Heritage And A Conservation Fund- Working Together To Help Save The Ifugao Rice Terraces

Heritage Tourism and a Conservation Fund: Working Together to Help Save the Ifugao Rice Terraces of the Philippines

by

Eulalie Dulnuan

Thesis Code SAL- 80433

1

Heritage Tourism and a Conservation Fund: Working Together to Help Save the Ifugao Rice Terraces of the Philippines MSc Thesis (Thesis code SAL-80433)

Submitted by Eulalie D. Dulnuan Registration number 660901203040

Submitted to Chair Group Socio-Spatial Analysis Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University and Research Centre and World Leisure International Centre of Excellence (WICE)

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN LEISURE, TOURISM AND ENVIRONMENT

Supervisor: Dr. Leo van den Berg Second Examiner: Ir. Marlies W. van Hal

August 2007 Wageningen University and Research Centre The Netherlands

2

Abstract Dulnuan, E. D. (2007) Heritage Tourism and a Conservation Fund: Working Together to Help Save the Ifugao Rice Terraces of the Philippines. MSc thesis for the Socio-Spatial Analysis Group, Wageningen University and Research Center, The Netherlands. While UNESCO has declared the Ifugao rice terraces as a World Heritage Site, it has also enlisted it as endangered. This study assesses the conservation that UNESCO advocated for the Ifugao Rice Terraces and how the different stakeholders could contribute towards the restoration and maintenance of the rice terraces. The findings from literature reveal that UNESCO needs to consider the indigenous approach to conservation, looking not only at the terraces but at the whole landscape. Findings from a survey also reveal that tourists are willing to pay tourist fees to aid in the conservation. Grass-root level stakeholders have the innate capacity for collective work which is the indigenous and traditional approach to rice culture which made the rice terraces survive through a thousand years. This study recommends a campaign for the return of the practice of collective work (baddang and ubbu). It also recommends that the Heritage Maintenance Fund be locally-based (at the barangay or village level) for the farmers and farmer groups to easily access the fund for the maintenance of the rice terraces. Furthermore, it calls for a coherent implementation of the collection of the tourist fees, starting with an information campaign to inform and educate the tourists and local residents on the value and importance of the tourist fee and the Heritage Maintenance Fund. Finally, it endorses the use of matching funds (in terms of labour and materials) from the farmers and farmer groups before they could use the Heritage Maintenance Fund so as to remove a dole-out mentality and to spread the fund’s benefit to more area and more people. Key words: Conservation, heritage tourism, heritage maintenance fund, willingness-topay, tourist fee(s), Ifugao Rice Terraces

3

Table of Contents ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................................4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................6 LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES .............................................................................................7 GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................9 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3 1.4

PROBLEM STATEMENT .................................................................................................................10 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ..................................................................10 Research objectives: ..............................................................................................................10 Research questions ................................................................................................................11 RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY .........................................................................................................11 CONCEPTUAL MATRIX ................................................................................................................12

CHAPTER 2: IMPRESSIONS ON TOURISM BENEFITS, CONSERVATION AND EMPOWERMENT......................................................................................................................................13 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.5

WHO BENEFITS FROM TOURISM? .................................................................................................13 Third World vis-à-vis First World .........................................................................................13 New forms of tourism.............................................................................................................14 Indigenous tourism ................................................................................................................15 Does tourism pay? .................................................................................................................17 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................18 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT .....................................................................................19 How could sustainable tourism be achieved?........................................................................19 Stakeholders...........................................................................................................................20 HERITAGE CONSERVATION: BY WHOM AND FOR WHOM? ...........................................................21 Cultural heritage ...................................................................................................................21 Conservation and Authenticity...............................................................................................25 Contemporary Theory of Conservation .................................................................................26 Who should pay for conservation? ........................................................................................27 Who should do the job of conservation?................................................................................29 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................30 EMPOWERMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY .......................................................................................30 Power to the people ...............................................................................................................30 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................33 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK........................................................................................................34

CHAPTER 3: FINAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY ......................................38 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5

FINAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS .....................................................................................................38 RESEARCHER’S POSITION ............................................................................................................38 RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................................................................39 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................40 Survey ....................................................................................................................................40 Interview ................................................................................................................................40 Secondary data ......................................................................................................................41 Content analysis ....................................................................................................................41 Data analysis .........................................................................................................................41

CHAPTER 4: THE CASE OF IFUGAO..................................................................................................42 4.1 IFUGAO, THE STUDY AREA ...........................................................................................................43 4.1.1 Geographical location ...........................................................................................................43 4.1.2 Demographic features ...........................................................................................................44

4

4.1.3 History ...................................................................................................................................46 4.1.4 The Ifugao Rice Terraces.......................................................................................................46 4.2 TOURISM IN IFUGAO ....................................................................................................................48 4.2.1 The Tourism Master Plan ......................................................................................................49 4.3 CONSERVATION...........................................................................................................................51 4.3.1 Background of Conservation in Ifugao Province ..................................................................51 4.3.2 The 5-year Conservation Plan...............................................................................................53 4.4 THE STAKEHOLDERS ...................................................................................................................54 4.4.1 Grass root level stakeholders ................................................................................................54 4.4.2 Local residents.......................................................................................................................55 4.4.3 Local government units (barangay, municipal and provincial levels)...................................55 4.4.4 People’s organizations ..........................................................................................................56 4.4.5 Non-government organizations..............................................................................................57 4.4.6 National agencies ..................................................................................................................58 4.4.7 Tourism..................................................................................................................................60 4.4.8 UNESCO/IUCN/WHC ...........................................................................................................61 CHAPTER 5: SETTING UP THE HERITAGE MAINTENANCE FUND ..........................................63 5.1 CONSERVATION AND EMPOWERMENT IN THE IFUGAO RICE TERRACES.......................................63 5.1.1 Conservation..........................................................................................................................63 5.1.2 Power to the People...............................................................................................................70 5.1.3 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................73 5.2 HOW CAN A HERITAGE MAINTENANCE FUND FROM TOURISM BE EFFECTIVELY PUT UP? ..............74 5.2.1 Willingness-to-pay .................................................................................................................75 5.2.2 Local government charges.....................................................................................................78 5.2.3 Collection methods ................................................................................................................80 5.2.4 Tourist perception..................................................................................................................86 5.2.4 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................87 5.3 HOW CAN THE HERITAGE MAINTENANCE FUND FROM TOURISM REACH THE GRASS ROOT ..........88 LEVEL AND HOW WILL IT BE USED?............................................................................................................88 5.3.1 From the tourist to the farmer ...............................................................................................88 5.3.2 Using the Heritage Maintenance Fund..................................................................................90 5.3.3 Looking at the budget and expected costs..............................................................................93 5.3.4 Transparency .........................................................................................................................94 5.3.5 Synthesis ................................................................................................................................94 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................96 6.1 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................96 6.1.1 General ..................................................................................................................................96 6.1.2 Empowerment ........................................................................................................................96 6.1.3 Heritage Maintenance Fund..................................................................................................97 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................98 6.2.1 Campaign for baddang and ubbu ..........................................................................................98 6.2.2 Heritage maintenance fund to be barangay-based ................................................................98 6.2.3 Coherent implementation of the collection of the tourist fees................................................99 6.2.4 Financial counterparts ..........................................................................................................99 6.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .....................100 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................101 ANNEXES..................................................................................................................................................104 ANNEX 1 ANNEX 2 ANNEX 3 ANNEX 4:

SAMPLE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................................104 INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR FARMERS: ...................................................................................107 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ....................................................................................................108 THE IFUGAO RICE TERRACES PROBLEM TREE .................................................................108

5

Acknowledgement

I

thank Ford Foundation (International Fellowships Program) whose generosity made dreams come true. The kindness of Ms Louisa Fernan, the vivacity of Ms. Dada Flores and the assistance of Ms Lauren Samac will not be forgotten. My IFP Batch 2004 Cohorts will fondly be remembered every time “If I Could Change the World” is sung. I thank Leo van den Beg for his professional supervision of this research. He invariably manages to make one feel capable in spite of seemingly untenable research questions. The sessions with him always made me feel better and confident. I thank the MLE department who gave the preparatory work for this study. I owe the beautiful memories of group studies, excursions, and coffee breaks to my study group: Roslita Arsyad, Idris Bertsch, Doreen Chen, Nyangabo Musika, Putra Trisna, Mario Urbina, Sonya Isaeva. My thanks to everyone who assisted during the fieldwork, especially to Ms. Brenda Saquing, Golly Roses Dulnuan, Eileen Jo, and Ezekiel Dulnuan who bravely went with me to seek out interviewees. To the hospitable people of Bayninan, Nagacadan, more power to you! I owe my weight gain to my fellow pinoys, who provided the innumerable lunches, dinners and picnics. The friendship, support, company and prayers kept homesickness in abeyance. Maraming maraming salamat sa inyo I thank my 5-year-old niece, Minnie Darling, for her question, “What’s keeping you too long?” When the going gets tough, her question prodded me to get on towards the finish line. My inspiration for the difficult times is my family, especially my parents. Their belief and love for me never cease to bolster the flagging spirit and a waning confidence. Finally, I thank God Almighty upon whose grace I finished this research.

"When we look back and wonder how we ever made it through, we realize it’s not because we’ve been clever but because God has been wise, not because we’ve been strong but because God has been mighty; not because we’ve been consistent but because God has been faithful.

6

List of Figures, Tables and Boxes List of Figures Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 Figure 5.6 Figure 5.7 Figure 5.8 Figure 5.9 Figure 5.10

Sample decision process for setting up tourism fees Argument for public participation Overall Framework for sustainable tourism development Key actors An input-output model Survey Community meeting Interview Focus group discussion Fieldwork Location map of Ifugao Province Map of the study area and inscribed sites to the World Heritage Sites The contrast between indigenous practice and World Property Conservation concepts How much are tourists willing to pay Tourists’ preference on whether fee should be paid per day or per visit Tourists’ preference on whether fee should be voluntary or compulsory Tourists’ preference on payment method, whether per site, attraction, or province-wide A sample entrance fee ticket Tourists’ preference to whom to pay Collection process from tourists to the grass root level Users of the Heritage Maintenance Fund Group of pictures

28 32 35 37 37 42 42 42 42 42 43 45 65 76 77 77 82 86 87 89 89 95

List of Tables Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 3.1 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3:

Criteria often used for sustainability in tourism Comparing the management of cultural heritage and tourism industry Participation in alternative planning models Research questions vis-à-vis measurements and methods Tourism arrivals in Ifugao from 2000-2005 Logframe of objective 6 Tourists’ agreement and disagreement on the conservation of the Ifugao rice terraces Tourists’ perception on the importance of conservation of the Ifugao rice terraces A speculative financial statement of the Heritage Maintenance Fund

19 22 33 39 49 54 69

Essence of baddang Essence of ubbu Interview with Juan Dait, Jr.

71 72 84

70 93

List of Boxes Box 1 Box 2 Box 3

7

Glossary Frequently-used abbreviations: BRTTF, Banaue Rice Terraces Task Force CAR, Cordillera Administrative Region CECAP, Central Cordillera Agricultural Programme DA, Department of Agriculture DENR, Department of Environment and Natural Resources DOT, Department of Tourism ICOM, International Council of Museums ICOMOS, International Council on Monuments and Sites INGO, International Non-Government Organization IRT, Ifugao Rice Terraces IRTCHO, Ifugao Rice Terraces and Cultural Heritage Office ITC, Ifugao Terraces Commission IUCN, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources NCCA, National Commission on Culture and Arts NCIP, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples NGO, non-government organization NIA, National Irrigation Administration PPDO, Provincial Planning and Development Office PRRM, Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement SITMO, Save the Terraces Movement UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization WTTC, World Travel and Tourism Council Frequently-used local terms: baddang - workgroup for constructing and maintaining terrace walls and canals barangay - the smallest political-administrative unit in the Philippines (approximately 100-400 households in rural areas) dikit - also diket, glutinous or sticky rice muyong- woodlot sitio - a neighborhood, several of which make up a barangay tapuy- rice wine tinawon- Ifugao’s native rice tomona – agricultural leader ubbu - workgroup for planting and harvesting

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

Built cultural heritage faces the challenge of competing for needed resources for its preservation and conservation. Ready and Navrud (2002) raise the question “Should preservation and restoration efforts be supported by tax revenues, or should cultural heritage goods be self-supporting, either through user fees or donations and subscriptions?” Third World countries have more pressing needs than restoration and preservation thus tax revenues are allocated to meeting basic needs. In developing countries, restoration and conservation efforts are often supported by the government only when international non-government organizations such as UNESCO give funding. Such support and funding however are always limited in budget and time, thus sustainability of conservation efforts are also limited. The other option raised by Ready and Navrud (2002) of being self-supporting could be the more likely alternative. Self-support leads to self-reliance and empowerment that will ultimately lead to sustainable development, the dream of all Third World countries. The very nature of culture tourism (commercial goals) and cultural heritage management (a broader social goal) drive both to parallel paths, sharing the same resource base but for different purposes and on different principles. McKercher and du Cros (2002) came up with possible relationships between tourism and cultural heritage assets which ranges from full cooperation to full conflict. A balance has to be found in this continuum for cultural heritage management and cultural/heritage tourism to realize their needs and interests. The goal is therefore to make tourism profitable as well as be a mechanism to reinforce the traditional cohesive elements of the culture. This is especially true in indigenous communities whose culture attract tourists and at the same time whose culture needs protection and conservation. One such community is the Ifugao tribe in the Philippines. The indigenous community of Ifugao is recognized to have made the Ifugao rice terraces which were nominated as a World Heritage site in 1995. They built terraces on steep mountain slopes to produce rice, making a landscape that attracted tourists. In 2001, the World Heritage Committee inscripted the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee cited that the rice terraces are in an alarming state of degradation, and listed the reasons for the degradation to be the disappearing cultural practices, alterations to the traditional terrace agro-ecosystem, out migration, environmental degradation, land conversion, and “development”. Thus conservation efforts were exerted to save the Ifugao Rice Terraces. An Ifugao Rice Terraces Master Plan was drawn up whereby prioritized actions included eco-cultural tourism. These actions were to be developed into project proposals for national and international assistance. This brings the issue back to the inability of the national government to provide financial support for restoration and preservation of cultural heritage. Another issue facing Ifugao’s tourism is on the spread of benefits. While tourism has been in Ifugao since the ‘70s, Ifugao continues to be poor. In 2000, Ifugao was the fourth poorest province in Third-World Philippines (PPDO 2000). The benefits that tourism

9

provides leak outside, and what is left goes to the local elite. As Mowforth & Munt (1998) observed among the Kuna Indians of Panama, “the greatest profits from tourism, however, undoubtedly accrue to the owners of the hotels and their families.” These benefits never truly reach the Ifugao farmers, the very people who built and maintain the terraces, stewards of the environment and keepers of Ifugao culture that play a critical role in protecting the main tourist attractions. This is perhaps one of the greatest threats to sustaining the local tourism industry, because without participation and cooperation from Ifugao farmers the terraces will continue to degrade, and with them will go the local tourism industry. With the prudent encouragement, cultural tourism could be a means for cultural appreciation, environmental enhancement, biodiversity conservation, income-generation and above all, empowerment of the community. With economic benefits and with the gained confidence (empowerment), the Ifugaos would have the incentive to maintain the terraces, and consequently conserve the culture. 1.1 Problem statement One practical method to save the Ifugao Rice Terraces is to establish a Heritage Maintenance Trust Fund. Such a trust fund would be an excellent opportunity to raise funds through tourism which can then be directly re-invested into maintaining the terraces and financing programs to conserve the culture underpinning them. Thus the establishment of a heritage trust fund is more than just income-generation. Empowerment of the community can be achieved through the involvement of the local community in the management of such a heritage fund. This has to be done cautiously since there are many aspects to be considered. The different stakeholders’ perspective will have to be taken into account: willingness to pay by the tourists, who will benefit, recipients’ responsibilities as well as the repercussions on tourist arrivals and local community attitudes. This mode of income-generation and utilization therefore merits a close study. 1.2

Research Objectives and Research Questions

1.2.1

Research objectives:

The main objective of this study is to scrutinize the empowerment of the indigenous communities, particularly the Ifugao group of the Philippines, by investigating how the benefits of indigenous or ethnic tourism could reach the grass-root level. Specific objectives of the research include: • To help spread the benefits of heritage tourism to the grass-root level by investigating how a heritage maintenance trust fund could be established and utilized, specifically in Ifugao, Philippines. • To determine stakeholders’ perception of the mechanics of establishing and utilizing a heritage maintenance trust fund. • To find how a heritage maintenance trust fund could aid in the conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces

10

1.2.2 Research questions 1. What is a Heritage Maintenance Trust Fund? • Is it necessary? • What are potential sources of the fund? • How can a heritage fee be effectively set up? • How much should the charge/fee be? What is acceptable by the different stakeholders? • How much are the tourists willing to pay to access the Ifugao Rice Terraces? • How much are the local communities willing to accept to maintain the image/heritage? • How much is likely to be collected? How many visitors a year – international and domestic? • How did other similar sites set-up a heritage fee? • How much did similar sites charge? • Who benefits from heritage fee? 2. How will the fee reach the grass-root level? • Who will administer the trust fund? • Who will be entitled to the fund? • How will the fund be used? What specific conservation activities would be funded? 1.3 Relevance of the Study This study is designed to advance understanding on how cultural tourism and cultural heritage management could be balanced for the benefit of the stakeholders, especially the local community. It will focus on the perception of the host indigenous community on how a heritage site maintenance trust fund could be set up, introduced, collected, managed, expended and audited. Thus it will add on to the studies on empowerment for sustainable tourism development of indigenous communities, especially since the researcher is a member of the indigenous community to be studied. It also has relevance to society as empowerment is an important aspect of sustainable development. When not only poverty but also heritage issues are studied for better understanding, society stands to gain. On the practical level, the outcome of this pilot study will inform the other heritage sites of the potential of the heritage maintenance trust fund as a tool of empowerment. This study will also help inform decisions over the level of support and funding for cultural heritage, globally, nationally and locally. Findings on public preference/public opinion over how the fee will be collected and used will complement expert opinion, when the state or concerned international/global institutions such as UNESCO will indeed initiate a move towards charging heritage fees for World Heritage sites.

11

1.4 Concept

Conceptual Matrix Definition

Operationalization

Research Question

Refers to tourism activity in which indigenous people are directly involved either through control and/or having their culture serve as the essence of the attraction. (Hinch & Butler, 1996). -Also heritage tourism; ethnic tourism -A subsidiary of cultural tourism The systematic care taken to main the cultural values of cultural heritage assets for the enjoyment of present and future generations (McKercher & du Cros, 2002)

Members of Ifugao tribe have more control over tourism activities

What heritage assets are for tourist consumption? What are the likely effects on tourism if a fee be set-up?

Direct involvement of Ifugaos to restore, preserve and manage their cultural assets.

Sustainable cultural tourism

Partnership that satisfies both tourism and cultural heritage management objectives. (McKercher & du Cros, 2002)

A symbiotic relationship exists to the extent that cultural survival will contribute to economic success and economic success will contribute to cultural survival (Hinch and Butler, 1996)

Heritage Maintenance Fund

Collection of tourism fees towards a community fund will be a mechanism for recovering visitor management costs as well as the costs of traditional conservation management or community development programs (Lindberg and Huber Jr. 1993 p. 82).

Empowerment

In the context of tourism development, it is proposed that empowerment be regarded as a multi-dimensional process that provides communities with consultative process often characterized by the input of outside expertise; the opportunity to learn and to choose; the ability to make decisions; the capacity to implement/apply those decisions; acceptance of responsibility for those decisions ad actions and their consequences; and outcomes directly benefiting the community and its members, not diverted or channeled into other communities and/or their members. (Sofield, 2003) Local community (i.e. grassroots versus national or international); and the ability of selfappointed individuals to participate in the decision-making process (i.e. participatory versus representative.)

“Heritage Maintenance Fund,” is fed by a head tax levied on tourist arrivals and on tourist establishments and used for community development projects that will help save the rice terraces. Also fed by other sources such as the matching funds from farmers, funds from government and NGOs. Perception of the local community on what and how they will be involved and have control over tourism in Ifugao.

How did other similar sites set-up a heritage fund? How much did similar sites charge? What conservation projects will the heritage fee fund? How much are the tourists willing to pay to access the Ifugao rice terraces? How much are the local communities willing to accept to maintain the image/ heritage? What responsibilities are the local communities willing to undertake? How can a heritage fund be effectively set up? How much is likely to be collected?

Indigenous tourism

Cultural Heritage Management

Grass-root level

Grass-root actors share croppers)

(farmers,

How will the local community manage and use the fund?

Who benefits from heritage fund? How will the fund reach the grass-root level?

12

Chapter 2: Impressions on tourism benefits, conservation and empowerment This chapter presents the concepts and theories that this study is built on. Benefits, conservation, empowerment and sustainable tourism will be discussed and expounded since these are the core ideas that the study will deal with. Literature shows that although benefits leak from host communities, measures could be done to maximize and to ensure that benefits reach more of the local residents. Studies also show that the responsibility of conservation could be shared among the different stakeholders of the heritage being protected. This chapter further goes through literature on the relevance of empowerment and sustainable tourism. Finally, the theoretical framework is shown on diagrams to present how benefits, conservation and empowerment work together towards a sustainable heritage tourism development. 2.1

Who benefits from tourism?

2.1.1 Third World vis-à-vis First World For several decades now, tourism has been a major source of revenue for countries, particularly in the Third World. The World Tourism Organization reports the Asia and the Pacific Region got tourist receipts of €2B in 1975 to €113.1B in 2005 (UNWTO, 2006). With such a growth in revenues, Third World countries perceive tourism as a path towards development. But does tourism really benefit the Third World? Mowforth and Munt (1998) made a critical analysis of the growing relationship of development and tourism in the Third World. Third World is the geographical focus of analysis in the book. The authors refer the Third World to those nation states and institutions that make up Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa and parts of Asia. First World refers to North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. While they made references to the Third and First World, there was no mention of the Second World1. This might be reflective of the global socio-political changes in the past decades, whereby many of what used to be part of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic drifted towards being part of the Third World and the First World. Mowforth and Munt (1998) showed how the analysis of tourism can be seen through key themes and key concepts. The three key themes that they used to support their analysis are new tourism, uneven and unequal development and Third World. According to Mowforth and Munt, ‘new tourism’ refers to a variety of tourism that is different from the mainstream or conventional mass tourism. The word ‘new’ is used to link their discussions on the new types of consumers, new types of political movements and new forms of economic organization. The second theme is uneven and unequal development. This refers to the relationship between the First and Third World, where development is primarily on the side of the First World and tourism perpetuates this inequality and unevenness. One way that this relationship is reflected is the fact that it is people from the 1

"Second World" refers to the former communist-socialist, industrial states (formerly the Eastern bloc, the territory and sphere of influence of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic and China) (http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm)

13

First World who make up the bulk of international tourists and it is they who have the resources to make expensive journeys for pleasure. Through the use of hegemony, ideology, and discourse, the First World employs tourism to their interests. An example of hegemony cited was in the global concern of environmentalism, as manifested in the use of ecolabels, codes of conduct and debates on the most appropriate way to holiday. Ideology was used in the spread of the concept of sustainability. It is a concept that has been generated in the First World, perhaps out of a sentiment of guilt. Intentionally or not, this is often made to serve their interest since through it, western values are exported and in certain angles, it appears as ecocolonialism/neo-colonialism (Knox and Marston 2004; Mowforth and Munt 1998; Sofield 2003). Sustainability is also sometimes used as a discourse, used by a variety of interests in a variety of ways as a means of supporting and enhancing the basis of power. This ranges from the activities of the tourism industry to the interpretation adopted by Third World governments and environmental organizations. 2.1.2 New forms of tourism The forms of Third World tourism are the result of a variety of economic, socio-cultural and environmental factors. Mowforth and Munt (1998) cited as an example the growth of the middle classes in the First World which is linked to the growth of new tourism. Thus emerged eco-, alternative, academic, adventure, agro-, anthro-, appropriate, and many other names for these new forms of tourism2. The governance of these new forms of tourism is influenced by the requirements of international finance (International Monetary Fund, World Bank) and considerations of ideology and associated international political strategies (United Nations, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Worldwide Fund for Nature). Furthermore, Mowforth and Munt expect that the growth in the demand for new forms of tourism to Third World destinations is likely to continue, as long as the First World, as well as the elites of the Second and Third World, seek experiences that are adventurous, authentic and alternative. It is likely that the diversity of forms will continue to grow, as the middle classes of the First World continue to grow in size, wealth and free time and will demand for holidays with a difference. However, calling these forms of tourism as “new” seems inappropriate. Travel or tourism before the onset of mass tourism has been specialized too, with wealthy people traveling to distant parts of the world to see great buildings or other works of art, to learn new languages, to experience new cultures, or to taste new cuisine. Ecotourism is like an old wine in a new bottle, resurrecting the ancient tourism that Thomas Cook has revolutionized into mass tourism. Nonetheless, the trend of volunteer, donation and propoor tourism are a newer form of tourism that answer the needs of the times and reflects the increased ability of richer people to reach out to their poorer brothers.

2

See Mowforth, M., and Munt, I., p. 98 for 25 different names, an A-Z of new tourism terminology.

