NIPAS Act

NIPAS Act
Short title	National Integrated Protected Areas System Act
Long title	An Act Providing for the Establishment and Management of Protected Areas, Integrating the Existing Protected Areas System, and for Other Purposes
Citation	Republic Act No. 7586
Enacted by	House of Representatives of the Philippines and Senate of the Philippines
Signed by	Fidel V. Ramos
Date signed	1992-06-01
Status	in force

Contents

NIPAS Act The National Integrated Protected Areas System Act established a statutory framework for conserving terrestrial and marine protected areas across the Philippines. Enacted during the administration of Fidel V. Ramos and passed by the House of Representatives of the Philippines and the Senate of the Philippines, the law sought to reconcile biodiversity conservation with resource use across islands like Luzon, Mindanao, and Visayas. It provided mechanisms for zoning, management planning, and stakeholder participation involving agencies such as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and local governments like the Province of Palawan and Cebu Province.

Background and Legislative History

The Act emerged amid global and national conservation milestones, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Conservation Strategy, and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Domestic precedents included protected areas like Mount Makiling, Mount Apo Natural Park, Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park, and statutes such as the Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines and earlier proclamations by presidents including Ferdinand Marcos and Corazon Aquino. Legislative deliberations involved committees chaired by members from districts including Quezon City and Davao City and drew input from civil society organizations such as Haribon Foundation, WWF-Philippines, and Conservation International. International donors and institutions including the Asian Development Bank, United Nations Development Programme, and USAID influenced drafting and pilot projects.

The law created institutional responsibilities for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Philippine agencies like the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau and mechanisms for declaring areas through proclamations by the President of the Philippines. It mandated management instruments such as management plans, zoning schemes, and protection regimes akin to frameworks used by IUCN and standards referenced by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The statute set out roles for local government units such as Barangay councils, provincial capitols like Palawan Provincial Capitol, and national line agencies including the Department of Agriculture and Department of Tourism in managing buffer zones and community-based initiatives resembling programs by CARE Philippines and Asian Development Bank projects.

Protected areas were classified into categories reflecting models found in IUCN guidance and examples like Coron Island, Apo Reef Natural Park, Sagada caves, and mangrove preserves around Zamboanga Peninsula. Categories encompassed national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, natural monuments, and marine reserves. Management approaches mandated multi-stakeholder Protected Area Management Boards involving representatives from groups such as National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, indigenous communities from regions like Cordillera Administrative Region, academic institutions like University of the Philippines, and NGOs including Philippine Eagle Foundation. Zoning and carrying-capacity rules echoed practices from Galápagos National Park and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park while integrating customary tenure systems found among Ifugao, Palawan indigenous groups, and Lumad communities.

Implementation relied on coordination among enforcement bodies including the Philippine National Police, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and park rangers trained in methods used by organizations such as Wildlife Conservation Society and TRAFFIC. Funding instruments included trust funds, user fees, and donor-supported endowments similar to mechanisms by World Bank projects. Legal enforcement drew on administrative orders by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, judicial remedies pursued in regional trial courts and the Philippine Supreme Court, and interagency operations with the Coast Guard of the Philippines against illegal logging, poaching, and dynamite fishing—complaints also raised before bodies like the Commission on Human Rights (Philippines) by affected communities.

The law contributed to formal designation of sites such as Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park, Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park, and Mount Pulag National Park, influencing tourism promoted by entities like the Department of Tourism and private operators in Boracay. Conservation successes cited by researchers at institutions like Ateneo de Manila University and University of the Philippines Los Baños include habitat protection and species recoveries for taxa similar to Philippine eagle and tamaraw. Criticisms arose from academics and activists at organizations such as Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment and legal challenges involving land claims by indigenous groups represented through the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. Analysts from think tanks like Philippine Institute for Development Studies and international reviewers noted gaps in funding, overlaps with the Local Government Code of 1991, weak enforcement against corporations including mining firms, and conflicts comparable to disputes in Amazon rainforest and Borneo conservation cases.

Subsequent legislative and policy developments interacted with the Act, including amendments and related statutes such as laws on indigenous rights like the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997, fisheries management under the Fisheries Code (Philippines), and environmental impact procedures tied to the Environmental Impact Statement System. Institutional reforms involved the evolution of agencies like the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau and collaborations with international programs from UNEP and GEF. Court decisions by the Supreme Court of the Philippines and administrative issuances by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources further shaped implementation, while sectoral policies from the Department of Agriculture, Department of Tourism, and regional development plans influenced how protected areas aligned with national development strategies.