1

MKRNP
Management Plan
2018-2022
 2

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For more than two decades since the passing of resolution leading to the declaration
of Mt. Kitanglad Range as a national park and eventually the law making it a full-fledged
Protected Area (PA), Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park has been one of the model PA in the
Philippines.

Aside from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the local
government units have always played a significant role in ensuring that protected area
policies are implemented and the legitimate interests of the local communities and other
stakeholders are protected. The rest of the members of the Protected Area Management Board
from other agencies and sectors have enriched the deliberations in the board leading to
consensual decisions that recognize the necessity of balancing the various – and at times
conflicting – interests that impact on the goals of biodiversity conservation.

Drafting the Protected Area Management Plan has proved the willingness of these
various players to agree on a healthy compromise that seeks to attain biodiversity
conservation in the park without necessarily endangering the survival of its indigenous
inhabitants and tenured migrants (non-indigenous peoples who have settled in the area for at
least five years prior to the passage of the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act or
Republic Act 7586) and to promote sustainable development. A process that started with
data-gathering at the community level, management planning eventually employed more
deliberate methods of obtaining inputs such as iterative workshops and resource inventory.

The first management plan was approved by the PAMB in 2000 and its
implementation was funded by the provincial government and the municipal/city
governments that have political jurisdiction over the park.

Since then, the PAMB has reviewed and updated its plan based on the progress in
program implementation as well as on emerging needs as identified by the management and
other stakeholders. Toward this end, the protected area staff conducted an internal evaluation
of the programs under the previous plan with the following objectives: 1] determine the
quantitative and qualitative results; 2] identify the programs that should be continued under
this successor plan; and 3] recommend new programs relevant to the new situation and new
technologies.

In addition, community consultations were conducted to draw out issues and concerns
from the indigenous peoples and other park occupants. These activities enabled the
management to balance conservation goals with the interests of the local communities in
particular those pertaining to resource use. For instance, the delineation of management zones
referred not only to scientific prescriptions but also to cultural injunctions as a way of
reconciling the two schools of thought.

The revision of the plan was further enriched by various secondary data. The updated
socio-economic profile for example owes to a recent survey on income and other indicators
made by the Kitanglad Integrated NGOs. Data on resource inventory that were reflected in
the previous plan were useful as a basis of comparison vis-à-vis the results of the Biodiversity
Monitoring System, LAWIN Forest and Biodiversity Protection System (introduced by the
B+WISER project funded by USAID), Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring System
(BAMS), research studies by different universities and colleges and activities done quarterly
by the protected area staff.
 3

2.0 INTRODUCTION

Laws on biodiversity conservation had been enacted in the Philippines as early as the
American colonial period. It was only in 1992, however, that it acquired strong legal
framework with the passage of the NIPAS Act. Two years after, the law underwent an acid
test in the Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Project, a project funded by the Global
Environment Facility and administered by the World Bank, and anchored on the precept of
conserving biodiversity without displacing people living in ecologically significant areas.
MKRNP was one of the ten sites covered by the project the success of which relied heavily
on a strong partnership among the various stakeholders.

Partnership was manifested in, among others, the formulation of the management
plan. The local communities, PAMB, protected area staff, academes and non-government
organizations contributed to the evolution of the plan as an expression of shared vision culled
from realities borne out by scientific studies and researches as well as the practical wisdom of
tradition.

In 2000, the PAMB approved the plan. LGUs with jurisdiction over the park
subsequently adopted the plan and have since allocated varying amounts for its
implementation. External donors and non-government entities likewise contributed to the
realization of the goals and objectives of the plan by carrying out various projects in the park.

Since 2001, the management has accomplished milestones in the area of community
participation through the various people’s organizations, Council of Elders and Kitanglad
Guard Volunteers. People’s involvement has been encouraged by sustained awareness
campaigns, provision of alternative livelihoods and issuance of tenure instruments, e.g.
Community-Based Forest Management Agreement. Moreover, the PAMB endorsed the
application for a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title from the Bukidnon-Daraghuyan tribe
in barangay Dalwangan, Malaybalay City, which the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples subsequently approved.

One of the notable results of community participation particularly in forest protection

is the observable drop in the number of violations of park rules through the years. In addition,
wildlife population has increased by thirty percent based on the results of the BMS done by
the protected area staff and KGVs.

In resource mobilization, the management has generated revenues for the Integrated
Protected Area Fund and obtained regular allocations from the LGUs for park operations.
Aside from funding assistance, the LGUs have conducted trainings and similar activities for
local communities. On the other hand, operators of telecommunications facilities and
agribusiness firms have extended support to forest rehabilitation efforts. Lack of resources
and needed technical expertise on the part of these partners have been addressed through
linkages with foreign institutions, research groups, NGOs, academe, and other private and
government agencies.

Given these developments, environmental changes and advancement of technology,

the management deemed to subject the plan to revision to make it responsive to current
conditions. Consistent, however, with the spirit of the NIPAS Act and Mount Kitanglad
Protected Area Act, any revision shall always take into account the welfare of local
communities by involving them in the planning process. Thus the management organized
grassroots level consultations to enable the inhabitants to input their own concerns and
interests.
 4

As with the previous plan, the current plan made use of the process as shown in the
figure below:

Simplified planning process for Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park

Data from Resource Inventory, direct observation, etc.

PA Profile (Geophysical, biodiversity profile, socio-demographic)

Resulting from data analysis, Management Planning

Management Issues Writeshop and stakeholders inputs.
and Concerns

As the plan is a 5-year plan, the objectives are

Management Goals measurable and complementary to strategic plan and
and Objectives logical framework plan.

Management
Strategies
Zoning Zone
Prescription
Management
(Zone Specific)
Program
PA Wide Standards
and Guidelines
Implementation
Plan
Budget/Work Plan
(Gantt chart)
M and E The M & E is a system that will help the management
in assessing the implementation of the plan.
 5

3.0 PROFILE OF THE PROTECTED AREA

3.1. Historical Context and Rationale for Protected Area Establishment

MKRNP is a major watershed of Northern Mindanao supplying lowland

communities with water for domestic, irrigation and industrial uses, and its rainforests
hosts diverse species of wildlife, many of which are considered rare and endemic.
However, studies conducted in the early 1990s indicated that some species were
already endangered or showing signs of becoming extinct due primarily to habitat loss
caused by logging, encroachment of agriculture and other forms of forest destruction.

Forest destruction in Mt. Kitanglad came in the wake of the logging boom in
the 1960s and 1970s. The then Bureau of Forest Development awarded Timber
License Agreements to at least three logging companies which operated in Libona,
Baungon, Talakag, Lantapan and Malaybalay for almost thirty years.

In 1988, the people of San Fernando town in Bukidnon initiated a series of

protest activities urging government to stop commercial logging in the province. This
obliged the DENR to impose a province-wide logging moratorium, which stopped the
operations of logging companies including those in Mt. Kitanglad. By then, however,
vast areas of lowland dipterocarp forest had already been denuded.

Deforestation in Mt. Kitanglad had been abetted by the coming of immigrants

from the Visayas and Luzon and from neighboring provinces. The dumagat, as they
are called, introduced commercial crop cultivation that led to clearing of forests and
supplanted the indigenous peoples’ subsistence level of farming.

Forest fires during the El Niño years also contributed to forest destruction in
Mt. Kitanglad. The long drought in 1982-83 caused forest fires that reached the
summit and burned more than 6,000 hectares of primary forest. The same calamity
struck again in 1998 on a much lesser scale when an estimated 300 hectares of
grassland and forest land burned.

To arrest further destruction, the government undertook various measures

aside from the logging moratorium in a bid to conserve the remaining forest resources
of Mt. Kitanglad, to wit:

• Proclamation of the 2,800-hectare Cinchona Forest Reserve Experimental

Area in Lantapan, which eventually became part of the protected area
• Issuance by President Corazon C. Aquino of Presidential Proclamation No.
677 making Mt. Kitanglad Range a national park and placing it under the
administration of the DENR regional and provincial offices
• Enactment of the NIPAS Act
• Issuance by President Fidel V. Ramos of Presidential Proclamation No.
896, on October 24, 1996, making Mt. Kitanglad a protected area in the
category of natural park
• Passage of Republic Act 8978 or the Mount Kitanglad Protected Area Act
of 2000, on November 9, 2000, which established the mountain range as a
full-fledged protected area
 6

3.2 Regional and Local Development Context

Northern Mindanao’s medium-term development plan (1993-2022) envisions

the agriculture sector to remain a major contributor to the economy and a major
source of employment. Agriculture development will focus on the production of high-
value crops and putting up agri-processing centers.

Economic planners contend that since the region has become the major
transshipment hub in Mindanao with the improvement of its port facilities and the
establishment of infrastructure arteries, it may now assert its role as a major leader in
the production of high-value, high-yielding crops and other agri-based goods, and
present itself as the most ideal venue for industrial ventures in the island.

Given its wide agricultural area and suitable soils and climate, Bukidnon plays
a vital role in this economic thrust as the main source of agricultural products and raw
materials for the food processing industry in the province as well as in the region. The
cities of Malaybalay and Valencia – and eventually Maramag town – will remain the
centers that will drive the development of the province. In addition, the periphery of
MKRNP has been eyed to become the vegetable bowl of the region owing to its
temperate climate and steady supply of water. Recently, the towns of Impasugong,
Talakag, Sumilao and Lantapan augmented the vegetable supply in Luzon after the
onslaught of typhoon ‘Opmpong” (international name typhoon Mangkhut).

As a safeguard, however, the regional economic plan stresses the need to

harmonize development goals with policies on the environment and to protect forest
resources, as it takes note of the increasing demand for agricultural land and
competing land uses and the apparent inability of regulating agencies to implement
zoning laws. It further notes the utilization of protected areas and/or proclaimed
watersheds for production purposes. It cites the non-observance of the 18-percent
slope rule as the upper limit for agricultural production causing soil disturbance and
other forms of land degradation. It also considers ancestral domain claims within
protected areas as another aspect of land use conflict.

3.3. Physical Features

3.3.1 Topography

MKRNP encompasses 47,270 hectares covering the North-Central

portion of Bukidnon. It includes parts of the municipalities of Baungon,
Talakag, Lantapan, Impasugong, Sumilao, Libona, and Manolo Fortich and
the City of Malaybalay. These eight share boundaries at the summit. The
Range belongs to the volcanic Lanao-Bukidnon Highland that dominates the
northern half of Central Mindanao. It has more than a dozen peaks. Mt.
Dulang-dulang, which has an elevation of 2,938 masl is the second highest
peak in the country. Mt. Kitanglad follows closely with an elevation of 2,899
masl. Aside from its undulating landscape the range has several precipices
especially in areas where creeks and rivers originate
 7

3.3.2 Geology

Mt. Kitanglad Range is a composite of Pliocene-Quaternary plateau

basalt and pyroclastic deposits and represented by forphyritic andesite. The
andesitic and pyroclastic peaks are Mt. Kitanglad, Mt. Kaatuan, Mt. Alanib
and Mt. Maagnaw.

The clusters of volcanic cones of Mt. Kitanglad and Mt. Piapayungan

in North Cotabato are aligned in an eastnorth-eastwest direction. This could
mean that the underlying sedimentary rocks are controlled by fissures that
trend in the same direction (LREP, 1992).

