Home⇛DAVAO RESEARCH JOURNAL⇛vol. 16 no. 1 (2025)

Assessment of the Institutional Arrangements for the Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Implementation for Watershed Conservation: The Case of Mount Hamiguitan Range Wildlife Sanctuary (MHRWS)

Donnell C. Cereno | Alita T. Roxas

Discipline: environmental sciences

 

Abstract:

This study examined institutional factors that may facilitate or constrain the implementation of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) for watershed conservation in the Mount Hamiguitan Range Wildlife Sanctuary (MHRWS). Focusing on sustaining the water supply from MHRWS watersheds to nearby communities, the assessment drew from key informant interviews and secondary data. Enabling factors for PES implementation include supportive national environmental laws and programs implemented locally; stakeholder engagement, which has waned but has the potential to be revitalized; and clear property rights for the Mandaya indigenous community and farmers in the watersheds. However, key constraints, such as limited institutional capacity and the effects of the absence of PES institutionalization, were evident. Institutional challenges include limited PES knowledge, inadequate water management data, weak representation of indigenous people and tenured farmers in the PAMB, and declining funds for protected area management. The lack of a national PES law or framework has disrupted conservation efforts due to government leadership transitions and can similarly affect PES initiatives. The findings suggest prioritizing capacity building, stakeholder engagement, and sustainable funding as management directions. At the same time, policies should emphasize institutionalizing PES, strengthening tenure rights, and aligning local actions with national environmental laws. Participation by MHRWS lead bodies in the ongoing national Payment for Water Ecosystem Service (P-WES) institutionalization process can catalyze PES implementation. This involvement can enhance their capacity to address current challenges while inspiring stakeholders to adopt PES—particularly P-WES—for effective watershed management and sustainable water supply.



References:

