The Mt. Nacolod KeyBiodiversity Area(KBA) is the heart ofthe landscape.

It is also one of the 11terrestrial KBAs in Region8 that is within the GreaterMindanao BiogeographicZone.

Seven municipalities,including Mahaplag andAbuyog of Leyte Province,and Sogod, Silago, St.Bernard, Libagon, andHinunangan of SouthernLeyte Province, cover theforest block in the Mt.Nacolod KBA.

Managing the Mt. Nacolod Landscape: A Shared Conservation Challenge

The KBA is home to 34 trigger species(Conservation International, 2006). In fact, its highbiodiversity value and current threats to species andhabitats have levelled its category as a very highpriority KBA (Ong et al., 2002 cited in 2014, GIZ).

Mt. Nacolod’s biological richness has beenvalidated with the completion of the biodiversityassessment conducted in 2011 and 2013.

Findings of the assessment highlight that morethan half (54%) of Southern Leyte is still covered withforest (88,812 has. out of 163,271 hectares) andcomprises 12.5% of the total land area of Leyte Island(88,812 hectares out of 709,699 has.).

In terms of species richness, the assessmentrecords more than 350 species of trees, 133 speciesof birds, 27 species of amphibians, 57 species ofreptiles, and 40 species of mammals.

Rece nt lydiscoveredspecies of frogin Mt. Nacolod.(P latymant is sp . )

Mt. Nacolod is rich in flora. Thereare 65 families and 229 species of floraidentified in the area. Of the 229 floraspecies, 14% are endemic to thePhilippines, 9% are classified asvulnerable, and 4% are criticallyendangered. Vulnerable tree speciesfound in the area include Myristicaphilippensis (duguan). Criticallyendangered trees, on the other hand,are Hopea quisumbingiana (subyang),Shorea negrosensis (red lauan), Shoreaseminis (malayakal), and Shorea contorta(white lauan). The assessment alsobrought to the fore the discovery ofCinnammomum cebuense (Cebucinnamon), which was previouslyrecorded in Cebu Island only.

The richness of its fauna iscomparable to that of its flora. Thereare 212 terrestrial vertebrates thatcomprise 112 avian, 36 mammalian,and 94 herpetofauna species.Endemism in the area is also high, with60 species (41 birds, 17 mammals, and2 herpetofauna) found only in thelandscape. Of the 41 bird species, 14are endemic to the Greater Mindanaofaunal region and 11 are under theIUCN threatened category. Among thethreatened bird species in the area aslisted by Birdlife International (2011)are the Philippine eagle (with recentsightings), Mindanao bleeding-heartpigeon, Philippine eagle owl,Philippine dwarf kingfisher, silverykingfisher, and Visayan broadbill. Ofthe 17 endemic mammalian species, 8are restricted to the Mindanao faunalregion and include the Philippinepygmy squirrel and the Samar squirrel.

Among the threatened mammalianspecies records (based on the IUCN list in2011) are the golden-capped fruit bat(endangered) and three endemic species thatare all listed as vulnerable. These are thelarge flying fox, the Philippine horseshoebat, and the Philippine tarsier. Meanwhile,25 frogs, 23 lizards, 20 snakes, and 1terrestrial turtle complete the herpetofaunallist in the area. The list is even enriched bythe identification of new island records asfollows: 8 species of birds, including theendemic and threatened little slatyflycatcher (Ficedula basilanicai), 3 volantmammals (Pipistrellus tenuis, Tylonycterisrobustula, and Murina suilla), two amphibians(Philautus poecilus and P. surdus), and 2recently discovered species of frog from thegenus Platymantis.

Being the head source of majorwatersheds (Higasaan, Hinabian-Lawigan, Buac, and Das-ay), Mt.Nacolod supports a population ofabout 210,000.

