Critic Paper I

Critic Paper on Devising Appropriate Policies and Instruments in Support of Private Conservation Areas: Lessons Learned from the Klein Karoo, South Africa (Lorena Pasquini, Richard M. Cowling, Chasca Twyman, and John Wainwright)

            Understanding the complexity of environment as it involves more than just the biogeochemical cycles, and its abiotic and biotic components, the study that also dwells on policies in making conservation more effective becomes more interesting and more appropriate. This modern approach opens our eyes to a bigger picture wherein the social and political aspects of the community, among others, are acknowledged as one of the key determinants to the fate of conservation efforts. Hence, the study on “Devising Appropriate Policies and Instruments in Support of Private Conservation Areas: Lessons Learned from the Klein Karoo, South Africa” is apt and very timely.

Little Karoo, the study area, is an arid to semiarid intermontane basin area wherein three globally recognized biomes with biodiversity hotspots, namely Succulent Karoo, Subtropical Thicket, and Fynbos, overlap (Pasquini, et. al. 2009). Recognizing the status quo wherein statutory conservation is not enough, strengthening Private Conservation Areas (PCAs) would be a great help in the pursuit of richer biodiversity and holistic conservation.

The primary objectives of the study are (1) to examine opinions landowners hold of existing conservation policies, and of the local conservation authority; and (2) to assess the needs and preferences of landowners in terms of conservation incentives. In order to address the objectives of the study, surveys were conducted and they were analyzed through qualitative techniques. It was mentioned in the methods that the researchers ‘strategically’ selected the landowners to interview. It was not stated, however, the conditions and the selection process in choosing the respondents. It was unclear how they were able to get rid or minimize the biases that come with the procedure in qualitative studies, which in this case is the use survey questionnaire.

As part of the procedure, the respondents were given a brief overview about what the Stewardship Program is all about. They were informed that three voluntary options for designing private lands as conservation areas under which the incentives and land-use limitations increase as the security of the designation increases. It turns out that some of the landowners were not aware of the Stewardship Program. It can be either due to lack of information or may be because the program is still new. It also showed that most of the respondents have doubts with regards to the implementation, considering that most of them also lack confidence as to CNC’s capability of doing so (Pasquini, et. al. 2009).

According to the study, only about <15% of the respondents wanted monetary incentive for taking action in conservation of their lands. Most of them just wanted to be acknowledged by the local government and be given appropriate awards. As per some of the private landowners, they feel neglected and unappreciated. There was no form of follow-up or ay contact from CNC regarding the progress of the program or for any updates in general. However, the study seemed to remove the benefit of the doubt for CNC. The study did not include the part of the CNC. It was rather a bit prejudice. It seems like the researchers took the words of the respondents right away. We cannot disregard the possibility that perhaps the gap wasn’t the fault of CNC alone considering that there were groups which worked well with the conservation body. One of the limitations of the selection of the respondents is their ability to be reached by the researchers since not all of them resides in the protected land itself or anywhere nearby. This can also be one of the reasons why some of the landowners don’t have enough contact with the CNCs. This is only a possibility but it’s important to know the side of CNC to really understand where the gap begins.

Based on the results, the researchers recommended that policies on private-land conservation should focus on the following objectives to strengthen more the conservation projects and to make the efforts more feasible—(1) providing extension services to landowners; (2) promoting the formation of groups and associations between PCA owners and other interested stakeholders; and (3) publicly acknowledging the conservation contributions private protected areas and landowners make.

These recommendations might already been happening in the status quo, but surely there’s still a room for improvement. Exerting more efforts on both sides, the government and private-land owners, will definitely ensure more success in conserving biodiversity in the form of Private Land Conservation. For a community that also depends on gaming and ecotourism, succeeding in this goal is definitely a win-win deal for everyone.

Who killed the fish?

Environment-related issues have been more rampant and have become more magnified during the past few years. Most of these are noted to be anthropogenic. Because of the losses and the growing concern for environmental welfare, scientists, the community, and the concerned government agencies alike have been more keen and vigilant about the things that are going on.

