and holders of ENR use and land rights including watershed and water-dependent
ENR enterprises such as local water districts, irrigation systems, ecotourism, hydro
and geothermal power facilities. Governance-designated entities with RAAs on ENRM
deliver results at the LGU and RMUs. Efforts on SFM, biodiversity conservation, and
forest rehabilitation are carried out at the RMU level and are immediately felt at the
LGU level, specifically the cities, municipalities and barangays. Governance-designated
entities (national and local agencies, RMUs, and ENR-dependent enterprises and
industries) are the ones who can break or make IEM.
Local governance bodies and the province can provide oversight, guidance, support,
and linkages. The city and municipal governments, however, are the ones who can
enforce zoning that may have impact on DRRM results. The local governance bodies
can rally other sectors, stakeholders, the private sector, and civil society to advocate
and hold the governance-designated entities accountable to their appointing powers
and to the electorate.

2.3 Governance for Regulating Investments, Uses, and

Developments

In an ecosystem unit, the individual and collective tasks of governance-designated

entities with RAAs can be achieved under collaborative implementation arrangements.
IEM can be designed to achieve multiple objectives that may include biodiversity
conservation, sustainable forest management, climate change mitigation, increased
agricultural production, energy generation, ecotourism, and disaster risk reduction.
In an ecosystem, all concerned LGUs, RMUs, and resident communities may coexist
in same location. Thus, these stakeholders must see the value of working together for
their own good and benefit of everybody in that ecosystem.
Interactions among smaller ecosystems, communities, living and non-living things
would affect each other. External events such as natural disasters or results of climate
change impact all those in the ecosystem. Interdependence and inter-connectedness
characterize the actions of one another in an ecosystem. In addition, actions may
have inter-generational impacts on the ecosystems, communities, and livelihoods. Any
intervention—public or private investment, policy, use, or management—may have
either a net positive or negative impact. There may be positive spillovers as well as
collateral damages. These ecosystem’s characteristics require appropriate governance
framework—a combination of a local governance body and concerned LGUs—to
ensure that the proper controls and mitigating measures are applied to all types of
interventions. The IEM strategic plan may lay out strategies on how to strengthen
incentives, enforcement, generation of ENR-sourced funds, and reinvestments for
improving ecosystem management, and entice more private sector engagement
especially in higher value chain enterprises.
Table 2 provides a matrix of possible net benefits or costs of environmental impacts
from any use, investment, policy, or even rehabilitation activities that affect the
ecosystems and communities (in the upstream or downstream, on-site or off-site,
and over time). An intervention may greatly intensify threats to the remaining natural
12
Table 2. Possible mix of net impacts of interventions in a watershed-ecosystem
Intervention Some Examples On-site Off-site Net Impact
Any of the following Trekking and climbing 0 0 0
will have ON- and
Perennial-based agroforestry + + +
OFF-SITE impacts:
Low-impact harvesting 0 + +
Spring-based resorts 0 — —
• Use of asset or Fighting cock farms — 0 —
services
Reforestation + 0 +
• Investment Mining without ECC enforcement, — — —
and ENR-based road construction
enterprises
Restricting use rights for — + + or —
• Rehabilitation or communities in poverty-stricken
restoration areas

• Laws and Sub-watershed-based city/ + — + or —

regulations municipal zoning regime

forests (e.g., constructing access roads or bridges). A new policy, if not properly
analyzed, may add more burden and increase government cost in regulation and ENR
protection. Proposed LGU investments on improving access may encourage further
encroachments in open access forestlands. In an ecosystem, a dynamic and sound
policy and regulatory framework is necessary for long-term sustainability, especially
in supplying major environmental services. Water, which is just one of the unifying
ecosystems services in watershed-dominated landscapes, may be jeopardized by
mining, subdivision development, quarrying, or intensive farming in the upstream.
Several administrative and local policies and regulations could minimize the net
negative impacts of any use, investment, rehabilitation, restoration, and future policies
that may affect the functioning, stability, and resilience of watershed-ecosystems. A
combination of the national and local governance policy and regulatory frameworks
may be needed to ensure that sound ecosystems management is being carried out
by concerned stakeholders and managers. The non-negotiables may be managed and
regulated by the DENR, the LGUs, and key RMUs such as the PAMBs and their PASus.

