Estimation of the Total Economic Value of the Proposed Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Land-Scape

49,980 views

Published on


The study was undertaken to value the environmental services of the Mount Mantalingahan Range, and determine the management costs of protecting critical habitats within the proposed protected landscape. The total economic value (TEV) framework was used to estimate the values of the goods and services that Mount Mantalingahan provides. The use values include direct uses (timber, farming, livestock production, non-timber forest products gathering, water and mining), and indirect uses (carbon stock, soil conservation, watershed and biodiversity functions, and protection of marine biodiversity). Non-use values were not estimated because of time and financial constraints.

Published in: Education
2 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
49,980
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
148
Comments
2
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Estimation of the Total Economic Value of the Proposed Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Land-Scape

  1. 1. Estimation of the Total Economic Value of   the Proposed  Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape               March 2008 
  2. 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe study was undertaken to value the environmental services of the MountMantalingahan Range, and determine the management costs of protecting criticalhabitats within the proposed protected landscape. The total economic value (TEV)framework was used to estimate the values of the goods and services that MountMantalingahan provides. The use values include direct uses (timber, farming, livestockproduction, non-timber forest products gathering, water and mining), and indirect uses(carbon stock, soil conservation, watershed and biodiversity functions, and protection ofmarine biodiversity). Non-use values were not estimated because of time and financialconstraints.The present values of the net benefits from various uses were obtained using discountrates of 2% and 5%. At 2% discount rate, the benefit from water for domestic,agricultural and fishery uses was highest at P68.092 billion (or P1.362 billion per year),followed by the benefit from carbon sequestration, valued at P33.788 billion. The TEVsat 2% and 5% discount rates are P149.786 billion and P94.854 billion, respectively.On the other hand, the value of mining was based on its total resource rent, and wasestimated to be P15.022 billion, consisting of P2.209 billion from sand and gravel, andP12.814 billion from nickel. The figures suggest that the value derived from theenvironmental goods and services produced by Mount Mantalingahan, including the useof land by indigenous peoples living inside the proposed protected landscape, farexceeds the net benefit from mining.The management cost of protecting the proposed Mount Mantalingahan ProtectedLandscape amounts to P115.560 million for five years. A potential source of fund is theresource charge for domestic and agricultural uses of water. The average managementcost of P23.112 million per year is less than 5% of the water resource charge ofP603.031 million per year. This means that if at least 5% of the resource charge can becollected, the management and protection of the proposed Mount MantalingahanProtected Landscape can be sustainably financed. 2 
  3. 3. 1. INTRODUCTION1.1. Significance of the StudyThe Mount Mantalingahan Range provides important environmental, economic andaesthetic benefits to the five municipalities that have jurisdiction over it, i.e. SofronioEspañola, Brooke’s Point, Bataraza, Rizal and Quezon. It provides agricultural anddomestic water to these municipalities, serves as the habitat of indigenous peoples, andis the source of non-timber forest products like almaciga and rattan. Recent studieshave also confirmed that the Range is endowed with rich floral and faunal biodiversity.It is also the very richness of Mount Mantalingahan that has given rise to variouspossible resource uses and land use options. While moves to declare the Range as aprotected landscape are gaining support from local government units and the PalawanCouncil for Sustainable Development, pressures to exploit the Range’s resources arealso mounting. These are manifested in the occurrence of activities such as illegal andunregulated utilization of timber and non-timber forest products, conversion of forestlandto agricultural land, tanbarking in mangroves and their conversion to fishponds, wildlifepoaching, in-migration, and mining claims, among others.To some sectors, declaring the Range as a protected landscape is a big waste,especially since there are material goods that can be extracted, such as timber,almaciga, rattan, and minerals. Converting forestlands to agricultural and residentialareas and mangrove forests to fishponds can provide immediate and huge financialgains. However, these financial gains may be huge only because the associated costsof producing them may not have been accounted for. Particularly, only the directproduction costs are taken into account, but the social and environmental costs mayhave been ignored.Just like other protected areas and landscapes, Mt. Mantalingahan produces variousenvironmental goods and services. These include carbon sequestration, soilconservation, flood control, biodiversity, and water. However, these environmentalgoods are oftentimes non-market goods. Non-market goods are those that do not have 3 
  4. 4. well-defined markets, and they are either unpriced or have prices that are so low and notreflective of the goods’ real values.In cases where the environment is involved, markets are often unable to provide sociallyefficient results. We can say that there is no market for the environmental goods andservices that Mt. Mantalingahan provides, which can make some people argue thatthese environmental goods and services do not have any value. Such point of view hasresulted in development projects being chosen because their outputs are easilymeasurable and have market prices, to the detriment of conservation projects whosebenefits do not have markets and whose values are difficult to measure.With the expansion of cost-benefit analysis to include environmental benefits and coststhat do not enter the market, there is no more reason why these should not beconsidered in the decision-making process. Decision-makers should be fully aware notonly of the benefits that a land use option can provide, but also its costs. Failure to doso may result in bad or inferior options being chosen, while rejecting good or superiorones.It is therefore the primary intent of this study to determine the best resource use optionfor MMPL based on biophysical and socioeconomic merits.1.2. Historical BackgroundSouth Palawan has a central spine of mountain ranges of which the highest is the Mt.Mantalingahan at 2085 m. It lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the 5 municipalities:Sofronio Espanola, Brooke’s Point and Bataraza on the eastern side; Rizal and Quezonon the western side. The Mt. Mantalingahan range plays a vital role in the socio-economic development of southern Palawan. Aside from being the home of ethnicallyhomogenous indigenous peoples, it serves as the major watershed of the 5municipalities that feed the surrounding lowlands including numerous irrigation systemssupporting agricultural lands. It supports a rich diversity of species including a number ofimportant endemic range animals, trees and plants. Many people residing in the forest oron its edges use it as a source of minor or non-timber forest products such as almacigaresin and rattan. 4 
