Synthesis of the e-conference on Sustainable Mountain Development in the Southeast Asia, 1-31 June 2011
T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Executive Summary
1. Background
2. Context
2.1 Physical Geography/Location
2.2 Who are the SEA Mountain’s stakeholders?
Indigenous peoples
Non-indigenous, migrant settlers from the lowlands
Resource users and extractive companies
Visitors and travelers
The future generation as stakeholders
“Indirect” stakeholders
3. Issues in sustainable mountain development
3.1 Conflicts and competing demands for mountain resources
3.2 Climate change and other environmental hazards
3.3 Rights over natural resources
4. The way forward
4.1 Solutions and best practices
Way out of conflicts
- Creating an environment for dialogs to take place
- Encouraging multi-stakeholder dialogs with clear goals
- Prevention and/or resolution of armed conflict
Way out of powerlessness
- Building the mountain people’s capacity
- Engaging the general public to support the mountain agenda
- Establishing/building strong partnerships
Way out of poverty
- Building sustainable livelihoods
- Promoting green tourism in SEA Mountains
Way out of unsustainable development and ecological disasters
- Undertaking more research such as those that will define the carrying capacity of mountains
- Improving mountain governance and innovating on institutional mechanisms
4.2 Common grounds and bases for regional cooperation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Southeast Asia e-conference on Sustainable Mountain Development held from June 1-30, 2011 forms part of the preparations for Rio +20 spearheaded by The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), as a member of the global Mountain Partnership Consortium (MPC), in the form of a Regional Assessment Report covering the Hindu Kush-Himalayan and the Asia Pacific (HKH & AP). More than 160 participants from 20 different countries attended the SEA e-conference, who tackled the agenda covered in three sessions which were aimed at understanding the SEA mountain systems and their benefits, articulation of the issues and challenges confronting the mountains and relevant stakeholders, and the formulation of a road map for sustainable mountain development in the SEA region.
Southeast Asia, which is comprised of two geographic regions (mainland and island/archipelagic states), forms one of the world’s highest biodiversity pools but the rapid loss of biodiversity has also earned for the region a place among the hottest global biodiversity hotspots. Climate change has made the structurally weak and fragile SEA Mountains even more vulnerable owing to increased frequency and intensity of rainfall, extreme temperatures and severe tropical storms. SEA Mountains are home to a number of indigenous peoples who are marginalized, poor, and underserved by nation states. This is aggravated by global population and economic pressures that have driven migrant lowland settlers, extractive companies that harness the mountains’ timber, mineral and water resources, private investors and lowlanders, toward the mountains. Governments and civil society organizations, international and local donors, and development organizations have played key roles in facilitating development and/or resolving conflicts arising from competing demands by the variety of stakeholders that have laid claim on the mountains’ resources. Because mountains have not been mainstreamed in the governance of most Southeast Asian countries, government policies are generally inadequate to address pressing mountain issues, highlighting the need for effecting policy reforms to protect social and ecological systems in the mountains, strengthen sustainable development, prevent environmental damage, and improve global food security.
The hard lessons in addressing conflicts showed that these are not resolved overnight, and by and large involves a slow process that is initially designed to create an environment for dialogs to take place. Toward this end, it is important to capacitate stakeholders with collaborative negotiations and non-adversarial communication skills. Multi-stakeholder dialogs that strive for win-win solutions and aim to do the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run should be encouraged. Conflicts that border on terrorism should be prevented by making people more self-reliant through proper education, the improvement of governance, and by addressing the economic needs of the people.
To help mountain people out of their apparent powerlessness, they should be made capable of participating in governance and in deciding for their community and for mountain development. In their advocacy, they must gain support from civil society and a public that is well-informed on the mountain’s situation, and who can influence politician’s development agenda. Partnerships that engage international and regional organizations, natural scientists, social science researchers, planners, decision/policy makers, community groups, local NGOs) must be forged, including those with the private sector that have strong corporate social responsibility (CSR), who can provide innovative, simple technological and market solutions for problems that beset mountain communities.
Private sector support can be harnessed to empower small mountain stakeholders with community-based technologies and develop business acumen that will spell the success and sustainability of their livelihoods. Product value chains should be promoted through the cooperative efforts among the primary producers and private groups such as the processors and traders. However, there is a need to understand the profit motive behind investments, and to reward the private sector with a reasonable return on their investments. Tourism has been identified as a path toward green economies in the mountains, which will not only promote income generation among local communities and indigenous peoples in the mountains, but also help counter terrorism and finance mountain conservation efforts.
Unsustainable development and ecological disasters should be averted through research that among others, determines the carrying capacity of mountains. Scientific inputs obtained through participatory mountain research and that takes into account local rules and indigenous knowledge are needed to carry out careful planning in the mountains, including the implementation of measures that will help mitigate the worsening impacts of climate change and unregulated human activities on the mountain’s resources.
Collaborative efforts in protecting and conserving the mountains are impelled by common awareness on the SEA Mountains’ benefits and the anticipated adverse impacts of mountain-related disasters on both upland and lowland populations. The melding of traditional knowledge with externally-generated science are also reaping good results toward improving sustainability in resource utilization and in affording opportunities for multi-stakeholder participation to come up with workable solutions to mountain issues and problems. Finally, the more active participation of communities in mountain governance is paving the way for sustainable mountain management practices that will hopefully help put an end to pervasive poverty in the uplands and lead to carefully-planned and community-controlled, sustainable human development.
Sustainable Mountain Development in Southeast Asia
Synthesis of the e-conference, June 1-30, 2011
1. Background
This e-conference on sustainable mountain development in Southeast Asia has brought together a number of people with keen interest in ensuring the protection of South and Southeast Asian mountains and the survival and well-being of individuals and communities who call these mountains home. Almost twenty years ago, during the Rio conference, attention has been called on the need to pay particular attention to the mountains of the world where close to one-eighth (12%) of the global population live. A set of actions spelled out in Chapter 13 which described mountains as fragile ecosystems was outlined, emphasizing the two program areas on (a) Generating and strengthening knowledge about the ecology and sustainable development of mountain ecosystems; and (b) Promoting integrated watershed development and alternative livelihood opportunities, as the key intervention strategies to achieve development in the mountains.