14

2.1.3 Indigenous tourism Local communities will continue to offer the type of holiday that the tourists demand. One such type of new tourism being offered is indigenous tourism. Butler and Hinch (1996) defined indigenous tourism3 as “tourism activity in which indigenous peoples are directly involved either through control and/or having their culture serve as the essence of the attraction” (p. 9). The factor of control, according to Bulter and Hinch (1996) is important in any discussion of development, since whoever has control can generally determine critical factors such as scale, speed and nature of development. Looking into the many definitions of indigenous peoples given by different organizations, the description of the World Bank ((1991)) fits this research: “Indigenous peoples can be identified in particular geographical areas by the presence in varying degrees of the following characteristics: a) close attachment to ancestral territories and to the natural resources in these areas; b) self-identification and identification by others as members of a distinct cultural group; c) an indigenous language, often different from the national language; d) presence of customary social and political institutions; and e) primarily subsistence-oriented production.” Indigenous tourism is synonymous to ethnic tourism. The Cooperative Research Center for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management (1999) defines ethnic tourism as follows: “ethnic tourism is when travelers choose to experience first hand the practices of another culture, and may involve performances, presentations and attractions portraying or presented by small, often isolated indigenous communities. Examples of communities that attract tourists for this reason include the Amish communities of the United States, the First Nation societies of Canada and North America, the Maori of New Zealand, Australia’s Aboriginal communities, the Bushmen of South Africa and the Ibo tribes of Indonesia”. Indigenous/ethnic tourism falls under the broad field of culture tourism which Sofield and Birtles, (1996) define as “the travelers’ desire to experience the culture of a region or country”. There are tourists however who travel to an indigenous people’s areas to experience the landscape rather than to experience the culture. Though indigenous, ethnic and cultural could be synonymous to each other, cultural tourism is much more encompassing of other cultural fields and activities which are non-ethnic/non-indigenous i.e. museums of a non-ethnic theme. Indigenous or ethnic or cultural tourism brings in benefits as well as problems to local indigenous communities. The World Tourism Organization (1998) identified the benefits as employment, local tourism enterprises, improved local living standards, enhanced local human resource development, infrastructure, improved environmental awareness and 3

Indigenous tourism does not refer to native people traveling within their own native area i.e Dutch traveling within the Netherlands.

15

justification and help for conservation of the attraction. The WTO also identified as potential problems the traffic and pedestrian congestions, excessive noise levels, pollution, resource deterioration, undue commercialization, modification of local arts, crafts and traditions, and economic leakage. The relationship of tourism and indigenous peoples raises issues such as the marginalization of indigenous tourism entrepreneurs, authenticity, commoditization of culture and acculturation (Butler and Hinch 1996). Moreover, indigenous tourism occurs within the context of a global tourism industry that is dominated by non-indigenous actors. This could be manifested when tourism is affected by an economic crisis or a political incident. Butler and Hinch (1996) cited cases where indigenous peoples managed to have a degree of control over tourism and cases where indigenous peoples had little or no control over tourism in their area. They related how poor indigenous locals in Bali, Indonesia benefited from indigenous tourism. In there, employment from tourism is considered locally as better than traditional work (agriculture) because it is better paying and less physically taxing. Wall and Long (1996) studied how the Balinese of Indonesia became active participants in indigenous tourism by offering homestay, an indigenous provision of tourism accommodation. By offering their houses as an accommodation alternative, the Balinese have a closer interaction with the tourist, with opportunities to explain aspects of Balinese life. Similarly, Grekin and Milne (1996) studied how small Inuit communities in the Canadian Arctic benefited from a government policy to make tourism community based and this is appropriate to the social and cultural traditions of the Inuit. Through artifact production and guiding, the Inuits managed to have a high degree of local involvement. However, they have to hide their traditional Inuit wildlife harvesting from the tourist gaze to avoid offending the tourists. In Nepal, on the other hand, tourist benefits were shown to escape the residents. The indigenous peoples who are the local suppliers of products and services find that they are not capable of supplying in huge quantities and high quality. Thus, products and services are imported. Approximately 90% of total foreign exchange earnings go to tourismgenerating countries in the form of goods and services for the tourist (MacLellan et al. 2000). In a remote area in Nepal called Mustang, tourism failed in its broader goals of community upliftment and conservation. Gurung and DeCoursey (2000) gave an analysis of what went wrong and the lessons learned from Nepal’s lost kingdom of Mustang. Prior to opening the place to tourism, the indigenous people were assured that 60% of revenues earned would be available for the community for rural development and heritage conservation. To finance the plan, Mustang was opened to tourists in 1992 with control measures. A limit of 200 tourists was allowed, payment of $500 per tourist was established, an environmental officer was required to accompany all tour groups to ensure environmental protocols and a non-government organization was employed to oversee tourist development. However, eventually, the number of tourists allowed was increased, the payment required from the tourists was reduced and the NGO encountered problems. Gurung and DeCoursey identified several factors for the troubles encountered such as insecure funding, short-sighted policies and poor enhancement, rapid pace of tourism

16

development, poorly defined roles of stakeholders, high visibility4, high pressure and high expectations. Lessons learned were the need for systematic planning, clearly defined roles, rights and responsibilities, and supportive legal and policy framework. It is disturbing that in spite of efforts to do the right process of consultation and implementation, things still go awry. 2.1.4 Does tourism pay? In determining if tourism pays, Sherman and Dixon (1997) gave a framework of maximizing benefits in the area of nature tourism. Indigenous tourism would do well to apply these schemes to get the most from tourism. Sherman and Dixon rationalize that tourism can integrate conservation and rural development by providing revenues for planning and management, stimulating economic growth development. Though they acknowledge that the majority of benefits accrue to the tour operators and that little remains in-country, they identified a number of mechanisms (user fees, concession fees, royalties, tax policies and donation programmes) that government and local communities can put in place to increase the benefits from tourism. Charging fees is the easiest method of capturing benefits where tourists are charged a user fee to use an object (binoculars) or opportunity, area (camping place), an entrance fee to enter an attraction, an admission fee to a specific facility (Lindberg and Huber Jr. 1993; Sherman and Dixon 1997). Sherman and Dixon advocate the use of a two-tiered fee system in developing countries. With this, there is a lower charge for domestic residents and a higher charge for international visitors. This policy promotes the condition of local participation as an inherent aspect of sustainability. Concession fees can also be charged to individuals and firms who provide services to visitors. Thus there are licenses of concessions for food, lodging, transportation, guide services and retail stores. Governments could also impose conditions on these concessions to benefit the area, such as hiring of local people and selling local products. Royalties (percentages on the revenues) could be charged on films, books and photos that are made about the tourist site. The government could also enact tax policies, such as hotel room tax, sales or excise taxes on tourist-related goods and services. Since these taxes are included in the price of goods and services, it is an unobtrusive means of revenue collection. Governments can also establish and promote donation programs geared towards tourists and non-tourists. Tourists could see first-hand the problems of the area especially when pointed out by residents or guides. Non-tourists could be reached through conservation groups who campaigns to raise funds from interested individuals. A combination of the abovementioned fees could be used to allow flexibility and to maximize profit. However, Lindberg and Huber Jr. (1993 p103) cautions that the ‘number of different fees should be kept at a minimum to avoid tourist confusion and frustration”. Recognizing that the bulk of a tourist’s expenditure goes to the airline that brought him to the tourism site, it would be advantageous for the government to use its national carriers 4

After 500 years of isolation, Mustang was suddenly placed in the limelight. When it opened, the area was deluged by foreign dignitaries, filmmakers and photojournalists.

17

to compete for tourists in the global market. Though it is capital-intensive, its revenue potential and opportunities for the desired interpretation and education is also big. Joint ventures with transnational tour operators and intercontinental hotels for the necessary stop-over in the bigger cities are also possibilities that could be explored. Benefits should reach the local communities, especially the rural villagers, as advocated by Sherman and Dixon (1997). Employment of as many residents as possible in tourismrelated services is a direct way of benefiting the local community. Training them to gain and enhance the needed skills should be considered before bringing in qualified outside labour. The use of locally produced goods and products would also benefit the community, especially the farmers. Earmarking a portion of collected fees for the use of the local community is a technique that would go a long way toward compensating residents for the use of their resources. Fees collected could go towards community development such as school construction, sanitation facilities, water systems and health clinics. In the 1980’s, when the conservation movement in Africa was criticized for its treatment of local communities, the Communal Areas Management Programmes for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) model was developed. This model gives authority to district councils to manage the wildlife area in their locale. Local communities directly profited from tourism, with the majority of the profits going to community projects and direct payments to households. Lindberg and Hawkins (1993) related how this happened in Zimbabwe, noting that this model gave to the community a sense of ownership. They further wrote about the Wildlife Conservation Fund in Zambia, whereby “forty percent of these funds were given to local chiefs for community projects”, and poaching of elephants decreased at least tenfold (Lindberg and Huber Jr. 1993). 2.1.5 Conclusion So then, who benefits from tourism? Although Third World countries get much from tourism, these revenues are but a small percentage of what First World countries get. Indeed, if one looks into the WTO figures again, the revenues that the Third World countries have received are but a small percentage to what Europe and the Americas receive. They get back (through leakages) most of what they spend in the Third World destinations. Aside from that, they remain the destinations of most tourists. WTO (2006) reports that “Europe and the Americas were the main tourist-receiving regions between 1950 and 2000. Both regions represented a joint market share of over 95 per cent in 1950, 82% forty years later and 76% in 2000.” Tourism is a conduit of power, perpetuating the existing power relationships between the developed and developing countries. At the national level, indigenous communities try to get a share in tourism revenues through indigenous or ethnic tourism. However, indigenous tourism occurs within the broader global tourism industry that is dominated by non-indigenous actors. Among these non-indigenous actors could be the tour

18

operators who economically dominate the industry. Thus benefits escape through leakages. Even so, indigenous communities could use a number of mechanisms to capture benefits that would accrue to their development. Revenues could be taken from tourists through reasonable user fees, from businessmen through concession fees, from artists and writers through royalties and from donors. Allocating part of the revenue collection for the use and benefit of local communities will ensure that tourism benefits will reach the lowest level i.e. indigenous peoples. 2.2

Sustainable Tourism Development

2.2.1

How could sustainable tourism be achieved?

Eco-tourism may satisfy environmentalists but unless the needs of the local population are considered, there will be no guarantee of sustainability. How could sustainable tourism be achieved? Mowforth and Munt (1998:97) presented an approach which was to “examine and assess tourist activities according to whether they satisfy a number of criteria of sustainability”. Following in Table 2.1 are the criteria, which they cautioned are not presented as strictly prescriptive. Table 2.1: Criteria often used for sustainability in tourism Is the lodge, reserve or tour: 1. Sustainable? • environmentally • socially • culturally • economically 2. Educational? 3. Locally participatory? 4. An aid to conservation?

Source: Mowforth and Munt (1998 p 98) The above criteria encompass a range of indicators with a broad coverage. It includes the ecological, socio-cultural and economic imperatives that so often characterize sustainable development. Aside from these, it did not overlook the educational, participatory and conservation role of sustainable tourism. The criteria’s ecological aspect is the most known standard for sustainability, with the public often fixated on tourism’s environmental impact. It is often measured through the calculation of carrying capacities. Social sustainability refers to the ability of the host community to withstand (without social disharmony) any stress and to enjoy the social benefits associated with tourism. The ability of people to retain and adapt elements of their culture refers to cultural sustainability. The economic gain should be enough to cover costs and mitigate the effects of tourism. The educational element is what distinguishes the new forms of tourism from mass tourism, since sustainable tourism is supposed to educate not only the tourists but also the host community. Local participation is also a criterion of 19

sustainability since the degree of inclusion and control of the local community affects development (Mowforth and Munt 1998). Finally, the conservation element is another criterion of sustainability. Sustainable tourism should assist in the conservation of specific aspects of the biodiversity or a culture of a given area, making sure that local culture is never overridden by the ecological imperatives and vice versa. To answer also the question on how sustainable tourism could be achieved, Cater and Goodall (1992 p. 317) gave clear cut parameters: “Sustainable tourism depends on: a) meeting the demands of the host population in terms of improved standards of living in the short and long term, b) satisfying the demands of increasing tourist numbers and continuing to attract them to achieve this c) safeguarding the environment to achieve the two forgoing aims.” The above aims could be accomplished with a change in attitudes and policies through four different viewpoints: those of tourist destinations, the tourist themselves, tourism enterprises and global considerations. Tourist destinations, the local population, must be interested in tourism development if their needs are to be met. Ownership, scale, timing and location are considerations that should complement each other to ensure sustainability from the tourist destination viewpoint. From the tourist viewpoint, behavior and attitude must change if they are to respect a destination’s environment and culture. Forgoing accustomed standards of comfort and convenience would be a big plus to sustainability, since staying in eco-lodges and eating the native cuisine would give more revenue to the locals as well as lessen the cultural divide. The tourism enterprise’s viewpoint needs a conscious effort to put more consideration on its social and environmental responsibility. Thus the use of local materials, local skills and environment-friendly products should be among the businessmen’s considerations. From the global viewpoint however, tourism (by its very nature) will continue (through its use of transport service and other energy source) to contribute to global warming. (Cater and Goodall 1992) All the above viewpoints are important since they represent the stakeholders to sustainable tourism development. The stakes are higher in indigenous tourism. Indigenous communities are generally poorer and more vulnerable. And if an indigenous community is also a part of an inscribed World Heritage site, the global viewpoint is intensified because even the world lays claim to the indigenous community’s heritage. 2.2.2 Stakeholders The importance of stakeholder involvement in the tourism development process cannot be stressed enough. Involvement means giving a voice to people who would be most affected by the development process. (Rudnik 2005)

20

In the conservation field, stakeholders are defined as the people for whom a heritage object is meaningful. According to Munoz-Vinas (2005 p161), “...stakeholder is a term which is especially appropriate: stakeholders own a tiny part of something larger; as such, they are affected by the decisions that are taken regarding it, and they have the right to have a say in relation to it. People’s right to impose their views is proportional to their involvement with the object.“ To get a comprehensive view of who the stakeholders are, a stakeholder analysis is a useful tool. Stakeholder analysis is the identification of a project’s key stakeholders, assessing their interests, and the ways in which these interests will affect the project. Rudnik (2005) cited a guidance note issued by the Overseas Development Administration in 1995 which gave three main steps in analyzing stakeholders: 1) drawing up a stakeholder list 2) assessing importance of each stakeholder to a project and their relative influence 3) identifying risks and assumptions which could affect project design and success. When talking about importance, it is vital to mention that importance is distinct from influence. There will often be stakeholders (mainly unorganized primary stakeholders) upon which the project will place great priority. Unfortunately these stakeholders may have a weak capacity to participate in the project and limited power to influence key decisions. However they are very important for the project.(Rudnik 2005). The stakeholders with importance but with weak influence are usually at the grass-root level of the community. Local elites have the loudest voices, to the disadvantage of the grass-roots who might not even be fully aware of what is happening. It is thus imperative that stakeholder analysis be conducted thoroughly so those with weak capacity could be identified and be given more attention. 2.3

Heritage Conservation: by whom and for whom?

2.3.1 Cultural heritage Cultural heritage is the principal building block in indigenous or ethnic tourism. McKercher and du Cros (2002) cite the International Council on Monuments and Sites’ (ICOMOS) definition of heritage as “a broad concept that includes tangible assets such as natural and cultural environments, encompassing landscapes, historic places, sites and built environments, as well as intangible assets, such as collections, past and continuing cultural practices, knowledge, and living experiences.”

21

Cultural heritage can generally be defined as those things and places associated with human activity, and this would include man-made landscapes. The definition is very broad, and includes both indigenous and historic values. McKercher and Du Cros make a distinction between a heritage asset and a (cultural) tourism product. A heritage asset represents the uncommodified or raw asset that is identified for its intrinsic values. A cultural tourism product, on the other hand, represents an asset that has been transformed or commodified specifically for tourism consumption. They are quite adamant in pointing out that there is a distinction between cultural tourism and cultural heritage management. Tourism is essentially a consumptive activity. On the other hand, cultural heritage management refers to the systematic care taken to maintain the cultural values of cultural heritage assets for the enjoyment of present and future generations (McKercher & du Cros, 2002 pp 8 & 43). The table below further differentiates cultural heritage from tourism. Table 2.2: Comparing the Management of Cultural Heritage and Tourism Industry Structure Goals Key Stakeholders

Economic attitude to assets

Cultural Heritage Management Public-sector oriented Not for profit A broader social goal Community groups Heritage groups Minority/ethnic/indigenous groups Local residents Organizations for heritage professionals / local historical groups/ religious leaders Existence value Conserve for their intrinsic values

Key user groups Local residents Employment background Social science/ arts degrees Use of asset Value to community as a representation of tangible and intangible heritage International political ICOMOS/ICOM*/UNESCO (promote bodies/NGOs conservation of culture) National/regional National, state and local agencies and political/bureaucratic some museums concerned with heritage management, archives bodies *International Council of Museums (ICOM) **World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) Source: (McKercher and du Cros 2002 p. 14)

Tourism Industry Private-sector oriented Profit making Commercial goals Business groups Non-local residents National tourism trade associations, other industry bodies Use value Consume for their intrinsic or extrinsic appeal Non-local residents Business/Marketing degrees Value to tourist as product or activity that can help brand a destination WTO/WTTC** (promote development of tourism) National, state, regional tourism bodies

Table 2.2 shows the clear distinction between cultural heritage and cultural tourism in their structure, goals and key stakeholders, among others. However, a closer look reveals that the authors of this table (McKercher and du Cros) left out the locals as key stakeholders under tourism. This is contentious, since locals, be it residents or the local 22

government units, are oftentimes part of the cultural tourism product. As residents, they are inherently involved as producers of the culture and as objects of the tourists’ curious gaze and as subjects to the tourist’s cameras. As a local government unit, locals have a stake on tourism activities since benefits could be gained for the community (i.e. taxes, promotions) and at the same time, community resources (i.e. water, local food, natural resources) are being used and disturbed. Table 2.2 also states that the key user groups in cultural heritage management are the local residents. However, there are areas whereby key user groups include many non-residents, i.e. Venice, Amsterdam and Lamu (Kenya). These non-residents invested in real estate in a bid to conserve the façade that these cities were known for. A symbiotic relationship between cultural tourism and cultural heritage management exists to the extent that cultural success will contribute to economic survival and economic success will contribute to cultural survival (Butler and Hinch 1996). However, cultural tourism is seen as a double-edged sword by the cultural heritage management community. On one hand, increased demand by tourists provides a powerful political and economic justification to expand conservation activities. On the other hand, increased visitation, overuse, inappropriate use, and the commodification of the same assets without regard for their cultural values pose a real threat to the integrity and survival of these assets. (McKercher and du Cros 2002). They acknowledge that a symbiotic relationship can exist whereby tourism is seen to be complementary to overall management objectives, but symbiosis is rare and occurs only as a result of direct management intervention. With her term ‘disneyfication’, Zukin (1995) points out the danger of popular cultural heritage being simplified and in other ways tampered with to cater to the demands of the tourist industry. It is in this direct management intervention that UNESCO get involved, through its practice of listing selected places as World Heritage Sites. 2.3.2 World Heritage Listing According to the UNESCO World Heritage Center, the idea of creating an international movement for protecting heritage emerged after World War I. “The 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage developed from the merging of two separate movements: the first focusing on the preservation of cultural sites, and the other dealing with the conservation of nature. UNESCO had initiated, with the help of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the preparation of a draft convention on the protection of cultural heritage. Eventually, a single text was agreed upon by all parties concerned” (World Heritage Center 2007a). UNESCO’s deliberate act of unifying two separate movements (culture and nature) brings to fore the nature and culture dichotomy. These concepts were seen as distinct from each other. Often this distinction meant that the conservation of one is at the expense of the other. This is seen in areas where indigenous peoples were estranged from 23

their domain by nature conservationists through the guise of national parks and protected areas. Such a dichotomy is however seldom felt by indigenous peoples whose culture and biophysical environment are interwoven. With the Ifugao tribe in Northern Luzon, Philippines, the cultural practices are closely related to nature. Their ethnic identity is marked on the landscape: the rice terraces. In his study of this indigenous group, Gadal (2006) argues that “…the assumptions of ‘the pure culture’ and ‘the pure nature’ of the dominant narrative can not be helpful in conservation of the rice terraces because culture, nature and tradition are fluid, dynamic and mutually contingent. Environmental changes can not be understood unless we go beyond nature-society divide and static and equilibrium view over nature and society.” A research note undertaken by Drost (1996) examines the relationship between tourism and World Heritage Sites (regardless of whether the site is a cultural or a natural heritage site). Although World Heritage Sites are increasingly threatened by human intervention, their preservation may depend upon the development of a harmonious relationship with tourism. Initiating positive changes in tourist practices and behavior will largely rely on effective education and regulations. She expects that in the future, there will probably be more quotas imposed and entrance fees charged to manage the numbers of tourists to various sites. Similarly, a study on the effects of World Heritage Listing on tourism to Australian national parks by Buckley (2004) concludes that the designation of an area as a World Cultural Heritage often leads to an increase in the number of visitors, enhancement of the site and financial support. Her study was however impeded by the lack of baseline data. This is an area that needs more attention: for local communities to establish records so that future studies will not be impeded with the lack of information on the original conditions of the destination. Although many countries regard favorably the designation to be a World Heritage Site (due to its tourism potential), there are areas who shun it. Krauss (2005) in “The Natural and Cultural Landscape Heritage of Northern Friesland” analyzes an old debate on the claims of local population (culture) and nature conservationists (nature) on the Northern Friesland landscape which was revived by the proposal of UNESCO to declare the Wadden Sea area as a World Heritage Site. The coastal inhabitants are resisting the UNESCO resolution, seeing the nomination as another threat that might add restrictions on agricultural and fishing activities. Krauss broke through the endless debate on the nature/culture dichotomy by looking at the picture through a political landscape lens. He traced the political history of the place, offering a new perspective whereby the UNESCO nomination is a “bid for power that lurks behind the innocent word ‘nature’ and in the museum definition of culture”. Krauss rightly says that in order to overcome many economic versus conservationist debates, “essentialist and reductionist viewpoints should be replaced by new experimental strategies that acknowledge the complexities of human and non-human affairs”. And that is the strength of this article: looking for other

24

perspectives that will break or explain a century-old debate on nature and culture landscape. The article also makes one wonder: Why should it be pure nature and/or pure culture? Why can’t it be a balance of the two? Nonetheless, the prospects of recognition, aid and tourist revenues invite many countries (especially developing ones) to nominate their attractions to the UNESCO for inclusion in the World Heritage Listing. Inclusion in the list means financial assistance, elaboration and implementation of comprehensive management plans, increased tourism numbers due to promotions and the cultivation of national and local pride in the listed site. All these benefits are grounded on the conservation and preservation of the site. Conservation is carried out to prevent a site from future/further negative impact that may lead to further degradation, damage or deterioration. UNESCO calls this ‘safeguarding’. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage5 used the term “safeguarding”, which in the first place means “measures aimed at ensuring the viability of the intangible cultural heritage”. These measures are said to include “the identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement, transmission, particularly through formal and non-formal education, as well as the revitalization of the various aspects of such heritage”. It draws the attention that a large part of these measures aim at the protection or the creation of the conditions that ensure continued enactment and transmission of intangible cultural heritage practices and expressions. The Convention is primarily concerned with processes and it intends to benefit in the first place performers and tradition bearers. (Smeets 2004). It is often however done in an approach whereby what is beneficial is assumed and passed onto the performers and tradition bearers. When a state nominates a site for inclusion in the World Heritage list, was the affected community, the major stakeholder, consulted? An area that needs further research is on the processes involved when potential heritage sites eventually become an inscribed World Heritage site. Further study might reveal for whom conservation is really done. 2.3.3 Conservation and Authenticity Conservation implies the bringing back of an object (to be conserved) to its true and authentic nature or condition. However, this leads to an assumption that the object’s present nature is not authentic. Munoz-Vinas finds this contentious. “Objects cannot exist in a state of falsehood, nor can they have a false nature. If they really exist, they are inherently real. The expected, imagined or preferred state of an object is not real unless it coincides with the existing object. The present condition is necessarily authentic, and furthermore, its present condition is the only actually authentic condition. Any other presumed, preferred or expected condition exists only in the minds of the subjects, in their imagination or in their memory. The real, 5

The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage was adopted unanimously by the Member States of UNESCO during the 32nd session of the Organization’s General Conference in October 2003.