2.4 Models for Launching Governance-Oriented Integrated

Management of Ecosystems

Given the variability and complexity of ecosystems and the need to address issues
and threats to achieve multiple objectives, doing site-specific assessments of relevant
“policies and regulations” will help facilitate collaborative management, as defined
and described by Engel and Korf (2005):
“… shared decision-making over natural resources by the State and resource users…”
“the process among resource users (or other interest groups or stakeholders) for
sharing power to make decisions and exercise control over resource use;”
“management arrangements negotiated by multiple stakeholders, consisting of a
set of rights and privileges (tenure) that are recognized by the government;”
 13
“…co-management arrangements have emerged in various settings and under
various titles, including: co-management of protected areas;”
“stakeholders work together to manage a single resource (such as a park, block
of forest, fishing area or irrigation scheme), or cooperatively address management
issues of common interest such as water.”
Table 1 and the different locations of various ecosystems in the Philippines show at least
five emerging types or models of governance-oriented IEM systems. Each type may
require a different mix of governance and institutional arrangements to set up collaborative
management schemes. Governance-designated entities with RAAs may vary from one type
to another. Site-specific governance framework will depend on the dominance of certain
types of lands of the public domain or ancestral domains. Each model may include a mix
of management objectives: biodiversity conservation, sustainable forest management,
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD+), intensified
forest protection, support for ENR-dependent enterprises or production systems such as
agriculture, and disaster risk reduction components.
1. Ancestral Domain-Driven IEM Systems. The governance and management of the
ecosystems and ENR in these areas will be greatly dependent on collaborative
work with IPs as holders of ancestral domains. The governance bodies in these
areas will be based on customary laws with DENR and concerned LGUs playing
supportive but regulatory roles depending on approved zones in the Ancestral
Domain Sustainable Development Protection Plan (ADSDPP). The IPRA, LGC of
1991, EO 192 and NIPAS Law will serve as the key policy and regulatory framework
in ancestral domain-driven IEM systems. Many ecosystems in Northern Luzon,
Cagayan Valley, Mindanao, Palawan, and even Southern Tagalog will have features
that will be more or less akin to this type of IEM system.
2. Protected Area-Driven IEM Systems. Most of the large watersheds and river
basins with contiguous closed and open canopy natural forests fall in any
of the 240 NIPAS areas. These areas support major ENR- and multi-purpose
infrastructures such as irrigation systems, dams, geothermal facilities, and filtering
plants of water districts. They are also highly diverse ecosystems that supply
major goods and services that support local economies, agricultural production
especially high value crops and rice, energy generation, and domestic water needs
of highly urbanized areas. These systems have the potential to generate huge
ENR-sourced revenues for reinvestments in watershed management, biodiversity
conservation, forest rehabilitation, alternative livelihoods for marginalized
communities including IPs, and ecotourism. The IEM governance bodies in these
systems should reflect the interests of both local and international stakeholders,
investors, and downstream communities, especially in the urbanized areas.
The IEM-consistent National Convergence Initiatives (NCI) of DA, DAR, DILG,
and DENR are most appropriate in these highly diverse watershed-dominated
landscapes. In these systems, LGUs, RMUs and ENR-dependent enterprises
have to be adequately represented in the governance bodies with clearly defined
direction and strategies at the ecosystem, LGU, and RMU levels. Examples of
these systems may include the Lake Lanao watershed, Magat and Pantabangan
watersheds, Binga and Umiray River Watersheds, and Bago River Watershed.
3. Habitat-Driven IEM Systems. Highly diverse habitats such as wetlands, lakes,
islands with both seascapes-landscapes (e.g., Coron islands, Tubbataha Reefs,
Apo Reef, Siargao Islands, Naujan, Lake Mainit, Lake Sebu), bird and marine
sanctuaries, identified terrestrial habitats of keystone species such as the Philippine
eagle and the tamaraw, and other species are increasingly being threatened
because of land conversion, encroachments, illegal harvesting of forest and
fishery products, and inadequate on-site management systems. Although most
of these diverse ecosystems are part of the Philippines’ Key Biodiversity Areas
 14
(KBAs), covered by presidential proclamations, reservations, and other policy
and regulatory instruments, there is a lack of governance-oriented IEM to achieve
effective oversight, management, and conservation of ENR resources. In these
areas, the relevant policies and regulations are the NIPAS Law, Wildlife Resources
Conservation and Protection Act, LGC 1991, IPRA, and Fisheries Code, among
others. LGUs and communities must have incentives to protect, conserve, and
manage these habitats by establishing the links and support for their livelihoods
and enterprises (e.g., fishing, ecotourism, handicraft making, and customary
practices). Habitat-driven IEM systems such as the Ligawasan Marsh Biodiversity
Reserve need to combine local governance with effective support for sustainable
livelihood and enterprise programs that are based on sociocultural values, adequate
infrastructure, and social services from the government and the civil society.
4. Private Lands-Driven IEM System. There are
several ecosystems that are largely dominated by
Photos (from top): Kanan-Agos River Watershed, Bago River Watershed, Liguasan Watershed, and Kanan-Agos River Watershed PMO

