|
|
|
|
he "beach huts" were nothing more than small wooden sheds. Had
they been constructed elsewhere, they might not have invited any comment.
But this was Suba, a major gateway to the Olango Island Wildlife Sanctuary
(OIWS). Folks here had been primed by years of participation in community-based
resource management to recognize perceived threats to their environment
and livelihood. They suspected that the huts, rapidly erected allegedly
on orders by a barangay (village) official and a "well-connected"
landowner from another town, represented blatant violations of laws pertaining
to national protected areas and foreshore public lands. More remarkably,
however, they decided to actively oppose what they believed was an illegal
activity, and in a manner that demonstrated their level of maturity as
a community.
The making of a village
Olango paints a typical picture of the Philippines' numerous small island
communities: low-income, densely populated and groaning under the strain
of ever-increasing pressure on its resources. The area has 20,000 human
residents packed on 1,014 hectares of land. The economy is heavily dependent
on fisheries. Of the estimated 4,000 households, 75% are engaged in fishing
or related livelihood activities based on the extraction of coastal resources.
The fisheries around the island have long been depleted, largely because
of increased population pressure and the use of destructive fishing practices.
According to the Olango fishers themselves, average daily fish catch dropped
from about 20 kg per fisher in 1960 to less than 2 kg today.
The
scenic, undisturbed and natural landscape and waters of
Suba welcome visitors to the OIWS.
As a gateway to the OIWS, an internationally recognized reserve for migratory
birds, Suba is in an enviable position to capture the economic benefits
touted to come from the development of tourism in the area. But, until
recently, like many Olango residents, Suba folks felt they had not benefited
from the sanctuary's existence - fishers used to traverse the area to
reach their fishing grounds or to glean; now it is off-limits to fishing
activities.
At least a decade of community-based resource management efforts by several
groups - including the Coastal Resource
Management Project (CRMP), the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Protected Area Management
Board (PAMB) of DENR Region 7, Department
of Tourism, Department of Agriculture, local government units and
various NGOs - allowed local residents to be actively involved in assessing
and managing their own resources, and evaluating resource management issues
and constraints in their community. Even so, the Suba residents' new perception
about the OIWS's value to their village came about only in the last two
years, when concrete efforts were taken to promote the villagers' economic
interests in the preservation of the sanctuary.
A
TV crew 'shoots' the birds of Olango
Key to the enterprise
development strategy on Olango was to build the community's capabilities
as owners, operators and managers of their own site-specific and commodity-specific
projects. In Suba's case, the centerpiece project was an ecotourism venture
called the "Olango
Birds and Seascape Tour." Conceived around and based on the area's
natural attractions, particularly the OIWS, the OBST, as the tour is sometimes
referred to, proved to be immensely successful. Less than a year from
its launching in 1998, it had attracted a high degree of interest from
the tourism industry. Thanks to the OBST, Olango, once known only to naturalists
and avid bird watchers, soon became a favorite subject of print and broadcast
journalists for environmental features, as well as a mainstream tourist
destination.
A
member of the Suba, Olango women's cooperative welcomes
OBST participant
To Suba residents, especially those directly involved in the management
of the OBST, the positive feedback from visitors served as an affirmation
of the need to protect the unique, globally significant, natural treasures
in their midst, and every successful tour run boosted their confidence
in their own capability as community leaders and managers of a tourism
enterprise.
By May 2000, the community venture had organized a successful "mass
tour" at the Suba Village and Gilutongan Island in the municipality
of Cordova. By then, the economic benefits of the OBST had become evident
- the Suba community was more upbeat than they had ever been about their
new enterprise.
Whose property?
It was against this backdrop, and coinciding with the end of the conduct
of the "mass tour", that two private foreshore land claimants
began building, in late May 2000, three recreational huts on the beachfront
at Suba. The claimants had reportedly been making innuendoes about their
claim since late 1999, apparently in an attempt to capture the economic
benefits of the OIWS's increasing popularity as an ecotourism destination.
Beach
huts that one of two foreshore land claimants started
constructing on May 28, 2000
The community's reaction was swift and decisive. Citing potential harm
to the environment and their ecotourism venture, some community members
protested the construction. Suba, they pointed out, is one of fewer
and fewer places in Cebu still blessed with a wide, white sand beach,
a natural asset that draws the particular kind of tourist market targeted
by the OBST and is crucial to Suba's success as an ecotourism destination.
The claimants promptly chided the complainants. They contended they were
"owners" of the land bordering Suba's shoreline and therefore
had prior legal rights to build in the area.