25

existing object can be altered through conservation to make it coincide with, or come closer to, a different, preferred state, but the object will be no more real than it was before”. (Munoz-Vinas 2005 p 109) Authenticity of indigenous peoples is sometimes questioned when visitors see them with modern gadgets and modern equipment. Tourists, due to exposure to the representations of destination marketing ploys, form images of what the local community looks like: traditionally dressed, living in thatched huts, riding an animal and communicating through smoke signals. Thus when they arrive in the locality, they would feel cheated to see jean-clad, cell phone-toting tribal people in their cement houses. To whom then will the conservators listen? To tourists and visitors and non-indigenous people who hold romantic images of tribal peoples or to the tribal people who have discovered the convenience of modern gadgets and the warmth and security of modern houses? Perhaps a bit to both? 2.3.4

Contemporary Theory of Conservation “Contemporary theory of conservation calls for ‘common sense’, for gentle decisions, for sensible actions. What determines this? Not truth or science, but rather the uses, values and meanings that an object has for people. This is determined by the people. From a conservator’s point of view, the results of these efforts should be primarily judged not by their contribution to increasing the human body of knowledge, but by their contribution to increasing the satisfaction of the people for whom an object has meaning – or for whom it fulfils a symbolic function or has symbolic value. In fact, conservation is a means, and not an end in itself. It is a way of maintaining and reinforcing the meanings in an object; it is even a means through which the appreciation for what an object symbolizes is expressed.” (Muños-Viñas, 2005 p. 212-213)

This theory clearly says that conservation should be for the people who are directly affected by the object to be conserved. When conservation is done for an abstract beneficiary (i.e. the world, human knowledge, science), the needs of the people directly connected to the object to be conserved tends to be overlooked or to be sacrificed. This is one of the challenges faced by advisers to World Heritage Sites: conserving a site that is an “inheritance of a nation, an ethnic group, and… of all human being”(Kim et al. 2007) in a manner that is not at the expense of the people directly connected with the object. Indeed, conservation is subjective. The symbolic value of an object is not inherent to it, but is rather generated by the people themselves. Navrud and Ready (2002) stated that a cultural heritage site could have values to even those who do not visit the site, calling this non-use value. They cited people “who enjoy the knowledge that a site is being preserved, motivated by the desire that the site is available for others (altruistic value), for future generations (bequest value), available for a future visit (option value) or simply that the site be preserved for itself (existence value)” (Navrud and Ready 2002p 12). The different levels of stakeholders attribute different meanings to a site, and would therefore have different concepts of the needed conservation measures. Thus, the contemporary

26

theory of conservation hopes that conservation would be the agency that would empower those affected by the object/site to fend for themselves and for the site itself. 2.3.5 Who should pay for conservation? As more stakeholders claim the heritage to be conserved as theirs, the less clear it is to pinpoint on whose shoulders will conservation rest. While it would seem that the ones with the biggest stakes on the object would be the ones with the most responsibility, there are other factors to be considered. In the case of indigenous peoples, their state of poverty and vulnerability hampers their own conservation plans. Thus the responsibility is shared with the other claimants: INGOs, tourists and interest groups. UNESCO, through ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centers, is doing its share of technical and financial aid to endangered heritage sites. Tourists, as income spenders, could also do their share of conservation. Through their user fees and other payments that they give knowingly and unknowingly to conservation, they also play a huge role. In various studies done on tourists’ willingness-to-pay for conservation of tourist sites (parks and monuments), it is clear that they do not shirk their responsibility. Tourists generally are prepared to contribute additional revenue in order to maintain and enhance conservation benefits (Dutta et al. 2005; Kim et al. 2007; White and Lovett 1999). Furthermore, tourists would support fees especially when they know what the fees are intended for. Visitors to built heritage attractions are more willing to pay for their admission, whereas those ‘visiting natural landscapes’ are not (Prentice 1993 p 167). Thus informing these visitors how natural landscapes need maintenance too, might break their resistance to pay. The manner of how tourists will pay user fees and other payments towards conservation of cultural heritage is made difficult by the nature of cultural heritage of being a public good. A good is classified as a pure public good when it is non-excludible and is nonrival in consumption. Navrud & Ready (2002) described non-excludible as when it is “technically infeasible to keep users from enjoying the good”. Thus viewing artifacts in museums (that has gates and doors that open only upon payment) is an excludible activity but sightseeing a mountain landscape or a medieval city square is non-excludible. Excludability is important because if one cannot keep people from enjoying the good, then one cannot force them to pay. The owner of that good would then have no incentive to preserve the good, and indeed may not have the resources necessary to do so. When it is non-rival in consumption, it “means that two different people can enjoy (consume) the public good at the same time without interfering with each other’s enjoyment” (Navrud and Ready 2002 p 4). If a cultural heritage good is non-rival in consumption, then it would be better to allow more people to enjoy it than to allow fewer, even if exclusion is feasible. The level of rivalry would vary. A very crowded cathedral may diminish each visitor’s enjoyment, thus that cathedral would be a congestible public good, not a pure public good. Or it could be that the presence of a visitor would damage the cultural heritage good itself. In these cases, it would be desirable to limit the number of visitors,

27

through various visitor management techniques6 (Mowforth and Munt 1998), among which is the charging of fees. How much should be charged? The generality of the preparedness to pay for conservation through fees cannot be assumed to be boundless (Prentice 1993). According to Lindberg and Huber, Jr. (1993), tourism fee levels will depend on the management objectives, which are usually cost recovery or profit maximization. If the objective is cost recovery, fees are set such that they generate enough revenue to pay for providing the ecotourism opportunity, offsetting capital and operating costs. If the objective is for profit maximization, the fees are set to more than offset the costs. The profit (revenues less the costs) could then be used to help finance conservation activities, among others (Lindberg and Huber Jr. 1993 p 84). They cited other management objectives such as a visitor management tool (by charging high fee level) to limit visitors, or simply a tool (by keeping the fee level low) to maintain high visitation thereby providing economic opportunities to tourism businesses. Lindberg and Huber, Jr. provided a sample decision process for setting tourism fees.

Figure 2.1 Sample decision process for setting up tourism fees. Source: (Lindberg and Huber Jr. 1993 p98) The sample process shown in Figure 2.1 illustrates how decision-makers might make their assessment depending on their objectives. While the diagram shows an option for “other objectives”, it might have been more prudent to put in as another major objective the field of conservation. Fees could be charged based on the need to support conservation, regardless of whether it could cover costs or give profits. If the objective is 6

Mowforth and Munt (1998) list under visitor management techniques the following: zoning, honeypots, visitor dispersion, channelled visitor flows, restricted entry, vehicle restriction and differential pricing structures.

28

conservation, then the indicator to be measured would not be demand nor revenue but the scarcity or the state of the supply (in indigenous tourism, it would be the degradation of the cultural and/or natural landscape). Another consideration is in the stipulated steps. It would be prudent to insert a step whereby the decision-makers will assess the capacity to implement the fee collection. This would affect the decision on how and how much to charge since hiring personnel to collect will be more costly than giving the mandate to tour operators to do the collection. 2.3.6 Who should do the job of conservation? The actual job of conservation cannot be restricted to a select group of people. Conservation is not just performed by conservators. Munoz-Vinas (2005 p. 9-10) points out: “As conservation is a complex activity, it may involve many different professionals from many different fields working towards the same goal….Conservation, in this broad sense, has diffuse boundaries, since it may involve many different fields with a direct impact on the conservation object.” An example that Munoz-Vinas cited is in the conservation of an altarpiece which would not only need historians to check its history, but also photographers and video or filmmakers, as well as biologists who “might be needed to identify wood-eating insects and various kinds of woods; radiologists to X-ray relevant parts to inform about the presence of metal pieces; chemists to help determine the nature of some of the many components of the altarpiece; physicists to take precise measures of colours; engineers to aid in designing a stable structure to avoid future structural damage of the altarpiece, etc. So many people and so many points of view require an enormous amount of co-ordination, which, in turn, requires administrative support at different levels. If the work is important, it will probably require additional bureaucratic processes, and heritage technicians from different administrations will have to supervise the whole project” (Munoz-Vinas 2005 p. 9-10) . How then are the conservators different from the non-conservators who, in rendering their service, also contribute towards conservation? Munoz-Vinas also says that the key features of the conservation profession are its closeness to the conservation object and its specificity. Conservators are usually in very close physical proximity with the object and have strongly specific knowledge. Thus in the conservation of culture, who best could be the conservator? In the case of indigenous traditional engineering, the likely candidates for the role of conservators would be the indigenous peoples themselves. They are experts on their own culture and no one else could be as close to their culture as they are. However, the expertise of specialists is necessary for actual conservation to happen. Like in the example above, the input of different professions is necessary for conservation to happen.

29

2.3.7 Conclusion Heritage is a resource that is shared among different users and beneficiaries. Its management involves both conservation and tourism, two fields that could have a symbiotic relationship. There could be a right balance between conservation and tourism for each to complement the other, maximizing the use of the resource and at the same time, ensuring its maintenance and retention. Cultural and natural heritage, though considered distinct from each other by conservation rhetoric, are often interwoven especially in indigenous communities. As such, conservation should address both societal (culture) and natural aspects of heritage. For whom is conservation done? Conservation is often done to save a site or object for its intrinsic value, sometimes to the negligence of those who directly live and work in or with it. Through careful management, conservation itself could be the agency to empower those affected by the site to fend not only for their own selves but for the site itself. By whom is conservation done? The work of conservation cannot be confined to one type of specialists, since it needs the inputs of different professionals from different fields. The technical knowledge of each field is necessary for holistic conservation to happen. In the conservation of heritage, there will be no lack of hands to do the conservation for as long as there are stakeholders to the heritage to be conserved. The conservators would be the indigenous peoples themselves. However, factors such as poverty hinder indigenous communities from looking beyond their basic needs. Thus other stakeholders are called to aid in conservation. A call for help is in the nomination of sites for enlistment as a World Heritage Site, since financial help is among the benefits of doing so. Tourists could also help in the conservation through the payment of user fees, room taxes, and through donations. Various studies on willingness-to-pay of tourists indicate that tourists are willing to pay higher fees, especially when they are informed on how the fees would help. The decisions of charging fees and on the level of these fees depend on the management objective: cost recovery or profit maximization or conservation. Overall, conservation is shared by all stakeholders. 2.4

Empowerment and Sustainability

2.4.1 Power to the people The solutions used in the attempts to solve the underdevelopment of Third World countries reflect a range of development theories. For the past decades, the Philippines, a Third World country, have been under the patronage of First World countries such USA, EU and Japan. Patronage came through development aid, which came with strings attached. Sofield (2003 p. 39) describes how UN agencies and World Bank have often in their economic development plans recommended the re-organization (“westernization”) of social and cultural institutions as prerequisites for economic growth and as conditions to be met before the delivery of their aid and development loans. This is reflective of the modernization theory that postulates that Third World countries have fallen behind with their social progress and need to be directed on their way to becoming more advanced by adopting the economic and technological complex of the developed countries. This

30

‘modernization” of the main society often leads to the marginalization of indigenous communities which are basically a traditional society. Sofield (2003) theorizes that “… the poorest segments of populations need to be empowered if alleviation of their plight through tourism is to be sustainable.” Empowerment maybe regarded as a developmental concept, both at the level of individual, of the community and of larger units including countries. The advent of sustainable development brought to attention the need not only for economic development but also consideration for the ecological, social and cultural aspects of development. This brings to fore the need for “development to be designed to increase people’s control over their lives and maintain and strengthen community identity” (Sofield, 2003 p 60). Thus enters empowerment, a generic term denoting a capacity by individuals or a group to determine their own affairs. Sofield (2003) defines empowerment as, “In the context of tourism development, it is proposed that empowerment be regarded as a multi-dimensional process that provides communities with a consultative process often characterized by the input of outside expertise; the opportunity to learn and to choose; the ability to make decisions; acceptance of responsibility for those decisions and actions and their consequences; and outcomes directly benefiting the community and its members, not diverted or channeled into other communities and/or their members”. Considerations to empowerment of local communities include the degree of self-reliance or self-sufficiency necessary for empowerment to occur. Sofield (2003) cites Romm & Taylor (2000:283) who posit that many communities will lack any real understanding of what it is they are supposed to be making decisions about – unconscious incompetence. This leads to the use of external expertise, so reminiscent of the patronage of the modernization theory. McArdle (1989) presents a spectrum where in one end are those that consider that it is essential for self-help to be total, with minimum outside intervention or assistance. Sofield (2003, p. 81) rightly points out that it is often those in need who have the least resource and capacity to help themselves. The other extreme says that except for the involvement of the beneficiaries in decision-making, everything else is left to the experts and the professionals. However, this leads to a dole-out mentality, whereby beneficiaries get so used to development aid, never learning how to fend for themselves. A balance has to be found in this spectrum – external expertise to assist the community’s understanding of the real meaning of a situation and the decisions they are being asked to make, as well as community participation and ownership in the decisions that affect their community. To achieve that balance, a closer look at participation is needed to see why and how it affects the people. Roger Sidaway (2005) gathered a number of definitions, as follows:

31

“the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in future. ..In short it is the means by which they can induce significant social reform which enables them to share in the benefits of the affluent society” (Arnstein 1969, 71-72)) a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them. (World Bank, 1996, xi) the process by which public concerns, needs and values are incorporated into government and corporate decision-making. (Creighton, 1992, 10)” A common theme in the definitions is “the commitment to people having a say in decisions that affect their lives” (Sidaway 2005). There are two aspects of the need for participation: idealistic and pragmatic. Bureaucratic standpoint tends to emphasize effectiveness, practicality and legitimacy while interest groups look more on ideals, democracy and having more functional relationships with agencies. The following schema shows the full range of arguments for public participation:

Idealistic

Pragmatic

Figure 2.2 Arguments for Public Participation Source: Adapted from Sidaway (2005, p121)

The above Figure 2.2 shows the idealistic and practical side of the need for participation. It would do well for the local community to know both aspects. If the local community is too focused on the pragmatic aspect, they might lose sight of the long-term vision they have set for themselves. On the other hand, if they stay focused on the ideals, they might address only adaptations to social, economic and environmental changes and forget the more pragmatic side of working on available resources.

32

Sidaway makes a distinction between consultation and participation. He describes consultation as tokenistic, and participation as collective decision-making. In Table 2.3, the contrast between the two processes, as well as non-participation, is detailed. Table 2.3: Participation in Alternative Planning Models Stages of decision-making Identification of gender Generation of options Selection of proposals

Non-participatory Planning of people

Consultation Experts planning FOR people Neither consulted Identification of issues nor involved Generation of options

Policy decision Evaluation When are people Excluded involved? What are they Acquiesce asked to do?

Consulted once a proposal has been selected Policy decision Evaluation Late in the process Agree to proposal put forward by decisionmaker

Advantage to the agency

Saving time? Efficiency in the short term

Risk to the agency

Public rejection and delay through prolonged conflict

Participation Experts planning WITH People Involvement throughout all stages Identification of issues Generation of options Selection of proposals Policy decision Evaluation Early in the process Identify the problem, provide information and develop and assess alternatives Public acceptance Effectiveness over the longer term Delay, loss of control

Source: Sidaway (2005, p122)

Empowerment is never static, being an unending process. It is interactive, between lowers, peers and uppers. In his book on rural development, Robert Chambers (1997) says that empowerment requires and implies changes in power relations and behaviour at the institutional, professional and personal levels. Changes at the personal level are really fundamental in empowerment. When a person, due to cultural and physiological circumstances, will and can not respond to empowerment activities, then any attempt at the institutional and professional level will be for nothing. 2.4.2 Conclusion Empowering the lower rung of society is a delicate balance of providing external assistance as well as encouraging a community’s participation and ownership in decisions affecting their community. Empowerment also requires changes in behaviour and power relations at the institutional, professional and personal level. On a broader scale, sustainable tourism development uses empowerment among its criteria and tools. Stakeholders’ involvement should be given attention so that the voice of the grass-root

33

level will be heard and acted on throughout all the planning stages. For real involvement to happen, the stakeholders (especially the grass-root level) should be drawn in to take part not only in the organization of the work to be done but also in collective decisionmaking. 2.5

Theoretical Framework

Putting selected theories and concepts discussed above into a model will show the framework within which this study is built. The model is a Venn diagram7, visualizing the logical relationships among conservation, tourism and host communities. First, Figure 2.3 is the overall framework and it presents how heritage conservation, indigenous tourism and an empowered community relate to each other. Then Figure 2.4 is presented to show the personalities involved in each field. Finally, another perspective which is Figure 2.5 will show how the fields work together towards the establishment of a heritage maintenance fund. It features the inputs and the resulting outputs. The conceptual model in Figure 2.3 represents an understanding of the phenomenon of sustainable tourism development. It is the convergence of heritage conservation, indigenous tourism and an empowered community. When revenues from tourism could reach an empowered local community, and when heritage conservation serves the community and the tourism industry, then the criteria of Mowforth and Munt (1998) for a heritage-based sustainable tourism development are met. Because heritage is the building block for indigenous tourism and heritage conservation, and it is the essence also of the indigenous community, the resulting phenomenon is called sustainable heritage tourism development. For it to come into being, the following criteria will have to be met: economically sustainable, ecologically sustainable, socially sustainable, cultural sustainability, educational, locally participative, and an aid to conservation. These were strategically placed on the three fields. Economic sustainability is within indigenous tourism because tourism is primarily a consumptive activity, with heritage commodified to bring forth revenues. Social sustainability is in the area shared between the host community and indigenous tourism because tourism involves a social interaction between the host and the guests. This interaction would be socially sustainable if it is harmonious, without resentment on the part of the hosts and without condescension on the part of the guests. Cultural sustainability is also shared between community and tourism because when hosts and guests interact, they are exposed to each others’ cultures. When hosts and guests retain their cultural practices in spite of the exposure to other cultures, then there is cultural sustainability. The educational aspect is shared between local community and heritage conservation because the need for conservation is based on the premise that the local community is losing touch with its heritage. Thus it is one of the main goals of heritage conservation to re-educate and instill the culture into the present generation. The educational aspect also involves the education of tourists on the culture 7

A Venn diagram is a drawing, in which circular areas represent groups of items sharing common properties. The drawing consists of two or more circles, each representing a specific group. This process of visualizing logical relationships was devised by John Venn (1834-1923). http://regentsprep.org/Regents/math/venn/LVenn.htm

34

of the area. Ecological sustainability is shared between indigenous tourism and conservation because they share the same resource base, which are the rice terraces in this study. The cultural and natural landscape is the focus and attraction that indigenous tourism markets to visitors, and at the same time, it is the focus and objective of heritage conservation.

Ecologically sustainable

An aid to conservation

Economically sustainable

Land-use planning Resource generation – donations, investments

Socially sustainable Educational Culturally sustainable Locally participative Participation/involvement/control in rural development activities: institutional development, rural infrastructure, agricultural development, protection of natural resources

Figure 2.3: Overall Framework for Sustainable Tourism A closer look into each field will reveal the factors and assumptions that make it up. Heritage conservation covers the safekeeping of the tangible and intangible cultural and natural heritage assets of a group or society or area that are worthy of preservation for the future. Heritage is claimed as a legacy not only by the individuals who have direct stakes in it, but also by the nation states and the world at large. In indigenous tourism, heritage is used as a principal building block. Heritage sites often serve as an important component in a country's tourist industry, attracting many visitors from abroad as well as locally. Tangible and intangible assets are seen as resources that

35

could be presented to visitors. It works within the vast field of a global tourism industry that is dominated by non-indigenous actors. Influences of globalization, economic trends and political maneuvers are among the factors that impinge on indigenous tourism. Indigenous tourism converges with heritage conservation when they share a cultural and/or natural asset, one that is looked after by conservators and at the same time attracts tourists. By fully cooperating with each other, these two fields will have true partnership for the mutual benefit of both sectors. An empowered community, through involvement and participation, can take better control of its resources. Empowerment happens when not only the local elites but more so the grass-root level of the community, are truly involved in affairs that affect them. Thus, they participate and get involved in rural development activities such as institutional development, agricultural development, rural infrastructure, rural finance and protection of the natural resources. A reassessment of the land uses of the area will be among the concerns in the heritage conservation field. This will include the inventory not only of physical resources but also the cultural, traditional practices and resources of Ifugao. Another concern is the generation of resources, especially funding for conservation activities. This will include the invitation for investments in the area that are in alignment with conservation activities. In Figure 2.4, which is the flipside of Figure 2.3, the model will show the key actors behind the three fields. These are the various stakeholders. Actors in the heritage conservation field are the international and local NGOs, professionals or experts (i.e. architects, filmmakers, etc) who are needed for the conservation work, local residents and tourists. The safekeeping of heritage is ensured through their activities, which could directly or indirectly be connected with heritage conservation. Indigenous tourism is peopled with the tourists who bring in revenues, the entrepreneurs and businessmen who provide the services to the tourists and the local community who are the object of the tourists’ gaze. The key actors in heritage conservation are also intermittent actors in indigenous tourism. An empowered local community will be involved continuously with both the heritage conservation field and indigenous tourism, because their participation is the key to their empowerment. The presence of government in all the fields implies the big role that it could play in sustainable tourist development. Through policy formulation and through its legitimacy, government support can give heritage conservation, indigenous tourism and the local community a greater chance at sustainable tourism development. Arrows show the relationship among the actors. The arrow linking UNESCO to indigenous tourism is broken to show that UNESCO considers tourism as part of its strategy for conservation, though tourism is not their primary objective. The thin arrows demonstrate the direct relationship of one actor to another. An example is the tourist who has a direct relationship with the residents who are the target of his or her gaze. The thick white arrows illustrate the strong link of sustainable heritage tourism to each of the three fields: heritage conservation, indigenous tourism and an empowered community.

36

UNESCO/IUCN/ ICOMOS Interest groups ie SITMO, IRTCHO National government ie NCCA, DENR

Farmers and farmers’ associations

Sustainable Heritage Specialists, Tourism experts, professionals

Local government

International tourists Business sector

Government i.e. DOT

Tourism council

Local residents

Entrepreneurs Government i.e. NCIP, DA

Glossary of abbreviations used in the diagram: UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ICOMOS, International Council on Monuments and Sites IUCN, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources SITMO, Save the Terraces Movement IRTCHO, Ifugao Rice Terraces and Cultural Heritage Office NCCA, National Commission on Culture and Arts DENR, Department of Environment and Natural Resources DOT, Department of Tourism NCIP, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples DA, Department of Agriculture

Figure 2.4: Key actors

The model in Figures 2.3 and 2.4 can also be seen through another perspective: the inputs and outputs that each field contributes towards sustainable heritage tourism development. The convergence of all the inputs and outputs will be a sustainable tourism development that supports and is aided by a Heritage Maintenance Fund that would finance livelihood options of the local community, support endeavors that would help in heritage conservation and that will continue to give a unique experience to tourists. Funds and donations

Heritage for present and future generations

Experience, Education, Prestige Sustainable Heritage Tourism thru a Heritage Maintenance Fund

Tourism fees

Figure 2.5 An input-output model Livelihood/ Counterpart/ Pride of place and Labor/ local culture initiatives

37

Chapter 3: Final Research Questions and Methodology This chapter will put forward what the study will answer. The research questions and the methods by which these will be answered are presented. 3.1

Final Research Questions

Can a heritage maintenance fund for the grass-root level be derived from tourism and could this help in the conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces? Specific questions to be addressed are: 1. How could empowerment of the grass-root level help in the conservation of the Ifugao rice terraces? To be able to answer this question, there is a need to provide an overview of Ifugao’s current socio-economic status in order to rationalize the need for empowerment. It will also attempt to present the conservation movement in the area. 2. How can a heritage maintenance fund from tourism be effectively put up? To answer this question, a study of the stakeholders to Ifugao’s heritage will be done. Their perception on the establishment of a heritage maintenance fund will be derived from primary sources. The amount that tourists are willing to pay and how these fees will be collected are questions asked to the tourists themselves. On the other hand, the amount that the local government units want to charge the tourists and their proposed method of collection were drawn from the local lawmakers and the staff who were to implement these ordinances. 3. How will the fund reach the grass-root level, and how will the fund be used? To answer these questions, the perceived needs and problems of the local indigenous people will be studied. A stakeholders analysis will be conducted to analyze how the fund affects the key stakeholders and to see their potential in the management of the fund. Using the answers from the previous questions, the study will put in some recommendations on how a heritage fund could actually help the Ifugao farmers to help themselves. 3.2

Researcher’s Position

The researcher is from the research area and is a member of the Ifugao Tuwali tribe. She has worked with a rural development agency in Ifugao which dealt with agriculture, rural infrastructure, micro-finance and institutional development. This gave her a chance to observe how rural development interventions performed in the research area.

38

As such, she will bring in an emic perspective to the study. The emic perspective, as oppose to etic, provides an insider’s view. Jennings (2001p128) cites Pelto & Pelto who say that “an ‘emic perspective’ asserts that … cultural behavior should always be studied and categorized in terms of the inside view – the actors’ definition – of human events. That is, the units of conceptualization… should be ‘discovered’ by analysis of the cognitive processes of the people studied, rather than ‘imposed’ from cross-cultural classifications of behaviour (Pelto & Pelto 1978 p. 54)” Fetterman (1989, in Jennings 2001 p 128) associates the emic perspective with the interpretative social sciences paradigm which believes that “the insider’s point of view provides the best lens to understanding the phenomenon being studied because it allows for the identification of multiple realities”. The opposite, the etic standpoint, is described by Pike (1954 in Jennings 2001, p 127) as “…’external’ or ‘alien’, since the analyst stands ‘far enough away’ from or ‘outside’ of a particular culture to see its separate events… as compared to events in other cultures…” 3.3

Research Design

A combination of quantitative and qualitative research was used in this study. The quantitative research was used to gauge the tourists’ willingness-to-pay towards a conservation fund. On the other hand, the qualitative research was used to investigate the other stakeholders’ perception on Ifugao’s conservation program and the establishment of a heritage fee. Through the combination of these approaches, the study would be able to measure in terms of both numbers and quality the answers to the research questions. The table below will show the research questions along with the measurements used. Table 3.1: Research Questions vis-à-vis Measurements and Methods Question Measurement Methods How could empowerment of the Indicators for Content analysis grass-root level help in the conservation? Interview conservation of the Ifugao rice terraces? How can a heritage maintenance Stakeholders’ perception Interviews fund from tourism be effectively on the concept of a heritage Survey put up? maintenance fund How will the fund reach the grass- Recommendations Interviews root level? How will the fund be Model used?