private land owners as the RMUs, especially in

Bicol Region, Central Luzon, Mindanao, Central
Visayas, and Oriental Mindoro, among others.
The IEM governance in these systems are going to
be largely driven by local government units with
support from DENR, especially on policies related
to EIA/EIS, water rights, mining, and land titling.
The concerned LGUs will have to determine the
most appropriate zoning regimes to address issues
that relate to landslides and flooding, conversion
of prime agricultural lands to other uses, security
of water supply for domestic and irrigation uses,
pollution, and use of pesticides and insecticides.
IEM strategies in these systems will be based on
relevant policy and regulatory frameworks with
most RAAs that are assigned to local stakeholders.
5. Disaster Risk Reduction-Driven IEM System.
The dominant feature in this system is simply the
agreement among stakeholders to address the
main objective of reducing risks and damages from
natural and man-made disasters. The landscapes
may consist of rough ridge to reef features with
degraded upper watersheds, steep slopes, erodible
soils, mismatched or inappropriate land uses in
the uplands and lowlands, and communities in
areas highly susceptible to risks such as landslides,
flashfloods, liquefaction, and subsidence. Several
watershed-dominated landscapes in Region 1,
Cordillera Administrative Region, Central Luzon,
and Bicol River Basin (e.g., Quinali Tres A) fall
under this category. In most cases, these areas
have great potential for agricultural production
combined with high population density and huge
public investments in infrastructure and support
systems. The remaining natural resources in
these areas are also highly diverse with unique
attractions and landscapes.
 15

Photo: Bago River Watershed PMO

3. From Models to Formulating the Governance-

Oriented IEM Strategy
The present allocation of lands of the public domain and the use of the country’s
ENRs pose a challenge in making any of the above governance-oriented IEM models
operational and sustainable in the long term. Nevertheless, various foreign-assisted
projects, the NCI of DA, DENR, and DAR, and some local initiatives have taken
steps in piloting and replicating IEM or similar approaches in various parts of the
country. Approaches were built from multi-sector efforts in integrated planning and
implementation; hence, tools and techniques emerged from strong sectoral biases, joint
efforts of two or three LGUs, and initiatives of local champions. This section outlines
necessary steps in developing and adopting governance-oriented IEM frameworks.
The DENR Department Administrative Order (DAO) on IEM provides a summary of
the IEM planning and implementation (Table 2). The next sections provide detailed
discussion of selected key IEM steps and processes as listed below:

1. Institutional Arrangements and Mechanism;

2. Baseline Determination and Assessment of Priority Ecosystems;
3. Validation of Non-Negotiables and Formation of Ecosystems Governance Body;
4. Strategic Planning; and
5. Adoption and Implementation.

Updating the Ecosystems Database

Developing IEM strategic plans of priority ecosystems is largely based on updated

spatial and non-spatial digital information and database to facilitate assessment,
analysis, planning, and strategy formulation. Various thematic and derived maps
are prepared for needed overlays and deeper analysis. Thus, DENR’s regional and
provincial field units and their provincial, city, and municipal counterparts must exert
efforts in gathering both spatial and non-spatial data on key ecosystems.
 Section 6.1 Section 6.2 Section 6.3 Section 6.4 Section 6.5
16

Institutional Baseline Determination Validation of Non- Strategic Planning Adoption and