The Buac Watershed Reserve and theHinabian–Lawigan Watershed Reservationhave actually been established as majorwatershed reserves. The most commongoods and services provided by Mt.Nacolod are (i) water – used for householdconsumption and irrigation; (ii) wood,including rattan gathering – used either forhome consumption, such as fuel, orcommercial purposes, such as furniture andhouse construction; (iii) plantations forabaca, coconut, and fruit trees; and (iv)agricultural crops, such as vegetables androot crops, and fruit trees.

Rhinolopus philippensis ( large-earedhorseshoe bat). NewCAPP/FFI/GIZ

Ixos everetti (yellowish bulbul). NewCAPP/FFI/GIZ

Land conversion for the pastyears (e.g., slash-and-burnfarming, wildlife and timberpoaching) has been threateningMt. Nacolod.

There has been a very high incidenceof uncontrolled hunting of birds –pigeons, doves, and the threatened blue-naped parrot (Tanygnathus lucionensis) andRufous hornbill (Buceros hydrocorax) – andmonitor lizards. In fact, children go intowildlife hunting at an early age. Anotherserious threat to Mt. Nacolod is theunclear land tenure situation thatencourages unsustainable forestmanagement practices. Forest areas arebeing utilized for planting food crops, forgathering wood to be used as fuel, andfor construction materials. These issuesand problems have resulted in a decreaseof 20% (18,938 has.) of forest from 2007 to2010. Degraded forests have increasedby 3% or 503 has. (GIZ, 2014).

These external pressures triggeredthe seven municipalities to converge andcollectively identify effectiveconservation management actions on thearea, especially since Mt. Nacolod is theheadwater source of four watersheds thatsupport the seven municipalitiessurrounding it as well as being animportant source of wood and food andan area for biodiversity and disaster riskreduction (DRR) management. It shouldbe noted that Southern Leyte is a disasterprone area.

The results of thebiodiversity assessmenttriggered the decision toestablish the Mt. NacolodLCA.

The biodiversity assessment wasconsidered an essential tool forinformed decision-making thatgenerated key species – habitat data,triggering stakeholders, including thenational government agency, i.e., theDepartment of Environment andNatural Resources (DENR), localgovernment units (LGUs), andcommunities to arrive at a concertedeffort to sustainably manage Mt.Nacolod’s natural resources. It wasalso a key activity in the process thatjumpstarted collaboration amongconcerned stakeholders. Led byFauna and Flora International (FFI),the Assessment Team was composedof representatives from regional,provincial, and community offices ofDENR, the National Museum,municipal and barangay LGUs, andmembers of Peoples’ Organizations(POs). Aimed at generating reliableresults, the study, which ran fromNovember 7 to December 16, 2011,covered both flora and fauna of themunicipalities of Sogod, Silago,Hinunangan, and the city of Maasin,which is located outside of theNacolod KBA but lies within theREDD+ project site.

MT. NACOLOD BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

•

•

•

•

•

•

Revision of the old KBAs based on the nine HighConservation Values (HCVAs) for Leyte Islandthat were identified for the 23 trigger species oftrees, birds, and frogs. Four of these HCVAsare found in Southern Leyte.Expansion of protected areas to cover suitablehabitats of key biodiversity in the Island.Need for restoration or reforestation activities tobe undertaken as there is a minor overlap withthe hotspots.

Use of Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS) forprotected areas of DENR-BMB as monitoringprotocol species sensitive to forest degradationand species tolerant to land use change.Implementation of comprehensive biodiversityinventories for Measurement, Reporting andVerification (MRV).Implementation of comprehensive biodiversityinventories for MRV following the before/after-control/intervention (BACI) approach.

•

•

•

•

Conservation Zone 1.ORIGINAL LANDSCAPE. Thisrefers to closed canopy forest areaswith low or no fragmentation.

Conservation Zone 2.FRAGMENTED LANDSCAPE.These are natural areas or openspaces that are fragmented byroads, rural communities, andother human uses but which maycontain conservation targets andprovide potential habitat linkagesor provide buffer around Zone 1lands.