The Range is chiefly underlain by intercalated agglomeratic breccine

and pyroclastics and flow-banded andesitic composition. These are made up of
angular and sub-rounded andesitic fragments set in a matrix of similar
composition. Beneath this volcanic sequence is Miocene as a result of volcanic
flows covering a wide area in the western part of Impasugong. This type of
rock was ejected from Mt. Kitanglad (Mines & Soil Bureau, 1998).

Geologic structures include flow band features and a contemporary

fault developed with the deposition of the material represented by the flow
bands and layers exhibited by the andesitic lavas. Serial photographs show
other structures or lineaments, which are probably faults or other structures.
The trends of these lineaments appear to approximate the northwesterly
trending Philippine Fault (Manzano, 1997).

Mt. Kitanglad is thus exposed to various geologic hazards owing to its

location, tectonic cut and array of volcanic features. It is excluded from the list
of active volcanoes in the Philippines. However, the Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology cautioned that this is no guarantee that it will not
erupt in the future. Its true state remains unknown and needs further study.

MKRNP has likewise experienced shallow earthquakes with depths of

less than 50 kilometers, at a local magnitude (m1) range of 4.0-6.0. The
tremors have been due to the movements and interactions of elements
configuring the Mindanao region. These elements include the Philippine Fault
system, Mindanao Fault, Cotabato Trench and Philippine Trench (Manzano,
1997).

3.3.3 Climate

The climate of Mt. Kitanglad falls under the Type III Climate of the
modified Corona’s classification and is characterized as having a short dry
season lasting only from one to three months with no pronounced maximum
rain period. The area is virtually cloud-covered throughout the year.
Temperature ranges from 22.70 C during January to 24.60 C in June. The park
receives the highest amount of rainfall in June; March is the driest month.
Relative humidity varies from 71 percent in May to 86 percent in September.
 8

3.3.4. Hydrology

The Range is the headwater source of several major river systems

draining North and Central Mindanao. Its creeks and rivers flow in a radial
pattern and feed the Cagayan, Tagoloan and Pulangi Rivers. River valleys and
gullies are narrow and precipitous.

3.3.5 Soils

The soil type of the foot slopes of the volcanic peaks is clayey and it is
generally deep, with fragments of volcanic rocks rather common. However,
soil layers are shallow in areas where erosion is massive. Soil in this
physiographic unit is well-drained and relatively acidic due to high acidic
potential of parent materials. Higher rainfall and faster lateral movement of
water in these areas also contribute to soil acidity. In higher elevations the soil
has more organic matter due to low temperature. But the soil in general is
phosphate-deficient although some areas have high potassium content.

3.4 Biological Features

3.4.1 Habitats and Ecosystems

There are six major types of habitat in MKRNP. These are the lowland
evergreen rainforest, lower montane forest, upper montane forest, grassland,
freshwater wetlands and caves.

a. Grasslands

The grasslands are characterized by the dominance of cogon grass

Imperata cylindrica and Saccharum spontaneum. Other grasses and ferns also
thrive, especially along banks of creeks, streams, and rivers and on steep
slopes. The grassland area increased in size after the fires razed at least 6,000
hectares of forest in 1982-83. It replaced forests below 1,200 masl in the entire
range, except for residual trees confined mostly to steep riverbanks. Natural
regeneration however has steadily been taking place in the burned areas.

Grassland habitat is of little importance to conservation of species

diversity. Only 12 plant species are known in this ecosystem and four are
being used by local communities. However, it serves as feeding area for
Philippine Brown Deer Cervus mariannus. Likewise, a Woodcock species
then believed to be a new discovery to science was recorded in this ecosystem
during the survey conducted by Dr. Robert S. Kennedy, et al. (Cincinnati
Museum of Natural History, 1995) and during the 1996 faunal inventory
conducted by the Nordic Agency for Development and Ecology in Mt.
Dulangdulang.

b. Lowland Evergreen Rainforest.

The lowland evergreen rainforests, with an elevation of up to 1,300

masl, is the most species-rich forest type and structurally the most complex. It
 9

dominates the landscape from the base of the mountain and is characterized by
the abundance of dipterocarp species (e.g. bagtikan, white and red lauan and
yakal). This forest type is found in patches and is estimated to be about 6,600
hectares.

According to the technical report of NORDECO (Integrating

Conservation and Development in Protected Area Management, 1998) the
lowland evergreen rainforest is the habitat of some globally threatened animal
and plant species. Out of the faunal species observed in this habitat type, 43
species of birds, 11 species of mammals and one species of butterfly are
regarded as globally threatened or near threatened. The Lesser Eagle Owl
Mimizuki gurneyi and Black headed Tailorbird Orthotomus nigriceps are some
of the species found in this habitat type which are endemic to lowland
evergreen rainforests of Mindanao.

Originally three-layered, the vegetation is characterized by a two-

storey layer of minor tree species and the absence of emergents. Large parts of
these forests are predominantly second-growth and residuals.

c. Lower Montane Forest

Lower montane forests (1,300-2,300 masl) cover an approximate area

of 25,000 hectares and are characterized by a two-layered canopy. Trees in
this habitat type are shorter in height than those found in lowland residual
dipterocarp forests. Plant families representing this forest type include
Fagaceae, Lauraceae, Myrtaceae, Podocarpaceae and Clusiaceae. Lichens,
epiphytic orchids and ferns as well as climbing Pandans Freycinetia spp. are
common. These forests include the roughly 6,000 hectares that burned during
the 1982-83 drought but have since undergone natural regeneration.

This habitat type provides living area for a number of globally

threatened animal and plant species, including at least 23 species of birds, 12
species of mammals and three species of butterfly. Nine of these species are
reported endemic to the lower montane forests of Mindanao. Large mammals
such as the Philippine Warty Pig Sus philippinenses and Philippine Brown
Deer that are found in this habitat heavily assist in maintaining the species
diversity of the forest.

d. Upper Montane (Mossy) Forest

Upper montane forest ranges from 2,300 to 2,900 masl which extends
up to Mt. Dulangdulang. Trees in this habitat type are gnarled and have a
stunted growth with a more or less uniform height of 10-12 meters (FSDI).
Trunks and branches of these trees are festooned with thick mats of mosses,
lichens (Usnea spp.) and epiphytic ferns. Oaks, Lithocarpus spp. and
Syzigium spp. are particularly abundant. Forest cover remains largely intact
except for a regenerating portion that burned during the 1982-83 drought. Its
present area is more or less 2,000 hectares.
 10

A large number of endemic and globally threatened species of wildlife

has been documented in this habitat including 11 species of birds, four species
of mammals and one species of butterfly.

e. Freshwater Wetlands

Villages in MKRNP are usually situated close to the rivers on which

they depend for water supply. However, the loss of ground vegetation cover
had caused soil erosion and subsequently increased sediment loads in rivers.
In addition, residues from fertilizers and pesticides used in agricultural
activities have contributed to the deterioration of water quality. This may have
caused the fish stocks and diversity in many rivers to decrease as reported by
the local communities. There are 31 species of aquatic animals in this
ecosystem two of which are endemic. Nine species are of economic use to
local communities.

f. Caves

According to the local communities, there are many caves within the
park but most of these are shallow with narrow entry points. The most
prominent are Kinatiga cave in Lantapan and Kidugkaw cave in Impasugong.
Local communities used to extract guano (used as organic fertilizer) from
Kidugkaw cave but man-made disturbance had caused disastrous effects due
to rumors that there is Yamashita treasure hidden inside. Information from the
local communities of Barangay Kibenton, Impasugong revealed that the area
was used as a Japanese garrison during World War II.

Several species of bats, swiftlets and invertebrates depend on cave

ecosystems. Bats in particular are important pollinators and seed dispersers
(Mickelburgh et al, 1992; Ingle, 1998) and play key roles in maintaining forest
biodiversity. Except for the eight known animal species in the caves of
MKRNP three of which are endemic and three others are threatened, little else
is known about the biodiversity of this habitat. Three of these species are of
economic importance to local communities.

3.4.2 Flora

Floral inventories conducted in Mt. Kitanglad (Pipoly, et.al, 1996;

Palis, 1996) revealed its importance as a priority site for protection since it is
the habitat of many endangered, endemic, rare and economically important
species. At least 58 families and 185 species of trees and other woody
vegetations were recorded in the park. Likewise, 345 fern species were known
to exist in the park of which 69 (20 percent) are endemic to the place.

Dr. Victor Amoroso et.al (1995-97) of the Central Mindanao

University conducted a floral inventory in two forest sites of Mt. Kitanglad
Range: Mts. Apolang (intact forest) and Kinasalapi (degraded forest). At least
50 species of trees, 121 species of shrubs and herbs, 196 species of ferns, 12
species of fern allies, 71 species of lichens and 110 species of bryophytes were
recorded. Assessment of the status of flora revealed one endangered, 56
endemic, 121 rare and 78 economically important species. The species
 11

richness and density including endemism are comparatively higher in intact

forests than in degraded forests.

3.4.3 Fauna

At least 63 species of mammals are known to exist in the park of which

27 (43 percent) are endemic. Thirteen (57 percent) of the 25 species of reptiles
and 12 (46 percent) of the 26 species of amphibians are endemic. There are
168 known species of birds, including 62 (37 percent) which are endemic. A
survey conducted by Lawrence Heaney, et al (1992-93) recorded at least 16
species out of the list of endemic birds in Mindanao which can be found in Mt.
Kitanglad. Butterflies meanwhile registered a total of 131 species and sub-
species were recorded of which 114 (87 percent) are endemic (NORDECO &
DENR, 1998).

Studies conducted in the 1990s also indicated that the diversity of Mt.
Kitanglad’s birds and mammals had decreased. Dr. Lawrence Heaney reported
that 20 species of birds documented in the 1960’s and 70’s were no longer
sighted. They suspected that some of these species were already extinct in the
park. In 1996, NORDECO noted that 48 (28 percent) of the bird species and
11 (17 percent) of the mammal species known from the park had not been
recorded within its boundaries. Both Heaney and NORDECO attributed the
loss and decline of these species to the destruction of their lowland forest
habitat. NORDECO also recommended species to be prioritized in
biodiversity monitoring. The list includes all endemic species of flora and 43
species of fauna, 30 of which are birds.

Based on BMS reports from 2007 to 2011, the priority species were
permanently observed or seen during this period. Moreover, some species
which were said to be rare or feared to be on the brink of extinction in the park
were increasingly observed in the latter part of the same period. The
populations of the Philippine Deer and the Philippine Warty Pig, whose
numbers were initially thought to have significantly dwindled due to hunting
have been observed to have increased. The PASu staff attributed the improved
status of fauna to sustained patrolling and growing awareness of the local
people of the need to protect biodiversity.

The most abundant priority species include the Philippine Hanging

Parakeet, Metallic Pigeon, Montane Racquet-tailed Parrot, Reddish Cuckoo
Dove, White-eared Brown Dove, Zebra Dove, Yellow-breasted Fruit Dove,
Mindanao Lorikeet, Tarictic Hornbill, Rofous Hornbill and Philippine
Macaque. However, the Tarictic Hornbill and Rofous Hornbill were not as
abundant in 2007 and 2008.