  1. Amoroso, V. B., & Aspiras, R. A. (2011). Hamiguitan Range: A sanctuary for native flora. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 18(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2010.07.003
  2. Arocena-Francisco, H. (2003). Environmental service payments: experiences, constraints and potential in the Philippines.
  3. Branca, G., Lipper, L., Neves, B., Lopa, D., & Mwanyoka, I. (2011). Payments for watershed services supporting sustainable agricultural development in Tanzania. The Journal of Environment and Development, 20(3), 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496511415645
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  5. Burns, W. (2017). The case for case studies in confronting environmental issues. Case Studies in the Environment, 1(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1525/cse.2017.sc.burns01
  6. Cremaschi, D. G., Lasco, R. D., & Delfino, R. J. P. (2013). Payments for watershed protection services: emerging lessons from the Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(1), 90. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v6n1p90
  7. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. (2006). Building civil society’s capacity for conserving Eastern Mindanao’s priority sites. CEPF Small Grant Final Project Completion Report. https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/final_mindanao_prioritysites.pdf
  8. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. (2025). Protecting biodiversity by supporting people. Retrieved January 25, 2025, from https://www.cepf.net/about
  9. Corbera, E., Soberanis, C. G., & Brown, K. (2009). Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 743–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.008
  10. Deloso, K. L. (2023). Prov’l gov’t sends aid to flood-stricken Governor Generoso town. The Official Website of the Province of Davao Oriental. https://davaooriental.gov.ph/news/disaster-response-news/provl-govt-sends-aid-to-flood-stricken-governor-generoso-town/
  11. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (2004). Administrative Order No. 2004-29. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/10/38655
  12. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. (2017). Socio-economic assessment monitoring system (SEAMS) report for CY 2017. DENR-PENRO, Davao Oriental.
  13. DENR Davao. (2021, May 13). PENRO Davao Oriental enhances technical capabilities on nursery operations, cloning and SPA maintenance technique. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/denr11official/posts/PENRO-Davao-Oriental-enhances-Technical-Capabilities-on-Nurs-ery-Operations-Cloni/2826567267604930/
  14. Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Biodiversity Management Bureau. (2024). Partnerships for biodiversity conservation: Mainstreaming in local agricultural landscapes/Biodiversity Partnerships Project (BPP). Final Project Report. https://faps.bmb.gov.ph/faps/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/BPP-Final-Project-Report.pdf
  15. Domingo, S. N., Manejar, A. J. A., & Ocbina, J. J. S. (2022). Looking at Payments for Ecosystems Services in the Philippines (No. 2022-49). PIDS Discussion Paper Series. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/284586
  16. Duallo, N. (2013). Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Gov. Generoso LGU sign agreement for almaciga projects. SunStar Davao. https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/sunstar-davao/20130806/281736972083127
  17. Duchelle, A. E., Cromberg, M., Gebara, M. F., Guerra, R., Melo, T., Larson, A., & Sunderlin, W. D. (2014). Linking forest tenure reform, environmental compliance, and incentives: lessons from REDD+ initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development, 55, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.014
  18. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 663–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011
  19. Emata, C. H. B., & Sinogba, E. (2016). Payment for ecosystem services connects urban community with indigenous people. Case study of the ILC Database of Good Practices. https://learn.landcoalition.org/en/good-practices/
  20. Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 2018 (Republic Act No. 11038). (2018). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/84999
  21. Evangelista, V., & Billones, T. (2024). Quenching Policy Thirst: Reforming Water Governance in the Philippines. Senate Economic Planning Office.
  22. Fauzi, A., & Anna, Z. (2013). The complexity of the institution of payment for environmental services: A case study of two Indonesian PES schemes. Ecosystem Services, 6, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.003
  23. Feng, D., Wu, W., Liang, L., Li, L., & Zhao, G. (2018). Payments for watershed ecosystem services: mechanism, progress and challenges. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 4(1), 13 28.  https://doi.org/10.1080/20964129.2018.1434318
  24. Forest Foundation Philippines. (2024). Projects. Retrieved July 2, 2024, from https://www.forest-foundation.ph/tfca-project-1/
  25. Fripp, E. (2014). Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): A practical guide to assessing the feasibility of PES projects. CIFOR. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/005260
  26. Golez, R. (2020). MOA inked to strengthen provincial government’s trees for livelihood program. The Official Website of the Province of Davao Oriental. https://davaooriental.gov.ph/news/environment/moa-inked-to-strengthen-pro-vincial-governments-trees-for-livelihood-program/
  27. Gray, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (1998). Integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis using latent and manifest variables. Quality and Quantity, 32(4), 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004357719066
  28. Grima, N., Singh, S. J., Smetschka, B., & Ringhofer, L. (2016). Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies. Ecosystem Services, 17, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.010
  29. Huang, M., & Upadhyaya, S. K. (2007). Watershed-based payment for environmental services in Asia. Winrock International Working Paper No. 06-07. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/67245
  30. International Institute for Environment and Development. (2024). Markets and payments for environmental services. Retrieved March 12, 2024, from https://www.iied.org/markets-payments-for-environmental-services
  31. Kim, J., Madrigal, R., Alpízar, F., Rojas Fernandez, S., & Global Green Growth Institute. (2016). Bridging the policy and investment gap for payment for ecosystem services: Learning from Costa Rican experience and roads ahead. https://repositorio.catie.ac.cr/handle/11554/9555
  32. Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) October 10, 1991 (Phil). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/show-docs/2/53542
  33. Macandog, P. (2016). An overview of PES implementation in the Philippines. EEPSEA SRG Report No. 2016-SRG6, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia.
  34. Mamedes, I., Guerra, A., Rodrigues, D. B. B., Garcia, L. C., de Faria Godoi, R., & Oliveira, P. T. S. (2023). Brazilian payment for environmental services programs emphasize water-related services. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 11(2), 276–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2023.01.001
  35. Montoya-Zumaeta, J. G., Wunder, S., & Tacconi, L. (2021). Incentive-based conservation in Peru: Assessing the state of six ongoing PES and REDD+ initiatives. Land Use Policy, 108, 105514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105514
  36. Mt. Hamiguitan Range Wildlife Sanctuary Act of 2004 (Republic Act No. 9303) July 30, 2004 (Phil). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/the-bookshelf/showdocs/2/1722