  5. 5. Recognizing the value of Mt. Mantalingahan, the 5 local government units of Bataraza,Brooke’s Point, Sofronio Espanola, Quezon and Rizal have initiated and agreed for thejoint and collaborative management of Mt. Mantalingahan. Thus, after a series ofconsultations, the Provincial Government of Palawan issued an executive order creatingthe Mt. Mantalingahan Management and Planning Task Force tasked to formulate astrategic management plan. The task force was later renamed as the South PalawanPlanning Council to encompass both the terrestrial and marine territories of the fivemunicipalities which has been proclaimed by the Palawan Council for SustainableDevelopment as the South Palawan Planning Area.In 2000, a Strategic Management Plan which outlines the various programs in SouthernPalawan Planning Area was approved by the Palawan Council for SustainableDevelopment. One of the programs in the management strategy is the identification andestablishment of upland management areas or protected areas. Based on initialassessments, the area was found to be suited under the Protected Landscape Categoryunder the definition of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) dueto the presence of communities inside and within the peripheries of the proposed Mt.Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY Value the environmental services of Mt. Mantalingahan Range; and Determine the management costs of protecting critical habitats within Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.3. METHODS AND PROCEDURESTo achieve the objectives of this study, the methods and procedures below were used.3.1. Estimation of Total Economic Value and Communities’ Opportunity Costs3.1.1. General Guidelines a. Define the decisions that will be made. The goods and services that will be valued will be identified, as well as their spatial and temporal scales. While total 5 
  6. 6. economic value will be estimated, it does not mean that all goods and services produced from the Range will be valued. It may be more realistic to focus on the most dominant goods and services. Gregersen (1995 as cited by Kengen 1997) observes that it is worthwhile to value only those aspects that will be used to effectively accomplish something, in this case to influence the decision to declare Mt. Mantalingahan as a protected area. b. Clarify the purpose of valuation, its context and outputs. For the case of Mt. Mantalingahan, the following attributes of forests that justify full valuation may exist: Many of the products, especially non-timber forest products (NTFPs), are used for subsistence by the communities in the area; Many of its environmental services do not enter the market; There are many externalities; and There are intergenerational considerations. c. Identify the input and output needs and determine the information needs and constraints to meet these needs. d. Select the valuation methods to be applied.3.1.2. Valuation of Mount Mantalingahan’s Environmental ServicesThe total economic value (TEV) framework was used to estimate the value of MountMantalingahan’s environmental services, as follows: TEV = UV + NUV Where: UV = use value, which consists of direct use value (DUV), indirect use value (IUV), and option value (OV); and NUV = non-use value, which consists of bequest value (BQ) and existence value (XV) 6 
  7. 7. Because of time and financial constraints, the study focuses on the use values of MountMantalingahan. These include: timber, IP’s use of land for agroforestry and NTFPcollection, and water (DUV); and carbon sequestration, soil conservation, watershed andbiodiversity functions, and protection of marine biodiversity (IUV).3.1.3. Use Values: Direct Uses3.1.3.1.TimberThe opportunity cost approach was used to estimate the value of Mount Mantalingahan’stimber resources. This approach was chosen because timber harvesting is not allowedin the area, and the value of timber resources in this case represents the value foregoneto keep the range as a protected landscape, which partly accounts for the protectedlandscape’s total economic value.There are available data about the areas within the range and the proposed protectedlandscape by vegetative cover, as well as information about some of the species foundin the range. However, there is no timber inventory data available. In its absence,secondary data from Angat Watershed in Bulacan, which is considered a well-protectedwatershed, and the growth and yield models for residual forests in Region 4 and underclimatic type 4 (Uriarte and Virtucio 1999) were used.3.1.3.2.Farm, Livestock and NTFP UsesTo estimate the benefits that households living inside the proposed protected landscapederive from the range, a survey was conducted. Because of budgetary and timeconstraints, the number of respondents in the sample was set at 100, to be distributedproportionately based on the total number of households of the five municipalities.However, a total of 105 respondents were actually interviewed. The number ofhouseholds and sample respondents are as follows: Bataraza – 585 (n=22); Brooke’sPoint – 1,200 (n=39); Sofronio Española – 12 (n=3); Quezon – 256 (n=10); and Rizal –1,100 (n=31). The benefits of households inside the proposed protected landscapewere based on their net incomes from their farms, livestock and/or non-timber forestproducts gathering. The questionnaire used for the survey is given in Annex 1. 7 
  8. 8. 3.1.3.3.WaterThe value of raw water from Mount Mantalingahan was estimated based on the resourcecharge formula from the National Strategy and Action Plan for the Water Supply andSanitation Sector (NEDA 2000). The formula is: Base RC = [MC + AE]/C Where: RC = resource charge MC = annual management costs to implement a program to administer and collect a resource charge AE = annual expenditures for effective water resource management programs that are not directly recovered from users; include costs of supplying water to the point where it can be effectively used or treated, flood control, reforestation/afforestation, and other environmental measures to arrest further deterioration C = forecast water consumption by all users for the yearAmong other things, the resource charge is payable per cu m of water used, and can becalculated for each river basin every year. It is based on the full recovery of allexpenditures to implement a raw water pricing structure as well as the costs required foran effective water resource management.For Mount Mantalingahan, however, there is no program to collect a raw water price;therefore, there are no estimated of the annual management costs to implement such aprogram. For this reason, the above formula was revised as follows: RC = AE/C Where AE = P5,000/ha/yr (Mendoza 2002) C = 1,594,930,000 cu m/yr (Cruz & Bantayan 2008) 8 
  9. 9. 3.1.3.4. Use Values: Indirect Uses3.1.3.4.1. Carbon StockThe benefits transfer method was used to estimate the carbon stock value of MountMantalingahan. This approach adopts the values generated by primary researchstudies. The data used include the areas within MMR and MMPL by vegetative cover,secondary data from Angat watershed, carbon studies by Lasco et al. for differentvegetative covers, and a carbon price of US$15/tC.3.1.3.4.2. Soil ConservationThe replacement cost method was used to estimate the value of the soil conservationservice that Mount Mantalingahan provides. The data used include soil erosionestimates under current, ECAN and three other scenarios, and secondary data onreplacement cost from Pabuayon et al. (2001).3.1.3.4.3. Watershed and Biodiversity FunctionsAs in other areas in the Philippines, there is no market for raw water from the range andits function as a habitat for biodiversity. For this reason, the value of MountMantalingahan as a watershed and biodiversity habitat was estimated using thecontingent valuation method (CVM). A CV survey was undertaken, where 122respondents from the five municipalities that have jurisdiction over the range wereinterviewed. The respondents were asked about their willingness to pay (WTP) for theprotection and conservation of Mount Mantalingahan.3.1.3.4.4. Protection of Marine BiodiversityThe contribution of a well-protected Mount Mantalingahan to the integrity of thesurrounding marine ecosystems was valued using the benefits transfer method. Thestudy of Subade (2005) estimated the willingness-to-pay of people from three cities inthe Philippines for the conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park. Thesocial WTP estimate derived in the study was used as a conservative estimate of thepeople’s non-use value for the marine resources of South Palawan. These resources 9 