Conservation Zone 3.REMNANT LANDSCAPE. Theseare remnant or relic landscapeswhich are lands dominated by ruraland urban communities andagriculture but may containisolated conservation targets orprovide habitat for some wildlifespecies.

Conservation Zone 4.GEO-HAZARD AREAS. Theseare no touch, non-negotiable areascharacterized as disaster proneareas.

For purposive managementinterventions addressing issues andthreats in the area, four conservationzones have been identified anddelineated through a map (at right):

In October 2012, with a deeperunderstanding of the biodiversity resources ofMt. Nacolod as a result of the presentation ofthe assessment results to stakeholders, theProvincial Board of Southern Leyte approvedOrdinance No. 2012-43 declaring Mt. Nacolodas a Forest Protected Area. The ordinancecovers the Nacolod original forest reserve. Theextent of the coverage is consistent with the FFIrecommendation to increase the Mt. NacolodKBA from its original forest reserve area becauseof the ecological significance of the landscape.

To complement and operationalize theprovincial government’s initiative in declaringMt. Nacolod as a protected area, themunicipalities of Sogod, Silago, St. Bernard,Libagon, and Hinunangan of Southern LeyteProvince and Mahaplag and Abuyog of LeyteProvince decided to collaborate in developinga Conservation Management Framework (CMF)for Mt. Nacolod. Overall, the CMF is envisionedto guide and consolidate conservation efforts ofall concerned stakeholders by increasingcommunity awareness, enforcing sociallyacceptable land use plans and zoningordinances, securing sustainable financing, andimplementing an effective monitoring andevaluation mechanism.

In preparation for the Mt. Nacolod CMF,five stakeholder workshops were organized (Flipto the succeeding pages).

Given the results of the biodiversityassessment and threats analysis, the Mt.Nacolod CMF highlights four identifiedconservation zones and correspondingmanagement objectives and conservationactions, including extraction limits andconservation of threatened habitat species.Specific technical coordinates have been drawnfor the Mt. Nacolod LCA.

Hotspot areas or with severeto medium deforestation identifiedthrough the biodiversity assess-ment are found in Mahaplag, Leyteprovince, and in Silago, Sogod,Hinunangan, and St.Bernard,Southern Leyte province. (GIZ, 2014)

With these conservation zones,appropriate conservation objectives andactions have been specified. Table 1(below) provides a snapshot of conservationactions identified for Mt. Nacolod.

Mt. Nacolod CMF Vision: Mt.Nacolod conservation area is protected,conserved, and sustainably managed byempowered communities to ensure its lifesupport system through LGU alliance.

Table 1. Mt. Nacolod Conservation Zonesand Corresponding Conservation Actions

Map of Mt. Nacolod LCA

Erstwhile DENR-8 Regional Executive Director (RED) Manolito D. Ragub(left) and Southern Leyte PENRO Ricardo T. Tomol (right) inspect athree-dimensional map of Mt. Nacolod at the Villa Catalina Manorand Resort in Sogod, Southern Leyte on 7 June 2013.

For the CMFimplementation, themunicipalities areworking on theindividual adoption ofthe CMF, which includethe designated LCA area,the conservation actions,and the required financialresources.

After the legitimization ofthe CMF by the municipalities,a discussion on the creation ofa formal inter-LGU alliance forthe management of Mt. Nacolodfollowed. A Mt. NacolodManagement Council is beingeyed as the management bodythat will take the lead in theCMF implementation. Initialimplementation of the CMF isseen to be put forward in thedevelopment of the individualLCA management plans of theseven municipalities and inproviding policy support.

In the long run, CMFimplementation isexpected to provide thefollowing benefits:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Sustained good conditionof wildlife habitats. Withan enforcement system inplace, negative changes inwildlife habitats andresources are seen todecrease.

