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.

1. Estimation of the Total Economic Value of
the Proposed
Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape
March 2008

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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.
The present values of the net benefits from various uses were obtained using discount
rates 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 TEVs
at 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 was
estimated to be P15.022 billion, consisting of P2.209 billion from sand and gravel, and
P12.814 billion from nickel. The figures suggest that the value derived from the
environmental goods and services produced by Mount Mantalingahan, including the use
of land by indigenous peoples living inside the proposed protected landscape, far
exceeds the net benefit from mining.
The management cost of protecting the proposed Mount Mantalingahan Protected
Landscape amounts to P115.560 million for five years. A potential source of fund is the
resource charge for domestic and agricultural uses of water. The average management
cost of P23.112 million per year is less than 5% of the water resource charge of
P603.031 million per year. This means that if at least 5% of the resource charge can be
collected, the management and protection of the proposed Mount Mantalingahan
Protected Landscape can be sustainably financed.
2

3. 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Significance of the Study
The Mount Mantalingahan Range provides important environmental, economic and
aesthetic benefits to the five municipalities that have jurisdiction over it, i.e. Sofronio
Española, Brooke’s Point, Bataraza, Rizal and Quezon. It provides agricultural and
domestic water to these municipalities, serves as the habitat of indigenous peoples, and
is the source of non-timber forest products like almaciga and rattan. Recent studies
have 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 various
possible resource uses and land use options. While moves to declare the Range as a
protected landscape are gaining support from local government units and the Palawan
Council for Sustainable Development, pressures to exploit the Range’s resources are
also mounting. These are manifested in the occurrence of activities such as illegal and
unregulated utilization of timber and non-timber forest products, conversion of forestland
to agricultural land, tanbarking in mangroves and their conversion to fishponds, wildlife
poaching, 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 residential
areas and mangrove forests to fishponds can provide immediate and huge financial
gains. However, these financial gains may be huge only because the associated costs
of producing them may not have been accounted for. Particularly, only the direct
production costs are taken into account, but the social and environmental costs may
have been ignored.
Just like other protected areas and landscapes, Mt. Mantalingahan produces various
environmental goods and services. These include carbon sequestration, soil
conservation, flood control, biodiversity, and water. However, these environmental
goods are oftentimes non-market goods. Non-market goods are those that do not have
3

4. well-defined markets, and they are either unpriced or have prices that are so low and not
reflective of the goods’ real values.
In cases where the environment is involved, markets are often unable to provide socially
efficient results. We can say that there is no market for the environmental goods and
services that Mt. Mantalingahan provides, which can make some people argue that
these environmental goods and services do not have any value. Such point of view has
resulted in development projects being chosen because their outputs are easily
measurable and have market prices, to the detriment of conservation projects whose
benefits do not have markets and whose values are difficult to measure.
With the expansion of cost-benefit analysis to include environmental benefits and costs
that do not enter the market, there is no more reason why these should not be
considered in the decision-making process. Decision-makers should be fully aware not
only of the benefits that a land use option can provide, but also its costs. Failure to do
so may result in bad or inferior options being chosen, while rejecting good or superior
ones.
It is therefore the primary intent of this study to determine the best resource use option
for MMPL based on biophysical and socioeconomic merits.
1.2. Historical Background
South 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 Quezon
on 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 ethnically
homogenous indigenous peoples, it serves as the major watershed of the 5
municipalities that feed the surrounding lowlands including numerous irrigation systems
supporting agricultural lands. It supports a rich diversity of species including a number of
important endemic range animals, trees and plants. Many people residing in the forest or
on its edges use it as a source of minor or non-timber forest products such as almaciga
resin and rattan.
4