  10. 10. can be jeopardized if there will be drastic land use changes in Mount Mantalingahan thatwill increase the amount of sediments that will be deposited in the marine waters.3.1.4. Valuation of Mining PotentialThe potential incomes from mining, specifically of sand and gravel and nickel, wereestimated using the potential sand and gravel and nickel reserves derived by Cruz andBantayan (2008), and the unit resource rents reported in the PEENRA for Palawan(2002). The resource rent is the residual value after the costs of non-capital extraction,return on the industry’s financial assets and depreciation are subtracted from the totalannual revenue from resource extraction.3.1.5. Determination of Present ValuesThe monetary value estimates of the various uses of Mount Mantalingahan wereconverted to present values using discount rates of 2% and 5%. The use of relativelylow discount rates is justified in this case. The people of Palawan have a high level ofenvironmental awareness, which enables them to realize the importance of properlyusing their natural resources for both the present and future generations. McNeely et al.(1990 as cited by Subade 2005) note that the use of high discount rates encourages thedepletion of biological resources rather than their conservation. In fact, the use of highdiscount rates tends to favour the rapid depletion of most resources for that matter.3.1.6. Comparison of Net Benefits with and without MiningThe net benefits of the with- and without- mining scenarios were compared to evaluatewhich between the two will generate more values for society.3.1.7. Management Costs for the Protected AreaThe costs of managing the proposed MMPL were based on the standards of theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources, as applied to the Master Plan forDevelopment of the Libmanan-Pulantuna Watershed (Cruz-ENRMP 2006). 10 
  11. 11. 3.2. Mode of ImplementationTo the extent possible the study will be executed with the active participation of theLGUs. The intention is to maximize the opportunity for learning and competence buildingof people who will be at the forefront of land use management in the project site. At thesame time their involvement will facilitate the process of legitimizing and implementingthe outputs of the study.The involvement envisioned is that the LGUs will do most of the actual map analysis andthe related activities. For this to happen, the training workshops will be so timed that theytake place right during or ideally before a major activity is undertaken. 11 
  12. 12. 4. KEY RESULTS4.1. Site Description4.1.1. LocationGeographically, the proposed protected area is located about 140 km southeast ofPuerto Princesa City, the capital city of Palawan (Figure 1). The proposed protectedarea has for its bounding coordinates from 8 degrees 40 minutes 28.16 seconds to 117degrees 26’ 55.52” east longitude and 9 degrees 9’ 53.42” to 117 degrees 59’ 52.47”north latitude. Its centroid is located at 8 degrees 55’ 10.78” latitude to 117 degrees 43’23.99” longitude. The proposed Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape covers a totalarea of 126,348 hectares. The Victoria Peak in the north and the Mt. Bulanjao in thesouth bound the Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.4.1.2. Geographic CoverageWith a total land area of 126,348.162 hectares, the proposed protected landscapecovers thirty-six (36) barangays, namely, Labog, Pulot Interior, and Punang of theMunicipality of Sofronio Espanola; Amas, Aribungos, Calasaguen, Imulnod, Ipilan,Maasin, Mainit, Malis, Mambalot, Pangobilian, Salogon, Samariniana, Saraza andTubtub of the Municipality of Brooke’s Point; Bono-bono, Bulalacao, Inogbong MalihudMarangas and Tarusan of the Municipality of Bataraza; Tagusao Calumpang MalatgaoQuinlogan Sowangan of the Municipality of Quezon; and Bunog Campong UlayCandawaga Culasian Iraan Panalingaan Punta Baja and Ransang of Rizal (Figure 1).4.1.3. ClimateThe climate in southern Palawan belongs to Type IV, which is characterized by nopronounced dry or wet season. Heavy rains are expected from May to December andlight rain in the “dry” season of January to April. Table 1a and 1b and Figures 2a and 2bshow the monthly climatic averages in the MMPL. 12 
  13. 13. 4.1.4. TopographyThe terrain of the range is rugged with slopes of over 50% which covers most of the areaabove 500m. Slopes of 36% or more predominate at altitudes over 100-300m. Most ofthe steeper slopes are covered by natural forest. The east slopes of the middle part ofthe Mantalingahan range in Bataraza, Brooke’s Point and the south part of Espanolaterminate abruptly at around 100m and give way to fairly flat land. Further north inEspanola and around to the west side through Quezon and the northern part of Rizal,the steep slopes are separated by more or less rolling terrain (Figure 3).Figure 1. Location Map of the Proposed Mt. Mantalinghan Protected Landscape(Source: Conservation International-Philippines). 13 
  14. 14. Figure 2a. Monthly average rainfall, Aborlan (PAGASA) 2000-06.Figure 2b. Monthly average maximum and minimum temperature, Aborlan (PAGASA)2000-06. 14 
  15. 15. Figure 3. Slope map of MMPL.4.1.5. Geology and SoilsMuch of the Mantalingahan range is of limestone formation with outcrops of karst e.g. inQuezon and caves. The higher parts of the range including Mantalingahan Peak andridge of Malis Peak consist of intrusive ultramafic part of the Palawan ophiolite complex.Most part of the area in the east side belongs to inceptisols group with high fertility.Areas in the west side belong to inceptisols group but with moderately fertile soil. On theeastern side of the range there are bands of cement and relict beach deposits in theform of sand and gravel beds close to the coast. The common geological materials inMMPL are, Mt. Beaufort Ultamafics, Panas Sandstone and Espina Basalt (Table 2a andFigure 4). Table 2b and 2c show that MMPL is rich in nickel deposits with the largestpotential in Lamikan, Mambalot-Pilantropia and Pulot Watersheds. 15 
  16. 16. Table 2a. Geological characteristic of MMPL. GEOLOGICAL MATERIAL  MUNICIPALITY Mt.  Pandian  Stave  Espina  Panas F.  Ransang  Alluvium  Beaufort  F. Arkosic  Range  Basalt  Sandstone  F. Sandy  Ultramafics  sandstone  Gabbro S. ESPANOLA 3591  3908  909  27314  0  0  8518 BROOKES POINT 22153  14291  18998  4762  0  0  905 BATARAZA 9268  6686  115  8798  0  0  0 QUEZON 5270  5754  5256  10184  5837  0  8493 RIZAL 8471  12034  15819  37467  28336  1047  4877  TOTAL 48753  42674  41097  88525  34173  1047  22793  Table 2b . Estimated mineral deposits in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape. Area Geological Material (Hectares) Estimated Mineral Deposit Alluvium 2177.32 Espina Basalt 33117.29 Chromite and Nickel Deposits of Berong (Cr); Ramarao (Cr); Mt. Beaufort Ultramafics 34503.51 and Ibatong (Ni) Panas F. Sandstone 33363.01 Chromite and Nickel Pandian F. Arkosic sandstone 6615.23 Chromite and Nickel Ransang F. Sandy 1046.85 Stave Range Gabbro 15519.40 TOTAL 126342.606Table 2c. Potential mineral reserve in MMPL. Ave  Potential  Potential  Total  Total  Ave  Nickel  Thick‐ Sand and  Mineral  Metal  Watershed  Length  Width  MPSA  ness  Gravel  Reserve  Content  (km)  (m)  (ha)  (m)  (m3)  (mt)  (mt) Aplian‐Caramay River  43.6  28.4  1  123809.3  216.3  324450.7  4866.7 Babanga River  24.1  15.7  1  37830.4          Barong‐barong River  45.6  29.7  1  135373.1  262.9  394422.3  5916.3 Bono‐bono River  21.3  13.8  1  29435.3          Bulalacao River  26.0  16.9  1  43942.4           16 