Arrangements and and Assessment of Negotiables and Implementation
Mechanism Priority Ecosystems Formation of Ecosystems
Governance Body
DENR DENR Region/RTWG DENR Region with LGUs PENRO with Region, LGUs DENR Region/PENRO with
and local stakeholders and local stakeholders LGUs & local stakeholders
a. Creation of National a. Identification and a. IEM orientation a. IEM capacity building a. DENR Region approval
IEM Advisory Board prioritization of with LGUs and of LIEMPG. of IEM Strategic Plan.
(NIEMAB) ecosystems (based stakeholders. b. Generation of IEM- b. DENR-LGU MOA
b. Creation of Regional on DAO criteria) b. Validation of derived maps or signing for joint
Technical Working using secondary and prioritized ecosystems, overlays to refine the implementation of IEM
Group (RTWG) available maps by NNs, Governance initially-determined Strategic Plan.
c. Creation of Local RTWG. configuration, NNs by LIEMPG. c. Adoption of IEM
IEM Planning Group b. Determination and Initial mgt. c. Drafting of IEM Strategic Plan by LGUs
(LIEMPG) of baseline and and regulatory Strategic Plan by through legislations
assessment of priority prescriptions with LIEMPG as part of FLUPs and
ecosystems by RTWG. LGUs and local d. Validation of IEM CLUPs.
- biophysical, stakeholders. Strategic Plan with d. DENR and LGUs
social, institutional, c. Creation of LGUs and local support for the
and threats ecosystems stakeholders. IEM Strategic Plan
- governance governance body. e. Endorsement of the implementation
configuration IEM Strategic Plan by through their PPAs and
c. Determination of LGUs and Ecosystems P/CDPs, respectively.
non-negotiables Governance Body. e. Development and
(NNs) in the priority establishment of IEM
ecosystems by RTWG. Results-based M&E
(RBME) system.
f. Development of
sustainable financing.
Outputs: Priority Outputs: Ecosystems Outputs: Thematic maps Outputs: IEM Strategic
ecosystems identified. Governance body created. and IEM-derived maps Plan adopted.
completed.
NNs, governance NNs, initial mgt. and IEM Strategic Plan MOA signed
configuration, and initial regulatory prescriptions endorsed by LGUs and Local legislations enacted
mgt. and regulatory validated. Ecosystems Governance Funds allocated
prescriptions proposed. Body.
RBME and sustainable
financing developed
 17
With strong support from DENR leadership, DENR regions may start and initiate local
efforts to roll out IEM with provincial and cluster of LGUs. DENR field units have to
work closely with DA, DAR, and provincial governments in updating the database
of key ecosystems in the region, by province, and/or cluster of LGUs. Assessment
and prioritization of ecosystems based on updated database must be presented and
discussed with the respective regional and provincial development councils. Criteria
for assessing ecosystems may include biophysical parameters; types, biodiversity
indices, extent, coverage, and economic importance of the ecosystems with respect
to the goods and services that they provide; urgency for effective governance and
management based on threats and issues impinging on the sustainability of the ENR
assets; potential impacts of climate change especially from erratic weather conditions
and natural disasters to ecosystems, communities, livelihoods, enterprises and
industries; and willingness and interest of the local governments and private sector
to adopt IEM.
Updating the database will include the preparation of necessary thematic digital maps
such as ecosystem boundaries, LGU boundaries, land classification, tenure and ancestral
domains, slope and elevation, vegetative and land use, population, infrastructure,
hazard zones, conservation and protection forests, LGU zoning regime, coastal
waters, and location and service areas of ENR-dependent industries and enterprises.
The updated database combined with joint assessments and stakeholder consultations
will help in determining the major direction and type of IEM approach. This initial
categorization will be useful in defining and forming appropriate governance bodies
and institutional arrangement for IEM planning and implementation. The governance-
designated entities with RAAs for planning and implementing ENRM and existing
socioeconomic strategies and activities are initial inputs during the IEM strategic plan
development.
The updated database will be helpful in determining proximate tangible benefits and
costs for initial discussion and dissemination to different local stakeholders. Doable
institutional arrangements to mount concerted efforts in getting the interest of local
stakeholders to plan and manage the ecosystems may emerge from the database.
From the initial update of database and based on the DAO on IEM, DENR and the
LGUs may determine the scope and coverage of the IEM in each region, province, or
cluster of LGUs, such as the following:
1. A river basin, sub-river basin or large watershed, the topographic divides of
which, can be determined on the ground and may include the total area from
ridge to reef, ridge to lake, or ridge to wetlands;
2. A sub-watershed, cluster of sub-watersheds, or portion of sub-watershed
based on topographic divides such as the upper portion of a watershed or sub-
watershed;
3. A total area of a delineated key biodiversity area (KBA) or an identified area
within a KBA where concentrations and distribution of vulnerable, irreplaceable
trigger species are found or reside e.g. wetland habitats;
4. A protected area under the NIPAS or a watershed reservation (based on the
technical descriptions of the issuance or legislation);
5. An ancestral domain with unique socio-ethno-ecosystem characteristics that
have evolved over time with the communities;
6. An island or group of islands ecosystem with similar and unique ecological
processes;
7. Mineral reservation; and
8. Other ecosystems as maybe identified for management.
18
Creating, Capacitating, and Deploying the
IEM Planning Teams

DENR takes the lead in the prioritization

ecosystems by the region and in each province. It
will also take steps in formalizing agreements with
interested provinces or cluster of municipalities
to do joint site assessments, consultation with
communities especially with the LGUs and RMUs,
and developing action plans. Both DENR and the
concerned LGUs assign competent technical staff
to organize into technical working groups (TWGs)
whose members may undergo IEM orientation and
learn how to use certain tools and techniques in
collecting, summarizing, analyzing, and generating
key findings and recommendations for developing
the IEM strategic plan. Updating digital maps,
translating non-spatial data into digital maps,
overlays, field validation, and consultations are the
key steps during the initial stage of IEM planning
and implementation. Cross visits of the TWGs
and interactions with project management staff of
ongoing IEM-related initiatives are extremely helpful
in strengthening DENR-LGU working relationships
Photo: Bago River Watershed PMO
and enriching staff competence and skills.