Also observed but less abundant priority species were the Philippine
Warty Pig, Red Jungle Fowl, Writhed Woodpecker, Civet Cat, Philippine
Deer, Red-eared Parrotfinch, Writhed Hornbill, Mindanao Gymnure,
Bukidnon Woodcock, Brahminy Kite, Serpent Eagle, Philippine Grass Owl
and the Philippine Eagle.
 12

Smaller raptors like the Philippine Hawk Eagle, Crested Serpent Eagle,
Giant Scops Owl and Philippine Eagle Owl were rarely observed. A good
sign, however, is the reemergence of bird species like the Apo Myna, Blue-
naped Parrot, Amethyst Brown Dove, Pompadour Pigeon, Bleeding Heart
Pigeon, and the Green Imperial Pigeon which was increasingly seen in bigger
number since 2010.

The Flying Lemur, said to be on top of the Philippine Eagle’s diet, was
consistently observed from 2008 to 2011, but not in big numbers. The Monitor
Lizard and Philippine Tarsier were likewise rarely seen, although the latter is
reportedly a timid animal. In 2010 and 2011, the BMS team spotted the Large
Flying Fox, a bat species.

Biodiversity assessment conducted by the Central Mindanao

University headed by Dr. Alma Mohagan in 2018 at the 2 hectare permanent
BAMS site observed 630 species of invertebrates under 5 phyla: Arthropods,
Annelida, Platyhelminthes, Nematoda and Mollusca. A new mimicry record
species of Pachryhynchus sp. under Phylum Arthropods, Order Coleoptera
was also discovered. This weevil was named Metapocyrtus somerai.

3.5 Social, Economic and Cultural Profile

3.5.1 Population Demographics

The 1998 census in the 47 buffer zone sitios of MKRNP put the
household average size at 5.59, although a few households had between 10
and 17 persons. There seemed to be a trend towards a medium-sized
household in the buffer zone, a trend that was expected to prevail given the
economic difficulties.

However, a 2006 socio-economic survey conducted in six buffer zone

barangays in MKRNP showed that the average number of members per
household had increased to 6.27. The survey covered Barangays Dalwangan,
Imbayao, Capitan Angel and Mapayag in Malaybalay City, and Barangays
Kaatoan and Capitan Juan in Lantapan town, and interviewed 166 households.
Majority of the households had family members of four (16.9 percent) and
eight (16.3 percent), respectively. Very few of the households could be
considered as small-sized (1-3 members), as most of them had between four
(16.9 percent) and 10 (10 percent) members.

According to the 2006 survey, the average household size was 6.27
persons with a minimum of one member (2.4 percent) and a maximum of 11
members (1.8 percent) in a family. This shows a significant increase in the
average household size compared the 1998 figure of 5.59. While this finding
appears to be incongruent with the prediction of the 1998 census, it jibes with
the observation of the earlier census that buffer zone occupants exhibited high
fertility rates based on the high frequencies then of ages less than four years
and ages five to 10 years.

Literacy level among the buffer zone occupants is 2.7 years of

elementary education. Majority (66.6 percent) of them only have elementary
education. In fact, 28.5 percent of them do not have any formal education at
 13

all. Only a few of the occupants have high school (4.4 percent), vocational or
two-year college (0.3 percent) and four-year college (0.2 percent) education.
But their low level of formal education does not mean that they are ignorant.
Indigenous peoples and other rural occupants are very knowledgeable about
their immediate environment.

3.5.2. Range of Incomes

Among the 166 households, the highest monthly income reported was
P12,000.00 (0.6 percent), which came from Barangay Dalwangan, Malaybalay
City. The lowest income, reported by one household (0.6 percent), was P500
and came from Capitan Angel, also in Malaybalay. Mean income was
P2,732.172.

Twenty-seven households (16.3 percent) declared that they earned

P3,000.00/month, followed by 18 (10.8 percent) who said they earned only
P1,000.00/month; 17 (10.2 percent) declared earning PhP2,000.00/month and
16 (9.6 percent) P2,500.00/month. Three households did not declare their
income.

An income survey conducted in June 1999 in nine buffer zone sitios

among 68 households selected at random revealed an average monthly income
of P1,205.40. This is equivalent to an average annual income of P14,464.80.
In 2000, the average annual family income in Northern Mindanao was
estimated at P110,333. Based on the same 1999 survey, the biggest average
household monthly income was P2,340 (five households) and the smallest was
P405 (five households). Majority (76.47 percent) of the sample households
had incomes between P800 and P1,300.

Yet, while the average income of buffer zone occupants appears to

have increased, its real value may be actually less if factors like inflation were
taken into consideration.

3.5.3 Indigenous Groups and Cultural Profile

According to the 1998 census, majority of the occupants identified

themselves as Talaandig (60.1 percent), Higaonon (23.5 percent), and
Bukidnon (7.7 percent). A few of the actual occupants were Cebuanos (4.4
percent), Boholanos (2.7 percent), Ifugaos (0.5 percent), Igorots (0.3 percent),
immigrants from Misamis Oriental (0.2 percent), Ilocano (0.1percent)
Zamboangeño (0.1 percent), Ilongo (0.1 percent). Given the relative
permanence of buffer zone occupants and the strict enforcement of regulations
concerning migration to the protected area, these figures are not expected to
have altered significantly.

3.5.4. Land Use, Ownership and Tenure

Indigenous occupants generally base their proof of ownership not on

written documents but on actual occupancy and physical improvements on the
land. Inheritance of land is also considered proof of occupancy.
 14

Respondents to the 2006 survey based the sizes of their land claims not
on actual measurements but on their estimates. Thirty-four households (20.5
percent) claimed having a one-hectare area, seven (16.3 percent) two hectares
each and 15 (9 percent) six hectares each. One household declared 50 hectares
as its claimed area and seven households (4.2 percent) said that they only have
one-fourth hectare each, the smallest claim made. The average area claimed
was 3.2190 hectares.

In most cases, however, the cultivated area is smaller than the area
claimed. The average size of the cultivated area is 1.5 hectares. Forty-four
households (26.5 percent) cultivate one hectare of land, followed by 23 (13.9
percent) who cultivate one-half hectare and 18 (10.8 percent) who cultivate
two hectares. Twelve households (7.2 percent) cultivate one-fourth hectare,
the smallest area cultivated. The biggest land area cultivated is nine hectares
and was declared by only one household (0.6 percent). The 1998 census also
noted the same practice by buffer zone occupants of cultivating less than their
actual land claims.

3.5.5 Resource Use Practices

a. Livelihoods

One hundred twenty-three respondents (74.1 percent) to the 2006

survey identified farming as their main source of income. Thirty (18.1percent)
depend on their earnings as laborers, nine (5.4 percent) are salaried employees,
two (1.2 percent) are drivers, and one (0.6 percent) derives income from
sewing and selling goods (sari sari store).

As for crops, the most widely grown are root crops, corn, coffee and
fruit trees. Spices, sugarcane and abaca are cultivated on a lesser scale. Fewer
occupants grow rice, tobacco, and coconut.

Majority of the occupants raise livestock especially chickens and

cattle. Only a few have pigs, carabaos, horses, ducks and goats. But most
occupants only have between five and 10 animals each.

Only 39.2 percent of the occupants fish in nearby creeks or rivers. But
their catch is insignificant and contributes very little to their daily subsistence.

b. Extraction of forest products

In addition to agriculture and fishery 28.6 percent of the occupants

engage in other economic activities. These include gathering of rattan poles,
weaving rattan and bamboo strips into baskets, abaca production, processing
raw timber and hunting.

Non-Timber Forest Products. There are at least 15 non-timber forest

products being extracted by buffer zone occupants. Eleven of these products
are intended for domestic consumption; nine are edible fruits and two are
being used as medicines. Honeybee is for both household consumption and
source of additional income. The remaining four products are rattan, guiyong
 15

(tiger grass), anonotong (giant ferns) and orchids. These are collected all year
round except guiyong which the occupants gather only from January to April.

Wild Fauna. The occupants collect or hunt wild animals for household
consumption and for additional income. These include birds, mammals,
reptiles, fowls, and butterflies. They hunt these animals with the use of traps,
dogs, slingshots, nets (in the case of butterflies), and homemade shotguns.
Small birds are caught with sap from trees. Deer, wild pigs, mice and civet
cats are the most widely hunted mammals. Among the birds, the most widely
hunted are kusi, kulasisi (Loriculus philippensis), and brown doves and are
either meant for food or sold as pets. Near-threatened birds such as tungkago
(Buceros hydrocorax) and tusing (Prioniturus discurus) are also hunted.

Timber. The occupants utilize at least eight species of trees for housing
and fuel needs and also as source of additional income. These species are
olayan (Lithocarpus ilanosii), lauan (Shorea contorta), tolay, sagasa
(Palaquim merrilii), kulasi (Syzgium nitidum), boya, narig, and bagatamaing.

3.5.6 Basic Services

a. Water Sources

Buffer zone occupants get drinking water from rivers, springs, streams,
deep wells and flowing creeks. They use the same water sources for bathing
and washing their laundry. This means that raw water from the river might be
unsafe to drink because of possible contamination from human waste. In-
house plumbing seems to be absent in the houses of the occupants.

b. Schools

Less than 10 percent of the buffer zone sitios have elementary schools.
Except for Imbayao in Malaybalay City, there are no high schools, which
would explain in part the low literacy level among PA residents.

c. Health Services

Health centers are located in the barangay proper and are practically
non-existent in the buffer zone, with 95.6 percent of the occupants saying
there is no health center in their area. Those who said there is did not mention
health personnel or supplies.

3.6 Stakeholders

The PAMB performs the role of balancing the interests of the various
stakeholders vis-à-vis conservation goals. Among these stakeholders are the
indigenous peoples, tenured migrants, LGUs, agribusiness and telecommunications
firms, researchers, academe, and nature enthusiasts, e.g. mountaineering groups.
 16

3.6.1 Indigenous Peoples or Lumads

Three indigenous tribes inhabit MKRNP – Bukidnon, Higaonon and

Talaandig. They all regard the mountain range as their territory since time
immemorial as manifested by the filing of at least a dozen ancestral domain
claims covering the whole park or parts of it.

Local chief executives were initially wary about the real intent of
ancestral domain claims. They were apprehensive that it might only lead to
more forest destruction owing to reports of Lumads who engaged in timber
poaching and other prohibited acts. Continuing dialogues, however, gradually
built trust and understanding between these officials and the Council of Elders
whose leading members also belong to the board. The LGUs eventually
recognized that granting security of tenure may in fact contribute to
conservation, a realization evidenced by their endorsement of the Daraghuyan
Ancestral Domain Claim, which was approved by the NCIP.

Yet while Lumads have retained much of their cultural traits and are
recognized as partners in biodiversity conservation, there are some leaders
who have abetted illegal acts inside the park in exchange for monetary gain.
Based on confirmed reports, outsiders have settled in forestlands or made
clearings therein after paying an amount to unscrupulous tribal leaders. These
leaders would cite the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act as the basis of their
destructive and illegal activities.

3.6.2 Local Government Units

LGUs exert perhaps the greatest influence in the PAMB due to their
inherent functions and powers as administrative and political bodies. For one,
most, if not all, policies passed by the board would have minimal or no impact
at all without their support in the form of ordinances or if not adopted as part
of local development initiatives.

Strong and sustained support from LGUs had an enormous

contribution in conserving MKRNP that led to its development. Such support
may manifest itself not only in ordinances but also in budgetary allocations for
park operations. In this regard, the park’s general significance should be
internalized by LGUs especially during periods of transition, i.e. when a new
administration takes over.