  17. 17. Ave  Potential  Potential  Total  Total  Ave  Nickel  Thick‐ Sand and  Mineral  Metal  Watershed  Length  Width  MPSA  ness  Gravel  Reserve  Content  (km)  (m)  (ha)  (m)  (m3)  (mt)  (mt) Buligay River  36.4  23.7  1  86250.2          Candawaga River  35.1  22.9  1  80187.6          Culasian River  78.3  51.0  1  399371.4          Idyok River  13.9  9.1  1  12611.8          Ilog River  58.8  38.3  1  225040.6          Inogbong River  54.0  35.2  1  189940.9          Iraan River  146.6  95.5  1  1399594.6          Iwahig River  174.9  113.9  1  1991065.8          Kinlugan River  53.0  34.5  1  182868.8          Labog River  41.5  27.0  1  112311.3  211.3  316998.8  4754.9 Lamikan River  132.8  86.5  1  1148187.7  3982.2  5973345  89600.2 Malambunga River  76.9  50.1  1  385530.9          Mambalot‐Pilantropia River  89.4  58.2  1  520990.1  3558.8  5338218.7  80073.3 Marangas River  50.1  32.6  1  163161.9          Panalingaan River  53.7  35.0  1  187640.6          Panitian River QZ  132.9  86.5  1  1149679.3          Pulot River  122.8  80.0  1  982337.6  3252.6  4878945  73184.2 Ransang River  57.0  37.1  1  211785.0          Salogon River  28.9  18.8  1  54538.7          Samare±ana River  53.3  34.7  1  184698.5          Saraza River  21.3  13.9  1  29647.1          Summerumsum River  12.5  8.1  1  10194.2          Tagbuaya River  47.6  31.0  1  147297.7          Tagusao River  40.9  26.6  1  108935.9          Tarusan River  26.8  17.4  1  46762.4          Tasay River  31.5  20.5  1  64450.8  427.3  640957.8  9614.4 Tigaplan River  95.2  62.0  1  589530.8          wat1 (polygon 37)  3.6  2.3  1  838.1          wat2 (polygon 38)  11.3  7.3  1  8262.8          Note: Total mineable length of rivers for sand and gravel is 10% of total length of all rivers in a watershed.  Assumed weight of nickel mineral reserve is 1,500 mt/ha  and average grade of 1.5%  17 
  18. 18. Figure 4. Geological map of MMPL.4.1.6. Watersheds and Water ResourcesThere are some 33 watersheds in MMPL of which 2 are micro with area of less than1,000 ha, 21 watersheds are small with area between 1,000 to 10,000 ha and 10 aremedium watersheds with area between 10,000 and 50,000 ha (Table 3a and Figure 5a).Most of these watersheds are located within the jurisdiction of Rizal and Brooke’s Point(Table 3b and Table 3c). South Palawan has about 60 principal rivers and about 45 ofwhich drain the Mantalingahan range (Figure 5b).Table 3a. Watersheds in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape. Watershed Size Number Total Area (ha) Micro 2 1,064.49 Small 21 102,646.19 Medium 10 153,792.01 Large River Basin TOTAL 33 257,502.69 18 
  19. 19. Figure 5a. Subwatersheds inside the MMPL. 19 
  20. 20. Table 3b. Municipality jurisdiction per watershed in Mt. Mantalingahan ProtectedLandscape. Area (ha) of Total Area (ha) Municipality Watershed of inside the Subwatersheds Municipality MMPL Mambalot-Pilantropia S. Española 7070.62 River Lamikan River Aplian-Caramay River Pulot River 18,192.31 Labog River 5,365.92 Panitian River QZ Brookes Point 31499.39 Marangas River Inogbong River Babanga River 1564.42 Idyok River 951.10 Salogon River 2492.34 Samareñana River 7065.58 Candawaga River Saraza River 3836.27 Buligay River 4800.61 Tigaplan River 17248.77 Iraan River Barong-barong River 6079.11 Mambalot-Pilantropia River 12363.42 Tagbuaya River Lamikan River Aplian-Caramay River 6896.40 Pulot River Bataraza 8011.21 Tarusan River 2811.51 Iwahig River Bulalacao River 2510.68 Tasay River 2668.48 Bono-bono River 1326.23 Marangas River 4,840.48 Inogbong River 3,347.05 Idyok River 20 
  21. 21. Area (ha) of Total Area (ha) Municipality Watershed of inside the Subwatersheds Municipality MMPL Culasian River Unnamed River Rizal 60294.04 Tarusan River Iwahig River 17,834.89 Panalingaan River 7,107.03 Bulalacao River Tasay River Marangas River Samare±ana River Candawaga River 7,914.09 Ransang River 8,915.92 Summerumsum River 3193.47 Ilog River 10,809.76 Tigaplan River Malambunga River 14,512.93 Iraan River 18,356.83 Mambalot-Pilantropia River Tagbuaya River 7,251.98 Lamikan River Kinlugan River Culasian River 10791.75 Quezon 13582.00 Tagbuaya River Lamikan River 15,778.33 Kinlugan River 6,999.88 Pulot River Panitian River QZ 17,903.02 Tagusao River 5,658.74 257389.30 21 
  22. 22. Table 3c. Watershed area per municipality in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape. Area of Area of Watershed Inside MMPL per Total Waters MUNICIPALITY (ha) Area of hed Watershed Waters inside Brookes hed MMPL Española Point Bataraza Rizal Quezon (ha) (ha) Aplian-Caramay River 6896.4 280.4 100.7 179.6 Babanga River 1564.4 555.4 555.4 Barong-barong River 6079.1 1752.1 1752.1 Bono-bono River 1326.2 703.4 703.4 Bulalacao River 2510.6 1923.9 1383.1 540.8 Buligay River 4800.6 1476.7 1476.7 Candawaga River 7914.0 4375.2 508.80 3866.4 Culasian River 10791.7 7713.0 7.39 7705.6 Idyok River 951.1 228.5 168.40 60.14 Ilog River 10809.7 7852.4 7852.4 Inogbong River 3347.0 1703.8 726.73 977.15 Iraan River 18356.3 12632.9 411.48 12221.4 Iwahig River 17834.8 3054.75 118.62 2936.1 2023.8 2344.2 Kinlugan River 6999.88 4368.15 7 8 Labog River 5365.92 224.18 224.18 Lamikan River 15778.3 10379.9 612.71 170.24 1181.6 8415.3Malambunga River 14512.9 7153.75 7153.7 Mambalot- Pilantropia River 12363.4 4394.95 75.52 4308.1 11.32 Marangas River 4840.48 3845.06 897.69 2456.2 491.10Panalingaan River 7107.03 3537.35 3537.3 Panitian River QZ 17903.0 2093.02 673.00 1420.0 Pulot River 18192.3 6158.38 5384.4 18.20 755.73 Ransang River 8915.92 5094.30 5094.3 Salogon River 2492.34 1617.73 1617.7Samare±ana River 7065.58 4183.08 3817.0 366.03 Saraza River 3836.27 2373.46 2373.4 Summerumsum River 3193.47 1090.90 1090.9 Tagbuaya River 7251.98 3062.20 1.00 2952.7 108.48 Tagusao River 5658.74 538.11 538.11 Tarusan River 2811.51 681.67 633.58 48.09 Tasay River 2668.48 1683.02 1558.1 124.93 22 
  23. 23. Area of Area of Watershed Inside MMPL per Total Waters MUNICIPALITY (ha) Area of hed Watershed Waters inside Brookes hed Española Bataraza Rizal Quezon MMPL Point (ha) (ha) Tigaplan River 17248.7 13611.5 12516.4 1095.0 Unnamed River 113.39 113.39 113.39 Total 257502.6 120457.2 7070.6 31499.3 8011.21 60294.0 13582.0Figure 5b. Drainage map of MMPL. 23 
  24. 24. 4.1.7. Biodiversity ProfileThe main driving force behind the proposed MMPL is its rich diversity of plants andanimals that are under serious threats from the intensifying uses of timber and othernon-timber resources associated with the growth of population and increasingindustrialization. There are currently 4 species (2 plants, 1 bird and 1 reptile) that arelisted by IUCN as critically endangered, 1 reptile and 1 mammal as endangered, and 15plants, 9 birds, 7 mammals and 3 amphibians as vulnerable (Table 4a).Table 4b shows a full listing of key plants and vertebrates that are vulnerable. Two plantspecies are critical while 15 species are vulnerable all of which are found in the lowlandforests that are under most severe pressure from the upwardly expanding activities oflowland communities.Among vertebrates, 2 species are listed as critical, 2 are endangered, 16 species arelisted as restricted-range, and 19 species are vulnerable. Most of these species areeither found in lowland forests, riverine ecosystems and mangroves all of which arehabitats being seriously threatened by expanding agricultural and other human activities.Should the lower limit of the proposed MMPL recedes these species of plants andanimals are the first that will be affected.Table 4a. Summary of threatened plants and vertebrates in MMPL (IUCN, CITES). IUCN Category CITES list (not in RDB) Critically Taxon Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Appendix I Appendix II TOTAL Flowering plants 2 0 15 0 0 17 Amphibians 0 0 3 0 0 3 Reptiles 1 1 0 0 0 2 Birds 1 0 9 0 0 10 T. Mammals 0 1 7 0 1 9 TOTAL 4 2 34 0 1 41 24 