At this juncture, however, the ownership and resource access issues were
not clear-cut for either side. Because the community held neither tenurial
nor resource access rights, they invoked DENR/PAMB jurisdiction over the
OIWS, but it was not immediately evident that the land under dispute was
actually within the protected area or its buffer zone, or even within
the setback zone required by law along shorelines.
The claimants, on the other hand, had yet to produce legal documents to
prove their "ownership" of the disputed land.
Building a strong case
Frustrated by the claimants' reaction to their protest, the community
sought outside help. With CRMP's assistance, they began preparing the
documentation required to build a case against the claimants. A CRMP staff
visited the site, took photos and filed an incident
report describing the construction activities. A staff from the Protected
Area Superintendent (PASu) Office also inspected the site, taking more
photos and filing another report.
Thirty
community members signed this petition letter (Click
to enlarge)
On May 31, thirty community members wrote and signed petition letters,
which they sent to DENR-7 Regional Executive Director Augustus Momongan
and Lapu-Lapu City Mayor Ernest Weigel. On June 2, responding to the Suba
residents' further request for help, CRMP sent
Momongan and Weigel letters appealing for support to the community.
Thereafter, the community sought, and was granted, a meeting with the
mayor.
The meeting took place a few days later, with city officials and representatives
from the community, DENR, Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office (ENRO), and CRMP in attendance. The mayor, apparently already briefed
about the controversy, vowed to lend his full support to the community,
but "first we must establish that we have, in fact, a legal basis
to take action." He directed the City Engineer and Chief of Police
to investigate the construction at Suba, and requested the CENRO to also
inspect the site.
The next day, a team composed of the City Engineer and the CENRO (the
police came later) arrived at Suba at 9:00 a.m. to find the barangay
official who allegedly owned one of the projects working at the construction
site. The barangay official agreed to meet with the team; a construction
worker represented the other claimant.
Land
claimant's representative receives stoppage order.
In the discussions that ensued, the team learned that neither construction
project had a building permit. Speaking to the two representatives of
the claimants, the City Engineer explained that under the Building Code
of the Philippines any construction activity without a permit is considered
illegal and subject to certain penalties. He then issued each project
a stoppage order, and advised the representatives to apply for a business
permit, which would require them to submit certain documents (land titles
or authority to build signed by the legal owner, lot plan, etc.). Non-compliance
with the building permit requirement, he warned, would compel the city
to penalize the offending parties.
The CENRO pointed out that the projects would also be required to secure
a clearance from his office, and that such clearance could only be issued
after his office had done a survey of the site and established that the
disputed land was not within the protected area or its buffer zone, or
that the projects fully met the setback requirement.
At this stage, both the CENRO and the City Engineer were convinced that
the community had a strong case. The absence of a building permit was
a strong enough ground to suspend construction, they said. Compliance
with the stoppage order, however, was not assured. "Compared to the
other cases we are now handling, this case is much simpler, but even here,
we are not sure that these people will comply with the stoppage order,"
said the City Engineer. "In many cases, workers will stop working
the day the stoppage order is issued, only to resume construction the
very next day. We'll see how well the stoppage would hold in Suba's
case."
Upholding the law
Sure enough, the project owners soon began to test the city government's
and CENRO's resolve to ensure compliance with the City Engineer's order
to halt all construction activities. Two days after the order was issued,
vigilant Suba residents reported that work on the beach huts had resumed.
Further investigation revealed that the owners had made no effort to apply
for a building permit, or to present any form of official document to
prove the legal basis of their claim on the land.
The matter was quickly brought to the attention of the CENRO, who visited
the site a second time. He invited the land claimants to a meeting in
his office, where he outlined their options: prove that their claim on
the land was legitimate by submitting the required documents, acquire
a building permit, or stop all construction activities. Failure to comply
with the Building Code and any pertinent law, he reminded them, could
mean penalties and even a jail term for the claimants.
At this time, it had been established that the disputed land was outside
the OIWS and thus was not under national protected area laws. By virtue
of a local zoning ordinance, however, the area extending outward to 100
meters from the boundaries of the OIWS had been declared a "buffer
zone" and therefore technically a protected area. Unfortunately,
the buffer zone provision could not be implemented at this time, as the
city still had to issue the implementing rules and regulations related
to the zoning ordinance.
Fortunately for Suba, the claimants - probably realizing that their investments
would not be secure in the absence of definitive rules and regulations
on the use of the buffer zone - decided not to pursue their case. Instead,
they opted to discontinue their projects and wait for the guidelines to
be issued. Case closed - for now.