39

3.4

Methods

3.4.1 Survey A survey questionnaire (Annex 1) was drawn up to gather information on willingness-topay of tourists. The target respondents were domestic and international visitors in Banaue, Ifugao, from November to December, 2006. Along with the questionnaire, an Ifugao souvenir item was given to the respondents. Dillman (1999 p19) advocated the provision of a token of appreciation, saying that “by providing a small token of appreciation in advance, the researcher shows trust in respondents.” A covering letter accompanied the questionnaire, explaining that the survey was for research purposes. Using the university logo gave credence to the stated purpose. The questionnaire could be divided into 3 sections. The first section asks for general information regarding the respondent: gender, age, place of residence and occupation. The purpose of getting the general information was to be able to see if there is a link between their willingness-to-pay to their background. The second section asked for respondents’ perceptions on the state of the Ifugao Rice Terraces, using a 5-point scale. Questions asked in this section would probe the respondents’ knowledge and observation with regards the tourist site. The final section dealt with the respondents’ response to their perception about the rice terraces. Their opinions were asked on how they could respond to their observations. Thirty questionnaires were prepared as a pre-test. Twenty (20) were answered. A respondent queried what was meant by heritage fee. It was clarified with the removal of the word ‘heritage’. After the appropriate change was made, a hundred questionnaires were generated and distributed, of which 72 were returned. Since the change from the pre-test was minimal, the 20 was added to the 72, thus the total respondents were 92. A description of the respondents is gleaned from the demographic questions. Most of the respondents are Filipinos (71%), and the rest are Dutch, German, Japanese, Australian, Canadian, British, Swiss, Italian and French. The mean age is 34 years old, with a range of 15 to 66. There were more males (59%) than females (41%). 3.4.2

Interview

Interviews were conducted to get information on the current situation and get opinions on conservation needs and plans. Interviewees were purposely chosen for their activeness in the tourism industry and conservation in Ifugao. Semi-structured interviews were used because of its flexibility in getting more information through follow-up questions. The interviews were conducted in Tuwali, the dialect in the area. Seventeen people were interviewed, one community meeting conducted and one group discussion was held. Among the experts who were interviewed were the Tourism Officer-Designate of

40

Kiangan, the manager of the Save the Rice Terraces Movement, the manager of the biggest hotel in the area, the Chairman of the Bayninan Farmer’s Association, the council member of Banaue who drafted a resolution regarding tourism fees, the former head of the Ifugao Terraces Commission and the head of the guide’s association of Sagada. The interview results were transcribed during and after the interviews. The townfolks of Bayninan held their quarterly association meeting, and the researcher took this chance to gather more information. A list of those interviewed is in Annex 3. Figures 3.1 to 3.5 show pictures that were taken during the data gathering period. They feature the above methods that were used: survey, interview and a focus group discussion. 3.4.3

Secondary data

Secondary sources of data were used to verify and to get more information. These sources are newspapers, dissertations, theses and other publications on Ifugao. 3.4.4

Content analysis

A desk research was done, using content analysis of the Conservation Plan of the research area to see the current state of conservation being done. The Tourism Master Plan was also scrutinized to evaluate how tourism was being managed. 3.4.5

Data analysis

The analysis of the data gathered from the survey was done using frequency analysis. For the in-depth interviews, a content analysis of the answers was used.

41

*Figure 3.2. Community meeting: Author attends a community meeting where the residents discussed their tourism plans

*Figure 3.1. Survey: Respondents answer questionnaires even during meals.

)Figure 3.3. Interview: Author interviews a farmer.

+Figure 3.5. Fieldwork Going through a landslide caused by typhoons were among the experiences the author had during the data gathering

*Figure 3.4. Focus Group Discussion. Members of the Bayninan Farmers’ Association discussed their tourism experiences and plans. Nb: All pictures in this page were taken by Glory Rose Dulnuan 42

Chapter 4: The Case of Ifugao 4.1

Ifugao, the study area

4.1.1 Geographical location The study is carried out in the Province8 of Ifugao, found at the northern part of the Philippines. This province is a landlocked area, located within the Cordillera mountain

Figure 4.1 Location map of Ifugao Source: Conservation and Management Plan of the Ifugao Rice Terraces(Office of the Ifugao Provincial Governor and UNESCO-ETCAP 2004) 8

The Philippines is divided into regions, then provinces or cities, then municipalities (towns), then barangays and then sitios. Sitios are hamlets or small villages.

43

range and in geographic coordinates 16.52 and 17.25 degrees North latitude and 120.80 and 121.52 degrees East longitude. The topographic feature of the province is marked by rugged mountains and massive forests, as well as rolling lowlands and valleys. The mountains range from 2,523 to 925 meters above sea level. Ifugao has a total land area of 251,778 hectares, of which 90% are classified as forestland9. In terms of actual land cover, however, most the province is open grasslands (64% of the total area) and forests (26% of the total area) while only 8% of the total land area is used for agriculture. (PPDO 2000). Ifugao's elevated terrain enables residents to enjoy temperate climate all year-round. The short dry season lasts from January to late April. The wet season runs from May to December. The soil type varies from sandy to clay loam. Ifugao is in an area that has slopes from 0% (in 4% of land area) to more than 50% (covering 55% of land area) (PPDO 2000). This characteristic of the province, as well as the long rainy season, makes it prone to landslides. The province has eleven municipalities, with Lagawe serving as the capital town. Ifugao is 320 kilometers away from the Philippine capital city of Manila. It is an 8-hour bus ride from Manila to Banaue, a popular tourist destination. An airport is located at the adjacent province of Nueva Vizcaya but there are no regular flights. The study is carried out in the municipalities of Banaue and Kiangan (Please see red star spots in Figure 4.2). These cover the tourist areas of Ifugao, known for their rice terraces. In Kiangan, the focus was on the barangay of Nagacadan, whose rice terraces were among those that UNESCO inscribed as a World Heritage site. In Banaue, the focus was on the town center, considered as a tourist enclave. 4.1.2 Demographic features Ifugao has a total population of 161,623 and 31,346 households. The average household size is 5.1 persons. In-migration to Ifugao in 1990 reached 2,634 while out-migration number 4,161. This reflects that the number of people leaving the province is higher by 37% than the number of people coming in (PPDO 2000). Ifugao is made up of 4 major (indigenous) ethno-linguistic groups (Ayangan, Tuwali, Kalinga and Kalanguya). These groups could further be classified into 25 tribes. Each of the groups has its own dialect, but most Ifugaos know the dialect Tuwali thus interaction amongst Ifugaos is not a problem. As of 1997, the poverty incidence in Ifugao or the proportion of families with per capita incomes below the poverty threshold was 61%. In 2000, Ifugao ranked fourth in the poorest provinces in the Philippines with its poverty incidence of 55.6%. In 2003, the figures improved to 28.1% and Ifugao suddenly ranked the 54th poorest in the country 9

Presidential Decree 705, Section 15 stipulates that land with slopes 18 degrees and above is classified as forestlands, thus Ifugao’s mountainous topography made the province be classified as such. http://www.chanrobles.com/pd705.htm#PD705

44

(NSCB 2007). While a number of factors could be attributed for the supposed improvement, research is needed to ascertain whether these are significant enough for the drastic transformation. The lowland areas of Ifugao have noticeably increased corn and tilapia production. As of year 2000, more than half (69%) of the employed persons were engaged in the agriculture sector while about 11% and 20% worked in the industry and services sectors respectively (PPDO 2000). Mayoyao luster Batad Cluster Imilag-Abatan Cluster

Bangaan Cluster

Study area

Source: Adapted from the Updated Ifugao Rice Terraces Master Plan

Nagacadan Cluster Figure 4.2 Map of Ifugao Province, the two study areas and the inscribed World Heritage Sites

45

4.1.3 History The name Ifugao is derived from the word ipugo, which means ‘from the hills’. The Spaniards changed Ipugo to Ifugaw, and the Americans made the last change in the word to the current name Ifugao. Ifugao now refers to the people, and to the province, and oftentimes, it also refers to the dialect Tuwali. Though Spain colonized the Philippines for more than 300 years, the Spaniards were never able to gain control over Ifugao. The Ifugaos resisted Spanish rule but when the Philippines was ceded in 1898 to the United States of America, the Ifugao succumbed to the Americans’ influence. The Americans did this through laws and persuasion. Civil government was established in Ifugao in 1902. The work of Belgian missionaries proved successful during the American rule, starting the conversion of most Ifugaos to the Christian faith. The Americans opened the first schools, hospitals and churches. These greatly changed the Ifugao way of life.(Medina 2003; PPDO 2000). “With the democratization of education and information came a shift from a communalistic to an individualistic worldview as the community was opened to the global economic order. Each person had to strive on his own to produce things that were not previously needed. Persons educated by the schools replaced the tomona, the traditional natural resource management institution…. This meant the complete alteration of indigenous sociopolitical structures and institutions. Positions of authority and leadership shifted from those who had mastery of customary laws and rituals to those who were educated by the American-introduced schools.”(Medina 2003 p 28). After World War II, when the Philippines got its independence, the central government worked on assimilating the indigenous communities in Ifugao into the mainstream society. This was through tax collection, official legislation, and the issuance of scholarships to the indigenous peoples. The agency mandated for this assimilation was the Commission of National Integration which was renamed to PANAMIN (for Presidential Arm for National Minorities), then to the Office for Northern Cultural Communities, and finally, in 1997, to National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). The Ifugao lifestyle thus has become connected with the mainstream development. One of the results of this connection is that the rice terraces of the Ifugaos have become a popular tourist destination, bringing in different people of different nationalities and cultures. 4.1.4 The Ifugao Rice Terraces Rising to an altitude ranging from 700 to 1500 meters above sea level, the Rice Terraces of Ifugao were carved from the harsh terrain by the hardy native farmers using their primitive hand tools. A narrative popularly told in brochures and in researches (Gonzalez 2000; Medina 2003; Settele et al. 1998) is that the rice terraces are 2,000 years old. 46

However, Conklin wrote in his ethnographic atlas of Ifugao that “An earlier study identified the date of a village as ranging from 7th to the 11th century and terrace sites in the higher elevation districts of Amganad and Lugu of Banaue from the 16th century. In this last district, for example, remains of a post used in original terrace embankment formation accidentally exposed by a landslide have recently been given a carbon -14 date of A.D. 1555 plus or minus 60 years by the University of Georgia Center for Applied Isotope Studies.” (Conklin (1980) as cited in the Tourism Master Plan of Ifugao, 2004) The Ifugao Rice Terraces are an expression of the people’s mastery of the watershed ecology and the terrace engineering (water distribution). The terraces are a complex farming system which includes not only the terrace ponds but also the swidden (slashand-burn) farms and the muyongs (private forests). Brochures say that if the walls of the terraces were to be laid end to end, they would encircle half of the globe. The major differences between the Ifugao Rice Terraces and those elsewhere are their higher altitude and steeper slopes (maximum of 70 degrees). To contain the water needed for rice cultivation within the paddles, even the gently rolling terrain must be terraced with stone or mud walls. High altitude paddles must be kept wet and have to rely upon a man-made water-collecting system. “In order to make a living on the steeper parts, the Ifugao ancestors put all their time and effort into the transformation of the precipitous slopes. Where terrain and water supply allowed it they made a meticulous system of flat terraces, (stone) walls and irrigation canals, conveying the water from the many mountain streams and rivers into the terraces. By using the materials they knew, like clay, stones, bamboo and banana bark, they created a functional system.” (Cremers 2003 p 12) Indigenous agricultural practices in highland rice produce good yields. The popular indigenous practices in the Cordillera include careful seed selection, use of outstanding traditional rice varieties, incorporation of rice straw just after harvest, and incorporation of indigenous plants into the soil to supplement nitrogen requirement. Women by tradition take charge of selecting seeds. “Sometimes a few selected women do the role and task of seed selection. They belong to a pool of women with a long reputation of being good collectors, who, in return, can assure resistant rice plants and good harvest. The women’s very careful way of selection, just like in breeder seed production, may explain the high degree of uniformity within a variety and the persistence of the local varieties for a long time.” (Mendoza 2003)

47

Gonzalez (2000 p 76) noted that farmers planted different varieties. I was told that they do so to determine the relative performance of these varieties and to decide which ones to plant for the next season (pers.com. Manang Rosa 1998). The so-called “California rice” is a favorite because of the many grains that develop. The native variety, called tinawon is a must, because of its desirability in making tapuy. The dikit (glutinous rice) is necessary in making rice cakes. Palatability of rice long after cooking is another consideration because farmers cook rice for the whole day early in the morning to save on cooking time (and fuel) for the rest of the day. Farmers still prefer their indigenous practices, but some opted to adopt the introduced rice technologies to get better yields. However, discerning which of the technologies to adopt is not always done wisely. An example is when farmers adopt modern rice varieties; the seed selection process erodes as what happened in Kiangan. Farmers could no longer select seeds from the IR64, a modern rice variety that they planted. They just changed seeds after a few cropping by procuring seeds from lowland seed producers. The Kiangan farmers lost control over their rice seeds, relying on those who control and trade hybrid seeds. The high altitude cultivation is anchored on the use of special strains of rice which germinate under freezing conditions and grow chest-high. Rice production is limited to only one cropping. The International Rice Research Institute established an experimental station in Ifugao in an attempt to help the farmers through the introduction of coldtolerant rice varieties. However, only very few farmers adopted the newly introduced rice varieties. The main reason was that these varieties failed to suit the traditional or cultural practices and failed to satisfy production demands of Cordillera farmers. They continue to express an overwhelming preference for their traditional varieties because they are more resistant to pests and diseases, have low fertilizer requirements and have been adapted for low temperatures and ease in harvesting and storing. The traditional varieties remain the preferred eating varieties of the Cordilleras because of their exceptional taste and texture, mild aroma and fast cooking qualities. 4.2

Tourism in Ifugao

The culture of the Ifugaos attracted anthropologists i.e.Otley Beyer and Harold Conklin10, whose written works brought to the attention of the outside world the unique culture and landscape of rice terraces on the mountainsides. From the 1970s onwards, tourism began in Ifugao. In 1973, Jens Peters included Banaue in the first Lonely Planet Travel Guide of the Philippines (Cremers 2003), an indicator of the presence of tourism in the area. The tourist attractions are the rice terraces, cultural festivals, waterfalls and caves. The cultural festivals are adapted and are a revival of traditional feast days which were anchored on agricultural practices. Thus, one town could feature a festival which is 10

Harold Conklin wrote “Ethnographic Atlas of Ifugao” an ethnographic study of Ifugao beginning 1961 and which was published in 1980; Henry Otley Beyer has a collection of his works at the National Library of Australia.

48

based on the original practice of merry-making after a rice harvest. Another town could feature a festival that is based on the resting period after the planting season. Among the five provinces that comprise the Cordillera Administrative Region, Ifugao ranks second in tourist arrivals, after Baguio City that got 88% of the market. Ifugao got only 4% of the market share. However, Figure 4.1 shows that, except for 2002, tourism arrivals in Ifugao have been on the rise. Table 4.1 Tourism arrivals in Ifugao from 2000-2005 Foreign traveler Overseas Filipinos Domestic travelers Total

2000 9,455

2001 8,006

2002 5,773

2003 7,065

2004 27,266

2005 32,713

201

209

206

227

486

4,172

39,785

45,062

25,837

32,993

57,293

53,989

49,441

53,277

31,816

40,285

85,045

90,874

Source: Department of Tourism-Cordillera Administrative Region

4.2.1

The Tourism Master Plan

The updated Ifugao Rice Terraces Tourism Master Plan (2003-2012) has a stated purpose of providing “the overall framework, direction and strategies to ensure the continued existence and sustained productivity of the rice terraces and maintain its inscription in the World Heritage List.”(Provincial Planning and Development Office 2004). Looking at the planning approach and process that was used in drawing up this master plan, one can identify the tokenistic type of participation that Sidaway (2005) warned about (cf. Section 2.4.1 of this report). Community consultations were conducted in the sites participated in by barangay government units, local organization representatives, elders and farmers. However, the involvement of the grass-root level, specially the farmers, was limited, since the actual drawing up of the master plan was done by a Technical Working Group consisting of agency representatives i.e. DA, PPDO, IRTCHO, UNESCO counterparts. Farmers were only consulted at the beginning and again for the presentation of the draft master plan, when they could review, comment and give corrections. The problem tree analysis (see Annex 4) was used to identify the issues to be addressed, and the SWOT (Strength-Weakness-Opportunities-Threats) analysis was used to come up with strategies to address the issues. It is noted that the problems identified in the problem tree correspond with those identified by Gonzalez (2000) who came up with a summary of problems from interviews, personal observations and official documentation.

49

The master plan has 15 objectives which are classified into three major plan components: bio-physical, socio-cultural, and support systems. The bio-physical component covers natural resource management and physical development in the conservation area. Sociocultural component includes institutional building and the promotion of indigenous knowledge systems and practices sustaining the rice terraces, and support systems cover development and resource mobilization programs that will protect and sustain the conservation area. Under the 15 objectives, sustainable tourism development is found under objective number 13 and is classified under support systems. The general purpose of the section is “to develop community-based agri- industry and eco-cultural tourism supportive to the conservation of the rice terraces.” Key result areas for this objective are the following: • “formulation of a sustainable tourism promotion plan • a heritage resource management plan • a community-based eco-tourism enterprises development and dispersal • tourism support infrastructure developed • site preservation • equitable distribution of benefits from tourism • positive image and market positioning • and quality tourists.“ (Provincial Planning and Development Office 2004) Mowforth’s criteria for sustainable tourism (cf. Section 2.2 of this report) cannot be optimally used to assess the sustainability of the proposed program components because the programs are too generally stated. In the masterplan, the components for sustainable tourism are classified as: site development, promotions and marketing, tourism empowerment program, research and development program, rice terraces protection program, historical and cultural enhancement program, and support systems and facilities. However, in the master plan’s investment program, a list of specific activities under ecotourism could be assessed through Mowforth’s criteria. An example is the proposed development and enhancement of mountain climbing and trekking destinations. Since it is specific, one could just check through the criteria to see if it is ecologically, socially, culturally and economically sustainable, locally participative, educational and an aid to conservation. Under ecological, the carrying capacity of fragile mountain areas needs careful deliberation. Planners have to consider the number of climbers and trekkers to be accommodated that would give least disturbance to the flora and fauna. They could then direct the route where disturbance is less likely to occur. Social sustainability is less a concern than cultural sustainability in the case of Ifugao. The people of Ifugao are by nature friendly, and as such, social disharmony is less likely to occur. It is however their susceptibility to cultural changes that needs consideration. Economically, the enhancement and development of the sites for mountain climbing and trekking would bring in more tourists, and hopefully more revenues. Caution is needed however in the amount of investment poured since mountain climbing and trekking is a small portion of the tourism market. It will therefore take some time before investment would be recovered. The educational element has to be ensured so that the visitors will learn and be educated about Ifugaos’ ecology and environment. Thus this criterion will see if educational signboards are used and if the route will educate about Ifugao’s flora and

50

fauna. Local participation as a criterion will check on the involvement of the Ifugaos, especially on what they perceive the site to portray to the visitors and on how this will be interpreted. The conservation element is equally an important criterion since it will check on measures to prevent biodiversity decline and cultural disturbances. 4.3

Conservation

4.3.1

Background of Conservation in Ifugao Province

The conservation movement in Ifugao may be traced to the time that the Ifugao Rice Terraces were declared in 1973 as “national landmark having a high value from the viewpoint of world culture and are considered as irreplaceable treasures of the country”. This was in Presidential Decree # 260. An additional provision amended the presidential decree in 1978, penalizing the modification, alteration, repair or destruction of the original features of any national landmark. In 1985, the Philippines signed the instrument of ratification to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage of Outstanding Universal Value, effectively becoming a State Party to the Convention. In 1994, President Ramos issued Executive Order #158, creating the Ifugao Terraces Commission (ITC) for the preservation of Banaue, Hungduan, Kiangan and Mayoyao (cf. Figure 4.2). The commission is an advisory board to the President. The ITC came up with a 3- and 6-year master plan for the restoration and preservation of the Ifugao rice terraces. Then President Ramos issued a directive to all member agencies11 to realign their budgets to the approved plans. However, the agency commitments were mostly their regular programs. (Gadal 2006; Provincial Planning and Development Office 2004) In 1995, the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras were inscribed onto World Heritage List under cultural criteria (iii), (iv) and (v). These criteria are: “(iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; (iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; (v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;”(World Heritage Center 2007b)

11

The Ifugao Terraces Commission is chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Tourism, and the members include the secretaries of the Department of Agriculture, Public Works and Highways, Environment and Natural Resources, Education & Sports and Culture, Interior and Local Government, Trade and Industry, Agrarian Reform and the Head of the Presidential Management Staff.

51

The specific rice terraces inscribed to the World Heritage List are five clusters in four sites or municipalities. These are: Batad and Bangaan clusters in the municipality of Banaue, Mayoyao central terraces cluster. Imilag-Abatan cluster in the municipality of Hungduan, and the Nagacadan cluster in the municipality of Kiangan. (Please refer to Figure 4.2 for the location of these terraces.) The rice terrace system extends to other municipalities which are recommended for inscription in the Heritage List also. In 1999, the President of the Philippines established the Banaue Rice Terraces Task Force (BRTTF) to replace the Ifugao Terraces Commission (ITC) which had been mandated to preserve the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras from 1994. In September 2001, an IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission was organized by the World Heritage Centre in close co-operation with the State Party (Philippine Government). The mission identified major conservation and threats facing the property and made concrete recommendations for the State Party to follow-up. Based on the findings of this monitoring mission, the World Heritage Committee at its 25th session (Helsinki) in December 2001, decided to inscribe the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The report of a joint UNESCO World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission identified the threats and dangers for which the rice terraces were inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger as follows: “•the abandonment of the terraces due to neglected irrigation system and people leaving the area; • unregulated development threatening the heritage area; • tourism needs are not addressed; • lack of an effective management system.”(UNESCO 2006) On 11 February 2002, BRTTF was abolished by an Executive Order issued by President Gloria Nacapagal-Arroyo, together with 60 other national agencies. She transferred the responsibility of the task force to the Provincial Government of Ifugao. The Provincial Government in turn created the Ifugao Rice Terraces and Cultural Heritage Office (IRTCHO) to handle the responsibility, functions and assets of conserving the rice terraces. In July 2005, the World Heritage Committee, at its 29th session, requested the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN12 to undertake a Joint Reactive Monitoring to the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras. Thus, a monitoring mission was conducted in April 2006, and it came up with findings and recommendations on how the 12

The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) plays a vital role in counseling UNESCO on those cultural properties to be included on the World Heritage List and on the reporting of the state of conservation of the properties already listed (www.international.icomos.org); International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), more known as the World Conservation Union, gives policy advice and technical support to governments, UN organizations, international conventions and other groupings such as the G8 and G77, and in assessing all new sites nominated for natural World Heritage Site listing (http://www.iucn.org/ )

52

Ifugao rice terraces could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. Relevant to this study is their recommendation for the “establishment of a management mechanism at the provincial and municipal levels to ensure that adequate human/financial resources are available to protect and manage the property and implement the Conservation and Management Plan for the Rice Terraces in the Philippine Cordilleras” (UNESCO 2006). In the timeframe and logframe indicator, the team recommended a human and financial resource strategy. This was adopted and implemented by June 2007. Another recommendation was for the “development of a resource strategy at the national, provincial, municipal and village (barangay) levels according to the management objectives determined by the Conservation Management Plan.” (UNESCO 2006). In the timeframe and logframe indicator, they proposed that a “conservation trust fund be established and managed by the Ifugao Heritage Conservation Council by December 2007”(UNESCO 2006). This report of the monitoring team is commendable because it gives detailed timeframe and logframe indicators for every recommendation that they drew up. However, they failed to indicate who will do what activities. Though it could be assumed that the IRTCHO will carry out most of the recommendations, the team should have indicated how the farmers’ associations, local government units, the NGOs (especially the SITMo) come into the picture. Though they have indicated the timeframe, they failed to note that elections for the municipal and provincial officials scheduled for May 2007 will impact on the implementation of the recommended actions. It can be gleaned from the history of the conservation movement in Ifugao that politics is a major factor in the instability of an agency that will focus on the conservation of the rice terraces. Every change in national leadership leads to a change in the name of the agency (from ITC, to BRTTF, to IRTCHO), and every change in the provincial leadership also leads to a change in the leadership of the agency. Such instability surely impacts on the nature and implementation of conservation activities. 4.3.2 The 5-year Conservation Plan A conservation plan was drawn up parallel to the development of the 10-year updated Ifugao Rice Terraces Masterplan. It is a 5-year conservation plan based on the masterplan, focusing on feasible proposals intended for packaging for international assistance. It has four main parts: introduction, the updated rice terraces masterplan, the five-year conservation plan, and the revised statutes for the management and conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terrraces. Chapter 2 is a compressed version of the masterplan. Chapter three presents four plan components: land management, indigenous knowledge systems, agriculture and forestry, and eco-tourism. It is under eco-tourism that this study has a linkage. The eco-tourism component has three proposals: trekking tours, arboretum establishment and heritage tourism. Heritage tourism “aims to promote Ifugao as a prime eco-cultural tourism destination using agricultural systems and cultural institutions of the Ifugao rice terraces as a main feature while increasing income of the host communities from tourism activities.” (Office of the Ifugao Provincial Governor and UNESCO-ETCAP 2004). This is further elaborated in the logframe of Objective 6 under eco-tourism (p 54), as follows in Table 4.2 below:

53

Table 4.2

Narrative Objective 6: Ensure that a portion of provincial tourism revenue is re-invested into cultural enhancement and socioeconomic improvement programs for terrace farmers

Logframe of Objective 6 of the Conservation and Management Plan of the Ifugao Rice Terraces (Office of the Ifugao Provincial Governor and UNESCO-ETCAP 2004 p. 54) Process Indicators -Methods to establish and administer the Trust Fund are being researched -Methods to establish and administer the Heritage Maintenance Fee are being researched -Trust Fund Established Fee collection system is in place -Funds are being collected -Socio-economic improvement programs to assist Ifugao farmers being researched -Culture & nature conservation programs are being designed -Regular and transparent reporting taking place

Verifiable Outputs -Established, nationally approved Ifugao Rice Terrace World Heritage Site Trust Fund -Heritage Site Maintenance Fee in place by the end of the second year of the project -At least US$ 20,000 generated by the fee by the end of the third year of the project -At least two socio-economic improvement programs designed and ready for implementation by the end of the project -At least two culture and nature conservation programs designed and ready for implementation

Means of Verification -Review quarterly progress reports -Review legal mechanism establishing Trust Fund -Verify ticket or other vehicle being used to collect fees -Review of Trust Fund financial statements -Review of programs earmarked for support with funds from the Trust Fund -Mid-term evaluation document -Final project review document

Assumptions -The project can secure national matching resources to conduct the study on the establishment of the Trust Fund -The project can secure national matching resources to conduct the study on the collection and administration of the HS Maintenance Fee -The required legislative action will be taken in order to establish the Fee and Trust Fund -A mechanism for transparency can be established and enforced regarding the execution of the Trust Fund

Objective 6 (in Table 4.2) generally states that cultural enhancement and socio-economic improvement programs will use a portion of the provincial tourism revenue. It does not refer to any direct conservation measures on the rice terraces. It is then assumed and hoped that the other portion will be used for the repair, restoration and maintenance of the rice terraces. In the next column, one of the process indicators is the design of programs for culture and nature conservation. Both culture and nature are too broad, and it might be better to refer to what aspects of culture and nature will be focused on. Why not target the conservation of the landscape? 4.4

The Stakeholders

As a cultural heritage asset, the Ifugao Rice Terraces have many stakeholders. Some stakeholders are directly linked to the terraces, while some has an abstract connection to it. The influence and importance of the stakeholders (cf. Section 2.2.2 of this report) on the fate of the rice terraces also vary. The following subparagraphs will list and scrutinize the linkage, importance and influence of the various stakeholders. 4.4.1 Grass root level stakeholders The stakeholders with the biggest stakes are the ones in the grass root level – the farmers who till the land. They eke a livelihood out of the rice terraces. Every season or phase of

54

rice agriculture, the farmers mold the land: strip grass and weeds from it, mix the soil and water into mud; shape the paddy, plant rice into it and get produce from it. Thus the contact between the land and the farmer is direct. The importance of the farmer as a stakeholder is quite strong because the actions (and circumstances) of the farmer impacts directly on the rice terraces. If a farmer decides not to touch a portion of the terraces for whatever reason there might be, that portion will remain untouched (and abandoned). Ifugao farmers are generally vulnerable, working out small land portions that barely meet their consumption needs. Rice production in the highlands produces only three months of a family’s food consumption. The farmers should have influence on the fate of the rice terraces because their direct contact with it gives them the knowledge of what threatens the land and what it needs. In his analysis of the stakeholders of the Ifugao rice terraces, Gadal (2006 p 26) defines the grass root level actors as the ‘owner cultivators, share croppers, mortgagers, weavers, quarryman, seasonal out-migrants, muyong (forest) owners and wood carvers”. However, these are not necessarily different peoples since farmers play different roles throughout the agricultural year. 4.4.2 Local residents Local or town residents are stakeholders because they too live off the land, albeit indirectly. The local residents are the buyers of the produce that farmers bring to town to sell. Some local residents are also the owners of the land, who let farmers till it for them. Local business entrepreneurs and tourism service providers know that their tourist clients are attracted to Ifugao because of the rice terraces. They could very well be the local elites that Mowforth and Munt (1998) referred to in Section 2.2.2 whose voices drown out the sentiments of the farmers. 4.4.3 Local government units (barangay, municipal and provincial levels) - Barangay level The lowest level in the government structure is the barangay level. A barangay local government unit is manned by an elected barangay council, headed by a barangay captain. They manage a 20% development fund (called so because it is 20% of the local government units’ share of the Internal Revenue Allotment13) that they could use to implement small-scale projects such as foot trails, drinking water, irrigation and other concerns that they deem necessary for the barangay’s development. The influence on the rice terraces can be linked to their authority to make ordinances that affect the rice terraces: “The barangay captain and the barangay development council are the officially recognized body and the people’s link to the government. 13

The Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) is the share of the local government units in the nationallycollected taxes. Forty percent of total taxes is distributed as follows: provinces (23%), cities (23%), municipalities (34%), and barangays (20%).

55

They help solve domestic conflicts and problems among constituents and take charge of the general welfare of the community. They spearhead community development planning in the management of the natural resources. Barangay ordinances are promulgated and enforced by this body. Different line agencies, non-government organizations and corporations coordinate with these barangay officials in carrying out any project involving the community “Gonzales (2000). - Municipal level The municipal government is a stakeholder by virtue of its mandate to oversee the development of the municipality (landscape and the people). A municipal government unit consists of different sections that oversee different sectors i.e. municipal agriculture office to oversee agriculture and environmental concerns. It also has a legislative body – the municipal council. This council is tasked with drawing up resolutions and ordinances for the development of the municipality. The importance of the municipal government unit in the conservation of the rice terraces is in their capacity to construct the perceived needed infrastructure such as irrigation and footpaths. They also have regulatory powers that they could use for the implementation of ordinances, land zoning, and other programs. - Provincial level No less than the President of the Philippines authorized the provincial government to handle the conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces. Philippine President Gloria Arroyo issued Executive Order No. 72 in 2002 that ordered the transfer of the responsibilities, functions and assets of the agency mandated to restore, preserve and develop the Ifugao rice terraces. To handle such responsibilities, the provincial government created the Ifugao Rice Terraces Cultural and Heritage Office (IRTCHO). This office gave out projects, policies and reports on the rice terraces. The influence of the provincial government, via the IRTCHO, is tremendous because they were given the human and financial support to aid and facilitate their responsibilities. It is also this agency with whom the UNESCO works with in the preparation of proposals, reports and master plans. They produced and implement Ifugao’s tourism master plan and the conservation plan. 4.4.4

People’s organizations

Often, the government would provide projects to people only when they are organized as a group. Thus farmers’ associations and rural improvement clubs and other such organizations are formed and strengthened. They are encouraged to have a legal personality through registration to the Securities and Exchange Center or to the Cooperative Development Agency or to the Department of Labor and Employment. When they have legal standing, they are eligible to be recipients of projects. In our study area in Barangay Nagacadan of Kiangan, the Department of Labor and Employment organized a farmers’ association for one of their projects. The Bayninan Farmers’ Association was formed in 2004. To date, it has 28 members. There are other people’s organizations in Barangay Nagacadan, but it is the Bayninan Farmers’ 56

Association that has direct linkage with heritage tourism. It was through this organization that SITMo facilitated the revival of the rice cake festival. The next eco-cultural tours that SITMo brought to Barangay Nagacadan gave them impetus to seriously consider tourism as a major activity of the association. Primarily farmers in being, the members of this farmers’ association have considerable influence on the usage of the rice terraces, either as solely a source of rice and other crops or have a dual role of providing rice and at the same time a place of direct interaction between farmer and tourist. 4.4.5

Non-government organizations

-Save the Terraces Movement (SITMo) Prominent in the conservation movement in Ifugao is the Save the Terraces Movement (SITMo), a locally-based non-government organization. Its office is located in Kiangan, Ifugao and its members are Ifugaos and non-Ifugaos at international, national, provincial and municipal levels. In 2000, the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement assisted in the formation of SITMo, synchronizing this formation with its own phasing out. In its website, SITMO describes its composition as follows: “The core of the SITMo is composed of federations and networks of peoples’ organizations, government, business and social institutions implementing sustainable development. Among those who have united to form the SITM are federations of Sustainable Agriculture, Environment & Natural Resources and Management practitioners, sustainable energy advocates and community health workers, communities which have bonded to ensure eco-tourism in heritage site villages, and professionals, entrepreneurs and government officials.” (SITMo 2007) SITMo’s vision and mission statement reveals what it wants to do for the Ifugao rice terraces: “SITMo shall be a well managed organization with competent & committed workers & core volunteers to advance the campaign for the protection & rehabilitation of the Ifugao rice terraces, in a shared vision with other peoples & cultures of the world for a sustainable future and aims to build network of advocates & work group of the province, linked to national & international support institutions to help save the Ifugao Terraces.” (SITMo 2007) Among the many projects of SITMo is the promotion of eco-cultural tours that feature tourist participation in certain aspects of rice cultivation. Beginning 2003, SITMo organized the revival of bakle, a harvest festival in Kiangan wherein households prepare rice cakes. The organized tour involves the tourists in the whole process of cake preparation. Since then, SITMO organized similar tours, spread over the five Heritage Sites and held in different phases of the agricultural calendar. A relevant approach being used is the consideration of SITMo of creating a heritage trust fund for the community where these tours are conducted. As a staff member said,

57

“…it helps the Ifugao rice terraces by bringing tourists to share the tourism income with the community. Part of the proceeds of the tour goes to the community heritage trust fund to help them promote their indigenous culture and preserve the rice terraces”. -Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) The Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) is the pioneering, oldest (founded in 1952) and biggest Philippine non-government organization, with funding from the NOVIB (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Internationale Ontwikkelingssamenwerking) of the Netherlands. It is engaged in helping rural people to be self-governing, self-sustaining communities through jointly designed and implemented development programs in the countryside. It extended its coverage to the Province of Ifugao starting 1988 (Gonzalez 2000). PRRM has phased out in 2004, turning over the management of its office, the Ifugao Heritage & Community Education Center (IHCEC) to SITMo. Its importance and influence is in the community organizing work it has begun. Through PRRM, the Ifugaos are not strangers to advocacy, empowerment and community mobilization. 4.4.6 National agencies -National Commission for Culture and Arts (NCCA) The NCCA is a national agency whose tasks are, amongst others, to develop and promote the Filipino national culture and arts, preserve Filipino cultural heritage, and to formulate policies for the development of culture and the arts. The NCCA is a major stakeholder to the Ifugao rice terraces because it is the major funding source of the IRTCHO. With its annual 50 million peso (approximately €833,333) allotment for the conservation of the Ifugao rice terraces, NCCA’s influence and importance is tremendous. The funds are managed by the IRTCHO and go into the implementation of the Tourism master plan, as well as the conservation plan. -Department of Agriculture (DA) The Department of Agriculture is a stakeholder too, because rice culture is in their domain. The many problems that farmers encounter in the rice terraces are brought to this office. A major pest that often bothers the farmers is the golden apple snail (Pomacea canalicuta), locally known as golden kuhol, which was first introduced into Philippine farms in 1983 with the hope of providing additional protein source for dietary improvement of many poor families. Its potential however turned into a menace for farmers when the golden apple snail became a prolific pest on rice fields. It grows and increases rapidly, voraciously feeding on any greens that include newly transplanted rice seedlings. It destroys farms, livelihood, and has become a burden to rice production (Joshi et al. 2001). Another complaint of the farmers has been the infestation of big-sized earthworms that causes soil erosion of the rice paddies. The worms can reach 18 inches in length and half 58

an inch in diameter and are believed to have moved to the terraces as their original forest habitat was destroyed. Earthworms caused mostly indirect damage by burrowing holes, causing water seepage and water stress to the plant and erosion of the terrace wall. Water seepage increases through the terrace - reducing the farmers' yields and further loosening the structure - until in heavy rain the painstakingly-maintained walls give way, dumping soil on to the level below. They also damage the roots of the rice seedlings in nursery beds (Joshi et al. 2000). The lack of irrigation is also often cited as a cause for the abandonment of the rice terraces. This too is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture because the National Irrigation Administration is one of its many sub-agencies. Its responsibility is to develop and manage water resources for irrigation and to provide the necessary financial, technical and institutional services that are in keeping with the agricultural development program of the government. The importance of the Department of Agriculture in the conservation of the rice terraces is obvious in that the problems on rice terraces are the agency’s concerns. During the time that the conservation was handled by the Ifugao Terraces Commission, the chairperson should have been the Department of Agriculture and not the Department of Tourism. The influence of the Department of Agriculture is considerable. Through the many agencies that comprise the department, it could wield pressure and influence. One such agency is the Central Cordillera Agricultural Programme (CECAP), a rural development programme funded by the European Union. Having been in Ifugao from 1988 to 2004, CECAP has somehow inculcated the concept of counterpart funding in its many beneficiaries – the farmers and local government units. Counterpart funding is what the farmers contribute to a project, and it could be in the form of labor, local materials or even money. The local government units have adopted the practice of requiring counterpart or matching funds from project recipients. -Department of Tourism (DOT) The Department of Tourism, as a stakeholder, is important because it is engaged in promoting Ifugao as a world heritage site. Its influence however seems to be weak because it seldom has direct links with the rice terraces and with the other stakeholders. Tourism concerns are handled through the Provincial Tourism Office under the Provincial Government. In Banaue, a tourist information center was set up through the assistance of a New Zealand grant and the Department of Tourism in 2003 (Gadal 2006). It serves as base of operations for Banaue-based guides that offer trekking and other tours to the rice terraces. -Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) The DTI is actively assisting the Ifugao farmers through market linkages for the selling of the produce of the Ifugao rice terraces as organic rice. In 2005, the government launched a program called One Town One Commodity whereby one specific agricultural commodity is promoted for each town. For Banaue, the ‘tinawon’ organic rice has been

59

selected. Although Kiangan has chosen a different commodity (cutflower), farmers also produce ‘tinawon’. -The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is a stakeholder that is responsible for the welfare of the Ifugao natural landscape such as the forests, woodlots and water bodies, among others. The rice terraces are closely linked to the forests and woodlots, thus DENR programs are likely to affect the rice terraces. Ifugao’s forests and woodlots are losing their regenerative capacities due to the increasing pressure on forest resources for commercial purposes such as woodcarving, house construction, commercial lumber and swidden (slash-and-burn) farming. In the past, woodcarving was principally reserved for carving rice gods and artifacts used in native rituals. Today, woodcarvings are symbolic of Ifugao artistry and creativity. It is the entrance into the market economy, by the woodcarving industry that has had an impact on hardwood species. Woodcarving serving the tourist trade and international market has expanded. Commercialization of the handicraft industry has increased cutting of timber especially for the shops, which gain large volume contracts headed to the national or international market. Most orders call for quantity over quality and the quest for raw materials remains insatiable. Once remote public forest is now being selectively cut and removal of the most valued hardwoods has taken place in many places and led to a general thinning of forest cover. DENR’s activities include forest enrichment, agro-forestry and reforestation (Ifugao Provincial Government 2004). -Other national agencies. National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), Department of Social Welfare and Development, Department of Public Works and Highways and other agencies are important stakeholders also to the rice terraces. They provide necessary support services that affect, directly or indirectly, the rice terraces. 4.4.7 Tourism -Domestic tourism service The domestic tourism services of Ifugao found strength in the formation of associations. The Banaue Tourism Council was formed in 1992, “as an umbrella organization of the various professional groups of transport, tourist guide, hotel and restaurant entrepreneurs, handicraft shops, wood carvers, tricycle drivers, jeepney drivers, youth, vendors and tours and trekking associations and civil society like Save the Terraces Movement” (Gadal 2006). Today, it is the Banaue Tourism Council that manages Banaue’s Tourist Information Center. It would do well for the other heritage sites to organize and strengthen their tourism councils. The local transport service industry found efficiency when they formed into associations. Banaue, Kiangan and other municipalities of Ifugao have Tricycles and Jeepney14 Operators and Drivers Associations who managed to put order and discipline amongst themselves. Where drivers previously fight among themselves for passengers, they now queue in an organized manner, pay membership dues and elect management officers. In 14

Jeepneys are the most common form of public transport throughout the many islands of the Philippines. Jeepneys are of origin old American jeeps.

60

Banaue, the Banaue Drivers’ Association sets the range of rates by which tourists hire vehicles and guides. This gives protection to tourist against unscrupulous guides and drivers, and at the same time protects guides and drivers from stingy budget tourists. The local tour guides play a crucial role in transferring cultural understanding. Their importance is on their likely influence on the level of satisfaction that tourists could obtain from their tour experiences. There are around 20 Banaue-based guides (PPDO 2000). The Department of Tourism (DOT) has conducted a tour-guide training seminar for these guides in 2003 to help them gain skills in interpersonal communication skills and enhance their knowledge on guides’ proper conduct. Plans for more training programs for town-based guides, as well as village-based ones, are proposed in the Tourism Master Plan. Training graduates will be bound to a code of ethics and certified as “heritage hosts” by the provincial government and the DOT. (Provincial Planning and Development Office 2004). The tour operators that bring in the international tourists are from the urban centers of Manila and Baguio. They are the contacts of international tour operators. Through internet, independent travelers could also directly contact them. These tour operators are important because they are one of the links of Ifugao to international tourism. Though these tour operators send their guides to accompany their clients, they still obtain the services of the locally-based guides. The link of these service providers to the rice terraces is indirect, with their focus on the tourists who are attracted to the rice terraces (except for the cases where the individual service provider is, at other times of the agricultural year, also a farmer.) With their capacity to influence the choice, interpretation and decision of the tourists, these service providers could indirectly help in the conservation of the rice terraces. Through their influence, the tourists will likely be willing to help in the conservation of the rice terraces. -Domestic tourists As found in the survey, most of the tourists going to Banaue are domestic tourists or Filipinos. They represent the Filipino society who also claims the Ifugao heritage as a Filipino legacy. They are important because they are the bigger market in the tourism industry that somehow provides livelihood to some members of the Ifugao local communities. As stakeholders however, their influence on the conservation of the rice terraces is weak. -International tourism International tourism is important to Ifugao for the revenue that it could bring in. Foreign tourists spend much more money than domestic tourists, who tend to bring their own food and provisions with them. The influence of foreign tourists to the conservation of the rice terraces is weak, especially if they are not aware of the conservation issues. 4.4.8 UNESCO/IUCN/WHC UNESCO and the other conservation bodies such as IUCN and ICOMOS represent the world at large as a stakeholder to the Ifugao rice terraces. These organizations give to the

61

terraces non-use values, ensuring for the world the knowledge that the site is available for others (altruistic value), for future generations (bequest value), or simply that the site be preserved for itself (existence value) (cf. Section 2.3.4 of this report). The importance and influence of these conservation bodies are in the technical advice and financial aid that they provide to program implementors. Examples are the Updated Ifugao Rice Terraces Masterplan and the Five-Year Conservation Plan, which were drawn up through the technical advice and financial support of the UNESCO- Emergency Technical Cooperation for the Enhancement of the Conservation and Management of the Rice Terraces. These plans now serve as the policy documents for the conservation of the rice terraces.

62

Chapter 5: Setting up the Heritage Maintenance Fund This chapter will bring to fore the answers to the research questions raised in Chapter 3. These answers come from the survey and interviews conducted for this research between October to December 2006. Previously conducted research of other writers is also used. It presents the perception of some stakeholders on conservation and on how empowerment is done. It moves on to their perception of how a heritage maintenance fund could be established, managed and used. 5.1

Conservation and Empowerment in the Ifugao Rice Terraces

5.1.1 Conservation The conservation of the rice terraces is perceived differently by the various stakeholders e.g. farmers, SITMo, UNESCO and local government units. Their perspectives reflect how they come from different levels and backgrounds. While farmers give a practical and pragmatic outlook, UNESCO presents an idealistic position.

)UNESCO UNESCO believes that the Ifugao Rice Terraces are in a serious state of degradation. During its 25th session in 2001 in Helsinki, Finland, they justified their decision to put the Ifugao rice terraces in the List of Endangered Sites in the following text: “The Committee examined the findings and recommendations of the IUCN/ ICOMOS mission and noted with deep concern that: • Despite efforts to safeguard the property by the Banaue Rice Terraces Task Force

•

• • • •

(BRTTF) and Ifugao Terraces Commission (ITC), the BRTTF lacks full Government support and needs more resources, greater independence and an assurance of permanence; About 25-30% of the terraces are now abandoned, which has led to damage to some of the walls. This has arisen because parts of the irrigation system have been neglected, which in turn is due to people leaving the area. The situation is also aggravated by the effects of pest species of worms and snails; Despite good planning, irregular development is taking place, which threatens to erode the heritage landscape; International assistance has so far not been mobilized to help the area; Little progress has been made in addressing the needs of tourism. For example, access from Manila and within the property remains poor; As a result, the World Heritage values may be lost unless current trends are reversed within 10 years (maximum).” (2002)

The Joint Mission of April 2006 gave its recommendations to be taken by the Philippine authorities within a timeframe of 2-3 years between 2006 and end of 2008, for the removal of the property from the List of the World Heritage in Danger. Among these recommendations was for the maintenance and support of the rice culture in its traditional

63

mode for long-term sustainability and site conservation. UNESCO proposes the use of traditional materials and methods in the repair and maintenance of the terrace landscape. Any non-traditional material used in the terraces such as a cemented pathway or irrigation canal diminishes the authenticity of the heritage site. Moreover, UNESCO promotes the planting of tinawon or native rice varieties, on the premise that rituals associated with rice farming are done only with traditional rice varieties. Gadal (2006), in doing his research on landscape degradation, analyzed the factors that were cited as the cause of the landscape degradation and argued that UNESCO’s claim of rapid and alarming state of degradation in Ifugao is ‘neither socially observable nor predictable in the everyday practice of Ifugaos’. He posits that UNESCO overstated the degree of degradation and further claims that the factors that UNESCO declared as the primary cause of degradation actually had positive impacts on the rice terraces. This can be seen in an example he gave: “Ifugao people are out-migrating leaving rice terraces unattended’ is often argued in the dominant narratives… Daniel says that his terraces are maintained because he sometimes can afford labour to repair his terraces which he earns from the seasonal migration.” (Gadal 2006 p. 68) A scientific excursion in 1997 says a similar thing. A group of students from four German universities disproved their own hypothesis that ‘the condition of the rice terraces became worse throughout the last decade.’ They then proved another hypothesis that ‘almost the same number of rice terraces is now maintained equally with less labor’ “It can be stated that until today, the terraces have been maintained in a similar condition. Even with less labor input, the farmers found ways to compensate. In 1963, 51.4 ha of the investigation area (total area: 149 ha) were terraced. In 1997, 5.0 ha of the former terraces are abandoned, which is a loss of about 10%. Although new terraces were established, the extent of about 1.0 ha was too small for compensation. The net loss of terrace area was therefore 8% in 34 years.”(Herzmann et al. 1998 p 86). Four years (2001) after this excursion (1997), UNESCO came out with their statement that 25-30% of the rice terraces were abandoned and that in a maximum of 10 years, these terraces will lose their World Heritage values. However, these two statements might not be comparable since the German students studied only a small portion of Banaue, and UNESCO refers to the entire Ifugao Rice Terraces. The German students also made a comparative study of the data taken in 1963 and in 1997, while UNESCO did not refer to a particular time frame for their claim.

)The Ifugao perspective The Ifugaos have maintained the rice terrace system for more than a thousand years. This is an indication of their intrinsic conservation skills. Their indigenous knowledge and skills have somehow helped them, their culture and the rice terraces survive natural calamities and colonial subjugation. It is these indigenous knowledge and skills that also make up the conservation system that maintains the rice terraces. Guimbatan & Baguilat (2006) describe the conservation system in the Ifugao landscape, as follows:

64

“The Ifugaos have developed a system of conservation exemplified in the present pattern of the watershed landscape. This system evolved from the natural environment and expressed itself in customs that dictated resource use, landscape, and migration. The entire Ifugao landscape comprises microwatersheds featuring protection (natural) and production (man-made) areas defined by production forests or private woodlots known in the local dialect as muyong. The protection area or the communal forest is the uppermost and most valued portion of a watershed unit, fenced in by muyong properties on its lower fringe. The lower portions of the watershed are the production and the settlement areas. Through its role as the primary source of firewood, construction materials, food, and medicine, the muyong minimizes activity in the communal forest. Located on the higher portion of the production area, the muyong also provides water and is the primary recharge zone that dictates the overall physical soundness of terrace cultivation and the condition of the whole watershed unit (Butic and Ngidlo 2002). As a buffer for the communal forest and a water provider for the rice terraces, it is of utmost importance in the proper management of the landscape. The muyong is maintained by assisted rejuvenation and selective harvesting. By the rule of primogeniture, this land including prime parcels of rice terraces is handed down to the oldest child, whose privilege obliges him or her to take care of the property and look after the welfare of the younger family members. These estates therefore remain within the lineage of a few landowners. The remaining parcels of land are given to the younger family members whose descendants eventually become the have-nots and are employed as field hands or migrate to where employment opportunities are better. Where resource use is concerned, this practice played its part in managing the human population in the watershed.” (Guimbatan and Baguilat 2006 p 61) Such a conservation landscape differs from the landscape that UNESCO recognizes. Guimbatan and Baguilat (2006) illustrate this in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 The contrast between indigenous practice and World Property Conservation concepts. Source: Guimbatan and Baguilat, 2006 p 62 65

The illustration in Figure 5.1 indicates that UNESCO is considering only a portion of a holistic system. Looking at the landscape partially would obscure one’s vision on how conservation could be done effectively. Thus while UNESCO focuses on the rice terrace zone, the Ifugaos are more concerned with the forest cover zone, which is more rational in a watershed area like Ifugao. Protected forest covers would ensure the source of water, which in turn is the lifeline of the rice terraces. While UNESCO focuses on the rice terraces, other institutions focus on the other parts of the whole system. The mandate of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) includes the muyong or forest lots. “The muyong system can be viewed from different perspectives, either as a forest conservation strategy, a watershed rehabilitation technique, a farming system or an assisted natural regeneration (ANR) strategy.” (Butic and Ngidlo 2003) Because the status of Ifugao lands is still forestlands (cf. Section 4.1.1), the use of the wood in the forests was prohibited. In 1996, the government recognized the traditional forest ownership and indigenous forest management system of the Ifugaos. This is through the DENR-issued Memorandum Circular 96-02, which among others provides for the issuance of “Muyong Resources Permit” (MRP). Such a permit grants the privilege of resource extraction and disposition to qualified applicants. “Those who want to cut trees for woodcarving … are requested to submit the following documents: (1) application form, (2) location and size of the private forest and the number of tree species planted within the area, (3) certificate from the barangay captain to verify that the applicant is a resident of the barangay and has practiced traditional forest conservation techniques for the past 20 years, (4) volume and number of the raw material requirements for the applicant's livelihood for woodcarving, handicraft, manufacturing and the like” (Hayama 2000 p. 12). Through the above memorandum circular, government policy issues permits for the cutting of trees in the muyongs. Such a noble act however is lost on the indigenous people who have always maintained and took from the woodlots, based on old Ifugao traditional laws. “In fact, the government requirement to secure the permit perplexes and discourages most woodcarvers to do it. One of the reasons for reluctance to acquire it is that they believe the forest is their private property and that they have right to use the trees, especially those planted by their ancestors or themselves. The other reason is that issuance of the permit requires considerable cost and time. Presently, the number of those who have acquired the permit is limited, and the majority of woodcarvers have given up selling their products in Manila and Baguio. Furthermore, the ban to cut pine trees will consequently discourage de facto owners to plant them” (Hayama 2000 p. 12).

