LA TRINIDAD, Benguet – Any well- meaning government thrust towards lasting conservation and services must still actively involve Indigenous People (IP) directly linked to the natural system it seeks to protect, conservation savants say.
If not implemented this way, such an effort can be deemed as “externally-imposed environmental power dynamics,” lending a shadow of it being merely a fanciful move by implementers on a targeted indigenous area, as regards environmental responsibility.
Without consensus and approval of IPs regarding environmental considerations, such pursuit can fray relationships between implementers and IPs that may become acute when such a project tends to bear pressure on IP concerns like resources on water, land, minerals, social dimensions, their culture and tradition.
It would do well for any government entity to be guided by the so-called “rights-based approach” in the implementation of environmental concerns, meaning, IPs should be identified as “rights-holders,” rather than “stakeholders.”
When opportunities arise for collaboration, evidence supports the most impactful and enduring action that can be achieved to protect ecosystems and biodiversity and tackle climate change.
Government offices (whether national, provincial of LGUs) implementing environmental concerns on indigenous areas should be pragmatic enough to accept that IPs and local communities have long protected their lands and waters in mutual dependence with nature and guided by strong connection to their respective places and cultures.
IP stewardship and management have often been seen achieving more conservation and biodiversity results if contrasted with what is officially called out as government Protected Areas (PAs). One good example is the “muyong,” practice of the Ifugao tribe in Ifugao, which is the concept of community-owned and protected forests.
Ecosystem service has always been crucial to Cordillera indigenous people as they are dependent on local biodiversity and environmental services for sustenance and well-being – like the community or protected forests, called “tayan” system by the Bontoc tribe.
And for this alone, Cordillera indigenous people are more vulnerable than most to the impact of climate change, the reason why they are sensitive when it comes to environment projects introduced in their localities.
A study titled “Ecosystem Services Through the Lens of Indigenous People in the Highlands of Cordillera Region, Northern Philippines,” assessed indigenous people’s perception on environment development and how it affects ecosystem services.
A total of 921 (485 women and 436 males) respondents, with ages ranging from 18 to 77 years old were involved in the study.
Respondents came from the Ibaloy, Kalanguya and kankana-ey in Benguet Province and Ayangan and Tuwali in Ifugao Province whose years of residency in CAR ranged from 5 to 64 years and up. The study was conducted in different communities of both provinces. Respondents belong to 922 households.
It was conducted by Joyce N. Paing, Lars G. Hein, Lenny G. van Bussel and Romeo A. Gomez, Jr., in close cooperation with Benguet Local Government Units (LGUs), Ifugao LGUs, Environmental Science of Benguet State University (BSU) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED-CAR) and the first to be conducted assessing environmental services perceptions involving IP communities.
Ecosystem services represent the ecological contributions to benefits people get from natural and agro-ecosystems. In the case of Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), the study classified it as provisioning which include food, fibers, firewood, freshwater supply, ornamental and medicinal resources.
Second is regulating which includes climate regulation, water purification, carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation and habitat service while the third covers culture which frames tourism and recreational activities.
Respondents have been found to appreciate the absolute values provided by environmental sources and which are strongly influenced by occupation, gender and age. In short, CAR indigenous people recognize the “reciprocal relationship between biological and cultural diversity and inter-independence and partnership between nature and people.”
Respondents understand the socio economic factors that influence their perception of the natural and agro-ecological areas as essential linkage between their livelihood and their conservation aspects.
It is for such reason that when a government-initiated environmental project is planned in an indigenous locale, it is closely studied with a “discerning eye,” even with suspicion by IPS, these being only laid to rest if they are assured the future project doesn’t run afoul with their environmental concepts and values.
There’s this word termed “inayan,” often spoken by CAR IPs regarding matters that can affect families or communities. When an idea, concept or act is about to be introduced to them, it is studied closely; if it is good for the community and residents, it is accepted.
When such an idea, concept or act favors only a few and is deemed negative to most, it is discarded, for it is the belief of the indigenous tribe folks it can bring bad vibes rather than good to them. Hence the word, “inayan.”
Looking at the environmental service for food for IP folks in CAR, the researchers noted traditional farming systems for rice still exist and critical sources of environmental service as it provides provisioning and cultural environmental service.
Respondents revealed that before rice planting, they perform rituals as petition before the deities for bountiful harvest. However, one positive indicator about this rice ritual was observed by the researchers: it makes IP communities more resilient or enables them in a communal way to address climate change or external pressures that affect their livelihood.
Other rituals, social roles and norms of CAR IPs were indicated in the study even when it comes to sowing other food plants until harvesting. These acts create a dynamic form of sociality among CAR IPs.
A total of 17 ecosystem services were identified and appreciated by CAR IPs, seven of these were provisioning services like food, animal food, medicinal resources, timber and firewood, handicraft materials and animal labor.
Provisioning are perceived by respondents as the most valued ecosystem services, including food, income and medicinal resources, followed by cultural and regulation ecosystem services.
Provisioning ecosystem services they derive was obtained from collection and selling what is in short called by the researchers as NTFPs or non-traditional food products like wild fruits, wild vegetables, mushrooms and wild materials which are used for wood for woodcarving and rattan for basket weaving.
Other provisioning ecosystem they identified include harvest from farm outputs and by serving as tour guides and porters to nearby cultural and historical landscapes.
They identified two regulating services which are purification of water and climate regulation. Cultural services fall under the category of culture value for ritual purposes, rice-wine making, holy mass offering, educational information, preservation of memories, scenery or aesthetic value, recreation and health purposes.
Cultural ecosystem like rice-wine making or in the local dialect is called “tapey,” is a long-held traditional practice in CAR households and usually prepared by elderly women. Tapey is then stored, ready to be used as offering or to appease spirits of their dead. Many of the respondents also revealed they sell tapey for additional income.
In holy mass offering identified by respondents as a cultural value of ecosystem service, they said they often segregate portions of their farm harvest as offering during Sunday holy masses.
Furthermore, cultural values and animal labor being associated by the IPs to livestock farming, they utilize chicken, pig and water buffalo as offering during traditional rituals for a bountiful harvest or appeasing spirits, the researchers note.
Most of the respondents are fully aware of the full range of ecosystem service provided by the landscape and farming systems in CAR as having a strong influence in shaping local perception about ecosystem service.
For example, in communities in Benguet, the researchers discovered the ecosystem service is highly attached to the Kankana-ey, Ibaloy and Kalanguya IPs value on conventional farming systems for production of high value crops.
In the case of Ifugao, respondents elucidated that many ecosystem services they enjoy spring from the Banaue Rice Terraces like native rice varieties, rice-selling, wine-making and as tourist guide and porter.
However, the researchers were told Ifugao communities are now following in the footsteps of the Benguet folks in the ecosystem service of producing high value vegetables, but still not at par at how the Benguet folks do it.
Understanding IPs perception, use and prioritization of ecosystem services is important for shaping local environment policies and projects.
