National Integrated Protected Areas System (Comparative Study)

By: Czar Ian R. Agbayani

RA 7586 entitled as the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992 provides a comprehensive system that establishes outstanding remarkable areas and biologically important public lands that are habitats of rare and endangered species of flora and fauna, biogeographic zones and related ecosystems, which shall be designated as protected areas. This is consistent with the principle of Intergenerational responsibility; which the State declares in order to secure for the Filipino people of present and future generations.

The NIPAS marked a positive change or campaign in conserving and developing the integrity of the environment in order to preserve and protect the unique, rare and endangered species of plants and animals in order to provide the present and, most importantly, the future generation the chance to use and enjoy these protected areas. Furthermore, this is consistent with the 1987 Constitution which provides a strong provision that grants indigenous peoples rights, the right to a clean the right to a clean environment, the conservation of natural resources, equitable access to natural resources and social justice.

The Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act complement the NIPAS Act in establishing critical habitats which does not qualify as protected areas because of its small size or location of private lands. Moreover, the Wildlife Act lays down provisions which are consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity for the use and enjoyment of natural resources within protected areas. The enactment of the Wildlife Act coordinates with other encompassing laws and strengthening the advocacy of protecting the unique habitats of the environment for the people.

However, with promising aims and ambitions to preserve the integrity of the ecosystem for all generations, like any other, is coupled with challenges and setbacks such as an overlapping duties and

functions and inconsistent frameworks and principles as with other relevant laws. These difficulties face the need to harmonize in order to be consistent with the purpose of the law and with other encompassing laws.

One of the challenges, which the NIPAS face, is the lack of coordination with the implementation of policies affecting the protected areas, wildlife and the rights of the indigenous peoples. The issue in this case is that while the Revised Forestry Code provides the legal basis for Forestry policies against illegal logging and other prohibited timber activities and while the Indigenous People Rights Act (IPRA) provides the recognition of traditional use of indigenous people of forest resources within their ancestral land or domain; these laws does not justify the killing of protected wildlife species protected by the NIPAS.

Another challenge, which the NIPAS face, is the contradicting provisions provided in the Local Government and Revised Fisheries Code. Both provides that the protection and managing of fisheries and coastal are devolved to the local governments. However, in this case, what happens is that there is an overlapping jurisdictions of many agencies and inconsistent duties and functions of environmental protection. Furthermore, it is the local government which provides the establishment of the marine protected areas and sanctuaries, not the NIPAS Act. However, areas which are declared protected areas under the NIPAS Act are removed from the jurisdiction of local governments. Moreover, local governments wary of DENR proposals to include it among the protected areas as local government seem to be more efficient than being under the system of NIPAS Act.

On another law, specifically the Mining Law, it provides that it is the DENR that who has the authority over mining issues, considering that mining is under the discretion of DENR. It is not the Local Government who has the authority to decide mining issues. Moreover, the assertion of the local government that they have right to regulate activities that may pose danger to biological resources or habitats, even they are subject to national regulation is with merit. Thus is on the consideration on the fact that it plays a significant role on the protection of the environments integrity for the better use and enjoyment of the people for all generations. The issue in this case is the lack of harmony of the provisions set by the Local Government Code with the NIPAS Act.

Lastly, the issue between the Local Government Code and the NIPAS Act has never been resolved. Whereas, it provides a framework of the local governments responsibility for the management of natural resources within their area and where the DENR has devolved some duties and functions to the former, the local government is placed in a dilemma of preserving its natural resources or pursuing economic growth with negative environmental impact. What the law has not foreseen is the ambiguity of the functions given to one and another. It must be laid in a clear perspective of what are the duties of the local government apart from that of the DENR. In other words, it must be delineated on what particular issues that local government must take action and which are DENRs responsibility. In another view, what they could do is to harmonize its provision in a fair and win-win situation wherein both receive sufficient premiums in order to harmonize the conflicting provisions of both law.

What is viable and practical is to harmonize and coordinate all the relevant laws as not to contradict one another but to strengthen the system of promoting and preserving the life of rare and endangered species of flora and fauna in order to allow every one, present of future, the chance to use and enjoy the natural resources within protected areas covered by NIPAS Act and other relevant laws.