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 the
joint and collaborative management of Mt. Mantalingahan. Thus, after a series of
consultations, the Provincial Government of Palawan issued an executive order creating
the Mt. Mantalingahan Management and Planning Task Force tasked to formulate a
strategic management plan. The task force was later renamed as the South Palawan
Planning Council to encompass both the terrestrial and marine territories of the five
municipalities which has been proclaimed by the Palawan Council for Sustainable
Development as the South Palawan Planning Area.
In 2000, a Strategic Management Plan which outlines the various programs in Southern
Palawan Planning Area was approved by the Palawan Council for Sustainable
Development. One of the programs in the management strategy is the identification and
establishment of upland management areas or protected areas. Based on initial
assessments, the area was found to be suited under the Protected Landscape Category
under the definition of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) due
to 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 PROCEDURES
To achieve the objectives of this study, the methods and procedures below were used.
3.1. Estimation of Total Economic Value and Communities’ Opportunity Costs
3.1.1. 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. 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 Services
The total economic value (TEV) framework was used to estimate the value of Mount
Mantalingahan’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. Because of time and financial constraints, the study focuses on the use values of Mount
Mantalingahan. These include: timber, IP’s use of land for agroforestry and NTFP
collection, and water (DUV); and carbon sequestration, soil conservation, watershed and
biodiversity functions, and protection of marine biodiversity (IUV).
3.1.3. Use Values: Direct Uses
3.1.3.1.Timber
The opportunity cost approach was used to estimate the value of Mount Mantalingahan’s
timber resources. This approach was chosen because timber harvesting is not allowed
in the area, and the value of timber resources in this case represents the value foregone
to keep the range as a protected landscape, which partly accounts for the protected
landscape’s total economic value.
There are available data about the areas within the range and the proposed protected
landscape by vegetative cover, as well as information about some of the species found
in 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-protected
watershed, and the growth and yield models for residual forests in Region 4 and under
climatic type 4 (Uriarte and Virtucio 1999) were used.
3.1.3.2.Farm, Livestock and NTFP Uses
To estimate the benefits that households living inside the proposed protected landscape
derive from the range, a survey was conducted. Because of budgetary and time
constraints, the number of respondents in the sample was set at 100, to be distributed
proportionately based on the total number of households of the five municipalities.
However, a total of 105 respondents were actually interviewed. The number of
households and sample respondents are as follows: Bataraza – 585 (n=22); Brooke’s
Point – 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 landscape
were based on their net incomes from their farms, livestock and/or non-timber forest
products gathering. The questionnaire used for the survey is given in Annex 1.
7

8. 3.1.3.3.Water
The value of raw water from Mount Mantalingahan was estimated based on the resource
charge formula from the National Strategy and Action Plan for the Water Supply and
Sanitation 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 year
Among other things, the resource charge is payable per cu m of water used, and can be
calculated for each river basin every year. It is based on the full recovery of all
expenditures to implement a raw water pricing structure as well as the costs required for
an 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 a
program. 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. 3.1.3.4. Use Values: Indirect Uses
3.1.3.4.1. Carbon Stock
The benefits transfer method was used to estimate the carbon stock value of Mount
Mantalingahan. This approach adopts the values generated by primary research
studies. 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 different
vegetative covers, and a carbon price of US$15/tC.
3.1.3.4.2. Soil Conservation
The replacement cost method was used to estimate the value of the soil conservation
service that Mount Mantalingahan provides. The data used include soil erosion
estimates under current, ECAN and three other scenarios, and secondary data on
replacement cost from Pabuayon et al. (2001).
3.1.3.4.3. Watershed and Biodiversity Functions
As in other areas in the Philippines, there is no market for raw water from the range and
its function as a habitat for biodiversity. For this reason, the value of Mount
Mantalingahan as a watershed and biodiversity habitat was estimated using the
contingent valuation method (CVM). A CV survey was undertaken, where 122
respondents from the five municipalities that have jurisdiction over the range were
interviewed. The respondents were asked about their willingness to pay (WTP) for the
protection and conservation of Mount Mantalingahan.
3.1.3.4.4. Protection of Marine Biodiversity
The contribution of a well-protected Mount Mantalingahan to the integrity of the
surrounding marine ecosystems was valued using the benefits transfer method. The
study of Subade (2005) estimated the willingness-to-pay of people from three cities in
the Philippines for the conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park. The
social WTP estimate derived in the study was used as a conservative estimate of the
people’s non-use value for the marine resources of South Palawan. These resources
9