Analyzing and Determining the Non-Negotiables and Needs for Improving

Governance and Management

Data analysis, map overlays combined with findings from the site validation, key
informant interviews, focus group discussions, threats assessments, and review
of relevant policies, available report and materials will serve as the initial inputs in
generating the “non-negotiables” in a given ecosystem. The different analyses will help
provide the current condition of the ecosystem but highlighting threats and issues and
emerging opportunities for strategic interventions.
The DAO on IEM has specified and described the non-negotiables: protected areas
under the NIPAS, protection forests and forestlands, prime agricultural lands and
highly hazardous zones, and the disallowed investments, land and resource uses.
Except for the last item, the non-negotiables can easily be translated into digital maps
based on a series of overlays. These are further determined and broken down by
governance-designated entity – DENR, LGU, and RMU. This way, the local governance
body for oversight functions may be identified. This will also help pinpoint individual
and partnership institutional arrangements for managing and regulating investments
and activities in the non-negotiables areas and for determining opportunities for socio-
economic development outside the non-negotiables.
The initial set of non-negotiables are validated and discussed with the different
stakeholders and communities to ensure that they understand and own the strategies
for their management and regulation. During this process, the supporting and
regulatory roles of DENR, LGUs and RMUs are highlighted. Further modifications
of the non-negotiables are made before specific strategies are formulated. The non-
negotiables are crucial as these will be the IEM core strategy by which the oversight
governance bodies are formed and created, and by which each LGU, DENR and other
sector agencies, the private sector including the NGOs, and RMUs may develop their
 19
ENR-related plans and programs. These will be basis in formulating appropriate public
investments, supporting RMUs, and promoting private sector investments. The non-
negotiables guide the process in determining baselines and defining the key outcomes
and outputs for designing the IEM results-based M&E system.

Getting the IEM Strategic Plan Approved and Adopted

The IEM strategic plan will be carried out by the TWG whose membership may come
from DENR, province, other NGAs, concerned LGUs and civil society groups. A
template for IEM strategic plan preparation is shown in Figure 2. The plan preparation
focuses on analyzing the current situation, formulating the common vision and goals,
managing and regulating the non-negotiables and how these are translated into each of
the LGU, DENR field unit, and RMU. The plan also lays down what public and private
investments are needed to enhance the ecosystem comparative advantage in support
of the competitive goods and services. These goods and services may be round wood,
fuelwood, non-timber forest products, providing water for various uses, ecotourism-
related services that are linked with unique attractions for local and foreign visitors.
It will also include a strategy for multi-source financing schemes and mechanisms to
establish and sustain functional, governance-based, and outcome- and output-based
results-based M&E system.

Where are we now? How do we get there? Where do we want

to go?

• Land and ENR assets, Strategies for Non-negotiables

ecosystem services, Vision
governance • Improving local governance Mission
• ENR service areas: farms, • Institutional arrangements Objectives
industries, agribusiness, • Improving capacities
coastal areas, etc. • Tenure rights and land access
• Capacities, local policies, • Public investments
markets, social, economy • Agro-industries development
• Threats, issues • Zoning (DRR)
• Sustainable Finance • Monitoring and
• Opportunities evaluation
• LGU and sector
outputs
• Performance
monitoring plan
Environmental, socioeconomic, and
political impacts? Mitigation and
enhancement measures (EIA)?

Figure 2. Template Process in Preparing IEM Framework, CDPs, and Sector Plans
 20
Part of the IEM strategic
plan preparation is the
validation of the TWG-
endorsed non-negotiables
with the proposed
strategies with the key
local and community
stakeholders during
consultations or en banc
meetings. The validation
will facilitate understanding
of the components of the
IEM strategic plan. The
validated non-negotiables
are used in refining the
RAAs of governance-
designated entities, priority
environmentally-friendly
investments in support
Photo: Kanan-Agos River Watershed PMO of ecosystem-wide socio-
economic development, capacity
building for institutions with RAAs, setting up sustainable financing mechanisms,
collaboration and partnership, and oversight of the local governance body.
The IEM strategic plan lays down how the local governance body can ensure that the
non-negotiables are incorporated in the LGU’s FLUP and Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (CLUP) and eventually in their zoning regimes and Comprehensive Development
Plans (CDPs). It will also provide guidance on how the DENR and each concerned
local government will support or assist each RMU on how the non-negotiables are
incorporated in their respective resource management plans such as Community
Resource Management Framework for CBFMA holders, ADSDPP for CADTs,
forest management plan for Integrated Forest Management Agreements, protected
area general management plan for NIPAS areas, watershed management plan for
reservations, among others.
The DENR Region approves the IEM strategic plan for a given ecosystem provided it
has adequately undergone consultations with local stakeholders and is endorsed by
the local ecosystems governance body.

