Fiscal Gap and Financing Protected Areas in the Philippines

This study is part of the cross-country analysis of the fiscal and resource gap of protected areas in the South East Asian region. It focused on the protected areas in the Philippines that are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Using mail and field interviews of the Protected Area Superintendent (PASu) or senior DENR officials, the study looked into the extent of internal and external threats to protected areas (PA) in 16 regions of the country as represented by the population of settlements outside PAs, inhabitants within PAs, number of visitors, and length of roads and trails. The management responses to these threats, indicated by the number of staff filled up by the DENR and the budget allocated by the national government, were also examined. As small areas received more budget and staff per hectare than big areas, we grouped the PA respondents into four clusters or sizes: small, medium, large, and very large. The average and highest values for staff per 1000 ha and expense per hectare were obtained per cluster. If we are to bring the belowaverage PAs to cluster average, and the above-average PAs to the highest cluster value, we computed that, in 2009, the DENR had a shortfall of 411 staff and USD2.34 million in expenses for the 79 benchmarked PAs. However, increasing staff and budget is saddled by contemporary problems like restriction in hiring of new staff, depletion of current DENR staff, and insufficient fees or revenue collections. To remedy this predicament, it is recommended that the DENR pursue the enactment of PA mandates or enabling laws for each PA to include the organization and staffing pattern that it will use as well as for DENR or PAs to pursue the following, among others: a) contract out management or to co-manage the PA with interested local government units; b) pursue a continuing capacity building program for PASu, PA staff, and PA Management Board (PAMB) members; c) establish a transparent and adequate collection system and other management systems; d) upgrade the general entrance fee and other charges set in 1995 using the cost recovery and ‘willingness-to-pay’ principles; and e) allocate budget to individual PAs instead of lump sum appropriation to the regional office.