Biodiversity Research in the Philippines

1. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253920486
Biodiversity Research in the Philippines from 1998-2003
Article · January 2004
CITATIONS
3
READS
2,458
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Global Amphibian Assessment by country Species Specialist Group-Philippines View project
Angel C. Alcala
Silliman University
134 PUBLICATIONS 6,442 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Angel C. Alcala on 16 December 2013.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2. 26 J A N U A R Y - D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 4
SPECIAL REPORTS
Biodiversity Research in the
Philippines from 1998-2003
By Angel C. Alcala
Silliman University, Angelo King Center for Research and Environmental Management (SUAKCREM)
creased to about 100 species as more fieldwork was
conducted (Brown et al. 2001). A similar situation exists
in the reptile groups. On a week’s fieldwork in a western
Mindanao tropical rain forest, our group collected a
new species of arboreal skink. To a lesser degree, the
mammals are in a similar situation as the amphibians
and the reptiles.
Biodiversity research at the population or community
and ecosystem levels is urgent because of the massive
destruction of the tropical rain forest and marine eco-
systems such as coral reefs and mangroves, all of which
are repositories of a high diversity of
endemic tropical species. In the Phil-
ippines, the ASEAN Regional Centre
for Biodiversity Conservation (ARCBC)-
funded project in southwestern Negros
has indicated that in the course of 50
years, the once continuous rain forest
in the area has been destroyed and
reduced to few small fragments and
that during that period, about 28% of the amphibian
and reptile species expected there has been extirpated.
The important role of a full complement of species,
including the keystone species, in the functioning and
structuring of plant and animal communities deserves
scientific investigation. Studies are needed to elucidate
the role of biodiversity in the stability and productivity
of terrestrial ecosystems, as stressed by ecologists (e.g.
MacArthur 1955, Holling 1973, Pauly et al. 1998, Loreau
et al. 2000). Some evidence for the stabilizing role of
biodiversity in fisheries has been provided by our 20-
year study of an island in central Philippines (Maypa et
al. 2002). Thus sustained productivity of communities
and ecosystems appear to depend in large measure on
the conservation of the non-target biodiversity compo-
nent of marine ecosystems.
For this review, studies on Philippine living organisms
irrespective of authorship were considered biodiversity
research projects. Such studies may be research in the
strict sense of the word or a combination of research
and development that incorporated socio-economic
considerations. Since there are a variety of such studies
during the years under review (1998-2003), the author
decided, after consultation with the ARCBC Secretariat,
INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity studies are directed at the four
levels of biological organisation: genes,
species, communities and populations, and ecosystems.
Such studies cut across or incorporate traditional disci-
plines such as ecology, evolution, genetics, systematics,
biogeography, and conservation biology. Early concerns
on biodiversity were related to conservation and many
biodiversity studies, in fact, have as their goals the
conservation and management of genetic resources,
species and ecosystems.
Research at the gene level, which
involves basic research on gene struc-
ture and function, production of new
proteins, and generation of transgenic
plants and animals (e.g. Nicholl 1994),
has not been done in the Philippines
for obvious reasons: we cannot afford
it. But the products of this research are
used as tools for biodiversity research
in understanding the genetic structure of populations for
purposes of conservation as well as for systematic stud-
ies of species. These are the genetic markers.
Biodiversity at the species level is what is meant when
the word biodiversity is mentioned without qualification.
Presence or absence of species is often taken as indi-
cator of their conservation status, and extinction of
organisms is measured in terms of the reduction in the
number of species (Wilson 1992). There are studies on
biodiversity at the species level in the Philippines, but in
very few laboratories and on a handful of organisms.