Twenty years after Rio, the task at hand is to assess how much progress has been accomplished vis -à-vis the objectives set, as well as to define mechanisms to mainstream mountain development in the light of new challenges and opportunities, and to capitalize on the “heightened awareness about the critical importance of mountains as “water tower” and “hotspots’ of biodiversity” (Madhav Karki, May 29, 2011). Given that the twin agenda of Rio+20 on Green Economy and Environmental Governance appear to have sidelined the importance of fragile and structurally weak mountains regions, it has become all the more imperative for mountain stakeholders to step up their efforts to press the case for sustainable mountain development. This e-conference is a step in the right direction. The organizers are happy to note that the conference participants, through their active participation, have demonstrated the continuing need for mountain issues to be debated upon, appropriately addressed by governments, and for workable solutions to be put forward. We are immensely thankful to those who have made our task less daunting. This report summarizes our collective output on the status, challenges, opportunities and directions for sustainable mountain development in the Southeast Asia region.
2. Context
2.1 Physical Geography/Location
A general overview of the geographic location and features of Southeast Asia was provided by Basudev Upadhyay, environmental graduate interested in working with Sustainable Mountain Development in the Hindu Kush Himalayan Region. He described Southeast Asia as the region between the continents of Asia and Australia, consisting of the countries that are geographically south of China, east of India and north of Australia. The region lies on the intersection of geological plates, with heavy seismic and volcanic activity.
Southeast Asia is divided into two geographic regions: Mainland Southeast Asia, also known as Indochina, which is made up of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and Peninsular Malaysia, and Maritime Southeast Asia, which is analogous to the Malay Archipelago, and consists of Brunei, East Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Singapore. In Myanmar, the highest Mountain Hkakabo Razi (5,881 m) is accompanied by 30 other peaks that are over 2,000 meters above sea level.
Mr. Upadhyay described the region as an area with rich geography, history and varied culture and warm tropical climate. The mountains, jungles, lakes, rivers, and seas of Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam form one of the biggest biodiversity pools in the world. They are also home to numerous centers where restricted-range birds, plant and insect species are concentrated. Southeast also Asia has one-third or 284,000 square kilometers of all coral reefs, which are among the most diverse in the world.
Vince Michael Docta, Project Staff of the Non-Timber Forest Products Exchange Program (NTFP-EP), shared his knowledge about the major mountain systems in the Philippines. Going from island-to-island, the Philippines being an archipelago, Mr. Docta described the mountain ranges in Luzon (North), Mindanao (South), as well as in the Visayan (Central Philippines) region. The three large mountain ranges in Luzon are the Caraballo del Sur which consists of Central and Northern Cordillera, the Sierra Madre which is also known as the Pacific Coast range, and Caraballo de Baler. Among these, Sierra Madre is the longest continuous mountain range in the Philippines. The world-famous, almost perfectly cone-shaped Mayon Volcano in the province of Albay, and another active volcano, Mount Bulusan in the province of Sorsogon, are considered as part of the Caraballo de Baler mountain range. Smaller mountain ranges are found in Zambales and in Tagaytay where Mount Makiling in the province of Laguna and Taal Volcano in the province of Batangas belong.
In Mindanao, the principal mountain ranges are as follows: (a) Diwata Mountains which run along the eastern coast of the island; (b) the Central range which extends through the length of Mindanao following the western boundary of the Agusan and Davao provinces, and (c) the mountain ranges which form the backbone of the Zamboanga peninsula and Misamis Occidental province. In the Visayan area, Panay Island has a range stretching from north to south that separates the province of Antique from Aklan, Iloilo, and Capiz provinces.
The highest mountain peak in the Philippines is Mount Apo, located in Davao del Sur, Mindanao Island, which is 2,954 masl. Other notable Philippine mountains are Mt. Pulag (the second highest mountain peak located in Northern Philippines), Mt. Banahaw and adjoining San Cristobal in Laguna and Quezon provinces (Luzon), Mt. Arayat in the province of Pampanga (Luzon), Mt. Baco in the island of Mindoro, Mt. Matalingajan in the island province of Palawan, and Mt. Makaturing in Lanao del Sur province (Mindanao).
Ms. Eleanor P. Dictaan-Bang-oa who is with the Gender Desk, Tebtebba and also serves in the Secretariat, Asian Indigenous Women’s Network, provided further details about the Cordilleras. She said that 71 % of the region’s total land area of 118,102.4 square kilometers has a slope of 30% and above, based on government estimates. Data from the National Census and Statistics Board (NCSB) showed that the Cordillera’s population reached 1,520,743 in 2007. More than 1 million belong to a group of indigenous peoples collectively referred to as “Igorots” although some groups would rather be called by their ethno-linguistic groups, i.e., Ibaloi, Kalinga, etc. because of the derogatory implication of the term “Igorot” which dates back to history, meaning “people from the mountains” and connote backwardness and cultural inferiority.
A description of Mount Kanlaon in Negros Island, Philippines was provided by Mr. Hernane Y. Malabor, who works with the Mount Kanlaon Natural Park (MKNP). The mountain forms part of the Western Visayas Biogeographic Zone, which is considered an important area for biodiversity conservation although it accounts for only 9% of the total 15 Philippine biogeographic zones. The mountain has been proclaimed as a protected area under the category of a Natural Park through Presidential Proclamation No. 1005 on May 8, 1997 and later enacted as Republic Act 9154 of 2001. As a protected area, Mt. Kanlaon is managed through multi-stakeholder participation in the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB).
MKNP is the only natural park in the greater Negros-Panay faunal region, where a variety of endemic and endangered species can be found. Species endemism is high in the mountain. The area is, however, not the exclusive domain of plants and animals as a survey done in 1996 showed that within the mountain boundaries are 3,000 households, the majority of which belong to marginalized sectors. This population is also growing, according to Mr. Malabor.