10. can be jeopardized if there will be drastic land use changes in Mount Mantalingahan that
will increase the amount of sediments that will be deposited in the marine waters.
3.1.4. Valuation of Mining Potential
The potential incomes from mining, specifically of sand and gravel and nickel, were
estimated using the potential sand and gravel and nickel reserves derived by Cruz and
Bantayan (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 total
annual revenue from resource extraction.
3.1.5. Determination of Present Values
The monetary value estimates of the various uses of Mount Mantalingahan were
converted to present values using discount rates of 2% and 5%. The use of relatively
low discount rates is justified in this case. The people of Palawan have a high level of
environmental awareness, which enables them to realize the importance of properly
using 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 the
depletion of biological resources rather than their conservation. In fact, the use of high
discount rates tends to favour the rapid depletion of most resources for that matter.
3.1.6. Comparison of Net Benefits with and without Mining
The net benefits of the with- and without- mining scenarios were compared to evaluate
which between the two will generate more values for society.
3.1.7. Management Costs for the Protected Area
The costs of managing the proposed MMPL were based on the standards of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, as applied to the Master Plan for
Development of the Libmanan-Pulantuna Watershed (Cruz-ENRMP 2006).
10

11. 3.2. Mode of Implementation
To the extent possible the study will be executed with the active participation of the
LGUs. The intention is to maximize the opportunity for learning and competence building
of people who will be at the forefront of land use management in the project site. At the
same time their involvement will facilitate the process of legitimizing and implementing
the outputs of the study.
The involvement envisioned is that the LGUs will do most of the actual map analysis and
the related activities. For this to happen, the training workshops will be so timed that they
take place right during or ideally before a major activity is undertaken.
11

12. 4. KEY RESULTS
4.1. Site Description
4.1.1. Location
Geographically, the proposed protected area is located about 140 km southeast of
Puerto Princesa City, the capital city of Palawan (Figure 1). The proposed protected
area has for its bounding coordinates from 8 degrees 40 minutes 28.16 seconds to 117
degrees 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 total
area of 126,348 hectares. The Victoria Peak in the north and the Mt. Bulanjao in the
south bound the Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.
4.1.2. Geographic Coverage
With a total land area of 126,348.162 hectares, the proposed protected landscape
covers thirty-six (36) barangays, namely, Labog, Pulot Interior, and Punang of the
Municipality of Sofronio Espanola; Amas, Aribungos, Calasaguen, Imulnod, Ipilan,
Maasin, Mainit, Malis, Mambalot, Pangobilian, Salogon, Samariniana, Saraza and
Tubtub of the Municipality of Brooke’s Point; Bono-bono, Bulalacao, Inogbong Malihud
Marangas and Tarusan of the Municipality of Bataraza; Tagusao Calumpang Malatgao
Quinlogan Sowangan of the Municipality of Quezon; and Bunog Campong Ulay
Candawaga Culasian Iraan Panalingaan Punta Baja and Ransang of Rizal (Figure 1).
4.1.3. Climate
The climate in southern Palawan belongs to Type IV, which is characterized by no
pronounced dry or wet season. Heavy rains are expected from May to December and
light rain in the “dry” season of January to April. Table 1a and 1b and Figures 2a and 2b
show the monthly climatic averages in the MMPL.
12

13. 4.1.4. Topography
The terrain of the range is rugged with slopes of over 50% which covers most of the area
above 500m. Slopes of 36% or more predominate at altitudes over 100-300m. Most of
the steeper slopes are covered by natural forest. The east slopes of the middle part of
the Mantalingahan range in Bataraza, Brooke’s Point and the south part of Espanola
terminate abruptly at around 100m and give way to fairly flat land. Further north in
Espanola 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. Figure 2a. Monthly average rainfall, Aborlan (PAGASA) 2000-06.
Figure 2b. Monthly average maximum and minimum temperature, Aborlan (PAGASA)
2000-06.
14