Developing IEM-Consistent Plans of LGUs and DENR

To ensure that the provincial development plan and DENR plan are in support of the
IEM, the IEM strategic plan will outline what and how DENR, each province, and
each city or municipality will support the IEM implementation through their programs,
projects and activities (PPAs), annual work and financial plans, and investment plans of
the province and concerned cities and municipalities. Support for IEM implementation
will have to be incorporated in the LGU development plans that require the review and
approval of the respective Sangguniang Panlalawigan or Bayan. The DENR Regional
Executive Director has to approve the Provincial ENR Office (PENRO) and Community
ENR Office (CENRO) work and financial plans in support of the IEM strategic plan.
Ideally, the DENR and provincial work and financial plans have to directly support
ecosystem-wide activities and specific LGUs that need help to support their RMUs in
their respective political jurisdiction.
 21

Photo: Libmanan-Pulantuna Watershed PMO

4. Implementing the IEM Strategic Plan

Upon approval and adoption of the IEM Strategic Plan, implementation activities start.
The local ecosystem governance body will formalize the creation and mobilization of
implementing and coordinating offices at different levels. Designated staff or new staff
may be hired to be assigned in the IEM Overall Coordinating Office either at DENR
or in the provincial government and, if needed, in each LGU. Specific activities during
the mobilization will be orientation and initial capacity building of the members of the
governance body, determining the outputs and what outcomes will they contribute
to, re-visiting and defining the RAAs of each governance-designated entity and linking
these with their expected outputs and deliverables, securing sustainable finance, and
coordinating individual and collective implementation activities. All of these will have
to be formally executed through memoranda of agreement, joint resolutions, local
executive orders, and special orders.
Figure 3 illustrates a typical structure that can help facilitate the implementation of
IEM activities through policies, LGU plans, and programs. This structure may change
from site to site. DENR and the LGUs have to ensure that their policies, programs
and resources support the activities of the oversight governance bodies (e.g.,
expanded PAMBs or watershed-ecosystem management councils, LGU-based steering
committees). In turn, these bodies have to direct, support, capacitate, monitor, and
evaluate the RMUs (tenure holders, CADC/CADT holders, private land owners, use
right holders, and state resource managers) as they implement IEM-consistent activities
and those that ensure the management and regulation of the “non-negotiables.”
Open access portions of the lands of the public domains have to be covered either by
tenure, contracts, and agreements to on-site improve conservation, protection, and
development. The governance-oriented IEM implementation highlights the crucial
roles of LGUs (with the support of DENR, DA, DAR, and the province) in assisting the
RMUs to effectively manage and develop their land and ENRs consistent with the IEM
strategic plan.
The sector plans of various NGAs especially those of DENR, DA, and DAR and
those of the LGU development plans should ensure support for the ecosystem-wide
activities of the local governance body bodies. These plans may include providing
and/or seconding staff support for oversight bodies, covering the cost of inter-LGU
22

IEM Framework Plan

IEM-consistent Municipal and

IEM-consistent City Comprehensive National government
Provincial Development Plans agency sector plans
Development Plans in in support of the
support of inter-LGU • Sector programs IEM Framework Plan
activities • Social, infrastructure, and Municipal and
extension, capacity & City Comprehensive
livelihood support Development Plans
• Private sector investments
• Co-financing & PES
• Ordinance & enforcement
• Zoning

Agricultural-small & Protected Tenure

CARP farmers, fishers, CADTs
Areas holders
entrepreneurs, private sector

Figure 3. A Framework for Governance-oriented IEM Implementation

and IEM-wide activities such as enforcement, coordination, M&E, conflict-resolution,