The participants were also made aware of Karst landscapes in the region by Ms. Tanya Conlu (June 9, 2011), a cave and mountain enthusiast and member of the Philippine Speleological Society and also a NTFP-EP project staff. She said that Karst landscapes cover about 15% of the earth’s land surface and that there are a lot of Karst areas in the Southeast Asian region, particularly in Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, and the Philippines. Ms. Conlu asserts that cave formations offer an opportunity to study climatic patterns spanning thousands of years through carbon dating. Indigenous peoples and lowland communities also live within Karst areas, where Karst aquifers provide entire populations within the underground cave network with fresh water.
2.2 Who are the SEA Mountain’s stakeholders?
There are as many stakeholders as there are benefits that can be provided by, or interests that can be served in Southeast Asian Mountains. The list also grows as more and more people are driven to the mountains to meet expanding needs, or as governments seek to satisfy economic development goals by tapping every possible resource that can be harnessed, including those of the mountains.
Indigenous peoples
There should be no doubt that the mountain’s long-term residents, mostly indigenous peoples (IPs), should be the first among the many mountain stakeholders. Mountains are homes to most of the IPs in Southeast Asia. In most cases, they had been driven in the past from their lowland homes by invading colonizers to live in the rugged and remote terrain of the uplands. Many of them are poor, marginalized, and vulnerable (Madhav Karki, June 22, 2011). This is true for many indigenous peoples groups, such as the Tagbanuas, Bataks and Pala’wans who live in the mountains of this island province (Isagani Santos, June 15, 2011). Even Karst ecosystems, such as cave formations are home to some indigenous people’s groups (Tanya Conlu, June 9, 2011). As abodes for IPs, ethnic traditions and cultures are developed, perpetuated and preserved in the mountains. Thus, mountains also contribute to the richness of a country’s cultural diversity and linguistic heritage. Dictaan-Bang-oa (June 8, 2011) explained that whatever remains of the cultural and biological diversity in the world is “related to the value that indigenous peoples put on their territories or their close relationship to the land which is most often regarded as sacred, it, being the source of life. In this respect, use and management of mountain resources generally revolves around stewardship or the concept of preserving, conserving and sustaining it for the future generation. From here evolves different indigenous governance systems in the Cordillera region like the “lapat” in Abra and the “muyong” in Ifugao among others.”
Many IPs rely mostly on the non-timber forest products for subsistence and to meet other basic needs. Isagani Santos (June 15, 2011) and Katherine Mana-Galido (June 19, 2011) shared the information that the indigenous communities in Palawan have relied on the gathering of non-timber forest products for subsistence and as a form of livelihood. Baguio City also teems with products made from non-timber resources that are readily marketed among the tourists that flock to the area (Benedicto Sánchez, July 2, 2011).
Non-indigenous, migrant settlers from the lowlands
In addition to indigenous peoples, the number of lowlanders living in the uplands is increasing. This is due to the migration to urbanized centers like Baguio City in the Philippines (Charles Castro, June 28, 2011). Still many others have been simply pushed to the mountains for lack of better economic opportunities in the lowlands. Lacking lifelong experiences in mountain-living especially in mountain protection and resources conservation, and seeing only the mountains as providers of direct goods, many are unable to employ sustainable practices in tilling the lands or in gathering the mountain’s biological richness.
The lure of cool mountain air summer retreats from the tropical heat in the lowlands, tourism, and educational institutions in the case of Baguio City reverse the flow of migration from the upland to the lowland. The same concept of a summer capital and tourist destination goes for the Cameroon Highlands in Malaysia.
Resource users and extractive companies
Unlike indigenous peoples and new mountain residents from the lowlands, logging companies are stakeholders that have the financial and technical capital to harvest the timber growing in the forest. Having been awarded by the respective government with concessions (and other forms of timber harvesting permits or agreements) that gave them the right over the mountain’s timber, many of the companies have operated for a long time as if the mountain’s tree resources were inexhaustible. This has caused, and is still causing the fast rate of deforestation in many of SEA forests.
Another group of mountain resource users are the hydroelectric companies that have constructed and operated hydroelectric dams for power and water for irrigation and domestic consumption. According to Dictaan-Bang-oa (June 8, 2011), the Cordillera is referred to as the “Watershed Cradle of the Philippines.” The seven major river systems in the region (Chico River, Agno River, Abra River, Siffu River, Amburayan-Naguilian-Aringgay River System, Ahin River, Abulog-Apayao River system) supply most of the irrigation needs of Northern Luzon with a drainage area of 5,447,500 hectares. The region’s hydropower potential has been estimated at 3,500 megawatts which is projected to address 27% of the Philippines’ total electricity demand. There are operational and newly-constructed dams that rely on the water from the Cordillera for hydroelectric energy and for irrigation of agricultural farms in the lowlands. Apart from these, mountains are also a source of drinking water, while river systems provide recreation downstream (Sanam Aksha of Kathmandu, Nepal; June 3, 2011).
Continuing the list of stakeholders who come to the mountains for profit-earning motives are the mining companies that are attracted by the mountain’s vast reserve of mineral resources. The Cordillera mountains, for example, have rich mineral deposits i.e., gold, silver and copper among others (Dictaan - Bang-oa, June 8, 2011). Isagani Santos, Information Research and Documentation Coordinator of the Nagkakaisang Tribu ng Palawan (NATRIPAL), considers the mineral resources in the island of Palawan as a curse, where most of the mine deposits are located “beneath forested tribal areas.”
Visitors and travelers
A third group of mountain stakeholders are the visitors, both local and international, who come not to conquer mountains for the mountain’s sake, but to fulfill recreational goals for themselves and for their friends and family. Many in this group feel that Mountains hold a particular mystique that either entices them for the simple pleasure of seeing them, although there are more adventurous ones who savor the risk of climbing mountains. Simply put, for these stakeholders, “Mountains are beautiful,” to adopt the words of Krishna Poudel (June 30, 2011).
Many mountains in the Southeast Asian region carry ecotourism potential and should be made available as alternative ways by which people, especially, those from the lowlands, can enjoy the benefits of mountain ecosystems while at the same time meet the needs of mountain people for a sustainable source of income. The city of Baguio in Northern Philippines has been drawing tourists because of its cool temperature and its pine trees, a vigilant media, and the efforts of the local government to promote the city as the Philippines’ summer capital (Charles Castro, June 28, 2011). Also in the Cordilleras are the centuries-old Banaue rice terraces that many foreign and local tourists visit year-round (Dictaan-Bang-oa, June 8, 2011). In Palawan, Katherine Mana-Galido (Resource Management Officer, NTFP-EP, June 19, 2011), attested to the improvement in the living standards of Palaweños who benefit from tourism and tourism-related opportunities. Elsewhere across the globe, specifically the Inkaterra experience in Peru, tourism is sustaining efforts for conservation activities in the mountains (Susan Santos de Cardenas, June 18, 2011).