     Having a vast coastline, which translates to abundance in aquatic resources, studies about fisheries and other organisms have also been becoming popular considering how vulnerable these ecosystems can be.
      Among the many efforts to enhance the fishing industry are the studies made which focus on fishkills. An example to this is the Pre-Community Forum 2012: Special Fishkill Seminar. It took place on August 24, 2012 at the University of the Philippines, Los Banos.
    Since fishkills also happen not just in the Philippines, the organizers of the event invited Zen’ichiro Kawabata from Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN) of Japan. He presented his study on “Analysis for Understanding Fishkill Experiences in Japan.”
     The primary objective of including the presentation of Kawabata’s study during the seminar was to somehow share to the Filipinos what has been happening in Japan, and to let us learn from their mistakes.
     In general, the malpractices in Japan which resulted to fishkill are also true in the Philippine context. Eutrophication and red tide are still the major culprits for the massive deaths of fishes. As a way to dilute the nutrient-rich bay waters, Japanese opens the watergate to flash out the water into the sea. They strongly recommend low population density for ponds and cages. They also advise owners of artificial ponds to change the water regularly so to avoid the presence of dense algal bloom. They have admitted that the measures seem easy, however due to political conflicts, resolving the issue becomes unnecessarily harder. Kawabata specifically stressed the importance of citizen’s awareness.
    What’s good about the seminar was that the organizers invited representatives from biophysical science, health department, LLDA, and an expert to comment for institutional perspective. They were given a chance to say something about their stand and to share updates in behalf of their respective institutions. The voices of the fisherfolks were also heard during the open forum.
     Based on the exchange of comments and thoughts during the seminar, I still personally believe that rehabilitating Laguna de Bay is indeed a mission impossible due to its complexity and broadness of the scope. However, the concern and the love of the people for the lake were too obvious to ignore that they seem to be the string of hope and lifeline for the said ecosystem.
      Through the combined efforts of the stakeholders, everyone is hopeful to finally get rid of fishkills from occurring. Driven by this goal, the holding of seminar continues to take place in different areas, targeting more crowds. The goal of preventing fishkills from happening and enriching the Philippine fisheries are definitely worth the effort and time.

Checking her refugees

          The seminar on Biodiversity of Peak 3 Mt. Makiling: A Preliminary Report by Dr. Manuel L. Castillo and Prof. Juancho B. Balatibat was a timely activity as the Makiling Center for Mountain Ecosystem (MCME) celebrated its 14^th anniversary on June 26^th, 2012.

            Understanding that the knowledge of ecosystem’s biodiversity is one of the primary steps to preserve a habitat and to conserve its refugees, the said group of researchers decided to accept the challenge of the infamous tough Peak 3 in an attempt to record its flora and fauna.

            According to the report, several plants and animals have been spotted in the area. For the list of existing animal species in the area, Prof. Balatibat included those that were seen by the local residents and those that left evidences on the trail. He acknowledged the difficulty of sighting mobile species considering the limited time spent in the area. Some of the species are known to be endemic in the Philippines. In general, they were also able to give overview about the status of the species. Interestingly, the researchers were still able to record some of the same species which were initially recorded as early as 1885.

            It was very clever to play a slideshow of pictures taken during the expedition while waiting for the seminar to set about. It was a very effective form of teaser. The presentation of the pictures of the species found the mountain was one of the most interesting parts of the said event as it gave way to help us paint a picture of how amazing the said ecosystem really is.

            Only few of the pictures of the fauna have been presented. It is understandable that it’s hard to take shots for a moving object but still, it could have been a lot better if more pictures were shown. There were numerous species that were unnamed or unidentified. As per the researchers, those might be new discoveries. They have been truthful to admit that there aren’t enough resources (both human and material) to help them classify the species. The report did not include mentioning whether there have been species recorded during the earlier explorations that were not seen in Haring Bato.

            It is good to know that our researchers are still up to taking extra miles to discover new things, literally and figuratively. This expedition in Mt. Makiling will definitely become a benchmark for future studies of the mountain, especially in the realm of biodiversity. True, it could have been better to have experts to help us arrive to accurate conclusions. Good news is we’re on our way there and this research is the step one of the process. Journeys begin in little steps, so does great knowledge begins in little discoveries.

(A reaction paper for a seminar.)