The reason is lack of trained taxonomists and system-
atists and probably lack of incentives. Recently, the need
for such biodiversity experts has been implied through
statements of Myers and colleagues (2000) who con-
sider the Philippines as one of the top “hot spots” or
“areas of exceptional concentrations of endemic species
and experiencing exceptional loss of habitat.” Although
land vertebrates in the Philippines are relatively better
known taxonomically than many invertebrates (e.g.
earthworms), many populations still remain unrecognized
as distinct species. For example, there were some 80
species of Philippine amphibians in 1998 (Alcala and
Brown 1998), but since that time the number has in-

3. 27A S E A N B I O D I V E R S I T Y
to classify them under 13 categories or subheadings,
namely, (1) Biodiversity Survey and Monitoring, (2)
Biodiversity Uses, (3) Biomodeling Studies, (4) Biosafety
and Biosecurity, (5) Connectivity Studies, (6) Ecology
and Restoration Studies, (7) Evolution, Genetics, Tax-
onomy and Systematics, (8) Ex situ Conservation Re-
search, (9) In situ Conservation Research, (10) Policy
Research, (11) Protected Areas Research and Manage-
ment, (12) Socio-economic and Resource Valuation, and
(13) Sustainable Production.
Because many projects had more than one thrust,
there was some difficulty in classifying these according
to the 11 categories (two categories were not repre-
sented). In such cases, the author exercised some degree
of judgment on interpreting the main thrusts/areas of
concern of those projects. The publications were also
categorised in a similar manner, using the best judgment
of the reviewer or the author.
Another way of summarising the research projects is
to classify them according to (1) genes, (2) species, (3)
populations and communities, and (4) ecosystems, as
against the two major goals of projects: (1) conservation
and (2) development. This is a simpler scheme that brings
out the organisational level of biodiversity that a project
is focused on as well as the major goal of each project.
As in the other scheme of classification, overlaps cannot
be totally eliminated as some projects can be scored
as either conservation or development. This classifica-
tion scheme is useful as a guide to balance the emphasis
on conservation and development. In fact, these two
themes stand out in the projects reviewed. Conservation
includes removal of threats to natural recovery and
preservation of the remnants or fragments of the original
habitats such as tropical rain forests, mangroves, and
coral reefs. Development, often described as sustain-
able, implies the use of biodiversity to supply human
needs and may involve restoring degraded environments
to approximate their previous pristine conditions through
certain human interventions. Conservation and develop-
ment complement each other, as sustainability is difficult
to achieve without conservation.
COMPLETED BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH
PROJECTS (1998-2003)
The information provided by the 24 respondents
consisted of listings of their projects, years when these
were conducted, implementers, sometimes funding
agencies but not amounts of funding, and reports, papers
and books published. There were no projects reported
on Biomodeling Studies and on Biosafety and Biosecurity.
Each research project reported by the respondents was
categorised under one of the 11 categories.
There were 131 projects conducted from 1998 to
2003, consisting of 103 marine, 26 terrestrial and 2 for
both marine and terrestrial. Marine projects far outnum-
ber the terrestrial ones. (Brief descriptions of the com-
pleted biodiversity research projects are found in Tables
1 to 3 (A Review of Biodiversity Research in the Philip-
pines from 1998-2003) of the Report of the 5
th
Meeting
of the Scientific Experts Committee of ARCBC held in
Manila, Philippines from 12-13 November 2003.)
Distribution of Projects by Research Area and by
Organisational Level and Goal. Survey and Moni-
toring Projects comprise 48 (37%) of the 131 projects.
This is understandable because surveys are much sim-
pler to conduct than experimental projects. These are
followed by projects on Sustainable Production and
Biodiversity Uses (34 or 26%), reflecting practical uses
of biodiversity. Conservation and Management come in
third with 20 or 15% projects. Although low in number,
it does not necessarily indicate a low priority on con-
servation, that is, if the survey projects are intended as
preliminaries to conservation. Ecology and Restoration
Studies are fourth with 10 projects (8%), indicating the
importance of bringing back to life the degraded en-
vironment. There are 10 (8%) projects under a broad
heading of Evolution, Genetics, Taxonomy and System-
atics. The inclusion of some projects in this research area
is subject to question (e.g. pufferfish biology) but is
included with the assumption that the study will throw
light into the taxonomy of the group. The fact is that
there is a dearth of studies on the evolution, genetics,
systematics and taxonomy of Philippine biodiversity.
Connectivity studies, which link environments far removed
from each other by ocean currents and which employ
genetic tools to demonstrate such links, are now con-
sidered important in biodiversity studies. Two studies have
been reported as completed.
The projects with conservation as goal for all three
biodiversity organisational levels significantly outnumber
those on development. There are significantly more
conservation and development projects dealing on
marine than on terrestrial conservation. This is probably
so because international funding agencies have poured
more funding on marine research and development
projects during the past five years. In the early 1990s,
the funding on environment was concentrated on forest
areas and pollution.
Publication Output. Of the 131 completed projects,
only 22 (17%) reported publication of their research
results in books, conference proceedings and refereed
journals. This is a rather low output and confirms the

4. 28 J A N U A R Y - D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 4
general impression that many researchers do not find
it necessary to contribute to the pool of published in-
formation that can be disseminated (see below).
Agencies that implemented the Projects. On the
research institutions involved in the completed biodiversity
research projects reported in this review, the higher
education institutions lead the way, followed by certain
agencies of the Philippine government and the interna-
tional agencies, including NGOs.
Among the academic institutions, the University of the
Philippines System (UP Diliman and UP Visayas) has
contributed the most to the research effort, followed by
Silliman University, Mindanao State University (Naawan
and Iligan), University of San Carlos, Central Mindanao
University, Northern Iloilo Polytechnic State College,
Surigao del Sur State Polytechnic College, Xavier Uni-
versity, Northern Mindanao State Institute of Science and
Technology, Camiguin State Polytechnic College, and
Isabela State University. Considering that the there are
1,200 higher education institutions in the country, it can
be seen that a large majority of colleges and universities
in the country have no research programmes on
biodiversity.
Among the government agencies, the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), including
its line bureau, Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau
(PAWB), has the most completed research projects in
biodiversity, as expected from the mandate of the agency,
which is to protect and manage the environment. The
author will comment further on this matter in a later
section of this report. Other agencies of government that
have contributed to biodiversity research are the Na-
tional Museum, the Philippine Council for Aquatic and
Marine Research and Development and, to a lesser extent,
the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
The international and regional agencies and inter-
national NGOs that have been active in biodiversity
research are Haribon Foundation, World Wildlife Fund
(WWF)- Philippines, WorldFish Center, Pew Fellows
Program in Marine Conservation, Care Philippines,
Cagayan Valley Program on Environment and Devel-
opment, University of Oxford Polillo Ecology Steward-
ship Program, Lubee Foundation, ARCBC, Nordic Agency
for Development and Ecology, and Global Environment
Facility.
BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH PROJECTS
IN PROGRESS (1998-2003)
A total of 80 projects (51 marine, 27 terrestrial, and
2 both marine and terrestrial) are ongoing. Biodiversity
Survey and Monitoring leads with 21 projects (26%),
followed by Sustainable Production with 20 (25%), Ex
Situ and In Situ Conservation with 13 (16%), Ecology
and Restoration with 12 (15%), Protected Areas Research
and Management with 5 (6%), and Evolution, Genetics,
Taxonomy and Systematics with 3 (4%). The remaining
three areas have 1-2 projects. As in the case of the
completed projects, the marine ones far outnumber the
terrestrial projects. (For more details of the ongoing
biodiversity projects, please refer to Tables 6, 7 and 8
of the author’s paper found in the Report of the 5
th
Meeting of the Scientific Experts Committee of ARCBC
held in Manila, Philippines from 12-13 November
2003.)
When classified according to biodiversity
organisational levels and major goals, more projects
belong to the conservation group, and the greater majority
of the projects of both conservation and development
types deal with populations, communities and ecosys-
tems. This is consistent with the finding that research
activities dealing with individual species, such as eco-
logical and systematic studies, are rare in the Philip-
pines.
Six projects (7%) reported submitting reports and
publications in journals. One project focusing on north-
west Panay and another one dealing with northern Negros
have many publications in journals; in both cases how-
ever, the authors are foreigners.
The participating groups (mostly academic institu-
tions) in these on-going projects do not differ from those
responsible for completed projects.
DISCUSSION
Research Thrusts of, and Gaps in, Completed
and Ongoing Projects
Thrusts of Biodiversity Research Projects. The con-
solidated subject area distribution of 94% of the com-
pleted projects and 92% of the projects in progress shows
the same order of importance: (1) Biodiversity Survey
and Monitoring, (2) Sustainable Production and
Biodiversity Uses, (3) Conservation and Management,
(4) Ecology and Restoration, (5) Evolution, Genetics,
Taxonomy and Systematics.
However, the list of 279 publications differs and has
the following order of importance: (1) Conservation and
Management (29%), (2) Biodiversity Survey and Moni-
toring (20%), (3) Sustainable Production and Biodiversity
Uses (15%), (4) Ecology and Restoration (14%), and (5)
Evolution, Genetics, Taxonomy and Systematics (0%). As
already stated, these two sets of listing are not expected
to positively correlate.
The predominance of survey and monitoring projects
needs to be critically assessed, especially the surveys,

5. 29A S E A N B I O D I V E R S I T Y
which tend to be superficial. Studies of this kind should
probably be given the least priority, and more focused,
problem-oriented projects should be given more sup-
port. However, monitoring of existing projects to deter-
mine their long-range impacts should be continued.
Sustainable Production is the goal of research and
development projects in view of the need to provide
food security and other basic needs of people. But
sustainable production is not possible without conserva-
tion of biodiversity. Biodiversity Uses, as illustrated by the
biochemical studies at the UP Marine Science Institute,
appear promising. These are studies to determine the
biologically active chemical compounds from marine
organisms that have medical and / or industrial appli-
cations.
Conservation and Management are relevant as equal
and dual thrusts because the Philippines is one of the
conservation “hot spots.” Similarly, Ecology and Resto-
ration studies followed by action programmes are needed.
In connection with this thrust, research studies on the role
of keystone species in the structuring and functioning of
ecosystems are much needed.
Studies on evolution, genetics, and systematics, which
are not too many in the country, should be encouraged
because of the rapid degradation of habitats and the
heavy exploitation rates, both of which threaten the survival
of endemic species. There area a very few Filipino
scientists doing taxonomic or systematic studies on
Philippine biodiversity, reinforcing the perceived notion
that Filipinos shy away from such studies. Several sys-
tematic/taxonomic papers reported here are, in fact,
foreign-authored. There is, however, one emerging
research area in biodiversity studies in the Philippines.
This is the use of genetic markers to determine the struc-
ture of animal populations for possible use in inferring
phylogenetic relationships among taxa and continuity or
discontinuity of natural populations. Conclusions from
such studies find use in systematics and conservation
programmes.
As there is a preponderance (more than twice in
number) of marine projects over terrestrial ones, there
is a need to achieve a balanced research emphasis by
integrating research on terrestrial environments on one
hand and inland freshwaters and marine studies on the
other. Large river systems in the Philippines such as the
Rio Grande in Mindanao need urgent attention. This
way, an overemphasis on marine projects, which are
already receiving much support from other agencies,
can be avoided.
Some Obvious Research Gaps. There are few projects
encompassing both aquatic and terrestrial environments,
indicating lack of integration of aquatic and land
biodiversity concerns. Integrated studies on land, fresh-
water systems and marine environments are lacking in
the Philippines, although there are areas in the country
that are suitable for such studies such as Samar and
northeastern Luzon. The latter is especially outstanding
because of the presence of keystone animals.

6. 30 J A N U A R Y - D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 4
Clearly, the survey revealed the lack of research
projects dealing on mathematical ecosystem modeling
and biosafety and biosecurity issues. Modelling exer-
cises are one way of understanding the functioning of
ecosystems. Projects on biosafety and biosecurity are
needed in view of questions that have been raised on
the effects of alien species introduced intentionally or
accidentally into the country and bio-engineered organ-
isms known as Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
on the environment and on endemic species.
As already mentioned, taxonomic and systematic
studies on Philippine biodiversity are clearly needed to
improve the inventory of the species richness of Philip-
pine tropical rain forests as well as certain marine
ecosystems. Since there are few systematists in the Phil-
ippines, some incentives for training specialists are re-
quired.
Ecological and Restoration Studies and Connectivity
Studies using genetic markers need to be promoted in
order to have a better understanding of the structure of
populations for use in systematics studies and conser-
vation programs.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The 131 biodiversity research projects that were started
in 1998 and completed in 2003 and the 80 projects
that have been in progress since 1998 are about evenly
divided between conservation and development. Most
of these projects focus on populations, communities and
ecosystems in terms of the organisational level of
biodiversity. Only a few deal with individual species and
none on genes. However, genetic tools have been used
in a few projects to study population structure. The five
consolidated subject areas making up more than 90%
of the 211 projects are concerned with surveys and
monitoring, production and biodiversity uses, conserva-
tion and management, ecology and restoration, and
evolution, genetics, taxonomy and systematics. The
greater majority of the projects are marine in nature. This
probably reflects the priorities of funding agencies during
the past five years. In terms of publications, those re-
ported to the author were, in the order of importance,
conservation and management, biodiversity surveys and
monitoring, sustainable production and biodiversity uses,
and ecology and restoration. This highlights the concern
for conservation and development and, to a certain
extent, the realisation of the need to restore the de-
graded environment to its former pristine status.
While the research thrusts appear to respond to the
need for conservation because of environmental deg-
radation and resource depletion, and development
(hopefully of the sustainable kind) to address the issues
of livelihood and food security, there are some gaps in
the researchable areas that need to be filled. There are
also policy implications that need to be considered. These
gaps have been discussed in the Discussion section of
this report and will be presented in the Recommendation
section along with policy recommendations. On whether
the research projects reviewed have made significant
positive impacts on biodiversity, this review did not in-
tend to provide answers to this question.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Research Projects
1. More focused, problem-oriented projects should
be given priority in support, rather than the gen-
eral survey type projects. Monitoring of existing
projects, however, should be continued to deter-
mine their long-range effects.
2. Studies on biologically active chemical compounds
produced by biodiversity that have medical or
industrial uses should be promoted within the
framework of sustainable development principles.
3. Ecology and restoration studies coupled with ac-
tion programmes are needed. In addition, research
studies on the role of keystone species in the
structuring and functioning of ecosystems are much
needed.
4. Studies on evolution, genetics, and systematics
should be promoted and more researchers
should be provided training in systematics as
there is a paucity of Filipino scientists doing
taxonomic or systematic studies on Philippine
biodiversity. The use of genetic markers in sys-
tematics and conservation studies should also
be encouraged.
5. Marine connectivity studies with the use of genetic
markers to demonstrate patterns of fishery replen-
ishment by marine propagules are needed. On
land, studies on the role of corridors in the
movements and colonisation of forest fragments
are the equivalents of marine connectivity studies.
6. Projects concerning integration of aquatic (marine
and freshwater) and land biodiversity issues should
be promoted.
7. Research projects dealing with mathematical eco-
system modelling should be encouraged as mod-
elling exercises are one way of understanding the
functioning of ecosystems.
8. Projects on biosafety and biosecurity are needed
in view of questions that have been raised on the
effects of alien species and bio-engineered or-
ganisms known a Genetically Modified Organ-

7. 31A S E A N B I O D I V E R S I T Y
units and local communities to protect and man-
age their biodiversity. These activities should lead
to the institutionalization of conservation
programmes and will ensure ownership and fi-
nancial support of these programmes by local
government units long after the completion of the
ARCBC-funded research.
6. Publication Requirement. A large proportion of the
projects reviewed lacks published reports. It would
be most desirable to publish research findings pref-
erably in peer-reviewed journals so that they
become part of human knowledge. This will
facilitate dissemination and use by concerned
governments, groups, and individuals.
Acknowledgments
I thank Estrilda A. Cruz-Am, Gianani A. Gloria, Karen Abaya,
and Portia Nillos for assistance in the data gathering and
data analysis. I am indebted to all my respondent friends for
taking time to make their research data available to me.
ARCBC provided a fund to enable the author to conduct this
review.
Bibliography
Alcala, A.C. and Brown, W.C. 1998. Philippine Amphibians:
An Illustrated Field Guide. Bookmark, Makati City, Philippines.
113 p.
Alcala, E.L., Alcala, A.C. & Dolino, C.N. Amphibians and
reptiles in tropical rain forest fragments on Negros Island,
the Philippines. (Submitted manuscript).
Brown, R.M., Diesmos, A.C., and Alcala, A.C. 2001. The
state of Philippine herpetology and the challenges for the
next decade. Silliman Journal 42: 18-87.
Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological
systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1-23.
Loreau, M. et al. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem function-
ing: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294:
804-808.
MacArthur, R. 1996. Fluctuations of animal populations and a
measure of community stability. Ecology 36: 533-536.
Maypa, A.P., Russ, G.R., Alcala, A.C., & Calumpong, H.P.
2002. Long-term trends in yield and catch rates of the coral
reef fishery at Apo Island, central Philippines. Marine and
Freshwater Research 53: 1-7.
Myers, N. 1997. The rich biodiversity issues. In Reaka-Kudla
et al. (eds.) 1997. Biodiversity II. Joseph Henry Press,
Washington, D.C. pp. 125-138.
Myers, N. Mittermeller, R.A., Mittermeller, C.G., da Fonseca,
G.A.B., Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation
priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.
Nicoll, D.S.T. 1994. An introduction to Genetic Engineering.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 168 p.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., & Torres,
F. Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279:
860-863.
Wilson, E.O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. The Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 424 p.
isms (GMOs) on the environment and on endemic
or native species.
Research Policies
1. Balance between Research and Development
Projects. This balance is desirable in a country like
the Philippines, where people expect to make use
of biodiversity, provided the principle of conser-
vation and sustainable use is observed. Through
research, development is facilitated.
2. Balance Tetween Terrestrial and Marine Projects.
This review showed that marine projects far out-
numbered the terrestrial projects, probably be-
cause of greater funding for the former from other
funding agencies. Terrestrial projects should prob-
ably be emphasized by ARCBC.
3. Focused Research Projects. A large proportion of
the reviewed biodiversity research projects is con-
cerned with general surveys. To achieve effective-
ness and efficiency, more stress on focused re-
search projects is highly desirable, rather than on
the “shotgun” approach. The focused approach
is more useful as it directly confronts certain critical
issues and problems that require rigorous scientific
methodologies and analyses.
4. Focus on Critical Habitats with High Species En-
demism that are Threatened by unrestrained and
/ or destructive exploitation (the hot spots of
Norman Myers). Some large endemic vertebrates
serve to structure terrestrial communities by acting
as keystone species. The GIS and other publica-
tions of WWF, HARIBON and other agencies are
good sources for information on these critical
habitats. For terrestrial species, the biogeography
of the Philippines, especially the Ice-Age island
grouping, is a good guide.
5. Sustaining ARCBC Research Studies. Based on
the reviewer’s long experience in conservation work,
he has learned that the final test of the success
of a project that is intended to protect/conserve
biodiversity is its sustainability. Research projects
rarely have provisions for following through with
the results that have management implications and
end only with recommendations. This is one of the
reasons why despite so many research projects in
the Philippines, the biodiversity continues to de-
teriorate in many parts of the country. As a remedy
for this shortcoming, action and development
initiatives should follow and complement the re-
search activities. This is done through a social
component involving community organising and
related activities that empower local government
View publication statsView publication stats