information and dissemination campaigns, strengthening property rights, promoting
private sector investments, providing infrastructure support and social services, and
capacity building. The NGA sector plans may also include support for priority programs
in any of the LGUs especially those that have major responsibilities for managing and
regulating large areas of the non-negotiables which provide benefits to both on- and
off-site communities and enterprises.
With measures to manage and regulate the non-negotiables, the LGUs, DENR, RMUs,
and the private sector can discuss and agree how to improve the “investment climate”
in producing, processing, and marketing various competitive goods and services.
Public investments may prioritize investments to enhance a site’s comparative
advantage in support of competitive and market-oriented goods and services. The
private sector may be encouraged to invest on ventures that may increase value chains
of ENR-sourced or ENR-dependent goods and services such as round wood, fuelwood,
ecotourism services, energy and water production, among others. Support for the
oversight bodies by the province and the NGAs may also include advisory support for
EIA/EIS reviews of proposed investments in the ecosystem, advocacy and adoption of
unified ordinances that will be issued by the province, capacity building, and subsidy
support for LGUs whose local revenues are not adequate to cover rehabilitation and
conservation costs.
DENR field units may collaborate with LGUs in strengthening tenure rights, carrying out
cadastral surveys, enforcing ENR laws, supporting investments in conservation areas
and forest lands, titling, and aligning other DENR technical support services especially
those that are under its National Greening Program and other ENRM initiatives.
In summary, collaborative management and partnership of the governance-designated
entities with RAAs will make IEM functional at the ecosystem, LGU, and RMU levels.
IEM provides the framework for a holistic approach to both mitigation and adaptation in
a given ecosystem. Stakeholders are enjoined to work together in making transparent,
accountable, and participatory choices, decisions, and actions (CDAs) to achieve the
 23
objectives of SFM, biodiversity conservation, REDD+, and climate change resiliency
programs. The local ecosystem governance body ensures that the ENR sector
continues to contribute in reducing poverty, triggering sustainable and inclusive local
economic growth, and opening opportunities for increased public and ENR-friendly
private investments.

Governance-oriented Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System

As part of the IEM implementation, the governance body with each LGU and concerned
DENR field offices will generate an IEM site-specific results-based monitoring and
evaluation system (RBME). Table 3 shows the governance-designated entities with
RAAs for various ecosystem units and sub-units. This will help define the RBME outputs
of each LGU, DENR field unit, and governance body and how these will contribute to
the overall desired IEM outcomes. This process will include defining the key output
indicators, how these will be measured, summarized, analyzed, and reported by each
LGU, field units of DENR and other concerned agencies. The outputs may include
those that will contribute to defined outcomes such as: improved climate change-
resiliency of ecosystems, communities and livelihoods; improved environmental
governance system; and improved NRM or sustained ecosystem services. The RBME
system includes the process of carrying out periodic performance monitoring activities
of key outputs at the ecosystem and LGU levels. The RBME system is based on the
approved IEM strategic plan and will be largely based on the non-negotiables. The
RBME becomes a tool of a performance-based management in a given ecosystem.

Table 3. Multiple and Different Levels of RAAs and Management Units in an Ecosystem

Ecosystem Unit Physical Description RAAs

The whole Total area within biophysical divides Undefined unless a MOA is signed
watershed among stakeholders
Declared watershed Coordinates legally defined Legally defined but needs strong
and adequate representation from
local stakeholders
Sub-watershed Total area within biophysical divides Undefined unless a MOA is signed
of a major tributary river among stakeholders
LGUs (city, Defined political jurisdiction Defined by law but needs support
municipality, and partnership with DENR
barangay)
Tenure holders Boundaries defined under Defined under agreement, tenure
agreement or CADT/CADC
Use right holders Location or area of operations Defined under contract or sub-
defined under contract contract
Holders of sub- Location or area of operations Defined under contract or sub-
contracts or sub- defined under contract agreement
agreements
Residents/industries Location defined with address or Defined under national and local
in A & D land title policies, regulations, administrative
orders, ordinances
24
Sustainable Financing

With the RBME comes the need to determine annual operating costs of IEM
implementation at the ecosystem and LGU levels. The list of planned activities
at the LGU, DENR, and ecosystem levels will help in estimating the total cost for
implementing the IEM strategic plan. Consistent with the governance principles,
a participatory process is introduced to estimate the individual and collective total
funding requirements, determine the sources of these funds—public or private—and
identify mechanisms to finance the estimated gaps for IEM implementation over a
certain period. Alternative financing schemes in each ecosystem such as collection of
user’s fee, penalties or charges systems may generate additional revenues that could
be invested back for IEM implementation. These mechanisms will need appropriate
valuation of ecosystems goods and services, agreement among different parties, local
policies such as ordinance or joint resolutions, systems for payments and financial
management that includes auditing and reporting systems.
The costs for carrying out activities to achieve the outputs by each LGU, DENR and
the IEM governance body will have to be estimated. Sources of funds will have to
established either from the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and non-IRA of LGUs,
DENR budget from the approved annual General Appropriations Act, donor funds,
and ENR-sourced revenues. For securing public funds in support of initial IEM
implementation, the LGUs and DENR will have to include the estimated annual costs
of their IEM-related programs, projects, and activities (PPAs). These funds will have
to be included as part of the GAA process. When approved, the DENR and the LGUs
may still need to prepare work and financial plans for the approvals of the provincial,
city or municipal councils and DENR Regional Office.