66

Another confusing issue on the use of Ifugao land is the promotion of the concept of ancestral domain. This is the area of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). “The passage of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (Republic Act 8371) in 1997 heralded the return of power and jurisdiction of the indigenous peoples over their ancestral lands and ancestral domain. The law mandated the NCIP the authority to issue Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title and Certificate of Ancestral Land Title. The IPRA paved the way for the recognition of indigenous culture and ancestral land rights and promoted the right of IPs to empowerment and self-governance. It established the requirement for free, prior and informed consent before any project can be implemented in IP territories and mandated the IPs themselves to prepare their own Ancestral Domains Sustainable Development and Protection Plan” (FAO 2006). This is another source of confusion because the government has never given the Ifugaos the legal documents for land ownership (Ifugao’s sloping land being state-owned). Thus land tenure in Ifugao is in the throes between the traditional practice of communal lands, the conflict of land claims due to absence of legal documents and now the promotion of ancestral domain. All these conflicting issues contribute to create a scenario which Guimabtan and Baguilat (2006, p 61) conclude as “…conservation became an idea not only external to custom, but also fragmented”. The gap between Ifugao’s system of conservation and UNESCO’s conservation concepts could be a factor to confusion and resistance. During our focus group discussion in Barangay Nagacadan, when the topic went into the production of tinawon, the native rice variety, a farmer scoffed at the idea of everybody returning to an all-Tinawon field:“The Tinawon is not pest-resistant. So the harvest is very poor. The yield is always at a loss. What we do is just to have a small portion of the field planted to tinawon, but majority is planted to California variety.” She also questions how UNESCO could be asking the farmers to go back to traditional agricultural practices, which includes the non-use of pesticides. “Time has brought in things that were not here before. The earthworms are really a big problem nowadays. Even the golden kuhol. Traditional practices cannot remove these anymore. But time also brought in some solutions. In Asipulo, the farmers there tried Thiodan15 to treat the earthworm problem and they say it works. Maybe we will try it here too.” Other local residents have their say on the conservation issues:“I wish that whoever made the assessment (that the terraces will be gone in 10 years) will live a hundred years because I believe that though the terraces may continue to deteriorate it will still be there 15

Thiodan is a insecticide for agricultural use.

67

after 100 years. So long as there is water supply, there will always be farmers to farm whatever is tillable.” An interviewee from the local government of Kiangan says that there is a dilemma in the farmers’ situation and the conservation programme of UNESCO. “UNESCO says that it has to be rice terraces. However, the Nagacadan folks do rice cropping only once a year, so they often have to do vegetable farming the rest of the year. The farmers also have their own decisions on whether to plant rice or vegetable. Oftentimes, they are influenced by high prices for vegetables.” An interviewee from the municipal engineering office defended the infrastructure done on the rice terraces which did not use traditional materials and methods. "The use of cement in irrigation canals and path ways are done for practical reasons. A cemented pathway is safer for kids going to school than a slippery muddy walkway. A cemented irrigation canal is better because it would be easier maintained by farmers”. Farmers who worked with the SITMo have adopted the dominant narrative that rice terraces are being abandoned. In fact one of the interviewees cited the details that SITMo and UNESCO have been giving about terrace degradation. He said, “Rice terraces are abandoned because of out-migration and lack of irrigation water. Around 35% of the rice terraces here in Nagacadan are abandoned. People have been mortgaging out their land, and they now prefer to farm in the lowlands.” It turns out that this farmer has worked closely with SITMo in producing a land-use map of Barangay Nagacadan, which would later become a barangay ordinance. Thus he was familiar with the situation of the landscape. He has helped in the inventory of the resources of Barangay Nagacadan. To him, the abandoned fields are just beyond his capacity to recover. “It would need a lot of manpower because the plants that grow in abandoned fields have tenacious roots. Repair work, particularly the reconstruction of terraces and walls can be very expensive, reaching about P100016 for every 2 meters of terrace wall, excluding the price for material and carrier of the materials.” To him, a solution would be to convince farmers, especially those who cannot find jobs, to go back to farming. Only then would an effort be done to recover the untended fields. “There is no effort to recover the fields because nobody will work on it. If some farmers could be convinced to tend it, I am sure the owners would be able to come up with the cost of re-opening these rice fields”. This confirms what Gadal (2006) observed in Banaue during his study of the Ifugao landscape degradation. “Farmers are optimistic where other actors such as government, UNESCO and media are more pessimistic. Farmers do not see the degradation as severe, rapid and recent and see the social change process as spontaneous. People have a more 16

P1000 is approximately €17

68

comprehensive preview of the problems captured through social, technical, economical and cultural perspectives.”(Gadal 2006 p. 37)

)Tourists The perspective of another stakeholder, the tourist, is considered. UNESCO’s policy of conservation seems to consider tourism to be part of the scenario of a conserved rice terrace landscape. UNESCO made the so-called ‘little progress in addressing the needs of tourism’ as part of the justification in labeling the rice terraces as an endangered site. As part of this study, a survey was conducted where 92 tourists in Banaue were asked about their perception on the conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces. Their responses are shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. Table 5.1: Tourists’ agreement and disagreement on the conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces

•The terraces are endangered •There is a need for conservation of the rice terraces •The Ifugao farmers need help to restore rice terraces •Planting alternative crops on the terraces will not destroy its beauty

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

1

5

22

35

37

1

0

2

32

63

1

0

10

38

51

4

15

29

37

12

Agree

Strongly Agree

No Answer

Total 100%

2

100% 100%

2

100%

N=92 Most (72%) of the tourist-respondents agreed that the Ifugao Rice Terraces are endangered. This implies that the Ifugao rice terraces being in UNESCO’s List of Endangered Sites has been heard or is observable. It also suggests that tourists are somehow aware of changes either in the cultural or natural landscape of Ifugao. A great majority (95%) of the tourists agreed that there is a need for conservation of the rice terraces. It suggests that even though some tourists were neutral in the rice terraces being endangered, they join the others (the earlier 72%) in agreeing that the rice terraces need to be conserved. In the statement that Ifugao farmers need help to restore the rice terraces, majority (89%) agreed (51% strongly agreed). This indicates that tourists are aware of the Ifugao people’s limited socio-economic capacity to conserve the rice terraces. It also suggests their acknowledgement that the responsibility of conservation is not limited to the farmers.

69

It is in the statement “Planting alternative crops on the terraces will not destroy its beauty” that the tourists’ responses were more dispersed or scattered. This suggests that some tourists object to the planting of vegetables in the terraces, maybe even during the off-season for rice cultivation. Only 19% said that planting alternative crops would destroy the beauty of the rice terraces. Some (29%) opted to stay neutral, and the rest (49%) agreed with the statement. Table 5. 2: Tourists’ perception on the importance of conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces

• Restoration of the damaged portions of the terraces • Increasing income thru improved technology • Increasing income thru tourism

Very important

Very Unimportant

Unimportant

Neutral

Important

4

0

3

32

61

100%

2

1

17

36

43

100%

1

4

15

46

34

100%

Total

N=92 A great majority (93%) of the tourists considered it important that the damaged portions of the rice terraces be restored. Most (79%) perceives it important that increasing income can be done through improved technology. Though the question was ambiguous about the nature of the improved technology, the tourists agreed that improved technology could play a role in the conservation of the rice terraces. Most (80%) recognize tourism as a means to increase income. Their recognition could be linked to the money they have been spending on food, accommodation, transportation and souvenir items. It does not indicate whether they know if their expenditure reaches the farmers

5.1.2 Power to the People It was Chambers (1997) (c.f. Section 2.1 of this report) who mentioned that empowerment requires and implies changes in power relations and behavior at the institutional, professional and personal levels. This section will show how an institutional indigenous practice could be an effective tool.

70

)The farmers’ innate power In her dissertation, Gonzalez (2000 p 163) reported that the “Ifugao’s terraced ecosystem shows a classic example of triumph of collective work. It couldn’t have been built and maintained without concerted effort.” Indeed, the Ifugaos’ power and strength has been founded in their innate sense of collectiveness – their tendency for being clannish, and in their practice of doing activities in groups. To this day, weddings, funerals, and wakes have always been a whole-town affair. Agricultural activities are also group endeavors, as seen in their practice of baddang and ubbu. These practices were documented by researchers such as Gonzales and Medina, who observed how these have made agricultural activities possible. Settele’s work group (1998) has reported on the reduction of agricultural working time, but they did not cite the important agricultural practices of ubbu, which is very much still in practice. What are the ubbu and the baddang? Farm labor is provided by group effort (ubbu) among neighbors, families/ clans. Men do the site preparations including irrigation ditch and terrace maintenance while women help in the weeding, pest control and harvesting. Another group, called the baddang, helps in constructing and maintaining the terraced walls and canals. Others act as monitors for the canals checking on a daily basis the clogging of the canals and to guard against diversion of the water to other canals. Gonzales (2000) has captured their essence in her dissertation (See Boxes 5.1 and 5.2).

Box 5.1 Essence of baddang “In the old days, menfolk used to join a special kind of workgroup, called baddang specifically for the construction and maintenance of irrigation canals. 65 yearold Buok Hangdaan narrated how the baddang had worked. “The men would gather one late afternoon and discuss the need to channel water from an identified source. The elevation of the water source and the canal route to be constructed determined which terraces would benefit. The owners of these benefiting terraces would pledge to convene at a signal early in the morning. Such signal was usually a shout from the pechang (the baddang leader), followed by shouts from the others, and the chant would continue as they walked their way towards the meeting point. Each one would bring some ukat, which is (cooked) rice and viand for the day’s work. Only on the first day, three chickens, donated by the richer terrace owners or those who have more terraces to be benefiting, are butchered. And while at work, these chickens would be simmering in a big pot. The work would continue every day until the whole canal network is finished. The number of days of participation depended on the size of terrace(s) that one owns. Those with more or bigger fields to benefit would render more working days, but he could also bring along another person, like a son or any other relative, to compensate for it. Those who did not participate, but whose terraces would benefit, will have to pay a fine— something like an equivalent payment for work, and that could mean 3 chickens. Otherwise, they would be ostracized and would lose face to the whole village. Such a shame would extend to their future generations. Non-beneficiaries of the canal may also join in the construction, and this would earn them respect from the whole village. The owner of the last terraces to be irrigated acted as the monitor (called the mun-unod) for maintenance work. Aside from keeping the canals clean of debris from falling leaves, weeds, and stones, he reported destroyed portions, and those affected (owners of terraces comprising the payohcha or terrace complex) will again convene one morning to make repair work. The mun-unod did the report everyday, and must inform others to do it for him on days that he could not. Otherwise, he would get the ire of the group and that would mean losing face. There was also a scheduling of canal watchers, called mun-adog, in times when water supply is low. The canal beneficiaries took turns in filling their terraces and in watching the flow at night in order to guard against those who might steal water. Indicators for canal tampering include a decrease in the rate of flow and muddy water. Those who are caught stealing water (diverting the flow) would be given a talking to and a warning not to do it again. If caught for the second time, all the water would be drained from his/her field and a fine (maybe 2 chickens) would be collected. This would also be a big shame for his/her whole clan” (pers.com. B.Hangdaan 1998).(Gonzalez 2000 p 128)

71

Gonzalez found out why this effective collective labor and water management system is not so much happening anymore. She elicited two answers: “1. The men are busy with off-farm work and other things to attend to in town. 2. The lack of materials - stones (most have been carried away by erosion or used elsewhere in the construction of pathways), cement, and sand which are necessary, otherwise, their “effort will be wasted” on simple earthworks that are easily washed away with the water.”(Gonzalez 2000 p 129) Off-farm work, which could be in the construction of public works, gives a much higher monetary compensation. Thus a farmer Box 5.2 would earn through off-farm work and use Essence of ubbu his wages to hire fellow-farmers to help him “People of a water district used to organize in his rice field. He will not join the ubbu themselves into workgroups called ubbu. The tomoná since he paid for their labor, so he is not had commanded their cooperation from setting the obliged to work on his fellow-farmers’ rice first day of planting up to post-harvesting rituals. A fields. The lack of materials which was cited schedule was decided upon to attend to each member’s (mun-uubu) rice fields to meet the as the second answer indicates the farmers’ agricultural calendar. Computation of work was done lack of money to buy these materials and the by the number of days of services rendered, farmers’ reliance on purchased materials. The Central Cordillera Agricultural Programme (CECAP), an EU-funded project of the Department of Agriculture, made use of these labor-saving practices in the implementation of infrastructure projects. Using the concept of counterpart funding, CECAP required the farmers and local government units to help their own selves by practicing ubbu and baddang to make roads, bridges, irrigation and footpaths. CECAP provided the materials and the local partners provided the labor.

)SITMo The presence of SITMo can be seen as the empowerment of the educated Ifugaos in the conservation movement. They are the bridge between UNESCO and the farmers. SITMo is an indicator that local experts are taking the lead in carrying out the conservation of the rice terraces.

regardless of activity. Failure to comply with the schedule was considered a disgrace, and it also meant providing an equal number of day’s food provisions for the group.

Only the women’s ubbu are active these days. These workgroups are still significantly practiced because of the obvious tediousness of terraced rice production. They are helpful when planting, weeding, and harvesting of rice, and in clearing terrace walls and uma of weeds. Manang Virgie C. enthused, “The ubbu makes work easier. You get surprised when you see everything finished in only a day!” Manong Amando explained it this way: “If there are ten of us in a workgroup, the strength of one is increased ten times. Then, we are like one hundred people working together. The men’s ubbu were for the construction and maintenance of rice terraces, field preparation, and for constructing or moving a house. They also coordinated with the tomoná in having the terraces ready for sowing time. This involves manually turning the soil using a wooden spade or hoe, repairing broken walls, reshaping and maintaining spillways, and bringing in water from the irrigation canals. (Gonzalez, 2000, p 81- 82)

Having been part of drawing up the strategies for the Tourism Masterplan as well as the Conservation Plan, SITMo has been strong in implementing it. Community land-use planning, ecotourism, native rice marketing and other conservation projects have been carried out by SITMo, making it the lead implementer of conservation activities in

72

Ifugao. These activities include eco-tourism, introduction of improved agricultural methods, marketing the native rice, renewable energy and other community development projects. SITMo is consciously working towards the empowerment of the communities in the conservation movement. In the ecotourism projects, the interaction with tourists, the use of local guides and the presentation of the farmers as the local experts are somehow empowering acts. It gives a chance for the local community to be heard and take active part in innovation and development. In the introduction of improved agricultural methods, it is the trained farmers in Kiangan who demonstrate how it is done to their fellow farmers in far-away Banaue. Thus the technology transfer was done simply and directly among the farmers, and did not need to undergo a bureaucratic process. 5.1.3

Synthesis

So how then could our first research question be answered: ho can the empowerment of the grass-root level help in the conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces? Stakeholders agree that the Ifugao rice terraces need to be conserved. The UNESCO sounded off alarms that the rice terraces will lose their world values within ten years; observers and visitors recognize that the landscape needs conservation; and farmers watched how more rice fields were abandoned. The form of conservation is a source of confusion because UNESCO advocates the return to traditional methods of agriculture while the farmers had to cope with modern-day plant pests and diseases. A convergence is needed between the UNESCO’s conservation policies and the Ifugao’s conservation system. UNESCO could assess the current situation in Ifugao whereby some traditions cannot be practiced anymore and where modern devices and methods are improved versions of traditional ones. After all, technology, even of external origin, is available to extend an understanding of this world, and it is desirable to help indigenous peoples acquire it if they find it useful (Gonzalez 2000 p173). Then there are traditions that should be focused on and built upon for use as conservation tools, especially the Ifugao practice of collective labor. Ubbu and baddang are fading traditional practices phased out with the modern practice of individualism, and the quest for easier livelihood sources. But they have not yet vanished. In a community meeting of Sitio Bayninan which the author attended (cf. Section 3.5.2 of this report), the farmer residents discussed their idea of building a native house for the use of tourists. They have been waiting for funding for this project. Now they realized that the funding might take a long time, thus they put it in their agenda for discussion. They reached a decision to build the native house themselves, with each resident putting in their share of labor. It was only when someone reminded them that the permission from the owners for the use of the proposed site was not yet obtained that the discussion stopped, to be resumed next meeting when the owners are present. When the practice of

73

ubbu and baddang (see Figure 5.2) is once again the basic labor practice, then there might come a time when funding for projects from government and non-government organizations will be the last consideration. When this happens, empowerment is truly experienced and the Ifugaos will take charge of their own development as well as the fate of the rice terraces. When the farmer residents of Sitio Bayninan decided to help their own selves and consciously do so to help in the conservation process, they are balanced on the idealisticpragmatic continuum of Sidaway (cf. Section 2.4.1 or Figure 2.2). Having experienced tourism, and realizing their potential for it, they saw tourism as a tool for their development. Then they went beyond this realization by acting on it. They did this through the decision to build a facility that would help them towards their goal of being a tourist attraction. Thus, when they act on what needs to be done to achieve their longterm vision, they were being pragmatic and idealistic. Gonzales (2000 p. 187) aptly says it, as follows: “Only the Ifugaos have the know-how, and therefore only they (or those among them who remain rooted), with the help of outsiders who understand their subjugation and value their connection with the rest of the world, can start the process of learning to rediscover their capacity to carve their own development.”

5.2

How can a heritage maintenance fund from tourism be effectively put up?

In deciding whether to set up tourism fees, Lindberg and Huber (1993) advise that the management objectives be considered (cf. Section 2.3.5 of this report). They generally categorized the management objectives as cost recovery, profit maximization and other objectives. The decision process of Lindberg and Huber asks if demand is great enough for revenues to cover the costs. In the Ifugao case, the setting up of tourism fees would be motivated by conservation, which goes back to both cost recovery and profit maximization. The tourism arrivals to Ifugao, particularly Banaue, have been growing (cf. Table 4.1) but it is seasonal. Arrivals peak during February-April (the dry season) and are at their lowest during June-August (PPDO 2000). Demand might not be great enough for the derived revenues to cover the costs of restoring and maintaining the rice terraces, especially in Kiangan and the other heritage sites that do not have considerable tourist arrivals. This focuses then on the assertion that the heritage fund to be set up will only be a supplemental resource for the rice terraces maintenance. Maintenance should be the Ifugaos’ responsibility, and the heritage fund will be set up to help the Ifugaos help their own selves. Funds for the conservation of the Ifugao rice terraces have two main sources. In 2003, an activity financing contract was drawn between UNESCO and the Provincial Governor of Ifugao to cover the UNESCO World Heritage Committee contribution under the Emergency Technical Assistance Programme in the amount of US$ 75,000. The United

74

Nations and its agencies also expect national/local counterpart contribution of the requesting Member State, in cash or in kind, for project implementation. Thus on the Philippine side, the National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA) approved a $1 million chargeable to the program on the conservation of cultural heritage in support of the Ifugao Terraces Masterplan. In the UNESCO Terminal Report (2004), 100% of the funds (during the first year) have been used for drawing up the conservation plan, tourism master plan, in setting up the administrative office and in stakeholder consultations. After the establishment of the Ifugao Rice Terraces and Cultural Heritage Office (IRTCHO), the funds were concentrated on the specific restoration activities such as terrace wall and irrigation repairs (and other activities specified in the Tourism Master Plan). The NCCA funds are allocated to the municipal local government units which use this for conservation-related activities in the barangay. The establishment of a heritage maintenance fund is now essential especially as the UNESCO and NCCA funds have already been spent. The primary funding for the heritage fund will be from the tourist fees. 5.2.1 Willingness-to-pay A hotel manager in Banaue relates how a Swiss tourist once called her to the restaurant window and pointed out to a far-away farmer working on the rice terraces. He explained how that farmer is like an actor on a stage, performing to an audience. “The audience is the group of tourists in the restaurant who are eating while watching the scenery. Such actor should be paid for his performance.” This opinion is supported in the survey conducted for this report. Ninety-two tourists were asked whether they were willing to pay a heritage fee to help in the conservation efforts. The results reveal that 85% are willing, while the remaining 14% ticked no and 1% did not provide any answer. For those who answered no, they were further asked why. Four out of the 13 respondents (who ticked no) did not answer why, while 5 said that it was the responsibility of the government. Two said it was the responsibility of the locals, while another two mistakenly answered that the terraces were natural wonders (“It will make me feel I'm entering a 'theater’ which is man-made. Everybody should have free access to natural wonders. People can earn other things that tourists pay for.”). Another explained it as follows: “The government, through the Department of Tourism should show their concern regarding this matter and show [=bring?] their funds and invest them here. If some think that ‘I see a good positive outcome’, I myself volunteer to save Banaue”. One said that “As tourists, we already give money”. Another respondent inexplicably said “Once the rice terraces are improved, tourists will flock to Ifugao and consequently will improve the way of life of the Ifugaos.” The respondents were then asked how much they were willing to pay. Their responses ranged from PhP2017 to PhP1000. This could be seen in Figure 5.2 below. It shows that most tourists (72%) chose the range from P50 to P100 (€0.83 to €1.66) as the amount they are willing to pay. This is much more than the amounts stipulated in the ordinances 17

Euro 1 = PhP 60 (conservative approximation); P20= €0.33 ; P100= €1.66; P50=€0.83; P75=€1.25.

75

of Banaue and Kiangan, which were P20 and P30 (€0.33 and €0.50). Thus what these towns charge to tourists are very conservative compared to what the tourists are willing to pay. A speculative estimate of $20,000 or P1, 000,000 could be generated per year if the tourist fee would be P20 and the tourist arrivals will continue to grow (the average tourist arrivals from 2000 to 2005 is 58,456). This would be applicable to Banaue, but not yet in Kiangan and in other inscribed rice terraces sites. Most tourist arrivals are concentrated in Banaue. In Barangay Nagacadan (of Kiangan), where a farmers’ organization is establishing their Heritage Maintenance Fund, the fund source is not only from the tourist fees but also from their earnings. When SITMo organized a tour in Barangay Nagacadan, they requested the farmers’ organization to let the tourists experience the act of repairing terrace wall and land preparation activities (the advertisement of SITMO to tourists is for them to help restore neglected terraces). When the 26 tourists each paid P2,800 (€47) for the experience, SITMo allocated P15,680 (€261) from the collection to the farmers’ organization who, in turn, decided to create a heritage maintenance fund. Thus for areas like Kiangan that do not have the number to create a substantial revenue from tourist fees, supplemental sources for the heritage fee can be drawn up.

How much are tourists willing to pay

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Series1

1000

500

300

100

75

50

40

20

No Answer

1

1

1

41

10

16

1

2

19

Figure 5.2: How much are tourists willing to pay Another question for the respondents was on their preference whether the fee would be paid per day or per visit. Figure 5.3 reveals that 87% of the respondents preferred to pay on a per visit basis, rather than per day.

76

No answer 3%

Per day 10%

Per visit 87%

Figure 5.3: Tourists’ preference on whether fee should be paid per day or per visit The respondents were next asked if the fee should be compulsory or voluntary. Figure 5.4 reveals that most (64%) said it should be compulsory and the rest (31%) opted for voluntary. Four respondents did not provide their choice.