  37. Naeem, S., Ingram, J. C., Varga, A., Agardy, T., Barten, P., Bennett, G., & Wunder, S. (2015). Get the science right when paying for nature’s services. Science, 347(6227), 1206–1207. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1403
  38. Namirembe, S., Bernard, F., & Neves, B. (2018). Sustainable financing and support mechanisms for Payments for Ecosystem Services in low income countries. In S. Namirembe, B. Leimona, M. van Noordwijk, & P. Minang (Eds.), Co-investment in ecosystem services: Global lessons from payment and incentive schemes (CTA: World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF).
  39. National Economic and Development Authority. (2022). Roadmap to institutionalize natural capital accounting in the Philippines.
  40. National Integrated Protected Areas System Act 1992 (Republic Act No. 7586) (Phil). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/3508
  41. Onestini, M. (2016). Report for the terminal evaluation of the expanding and diversifying the national system of terrestrial protected areas in the Philippines project (NEWCAPP). https://www.gefieo.org/sites/default/files/documents/projects/tes/3606-terminal-evaluation.pdf
  42. Pagdee, A., & Kawasaki, J. (2021). The importance of community perceptions and capacity building in payment for ecosystems services: A case study at Phu Kao, Thailand. Ecosystem Services, 47, 101224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101224
  43. Pagiola, S. (2019). Role of payments for environmental services in landscape approaches. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21275.21286
  44. Paudyal, K., Baral, H., Bhandari, S. P., & Keenan, R. J. (2018). Design considerations in supporting payments for ecosystem services from community-managed forests in Nepal. Ecosystem Services, 30, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.016
  45. Pham, T. T., Bennet, K., Vu, T. P., Brunner, J., Le, N. D., & Nguyen, D. T. (2013). Payments for forest environmental services in Vietnam: From policy to practice. Occasional Paper 93. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/004185
  46. Philippine Ecosystem and Natural Capital Accounting System (PENCAS) Act (Republic Act No. 11995) May 22, 2024 (Phil). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/show-docs/2/97409
  47. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2016). 2015 Census of Population (POPCEN 2015) – Region 11 data file. https://psa.gov.ph/system/files/phcd/2022-12/R11.xlsx
  48. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2021). 2020 Census of Population and Housing (2020 CPH) – Region 11 data file. https://psa.gov.ph/system/files/phcd/2022-12/Region%252011.xlsx
  49. Pulhin, J. M., Sajise, A. J. U., Predo, C. D., Anders, C. S., Tatlonghari, R. V., Mendoza, M. D., Palmiery, F. Q., Tasico, S. L. C., Evaristo, M. B. S., Yu, J. B. O., & Sevilla, F. Y. (2024). Catalysts and barriers in the development and implementation of payment for water ecosystem services in the Philippines: Retrospects and prospects. Science and Engineering Journal, Special Issue, 281–303. https://doi.org/10.54645/202417SupTBM-28
  50. Reliefweb. (2024, March 30). DSWD DROMIC terminal report on the flooding incident in Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental 30 March 2024, 6 PM. Reliefweb. https://reliefweb.int/report/philippines/dswd-dromic-terminal-report-flooding-incident-governor-ge-neroso-davao-oriental-30-march-2024-6pm
  51. Rakotomahazo, C., Ranivoarivelo, N. L., Razanoelisoa, J., Todinanahary, G. G. B., Ranaivoson, E., Remanevy, M. E., & Lavitra, T. (2023). Exploring the policy and institutional context of a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme for mangroves in southwestern Madagascar. Marine Policy, 148, 105450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105450
  52. Rosales, R. M. P. (2003). Developing pro-poor markets for environmental services in the Philippines (No. 3). IIED.
  53. Scholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I., & Stauffacher, M. (2006). Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(3), 226–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370610677829
  54. Southgate, D., & Wunder, S. (2009). Paying for watershed services in Latin America: A review of current initiatives. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 28(3–5), 497–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549810902794493
  55. State Party of the Philippines. (2014). Mt. Hamiguitan Range Wildlife Sanctuary. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1403rev.pdf
  56. Supreme Court of the Philippines Executive Order No. 263, (1995). Adopting Community Based Forest Management As The National Strategy To Ensure The Sustainable Development Of The Country’s Forestlands Resources And Providing Mechanisms For Its Implementation. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/5/78312
  57. Supreme Court of the Philippines Executive Order No. 318, (2004). Promoting Sustainable Forest Management in the Philippines. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/10/47030
  58. Thompson, B. S., & Harris, J. L. (2021). Changing environment and development institutions to enable payments for ecosystem services: The role of institutional work. Global Environmental Change, 67, 102227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102227
  59. Tolentino, H. M. A., & Tasico, S. L. C. (2024). UPLB-INREM advocates institutionalization of payment for water ecosystem services. https://uplb.edu.ph/all-news/uplb-inrem-advocates-institutionalization-of-payment-for-water-ecosystem-services/
  60. Trozo, P. (2024). 1.7-K flood-hit individuals in Matiget food aid from mining firm. Daily Tribune. https://tribune.net.ph/2024/01/22/17-k-flood-hit-individuals-in-mati-get-food-aid-from-mining-firm
  61. Tulyasuwan, N. (2012). Land tenure and PES in Northern Thailand: A case study of Maesa-Kogma Man and Biosphere Reserve. USAID. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00KX8N.pdf
  62. Forest Trends, the Katoomba Group, & United Nations Environment Programme. (2008). Payments for ecosystem services: Getting started. A primer. https://wedocs.unep.org/bit-stream/handle/20.500.11822/9150/payment_eco-system.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  63. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2014). Six new sites inscribed on World Heritage List. https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1160/
  64. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2024). Mount Hamiguitan range wildlife sanctuary. Retrieved May 9, 2024, from https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1403/
  65. United Nations Development Programme. (2015, November 4). Capacity development: A UNDP primer. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/CDG_PrimerReport_final_web.pdf
  66. Vatn, A. (2010). An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1245–1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.018
  67. Velasco, L., Diokno-Sicat, C., Castillo, A., & Maddawin, R. (2020). The Philippine local government water sector. PIDS Discussion Paper No. 2020-33. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/241022
  68. Viani, R. A. G., Braga, D. P. P., Ribeiro, M. C., Pereira, P. H., & Brancalion, P. H. S. (2018). Synergism between payments for water-related ecosystem services, ecological restoration, and landscape connectivity within the Atlantic Forest hotspot. Tropical Conservation Science, 11(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082918790222
  69. Wunder, S. (2005). Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. Center for International Forestry Research. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep02185.1

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic