EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
General Nakar, the northernmost municipality of Quezon province has a total land area of approximately 161,769 hectares.[1] Within its territory are 16 or 17 watersheds, the four of which namely Agos, Kaliwa, Kanan, and Umiray supply water for domestic and irrigation purposes of neighboring municipalities and even Metro Manila. Umiray supplements the water needs of Metro Manila through the 13-kilometer Umiray Angat Transbasin tunnel to Angat watershed. Kanan and Kaliwa are proposed to augment the already declining water supply of Angat for Metro Manila through series of diversion tunnels that will supply the proposed Laiban Dam in Rizal.
Of the total land area of the municipality 10,437 hectares or six (6) percent are agricultural lands or lands classified as alienable and disposable (A&D), and 151,342 hectares or ninety four percent are classified as forest lands, including the 29,425 hectares of unclassified public forests[2]. Although the size of forest land area remains the same, forest cover is a different matter altogether. From 93,052 hectares in 1993, the primary forest of General Nakar has been reduced to 47,097 hectares by 2005[3]. A yearly depreciation of 5.6%, which suggests that Nakar’s primary forests, by year 2010, is only 35,463 or 38% of the 1993 hectares. The rest are converted to other land cover, probably second growth, cultivated, or plantation areas. If this trend continues, by 2015 primary forest will only be 18% of the total forest area or 17% of the total land area of the municipality.
The protection and development of the forest and forestland of General Nakar is very important considering its rich biodiversity with high endemism of both flora and fauna, the existence of significant forest cover, the services performed in mitigating climate change and pollution, and the maintenance of the beauty of nature. As mentioned above, it also supplies water for the Umiray-Angat Transbasin tunnel that services a substantial portion of Metro Manila’s water supply requirements. Irrigation of farmlands downstream is also a main benefit provided by the watershed. Other benefits include ecotourism, climate regulation through carbon sequestered by forests, medicinal benefits from the use of indigenous plants, and other intangible benefits traditionally enjoyed by residents in the area in the form of recreational, spiritual, cultural and non-use values.
The situational analysis conducted by the FLUP-TWG show that free access to forest lands, limited assets for sustained livelihood, population pressure, increased migration to forest lands, and weak implementing institution are the primary cause of forest degradation. The secondary causes are inappropriate land uses, conversion of forest lands to other uses, ineffective on-site management of tenured and allocated areas, excessive logging without accountability to restore opened areas, illegal and inappropriate extraction of forest products, and weak law enforcement. The persistence of these issues continues to threaten the remaining forest and its sustainability thereby feeding the cycle of poverty and environmental deterioration.
Excessive logging in General Nakar occurred during the decades of the 1950s to early 1980s, and the practice of shifting cultivation followed. Results of community consultations revealed that 17 logging companies operated in various parts of General Nakar, where practically all the Barangays had logging concessions. After the closure of logging companies in the area, many of the workers decided to remain and reside in the locality, engaging in kaingin cultivation, other migrants joined in, apart from the already resident indigenous groups. Through time, illegal activities like carabao logging, charcoal making, small scale mining, and electric fishing along rivers become common. Added to this are unregulated hunting and forest products gathering. The continued destruction of the forest has resulted to negative impacts including flash floods (such as the great flood in Year 2004), excessive soil erosion, siltation of rivers, and shortage of irrigation water during the dry season. It is projected that if the current trend of forest destruction continues, there may follow irreversible damages including loss of biodiversity, more severe environmental disasters, decline of livelihood, displacement of indigenous communities and decline of productivity both in the upland and lowland areas.
The pressure on forest lands has the potential to intensify further with the growing population within and adjacent communities. Present estimates of population within forest lands ranges from 35%-44% of total municipal population. Adding to the pressure is the increase of migrants from neighboring towns and regions entering forest lands, and the ease of access through national and local roads constructed that traverses along or within forest lands of the municipality.
The DENR had several efforts, after the logging period, to put in place management of forest lands and still make it as source of national revenue. A number of lease agreements and contracts were issued by DENR for forest management: a TLA owned by Inter-Pacific Forest Resources, Inc. covering 50,000 hectares, an IFMA owned by Timberland Forest Product Inc. covering almost 35,000 hectares, and CBFMAs of Real Infanta Nakar Pollillo Aqua Fori-Agricultural Devt. and Multi-Purpose Cooperative (RINPAFADECO) and Canaway Farmers Livelihood Association, Inc., (CFLAI) each with 500 hectares. A special private land timber license owned by Green Circle Resources Properties, Inc. covers almost 29,000 hectares. Most of the contracts, except for Green Circle and the CBFMAs, were either terminated, suspended, or have expired during the last ten years.