15. Figure 3. Slope map of MMPL.
4.1.5. Geology and Soils
Much of the Mantalingahan range is of limestone formation with outcrops of karst e.g. in
Quezon and caves. The higher parts of the range including Mantalingahan Peak and
ridge 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 the
eastern side of the range there are bands of cement and relict beach deposits in the
form of sand and gravel beds close to the coast. The common geological materials in
MMPL are, Mt. Beaufort Ultamafics, Panas Sandstone and Espina Basalt (Table 2a and
Figure 4). Table 2b and 2c show that MMPL is rich in nickel deposits with the largest
potential in Lamikan, Mambalot-Pilantropia and Pulot Watersheds.
15

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
BROOKE'S 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 126342.606
Table 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. 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. Figure 4. Geological map of MMPL.
4.1.6. Watersheds and Water Resources
There are some 33 watersheds in MMPL of which 2 are micro with area of less than
1,000 ha, 21 watersheds are small with area between 1,000 to 10,000 ha and 10 are
medium 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 of
which 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. Figure 5a. Subwatersheds inside the MMPL.
19

20. Table 3b. Municipality jurisdiction per watershed in Mt. Mantalingahan Protected
Landscape.
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
Brooke's
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. 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. 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 Brooke's
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 8415.3
Malambunga 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 2456.2 491.10
Panalingaan 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 1617.7
Samare±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. Area of Area of Watershed Inside MMPL per
Total
Waters MUNICIPALITY (ha)
Area of
hed
Watershed Waters
inside Brooke's
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 13582.0
Figure 5b. Drainage map of MMPL.
23

24. 4.1.7. Biodiversity Profile
The main driving force behind the proposed MMPL is its rich diversity of plants and
animals that are under serious threats from the intensifying uses of timber and other
non-timber resources associated with the growth of population and increasing
industrialization. There are currently 4 species (2 plants, 1 bird and 1 reptile) that are
listed by IUCN as critically endangered, 1 reptile and 1 mammal as endangered, and 15
plants, 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 plant
species are critical while 15 species are vulnerable all of which are found in the lowland
forests that are under most severe pressure from the upwardly expanding activities of
lowland communities.
Among vertebrates, 2 species are listed as critical, 2 are endangered, 16 species are
listed as restricted-range, and 19 species are vulnerable. Most of these species are
either found in lowland forests, riverine ecosystems and mangroves all of which are
habitats being seriously threatened by expanding agricultural and other human activities.
Should the lower limit of the proposed MMPL recedes these species of plants and
animals 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. 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 forest
10 Polyalthia elmeri IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest
11 Protium connarifolium IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest
12 Pterocarpus indicus IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest
13 Sandoricum vidalii IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest
14 Semecarpus paucinervius IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest
15 Vitex parviflora “Molave” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest
16 Xylosma palawanense “Porsanbagyo” IUCN: Vulnerable Lowland forest
17 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 Cantor's 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. 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
eagle
10 Collocalia palawanensis Palawan Swiftlet Restricted-range Open areas,
second growth
11 Anthracoceros marchei Palawan Hornbill IUCN: Vulnerable; Lowland forest,
Restricted-range second growth
12 Chloropsis Yellow-throated Restricted-range Forest, second
palawanensis Leafbird growth
13 Hypsipetes Sulphur-bellied Restricted-range Forest, second
palawanensis Bulbul growth
14 Copsychus niger White-vented Restricted-range Forest, second
Shama growth
15 Parus amabilis Palawan Tit Restricted-range Lowland forest
16 Trichastoma cinereiceps Ashy-headed Restricted-range Lowland forest
Babbler
17 Malacopteron Melodious Restricted-range Lowland forest
palawanense Babbler
18 Ptilocichla falcata Falcated Wren- IUCN: Vulnerable; Lowland forest
babbler Restricted-range
19 Stachyris Palawan Striped- Restricted-range Montane forest
hypogrammica babbler
20 Ficedula platenae Palawan IUCN: Vulnerable; Lowland forest
Flycatcher Restricted-range
21 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. 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 growth
Note: 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 Stakeholders
The MMPL is a vital source of goods and environmental services for the people in
Southern Palawan. Through a workshop involving the LGU planning officers and a few
other key stakeholders, a list of environmental and economic services being provided by
MMPL are presented in the table below. Services related to food supply, biodiversity
conservation, climate change mitigation, soil conservation and water resource
conservation.
Table 5a. Key services of MMPL to local stakeholders.
Key Española Brooke's Bataraza Quezon Rizal ALL
services of Point
MMPL
Protection Stability
of food
prodn
system
Biodiversity Birds e.g.
conservation mynah;
cockatoo
Soil and Soil
water nutrients
conservation for
lowlands
Carbon Climate
sequestration change
mitigation
Conservation Maasin Fish Use of Source of
of coastal Marine sanctuary cyanide is food for
resources and Reserve of San a problem fish; fish
ecosystems Antonio sanctuary
Bay
27