Fostering sustainable shoreline development
Suba's success in fending off the wrong kind of development offers some
important lessons. First, the local community is the first and final defense
in the effort to maintain the ecological integrity of shorelines and must
have at least some basic understanding of pertinent laws and best resource
management practices. Second, good documentation is crucial to building
a strong case. Third, the community must have a "hotline" and
easy access to the mayor, DENR officials and others with the authority
and power to properly address shoreline development and other critical
environmental issues. And fourth, prompt action and follow-through by
concerned authorities promote compliance - in Suba's case, it helped tremendously
that the project was stopped at an early enough stage so that the claimants
did not see its suspension as a great economic loss.
With development practically knocking on its doors, Suba can expect to
see more of the kind of pressure to "build up" that it has so
far withstood. The community urgently needs a sound framework for and
guidelines on shoreline management and development, including ecotourism.
To help the community foster sustainable shoreline development, certain
mechanisms must be put in place. Suba is luckier than most in that some
steps are already being taken to this end. There are initiatives to establish
a zoning system and tourism framework for the OIWS and surrounding communities,
which should clearly define the different resource protection and use
zones and set clear guidelines for infrastructure development. An important
first step, one that PAWD-DENR-7 has committed to undertake, is the physical
delineation of the boundaries of the OIWS to facilitate the implementation
of the locally legislated buffer zone around the sanctuary.
Community action such as the one that Suba has demonstrated must be sustained.
In time, with enough persistence by community members in policing shoreline
development in their area, and with the right kind of government support,
the observance of the setback rule in infrastructure development may well
become the norm.
In the general scheme of shoreline protection and the enforcement of laws
on shoreline development, the successful (albeit probably only temporary)
resolution of the "Suba beach hut case" was but one small victory.
To the Suba folks, however, it clearly meant a great deal more. They had
taken a united stand to defend the integrity of the ecological destination
package that is central to the economic viability of the OBST, their own
ecotour - and they had won. This case was a manifest actualization of
their empowerment as a community. It was a major triumph.
The name of the village, 'Suba', is also the
Visayan term for river. The name is not quite apt, because Suba has no river. The term
apparently refers to the "river-like" seawater channels found in the area.
Article 51 of PD 1067, otherwise
known as the "Water Code of the Philippines" provides: "The
banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas, and throughout
their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in urban areas,
twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas, and forty (40) meters in forest
areas, along their margins, are subject to the easement of public use
in the interest of recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage
xxx"
Incident report
describing the Suba construction activities, filed a CRMP staff on June
1, 2000
Last May 30, Tuesday, I visited Sitio Suba, Barangay
Sabang of Olango Island and discovered that there was an ongoing construction
of two sets of beach huts with two different owners, close to the SNS
community center of the Olango Island Wildlife Sanctuary.
Upon further inquiry, I found out that there were three units being constructed,
built on land allegedly owned by the family of a barangay official.
The units were made of coconut lumber and the skeletal frame of the hut
structures were in place. One unit had a cemented base. Construction work
on these three beach huts started on May 28, a Sunday.
During my discussion with the Suba, Olango Ecotourism Cooperative tour
paddlers and a few members of the women's group, I was told that a fourth
unit was being planned on the same site. Then the total number of huts
would be 4, located on the left of the SNS community center, when one
is facing north.
The second set of beach huts is allegedly owned and financed by a well-connected
family from Talisay. It is believed that those spearheading the proposed
construction work are the descendants of the alleged original owner of
the land.
Said site of the construction project financed by the Talisay claimants
is located on the right side of the SNS community center, opposite to
that of the other project. It is believed that the proposed construction
project would involve the establishment of eight huts. I heard a man,
allegedly a relative of the claimants from Talisay and who was observed
to be supervising the construction work, say that eight huts were going
to be built in the area.
I also observed that, on this particular day, the layout of the proposed
site had started and materials were being delivered on-site.
Suba residents believed the Talisay claimants planned to fence off the
land they allegedly owned, all the way to the shore area. If this happens,
the community would lose land access to sea.
Mr. Ruben Canete, the community paddlers' president, pointed out the "mojon"
(property boundary marker) claimed by the Talisay claimants. It starts
at the signage, which welcomes visitors to the Olango Island Wildlife
Sanctuary, and extends in-land to cover the whole cleared area of the
seashore of the disputed site.
If left unchecked, the construction can set a bad precedent in the area.
Rumor has it that there are several other interested individuals who are
waiting in the wings to see how the incident will unfold.