The future generation as stakeholders
Finally, we should not forget the future generation as stakeholders of the mountains as well. For them, the present human population’s legacy should be that of keeping largely intact the vast reserves of flora and fauna that the mountains hold, and the potential that these can provide to meet the food, medicinal, and other needs of the people who will live in this planet in the future, which of course include all our children, and our children’s children. A number of SEA mountains are considered biodiversity hotspots, hosting a concentration of plants and animals that are considered far richer than alpine mountains (Benedicto Sánchez, June 1, 2011). Many have been classified as global heritage sites because of the abundance of endemic species that can be found only in the region. The biological richness of SEA Mountains is corroborated by Mr. Upadhyay who described the countries comprising SEA as one of the world’s biggest biodiversity pools. Specific cases of mountains rich in biodiversity are Mt. Kanlaon and Mt. Talinis in Negros, and the whole island of Palawan in the Philippines. A vast array of wild and uncultivated plants that grow in tropical mountain ecosystems may hold the key to the discovery of novel chemicals that may yet prove to be the answer to human ailments that have eluded modern, scientific medical treatments.
“Indirect” stakeholders
Apart from the “direct” stakeholders mentioned above, there are also many groups whom can be called the “indirect” stakeholders of SEA Mountains. These are the various non-government organizations, civil society organizations, international funding institutions, donors, and networks that are advocates of mountains and their sustainable development. Perhaps, we can also include in this group the lowland population who have suffered and would continue to be the brunt of flooding, mudslides and other catastrophe resulting from the combined effects of extreme weather such as heavy rainfall and the highly degraded state of mountain ecosystems. There is now increasing clamor from the lowland population for their voices to be also heard on “developments” that are taking place in the uplands, because of the potential risks that excessive physical damages to the mountains can bring to them, lowlanders, downhill. It is for this reason that in planning activities for sustainable mountain development, Mario Martir (June 29, 2011) has made a case for the participation of the population in the low-lying communities.
3. Issues in sustainable mountain development
3.1 Conflicts and competing demands for mountain resources
For a long time, mountain dwellers had been left on their own to determine what they saw was fit for their land and the resources therein. Not anymore. There has been increasing external pressure on the mountains, especially from the state/government, businesses, and even from lowland communities who claim their stake on the mountains so that the benefits derived from them are shared with the other mountain stakeholders. It is totally not unreasonable for lowland communities, especially those living adjacent to mountain areas and who suffer the brunt of flashfloods, mudslides and landslides from degraded and unprotected mountain areas (Benedicto Sánchez, June 1, 2011), to demand that environmental risks posed by the mountains that result from overproduction, unsustainable agriculture and resource extraction, and the like be addressed. But this may sometimes run counter to the wishes of mountain dwellers, who consider their need for food and livelihood primordial as compared to the interest of lowlanders. The intrusion of lowland stakeholders also causes conflicts among native mountain dwellers—as these can create divisions among those who favor and those who oppose such intrusions by outsiders (Benedicto Sánchez, June 1, 2011).
Mineral resources that sit on forests within ancestral domain areas also strain mountain communities. Palawan is mineral-rich, but the mountains where the mines are found belong to indigenous peoples who have historically been displaced and are largely marginalized (Isagani Santos, June 15, 2011). To gain access to these resources, Dictaan—Bang-oa (June 29, 2011) noted acts of deception among non-resident IPs who posed as long-term residents of areas that are the targets for mineral exploration, and who purportedly claimed no opposition to mining activities in those areas. There should be ways to resolve these tensions without resorting to practices that further undermine the process of building trust between mountain dwellers and other stakeholders. Finally, it should be emphasized that benefits derived from activities that exploit/tap mountain resources should be shared equitably among the different stakeholders. The benefit-sharing schemes should take into account the future of mountain communities when the resource has been fully exploited and the outsiders shall have evacuated the site.
Protracted, unresolved conflicts in the more rugged, remote mountains breed armed conflicts between the national state authorities and non-state armed groups (Benedicto Sánchez, June 3, 2011), where the face of the national government seen by marginal communities are those of uniformed armed men. Ungoverned spaces make rugged remote mountain areas ideal for launching armed struggle against the established government. This is not uncommon and appears to be parallel with what is happening in the rest of the world, such as in South Asia, where according to Agha Iqrar Haroon, Senior Producer, Current Affairs Department, Geo TV Lahore (June 20, 2011), 75% of conflicts are in mountain areas. This is corroborated by Krishna Poudel, Faculty of Geography Education at the Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu, Nepal (June 16, 2011) who said that “Not a single mountain is left without armed conflict and political disturbances in the world.” Krishna explained that these armed conflicts are the result of two factors: one, the mountain’s topography that makes several war technologies strategically suitable over rugged terrain, and two, the local peoples’ economic living standard, education, and their lack of access to state power.
3.2 Climate change and other environmental hazards
Climate change has been a global environmental issue that was not yet highlighted during the 1992 Rio Conference. It is now, and mountains have been seen to be vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Agricultural productivity has been negatively affected in most mountain areas, and anomalous weather conditions had confused mountain people’s coping mechanisms. Be that as it may, the tropical mountains can also help mitigate climate change, by helping reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, as well as through the expansion of the forests through reforestation and renewal (Benedicto Sánchez, June 1, 2011). Trees serve as carbon sinks, and planting more of the same, as well as protecting the ones that are still standing, will help lock in the carbon that is otherwise emitted as a greenhouse gas and contributes to the warming of global temperature.