28. Key Española Brooke's Bataraza Quezon Rizal ALL
services of Point
MMPL
Production
Domestic Level 3 Waterworks
water supply water Level 3
supply
Irrigation Tamlang; Tigwayan- Tagbuaya; Ilog2; Iraan;
supply Samarenana Marangas Lamikan, Candawaga;
; Maasin river Quinlogan 2 CIPs
Fuelwood Cooking
supply is mostly
wood-
based
Agriculture 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 ha
Agroforestry
Non-timber Collection of Rattan;
forest almaciga
products resin
Ecotourism ElSalvador Mainit & Kapangyan
Falls Sabsaban Falls
Falls
Mining 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
Mainit
Food items Wild fruits: Bird's
durian, nest not
rambutan, first class
honey;
bagtik;
rattan;
bamboo
Medicinal Herbs
Settlement Conversion 40% of For
of agri to pop is katutubo
settlement katutubo
28

29. 5. The Economic Value of MMPL
5.1. Direct Use Values of Mount Mantalingahan
5.1.1. The Opportunity Cost of Timber Resources
If Mount Mantalingahan will be declared a protected area, it will necessarily mean that
any 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 province
of Palawan.
The forests in the range are classified into old-growth and residual; both forest types are
further subdivided into closed canopy forest (with mature trees comprising more than
50% of total) and open canopy forest (with mature trees comprising less than 50% of
total). 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 in
Bulacan (2007), which is a well-protected watershed. These are 88.80 and 87.50 cu m
per ha, respectively. The volume per ha of the old-growth open canopy forest was
assumed to be half that of the old-growth closed canopy forest. On the other hand, the
volumes per ha for residual dipterocarps and non-dipterocarps were based on the
estimate and periodic annual increment (PAI) derived by Uriarte and Virtucio (1999) for
Climatic Type 4, to which Southern Palawan belongs. These are 63.48 cu m/ha for
dipterocarps and 14.7 cu m for non-dipterocarps (based on a PAI of 0.49 cu m/year for a
30-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 price
of the standing tree and excludes harvesting and processing costs.
For the proposed MMPL, the stumpage values of dipterocarps and non-dipterocarps are
P10.65 billion and P8.03 billion, respectively, or a total of P18.68 billion (Table 1a). On
the 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. 1b). These values are the benefits that will be foregone from timber revenues since
timber harvesting will not be (and is currently not) allowed in the Range as well as in the
whole province of Palawan. They represent part of the value of protecting and
conserving the Range because they are the potential revenues that will be sacrificed just
to 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 dipterocarp
Old growth*
Closed canopy, 56,232.45 88.80 87.50 8,913,293,185 6,888,475,125
mature trees>50%
Open canopy, 17,701.65 44.40 43.75 1,402,926,569 1,084,226,063
mature trees<50%**
Residual forest***
Closed canopy, 2,112.98 63.48 14.70 239,425,567 43,485,128
mature trees>50%
Open canopy, 1,593.73 31.74 7.35 90,294,208 16,399,482
mature trees<50%**
Total 10,645,939,528 8,032,585,798
GRAND TOTAL 18,678,525,326
Table 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 dipterocarp
Old growth*
Closed canopy, 73,253.26 88.80 87.50 11,611,227,736 8,973,524,350
mature trees>50%
Open canopy, 18,281.21 44.40 43.75 1,448,859,017 1,119,724,113
mature trees<50%**
30