3.6.3 Tenured Migrant Farmers

As per the NIPAS Act, tenured migrants are non-Lumads who entered
the area prior to June 1987. Their entry has not only altered local culture but
also influenced the indigenous inhabitants into shifting from subsistence
farming to the production of high-value crops. In some cases, migrants have
intermarried with the natives, a practice that has allowed them to gain access
to lands owned or tilled by the latter.

Mt. Kitanglad’s temperate climate has offered migrant Cordillera

farmers in particular an excellent site to promote vegetable production as
practiced in their place of origin.
 17

Lumad farmers who were lured into cash crop production would do it
independently if they had enough capital. Those short of cash would avail of
financing from the moneyed migrants who dictate the terms. Either way, this
has had led farmers to clear additional forestlands in the hope of augmenting
household income.

3.6.4 Agribusiness Firms

Bukidnon’s rich natural endowments and typhoon-free environment

have attracted several agribusiness firms into expanding their operations in the
province. Areas around MKRNP have borne both the benefits and burdens of
hosting a growing number of banana, pineapple and oil palm plantations. Yet
while these firms are confined to alienable and disposable lands, they are
getting huge volumes of water coming from the park. The PAMB and
appropriate government agencies should undertake steps to ensure that
extraction of water by these companies would not compromise the needs of
host communities. An equitable user fee system should also be instituted so as
to ensure the maintenance of water sources in the park.

Negotiating with these entities would not be difficult since some of

them have in fact started fulfilling corporate social responsibility by extending
livelihood assistance to local communities or funding forest rehabilitation
projects. Still, there is a need to mitigate development pressures in MKRNP
through clear land use policies as a way of telling the companies that there are
limits to observe.

3.6.5 Operators of Telecommunications and Media Facilities

A number of telecommunications and media firms have put up relay

stations on the summit of Mt. Kitanglad to improve the reach of their services
in Northern Mindanao. The PAMB has required them to contribute to direct
conservation efforts aside from paying an annual user’s fee, which goes to the
IPAF and varies depending on the category of the firm.

In 1998, these firms were organized into the Mt. Kitanglad

Stakeholders Association. From time to time they would be asked to report on
their compliance with such activities as restoration of degraded portions of the
park, community development projects and other initiatives in the fulfillment
of corporate social responsibility. Since then, they have been fulfilling their
responsibilities diligently.

3.7 Current Programs and Projects

In addition to regular programs such as protection, IEC, and

biodiversity and resource management, some of the other ongoing projects are
the following:
 18

3.7.1 Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprise

Tea trees have been planted in barangays Dahilayan, Manolo Fortich

and Imbayao, Malaybalay as part of the field trials for essential oil production.
In 2009-2010 a project funded by the AusAID Public Sector Linkages
Program Activity through CSIRO Australia and the PAMB implemented
“Leaf Oil Production to Improve Rural Living Standards around Mt. Kitanglad
Range Natural Park”. Among the two barangays, Brgy. Imbayao has sustained
the project and has continued to produce essential oils. With this, a
biodiversity-friendly enterprise project was given to them. The project aimed
to construct Citronella grass air drying facility to improve essential oil
production.

3.7.2 Comprehensive Livelihood Emergency Employment Program

This is meant to provide incentives to KGVs who assist the PASu in

monitoring illegal activities in the park and conduct BMS activities. Their
monthly accomplishments serve as the basis of their remuneration.

3.7.3 Maintenance of National Greening Program (NGP) sites

Since 2011, MKRNP has implemented the National Greening Program

and has developed a total of 3,476 hectares planted with endemic and
indigenous trees, coffee, rubber, cacao and bamboo. To ensure the success of
the bamboo trees planted under the established in 2017 and 2018 (550 hectares
with 110,000 seedlings) NGP sites, proper maintenance should be
implemented.

3.8 Current Protected Area Management Structure and Capabilities

As provided for in Republic Act 8978, the PAMB is composed of the regional
executive director of the DENR as chairman, the barangay chairpersons with territory
inside the protected area, NGOs, the regional director of the Department of
Agriculture, the provincial officer of the NCIP, the mayors of the towns and city with
territory inside the park, Non-Government Organizations working within the area, one
representative for the owners and operators of existing facilities, the Provincial
Planning and Development Officer, one representative from the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, and one representative from each Lumad community within the
protected area chosen using customary practices.

Tasks among the PAMB members are being shared among the various
committees, to wit: Review; Research and Education; Policy, Finance and
Administrative; Resource Management and Infrastructure; Project and Proposal
Review; Tenured Migrants; Cultural and Tribal Affairs; Cinchona Development
Committee; Peace and Order Committee; Aldaw ta Kitanglad; Grievance; Finance,
Ways and Means; Committee on Water Resource Management and Ecotourism.

With regard to its capability building program, the Protected Area

Superintendent has always ensured that new PAMB members are aware of their
powers and responsibilities. Local government officials in particular case as members
of the board once their terms expire or when they are replaced hence, the need to
 19

conduct an orientation for their successors. Aside from the orientation, PAMB
members have joined study tours/ cross visits to other parks in the country and abroad
to gain valuable insights on park management, biodiversity conservation and
sustainable development.

3.9 Management and Development Issues and Concerns

3.9.1 Threats, Issues and Concerns

MKRNP is currently experiencing the severe effects brought about by:

a. habitat destruction
b. illegal collection of flora and fauna
c. reduction of water quality and quantity.
d. inappropriate farming methods
e. dubious ancestral domain claims
f. agriculture and other developments
g. unstable peace and order situation
h.alleged selling of bufferzone/timberland areas (Dahilayan,
Kalilangan, San Vicente)

a. Habitat destruction

➢ This is attributed to man-made problems or threats which include

timber poaching, shifting cultivation and conversion of forestlands to
farmlands. (isolated case)
➢ In some instances, this has been exacerbated by the illegal practice of
selling timberland areas by occupants to capitalists and other outsiders.
(isolated case)
➢ Reports also indicated that forest destruction in some parts of the park
is the handiwork of ancestral domain claimants a number of whom are
not even local residents.

b. Illegal collection of flora and fauna

➢ Although no longer rampant as before, hunting and extraction of

wildlife has persisted in some areas of the park. (controlled case)
➢ Wildlife is hunted either for food or for sale. (controlled)
➢ Aside from extraction of timber species, collection of orchids and
other flora has been reported. (controlled)

c. Reduction of water quality and quantity and competing use of

water between local communities and capitalists

➢ MKRNP is a watershed area that supports irrigation, power generation

and other industrial uses as well as water consumption by low-lying
communities.
➢ Forest degradation in these areas however will greatly affect water
quality and quantity during the dry months.
 20

➢ In addition, some local communities have complained that agribusiness

firms are consuming big volumes of water emanating from the park for
their plantations and animal farms.
➢ They expressed apprehensions there may not enough water for them in
the future if water extraction by these companies would not be
regulated
➢ No established threshold of water usage based on flow rate

d. Inappropriate farming methods

➢ In some portions of the park particularly in some barangays of

Lantapan, Impasugong, Sumilao and Malaybalay, high value crop
production is widely practiced by migrants and even by the Lumads
themselves.
➢ Heavy use of chemical depletes the soil
➢ Inappropriate farming technology causes soil erosion/sedimentation
➢ Use of chemicals and inappropriate farming technology still exist,
depleting the soil quality and productivity.

e. Agriculture and other developments

➢ Some portions of the forested areas in or near the protected area have
been converted into farmlands by Lumads and migrants as well as
resorts and other ventures by rich individuals from other places.
(isolated case)
➢ For instance, a sizeable portion of the forest bordering the buffer zone
in barangay Dahilayan, Manolo Fortich had been cleared to give way
to a planned resort. (to be deleted by north group)
➢ Moreover, rich capitalists bought/rent/buy lands owned by Lumads for
high value crop production or lend capital to the latter at high interest
rates.

f. Dubious (uncertain) ancestral domain claims that lead to forest

destruction (controlled)

➢ Like the IPRA, the Mt. Kitanglad Protected Area Act also recognizes
the rights of Lumads to their ancestral domain. However, some tribal
leaders are misusing the law for personal economic gain.
➢ In the guise of ancestral domain claims these leaders are enticing
outsiders to enter portions of the protected area for a fee. These
outsiders would then clear the forests for agriculture and other
purposes.

g. Unstable peace and order situation

➢ Armed lawless elements claiming to be rebels have been reported or

sighted within the park.
➢ Their presence has not only created tension and fear among park
residents, but has also prevented the KGVs from regularly performing
forest patrols.
 21

➢ In fact, a number of them had been killed allegedly by these armed

men who are said to be coddling persons engaged in illegal activities
such as timber poaching. Others complained of having received death
threats.

3.9.2 Underlying Causes of the Threats

The threats and issues confronting MKRNP are complex and traceable
to significant causes:

1. Low income of farmers owing to lack of alternative and appropriate

livelihood;
2. Lack of access to resources and tenurial security;
3. Lack of conservation and sustainable farming capabilities of farmers,
dependency on chemicals, lack of crop zoning;
4. Poor cultural orientation of some occupants;
5. No leveling off and conflicting views on laws and policies affecting
the protected area;
6. absence of integration of development plans with protection needs
7. Lack of basic social services;
8. Low literacy level of occupants; and,
9. Misinterpretation of IPRA vis-à-vis related environmental laws.

3.9.3 Weaknesses in Dealing with the Causes

MKRNP’S complex situation requires that certain weaknesses have to

be addressed, to wit:

1. Compelling need for LGUs to extend additional support particularly in

terms of budgetary allocation for park operations, social services and
economic assistance;
2. Need to sustain and expand IEC and advocacy;
3. Lack of science-based wildlife and resource management system and
limited technical expertise of PAMB;
4. Inadequate fee systems to cover cost of monitoring and rehabilitation
and maintenance of facilities;
5. Lack of community land and resource use mapping on topographic
maps to establish present and future land use and resource use by
occupants;
6. Need to formulate adequate policies on use of water from MKRNP,
use of land and other resources, entry to the protected area and eco-
tourism; and,
7. No established standard honorarium and benefits for KGVs.
 22

3.9.4 Strengths and Opportunities

MKRNP has strengths and opportunities that will enable it to deal with
these problems:

1. Existing environmental laws- NIPAS Act, Mt. Kitanglad Protected

Area Act, logging moratorium;
2. Committed and capable protected area managers and stakeholders;
3. Strong support from the PAMB and local communities to protected
area programs;
4. Effective multi-sectoral approach to protected area management, i.e.
PAMB;
5. Ability to conduct IEC and advocacy;
6. Good working relations with other government offices, private
organizations and academe;
7. Collaboration with the Council of Elders;
8. Strong LGU support at the city/municipal and provincial levels;
9. Strong support from the PAMB to protected area programs;
10. Adequate fee systems to cover cost of monitoring and rehabilitation
and maintenance of facilities;
11. Availability of community land and resource use map;
12. Increased community awareness on resource conservation;
13. Local communities are interested and willing to protect and restore it;
14. People inside and outside the protected area interested and willing to
protect and restore it;
15. Presence of external donors for financial and technical support and of
NGOs that implement community development projects;
16. High literacy level of PA Occupants;
17. Accessibility to basic social services;
18. Presence of adequate policies on use of water from MKRNP, use of
land and other resources, entry to the protected area and eco-tourism;
19. Presence of IP in the PAMB;
20. Existing environment laws – NIPAS Act, Mt. Kitanglad Protected
Area Act, logging moratorium
21. Existing laws that protect and recognize indigenous peoples’ rights;
22. Provision of logistics for the KGVs, e.g. communications facilities,
horses, watchtowers;
23. Committed KGVs despite meager honorarium;
24. Increased forest cover with Net forest gain of 1,572.336 hectares as of
2015; and,
25. Qualified for UNESCO World Heritage Site inscription.