Sustained water supplycoming from Higasaan,Hinabian-Lawigan, Buac,and Das-ay watersheds.With the CMF aiming forthe protection of theexisting natural forest andreforestation of areaswithin the fragmentedlandscape, it is envisionedthat the forest cover withinMt. Nacolod will increase.

Reduced negative impacts of natural disasters.With geo-hazard areas identified within Mt.Nacolod and strict regulations imposed for socio-economic activities in these areas, avoidance ofloss of lives and properties due to disasters areexpected to happen. Since municipal andbarangay LGUs intend to strengthen IEC activitieson disaster preparedness, communities will bebetter informed on their roles in DRR.

Introduction of alternative livelihood sources. TheCMF recognizes that communities need economicsupport. Thus, potential livelihood sources willhelp communities identify resources that can bemaximized for increased income of the locals.

Improved agricultural practices. The CMF intendsto reduce the effects of unsustainable uplandagricultural practices. This will help sustain thegood condition of the soil and avoid thecontamination of water coming from Mt. Nacolod.

Promotion of ecotourism. Mt. Nacolod has highpotential for ecotourism. With the CMFsupporting ecotourism, partnerships amongprovincial and municipal LGUs and the privatesector are expected to be firmed up.

Increased LGU investment in good forest practices.With clear benefits from doing conservationprograms, LGUs have the incentive to provideregular increases in budget for the CMFimplementation.

MT. NACOLOD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK WORKSHOPS

•

•

•

•

•

The 1st CMF Workshop (22 May 2013)identified goods and services providedby Mt. Nacolod’s resources, analyzedcurrent threats, and determined keyactions and measures for sustainedprovision of ecosystem services from thesaid KBA.The 2nd CMF Workshop (23-24September 2013) reviewed Mt.Nacolod’s priority conservation values.Using the Delphi Method, thestakeholders ruled that Mt. Nacolod isvalued (and ranked) based on itsenvironment function (3.16), economicvalue (2.77), other values, e.g. aestheticand scientific (0.90), and socio-culturalvalues (0.56).

During the 3rd CMF Workshop (23-25 October 2013), the rolesof the stakeholders and key policies needed to generate broadsupport towards the conservation efforts were identified,including the management arrangements. It should be notedthat the biodiversity assessment results provided referencein all these discussions.The 4th CMF Workshop (20-22 May 2014) provided venue forcrafting the Nacolod Vision Statement and finalizing the LCAarea map. In addition, the existing conservation efforts andother conservation actions needed to improve themanagement of Nacolod’s biodiversity resources were alsoidentified. The CMF outline as well as the inputs on theSangguniang Panlalawigan Ordinance (Nacolod as ForestProtected Area) were also discussed.The 5th CMF Workshop (19-20 August 2014) served as acoaching session for the LGUs to develop their indicativefinancial plan following the CMF.

The successful processof developing the Mt.Nacolod CMF is attributedto several factors that haveproven to be effective.

Strong support of theProvincial LGU. During thepreparation of the 2014 ProvincialAnnual Investment Plan, P1.3million was allocated by theprovincial government ofSouthern Leyte to support LCAestablishment. Specifically, thefund was to support the followingactivities: a) formulation of theCMF; b) preparation of theFLUPs of Hinunangan andLibagon; c) organization of theMulti-Sectoral Forest ProtectionCouncil (MFPC) and BantayLasang/WEOs; d) conduct ofcapacity-building sessions,specifically on organizationalmanagement, forest firesuppression, and paralegal; e)procurement of tools andequipment needed inconservation and enforcement;and f) provision of incentives toMFPC and Bantay Lasangvolunteers. Part of the fund wasalso utilized in organizing thefirst Southern Leyte Environmen-tal Summit with Mount Nacolodas one of the focal conservationareas in the province.