  25. 25. Table 4b. Key plants and vertebrates in Mt. Mantalingahan.   Taxon Common Names Status and Main Habitat Remarks FLOWERING PLANTS 1 Alangium longiflorum “Malatapai” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 2 Antidesma obliquinervium IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 3 Ardisia squamulosa “Tagpo” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 4 Dillenia luzoniensis “Malakatmon” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 5 Dipterocarpus gracilis Panau IUCN: Critical Lowland forest 6 Dipterocarpus grandiflorus “Apitong” IUCN: Critical Lowland forest 7 Intsia bijuga “Ipil” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest Knema latericia ssp. IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 8 latericia 9 Macaranga cogostiflora IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest10 Polyalthia elmeri IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest11 Protium connarifolium IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest12 Pterocarpus indicus IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest13 Sandoricum vidalii IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest14 Semecarpus paucinervius IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest15 Vitex parviflora “Molave” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest16 Xylosma palawanense “Porsanbagyo” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest17 Ziziphus talanai “Balakat” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest AMPHIBIANS Barbourula Philippine IUCN: Vulnerable Riverine forest 1 busuangensis Discoglossid Frog Megophrys ligayae Palawan Horned Restricted-range; Lowland forest 2 Frog Palawan only 3 Pelophryne albotaeniata Palawan Toadlet IUCN: Vulnerable Montane forest Ingerana mariae Mary Inger’s Frog IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland-lower montane 4 forests REPTILES Heosemys leytensis Philippine Forest IUCN: Critical Riverine forest, 1 Turtle wetlands Pelochelys cantorii Cantors Giant IUCN: Wetlands 2 Softshell Endangered BIRDS 1 Egretta eulophotes Chinese Egret IUCN: Vulnerable Wetlands 2 Anas luzonica Philippine Duck IUCN: Vulnerable Wetlands, riverine forest 3 Polyplectron emphanum Palawan Peacock- IUCN: Vulnerable; Lowland forest pheasant Restricted-range 25 
  26. 26. Taxon Common Names Status and Main Habitat Remarks 4 Ducula pickeringii Grey Imperial IUCN: Vulnerable; Forest, second Pigeon Restricted-range growth 5 Cacatua Philippine IUCN: Critical Mangroves, haematuropygia Cockatoo second growth 6 Prioniturus platenae Blue-headed IUCN: Vulnerable; Lowland forest Racquet-tail Restricted-range 7 Otus mantananensis Mantanani Scops- Restricted-range Forest, second Owl growth 8 Otus fuliginosus Palawan Scops- Restricted-range Lowland forest Owl 9 Spizaetus philippensis Philippine Hawk- IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest eagle10 Collocalia palawanensis Palawan Swiftlet Restricted-range Open areas, second growth11 Anthracoceros marchei Palawan Hornbill IUCN: Vulnerable; Lowland forest, Restricted-range second growth12 Chloropsis Yellow-throated Restricted-range Forest, second palawanensis Leafbird growth13 Hypsipetes Sulphur-bellied Restricted-range Forest, second palawanensis Bulbul growth14 Copsychus niger White-vented Restricted-range Forest, second Shama growth15 Parus amabilis Palawan Tit Restricted-range Lowland forest16 Trichastoma cinereiceps Ashy-headed Restricted-range Lowland forest Babbler17 Malacopteron Melodious Restricted-range Lowland forest palawanense Babbler18 Ptilocichla falcata Falcated Wren- IUCN: Vulnerable; Lowland forest babbler Restricted-range19 Stachyris Palawan Striped- Restricted-range Montane forest hypogrammica babbler20 Ficedula platenae Palawan IUCN: Vulnerable; Lowland forest Flycatcher Restricted-range21 Cyornis lemprieri Palawan Blue- Restricted-range Lowland forest flycatcher Terpsiphone Blue Paradise- Restricted-range Lowland forest cyanescens flycatcher Prionochilus plateni Palawan Restricted-range Second growth, Flowerpecker lowland forest MAMMALS 1 Crocidura palawanensis Palawan Shrew IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 2 Tupaia palawanensis Palawan Tree IUCN: Vulnerable; Forest, second Shrew CITES App II growth 3 Acerodon leucotis Palawan Fruit Bat IUCN: Vulnerable; Mangroves, CITES App II second growth 4 Sundasciurus rabori Palawan Montane IUCN: Vulnerable Forest, second 26 
  27. 27. Taxon Common Names Status and Main Habitat Remarks Squirrel growth 5 Palawanomys furvus Palawan Soft-furred IUCN: Forest Mountain Rat Endangered 6 Mydaus marchei Palawan Stink IUCN: Vulnerable Riverine forest, Badger mangroves Arctictis binturong whitei Palawan IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest 7 Binturong Sus barbatus Palawan Bearded IUCN: Vulnerable Forest, second 8 ahoenobarbus Pig growthNote: Conservation status based on Heaney et al. (1998), Mallari et al. (2001), IUCN (2002, online version),CITES (2003, online version)4.1.8. Services of MMPL to Key StakeholdersThe MMPL is a vital source of goods and environmental services for the people inSouthern Palawan. Through a workshop involving the LGU planning officers and a fewother key stakeholders, a list of environmental and economic services being provided byMMPL are presented in the table below. Services related to food supply, biodiversityconservation, climate change mitigation, soil conservation and water resourceconservation.Table 5a. Key services of MMPL to local stakeholders. Key Española Brookes Bataraza Quezon Rizal ALLservices of Point MMPLProtection Stability of food prodn systemBiodiversity Birds e.g.conservation mynah; cockatooSoil and Soilwater nutrientsconservation for lowlandsCarbon Climatesequestration change mitigationConservation Maasin Fish Use of Source ofof coastal Marine sanctuary cyanide is food forresources and Reserve of San a problem fish; fishecosystems Antonio sanctuary Bay 27 
  28. 28. Key Española Brookes Bataraza Quezon Rizal ALLservices of Point MMPLProductionDomestic Level 3 Waterworkswater supply water Level 3 supplyIrrigation Tamlang; Tigwayan- Tagbuaya; Ilog2; Iraan;supply Samarenana Marangas Lamikan, Candawaga; ; Maasin river Quinlogan 2 CIPsFuelwood Cookingsupply is mostly wood- basedAgriculture Bgy Maasin 4 CIPs; Agri area is Will SWIP Mambalot, & SWIP; saturated; expand Pangubilian potential 7 CIS irrigated irrigated is lands 4000 ha; currently at 2000 haAgroforestryNon-timber Collection of Rattan;forest almacigaproducts resin Ecotourism ElSalvador Mainit & Kapangyan Falls Sabsaban Falls FallsMining Olympic; Exploration Quarrying Application Exploration Pulot Interior stage of in of in MacroAsia in Marangas Hillsborough Candawaga Maasin & mining within the proposed Ipilan; CADC quarrying in MainitFood items Wild fruits: Birds durian, nest not rambutan, first class honey; bagtik; rattan; bambooMedicinal HerbsSettlement Conversion 40% of For of agri to pop is katutubo settlement katutubo 28 