Because of climate change, population growth, increased global demand for products and services derived from mountains such as timber, water and mineral resources, mountains in Southeast Asia and in the rest of the world are faced with increasing threats not yet intensely felt prior to the 1992 Rio conference. The human race is blamed for the warming of global temperatures, which has resulted in anomalous weather conditions such as intense rainfall, more intense and more frequent typhoons, and unpredictability of weather patterns. These conditions have an adverse effect on the ecological stability of mountains, which have become more prone to landslides, erosion, and even flooding. In turn, this has negatively impacted the productivity of mountain areas used for food production and the ability of mountain people to secure their food requirements. The adverse impacts of disastrous natural causes as well as of detrimental human activities also threaten the biodiversity that resides in SEA Mountains. Upadhyay (June 3, 2011) warned that SEA has the highest relative rate of deforestation of any major tropical region, and thus could lose three quarters of its original forests by 2100 and up to 42% of its biodiversity.
3.3 Rights over natural resources
The lack of tenurial rights over the mountain landscapes is seen as a social issue that impacts on the sustainability of development in mountain regions (Hernane Malabor, June 6, 2011). This is further complicated by absentee claimants, tenured migrants and titled lands within mountain areas. Consequently, this has also impinged upon the peace and stability in mountain areas, as well as the continuity of efforts in pursuit of sustainable mountain development. Mountain dwellers who cannot claim ownership, nor exercise management and control over their land are constantly faced with the threats of being dispossessed of their property. This can lead to a very tentative attitude toward mountain development, or at worse, alienate the mountain dwellers even from genuine development efforts.
Dictaan-Bang-oa (June 29, 2011) cited the Ikalahan experience in Nueva Vizcaya, Northern Philippines, a tribe that was successful in getting recognition for their rights over their ancestral territory, manifested through a certificate of ancestral land title issued by government. Such recognition provided the Ikalahans with a “sense of ownership that strengthened their responsibility and obligation to sustain their territories through traditional management and governance system.”
4. The way forward
4.1 Solutions and best practices
Way out of conflicts
Many different types of conflicts exist in mountain ecosystems: between long-term mountain dwellers and migrant mountain settlers; between indigenous peoples group and extractive companies; between mountain dwellers and the lowland population; between biodiversity conservationists and natural resource users; between mountain dwellers and the state; and even among IPs themselves who may be divided between those who favor “external” development against those who are opposed to it; the list can go on and on. To address or resolve such conflicts, many useful lessons can be drawn from the e-conference as follows:
• Creating an environment for dialogs to take place
The mistrust that conflicts engender discourages mountain stakeholders to enter into dialogs. As a result, conflicts become long drawn, disenchantment grows, and over time, people lose track of what is really important to them. Prof. Annabelle Abaya, Founder/Chair, The Conflict Resolution Group Foundation (June 28, 2011), shared her group’s success story in facilitating the process of dialog between the communities and the companies that operate the hydroelectric dams in Benguet Province in Northern Philippines. Prof. Abaya emphasized the need to impart to stakeholders “collaborative negotiations and non-adversarial communication skills prior to actual negotiations” and for “creating a mechanism for talking that the stakeholders can access any time they have disputes.” The process and the resulting agreement have been captured in a short film which other mountain ecosystems that are in the midst of conflicts can follow.
Ms. Abaya asserts that having the capacity to connect, which she calls compassion, or understanding each other’s needs and not competing with each other for their rights, prevents the paralysis that results from people simply wanting to comply with the law. She also emphasized the importance of learning the lessons of the past rather than being stuck in it. The culturally-sensitive dialog process, as she described it, focused on a needs-based approach, which meant “helping ALL stakeholders to get in touch with what is important to them, helping them identify their needs, and addressing them.” Making people search “deep into themselves to arrive at what it is that they really needed enabled them to realize that land really meant “respect for their culture, opportunity and security.” In turn, “Respect for their culture translated to return of their ancestors’ graves, museums, documentation of their arts, music, dance, literature so they will never be forgotten. Opportunity represented education, training, livelihood, tourism, and development. Security means safeguarding their trees, sustaining their forests, and providing for the future when the benefits from the dams expire.” She also explained that plenty of coaching was required by the process, “so people are always in touch with their values and what is good in them.”
The video-documentary of the process, which was filmed by Harvard University’s Kennedy School under the mandate of Prof. John Ruggie, Special Representative of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-mun for Human Rights and Business, was presented last June 15, 2011 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.
Hernane Malabor (June 20, 2011) also strongly believes in the power of dialogs and the need for mountain people to directly experience the process of directly engaging in it. He also cautioned against imposing an external world view upon mountain people although he welcomes the opportunity for mountain people to “learn the intricacies of free market capitalism.”
• Encouraging multi-stakeholder dialogs with clear goals
Dialogs must involve all stakeholders and must be held with a clearly-defined goal of achieving what is best, if not for all, at least for the greater number of stakeholders. Thus, retired University Professor Napoleon Vergara (June 18, 2011) from the Philippines bats for (a) involving all stakeholders in the dialog, which should not be taken to mean as proceeding only when 100% participation is achieved, but to produce enough positive results to encourage people, especially fence-sitters, to join in; and (b) striving for “win-win” which to him is being able to “do the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run.”
• Preventing and/or resolving armed conflicts
Terrorism has become a problem in many mountains because of their remoteness, the perceived victimization of mountain people, and disparity in the share of benefits from the mountains. The painful lessons from Pakistan, according to Agha Iqbar Haroon (June 20, 2011), where development organizations neglected the education of mountain people while government bureaucrats and expatriates were reaping most of the benefits, led to terrorists instead of bringing in tourists. Malabor (June 29, 2011) believes in proper education to prevent mountains from breeding terrorism, along with making mountain people more self-reliant, improvement of governance, and addressing the economic needs of the people.
Where armed conflicts already exist, Frank Cortes (Retired forester, Philippines; June 20, 2011) capitalized on the fact that rebels also get tired of what they do, long to have a family, and would want to put an end to hiding from people and government forces. As rebels get older, Frank said that they also aspire for decent employment. In his former work as plantation Assistant Vice President (AVP) for a private company, he described how he was able to engage rebel forces to do plantation work, by providing them with “mobilization” funds, delineating an area for them to cultivate, and in the end being able to do better than their urban counterparts.