In addition to these, the province alsoprovided financial counterparts in theimplementation of the REDD+ projects sites inthe province that include Nacolod areas in Silagoand Sogod. The allocated funds will finance themaintenance and protection measures(Reforestation, Agroforestry, and ANR) of theREDD+ areas that include the procurement offorest/fruit trees for planting and ring weeding,among others. The P2-million support for REDD+implementation will also be used to facilitateCBFMA applications covering 19 POs and aprovision of P10,000 financial assistance forlivelihood projects per PO. In support of theNational Greening Program of the Department,the provincial greening program is also beingimplemented. The funds allocated for the saidprogram targets the establishment of at least 1ha of production forest per municipality,roadside tree planting, and riverbank treeplanting that includes the Das-ay River (Das-aywatershed) in Mt. Nacolod. All these projectsamount to P2 million.

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolutiondeclaring Mt. Nacolod as a Forest Protected Areawas sponsored by the Committee Chairpersonfor the Environment. This provided a lead in theprocess of developing the CMF for Mt. Nacolod.The executive push of an environmentalistgovernor is also another factor in all these efforts.The active participation of the ProvincialEnvironment and Natural Resources andManagement Office further reinforces its plannedenvironmental initiatives. The MunicipalEnvironment and Natural Resources Officers arealso instrumental in implementing related effortsat the municipal level.

Mt. Nacolodgeo-hazard map

Technical support from regular DENR staffat the Regional, Provincial, and CENRO levels.This also helped in the establishment process.Mapping inputs, capacity building support,IEC, and coordination mechanism were aptlydelivered as needed. Further, the IECcomponent of the CMF development and LCAestablishment processes was led by DENR X –Regional Public Affairs Office, the PhilippineInformation Agency, and the IEC DENR focalpersons both at the provincial and CENROlevels. In fact, some of the initial strategies weremainstreamed in the regular operations toensure that that they were funded.

Stakeholder partnerships in Mt. Nacolod.The CMF development and LCA establishmentwere supported by several stakeholders thatwere directly involved in the pre-LCAestablishment conservation efforts. Academicinstitutions such as the University of thePhilippines (UP), Visayas State University(VSU), and Southern Leyte State University(SLSU), POs, and environment-centered non-government organizations like the Foundationof the Philippine Environment (FPE) were alsoinstrumental to this endeavor.

FPE implemented the Up-Scaling ForestRestoration Efforts in Key Biodiversity AreasProject in Mt. Nacolod. The goal of the projectwas to address the decline of Philippine forestsby enhancing existing forest restorationinitiatives in KBAs and included fourcomponents – knowledge management,partnership-building, natural resourcemanagement, and sustainability measures.VSU, which was also with FPE in theaforementioned Nacolod project, alsoimplemented the Community-Based ForestRestoration and Biodiversity Protection andManagement of Lowland Dipterocarp Forestsin Silago, Southern Leyte together with thePhilippine Tropical Forest ConservationFoundation and the VSU-VISCA Foundation.Both projects have been completed. UP, on theother hand, through the UP Institute of Biology,is implementing the long-term forest dynamicplot and the Philippine Eagle ConservationStudy. All these aforementioned initiatives areworking toward one common goal – to protectthe ecological richness of Mt. Nacolod,notwithstanding the portions of it that were alsoidentified as GIZ REDD++ areas.

While the Mt. Nacolod LCAeffort is considered a successfulpilot area, the process has alsobeen challenged by two majorconcerns:

The need to strengthen the capacityof the LGUs in LCA establishment. Sincebiodiversity conservation is not adevolved function of LGUs, the level ofexpertise varies across the sevenmunicipalities. Municipal focal personshave been faced by lack of funding andsupport staff as well as having multiplefunctions in the municipality.

Lack of financial resources tooperationalize biodiversity conserva-tion efforts. While the internal drive ofthe LGUs towards conservation is high,they are sometimes faced with the realitythat they need to source externalfunding to support their plannedconservation efforts. They all admitthat their respective Internal RevenueAllotments are not enough to cover allof their existing operational expenses,more so if conservation works will bepushed to the forefront.