  29. 29. 5. The Economic Value of MMPL5.1. Direct Use Values of Mount Mantalingahan5.1.1. The Opportunity Cost of Timber ResourcesIf Mount Mantalingahan will be declared a protected area, it will necessarily mean thatany form of commercial timber harvesting will not be allowed. That is not to say,however, that at present it is, because there is a current ban on logging in the provinceof Palawan.The forests in the range are classified into old-growth and residual; both forest types arefurther subdivided into closed canopy forest (with mature trees comprising more than50% of total) and open canopy forest (with mature trees comprising less than 50% oftotal). For both the proposed MMPL and the whole MM Range, old-growth, closed-canopy forests dominate.In the absence of data, the volumes per ha of old-growth dipterocarps and non-dipterocarps were based on the timber inventory conducted in the Angat Watershed inBulacan (2007), which is a well-protected watershed. These are 88.80 and 87.50 cu mper ha, respectively. The volume per ha of the old-growth open canopy forest wasassumed to be half that of the old-growth closed canopy forest. On the other hand, thevolumes per ha for residual dipterocarps and non-dipterocarps were based on theestimate and periodic annual increment (PAI) derived by Uriarte and Virtucio (1999) forClimatic Type 4, to which Southern Palawan belongs. These are 63.48 cu m/ha fordipterocarps and 14.7 cu m for non-dipterocarps (based on a PAI of 0.49 cu m/year for a30-year cutting cycle). The stumpage prices used were P1,785 per cu m (dipterocarps)and P1,400 per cu m (non-dipterocarps) from Liwag (2007). Stumpage price is the priceof the standing tree and excludes harvesting and processing costs.For the proposed MMPL, the stumpage values of dipterocarps and non-dipterocarps areP10.65 billion and P8.03 billion, respectively, or a total of P18.68 billion (Table 1a). Onthe other hand, the stumpage values for the whole MM Range are P14.15 billion(dipterocarps) and P10.29 billion (non-dipterocarps), or a total of P24.44 billion (Table 29 
  30. 30. 1b). These values are the benefits that will be foregone from timber revenues sincetimber harvesting will not be (and is currently not) allowed in the Range as well as in thewhole province of Palawan. They represent part of the value of protecting andconserving the Range because they are the potential revenues that will be sacrificed justto ensure the integrity of the Range.Table 1a. Stumpage value of timber inside the proposed MMPL, 2003. Volume (cu m/ha) Stumpage Value (P)**** Area Non- Non- Forest Type (ha) Dipterocarp Dipterocarp dipterocarp dipterocarpOld growth*Closed canopy, 56,232.45 88.80 87.50 8,913,293,185 6,888,475,125mature trees>50%Open canopy, 17,701.65 44.40 43.75 1,402,926,569 1,084,226,063mature trees<50%**Residual forest***Closed canopy, 2,112.98 63.48 14.70 239,425,567 43,485,128mature trees>50%Open canopy, 1,593.73 31.74 7.35 90,294,208 16,399,482mature trees<50%** Total 10,645,939,528 8,032,585,798 GRAND TOTAL 18,678,525,326Table 1b. Stumpage value of timber in the whole MM Range, 2003. Volume (cu m/ha) Stumpage Value (P)**** Area Forest Type Dipteroc Non- (ha) Dipterocarp Non-dipterocarp arp dipterocarpOld growth*Closed canopy, 73,253.26 88.80 87.50 11,611,227,736 8,973,524,350mature trees>50%Open canopy, 18,281.21 44.40 43.75 1,448,859,017 1,119,724,113mature trees<50%** 30 
  31. 31. Volume (cu m/ha) Stumpage Value (P)**** Area Forest Type Dipteroc Non- (ha) Dipterocarp Non-dipterocarp arp dipterocarpResidual forest***Closed canopy, 7,658.73 63.48 14.70 867,824,482 157,616,663mature trees>50%Open canopy, 3,981.13 31.74 7.35 225,554,503 40,965,828mature trees<50%** Total 14,153,465,739 10,291,830,954 GRAND TOTAL 24,445,296,6925.1.2. IP’s Direct Use of Mt. MantalingahanAs of 2005, the total number of households within the proposed protected landscapewas 3,153. The number of respondents in the sample was 105.The age of the respondents ranged from 16 to 70 years old. Some respondents couldnot say how old they were (Table 2a). The average number of years spent in schoolranged from 1.05 years (Bataraza) to 3.64 years (Brooke’s Point), while the averagehousehold size ranged from 2 to 4. The respondents from Sofronio Española andBrooke’s Point had the longest average stay inside Mount Mantalingahan at 33 years,while those from Quezon and Rizal averaged 19 years.Table 2a. Socio-economic characteristics of respondents. S. Brookes Characteristic Bataraza Quezon Rizal Española Point 20-Age range (yrs) 30-48 25-56 16-70 20-55 70Average no. of years in school 2 1.05 3.64 2.1 1.19Average household size 4 4 4 2 2Average no. of years in the 33 30 33 19 19area 31 
  32. 32. Table 2b. Socio-economic characteristics of respondents. Brooke’s S. Española Bataraza Quezon Rizal Total ATTRIBUTES Pt. No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %Sex                               Male 3 100 17 77 16 41 10 100 28 90 74 82 Female 0 0 5 23 23 59 0 0 3 10 31 18 Total 3 100 22 100 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100Civil status                               Single 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 10 1 3 3 4 Married 3 100 20 91 38 97 8 80 25 81 94 90 Widow(er) 0 0 1 5 1 3 1 10 3 10 6 5 No answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 2 1 Total 3 100 22 100 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100Average no. ofmembers perhousehold Male 1 2 2 1 1 Female 3 3 2 1 1Religion                               Christian 3 100 8 36 25 64 5 50 8 26 49 55 Catholic 0 0 2 9 9 23 1 10 1 3 13 9 Muslim 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 1 No answer 0 0 12 55 3 8 4 40 22 71 41 35 Total 3 100 22 100 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100Source of income(multiple answers)                               Farming 3 100 22 100 34 87 10 100 29 94 98 96 Livestock production 2 67 17 77 35 90 2 20 9 29 68 57 NTFP gathering 2 67 5 23 5 13 7 70 26 84 45 51 Paid labor 1 33 6 27 11 28 5 50 5 16 28 31 Handicraft 3 100 6 27 15 38 1 10 0 0 25 35 Others 2 67 6 27 15 38 0 0 0 0 23 26Average distanceof household (km)to: Market 12 3 2 1.5 7Non-formal learning centers/schools 4 1 1 0 2 Access Roads 4 2 1 4 2 32 
  33. 33. Furthermore, most of the respondents were male (82%), married (90%), and Christians(55%) (Table 2b). The main sources of income were farming (98%), livestock production(57%) and NTFP collection (51%). The average distance from the farm to the marketwas greatest for Sofronio Española at 12 km, and shortest for Quezon at 1.5 km.From among the three uses, the value of farm benefits was highest at P23.474 million/yr(Table 3). The average household farm incomes of four municipalities, except forSofronio Española, were quite close and ranged from P6,211/HH/yr to P8,780/HH/yr.The average household farm income for Sofronio Española was much higher atP11,577/HH/yr. Furthermore, 100% of the respondents in the five municipalities wereengaged in farming inside the proposed protected landscape.Fewer respondents (46% of the total) were engaged in livestock production, rangingfrom 6% for Rizal to 77% for Brooke’s Point. The estimated value of benefits from thisuse was about P5.734 million/yr. On the other hand, 45% of the respondents wereinvolved in NTFP gathering, and the annual benefits from this use were about P6.238million/yr.All in all, the total benefits that households residing inside the proposed protectedlandscape derive amount to P35.445 million/yr. Inasmuch as the IPs will be allowed tocontinue their activities even after the declaration of the protected landscape, for as longas these are consistent with the management plan, these benefits will continue to berealized.The respondents were also asked if they had plans of migrating from MountMantalingahan, as well as their knowledge of and attitude towards the plan to declareMount Mantalingahan as a protected landscape. All but one of the respondents said thatthey had no plan of leaving Mount Mantalingahan, and only 16% said that some of theirfamily members have migrated from the area. Seventy percent (70%) of therespondents indicated that they were aware of the plan to declare Mount Mantalingahanas a protected landscape, and 97% said that they favour its declaration as a protectedlandscape. 33 
  34. 34. Table 3. Benefits from Mt. Mantalingahan of households (IPs) residing inside proposedPA. S. Bataraza Brookes Quezon Rizal Total Income Source Espanola (n=22) Pt. (n=39) (n=10) (n=31) (n=3) Area of farm (ha) Total (P/yr) 3 21 69 10 42 Average (P/HH/yr) 1 1 2 1 1 Total No. of 12 585 1,200 256 1,100 3,153 HouseholdsNet income from farm 257,75 Total (P/yr) 34,730 171,885 541,000 83,850 0 Average (P/HH/yr) 11,577 8,284 7,841 8,780 6,211 N 3 22 39 10 31 105 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total net income, 2,247,68 6,832,1 23,474, 138,924 4,846,140 9,409,200 farm 0 00 044 Net income from livestock Total (P/yr) 1,000 51,715 137,550 800 2,600 Average (P/HH/yr) 1,000 4,310 4,585 267 1,300 N 1 12 30 3 2 48 % 33 55 77 30 6 46 Total net income, 5,733,5 3,960 1,386,743 4,236,540 20,506 85,800 livestock 49 Net income from NTFP 111,00 Total (P/yr) 44,410 23,100 33,600 19,700 0 Average (P/HH/yr) 14,803 3,850 3,733 3,940 4,625 N 3 6 9 5 24 47 % 100 27 23 50 77 45 34 
  35. 35. Table 4. Residents’ migration plans, awareness and attitude towards proposed MMPL Brooke’s Española Bataraza Quezon Rizal All Aspect Pt No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %Plan to migrate toareas outside MM Will migrate 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 Will not migrate 3 100 22 38 97 10 100 31 100 104 99 0 10 Total 3 100 22 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100 0Migration of familymembers to otherareas within MM Have migrated 0 0 4 18 7 18 3 30 3 10 17 16 Have not migrated 3 100 18 82 32 82 7 70 28 90 88 84 10 Total 3 100 22 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100 0Awareness of planfor MM to be a PL Aware 2 67 13 59 20 51 10 100 28 90 73 70 Not aware 1 33 9 41 19 49 0 0 3 10 32 30 10 Total 3 100 22 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100 0Attitude towardsdeclaration of MMas a PL Favor 3 100 21 95 37 95 10 100 31 100 102 97 Not favor 0 0 1 5 2 5 0 0 0 0 3 3 10 Total 3 100 22 39 100 10 100 31 100 105 100 0Reasons why PL isimportant (multipleanswers) Reason 1 2 67 13 59 39 100 8 80 23 74 85 81 Reason 2 0 0 10 45 32 82 6 60 16 52 64 61 Reason 3 0 0 8 36 29 74 7 70 16 52 60 57 Reason 4 1 33 16 73 39 100 9 90 26 84 91 87 Reason 5 1 33 12 55 39 100 5 50 14 45 71 68 35 
  36. 36. 5.1.3. Water for Domestic, Agriculture and Fishery UsesThe water demand volumes for domestic, agriculture and fishery uses (2003) are 17.97MCM, 688.28 MCM and 888.68 MCM per year, or a total of 1,594.93 MCM per year(Table 5). The annual expenditures for watershed management amounted toP5,000/ha/yr which, according to Mendoza (pers. comm. 2002) better reflects the cost ofmanaging a watershed that is less susceptible to encroachment and fire. From these, aresource charge of P0. 8538/cu m was derived.The value of raw water for fishery is highest at P759 million per year, followed byagriculture at P588 million per year. The value for domestic use is lower due to the lowerwater demand volume. The present values of raw water benefits from MountMantalingahan at 2% and 5% discount rate are P68.092 billion and P27.237 billion,respectively.Table 5. Value of raw water from Mount Mantalingahan Range. Value of Raw Water Water Demand Volume Resource Charge1 Scenario (MCM/yr) (P/cu m) (P/yr)Domestic 17.97 0.853849385 15,343,673Agriculture 688.28 0.853849385 587,687,455Fishery 888.68 0.853849385 758,798,872Total 1,594.93 1,361,830,000 PV 2% 68,091,500,000 PV 5% 27,236,600,0001 Based on AE of P5,000/ha/yr for 272,366 ha5.2. Indirect Use Values of Mount Mantalingahan5.2.1. Carbon StockThe carbon stocks of the different land covers in MMPL and MM Range were estimatedusing carbon density estimates for different land covers in the Philippines, mainly byLasco et al. (1999). The carbon density of old growth forests is highest at 349.81 tC/ha,followed by residual forests at 336.40 tC/ha (Tables 6a and 6b). A conservative carbonprice of US$15/tC was used. Only the carbon stock values of old growth, mossy,residual and mangrove forests were included; the carbon stock values of brushland,agricultural land, and other areas were excluded because these may be considered astransient carbon stocks. 36 
  37. 37. Owing to its area, the carbon stock value of old growth forest is highest at P13.61 billionfor the proposed MMPL and P21.17 billion for the whole MM Range. The total carbonstock values for MMPL and MM Range are P19.76 billion and P33.79 billion,respectively.Table 6a. Carbon stock values of different land covers inside the proposed MMPL (2003). Carbon Total Density Land cover Value at US$15/tC (tC/ha) Area (ha) (P)** Old growth forest 349.81 61,752.33 13,608,802,562 Mossy forest 204.25 14,350.61 1,846,601,223 Residual forest 336.40 19,817.78 4,200,020,984 Karst forest 204.25 - - Mangrove 174.90 935.44 103,074,751 Brush,coco,grass,crop,rice* 49.60 23,004.01 NA Cropland* 5.80 597.09 NA Bare/rocky areas* - NA Built up areas* - NA TOTAL 120,457.26 19,758,499,521 *Excluded from the total value of carbon stocks because these are transient stocks **1US$:P42 ***Total carbon stock value is only for old growth, mossy, residual, and mangrove forests.Table 6b. Carbon stock values of different land covers in the whole MM Range (2003). Carbon Density Total Land cover (tC/ha) Area (ha) Value at US$15/tC (P)** Old growth forest 349.81 96,050.63 21,167,363,711 Mossy forest 204.25 15,384.38 1,979,623,950 Residual forest 336.40 45,827.90 9,712,399,536 Karst forest 204.25 - - Mangrove 174.90 8,430.46 928,940,539 Brushland* 31.90 60,101.39 NA Coconut plantation* 86.00 18,696.81 NA Paddy field* 3.1 14,339.52 NA Other plantation* - NA Grassland* 10.8 285.49 NA Cropland* 5.8 13,054.83 NA Bare/rocky areas* - NA Built up areas* 195.04 NA TOTAL*** TOTAL 272,366.45 33,788,327,735 *Excluded from the total value of carbon stocks because these are transient stocks **1US$:P42 ***Total carbon stock value is only for old growth, mossy, residual, and mangrove forests. 37 
  38. 38. 5.2.2. Soil ConservationThe value of the soil conservation function of a well-protected Mount Mantalingahan wasbased on soil erosion estimates for current, ECAN and scenarios with 250 m, 500 m and750 m retreats in the core zone. The costs of damage avoided under the differentscenarios were estimated using the replacement cost method (Pabuayon et al. 2001).Table 7 shows the total erosion estimate in 2003, which is about 1.137 million tons/yr.This is higher than the erosion rate under ECAN of 1.047 million tons/yr. The differencein erosion rate is 90,693 tons/yr, which translates to damage avoided valued at P57.227million/yr. This value estimate is based only on the physical replacement of soil, and cantherefore be considered a conservative estimate because it does not capture yet theconservation and improvement of soil nutrients and structure under a well-managedforest.Table 7 also shows that a 250-m retreat in the size of the core zone increases the totalerosion by 42,330 tons/yr over the ECAN total erosion, and will result in a reduction inthe soil conservation value by about P26.710 million. Further reducing the core zone byretreating the boundaries by 500 m and 750 m also mean increasing the potentialerosion from the range. In fact, retreating the boundary by 750 m will result in a potentialerosion greater than the current (2003) erosion.Table 7. Cost of damage avoided (based on replacement cost) for soil erosion under different core zone scenarios. Erosion and Cost 250 m 500 m 750 m 2003 ECANof Damage Avoided Reduction Reduction ReductionTotal erosion (ton/yr) 1,137,284.50 1,046,591.60 1,088,921.20 1,096,126.10 1,141,246.90Erosion rate 4.42 4.06 4.23 4.26 4.43(ton/ha/yr)Difference with 2003 90,692.90 48,363.30 41,158.40 (3,962.40)Cost of damage 57,227,219.9 (2,500,274.4 30,517,242.30 25,970,950.40avoided (P/yr)* 0 0)*Replacement cost of P631/t (Pabuayon et al. 2001)**Negative value is the cost needed to replace the soil to 2003 level 38 
  39. 39. 5.2.3. Watershed Function and BiodiversityA contingent valuation (CV) survey was undertaken to estimate the South Palawanresidents’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the conservation of Mount Mantalingahan for itswatershed and biodiversity services. A total of 122 respondents were interviewed in thesurvey, distributed as follows: Bataraza – 23; Brooke’s Point – 26, Sofronio Española –14; Quezon – 22; and Rizal – 37. The findings of the survey are presented in Annex 2.A mean WTP of P26 per household per month for the conservation of Mt. Mantalingahanfor its watershed and biodiversity services was estimated using a logit model. Amongthe 5 municipalities surveyed, the highest proportion of respondents who expressedWTP was Rizal, with 62% of respondents answering “yes” to the WTP question (Table8). This was followed by Brooke’s Point and Bataraza with 50% and 48%, respectively.Using the proportions of respondents in the sample who said “yes” and the number ofhouseholds in the five municipalities, the WTP values of households were estimated. Asexpected, this was highest for Rizal, with a WTP of P2.957 million/yr, followed byBrooke’s Point and Bataraza at P1.780 million and P1.461million, respectively. The totalWTP value for Sofronio Española is only P0.577 million.The total WTP of households in the five municipalities is P7.722 million per yr. Thisrepresents the total amount that the households are willing to pay to conserve Mt.Mantalingahan because they recognize its importance as a watershed and for itsbiodiversity.Table 8. WTP values of households in five municipalities of South Palawan for the conservation of Mt. Mantalingahan. Growth Total % ofMunicipality No. of Households (2005) Value Rate HH Yes Urban Rural Total 2007 (P/mo) (P/yr)Bataraza 1,741 7,505 9,246 2.71 9,754 48% 121,729 1,460,748Brookes 4,267 6,551 10,818 2.38 11,412 50% 148,360 1,780,316PointS. Española 4,174 1,873 6,047 2.15 6,379 29% 48,099 577,189Quezon 5,360 3,630 8,990 2.52 9,484 32% 78,906 946,869Rizal 4,439 10,053 14,492 5.40 15,288 62% 246,444 2,957,332Total 19,981 29,612 49,593 52,317 643,538 7,722,453 PV 2% 86,122,641 PV 5% 4,449,056 39 
  40. 40. 5.2.4. Protection of Marine BiodiversityIn his study on the valuation of biodiversity conservation for Tubbataha Reefs NationalMarine Park (TRNMP), Subade (2005) assessed the WTP of people from three cities inthe Philippines, namely Quezon City, Cebu City and Puerto Princesa City. Thorne-Millerand Catena (1991 as cited by Subade 2005) identified the threats to marine biodiversity,which include pollution on land where dissolved nutrients, dissolved toxics andsuspended particles are washed into the oceans. The pollutants come from agricultural,urban and industrial activities, deforestation and construction. This was supported by thefindings of the Investigation of Coral Reefs of the Philippines project, which identified theserious threats to marine biodiversity to be siltation, coastal land development,agricultural fertilizer runoff, industrial pollutants, and destructive fishing methods, amongothers.The eastern side of Mount Mantalingahan Range faces the Tubbataha Reefs NationalMarine Park. The estimates of Cruz and Bantayan (2008) show that reducing the corezone of the proposed protected landscape will result in higher erosion rates, and most ofthe sediments will find their way to the sea. It is not farfetched to say, therefore, that achange in the current land use of the Range, which is mainly forest, will adversely affectthe integrity of the surrounding marine resources, the Tubbataha Reefs included.The social WTP to conserve the TRNMP was estimated to be P269 million per yr. Thiscan be considered a conservative estimate because it reflects only the WTP of peoplefrom the cities of Quezon, Cebu and Puerto Princesa, and not the WTP of the entirepopulation of the Philippines. This value can be used to reflect the benefits that will belost if the TRNMP will deteriorate.5.3. Potential Sand and Gravel and Nickel ReservesThe team was not able to get data about the sand and gravel and nickel reservesspecifically for Mount Mantalingahan. The PEENRA Report for Palawan (2002) givessome information about the nickel reserves in areas held by various mining companiesas of 1996, but most of these are outside the proposed MMPL. There are also estimatesof sand and gravel reserves, but only two of the rivers reported are within the proposedMMPL, i.e. the Panitian and Pulot Rivers. For these reasons, the reserve estimatesgenerated by Cruz and Bantayan (2008) were used to derive the value of the potentialsand and gravel and nickel reserves (Table 9). 40 
  41. 41. Table 9. Values of potential sand and gravel and nickel reserves in the MMPL. Ave Total Total Ave Potential Total Rent for Potential Total Rent for Thick- Nickel Metal Watershed Length Widt Sand and Sand and Mineral Nickel ness MPSA (ha) Content (km) h (m) Gravel (m3) Gravel (P) Reserve (mt) (P) (m) (mt)Aplian-Caramay River 43.6 28.4 1 123,809 24,761,852 216.3005 324,450.77 4,866.76 232,679,873 Babanga River 24.1 15.7 1 37,830 7,566,089 Barong-barong River 45.6 29.7 1 135,373 27,074,617 262.9482 394,422.31 5,916.33 282,859,957 Bono-bono River 21.3 13.8 1 29,435 5,887,065 Bulalacao River 26.0 16.9 1 43,942 8,788,474 Buligay River 36.4 23.7 1 86,250 17,250,031 Candawaga River 35.1 22.9 1 80,188 16,037,525 Culasian River 78.3 51.0 1 399,371 79,874,287 Idyok River 13.9 9.1 1 12,612 2,522,364 Ilog River 58.8 38.3 1 225,041 45,008,113 Inogbong River 54.0 35.2 1 189,941 37,988,173 Iraan River 146.6 95.5 1 1,399,595 279,918,923 Iwahig River 174.9 113.9 1 1,991,066 398,213,151 Kinlugan River 53.0 34.5 1 182,869 36,573,755 Labog River 41.5 27.0 1 112,311 22,462,265 211.3326 316,998.84 4,754.98 227,335,717 Lamikan River 132.8 86.5 1 1,148,188 229,637,549 3982.23 5,973,345.00 89,600.18 4,283,784,367 Malambunga River 76.9 50.1 1 385,531 77,106,188 Mambalot-Pilantropia River 89.4 58.2 1 520,990 104,198,026 3558.812 5,338,218.73 80,073.28 3,828,303,559 Marangas River 50.1 32.6 1 163,162 32,632,379 Panalingaan River 53.7 35.0 1 187,641 37,528,116 Panitian River QZ 132.9 86.5 1 1,149,679 229,935,859 Pulot River 122.8 80.0 1 982,338 196,467,524 3252.63 4,878,945.00 73,184.18 3,498,935,407 41 
  42. 42. Ave Total Total Ave Potential Total Rent for Potential Total Rent for Thick- Nickel Metal Watershed Length Widt Sand and Sand and Mineral Nickel ness MPSA (ha) Content (km) h (m) Gravel (m3) Gravel (P) Reserve (mt) (P) (m) (mt) Ransang River 57.0 37.1 1 211,785 42,356,998 Salogon River 28.9 18.8 1 54,539 10,907,746 Samare±ana River 53.3 34.7 1 184,698 36,939,692 Saraza River 21.3 13.9 1 29,647 5,929,422Summerumsum River 12.5 8.1 1 10,194 2,038,842 Tagbuaya River 47.6 31.0 1 147,298 29,459,538 Tagusao River 40.9 26.6 1 108,936 21,787,173 Tarusan River 26.8 17.4 1 46,762 9,352,472 Tasay River 31.5 20.5 1 64,451 12,890,151 427.3052 640,957.77 9,614.37 459,662,865 Tigaplan River 95.2 62.0 1 589,531 117,906,169 wat1 (polygon 37) 3.6 2.3 1 838 167,620 wat2 (polygon 38) 11.3 7.3 1 8,263 1,652,553 Total 11,044,104 2,208,820,703 11,911.56 268,010 12,813,561,743 Total for Sand and Gravel and Nickel 15,022,382,446Note: Total mineable length for sand and gravel is 10% of total length of all rivers in a watershed. For nickel, assumed weight of mineral reserve is 1,500 mt/ha and average grade of 1.5%. 42 

×