31. Volume (cu m/ha) Stumpage Value (P)****
Area
Forest Type
Dipteroc Non-
(ha) Dipterocarp Non-dipterocarp
arp dipterocarp
Residual forest***
Closed canopy, 7,658.73 63.48 14.70 867,824,482 157,616,663
mature trees>50%
Open canopy, 3,981.13 31.74 7.35 225,554,503 40,965,828
mature trees<50%**
Total 14,153,465,739 10,291,830,954
GRAND TOTAL 24,445,296,692
5.1.2. IP’s Direct Use of Mt. Mantalingahan
As of 2005, the total number of households within the proposed protected landscape
was 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 could
not say how old they were (Table 2a). The average number of years spent in school
ranged from 1.05 years (Bataraza) to 3.64 years (Brooke’s Point), while the average
household size ranged from 2 to 4. The respondents from Sofronio Española and
Brooke’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. Brooke's
Characteristic Bataraza Quezon Rizal
Española Point
20-
Age range (yrs) 30-48 25-56 16-70 20-55
70
Average no. of years in school 2 1.05 3.64 2.1 1.19
Average household size 4 4 4 2 2
Average no. of years in the
33 30 33 19 19
area
31

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 31 100 105 100
Civil 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 31 100 105 100
Average no. of
members per
household
Male 1 2 2 1 1
Female 3 3 2 1 1
Religion
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 31 100 105 100
Source 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 26
Average distance
of household (km)
to:
Market 12 3 2 1.5 7
Non-formal learning
centers/schools 4 1 1 0 2
Access Roads 4 2 1 4 2
32

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 market
was 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 for
Sofronio 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 at
P11,577/HH/yr. Furthermore, 100% of the respondents in the five municipalities were
engaged in farming inside the proposed protected landscape.
Fewer respondents (46% of the total) were engaged in livestock production, ranging
from 6% for Rizal to 77% for Brooke’s Point. The estimated value of benefits from this
use was about P5.734 million/yr. On the other hand, 45% of the respondents were
involved in NTFP gathering, and the annual benefits from this use were about P6.238
million/yr.
All in all, the total benefits that households residing inside the proposed protected
landscape derive amount to P35.445 million/yr. Inasmuch as the IPs will be allowed to
continue their activities even after the declaration of the protected landscape, for as long
as these are consistent with the management plan, these benefits will continue to be
realized.
The respondents were also asked if they had plans of migrating from Mount
Mantalingahan, as well as their knowledge of and attitude towards the plan to declare
Mount Mantalingahan as a protected landscape. All but one of the respondents said that
they had no plan of leaving Mount Mantalingahan, and only 16% said that some of their
family members have migrated from the area. Seventy percent (70%) of the
respondents indicated that they were aware of the plan to declare Mount Mantalingahan
as a protected landscape, and 97% said that they favour its declaration as a protected
landscape.
33