No Answer 4% Voluntary 32%

Compulsary 64%

Figure 5.4: Tourists’ preference on whether fee should be voluntary or compulsory

77

5.2.2

Local government charges

5.2.2.1 Ordinances The municipalities of Kiangan and Banaue, through the regulatory role of the local government units, have made ordinances stipulating the payment of tourist fees. The Municipal Council (Sangguniang Bayan) of Banaue has enacted their ordinance in 2005 while Kiangan did theirs in 2006. Banaue entitled ordinance # 39 of 2005 as Tourism Ordinance of the Municipality of Banaue, describing it as ‘ordinance regulating the tourism industry in the municipality of Banaue’. The ordinance is comprehensive, covering the establishment of a municipal tourism board, tourism registration and fees, licensing of tour guides, tour guide rates and trekking rates. Section 6 states “All tourists, foreign and local entering the municipality are required to register at the Tourist Information Center upon arrival in the municipality and/or any accredited inns, lodges and hotels.” Section 9 is regarding the tourism fees; “An environmental registration fee of P20.00 (twenty pesos) shall be collected from all tourists when entering the municipality. Fees collected shall accrue to the Municipal Government in the form of trust fund intended for eco-tourism related projects specially the preservation of rice terraces.” In Kiangan, the ordinance is Resolution # 90 of 2006 and is entitled “Beauty/Tourist Spots Ordinance of Kiangan, Ifugao”. It is described as “Resolution enacting an ordinance providing and mandating the protection and management of all Godgiven/natural and man-made beauty/tourist spots within the territorial limits of the municipality of Kiangan, proving penalties for violations thereof and providing funds therefore.” The coverage of the ordinance ranges from the definition of terms, classification of beauty spots, prohibited acts, fees and charges, duties and powers of the municipal and barangay local government units, penalty clause and an implementation scheme. Section 6 states the fees and charges to be collected by the barangay treasurer and issued with official receipts. The tourist fee to a site is P30 per head whereby P20 will go to the barangay as an entrance fee and P10 will go to the municipal LGU as environmental fee. Additional fees are required for camping, porterage and cave exploration. These additional fees accrue to the municipal local government unit. Both municipalities have recently taken the first big step with these ordinances. They have given a legal structure to the establishment of a heritage maintenance fund. This move makes implementation easy because the ordinances effectively make tourists fee a local government policy. A weakness of the Banaue ordinance is that the fee is accrued to the municipal treasury and not directly to the barangays where the rice terraces are located. This makes the fund one more level away from the grass-root actors, the farmers. Though the ordinance states that the purpose of the accrued funds would be for eco-tourism, it did not elaborate thus the statement could be interpreted widely and subjectively. Thus if and when the

78

barangays will think upon themselves to impose a tourist fee on their own, it would be one too many for the tourists. The Kiangan ordinance declared entrance fees to accrue to barangays and environmental fees to go to the municipal treasury. Though this seems fair enough, the funds for the barangays will be given to the barangays in the form of development projects. According to a LGU staff, the funds (when collected at the municipal level) will be kept at the municipal treasury. This fund will be made available to the barangay when they give a project proposal for its use. Then the funds will be released for the use of the approved project. This makes the fund like any other development funds that the municipality manages. This manner effectively removes the sense of ownership of the fund from the barangays or the grass-root level. Both municipalities of Kiangan and Banaue made similar statements on the implementation of their ordinances. Both mandated the police force to ‘spearhead and help monitor and enforce the provisions of the ordinance’. Though the police could indeed do the task in the course of their work, it might not be friendly to tourists to be approached now and then by armed law enforcers. A staff from the local government unit of Kiangan remarked that the police force might resist from the additional task of running after tourists. 5.2.2.2 Sagada’s situation A neighboring tourist area, known for its extensive caves, is Sagada in Mountain Province. It has successfully asked for environmental fees of P10 (€0.15) per visit from every tourist, and has required all visitors to use guides whenever visiting the caves and the town’s other attractions (rice terraces, waterfalls, etc). The area was visited to look into how the town has established its tourism fees. The town center is small, and the public utility jeepneys disgorge their passengers near the town hall. This is significant because upon arrival, the visitor could see and are directed to the Tourist Information Center. All inquiries regarding tourism activities are referred to the Tourist Information Center which is located within the town hall. An interview with a local guide reveals that the Tourist Information Center is manned by an organization, the Sagada Environmental Guides’ Association (SEGA). Due to the increase in visitors and lack of knowledge and respect for local customs, the caves and burial sites have, over the years, been damaged to some extent. To help protect the culture and preserve the environment, the SEGA was established in 1994. The environmental fee of P10 was established and collected by the inns and restaurants, and was managed by the Tourism Council. The funds were kept by the council treasurer, and this eventually led to mismanagement. The local government unit then transferred the management of the environmental fees to the SEGA. Today, the funds are monitored and audited by the LGU. Its use however is managed by the SEGA, who draws up its annual

79

plan of activities which are funded by the environmental fee. The main uses for the fund are: • Information, education and communication campaign to the schoolchildren • Clean up of the caves • Contribution to cultural activities • Insurance/ safety of the tourists • Construction/physical improvement of sites. The success of the establishment of the environmental fee could be attributed to the following observations: • The issuance of a ticket when a visitor pays the environmental fee somehow gives assurance that the fee will be accounted for later. • The nature of experience that Sagada offers to tourists is different because of the excludability (cf. Section 2.3.5 of this report on public goods) of the caves. A guide is a necessity, as well as the tools that the guide provides i.e. torch/lanterns and ropes. • The visibility of the projects funded by the environmental fees assures both the local residents and the paying visitors that the fees are being used properly. Thus local residents promote the use of guides. • The guides of the SEGA really undergo training and internship before they could be full-fledged members of the association. They also pay high fees to be members, paying as much as P3,000 (€50). They could only start earning as fullfledged members (with apprenticeship sometime running more than a year), getting P600 (€10) per group of tourists. For Ifugao towns that plan to set up tourism fees, the Sagada case is worth looking into. It is important to learn from the Sagada experience of fund mismanagement. Through regular audit, the local government unit has a measure of control over the funds, and at the same time, has given to SEGA the flexibility to manage the use of the funds. 5.2.3 Collection methods The method of collection plays an important role in the credibility and trustworthiness of the heritage maintenance fund, and in the willingness of the tourists to pay. In Sagada, the environmental fee is collected from the tourists as they register at the Tourist Information Center. This center is housed in the municipal hall and this somehow gives it an air of legitimacy and authority. The issuance of tickets upon payment also gives an air of professionalism (accountancy). The members of the SEGA take turns in manning the center. In Ifugao, the manner of collecting the tourist fees is still under consideration. The local government units are hampered by the lack of staff to implement the ordinances on fee collection from tourists. Though they have done the first steps in the process of establishing a heritage maintenance fund (through the creation of ordinances as legal structures), they now need to know how to proceed in actually collecting the fees.

80

There are a number of ways that could be considered for the collection of tourist fees. Discussions with municipal government staff members, the former head of the Ifugao Terraces Commission and the municipal officials who sponsored the ordinances on tourist fees can be synthesized into the following methods of collection: 1. Setting up of collection desks in strategically designated areas. Collection of the fees is difficult because the Ifugao rice terraces are located in high mountains that everyone could see from their hotel rooms, restaurant windows and from their vehicle seats. The rice terraces are what Navrud and Ready (2002) refer to as public goods. They characterized public goods as having two properties: non-excludible and nonrival in consumption. The terraces are non-excludible, having no gates and walls to prevent visitors from seeing it. It is also non- rival in consumption, since one tourist viewing it will not hamper the enjoyment of other viewers. By these properties, the rice terraces are public goods. Nonetheless, there are areas which could be designated as collection points because of their strategic locations. Visitors are always drawn towards areas that are designated as ‘showing the best view’. In Banaue, a village or barangay called Viewpoint is touted as the place where a visitor could see the rice terraces in its full grandeur. Thus tourists inevitably end up at the public view deck located in Viewpoint, where one has to go though a passageway lined at the sides with curio shops. A collection desk could be set up in this place. In Barangay Batad (of Banaue), visitors go through an arduous trek uphill and downhill to reach the rice terraces there because it is labeled as an ‘unspoilt’ landscape. Before reaching it, one has to pass through a trail way. The start of this trail way could be a designated collection point for tourist fees. The advantage for this method is its simplicity and directness. The municipal official who sponsored the ordinance on tourist fee in Banaue explained that a few selected people would do the collection and the collection would go to the municipal treasury. This method is also site-specific, with each site collecting its own tourist fee. This is in keeping with the preference of the tourists (as shown in Figure 5.5 below) when they were asked whether fees should be charged per site or per attraction or per province. The question (please see Annex 2) clarified that sites refer to the municipalities and attractions refer to the rice terraces, waterfalls and caves. The results (see Figure 5.5) show that most (43%) of the tourists chose to pay per site. For the rest of the respondents, more tourists (27%) preferred to pay per province than per attraction (21%). The disadvantage is that the funds will accrue to the municipal level, and the barangays will not have immediate access to it. Another issue is on the auditing of the funds. Thus, the municipal official saw the need for tickets. The use of tickets could be useful for monitoring and auditing purposes. It would be healthy for a provincial body (the Ifugao Rice Terraces and Cultural Heritage Office would be the logical choice) to centralize the printing of tourist fee tickets, and agree with the municipality on a regular monitoring report. The municipal local government units could conduct a periodic audit of the funds, through its Municipal Accounting Office. Having a watchdog would serve as a reminder to use the funds for its intended purpose: maintenance of the rice terraces. 81

No answer 9%

Per site 43%

Per province 27%

Per attraction 21%

Figure 5.5: Tourists’ preference on payment method, whether per site, attraction, or province-wide 2. Authorizing the different service providers to collect on behalf of the local government unit, with an incentive to participating collectors. A municipal staff member pointed out that while indeed the local government units are short in manpower, there is no lack of organizations that could do the task of collecting the fees. Most of the service providers in Banaue have organized themselves into associations. Thus there is a Banaue Tourism Council, Banaue Terraces Tour Organization, Save Banaue Movement, Banaue Drivers’ Association, Banaue Handicraft Sellers’ Association, and many others. The municipal government could empower these service providers to collect the fee from the tourists. These service providers would then remit the collection on a regular basis (every two weeks, or monthly), which could be accounted with the use of tickets. Incentives could be used to entice the service providers into doing this collection. One incentive could be to give a certain percentage of the collection to the collector. Thus they could be entitled to keep 5% or so. Another would be to make the collection service as one of the requirements for the issuance and renewal of permits and licenses An advantage of this method is that everybody would be pitching in to make the tourists pay the fee. If all establishments have reminders (written or oral) about the tourist fee, then the visitors would inevitably pay the fee. A disadvantage would be that the tourist might feel pestered if everyone will be reminding him to pay up. Another disadvantage is that the tourist fee will have to be much higher. Whereas the barangays would be asking for only P20, the municipal 82

level would have to ask for P100. This is because a part of it will go the service provider, and that it has to be apportioned to the different barangays. 3. Use of ‘add-ons’ on goods and products bought by tourists. This collection method was proposed by the Ifugao Terraces Commission in 2003, as explained in more detail in Box 5.3 in the next page. An advantage of this would be that there will be a large amount of funds that could be collected. Since tourists will be using quite a lot of the services and goods, most of these will become sources of funds for the rice terraces. However, it has disadvantages. Adding on the prices would give a bad reputation to Ifugao as being an expensive place. Local tourists (who are the bulk of Ifugao’s visitors) would be very aware of the difference of the price of a softdrink or soda. This might cause resentment, and would even cause local visitors to bring their own supply of goods and products. Giving different prices of a product to a local resident and to a visitor causes confusion and disagreement. If add-on is to be used as a method, it should be applied only to a selected kind of products and goods, such as rooms, restaurant products, and souvenir items. Thus the only ones affected will be the tourists.

83

Box 5.3 Interview with Juan Dait, Jr. November 15, 2006 I proposed some years ago, when I was then Executive Director of the Ifugao Terraces Commission (ITC), that we should establish a program of generating funds for the conservation of the rice terraces through a scheme of placing “add-on” on non-basic consumer products, like softdrinks and cigarettes, including souvenir items. This proposed “add-on” cost would accrue to a special fund purposely and exclusively for the maintenance of the rice terraces which, through the years through various factors, had been decaying. Example: let us say a bottle of coke or orange normally costs P8.00. The seller store would sell the coke at about P8.50. Thus, the “add-on” cost of P0.50 would be set aside by the store, to accrue to said special fund to help conserve the rice terraces. Another example: If the Banaue Hotel normally charges P1,000 per room, the hotel would be asked to charge P1,050 per room. The “add-on” of P50.00 would accrue to the proposed “special fund” for the upkeep or conservation of the crumbling rice terraces. A third example: If a souvenir item being sold at the Terraces Viewpoint in Banaue,say a woodcarving piece, sells normally at P100, we ask the souvenir store to sell the item at P105. The “add-on” of P5 will accrue to the “special fund.” And so on, on selected items, soft drinks and cigarettes and candies and maybe bottled water or mineral water, and charges on guests in inns and hotels. Who would collect the “add-on” charges? We proposed that the municipal government of Banaue would pass an ordinance to implement this proposed scheme. Our idea was that an ad hoc or special council would be organized or set up to manage this program. Under our proposal, this council would be composed of the following: 1.Representative of the Mayor 2. Representative of the Banaue Tourism Council 3. Representative of the Private Business Sector 4. Representative of the Rice Terraces Farmers 5. Representative of the Ifugao Terraces Commission The Chairman of the 5-man special committee would be elected from among the members. Our proposal to set up this “add-on” program which I thought would be a “painless” way of generating a continuing scheme of raising funds for the maintenance of the rice terraces, did not, unfortunately take off the ground. Why? The reasons are: 1. The municipal government of Banaue had a lukewarm attitude or response to the idea. The business sector or those who would implement the scheme, like the hotels and inns and souvenir shops expressed resistance to the idea because they thought they would be “overcharging” guests and would result in income loss. 2. The ITC, then , had no clout or authority to implement this proposal because the ITC, under its Charter, is merely advisory in character. This flaw in the mandate of the ITC, which is its lack of authority or power to implement its ideas or proposals, militated against the ITC since, under the presidential executive order creating it, the agency is mere recommendatory and advisory to the President. Thus, this “add-on” proposal meant to set up a continuing source of additional funding to help the rice terraces farmers maintain their rice fields, did not push through in our time. We were well-meaning in trying to set up this program but time caught up with us. When Erap Estrada became president, he abolished the ITC and set up another similar agency and appointed a new Executive Director. I became a private citizen and became a full-time farmer and news correspondent. #

84

4. Sole collection point is the Tourist Information Center. According to the tourism ordinance of the Municipality of Banaue, the environmental registration fee should be paid by tourists who are supposed to register at the Banaue Information Center (cf. Section 5.2.2.1 of this report on ordinances). This is then the collection method that Banaue plans to use. The Tourist Information Center, which is a project of the Tourism Council, could be strengthened to be more credible and authoritative especially among the locals. When the locals see that the Tourist Information Center is indeed functional, then they would help in directing the tourists to it for registration and payment of the required fees. The Tourism Council could use the associations of the service providers to help man the information center. Thus the association of the guides, and the drivers and the hotels and restaurants would be represented in the information center. Using the concept of baddang, these associations could volunteer their services so that the information center would really serve as the tourist service hub of Banaue. An advantage of this method is that everything is centralized. Thus tourists will be bothered once, and not in every site he visits. A disadvantage would be that the amount collected will have to be big (perhaps P100 or €1.66) because it will be apportioned among the different barangays. The collection methods above should all use printed tickets, because it would be the basis for auditing and accounting how much revenues are collected from tourist fees. It will also be encouraging to the tourist to see how their money will be spent, when the ticket indicates the usage of the tourist fee. A practice in popular tourist areas is to issue a ‘pass’ that would be more expensive than the regular entry fee but would entitle the holder to visit a number of attractions. It would be convenient for tourists who plan to visit many attractions of a place since they will not have to pay every time they enter an attraction. In addition, they would have paid less in total because the ‘pass’ would be at a discounted rate. Ifugao would do well to adapt this practice for the convenience of the tourists, and for efficiency in collecting the fee. If applied in Ifugao, the pass would entitle the holder to visit several barangays (and the attractions in these barangays). To support the collection of fees, signs should be visible to all visitors informing them that they are expected to register and to pay tourist fees for the purpose of helping the farmers in maintaining the rice terraces. This will enhance the information and education aspect of heritage tourism that Ifugao is offering. Figure 5.6 below shows a sample ticket used in Slovenia. A desk was placed at the start of the trail that leads to the waterfalls located at the top of the mountain. Though the waterfalls were visible from the road, the lure of going up the mountain seems irresistible to the tourists.

85

Front page

Back page

Figu re 5.6: A sample entrance fee ticket issued in Slovenia for the trekking

5.2.4

Tourist perception

Tourists, based on their experiences, have their preferred method of payment. Figure 5.7 below indicates how they answered the question on how or to whom they prefer the heritage fee to be paid. Most (57%) of the tourists preferred to pay to a designated collector. This indicates that it would be acceptable to tourists if the Tourist Information Center be selected as a designated collector. Some (32%) preferred to pay straight to the tour operator, maybe finding this to be more convenient.

86

Tourists' preference for fee collection

Designated collector

No answer 1% Other ways 1%

Service provider Tour operator Other ways No answer

Tour operator 32%

Designated collector 57% Service provider 9%

Figure 5.7: Tourists’ preference to whom to pay fee 5.2.4 Synthesis How then can a heritage maintenance fund from tourism be effectively put up? The establishment of a heritage maintenance fund has been identified in the tourism master plan and in the conservation plan of the Province of Ifugao as one of the strategies of maintaining the rice terraces. Through the ordinances that the municipalities of Kiangan and Banaue have made, the establishment of this fund has a legal foundation. With the conduct of a survey, the concurrence of the payors, the tourists, has also been proven. The next move is to put into action the plan from the tourism master plan, the ordinance of the LGUs and the desire of the tourists to help. With the concerted efforts of all the local government units in the different levels, establishing the heritage maintenance fund could be efficiently and effectively done. The collection of tourist fees should primarily be done at the barangay level. This will direct the collected fees to where it is principally needed. It will build in the grass root level a sense of ownership toward the fund. Making the fee collection barangay-based will make the site a bit excludible because the area would be smaller than the town center, and visitors could easily be detected. However, it would be more practical, especially in the case of Banaue, to do the fee collection also at the town center. Most tourists invariably go to the tourist center, and it would be more practical to get their fee payment there. While the fee collection could be done at the town center, the fund should accrue or go straight to the barangays (in the case of Banaue, it would be Barangay Poblacion and Barangay Viewpoint). The municipal government unit could start an information and education campaign among the service providers on the merits, law and order of collecting tourist fees. 87

Knowing the reasons for the collection of fees would be necessary since they could explain to visitors the uses of the fees. Tourists and visitors get their knowledge mostly from the local people they get in contact with – the service providers. Another important role that the municipal local government should be duty-bound to undertake is to audit the funds generated at the barangays. Audit of the funds is necessary to avoid misuse and mismanagement of the funds. Moreover, the municipal local government has the capacity and capability to conduct the audit because they have a municipal accounting office which could carry out the audit. The provincial government unit, through the Ifugao Cultural Heritage Office, could be responsible for the production and printing of the tickets for the tourist fees. This could be within their mandate because it is part of the tourism master plan and the conservation plan. Through the tickets, they would monitor the number of visitors and the amount generated. Two types of ticket could be printed: the regular entry ticket that could be used in one barangay (and the attractions therein) and the ‘pass’ that would entitle a holder to visit several barangays and their attractions. Another responsibility of the Ifugao Cultural and Heritage Office would be a promotion campaign for the payment of tourist fees. Sign boards that give the right information and placed in strategic locations would go a long way towards educating the tourists on the conservation of the rice terraces. 5.3

How can the heritage maintenance fund from tourism reach the grass root level and how will it be used?

Tourism could be a tool to restore and enhance the Ifugao rice terraces only if the benefits from it would reach the hands of those who till these rice terraces. While tourism has been the livelihood of tourist service providers, the farmers seldom receive any revenues from it. It is only when they take time off the rice fields to be a porter, guide or tricycle driver that they earn from tourism. Now that tourism and conservation are being used for the conservation of the rice terraces, there is optimism that the farmers will be considered in the scheme of things. Among the plans considered in the Tourism Master Plan and Conservation Plan that were drawn up at the provincial level is the establishment of a Heritage Maintenance Fund. Putting up this heritage maintenance fund is primarily for the maintenance of the rice terraces. And provided that maintenance is done by the local communities, specifically the farmers, the Heritage Maintenance Fund should be within their reach and control. 5.3.1

From the tourist to the farmer

As discussed in the previous section, the heritage maintenance fund could be sourced, among other means, from tourist fees. The government, through the NCCA made funds available for use of the World Heritage sites. It has already so far allocated 1.2 million pesos (€20,000) for the rehabilitation of irrigations and rice paddies and road

88

improvement. For as long as the local government units submit proposals in terms of cultural preservation and restoration of heritage sites to NCCA, the agency shall validate them and provide funds for the purpose. Non-government organizations that are concerned with the plight of the rice terraces have been formed i.e. Friends of the Terraces, Adopt-A Terrace, etc. These small organization raise funds for rice terrace restoration but these are sporadic and are oftentimes short-lived. As espoused in the preceding section, the tourist fees might best be accrued to the barangay-level treasury. Collection could be done at the municipal level via the Tourist Information Center, but the funds could be directed to the barangay level. Figure 5.8 below illustrates the process: Municipal LGU

Tourist Information Center or at any designated checkpoint

Audit and monitoring

No

Tourist

Barangay local government unit

Is the tourist fee paid to tour operator?

Yes

Tour operator

Funds from other gov’t sources

Heritage Maintenance Fund Funds from donations NGOs

Figure 5.8: Collection process from tourists to the grass root level

Collection from the tourists could be through the tour operator or through a designated collector such as a Tourist Information Center. Collections given to a tour operator might be remitted to the Tourist Information Center or directly to the barangay local government unit into a Heritage Maintenance Fund. Figure 5.9 below illustrates to whom the Funds could go.

Municipal LGU

Farmers’ associations

Reports on fund usage Barangay Local Government Unit

Irrigators’ Associations

Heritage Maintenance Fund

Individual farmers

Repair and maintenance of the Ifugao Rice Terraces

Barangay local government unit

Figure 5.9: Users of the Heritage Maintenance Fund For grass root empowerment to happen, the use of the Heritage Maintenance Fund ought to be within their control. In Kiangan, the plan of the municipal government is to collect the tourist fee and the barangay government could access it through project proposals. This has effectively removed any control of the barangay and the farmers over the fund, especially as project proposals are required. To farmers, putting their needs through a bureaucratic process such as project proposals might be intimidating. It will also in effect 89

mean that the Heritage Maintenance Fund will be treated like the municipality’s regular and development funds. This should not be so. The Heritage Maintenance Fund is a special fund, coming from donations from the private sector, from tourist fees, and from government agencies like NCCA. It is meant primarily for the repair and restoration of the rice terraces, thus costs might be quite low compared to project costs of regular projects. The cost of repairing a small terrace wall might only be P2,500 (€42) which is quite high for a farmer but very low for a regular government project. While records and other accountability materials are indeed necessary for check and balance purposes, these could also be addressed and required at the barangay-level. The farmers might be more confident in dealing with fellow villagers who know the status, needs and solutions for the rice fields, rather than with town clerks. Figure 5.9 shows to which users the Fund could be accessible. Associations of the farmers and irrigators, whether formal or informal, could get assistance from the fund for project materials. An individual farmer could also seek assistance for the repair and maintenance of his rice terraces if the work involved is beyond the capacity of his baddang group, or his association. Figure 5.10 is a group of pictures featuring how farmers repair damaged terrace walls and paddies. There will also be projects undertaken by the barangay local government units for which the Fund could be used. 5.3.2

Using the Heritage Maintenance Fund

There will be no lack of activities that would need the Heritage Maintenance Fund. Thus the barangay needs to define the parameters of the fund usage, as well as the priority of the usage. Foremost, the fund is intended for the restoration and maintenance of the rice terraces. Thus in the priority list, it could then be used to address the problems that farmers face in the agricultural production in the terraces. Secondly, the fund could be used for conservation of Ifugao’s landscape and this would involve a bigger system. It could then include the forests, buffer zones and village settlement. Finally, the fund could be used for an even bigger system, encompassing culture and socio-economic aspects of the Ifugao community. What could be the uses of the Heritage Maintenance Fund? The possibilities include: • Restoration of collapsed terrace walls. The cost and effort of restoring an eroded terrace wall is often huge. This is due to the prevailing difficulty in getting the needed stones. As a farmer has pointed out (cf. Section 5.1.1), it is difficult for individual farmers to restore collapsed terrace walls and abandoned rice fields. His estimated cost of P1000 for every 2 meters of terrace wall indicates how expensive it would be for a farmer to restore a whole section of a terrace wall. •

Restoration of abandoned rice fields through the repair of damaged irrigation canals. The lack of water and lack of manpower are some of the factors cited for the abandonment of the rice terraces. The importance of water in rice production is such

90

that when irrigation canals are damaged, the rice fields affected are abandoned. Thus damaged irrigation canals should be repaired to maximize water intake and minimize water loss. A check on water management would also be prudent. Repair of damaged irrigation canal is also a huge job for a single farmer. Cremers (2003, p 47) observed, “Considering the responses in the interviews it seems that not many farmers are in a financial position that allows them to spend much on repairs, since they have difficulties obtaining the money to buy their basic needs.” •

Expansion or opening of new areas. As a staff at the municipal government of Kiangan has pointed out, Barangay Nagacadan has already an extensive irrigation system. This might mean that while some areas are abandoned due to lack of water, there would be other areas that would now have available water. If the farmer finds it interesting to expand his production site, then he could seek assistance to open a new rice field. Like in the above section on restoration of collapsed terrace walls, it would be expensive and difficult for a farmer to open new area by himself.

•

Enhancement of a showcase area. The heritage sites could select an area in the rice terraces that they could give over to tourism. As such, the said area could be developed and this could be where tourists will experience the actual practice of rice production. This area would thus be developed to address the needs and safety of visitors, such as safe and sound trekking trails, dining and cooking facilities, and clean latrines. Caution has to be exercised to keep the area and the facilities as authentic as the rest of the landscape. An advantage of exposing only a select area to visitors is to minimize any disturbance felt among local community from too inquisitive visitors. In Sitio Bayninan (in Barangay Nagacadan), the residents have selected an area where they would demonstrate and teach to willing tourists how they build a terrace stonewall or transplant rice seedlings. It is an area near their village and is thus easily seen and accessible to tourists.

•

Address issues in the agricultural production, such as increase in yield and defense against pests and diseases. Where and when solutions are found to increase yield and to solve problems on pests and diseases that disturb rice production, the fund could be used to access such solutions. As a farmer has said (cf. Section 5.1.1) time has brought in problems, but it also has brought in solutions which farmers could test to see whether it would work for them too. An interviewee, the head of the Bayninan Farmers’ Association relates how he and the Barangay Captain (of Nagacadan) were tapped by SITMo to share their knowledge to farmers in the other heritage sites on System of Rice Intensification (SRI)18. The knowledge is shared either through a visit of farmers from the other heritage sites to Sitio Bayninan or he and the Barangay Captain would go to demonstrate in the ricefields of farmers in the other heritage site.