Governance Considerations

In the IEM implementation and depending on the IEM model type, policy overlaps
(within the ENR sector, among the different government sectors, and between local
and national levels) may occur. IEM managers should pursue proactive and continuing
efforts to harmonize joint conservation activities in IP-dominated domains but PA-
declared areas. Within DENR and depending on the scope of the IEM,, the regional
and provincial offices may have to designate a lead ENR unit in case more than one
sector—forestry, protected areas, environment, mining—are involved. In areas where
ancestral domains or lands exist, the DENR and NCIP have to collaborate in planning
and implementing IEM programs and activities with the LGUs.
Facilitating consensus and convergence areas is an important part of pursuing the
IEM strategy, especially in instances of conflicting interests or initiatives. LGUs are
encouraged by the local ecosystems governance body to include the non-negotiables
in their zoning regimes as part of the CLUP processes. This is critical especially when
LGU zones have not adequately consider the need to reduce threats in protection
forests and forest lands, biodiversity reserves, and critical habitats... Local and national
interests may conflict with each other, especially in ecosystems with high economic
value, diversity and national significance. Opportunities for complementation, closure
of negotiations, agreements on sharing mechanisms, co-investments, and long-term
commitments from local stakeholders may be easier to pursue with the adoption of
governance-oriented IEM planning and implementation.
 25

Photo: Liguasan Wetland Biodiversity Reserve PM

5. Summary
This primer provides a framework and highlights the IEM concept and how it can
be translated into doable implementation strategies. These are based on key lessons
and recommendations from several ENRMP/GEF IEM pilot sites (Kanan Watershed in
Quezon, Libmanan-Pulantuana Watershed in Bicol Region, Bago River Watershed in
Negros Occidental, and Ligawasan Wetland Biodiversity Reserve in Maguindanao and
North Cotabato Provinces).
The key lessons and recommendations cover the following areas:
• Understanding the national governance framework for ENR, lands of the public
domain, and ancestral lands — policies, rules, and regulations embodied in current
statutory and customary laws — and how it can:
a. guide the process of defining “responsible, accountable, and authorized”
(RAA) local governance or oversight bodies, DENR field units, LGUs, and
resource management units in an ecosystem;
b. lay down rules on how the governance-designated entities with RAAs will
choose, decide, and act (CDA) based on transparent, accountable, and
participatory principles and practices;
c. provide “controls” and direction for individual and collective plans and
programs towards common goals and objectives, and
d. Help create local economic opportunities to address poverty, eliminate
marginalization, and arrest resource degradation.
• Translating and reflecting the national governance framework of ENR, lands of
the public domains, and ancestral lands down to each of the four IEM sites by
addressing the following key areas and processes:
a. Updating the biophysical, resource, and socioeconomic databases;
b. Defining the governance-designated entities with RAAs to improve
oversight and effectiveness of resource management units based on
institutional mandates, land classification, political boundaries, tenure and
rights in ancestral domain claims, titled lands, forest lands, protected areas,
reservations, and others;
c. Determining key stakeholders in creating and establishing governance
bodies for oversight at the ecosystem and LGU levels;
26
d. Based on policies, agreed upon criteria, topography and biological
characteristics, arriving at and adopting the “non-negotiables” for
protection forests and forest lands, protected areas,, prime agricultural
lands, high hazard zones, and disallowed investments, land and resource
uses;
e. Developing IEM implementation strategies based on the non-negotiables,
investment priorities for enhancing comparative advantages in support of
competitive goods and services, and governance-designated units with
RAAs;
f. Developing and adopting a common results-based monitoring and
evaluation system that specifies outputs of those with RAAs;
g. Establishing short, medium, and long-term financing scheme for the IEM
implementation; and
h. Strengthening the local governance framework for IEM implementation
with resolutions, ordinances, agreements, and other policy instruments.

References

CBD. 2000. The Convention on Biological Diversity. 413, Saint Jacques Street, Suite
800, Montreal QC H2Y 1N9. Canada.
Engel A and B Korf. 2005. Negotiation and mediation techniques for natural resource
management. Rome, Italy. 2005.
FMB. 2007. Forestry Statistics. FMB, DENR Complex, Visayas Avenue, Quezon City.
FAO. 2005. Best practices for improving law compliance in the forest sector. FAO,
Rome, Italy. 2005.
Heino, J. 2009. Society, forests, and change—creating a better future. The Future of
Forests. FAO, Thailand.
NEDA. 2011. Philippines Development Plan for 2011-2016. NEDA, Pasig City,
Metro Manila.
 For more information, please contact:

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects Office
DENR Compound, Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

Telefax: +632 926-2689; 928-0028; 926-2693