Letter to DENR-7 Regional Executive Director
Augustus Momongan, June 2, 2000, from CRMP
I respectfully forward to you, hoping for your
immediate action, the attached incident report and photo documentation
on very recent construction activities by two private claimants to foreshore
lands in Suba, where the Olango Bird and Seascape Tour project is being
conducted.
We believe that this construction, implemented
rapidly and without proper authorization, might represent flagrant violations
of laws pertaining to national protected areas and foreshore public lands.
Moreover, their actions belie the motive of the claimants to grab for
themselves the new economic opportunities that were painstakingly built
by the community cooperative with the support of DENR and other institutions.
Allegedly, the two private land claimants have
been "bullying" community members, to insist on their claim
to exclusive use of the foreshore area. This culminated in the initiation
of several structures along the beach front, imposing on the once beautiful
open space and destroying the integrity of the community ecological destination
package. Mention of DENR or PAMB jurisdiction over the foreshore areas
by the community was said to be met with mocking challenge by the same
parties.
We share the view with DENR managers that the area
in Suba facing the bird sanctuary should be preserved in its most natural
state and should not be allowed to be built up, to safeguard the wildlife
and maintain its aesthetic value for conservation-oriented and community-based
ecological destination development.
The viability of the Olango Birds and Seascape
tour project, which has won the cooperation of villagers, educated many
visitors and gained international acclaim for the Department, is under
serious threat by the above developments. The structures if left unchecked
will lead to great demoralization among fishing families who've taken
the hard but good road to best practices and self-help. It will diminish
the resources that attract visitors to the area. And, it will set a bad
precedent for other unscrupulous private interests to take advantage of
the poor and to disregard the law.
In earlier meetings with the CRMP project management
office representatives, we cited the need for DENR to assist the community
cooperative in securing long-term land and other resource use rights to
sustain their environment-friendly enterprise practices. May we, again,
appeal to your office to assist the community project partners in resolving
the above problem and in fast-tracking interventions that would grant
them greater resource security in exchange for greater environmental responsibility
and accountability.
Letter to Lapu-Lapu City Mayor Ernest Weigel,
June 2, 2000, from CRMP
We wish to bring to your attention, hoping for
immediate action, what could be illegal construction of recreational facilities
along the shoreland in Sitio Suba, Brgy Sabang, Olango Island fronting
the Olango Island Wildlife Sanctuary (OIWS). Allegedly involved are the
Brgy Captain of Sabang and Mabanag family of Talisay, Cebu. Attached is
the initial report with photo documentation by our field staff.
The said shore area forms part of the Coastal Resource
Management Project's model site in local environmental management of Lapu-Lapu
City.
Earlier, through combined efforts with the City,
DENR, DOT and community, we were able to establish the Olango Birds and
Seascape Tour (OBST). The OBST is widely recognized as the first true
community-based ecotourism enterprise venture in the Philippines. In February
this year, the OBST reaped a prestigious and most coveted Anvil Award
from the Public Relations Society of the Philippines. In late April, the
OBST was given a Highly Commended Status by the Conservation International
Excellence in Tourism Award 2000 held in Toronto, Canada, in which 69
veteran tourism companies worldwide competed.
What is more important, however, are the great
benefits that this ecotourism project provided to Suba Village. Fifty
nine (59) coastal families that form Suba-Olango Ecotourism Cooperative
gained supplementary income, management skills, greater confidence in
their abilities and pride of place. They have won over a lot of international
and domestic visitors because of their sincere desire and hard work to
better their conditions and contribute to the society.
Moreover, the environment-friendly tour venture,
became a tool for fostering conservation awareness and cooperation among
the villagers of Suba to the Olango Island Wildlife Sanctuary. Their enterprise
has contributed close to 25,000 pesos in users fee to the OIWS and have
been very helpful in monitoring undesirable activities to the sanctuary.
The project and the people in it have truly become effective ambassadors
of goodwill and good practices for the City of Lapu-Lapu and the Philippines.
The foreshore land in question is the main attraction
that draws the particular kind of tourist market targeted by the OBST.
Its value rests on the natural and undisturbed landscape and waters, free
from any development structures. It exudes an open, rural and very natural
environment, which ecotourists look for. Without this element, the OBST
would soon lose its uniqueness and will not be sustainable in the long
run.
We therefore appeal to you for support in enforcing
the strict compliance of the 20 meter buffer (setback) zone on said foreshore
area and not allow subject structures to go on for environmental management
purposes.
We will be available, as ever, to provide technical
assistance to the community, the City and private property owners to plan
alternative locations for appropriately designed investments to participate
in the project.
***
|