34. Table 3. Benefits from Mt. Mantalingahan of households (IPs) residing inside proposed
PA.
S.
Bataraza Brooke's 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
Households
Net 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. 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 to
areas 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
0
Migration of family
members to other
areas 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
0
Awareness of plan
for 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
0
Attitude towards
declaration of MM
as 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
0
Reasons why PL is
important (multiple
answers)
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. 5.1.3. Water for Domestic, Agriculture and Fishery Uses
The water demand volumes for domestic, agriculture and fishery uses (2003) are 17.97
MCM, 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 to
P5,000/ha/yr which, according to Mendoza (pers. comm. 2002) better reflects the cost of
managing a watershed that is less susceptible to encroachment and fire. From these, a
resource charge of P0. 8538/cu m was derived.
The value of raw water for fishery is highest at P759 million per year, followed by
agriculture at P588 million per year. The value for domestic use is lower due to the lower
water demand volume. The present values of raw water benefits from Mount
Mantalingahan 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 15,343,673
Agriculture 688.28 0.853849385 587,687,455
Fishery 888.68 0.853849385 758,798,872
Total 1,594.93 1,361,830,000
PV 2% 68,091,500,000
PV 5% 27,236,600,000
1
Based on AE of P5,000/ha/yr for 272,366 ha
5.2. Indirect Use Values of Mount Mantalingahan
5.2.1. Carbon Stock
The carbon stocks of the different land covers in MMPL and MM Range were estimated
using carbon density estimates for different land covers in the Philippines, mainly by
Lasco 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 carbon
price 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 as
transient carbon stocks.
36

37. Owing to its area, the carbon stock value of old growth forest is highest at P13.61 billion
for the proposed MMPL and P21.17 billion for the whole MM Range. The total carbon
stock 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. 5.2.2. Soil Conservation
The value of the soil conservation function of a well-protected Mount Mantalingahan was
based on soil erosion estimates for current, ECAN and scenarios with 250 m, 500 m and
750 m retreats in the core zone. The costs of damage avoided under the different
scenarios 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 difference
in erosion rate is 90,693 tons/yr, which translates to damage avoided valued at P57.227
million/yr. This value estimate is based only on the physical replacement of soil, and can
therefore be considered a conservative estimate because it does not capture yet the
conservation and improvement of soil nutrients and structure under a well-managed
forest.
Table 7 also shows that a 250-m retreat in the size of the core zone increases the total
erosion by 42,330 tons/yr over the ECAN total erosion, and will result in a reduction in
the soil conservation value by about P26.710 million. Further reducing the core zone by
retreating the boundaries by 500 m and 750 m also mean increasing the potential
erosion from the range. In fact, retreating the boundary by 750 m will result in a potential
erosion 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 ECAN
of Damage Avoided Reduction Reduction Reduction
Total erosion (ton/yr) 1,137,284.50 1,046,591.60 1,088,921.20 1,096,126.10 1,141,246.90
Erosion 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 25,970,950.40
avoided (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. 5.2.3. Watershed Function and Biodiversity
A contingent valuation (CV) survey was undertaken to estimate the South Palawan
residents’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the conservation of Mount Mantalingahan for its
watershed and biodiversity services. A total of 122 respondents were interviewed in the
survey, 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. Mantalingahan
for its watershed and biodiversity services was estimated using a logit model. Among
the 5 municipalities surveyed, the highest proportion of respondents who expressed
WTP was Rizal, with 62% of respondents answering “yes” to the WTP question (Table
8). 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 of
households in the five municipalities, the WTP values of households were estimated. As
expected, this was highest for Rizal, with a WTP of P2.957 million/yr, followed by
Brooke’s Point and Bataraza at P1.780 million and P1.461million, respectively. The total
WTP value for Sofronio Española is only P0.577 million.
The total WTP of households in the five municipalities is P7.722 million per yr. This
represents the total amount that the households are willing to pay to conserve Mt.
Mantalingahan because they recognize its importance as a watershed and for its
biodiversity.
Table 8. WTP values of households in five municipalities of South Palawan for the
conservation of Mt. Mantalingahan.
Growth Total % of
Municipality 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 1,460,748
Brooke's
4,267 6,551 10,818 2.38 11,412 50% 148,360 1,780,316
Point
S. Española 4,174 1,873 6,047 2.15 6,379 29% 48,099 577,189
Quezon 5,360 3,630 8,990 2.52 9,484 32% 78,906 946,869
Rizal 4,439 10,053 14,492 5.40 15,288 62% 246,444 2,957,332
Total 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. 5.2.4. Protection of Marine Biodiversity
In his study on the valuation of biodiversity conservation for Tubbataha Reefs National
Marine Park (TRNMP), Subade (2005) assessed the WTP of people from three cities in
the Philippines, namely Quezon City, Cebu City and Puerto Princesa City. Thorne-Miller
and Catena (1991 as cited by Subade 2005) identified the threats to marine biodiversity,
which include pollution on land where dissolved nutrients, dissolved toxics and
suspended particles are washed into the oceans. The pollutants come from agricultural,
urban and industrial activities, deforestation and construction. This was supported by the
findings of the Investigation of Coral Reefs of the Philippines project, which identified the
serious threats to marine biodiversity to be siltation, coastal land development,
agricultural fertilizer runoff, industrial pollutants, and destructive fishing methods, among
others.
The eastern side of Mount Mantalingahan Range faces the Tubbataha Reefs National
Marine Park. The estimates of Cruz and Bantayan (2008) show that reducing the core
zone of the proposed protected landscape will result in higher erosion rates, and most of
the sediments will find their way to the sea. It is not farfetched to say, therefore, that a
change in the current land use of the Range, which is mainly forest, will adversely affect
the 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. This
can be considered a conservative estimate because it reflects only the WTP of people
from the cities of Quezon, Cebu and Puerto Princesa, and not the WTP of the entire
population of the Philippines. This value can be used to reflect the benefits that will be
lost if the TRNMP will deteriorate.
5.3. Potential Sand and Gravel and Nickel Reserves
The team was not able to get data about the sand and gravel and nickel reserves
specifically for Mount Mantalingahan. The PEENRA Report for Palawan (2002) gives
some information about the nickel reserves in areas held by various mining companies
as of 1996, but most of these are outside the proposed MMPL. There are also estimates
of sand and gravel reserves, but only two of the rivers reported are within the proposed
MMPL, i.e. the Panitian and Pulot Rivers. For these reasons, the reserve estimates
generated by Cruz and Bantayan (2008) were used to derive the value of the potential
sand and gravel and nickel reserves (Table 9).
40