Way out of powerlessness
The imbalance of power between mountain communities and civil society organizations (CSOs) working with them on one hand, and big corporations (mining, energy companies) and government (local government units (LGUs), and environment and natural resources department and/or ministries), on the other, is seen as one of the deterrents for achieving meaningful dialogs between them (Delia Ediltrudes S. Locsin, June 18, 2011). Abi Aguilar, Policy Advocacy Officer of the Non-Timber Forest Products-Task Force (June 16, 2011), said that the lack of genuine transparency also impedes the way toward dialogs, although she had also acknowledged that as a member of a civil society organization, she cannot openly advocate for transparency because of the possibility that this would be misconstrued as acceptance of models offered by extractive industries. The following are some of the suggestions brought forward to help mountain people out of their apparent powerlessness.
• Building the mountain people’s capacity
There were differing dimensions or forms of building mountain people’s capacity as can be gleaned from the e-conference participants’ inputs. Krishna Poudel (June 16, 2011), for one, believes in proper education as means for building local people’s capacity to eventually gain access to state power. Hernane Malabor (June 29, 2011) said that enabling people to participate in governance with more power and the capacity to decide for their community has two requisites: the first is that there should be greater degree of self-reliance on basic economic needs such as food, clothing and shelter among the small communities, and second, for them to have at least basic “education to understand right and wrong and to provide for basic reading, writing and arithmetic” skills. Annabelle Abaya (June 30, 2011) believes in “capacity building in collaborative negotiations,” and the setting up of a mechanism that can be continuously accessed long beyond the end of the negotiation process. Agha Iqbar Haroon (June 20, 2011), has cautioned against capacity building that do not directly go to the community such as the building of schools, but instead goes elsewhere such as in project staff salaries, offices and vehicles, as this leaves the young even more disgruntled, and in extreme case, to hatred that eventually leads to the taking up of arms against the establishment. Summarizing the point on the need for continuous capacity building, Madhav Karki (July 2, 2011) said that capacity and knowhow among the mountain people are needed “so that they can generate, share and apply new knowledge (both scientific and traditional) and refined skills for transforming mountain development.”
• Engaging the general public to support the mountain agenda
Mountain communities need not be alone in their advocacies to promote the mountain agenda. Apolinario Cariño, Executive Director of the Pederasyon sa Nagkahiusang mga Mag-uuma nga Nanalipud ug Nagpasig-uli sa Kinaiyahan Inc. (PENAGMANNAKI), Mt. Talinis People’s Organization Federation Inc. (MTPOFI), (June 20, 2011), shared the lessons learned from their efforts to protect the Balinsasayao Twin Lakes Natural Park in Negros Island, Philippines against the threat of being reduced to give way to the expansion of geothermal energy claims. In their advocacy, it was important to “gain support from the public, and that the public should be well informed on the situation.” He also said that it would help if civil society groups were one and united in their claim, and if scientific data to support their stand are readily made available to the public. He also sees the power of getting the sympathy of public voters as a means to influence the development agenda of politicians.
• Establishing/building strong partnerships
Benedicto Sánchez (June 19, 2011) emphasized the need for partnerships, through the building of networks among key players (e.g., international and regional organizations, natural scientists, social science researchers, planners, decision/policy makers, community groups, local NGOs) as this enables them to communicate with, and learn from each other. Even the private sector, especially those with strong corporate social responsibility (CSR), should be seen as partners by mountain communities, as they can be “innovative in finding simple technological and market solutions for mountain people.” Having observed how the involvement of the private sector in the Hindu-Kush Himalayan mountains “in marketing high value and organic products, ecotourism, and clean energy such as Biogas had helped reduce poverty, promote social and gender inclusion and contribute to conservation,” Madhav Karki (July 2, 2011) sees the good side of profit making, provided there is fairness and transparency.
María Cristina Guerrero, Executive Director, Non-Timber Forest Products Exchange Programme, (June 30, 2011) cited her recent experience in participating in a series of meetings of an inter-governmental network, through the ASEAN Social Forestry Network (ASFN), culminating with the one recently held in Brunei, as an example of an emerging partnership that has afforded opportunities for multi-stakeholder engagement in the field of social forestry, which she believes can be adapted in the field of sustainable mountain development. According to Ms. Guerrero, ASFN allowed unprecedented open spaces for civil society and communities to air their critical perspectives on the evolving REDD+ mechanism. She added that Indonesian, Philippine, Thai and Cambodian communities and civil society members were able to share their views across issues of land tenure, benefit sharing, participation, recognition of traditional knowledge, and that as a result, the ASEAN secretariat has indicated its interest to establish a face-to-face meeting between the ASFN civil society partners and the ministers of forestry of ASEAN.
Way out of poverty
• Building sustainable livelihoods
Hernane Malabor (June 29, 2011) asserts that one of the two basic requisites that will encourage people to participate in governance is when they are self-reliant in meeting their basic needs. Economic self-reliance hinges on the mountain people’s ability to engage in gainful livelihood. Along the lines of livelihood development, Agha Iqrar Haroon (June 22, 2011) proposed that “Cottage industry for value addition of mountain products (jams, jelly, honey bee products, dry fruit and juices) should be supported, encouraged and enhanced” and that micro credit schemes, product marketing support, and renewable energy should be provided to mountain villages.
Vie Reyes of Bote Central (June 26, 2011) also believes in the idea of empowering small mountain stakeholders with community-based technologies and in assisting them to develop business acumen. Citing her experience with the use of coffee as a source of local economy, she said farmers should be able to add value to the product, such as in the processing and roasting of the product by themselves to increase their incomes with which they can “put food on the table and send their kids to school,” among others.
The private sector can support the generation of livelihood opportunities where government resources are limited to respond to development imperatives in the mountains. The promotion of product value chains needs cooperative efforts among the primary producers and private groups such as the processors and traders. Madhav Karki (June 24, 2011) cited models in the HKH area with successful private sector collaboration, such as in marketing high value and organic products, ecotourism, and clean energy (Biogas), and are now helping reduce poverty, promote social and gender inclusion and also contribute to conservation. But there is a need to understand the profit motive behind the investments poured in by the private sector. Ernie Guiang (international consultant, June 24, 2011) says that a reasonable return on investment (ROI) should accrue to those who are willing to put their financial resources at risk by contributing toward mountain development.