Presently, 81,167 hectares or 55% of the total area are still in various forms of allocation, tenure and ownership: Allocation to communities is 6,283 hectares or 4.2%; Allocation to provide Public Goods totals to 52,735 hectares or 35%; Allocation for private revenue sums up to 23,787 hectares or 16%; and Allocation for other government agencies (military reservation) is 1%. Allocation for Public Goods dominates (35%) in view of the fact that three major proclamations namely Umiray Watershed Forest Reserve, Kaliwa Watershed Forest Reserve and the National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary & Game Reserve (Proc. No. 1636, April 18,1977) were intended for preserving wildlife and production of water. However, the TWG is uncertain if these are effectively managed. Initial indications, based on preliminary tenure assessment during community consultations, suggest they are not effectively managed. A more in depth assessment was recommended by reviewing each tenure or allocation separately. On site management is the responsibility of the tenure or allocation holder: DENR directly manages allocations for Public Goods; Ancestral domains are direct responsibility of the IPs; CBFM areas are leased to Peoples’ Organizations tasked with managing forest land with special privilege of generating income from such accountability; and, the military reservations are supposed to be actively managed by such entities, however, on-site activities were never heard of. Each tenure or allocation holder, including those under other government agencies, is required by the DENR to develop resource management plans and invest resources to finance management costs. Initial interviews indicate that resources management plans, the most basic requirement for effective management, remains to be formulated. Local stakeholders propose community participation in the on-site management of these tenured or allocated areas whenever feasible.
Despite this allocations, there remain 70,175 hectares or 46% unallocated or “open-access” areas that are subject to exploitation and destruction. Kanan and Umiray watersheds have the largest open access of all the watersheds. With this open-access condition it is imperative that these areas be placed under effective management, otherwise the services of these forests may deteriorate rapidly under a no management scenario.
The challenge to the DENR and to the LGU is how to reverse the trend of forest degradation, and how the open access condition could be remedied. Not surprisingly, the situational analysis points to an institution weakened by limited resources and manpower capability hence, unable to perform its mandate for forest management. Based on consultation with various stakeholders, the more viable remedy in terms of management is sharing of responsibility by on-site stakeholders such as the community and the mandated agency. In the spirit of the Local Government Code, the LGU will share with the DENR in managing forest lands within its boundaries. For areas where DENR remain the primary manager such as NIPAS areas, LGU becomes the co-manager with the community providing on-site management. Outside of NIPAS the primary responsibility for management will be the tenure holder, while the LGU and the DENR provide supervision and coordination roles. Under these arrangements, the LGU and DENR shall device performance based monitoring system to ensure effective management of forest lands in tenured or allocated areas, including individual property rights within a tenure or allocation.
For specific open access areas, the FLUP-TWG recommends co-management between LGU and DENR. The 21,683 hectares within the Kanan watershed, which are outside of the PP 1636, shall be established as protected areas through a co-management agreement with the LGU and in collaboration with IP and non-IP communities. The 31,887 hectares non-contiguous open access areas, which are outside of Kanan watershed and a large portion within the Umiray watershed, will also be co-managed with the IP, and the non-IPs shall be part of the on-site management scheme through an individual property rights arrangements. The 16,117 hectares of unclassified public forests shall also be under a co-management, outside of the portion of which is believed to be under the titled property of Romeo Roxas the owner of Green Circle Properties Corporation.
In terms of resource generation, the LGU and DENR shall device alternative financing mechanisms such as user fees, payment for environmental services, and possibly market-based instruments. In undertaking these schemes, management costs will not be solely sourced from line item budget of the DENR, but from beneficiaries of services provided by the forest lands of General Nakar. Proceeds from such mechanisms will be ploughed directly to management of forest lands providing the services. The LGU and DENR shall develop collaborative arrangements with off-site beneficiaries of forest lands for funding requirements. As such, external linkages with other institutions outside of General Nakar will be vigorously pursued.
In terms of land management, the general strategy is for the LGU and the DENR to provide guidelines to ensure that tenure or allocation holders effectively manage forest lands. As such, forest lands will be zoned and management prescriptions for particular characteristics of forest land shall be defined. Protection and production zones in each tenure or allocation shall be specified based on national policies and in accordance with the agreed objectives for General Nakar forest lands.
In the interest of feasibility of management of forest lands, protection and production zones shall be contiguous. The TWG recommends that the whole of Kanan watershed, the Umiray WFR, Kaliwa WFR, the watersheds of Idyang, Magnac, Bambanan, Depalyon, Masla, Malatunglan, Tamala, Anibungan, and Ikdan, and riparian zones, shall be protection zones. Provided that when there are settlements within, such will be treated as multiple use zones, and a 2-kilometer buffer will be established between the edges of the existing settlement and the protection zone.
The major watershed with highest priority for development interventions is the Kanan Watershed, followed by Umiray Watershed, Kaliwa Watershed, then the Agos- Nakar Watershed. As for the 12 smaller watersheds, referring to Anibungan, Bambanan, Depalyon, Ibuna, Ikdan, Magnac, Malatunglan, Masanga, Masla, Guindan, and Tamala watershed, management shall be in accordance with the zoning arrangement. The three key strategies for small watersheds are:
1. Community-based management of small watersheds, and
2. Establishment and development of small and mini-scale water/energy sources (mini at micro hyrdo) that will supply the water requirements of adjacent communities;
3. In view of prioritization given to the large watershed, the TWG recommends greater efforts for promoting external investment for management of small watersheds
The following are complementary strategies recommended that shall be consistent with recommended zoning strategies:
1. Planting of indigenous trees/rainforestation on bare lands, grasslands and brushlands
2. Improve the enforcement of laws and policies in illegal activities within watersheds most especially timber poaching.
3. IEC on benefits of managing watersheds. There will be presentations in every barangay twice a year about the uses and importance of watersheds. Useful materials such as posters, leaflets, and even comics will be distributed.