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. 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 5,929,422
Summerumsum 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 15,022,382,446
Note: 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

43. The unit rents of sand and gravel reported in the 2002 PEENRA for the years 1990 to
1999 had an increasing trend, starting at P11.69/cu m in 1990 and valued at P117.41/cu
m in 1999 (Table 10). The highest value was in 1998 at P118.51/cu m. The year 2008
value of the unit rent was obtained by compounding the 1999 value using a 5% interest
rate over nine years, rounded off to the nearest hundred, or P200/cu m. On the other
hand, the unit rents for nickel from 1988 to 1996 were more erratic due to fluctuations in
the market prices of nickel. For this reason, the average unit rent of nickel for the 11-
year period of P47,810/mt was used.
Table 10. Unit rents of sand and gravel (1990-1999) and nickel (1988-1998).
Unit Rent
Year
Sand and Gravel (P/cu m) Nickel (P/mt)
1988 - 46,689
1989 - 68,163
1990 11.69 51,277
1991 14.10 55,496
1992 12.28 43,240
1993 25.23 26,968
1994 31.79 36,604
1995 59.03 45,940
1996 77.33 48,150
1997 102.06 50,303
1998 118.51 53,085
1999 117.41 -
The estimated values of the sand and gravel and nickel reserves are given in Table 9.
The volume of sand and gravel reserve was estimated on the assumption that the total
mineable length is 10% of the total length of all the rivers in the watersheds. At P200/cu
m, the total value of the sand and gravel reserve is P2.209 billion.
43