• Promoting green tourism in SEA Mountains
Tourism in the mountain has been called by a few other names in the e-conference, such as sustainable tourism, alternative tourism, community-based ecotourism, conservation-based, or friendly tourism. The strengthening of tourism was identified in Chapter 13 as one of the activities that will help diversify mountain economies. Likewise, it was seen as one of the management-related activities that will promote income generation among local communities and indigenous peoples in the mountains. Coming from the e-conference participants, a new insight gleaned on the role of tourism is that it is also one form of countering terrorism in the mountains. Suitable models for promoting tourism that is compatible with the other demands from the mountains were also contributed by the participants.
Inkaterra has developed one model, which is alleged to provide travelers with exposure to Peru’s rainforest coupled with social responsibility initiatives. The subsidiary NGO, Inkaterra Foundation (Inka Terra Asociacion-ITA) carried out ecological endeavors at Inkaterra Reserva Amazonica, on the Tambopata National Reserve and at Inkaterra Machu Picchu Hotel by providing opportunities to international scientists and local experts to conduct ecosystem studies, biodiversity, flora and fauna inventory and conservation status, etc. Inkaterra also undertakes conservation projects like the Inkaterra Canopy & Anaconda Walk at Reserva Amazonica, the Rolin Island Fauna Rescue Center and the Butterfly House in Puerto Maldonado, and the Spectacled Bear Rescue Project in Machu Picchu that provides vital support for protection of the endangered Andean bear species. A total of 17,000 hectares, inclusive of natural corridors and carbon fixing projects along the Madre de Dios River of the Southern Amazon rainforest and in Machu Picchu are covered by Inkaterra’s conservation efforts.
Building of infrastructure was claimed to be in keeping with the local nature in both Inkaterra Reserva Amazonica’s Ese-Eja styled cabañas and Inkaterra Machu Picchu Andean casitas, taking into account surrounding landscapes, flora, fauna, water, air, noise and solid waste disposal. Ecological safety measures are ensured with the proper use of water resources, water waste management, air quality maintenance through proper utilization of gas stoves, and non-usage of aerosols and ground-keeping. Eco-excursions such as bird watching, orchid trail, and nature walks are led by well-trained and knowledgeable expert guides-interpreters.
By integrating renewable energy onsite, and then offsetting emissions from all of its accommodation and tour related activities, including fuel use and electricity generation, Inkaterra was recognized as Peru’s first carbon-neutral travel organization in April 2007 (Susan de Cardenas, June 18, 2011), who enthused that “Inkaterra’s work is really, conservation funded by tourism” (Susan de Cardenas, June 20, 2011).
Benedicto Sanchez (June 28, 2011) described Baguio City in the Cordillera Mountains as the country’s summer capital and top mountain tourist draw in Northern Philippines. Charlz Castro (June 28, 2011), a long-time resident of the city, corroborated this by saying that Baguio’s ability to maintain its attractiveness is because of the preservation of its pine trees, a vigilant press and civil society, and local government determined to maintain Baguio’s competitive advantages. Part of the reason Baguio is able to draw tourists is the ability of the Igorots (indigenous people in the Cordilleras) to showcase their culture among the visitors. Pride by the native peoples in their own traditions and culture is a key element to their perpetuation.
Another case worth emulating is the home stay tourism mentioned by Swapna Deb (Itanagar, Arunachal, Pradesh, India; June 29, 2011) which is claimed to have attracted many tourists interested in local food and culture, without need for big hotel construction. This practice in some parts of north-east India has proved to be a very good source of income for the local people and tourists get to enjoy the serene environment by staying in the homes of local people. Poudel (June 30, 2011) favors the back-packer type of tourism than organized group tours because a “back-packer stays at the local hotel with local food, drink and enjoys local products,” while groups organized by multinational tour operators stay inside tents or big hotels, and consume imported meal and drinks. Agba Iqrar Haroon (June 28, 2011) believes that it is important for local people to be involved in tourism jobs lest they will feel dejected seeing the dominance of outside investors in the business.
Way out of unsustainable development and ecological disasters
• Undertaking more research, such as those that will define carrying capacity of mountains
Apart from their high elevation and steep slopes, SEA Mountains have relatively thin top soil that is vulnerable to erosion owing to the intensity of tropical monsoon rains in the region. Natural causes are aggravated by human-made activities, such as unsustainable farming practices, human settlements, construction of road systems, and destructive logging and mining operations. There is a great need for information that will serve as inputs for planning in the mountains, including the implementation of measures that will help in mitigating the worsening impacts of climate change and unregulated human activities on the mountain’s resources. Scientific inputs, as well as strategies that consider political and socioeconomic factors must be taken into account and within a multi-disciplinary framework, to come up with realistic solutions to address the environmental crisis besetting the mountains (Upadhyay, June 3, 2011).
The paucity of data is further aggravated by the lack of confidence in available information on mountain resources. Abi Aguilar (June 16, 2011) contends that government data is generally disaggregated and difficult to use in local conditions. Suspicions about the reliability of mountain data stems from methods that are employed to gather information, which Agha Iqrar Haroon (June 6, 2011) asserts as being collected by majority of non-government actors through local leadership that is part and parcel of land lords. Poudel (June 30, 2011) has critiqued the research and development efforts on the mountains, which he considers as having remained more or less on an ad-hoc basis, done within very short field work, and with a few set of objectives that are determined using the experience of the lowlands or outside the mountain, resulting in outcomes that are out of reality. Poudel believes that improving the design of mountain research will entail taking into account local, customary rules and regulation, local geographical terrain, aspect, and values, among others.
To avoid the pitfalls of research that do not produce meaningful results or whose value is not acceptable to the various mountain stakeholders, a multi-stakeholder, participatory type of research should be undertaken where all are given the opportunity to be involved in conceptualizing the research design, in planning the methodology, in undertaking the data gathering activity and in field trials, up to the interpretation of research data. Benedicto Sánchez (June 10, 2011) demonstrated that this is possible, citing his experience in developing sustainability thresholds for various species of rattan at the Northern Negros Natural Park in Mt. Mandalagan. The dialogic approach may appear to be done using a non-conventional research methodology, but the fact that it has generated research information acceptable to users and regulators attests to the fact that a participatory approach can stand on solid ground, and possibly even withstand scientific inquiry.
The manner of doing research is just as crucial as the kind of research that needs to be undertaken in response to the pressures on SEA Mountains. In line with this, it is important to listen to what stakeholders are saying as important to them. E-conference participants have identified an initial list of research initiatives on mountains, like dealing with low carbon, clean fuel initiatives as mentioned by Chethika Abenayake (June 25, 2011). Swapna Deb considers the need for slope conservation efforts as important (June 29, 2011). The conduct of biodiversity researches also needs to be prioritized and made in conjunction with developing strategies for economic and social development so as to engender the active participation of communities in or near protected areas in managing their biodiversity resources (Malabor, June 6, 2011). The problems of water scarcity, disposal of huge amount of wastes, and crowded streets and traffic jams that are associated with growing urbanized mountain centers like Baguio in the Philippines (Charlz Castro, June 30, 2011) and Kathmandu, Nepal (P.B. Pandey, June, 30, 2011) could have been anticipated if their carrying capacity had been properly measured.
• Improving mountain governance and innovating on institutional mechanisms
The precarious state of some of the SEA Mountains and the marginalization of mountain people is attributed in part to the failure of governance within mountain ecosystems. Such failures arise because of incompatibility between traditional governance systems employed by the native people, and state governance that introduces development interventions which may be good on the surface, but turns out to be out of sync with local realities. The state is also seen as generally tolerant of extractive industries in the mountains in the name of development —mining and logging—which impact greatly on the mountain’s topography including river and downstream pollution, erosion, landslides, displacement and community conflicts (Dictaan-Bang-oa, June 8, 2011).
Krishna Poudel (June 16, 2011) believes that this can be overcome by capacitating mountain people to exercise governance over their resources. However, this will not materialize, nor will become sustainable, if the economic standard of the people living in the mountains are not improved. Krishna thinks that giving access to state power can be achieved with proper education so that in the end, mountain people will appreciate that they are responsible for the consequences of their own action. Malabor (June 29, 2011) echoes the same sentiment. Likewise, Malabor believes that mountain people should participate in their governance with more power and the capacity to decide for their community. Toward this end, Malabor sees the need to further strengthen the barangay which is the smallest unit of governance in the Philippines, and understandably, the most accessible to the mountain people. Apart from mountain barangays being provided with their own education, livelihood and basic services programs, health and peace officers, the barangays should also have a say on the kind of projects that will be implemented in the respective communities.
4.2 Common grounds and bases for regional cooperation
Caring for and protection of SEA mountains is a collective responsibility. A few urban centers in the SEA Mountains are growing, but the fact remains that a large portion of SEA Mountains have remained undeveloped, difficult to access, and structurally weak and fragile. No group has come out to claim sole ownership of the vast SEA Mountains, and understandably so. What is clear is that many are aware of the numerous benefits that the mountains provide, as well as of the impending threats associated with global climate and economic pressures. This common awareness of the mountain as a wellspring of benefits and the anticipation of mountain-related disasters that can extend to the lowlands with far greater negative consequences has increased since Rio ’92. This has driven all mountain stakeholders to consider collaborative efforts in protecting and conserving the mountains and the resources therein.
Melding of traditional knowledge with externally-generated science is a key to sustainability in SEA Mountains. Despite some reservations by a number of e-conference participants over the value of scientific knowledge brought to the mountains by external scientists (e.g., Dr. Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, ICCA Consortium Coordinator and IUCN CEESP Vice Chair; June 6, 2011), there were other participants who described cases that have demonstrated the value of collaboration that resulted in melding traditional knowledge with externally-generated science. One such case is the multi-stakeholders’ sharing of knowledge on the proper utilization of non-timber forest products in a mountain community in the Philippines (Benedicto Sánchez, June 10, 2011). There was something to be learned from everybody, claimed Benedicto, where a variety of participatory approaches in the planning process, including community ranking of resources with economic and ecological values and knowledge on the NTFPs’ marketability or the lack of it, were shared. The dialog also offered opportunity for a more balanced gender perspective although the outcome still leaned toward resources preferred by men. The continuing dialogs also resulted in the avoidance of harvesting endangered tree fern species that were considered essential to the natural regeneration of the secondary community rainforest ecosystem and of wild orchids which could not command a price as good as domesticated species that have saturated the market.
Angelo Mordeno (international consultant, June 19, 2011) likewise described interventions that had enabled the local people in Nepal to meet their needs for firewood and for electricity from power plants through tree plantations. Other technologies that he suggested during his work in Nepal in 1983, included the (a) use of small machines to open up access roads, (b) minimal road construction with compulsory provision of drainage structures, terracing, gabion-wiring down slopes, and graveling of access roads, (c) planting maguey and other soil-holding plants (bio-engineering) along the slopes, and (d) log transport by small long-distance skyline/cable cranes.
Active participation of communities in mountain governance produces results that indicate there is hope to look forward to in SEA Mountains. Many participants shared work experiences showcasing the active participation of mountain communities in a number of efforts that otherwise would have failed if communities did not take part in them. Benedicto Sánchez (June 10, 2011) has described community participation in determining utilization thresholds of different rattan species, resulting in community defined thresholds more stringent than existing natural resource policies, and thereby ensuring the sustainability of said NTFP resources. Similarly, Swapna Deb (June 10, 2011) told of village community planning and participation that resulted in transparency in project implementation, enhanced enthusiasm among the people, and made them give up on destructive method of shifting cultivation and instead embrace a number of water harvesting structures like farm pond, fish pond, irrigation canal and providing high yielding, high value crops. The Ikalahan model, as described by Dictaan-Bang-oa (June 29, 2011) also shows how indigenous and montane community sustainable mountain management practices strengthened the community’s hold on their ancestral territory and promoted the development of their culture and identity. As Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend (June 20, 2011) has aptly put it, “The alternative to destructive megaprojects is not hopeless ‘poverty’… it is small scale, carefully-planned and community-controlled, sustainable human development.”
More about the e-conference at http://dgroups.org/groups/Rioplus20inSEA .