4. Establishment of a forest/plant nursery in each barangay;
5. Adoption of conservation farming and sloping lands technologies. This will include conduct of trainings on various technologies suchs as SALT, conservation farming, agroforestry and similar soil and water conservation measures. These measures shall be applied in critical, erosive areas, bareland and brushland areas.
Proposed investments for watershed development include tree plantation and agroforestry ventures, nature- based tourism, biodiversity conservation and carbon capture and mini- hydro establishement. The establishment and maintenance of communal forest and spring boxes in all barangays are also recommended for near and sustained source wood and water for domestic use.
The M and E set up will involve multi-sectoral and interagency periodic assessments, analyses, and reporting in support of the FLUP implementation. There will be the participation of a multi-sectoral group to monitor compliance to commitments and MOA under the FLUP. Periodic assessment of key FLUP indicators will be done, focused on forest cover increment, reduction of open access forests and forest lands, improvements in tenured areas, contribution to livelihood and income and other similar objectives.
Institutional arrangement in the implementation of the FLUP will involve close partnership between the LGU, DENR, NCIP, DILG and selected NGOs and POs. There shall be a Steering Committee co-chaired by the Mayor of LGU Nakar and the RED of DENR IV-A. A FLUP Project Management Office shall be created and based at the MENRO Office of the General Nakar LGU, with operational link to the DENR-CENRO office in Real, Quezon. It will operate through four functional sub-committees and one council namely Livelihood and Community Development Committee, Tenure Management Committee, Conflict Resolution Committee, Monitoring and Evaluation Committee, and Multi-sectoral Forest Protection Council,. Issues on boundaries and tenure management shall be the purview of the Conflict Resolution Sub-committee.
The first year implementation budget of the FLUP will require a budget of P3,825,020, while for the fist five year implementation, a total budget of P106,704,592 will be needed. Budget will be sourced from both the LGU and external sources including other national government agencies, NGOs and foreign donors. The 5- year and 15- year implementation budgetary layout are presented below.
Five Year Implementation and Targets
| Year | Administration -MOOE | FLUP-LGU Funded | FLUP-External Funding | Total |
| 2011 | 805,380 | 2,633,400 | 386,240 | 3,825,020 |
| 2012 | 845,649 | 2,690,900 | 20,990,293 | 24,526,842 |
| 2013 | 887,931 | 2,940,549 | 20,941,357 | 24,769,838 |
| 2014 | 932,328 | 3,330,361 | 22,042,100 | 26,304,789 |
| 2015 | 978,944 | 3,124,259 | 23,174,899 | 27,278,103 |
| 4,450,232 | 14,719,469 | 87,534,889 | 106,704,592 |
Fifteen-Year Implementation Budget
| Year | Administration -MOOE | FLUP-LGU Funded | FLUP-External Funding | Total |
| 2011 | 805,380 | 2,633,400 | 386,240 | 3,825,020 |
| 2012 | 845,649 | 2,690,900 | 20,990,293 | 24,526,842 |
| 2013 | 887,931 | 2,940,549 | 20,941,357 | 24,769,838 |
| 2014 | 932,328 | 3,330,361 | 22,042,100 | 26,304,789 |
| 2015 | 978,944 | 3,124,259 | 23,174,899 | 27,278,103 |
| 2016 | 1,027,892 | 3,116,387 | 24,388,244 | 28,532,523 |
| 2017 | 1,079,286 | 3,621,141 | 25,494,256 | 30,194,683 |
| 2018 | 1,133,251 | 3,231,835 | 26,868,247 | 31,233,332 |
| 2019 | 1,189,913 | 3,298,872 | 28,023,904 | 32,512,689 |
| 2020 | 1,249,409 | 3,453,065 | 29,421,950 | 34,124,424 |
| 2021 | 1,311,879 | 3,614,968 | 30,889,897 | 35,816,745 |
| 2022 | 1,377,473 | 3,784,967 | 32,431,242 | 37,593,682 |
| 2023 | 1,446,347 | 3,963,465 | 34,049,654 | 39,459,466 |
| 2024 | 1,518,664 | 4,150,889 | 35,748,987 | 41,418,539 |
| 2025 | 1,594,597 | 4,347,683 | 37,533,286 | 43,475,566 |
The implementation of this arrangement shall be through a memorandum of agreement for joint-mplementation between the DENR and LGU. Likewise the LGU and the DENR shall sign a memorandum of agreement for the co-management of specific areas identified above.