4.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN

4.1 Vision, Mission, Goals and Objectives

4.1.1 Vision

A self-reliant protected area sustainably managed by empowered local

communities fostering cultural and gender equality.
 23

4.1.2 Mission

1. Preserve and protect the rare and threatened fauna and flora.
2. Facilitate the design and implementation of workable models for
community based protected area management.
3. Develop and implement a wide range of livelihood opportunities
appropriate to protected areas.
4. Ensure that qualified communities enjoy security of tenure.
5. Provide programmatic, comprehensive and responsive capability-
building programs for protected area managers and other actors.
6. Promote strong public and external support for protected area
management.
7. Develop sustainable financing mechanisms to sustain the
implementation of protected area programs.

Goal 1: Biodiversity, life support and aesthetic values of MKRNP are

conserved for all time.
.
Objectives:
1.1. Primary forest habitats and their associated biodiversity
are maintained and protected from illegal and/or
unregulated collection.
1.2. Rare, threatened, and endangered flora and fauna are
conserved and their natural habitat protected.
1.3. Watershed value is maintained and improved.
1.4. Developments and activities that may disturb the
biodiversity and habitats are regulated.
1.5. Encroachment and clearing of forestlands are prevented.

Goal 2: Local communities empowered, with security of tenure, and

practicing sustainable resource and land use management
.
Objectives:
2.1. Farms are managed using appropriate soil and water
conservation techniques.
2.2. Additional appropriate livelihoods and other incentives
for forest protection work are made available to local
communities.
2.3. New and younger members of the Kitanglad Guard
Volunteers are recruited; illegal activities are immediately
reported to the PASu Office, local government units
and/or other concerned agencies.

Goal 3: Conservation values internalized and practiced by PA

communities and stakeholders actively participating at all
levels of PA management.
.
 24

Objectives:
3.1. The significance of conserving Mt. Kitanglad is promoted
through various channels and able to reach out more
sectors.
3.2. Appropriate venues for the participation of local
communities, e.g. Council of Elders, are encouraged and
given support by management.

Goal 4: Protected area management structures and systems are

sustained and institutionalized.

Objectives:
4.1. Links with more institutions that can provide technical
assistance and facilitate resource mobilization are
established.
4.2. Need-based training program for PA staff and PAMB
members is put in place.
4.3. Best practices in protected area management are
documented and integrated as part of policy.
4.4. Financial assistance from the local government units is
increased.
4.5. Policies on resource use are based on both scientific
grounds and the principle of social equity.

4.2 Management Strategies

4.2.1 Improve the existing park protection, zoning, and resource

management program, and knowledge on the characteristics, uses
and values of biological diversity.

This approach will protect the values of the protected area through the
strict implementation of environment laws and park rules and regulations.
Raising the awareness of the community to be involved in park protection is
very vital given its size. Enforcement of the tribal justice system is encouraged
among the Lumads to supplement law enforcement and prosecution. PAMB
policies supported by local ordinances will effectively create an impact on
protection and conservation efforts. Likewise, establishing a BMS will
determine the biodiversity value, species distribution and abundance of
resources. The monitoring activity shall be community-based.

On the other hand, research and development shall be conducted to

generate information and technology needed by park management in the
proper protection of species and habitats. A research program shall be
developed by the PASu and implemented in partnership with research
institutions and the academe. It shall focus on priority species, sustainable
resources use and the impact of human activities or carrying capacity and
development on the protected area.

In order to carry these out, the following programs and activities shall
be conducted:
 25

a. Biodiversity and Resource Management

Periodic inventories of flora (every 5 years) and fauna (every 3 years)

have to be pursued and the status of species previously recorded in terms of
biology, distribution, abundance and threats updated. This is done through the
establishment of a 2 hectare BAMS permanent site, LAWIN Forest and
Biodiversity Protection System and the quarterly conduct of BMS in order to
characterize species in terms of conservation status e.g. extinct, threatened and
vulnerable, as basis in identifying priorities in conservation effort and
resources. The conduct of BAMS, BMS and LAWIN shall be in partnership
with academe, the trained local communities and shall include proper
accounting of the species loss and recovery program, degradation of
ecosystems and loss of biodiversity.

Three major ongoing activities shall continue to be implemented in the

next five years of operations. These are:

Resource Inventory and Monitoring

Resource assessment and inventory was partially conducted by the

PASu personnel in coordination with technical consultants and academic
institutions. BMS is implemented through transect walk, focus group
discussion, photo documentation and field diary, and seven permanent sites for
these activities were installed instead of just four as specified in the previous
plan. These activities shall be continued under the current plan together with
the LAWIN and BAMS. The park rangers shall be involved in the field
observations during patrolling activities.

Field guides and trained local communities shall be tapped in the

conduct of monitoring activities as the responsibility will eventually be turned
over to them. Afterwards, additional transect sites may be established by the
park personnel. The challenge of operationalizing a community-based BMS
and LAWIN in the whole MKRNP largely depends on the ability of the park
staff to motivate the community to manage and monitor its own resources.
Corollary to BMS work is the assessment of all caves within the park.

Restoration and Rehabilitation work

In order to supplement food requirements of wildlife, favored species

were planted as part of the rainforestation project. Moreover, planting of
bamboos along the banks of rivers and creeks were carried out in sitio Bol-
ogan in Barangay Songco, Lantapan with funding from the Bukidnon Sugar
Company. Both activities shall be carried out in other areas too.

b. Management Zoning

One of the significant strategies in protected area and buffer zone

management is breaking up these areas into management zones. In the
previous plan, MKRNP had the following management zones: (1) strict
protection zone, (2) special use zone, (3) recreational use zone, (4) habitat
 26

management zone, (5) agricultural zone and (6) cultural use zone. Envisioned
to provide flexibility in park management and allow rational resource use by
residents, these zones were based on technical criteria and social acceptability
obtained through iterative consultations and validation processes at various
levels.

The initial management zones were derived using overlays of thematic

maps that include the following sets of validated information: (1) land
classification, (2) vegetative cover, (3) slope, (4) elevation, (5) infrastructure
(roads, bridges, transmission lines, etc.), (6) hazard, (7) minerals, (8) drainage
and river system, (9) soil, (10) biodiversity indicators based on primary data,
(11) wildlife habitat based on elevation gradient as defined in the book of
Whitmore, (12) settlement and tenure claims, (13) existing and proposed
projects within the protected area, and (14) management issues and concerns.

Boundary survey and demarcation had been done along with the
installation of interpretive signs and partial implementation of planting
preferred species along management zone boundaries. An initial management
plan for the buffer zone has likewise been formulated. All of these activities
shall be pursued under the current plan.

The PASu tapped the Bukidnon Forests Inc. in the preparation of a

technical map while the KIN facilitated community mapping sessions, which
produced maps depicting actual land use by local communities. Updating of
these maps shall be carried out.

c. Resource Protection

This program aims to conserve the biodiversity and resources of the

park through strong cooperation and linkages with the local communities and
various stakeholders. This program shall be carried out through the following
project activities:

Community-Based Park Protection

This shall be mainly done by mobilizing the KGVs. There are at least
seven KGVs in each of the 47 sitios within Mt. Kitanglad who have been
deputized and trained by the DENR in forestry laws and other topics related to
their functions and which were reviewed to them during annual KGV
Congresses. They were given 28 handheld VHF radios (one per barangay) and
eight tablets (one per municipality) for their forest patrolling work, and
documentation. Lookout towers and checkpoints were also built in strategic
locations as recommended by the KGV team leaders and approved by the
PAMB. However, the towers and checkpoints need repair.

Aside from providing additional communications equipment and other

logistics, the park management shall continue implementing capability-
building activities for the KGVs and recruiting new members. It shall also ask
the DENR to periodically renew their deputation as forest protection
volunteers.
 27

Communications equipment, in particular mobile phones, may be

solicited from telecommunications firms as part of their corporate social
responsibility. Through the KIN, one company donated 36 mobile phones for
the KGVs and tribal guards, and local government units shouldered the initial
cost of e-load. Tablets for photo documentation during BMS and LAWIN
patrols were also given by the different LGUs to effectively help protect
MKRNP.

Fire prevention and suppression work

Fire prevention and suspension has always been a concern of park

management especially after the occurrence of massive fires in 1982-1983.
Hence, forest fires that erupted during the 1998 El Niño phenomenon were
readily suppressed by the KGVs and even by volunteers from outside the area.
The park management enhanced the capability of the KGVs by conducting
firefighting trainings. Establishment and maintenance of fire lines and
provision of firefighting equipment is a priority under the current plan to
prevent the occurrence of highly destructive fires.

Law Enforcement and Prosecution

Violators of park rules shall be subjected either to the indigenous way

of settling disputes/tribal justice system or to a court of law. Proper
collaboration with the concerned LGUs and other law enforcers shall be made
at the highest level to ensure cooperation. An understanding has been reached
with the Council of Elders that those who refuse to observe tribal sanctions
shall be prosecuted. Several suspected violators have been charged in court,
and the park management has always been serious in attending to these cases
resulting in convictions or at least in settlements where the offenders were
made to undertake rehabilitation. Surveillance and other operations in high-
risk areas were carried out with assistance from either the police or the
military. Filing of cases will continue as long as violators still exists.

Policy Formulation within the Protected Area

The PAMB has initially formulated site-based policies to ensure

effective park protection. These include policies on open and closed seasons
for hunting, non-disturbance of nesting grounds, feeding and roosting site, and
guidelines/criteria for allowed/supported projects.

LGU Support Ordinances

Community participation in park protection can be achieved through

the support of the respective LGUs within the PA such as the passage of
ordinances. Policies on fire prevention and suppression and on the adoption of
appropriate upland farming system have also been implemented. Additional
support policies related to protection will be explored and lobbied.
 28

d. Research and Development Program

A research and development program is necessary to address gaps in

information that would be useful for decision-making and management
purposes. Other research endeavors shall be conducted to generate information
needed for monitoring and impact analysis. The indigenous cultural
communities shall be in the forefront in any research activities as they are
directly in contact with species and the ecosystem.

Biodiversity Research

This covers researches on the following areas: 1] appropriate methods

of wildlife population management; 2] flora and fauna; 3] propagation of
endangered species; 4] economic importance of preferred species and their
uses; and 5] sustainable use of resources.

Researches on flora and fauna, economic importance of preferred

species and sustainable use of resources were partially implemented under the
previous plan, while the rest have remained unimplemented. All of these
researches shall be pursued under the current plan and the conduct of BAMS.

Ethnographic Research and Anthropological Assessment

The study of KIN shall delve into the ethnographic characteristics and
traditional practices of the three tribes in Mt. Kitanglad. They were able to
document indigenous knowledge and practices and made a book out of it
entitled “The Wisdom keepers of Mt. Kitanglad”. However, with limited
resources only few copies had been made. Thus the current plan shall find
ways to help in the reprinting and distribution of this book and the continuous
study of the indigenous people within MKRNP.

Soil Researches and Site Species Suitability

The soil research shall include among others the characterization of the
areas needing immediate rehabilitation and agroforestry sites under the NDLA
projects and soil erosion and siltation determination. This was partially done
and shall be continued under the current plan.

Medicinal plants

A listing of scientifically and locally known medicinal plants, which

was partially implemented under the previous plan, shall be pursued following
the provision of Executive Order 247 (Guidelines on Bioprospecting) and the
indigenous knowledge system.

Effect of the use of Inorganic Chemicals and Fertilizers

This activity, partially implemented under the previous plan, shall be

pursued further in collaboration with research institutions, and aims to
determine the effect on the use of inorganic chemicals and fertilizers on their
immediate environment. To showcase its perceived long-term effects, two
 29

demonstration farms (one each for north and south) shall be established. The
LGUs through their municipal agriculture officers shall take a lead role in
operationalizing these demonstration farms. Water samples shall be analyzed
in the laboratory of the Department of Agriculture.

NDLA potentials

This research aims to assist the PAMB in identifying NDLA projects

that are supportive of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development
and consistent with the board’s policy on allowed and supported projects.
Ecological Research on Threatened and Priority Species of Mt. Kitanglad

At least four species of flora and 25 species of fauna have been placed
under the BMS as indicators of the conservation status of the area. A study
shall be pursued to determine their population, biology, food/feeding habits,
and habitat.

4.2.2 Enhancing livelihood support and assistance framework for

conservation and economic uplift of beneficiaries in partnership
with the local communities

Attaining sustainable development requires providing communities

with other sources of income to reduce pressures on the park. Since 1998, the
park management has facilitated alternative livelihood opportunities to lessen,
if not stop, the dependence of communities on forest resources as well as
technical trainings and other needs to improve their capability in undertaking
these activities. Likewise, provision of security of tenure will encourage them
to participate in managing and protecting the park. Ecotourism development is
one livelihood the communities may undertake in collaboration with the
private sector, LGUs and the concerned government agencies such as the
Department of Tourism and DENR. Under this strategy the following
components have been implemented in varying scales and shall continue to be
carried out under the current plan:

a. Community Empowerment and Community Participation

Community organizing and strengthening work has been implemented

to ensure active participation by local communities in park management
through the PAMB. This has been demonstrated in the formation of the KGVs,
Council of Elders and people’s organizations which have established a
protected area-wide federation. Orientations on PAMB and DENR policies
were undertaken for both Lumads and tenured migrants.

On the part of the Lumads, cultural reorientation sessions and tribal

congresses were held. However, the plan to codify customary laws and
practices has been put on hold owing to lack of resources to undertake it.

b. Livelihood Related Capability Building

Park occupants have undergone human resource development and

technical trainings to develop their technical and leadership capability,
knowledge and skills. Human resource development program included value
 30

formation, leadership, capital build-up and savings mobilization. The technical

aspect included trainings in sustainable agriculture technology, agroforestry
development, soil and water conservation techniques, biodynamic farming,
processing and post-harvest handling. As part of their capability building,
beneficiaries of the livelihood program went on exposure trips to learn from
other model projects.

These activities shall be continued under the current plan inasmuch as

there is a pressing need to expand the reach of the program to the youth in the
buffer zone. The park management shall coordinate with other government
and private agencies in realizing these activities.

c. NDLA Projects Development

This program started during the implementation of the CPPAP and

covered the whole park with some 80 people’s organizations as beneficiaries.
It aims to help alleviate the socio-economic plight of the people through
increased incomes. The livelihoods ranged from producing agricultural crops
to the implementation of CBFMAs.

It aims to promote non-destructive livelihoods and discourage

unsustainable ones inside the protected area through the provision of financial
and technical assistance for alternative economic endeavors. Only non-
degrading livelihood projects compatible with the management plan shall be
allowed and included in the research work for NDLA potentials. Its
implementation intends to motivate the buffer zone residents to participate in
the protection and conservation of Mt. Kitanglad and encourage those living
within the protected area itself to move out and take advantage of increased
livelihood opportunities in the buffer zone.

Livelihood activities under the previous plan partially accomplished

agri-based development (livestock and agroforestry), field exposures,
marketing, and community-based ecotourism. Provision of transport, weaving
and handicrafts are yet to be implemented. Updating of community profiles
and area development plans were conducted to ensure effective community
resource management, planning and use.

With this plan, more NDLA will be explored to help communities at

the same time protect the environment.

d. Security of Tenure

Security of tenure gives the people greater responsibility in resource

management and protection and fosters real empowerment. They may avail of
either a CADT or a CBFMA as tenurial instrument. Tenured migrants can
only apply for a CBFMA while Lumads, depending on their collective choice,
can choose between the two options. CBFMAs have been forged by the
DENR with people’s organizations. Moreover, together with KIN, it facilitated
the CADT application of the Daraghuyan Ancestral Domain claim, which the
NCIP approved in March 2009.
 31

e. Eco-tourism Development

Mt. Kitanglad provides ideal sites for ecotourism activities that can be
developed to promote environmental awareness and provide livelihood
opportunities for the local communities. These include the nesting sites of the
endangered Philippine Eagle. Climbing and research expeditions by
mountaineers and scientists are frequently organized in these areas.

As to infrastructure for ecotourism, visitors’ quarters have been built in

sitio Intavas but it needs repair. Trail and road improvement, a garbage pit and
receptacle, and camping sites have been partially implemented at the summit
and shall be pursued. Presently, the only outdoor facilities available are those
for bird watching. Under the current plan the management shall pursue the
construction of sheds, viewing decks, repair and maintenance of canopy
walks, recreational facilities, public toilets and an information center.
Facilities for mountain climbing, rappelling, jungle trail venture, horseback
riding and spelunking shall also be explored.

Promotion of Mt. Kitanglad as an ecotourism site has been done

through flyers, the Internet, and the Mt. Kitanglad International Rugged
Mountain Race, held twice already, in February 2011 and February 2012.

Socio-cultural tourism – e.g. Aldaw ta Kitanglad – and establishment

of linkages with other agencies and institution shall be promoted. Protected
area staff and local people shall undergo training in tourism-related services
(tour guiding, cultural orientation, first aid and rescue, handicraft) to enable
the latter to gain more income. The PAMB has approved guidelines for the fee
system in ecotourism as well as new policies to ensure smooth operation.

4.2.3 Sustain and expand biodiversity conservation awareness and

information programs to reach out to new potential partners in
park management

This strategy shall develop the following programs:

a. Information, Education and Communication Program

The previous years had witnessed growing people’s awareness on

biodiversity conservation as shown by their active involvement in forest
protection and other activities.

To sustain the momentum the management shall continue to embark on

activities that aim to promote the park’s conservation significance. It shall
continue to tap multimedia outlets (print, broadcast, online), symposia, and
other means. Institutional linkages with the academe, student organizations,
LGU, mountaineers, among others, shall also be utilized as one of the
approaches. Awareness campaign shall focus on the following topics:

1. Biodiversity Importance
2. Importance of Management Zones
3. PAMB Rules and Regulations
4. Management Plan
 32

5. Philippine Eagle Nesting Sites

6. Status of Flora and fauna
7. Rights and Responsibilities of Lumads and Tenured Migrants

4.2.4 Institutionalization and strengthening capacities for effective park

management and supervision

One of the major concerns of PA management is the lack of manpower

and resources. Hence, this strategy shall look at possible linkages between the
various agencies, to share workload. This strategy ensures that all ongoing
projects in the park are within the framework of the management plan.

Furthermore, the establishment of infrastructure and support services

shall be provided, and marketing network for NDLA beneficiaries and
linkages for fund sourcing shall be conducted. To effectively respond to crisis
and conflict situations, a Mt. Kitanglad Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Council shall be established in coordination with its counterparts
in the LGUs.

The components of this strategy are:

a. Protected Area Management and Supervision Program

The PASu staff is currently composed of 2 regular and 13 contractual

personnel whose specific designations are indicated in 5.2 (Management
Structure). The PASu acts as the Chief DENR Operating Officer of the
protected area. He is assisted by one deputy –for operations and
administration. The Operations Division consists of the Biodiversity, Socio-
economic Development and IEC Sections. The Administration Section
consists of the Finance, Administrative and General Services Sections.

Management and supervision shall be undertaken through the

following activities:

PAMB Operations

A PAMB had been organized pursuant to the Mt. Kitanglad Protected

Area Act. It had created an executive committee and sub-committees whose
functions and members were determined by the full PAMB. Its functions as
the policymaking body of Mt. Kitanglad are defined by the Act.

Capability Building/Human Resource Development

In order to enhance the management skills of the PAMB and the PASu
personnel, capability building and human resource development activities
based on a training needs assessment shall be conducted. The PAMB shall tap
the support of the LGUs, legislators, other government agencies, academe and
NGOs for its capability building program.
 33

Maintenance of Support Infrastructures and Facilities

The following support infrastructures and facilities have been

established and shall be maintained: Cinchona Forest Reserve, watch towers,
visitors building on the summit, rest area in Lupiagan (Sumilao), and the Mt.
Kitanglad Agri-Eco Techno Demonstration Farm.

Management Information System

The existing Management Information System shall be maintained and

further developed and shall be placed under the control and supervision of the
head of the IEC unit. Proper collaboration with the deputy for administration
shall be made to ensure comprehensiveness and security of the system.
Records and documentation of projects and other activities shall be stored in at
least two backup storage media, e.g. compact disks/digital video disks and
external hard drives in addition to printed copies.

a. Monitoring and Evaluation

A continuing M&E activity shall focus on the following:

1. biodiversity and other resources

2. waste management
3. eco-cultural tourism
4. infrastructure development
5. updating of community profile
6. performance appraisal
7. protected area management impact evaluation
8. cultural impact evaluation
9. livelihood projects implementation
10. management plan implementation
11. fund utilization

b. Institutional Linkaging/Networking

One of the primary responsibilities of protected area management is

building linkages and partnership with various groups to ensure its success.
Networking shall focus on the following:

Fund sourcing/generation

The management shall sustain links with local and foreign funding
institutions and build new ones to source out funds for the unfunded priority
projects and programs, including livelihood project proposals and other socio-
economic endeavors of partner people’s organizations. It shall also link with
LGUs and legislators whose priority agenda includes environment protection
and conservation. Along this line, the management shall ensure that Mt.
Kitanglad programs should become a priority of the concerned LGUs.
Drawing out strategies and programs for effective fund sourcing and
generation shall be the primary function of the Ways and Means Committee of
the PAMB.
 34

Support Services

It would be difficult for MKRNP to achieve its goals by relying on the

limited resources of the management alone. Hence, proper collaboration is a
must to avail of the support services of the following groups:

LGUs and legislators:

• ordinances on biodiversity conservation and protection of Mt. Kitanglad
• allocation for MKRNP from the local budget and congressional funds
• community events
• tenurial instrument facilitation (survey, mapping, community organizing,
and CBFMA).

Academe, other government agencies and institutions

• technology transfer and provision of technical skills and expertise
• conduct of researches

Law enforcers/military
• enforcement of park rules and regulations

Training institutions/other government agencies/LGUs and legislators

• socio-economic development and implementation of livelihood projects

Private sectors

Free Legal Assistance

The management shall seek assistance from environmental lawyers

and/or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines local chapter for provision of free
legal assistance and the prosecution of park violators.

Linkages and Coordination for Livelihood and Local Economic Development

Priority areas and groups to be tapped for economic development are

the following:
• retail financing institutions/banks
• marketing groups/trading centers
• health agencies and service organizations
• water and electrification
• peace and order
• formal education/literacy

Community Consultation, Participation and Linkages

This activity shall focus on consultations with the local communities to

continuously update and review the progress of the management plan.
Likewise, it shall endeavor to link with local communities for their
participation whenever the PAMB holds a major discussion.
 35

Establishment of Linkages for Disaster and Crisis Management

In line with operationalizing the MKDRRMC, efforts shall be made to

link with various government agencies, institutions and academe to ensure that
needed discipline and expertise are readily available in the council. The
stakeholders and other interest groups of MKRNP shall play a significant role
in crisis management considering their familiarity of the area.

d. Conflict and Disaster Management

Disaster and Crisis Preparation

Members of the MKDRRMC shall be briefed on the various hotspots

and hazard areas of the park for them to effectively respond in case of
disasters or crises. They shall undergo capability building exercises. The
Council shall establish close collaboration with their counterparts in the
barangay, municipal and provincial levels.

Promotion of Dialogue, Mediation and Appropriate Dispute Resolution in the

Resolution of Conflicts

The PAMB shall promote dialogue, mediation and appropriate dispute

resolution as tools in resolving conflicts that may involve, among others,
boundaries, land, leadership, economic interests and Lumad-migrant relations,
as well as threats, harassment and the presence of armed groups.

Violations of park laws, rules and regulations shall still be subjected to

the court of law and the tribal justice system.

Creation of Conflict and Grievance Committee

There shall be created a Conflict and Grievance Committee in the

PAMB and the Mt. Kitanglad Council of Elders whose task is to resolve
conflicts through dialogue and mediation. The PAMB en banc shall determine
the membership and other functions of the committee.

4.3 Management Zones

The designation of management zones is based on the results of public

hearings conducted in the 28 barangays and 47 sitios, management zoning
consultations, cultural workshops and consultations with tribal leaders, and on
the results of community mapping where the occupants identified the various
land uses. The zoning is also based on the results of the floral and faunal
inventory which indicate the status of habitats and species distribution.

The other criteria used in designating management zones are the

physiographic characteristics of the area such as slope and elevation,
vegetative cover, existing land use, and its cultural significance to the Lumads.

The PASu staff laid down the criteria based on the analysis of data
reflected in 13 thematic maps of MKRNP, namely the vegetative cover, land
 36

use, watershed divide, habitat, elevation, slope, infrastructure, tenure/claim,

settlement, issues, hot spots, and hazard maps.

Based on the activities and prescriptions for the zones, the PASu staff
identified public and private agencies and institutions with which the
management may establish linkages.

Management zones shall be demarcated on the ground using natural

features (e.g., creeks, rivers, trails, hills) and identifiable through interpretive
signs and billboards within boundaries.

4.3.1 Buffer Zone

A buffer zone covers areas outside of the protected area but adjoining
or surrounding it and under the control of DENR through the PAMB to
provide a social fence to prevent encroachment into the protected area. As a
social fence, the buffer zone is designed to protect the natural habitat and its
biodiversity through sustainable resource use and alternative livelihood.

The objectives of the establishment of buffer zone are the following:

1. To serve as protective layer of the resources of the park against

encroachment, destruction and other illegal activities
2. To provide compatible use of areas and resources as well as
development of alternative livelihood programs for communities
within the buffer zone
3. To surround the protected area with natural habitats of some plants
and animals whose influence may extend beyond its boundary to
allow the continuity of ecological processes that may influence its
state
4. To issue tenurial instruments to qualified migrants and Lumads

The management shall designate appropriate buffer sub-zones to

accommodate the various existing uses of the zone by local communities.
These may include:

Built-up Buffer Sub-Zone

This shall cover all settlements/communities and future resettlement

sites for tenured migrants and/or indigenous peoples. Projects to be developed
in this sub-zone shall focus on strengthening community organizations and
livelihood activities.

The management prescriptions for the sub-zone are the following:

1. programs for sanitation and proper garbage disposal
2. prohibition of inorganic farm inputs and pollution in any form

Economic Buffer Sub-Zone

This area shall include all unoccupied grasslands and brush lands
where cash crops may be planted and farm lots allowed. Livelihood programs
 37

here may include agro-livestock, silvi-pasture, crop diversification projects

and wildlife farms.

The following management prescriptions apply to the sub-zone:

1. ban on the use of inorganic farm inputs; and
2. ban on cutting of trees preferred by species of wildlife

Forest Buffer Sub-Zone

This area shall cover all forested lands. Subject to regulations, the
following activities may be undertaken in this site: 1) regulated utilization of
diseased, over-mature and naturally fallen trees; 2) regulated tapping of
gum/resin; 3) regulated gathering of wild fruits and other minor forest
products; 4) regulated collection of forage, thatch and grasses; 5) regulated
hunting of non-protected species for subsistence.

The following management prescriptions apply to the sub-zone:

1. no cutting of old growth forests
2. prohibition of any activity that disturbs the biodiversity

Multiple-Use Buffer Sub-Zone

This area shall cover all CBMFAs, agroforestry sites and related
projects. Activities in this sub-zone may include: 1) establishment of fruit,
rattan, or bamboo plantation projects; 2) traditional fishing, hunting and
collection of non-protected species; 3) regulated timber harvesting for
domestic consumption; 4) regulated recreation; 5) establishment of a visitor
information center and commercial outlets of native goods produced by the
local communities.

The management prescriptions for the sub-zone are the following:

1. Developments in the buffer zone would cover settlements, roads,
infrastructures, bridges, business and implementation of NDLAs.
2. Buffer zone occupants shall be issued tenure instruments in the
form of CBFMAs. These instruments are without prejudice to
legitimate CADT applications of the Lumads that cover portions of
the area.
3. The people’s organizations shall manage the zone.

4.3.2 Special Use Zone

The special use zone covers areas containing installations of national

significance which are retained subject to mutual agreement among concerned
parties and prohibitions under Section 10 of RA 8978. These are the summit
area of Mt. Kitanglad and areas where the national government and/or LGUs
have installed or are planning to install water system facilities and other
special projects. Access trails for ecotourism purposes also fall under the
special use zone and shall have a width of 2.5 meters.

The designation of special use zone will enable the PAMB to monitor
the construction of infrastructures; monitor compliance of facilities with
Section 10 of RA 8978 and PAMB rules and regulations; and restrict entry of
 38

park users to the zone except authorized personnel of the facilities and
researchers.

A research on facility-related impact to habitat and biodiversity shall

be conducted.

The PAMB-approved Mt. Kitanglad summit development plan shall

form part of the future undertaking in this zone.

Development activities in this zone include trails, telecommunications

facilities, electric power lines, water system and waste disposal facilities, foot
bridges and other facilities approved by the PAMB.

It shall be prohibited to establish or operate infrastructure facilities in

this zone without PAMB permits. There should be proper handling and
disposal of gasoline, oils and lubricants and like materials used in operating
and maintaining the facilities.

The management of the zone shall be the responsibility of the

Stakeholders Organization and the LGUs concerned.

4.3.3 Strict Protection Zone

The strict protection zone covers areas with high biodiversity value and
which are the habitats of endangered and protected species. These are
headwater sources, old growth forests, degraded but regenerating areas and
riparian zones, all lying at elevations of 1,500 meters above sea level and up
and with a slope gradient of 50 percent and above.

The minimum elevation of 1,500 masl instead of 1,000 masl shall

apply inasmuch as the latter would place at least 80 percent of the park under
the strict protection zone. It is no longer practical due to the presence of
settlements in the protected area.

The strict protection zone also covers areas identified by Lumads as

lalaw or sacred areas, either burial grounds of their ancestors or sites where
they hold rituals.

The strict protection zone is the habitat of rare and endangered species.
This includes Mt. Imbayao of Baungon; roost site in Pantaron, Sumilao; Mt.
Nakulob of Impasugong; Mt. Apolang and Mt. Lunayon of Malaybalay which
is a nesting site of the Philippine Eagle; Mts. Kaatuan, Kiabansag, Kinasalapi
and Kisalsag of Lantapan; and Mts. Ginting-ginting and Pinaspasan of
Talakag.

The strict protection zone is set aside to facilitate scientific research,

protection of endemic and threatened species within the zone, and ceremonial
and religious activities of the Lumads. Toward this end, only scientific studies
approved by the PAMB and Lumad rituals shall be allowed. Approved users
must use designated trails and there shall be no collection of specimens.
 39

There shall be regular collections of non-biodegradable materials used

during rituals and no camping shall be allowed. The only developments
allowed are access trails from adjacent habitat management to connect the
recreational use zone.

The PASu and the Council of Elders shall be responsible in managing

the zone.

4.3.4 Recreational Use Zone

The recreational use zone includes areas that are potential ecotourism
attractions where recreational, eco-cultural tourism, conservation education or
public enjoyment and awareness activities may be allowed. These are
waterfalls, caves, hot spring, mountain peaks, existing camping areas and
potential trekking sites.

The specific objectives of the zone are the following:

1. to set aside areas for recreational activities
2. to implement an appropriate visitors management program
3. to provide appropriate facilities for recreation
4. to promote environmental awareness
5. to facilitate community participation in eco-cultural tourism
6. to protect the natural habitat and its associated biodiversity in the
zone
7. to minimize negative impact of allowed tourism related activities in
the zone
8. to educate visitors and tourists on the biodiversity importance of
the park and on local culture
9. to establish linkage with concerned agencies and institutions for the
development and promotion of the recreational, tourism,
educational and environmental awareness values of the protected
area

Toward this end, the management adopts the following norms for the
zone:
1. Only visitors with complete cooking paraphernalia are allowed to
stay overnight.
2. Infrastructure facilities should blend with the natural aesthetic
beauty of the park.
3. Only appropriate ex situ programs are allowed.
4. Only culturally appropriate entertainment activities and attire are
allowed.

The PASu, local government units and local communities shall manage
the zone.

4.3.5 Habitat Management Zone

The habitat management zone includes areas with significant habitat

and species values where management practices are required to maintain non-
climax habitat types or conditions required by rare, threatened or endangered
species. These are old growth forests, rivers and creeks outside the strict
 40

protection zone and buffer zone. It also includes areas that serve as sanctuaries
and feeding grounds of certain species, such as grasslands where deer feed.

Areas inhabited by one or two individuals or families that play a

habitat management role also fall under the habitat management zone.
Planting of favored species for wildlife within the zone boundary lines and of
bamboo along the banks of rivers and creeks shall be conducted. This zone
shall cater to the need for scientific and other biodiversity related researches.

The PASu, academe, and research institutions shall manage the zone.

4.4 Protected Area-Wide Management Standards and Guidelines

1. No hunting of endangered or threatened species or collection of

endangered or threatened plants
2. No hunting in wildlife sanctuaries
3. Existing national and international laws, treaties and agreements apply for
the protection of species.
4. No mining without a PAMB permit and other required permissions
5. No change in landscape without PAMB permit and other required
permissions
6. The practice of genuine Lumad culture shall be encouraged.
7. No change in land use in the protected area and buffer zone without
Environmental Impact Assessment and PAMB approval
8. All park visitors shall respect and recognize Lumad customs and
traditions.
9. No cultivation in areas with slope of 18 percent and above
10. No application of inorganic inputs
11. No cutting of natural grown trees
12. No kaingin areas
13. No hunting in habitat management zone
14. No geothermal energy utilization

Trails and patrol roads shall be located in areas where there would be very
minimal disturbance of biodiversity and natural sceneries.

4.5 Management Programs

4.5.1 Biodiversity and resource management program

a. Resource inventory and monitoring
b. Restoration and rehabilitation work

4.5.2 Management zoning program

a. Identification of criteria for zoning
b. Boundary survey and demarcation
c. Buffer zone management plan preparation
d. Mapping (updating)

4.5.3 Protection programs

a. Community-based park protection
b. Law enforcement and prosecution
 41

c. Policy formulation
d. LGU support ordinances

4.5.4 Research and development

a. Biodiversity research
b. Ethnographic research
c. Soils research
d. Water quality research
e. Ethno-botany studies
f. Potential non-destructive livelihoods
g. Ecological researches on threatened species
h. Effect of the use of inorganic chemicals and fertilizers

4.5.5 Community empowerment and participation

a. Strengthening of people’s organizations
b. Codification of customary laws and practices
c. Tribal congress
d. Policy orientation

4.5.6 Livelihood and local economic development

a. Capability building
b. Implementation of non-destructive livelihoods
c. Promotion of community-based eco-cultural tourism
d. Updating of community profiles

4.5.7 Security of tenure

a. Identification of appropriate tenurial instruments
b. Survey/mapping
c. Processing and issuance of tenure instruments

4.5.8 Ecotourism development

a. Establish carrying capacity
b. Establish support infrastructure
c. Establish camping sites
d. Promotional activities
e. Trainings
f. Establish information centers

4.5.9 IEC
a. PA promotion and campaign
b. Cultural and environmental community events
c. Symposiums

4.5.10 Project management and Supervision

a. Staff hiring
b. PAMB operations
c. Capability building
d. MIS
e. Establish support infrastructure
 42

4.5.11 Monitoring and evaluation

a. Update community profiles
b. Impact evaluations
c. Performance appraisal

4.5.12 Institutional linkages

a. Fund sourcing
b. Marketing networks
c. Community consultations
d. Linkages with LGUs and other institutions

4.5.13 Conflict and disaster management

a. Preparations for disaster/crisis situations
b. Conflict mediation
c. Creation of conflict and grievance committee

5.0 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND INSTITUTIONAL

ARRANGEMENT

5.1 Institutional Coordination

Managing a protected area entails attending to the people’s welfare and

various aspects of community life so that they may involve in its overall protection
and conservation. The task however faces the reality of scarce and competing use of
management resources, such as personnel, money and equipment. Moreover, there is
no regular allotment from the national government.

Since 2001, the management of MKRNP has addressed this gap by building
and strengthening linkages with other institutions. Institutional arrangements have
been made with government and private agencies, academic and research institutions
and NGOs whose programs relate to biodiversity conservation so this management
plan may be fully implemented.

Coordination with LGUs at is of paramount importance owing to their

representation in the PAMB. Not only do they exert influence in as far as decision-
making in the management board is concerned; they have so far been the biggest
sources of funds for park operations, although the amounts would vary depending on
the individual capacity of each LGU. Suffice it to say that their support has had
enormously contributed to the implementation of the previous management plan and
ongoing programs.

Since the management is not always in a position to shoulder the cost of each
project or program, the LGUs may be tapped for support. For example, indigent park
occupants may request for health assistance but the management may not have the
necessary budget for such undertaking. However, the LGUs may be able to design
their health program in coordination with the project, thus enhancing the projects of
both the management and LGU. Support from LGUs is also indispensable in policy
development and law enforcement, staff augmentation and training, statistics and data
gathering, community participation, education and other social services. Through
coordination the provincial, municipal or barangay plans and programs within the
park are expected to work within the principle of the NIPAS and Mt. Kitanglad Acts
 43

and the goals and objectives of this management plan, which in turn shall be lobbied
for inclusion in regional development plans. Furthermore, the same channel of
coordination and resource sharing shall provide LGUs and the local manpower the
opportunity to develop technical skills and expertise in protected area management
through technology transfer and on-the-job management experience and training.

LGUs have shown their capability in managing the protected area and
mobilizing active community participation. The relatively smooth passage of the Mt.
Kitanglad Act despite initial objections from a few sectors in the community would
attest to their capability in managing the park and potential problem areas. It was
skilful lobbying by the PAMB that hastened the approval of the bill.

Coordination with other national government agencies, including Congress,

academe, research institutions, shall be sustained. These institutions, particularly the
various Departments which implement the different programs of government, are
mandated to deliver such services as infrastructure, health, economic and financial
assistance, livelihood development and education. In one way or another, the various
Departments, with their local representatives, can provide the services which the
protected area may need in conjunction with its protection and conservation mandate.

It is recognized that although the protection and conservation of the area is the
basic mandate of the management, such injunction can only be achieved effectively
through an integrated approach to the problem besetting the populace and the physical
environment. In short, socio-cultural, economic and political issues that may influence
the project management need to be addressed with equal import as the physical
protection of the landscape and biodiversity conservation. Hence management
concerns beyond the financial capacity of the DENR have been addressed starting
2001 by coordinating with the appropriate agencies.

Despite the vigilance of the KGVs some residents continue to engage in illegal
activities like clearing of forestlands and timber smuggling with the excuse that these
are traditional practices and that they have no other legal, non-destructive sources of
income. Like in the previous management plan, steps shall be undertaken to wean
them away from these practices by facilitating alternative livelihoods and
implementing the laws strictly. Coordination shall be made with the Technical
Education and Skills Development Authority and vocational institutions to provide
training to those who are interested and qualified, with NGOs for the marketing of
products, and with the Department of Agrarian Reform, DA, DENR, DOT and other
agencies for livelihood programs even as law enforcement shall be pursued with
assistance from the police and military.

The same coordinated approach may be used in projects involving

infrastructure such as roads and bridges, although these types of projects may only be
implemented on a very limited scale and with stringent requirements in natural parks
like MKRNP. In case such projects are implemented, linkage and representation
would have to be made with the LGUs and the Department of Public Works and
Highways. Funding for infrastructures could be acquired from congressional
allocations. This entails good lobbying and representation by the management and
concerned local officials before their respective legislators.

Research needs and backups are readily available from universities and
research agencies such as the Ecosystem Research and Development Services of
 44

DENR and the International Center for Research in Agroforestry, to name a few.
Data needs and information gaps, particularly in the technical aspect of protected area
management such as geological formation studies, may be submitted to research
agencies as possible research projects.

Coordination may be forged likewise on a project basis or with individual

government institutions. For example, a community with the assistance of the LGU
and PASu office, especially in project identification, may propose construction of
irrigation canals or water impounding devices to the National Irrigation Authority.

Effective and efficient coordination is a success formula for project

implementation and management capability building. With initiative and active
participation from the communities and support of the LGUs, this institutional
arrangement has proved helpful in achieving projects and activities that could not be
implemented by the PASu alone. As it is a framework for productive endeavor and
working together, it is as flexible and open as can be to accomplish a harmonious
working relationship among project participants mainly through the sharing of
management resources.

For the framework on coordination, please refer to the figure below.

Framework of Institutional Coordination

 45

5.2 Proposed Management Structure

The Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park is under the control and administration
of the DENR through the PAMB and the PASu.

5.2.1 The PAMB

The PAMB is the policymaking body of the protected area. It decides

on budgetary allocations, proposals for funding, resource protection and
general administration of the park in accordance with this plan and successor
plans and its powers and functions as provided for in the Mt. Kitanglad Act. It
shall monitor and evaluate the performance of the PASu personnel, NGOs and
communities engaged in biodiversity conservation and socio-economic
development programs and projects.

The DENR, through the Provincial Environment and Natural

Resources Officer, shall exercise oversight authority over the PAMB to ensure
that the latter is acting within the scope of its powers and functions.

5.2.2 The PASu

Both the NIPAS and Mt. Kitanglad Acts provide that the DENR shall
appoint a PASu who shall serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the
protected area, and who shall be directly responsible to the PAMB and the
PENRO. He/she shall be supported by a core staff consisting of the following:
a. Forester I (1)
3 b. Ecosystem Management Specialist (3)
c. Forest Rangers (2)
f. Extension Officer (1)
g. Driver (2)

The core staff is the required size of personnel deemed sufficient to

administer the core activities such as the following:

1. PAMB Management
2. PAMB Operations
3. Maintenance of Equipment, Vehicles, etc…
4. Sub-IPAF Operation
5. Resource Protection and Management
6. Patrolling
7. BMS/LAWIN
8. IEC
9. Protected Area Zones Management
10. Tenurial Instrument Issuance
11. Livelihood Implementation Monitoring

The core staff and activities are computed on the assumption that
DENR could only allocate scant resources for the park due to budgetary
constraints on the part of the national government.
 46

Proposed Management Structure in MKRNP

DENR SECRETARY

USEC for Policy & Technical

Services

RED PAWB Director

PAMB

ARED for
OPERATION

PENRO

PASu

LEGEND : AUTHORITY COORDINATION

 47

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development

BAMS Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring System
BMS Biodiversity Monitoring System
CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
CBFMA Community-Based Forest Management Agreement
CPPAP Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Project
DA Department of Agriculture
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DOT Department of Tourism
IEC Information Education and Communication
IPAF Integrated Protected Area Fund
IPRA Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act
KGV Kitanglad Guard Volunteers
KIN Kitanglad Integrated NGOs
LAWIN Landscape and Wildlife Indicator
LGU Local Government Unit
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MKRNP Mount Kitanglad Range Natural Park
MKDRRMC Mount Kitanglad Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
NDLA Non-Destructive Livelihood Activities
NGO Non-Government Organization
NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System
NORDECO Nordic Agency for Development and Ecology
PAMB Protected Area Management Board
PASu Protected Area Superintendent
RA Republic Act
 48

References

Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan of the Bukidnon-

Daraghuyan Ancestral Domain Claimants. 2008.
Declaration of the First Bukidnon Environment Summit. June 2008.
DENR-IPAS Kitanglad. 2006. Minutes of Municipal Level Consultations with Indigenous
Peoples in Mt. Kitanglad.
___________________. 2008. Minutes of A Consultation with Tribal Leaders.
___________________. Biodiversity Monitoring System Reports from 2007 to 2011.
___________________. Minutes of KGV Congresses from 2007 to 2010.
___________________. Minutes of Various PAMB Meetings.
DENR, NORDECO. 1998. Integrating Conservation and Development in Protected Area
Management.
Kitanglad Integrated NGOs. 1999. A Handbook on Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park.
_______________________. 1999. Income Survey in Mt. Kitanglad.
_______________________. 2006. Socio-Economic Survey in Mt. Kitanglad.
_______________________. Various Issues of Kitanglad Updates.
Mordeno, H. Marcos C. 2010. Rationalizing Development and Enhancing Policy
Implementation for the Conservation of Bukidnon’s Ecologically Significant Areas.
Mount Kitanglad Protected Area Act of 2000.
National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992.
NEDA X. Regional Development Plan for 1993-2022.
Ongleo, Caroline P. 2003. Social Sustainability of Livelihoods in Mt. Kitanglad.
PAMB-Kitanglad. Annual Accomplishment Reports from 2007 to 2010.
Research Institute on Mindanao Cultures. 1998. Census of Mt. Kitanglad Occupants.
World Bank. 2004. Implementation Completion Report on the CPPAP.
www.mindanews.com
www.talamdan.wordpress.com