•

Enhancement of muyong or communal woodlots. The communal woodlots play an important role in the traditional Ifugao conservation system. These areas would need protection to ensure the water supply for the rice terraces. Thus muyongs have to be

18

The SRI is a set of simple technology designed to increase rice yield which they found to be effective in increasing yield. This included early transplanting of rice seedling, a practice that Ifugaos found strange. Ifugaos usually transplants the rice seedlings that are 30 or more days old. The SRI promotes, among others, the transplanting of 15 to 20 days old, which is found to bring out more panicles hence more yield.

91

enriched, protected and improved (cf. Section 4.4.6 of this report on the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.) •

Development of livelihood. On-farm and off-farm livelihood opportunities at the site could be encouraged. One of the objectives of the Conservation and Management Plan of the Rice Terraces (p.53) is to “increase income generation for rural communities in order to reduce poverty, slow out-migration and reduce pressure on natural resources.” The listed process indicators include the increase sale of handicraft and local products, and improved marketing techniques and strategies for indigenous products. One such product would be the tinawon, the Ifugao native rice, which the Department of Trade and Industry is trying to link to the niche market of organic produce. A training needs assessment could be conducted to check what skills and knowledge the villagers would want to acquire. The Fund could be accessed to pay trainers.

•

Conservation-awareness activities, especially for the youth, could also be sponsored through the Fund. The new generations of Ifugaos are not as knowledgeable or in touch with agriculture, particularly rice production. Most of their time is spent in schools, thus they miss out on the education which their forebears got in the ricefields. Parents of young adults would reminisce of times when they have to help out in agriculture, an experience seldom known to children and teenagers. To give them such an experience, Ifugao school children (primary school) and young adults (secondary school) could experience the activities in rice production, either as a school excursion or as an agriculture project.

•

Introduction of a sustainable ecotourism that enables villagers and farmers to capture tourist revenue in their own turf. In a focus group discussion conducted with members of the Bayninan Farmers’ Association, the farmers were asked what they would use the heritage maintenance fund that they have started to put up. They were unanimous in their desire to build facilities for tourists. They reasoned that with facilities such as a native hut, or a good trekking trail, the tourists will spend more time and money in their place. Thus a heritage maintenance fund could be used for the construction of a native Ifugao hut to house visitors, or the establishment of a place for eating and for selling of souvenir items. The improvement of trekking trails could also invite more visitors who would patronize the local produce and products. The construction of a view deck could also direct tourists to a certain area that would give them the best view and at the same time, lessen their obtrusiveness.

•

The Heritage Maintenance Fund could also be seen to be a new and accessible source of funding for small-scale community development projects. A councilman (barangay elected official) in Barangay Nagacadan pointed out that the barangay’s development fund of P80, 000 (€1333) per annum is too meager. Only a few community projects (communal latrine, footpath) could be accommodated. Thus, footbridges, solid waste management projects and other such projects for the upliftment of the community are also possible uses of the Fund.

92

5.3.3 Looking at the budget and expected costs Just how much would the Heritage Maintenance Fund be? Looking at the proposed usage in the previous section, one could speculate on the needed costs for one year for one barangay and see how it compares to the expected sources of the fund. The sources of income are adapted from the Tourism Master Plan, and changes were made in consideration that the Heritage Maintenance Fund will fund micro-projects. Major repairs to the irrigation systems, roads, and facilities could be sourced from national line agencies. Thus, from the NCCA annual budget of 50 million pesos for the heritage sites of the entire province of Ifugao, about one million would likely be approved for inclusion to the Heritage Maintenance Fund of one barangay. Said 50 million pesos cover diverse conservation projects in Ifugao such as festivals and major irrigation rehabilitation. Table 5.3 below shows a speculative source of funds and the likely costs that a Heritage Maintenance Fund would cover. A huge deficit is shown. This could be lessened considerably if one would cost the tourist fee at the amount that most of the tourist respondents were willing to pay (P100) instead of the current fee of P20. If a vigorous fund-raising campaign could raise contributions of the private sector, then the deficit would even be lower. Table 5.3: A speculative annual financial statement of the Heritage Maintenance Fund for one barangay Sources of funds NCCA Barangay 20% dev't fund Municipal 20% dev't fund Tourist fee Total funds Costs Terraces repair for 150 farmers Terraces expansion for 75 farmers Minor irrigation repair for 150 farmers Showcase area development Agricultural production trainings Muyong enhancement Livelihood revolving fund Excursion Community development projects Total costs Balance

1,000,000 9,000 50,000 100,000 1,159,000

P20 x 5,000 visitors

967,500 590,625

@ 6 meters per farmer @ 6 meters per farmer

765,000

@ 6 meters per farmer Native house, camp site & trail cleaning

150,000 15,000 10,000 50,000 10,000 50,000 2,608,125 -1,449,125

93

5.3.4 Transparency Transparency in the use of the Fund is crucial to its continuation. The Fund is dependent on the willingness of tourists to pay and on the support of the villagers, and this willingness and support is brought on by the conviction that the Funds will help in the conservation of the rice terraces. Transparency could be manifested in making the public know where the funds went. Thus making known that a footbridge was constructed with the assistance of the Fund would inform both the tourists and the locals where a portion of the Fund went. An accounting of the Fund’s usage could also be posted in the tourist fee collection areas. Making known future conservation activities might also encourage tourists to give more than the required fees. 5.3.5 Synthesis A Heritage Maintenance Fund could indeed be set up from tourism, as seen in the tourists’ willingness to pay fees and willingness to help in the conservation of the Ifugao rice terraces. However, the fund’s ability to help restore the Ifugao rice terraces depends on who would be using it and how it would be used. Maintenance of the rice terraces is done by the farmers, thus it should be the farmers to manage, control and use the Heritage Maintenance Fund. The fund consists of contributions from the government, private organizations and tourist fees. For the tourist fees to reach the farmers, tourists could pay to the tour operator, or to a barangaydesignated place or person or pay to the Tourist Information Center. The tour operator and the Tourist Information Center would then remit this to the barangay treasury, where it will be credited to the Heritage Maintenance Fund of the barangay. This fund would then be made accessible to farmers’ associations, individual farmers and to the barangay local government unit (for community projects). Usage of the fund is primarily for the restoration and maintenance of the rice terraces. Thus farmers could use the fund to restore collapsed terrace walls, damaged irrigation canals and expansion of terraced areas. It could be used to address agricultural issues that farmers expressed to be problematic in the rice terraces. Related areas that are essential to the rice terraces, such as the muyong (woodlots), buffer zones and even the villages could also benefit from the fund. Other conservation activities could also be funded, e.g. agricultural production awareness for school children and construction of eco-tourism facilities. During the first year that the Heritage Maintenance Fund is established, a deficit is likely to happen. Such a deficit could be lessened if the tourist fees are increased, or if fundraising activities are undertaken. It is essential that the usage of the fund be made transparent to the patrons, users and to the public. The fund is made possible through the goodwill of the patrons, and such goodwill will be sustained when these patrons see how the rice terraces were assisted.

94

Figure 5.10 This group of pictures feature farmers in the act of restoring damaged terrace walls and rice paddies. Source: All picture were taken from a PowerPoint made by the Office of the Governor.

95

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations This chapter will wrap up the research, presenting the conclusions gained from the study of literature and from the results and findings. It will also show the recommendations on how the Heritage Maintenance Fund would be set up and the recommendations for further study. 6.1

Conclusion

6.1.1 General The management of heritage as a resource for conservation and tourism involves a right balance between the two fields (conservation and tourism), for each to complement the other. If indigenous tourism is what Hinch & Butler (1996) refer to as tourism activities in which indigenous people are directly involved either through control and/or having their culture serve as the essence of the attraction, then prudent heritage management is essential to preserve as well as sell culture to visitors. In Ifugao, the rice terraces represents the culture and heritage that UNESCO wants to preserve and at the same time wants to sell to tourists. They have declared the Ifugao rice terraces a World Heritage site, and then listed it as endangered when they noted that, among other reasons, tourism needs are not addressed. A Conservation Plan and a Tourism Master Plan were drawn up to address both ends. However, UNESCO might have inadvertently caused a fragmented conservation when it focused on the rice terraces and not on the holistic landscape of the Ifugaos. The Ifugaos are more concerned with the forest cover zone which they know will ensure the source of water, the lifeline of the rice terraces. Tourism benefits should reach the local communities, especially the rural villagers, as advocated by Sherman and Dixon (1997). In Ifugao, benefits from tourism seldom reach the people who take care of the resource base. Farmers oftentimes have to leave farm work to render tourism services to be able to partake of tourism benefits. Earmarking a portion of collected fees for the use of the local community is a technique that would go a long way toward compensating residents for the use of their resources. Fees collected could go towards community development, specifically towards the maintenance of the rice terraces. 6.1.2 Empowerment In the context of tourism development, it is proposed that empowerment be regarded as a multi-dimensional process that provides communities with: -the consultative process often characterized by the input of outside expertise -the opportunity to learn and to choose; the ability to make decisions -the capacity to implement/apply those decisions -acceptance of responsibility for those decisions and actions and their consequences

96

-and outcomes directly benefiting the community and its members, not diverted or channeled into other communities and/or their members (Sofield, 2003). In the Ifugao situation, empowerment comes through the initiative of local experts who took the lead in advocating the conservation of the rice terraces. Through SITMo, the non-government organization engaged in community development, farmers got actively involved in conservation efforts. Eco-tourism tours that SITMo organized drew in the participation of farmer groups, making these groups realize their potential as tourism entrepreneurs. A farmer group in Barangay Nagacadan realized their potential, and has started to make decisions on how they could reap tourism benefits and how they could respond to conservation issues. This gave them the needed push to take control of their own development, coming up with a barangay ordinance on how they want their own barangay to be. This gives credence to the conclusion that the empowerment of the grassroot level, the farmers, indeed helps in the conservation of the Ifugao rice terraces. Empowerment could also be sourced from within. The Ifugao rice terraces have been in existence for more than a thousand years already, proof of the effectiveness of age-old traditional practices used to address problems encountered in the rice fields. One such practice is collective work. Ifugaos have a strong sense of collectiveness, which made possible the labor-intensive rice cultivation. Ubbu and baddang are farm labor provided by group effort among neighbors, families and clans. The tedious process of land preparation, irrigation repair and maintenance, and other tasks involved in rice culture were made manageable through collective work. However, these commendable practices have declined, with men folks now involved with off-farm work, and with the lack of materials which farmers now have to purchase. While UNESCO advocates for the return to traditional practices, it should have focused on these collective work practices. With the capacity to do things on their own, the Ifugao farmers would again be empowered to continue maintaining the landscape. 6.1.3

Heritage Maintenance Fund

A heritage maintenance fund could indeed be derived from tourism. Based on a survey conducted for this research, tourists are willing to pay fees in order to help in the conservation of the Ifugao landscape. The local government units have sensibly made the legal foundation for the Heritage Maintenance Fund through the issuance of ordinances. These ordinances required tourists to pay fees that would accrue to a Heritage Maintenance Fund. Implementation is however hampered by the lack of a detailed plan on how, where and who will collect the tourist fees. Collection of the fee could be through a number of ways: to tour operators, to the Tourist Information Center at the town centers, or to barangay collection points (cf. Section 5.2.3 of this report). The most convenient for tourists on tour packages would be to pay through the tour operator who could remit it either directly to the barangay or to the

97

Tourist Information Center (who will ideally remit it to the barangays). When the funds reach the barangay treasury, the farmers or farmer groups could avail of it. The use of the fund is primarily for the maintenance and restoration of the rice terraces. It could help to repair collapsed terrace walls, eroded irrigation canals, and damaged water sources. It could also aid in looking for answers to pest and disease issues that farmers encounter, and even aid in the marketing of the organic rice that the rice terraces produce. 6.2

Recommendations

6.2.1 Campaign for baddang and ubbu Helping the Ifugaos to rediscover their innate power of collective labor might ultimately lead to the recovery of rice terraces from degradation. The indigenous practices of ubbu and baddang could and should be harnessed and used in the conservation movement. By recognizing its value and its role in the rice agriculture, these indigenous practices might once again be the main labor practice in Ifugao. If participation is defined as a ‘process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources which affect them’, (c.f. Sidaway in Chapter 2) then ubbu and baddang just might be the right tools. A small beginning for this could be the practice of giving counterpart funding, as popularized by the EU-funded development agency CECAP (c.f. National Agencies in Chapter 4). CECAP used the strategy of giving projects only if the community would give counterpart funding through labor and local materials. The community gave a positive response when the community leaders asked each household to render free labor for the construction of irrigation, roads and footpaths. This might have been unacceptable if baddang was not a traditional practice in Ifugao. While off-farm paid labor and other job opportunities might still be more lucrative, establishing the practice of baddang and ubbu will empower the local Ifugaos to do their own development work themselves without having to rely on the benevolence of other places. It will once again bring back the spirit that the Ifugaos once had that resisted colonial powers. This time, that same spirit might resist the quest for more and more money. 6.2.2 Heritage maintenance fund to be barangay-based The Heritage Maintenance Fund should be within the reach and control of the very people who directly maintain the rice terraces. The present set-up of having the tourist fee collection accrue to the municipal government units of Banaue and Kiangan is one level away from the farmers who are the priority beneficiaries of the fund. Tourist fee collections should be transferred from the Tourist Information Center to the barangay local government coffers, where it would be more accessible to farmers and farmer groups.

98

6.2.3 Coherent implementation of the collection of the tourist fees While the municipalities have started the process of tourist fee collection, they have stopped short of the actual collection of the fees. They have sensibly started though the drawing up of ordinances that gave the whole process of establishing a heritage maintenance fund a legal foundation. To start implementing, a well-thought information campaign should be done. This will inform both local residents and tourists of the purpose and the process of tourist fee collection. Well-designed signs and signboards in strategic places, as well as promotional stickers in the tourist establishments, would make sure that all tourists know about the tourist fees. The accountability of the use of the Heritage Maintenance Fee is important, since it comes from the goodwill and desire of tourists to aid in the conservation. Transparency is essential to earn the trust of the local residents and the tourists that the fund will go to where it is intended. Transparency could be done through the posting of the financial statements in strategic places, visible to the tourists. Pictures of the benefits derived from the Heritage Maintenance Fund would help the tourists to envision where their money goes. The funds should also be regularly audited, to ensure that it is used for the purpose it was intended for. This will deter the mismanagement of the funds, catching any misdemeanors before it would affect the funds. Audits could be done by the municipal auditors, and audit reports could be published and displayed for public consumption. The aid in the audit of the fund, tickets for the tourist fee should be issued. In that way, the collection would be measured through the number of tickets issued to tourists. The issuance of a ticket is also assuring to tourists because it somehow connotes that the fee will be accounted for later. 6.2.4 Financial counterparts How would the farmers avail of financial assistance from the Fund? Guidelines are needed to avoid the danger of farmers lining up for help for every and all activity. While the funds are there for the farmers, the farmers would have to help their own selves too. This could be shown through the provision of counterpart funding which could be in the form of labor or locally available materials. For every amount that he asks from the Heritage Maintenance Fund, the farmer has to offer a counterpart funding. Thus if a group of farmers want to repair an irrigation canal, they could ask for assistance in the purchase of materials and they will give free labor. It is important to emphasize that the Fund is supplementary to what the villagers themselves will invest in the conservation of the rice terraces. Requiring financial counterpart is an approach that destroys dole-out mentality. Since villagers have been receiving grants and had been beneficiaries of development projects, they are used to waiting for things to happen. They could be empowered more if they have the Heritage Maintenance Fund within their reach and at

99

the same time, they have to work for it. If making the Fund accessible to the farmers gives them a sense of ownership, they might also be prudent in its use. Requiring financial counterpart from the users would also help in spreading the benefits to cover more area and people. Instead of sponsoring the entire cost of a project, the Fund would sponsor half of it because the other half is shouldered by the user. 6.3

Limitations of the study and recommendations for further research

This thesis is limited in scope, dealing only with a small portion of the whole conservation field. There is a myriad of conservation issues that merits closer study. Some of the ones related to this research are on the following: Study on the changes from an earlier time to the current state of the Ifugao rice terraces. It would empirically measure the changes that time and other elements brought to the rice terraces. A group of students from four German universities conducted a scientific excursion and they were able to measure the degree of degradation of a certain area in Banaue, comparing the landscape in 1963 to that of 1997 (Settele et al. 1998). Such a study could be replicated into a bigger area, and in other inscribed Heritage Sites. It would also include agricultural practices that got extinct and the ones that survived. An evaluation and impact study on the conservation measures started since 1995 would be relevant and important in the present and future conservation activities in Ifugao. This study would show what the indigenous peoples perceive as having been done well and what needs improvement. It would also show how far the conservation plan and the tourism master plan have been implemented.

100

References Buckley, R. 2004. The effects of World Heritage listing on tourism to Australian National Parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12:70-84. Butic, M., and Ngidlo, R. 2003. Muyong forest of Ifugao: Assisted natural regeneration in traditional forest management. In Advancing Assisted Natural Regeneration in Asia and the Pacific, P. Dugan, P. Durst, D. Ganz and P. McKenzie, eds. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO. Butler, R., and Hinch, T., eds. 1996. Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. Cornwall: International Thomson Business Press. Cater, E., and Goodall, B. 1992. Must tourism destroy its resource base? In Environmental Issues in the 1990s, A. Mannion and S. Bowlby, eds. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chambers, R. 1997. Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. London: ITDG Publishing. Cooperative Research Center for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management 1999 Understanding ethnic tourists- the Tjapukai experience. http://www.rainforestcrc.jcu.edu.au/infosheets/ethnic_tourists.pdf Cremers, L. 2003. The stone walls are tired: the positive and negative influences of tourism on irrigation practices in the Batad Rice Terraces, Ifugao Province, The Philippines. In Irrigation and Water Engineering Group. Wageningen: Wageningen University. Drost, A. 1996. Developing sustainable tourism for World Heritage Sites. Annals of Tourism Research 23:479-492. Dutta, M., Banerjee, S., and Husain, Z. 2005. Untapped demand for heritage: a contingent valuation study of Prinseo Ghat, Calcutta. Tourism Management 28:83-95. FAO 2006 Philippines: Governance and Local Empowerment in the Environment and Natural Resources Sector. ftp://ftp.fao.org/sd/SDA/GIAHS/forum_oct2006/session2/Full_paper_4_Philippin es_Governance_Analiza_Teh.pdf May 24, 2007 Gadal, N. 2006. What is true about landscape degradation? An ethnographic study of Ifugao rice Terraces. In Rural Development Studies, p. 91. Wageningen: Wageningen University. Gonzalez, R.M. 2000. Platforms and terraces: bridging participation and GIS in jointlearning for watershed management with the Ifugaos of the Philippines. Den Haag: Wageningen University and Research Center. Grekin, J., and Milne, S. 1996. Towards sustainable tourism development: the case of Pond Inlet, NWT. In Tourism and Indigenous Peoples, R. Butler and T. Hinch, eds. Cornwall: International Thomson Business Press. Guimbatan, R., and Baguilat, T.J. 2006. Misunderstanding the notion of conservation in the Philippine rice terraces- cultural landscapes. International Social Science Journal 58:59-67. Gurung, C., and DeCoursey, M. 2000. Too much too fast: lessons from Nepal's lost kingdom of Mustang. In Tourism and Development in Mountain Regions, P. Godde, M. Price and F. Zimmerman, eds., pp. 239-254. Oxon: Cabi Publishing.

101

Hayama, A. 2000 Forest Management System Practiced by Local People: A Case Study in Ifugao. http://www.iges.or.jp/en/fc/phase1/ir98-3-17.PDF August 5, 2007 Herzmann, S., Jost, A., Korbun, T., Willerding, C., Settele, J., and Plachter, H. 1998. Ifugao rice terraces - Landuse changes in a traditional agroexosystem from 1963 to 1997. In Rice Terraces of Ifugao (Northern-Luzon, Philippines) - Conflicts of landuse and environmental conservation, J. Settele, H. Plachter, J. Sauerborn and D. Vetterlein, eds. Germany: UFZ-Bericht. Ifugao Provincial Government 2004. Enhancement of Ifugao Biodiversity to Preserve the Ecosystem in the Ifugao World Heritage Site. Lagawe, Ifugao: Ifugao Provincial Government - UNESCO. Inskeep, E. 1998. Guide for local authorities on developing sustainable tourism. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Joshi, R.C., Delacruz, M.S., Martin, E.C., Cabigat, J.C., Bahatan, R.G., Bahatan, A.D., Abayao, E.H., Choy-Awon, J., Chilagan, N.P., and Cayong, A.B. 2001. Current Status of the Golden Apple Snail in the Ifugao Rice Terraces, Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 18. Joshi, R.C., Matchoc, O.R.O., Bahatan, R.G., and Dela Pena, F.A. 2000. Farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices of rice crop and pest management at Ifugao Rice Terraces, Philippines. International Journal of Pest Management 46:43-48. Kim, S.S., Wong, K., and Cho, M. 2007. Assessing the economic value of a world heritage site and willingness-to-pay determinants: a case of Changdeok Palace. Tourism Management 28:317-322. Knox, P., and Marston, S. 2004. Places and regions in global contexts: human geography. New Jersey: Pearson Education, inc. Krauss, W. 2005. The natural and cultural landscape heritage of Northern Friesland. International Journal of Heritage Studies. Lindberg, K., and Huber Jr., R. 1993. Economic Issues in Ecotourism Management. In Ecotourism: a guide for planners and managers, K. Linberg and D. Hawkins, eds. North Bennington, Vermont: The Ecotourism Society. MacLellan, R., Dieke, P., and Thapa, B.K. 2000. Mountain Tourism and Public Policy in Nepal. In Tourism and Development in Mountain Regions, P. Godde, M. Price and F. Zimmerman, eds., pp. 173-198. Oxon: CABI Publishing. McKercher, B., and du Cros, H. 2002. Cultural Tourism: the partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press. Medina, C. 2003. Understanding the Ifugao Rice Terraces. Baguio: Saint Louis University. Mendoza, P. 2003. Workable Rice Production Technologies in the Cordilleras. Banaue: Central Cordillera Agricultural Programme. Mowforth, M., and Munt, I. 1998. Tourism and sustainability: development and new tourism in the Third World. Oxon: Routledge. Munoz-Vinas, S. 2005. Contemporary Theory of Conservation. Jordan Hill, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann Linacre House. Navrud, S., and Ready, R., eds. 2002. Valuing cultural heritage: applying environmental valuation techniques to historic building, monuments and artifacts. UK: Edward Elagr Publishing Ltd.

102

NSCB 2007 NSCB maps the country's poorest provinces. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/2000/mapping/default.asp Office of the Ifugao Provincial Governor, and UNESCO-ETCAP 2004. Conservation and Management Plan of the Rice Terraces in the Philippine Cordilleras: World Heritage Site in Danger. PPDO 2000. Socio-economic profile of Ifugao. Provincial Government of Ifugao. Prentice, R. 1993. Tourism and Heritage Attractions. London: Routledge. Provincial Planning and Development Office 2004. Ifugao Rice Terraces Master Plan. Provincial Government of Ifugao. Rudnik, K.A. 2005. Success factors for co-operation with stakeholders towards sustainable tourism development: a case study of Bieszczady PAN Park. p. 79. Warsaw: Bournemouth University. Settele, J., Plachter, H., Sauerborn, J., and Vetterlein, D. 1998. Rice Terraces of Ifugao: conflicts of landuse and environmental conservation Sherman, P., and Dixon, J. 1997. The economics of nature tourism: determining if it pays. In The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism, L. France, ed. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Sidaway, R. 2005. Resolving environmental disputes: from conflict to consensus. Gateshead, UK: Earthscan. SITMo 2007 Save the Terraces Movement (SITMo): for the survival of our heritage. http://sitmo.ueuo.com/ April 15, 2007 Smeets, R. 2004. Intangible Cultural Heritage and its Link to Tangible Cultural and Natural Heritage (Concluding Speech). . In Utaki in Okinawa and Sacred Spaces in Asia: Community Development and Cultural Heritage M. Yamamoto and M. Jujimoto, eds. Tokyo: Japan Foundation. Sofield, T. 2003. Empowerment for sustainable tourism development. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. Sofield, T., and Birtles, A. 1996. Indigenous People's Cultural Opportunity Spectrum for Tourism. In Tourism and Indigenous Peoples, R. Butler and T. Hinch, eds. Cornwall: Thomson Business Press. UNESCO 2002. World Heritage Committee Twenty-fifth session Report http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom01.htm#riceterraces UNESCO 2006. Report of a Joint Reactive Monitoring Mission to the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras, Ifugao Province, The Philippines Wall, G., and Long, V. 1996. Balinese homestays: an indigenous response to tourism opportunities. In Tourism and Indigenous Peoples, R. Butler and T. Hinch, eds. Cornwall: International Thomson Business Press. White, P.C., and Lovett, J.C. 1999. Public preferences and willingness-to-pay for nature conservation in the North York Moors National Park, UK. Journal of Environmental Management 55:1-13. World Bank 1991. Operational Directive 4.20. World Heritage Center 2007a http://whc.unesco.org/en/169 World Heritage Center 2007b Operational Guidelines for the implementation of World Heritage Convention. http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ April 12, 2007 Zukin, S. 1995. The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge, Mass. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

103

Annexes Annex 1

Sample survey questionnaire

Dear Visitor, May I request your assistance in completing the attached questionnaire? This is part of a study that I am undertaking as a researcher under the supervision of the Wageningen University, The Netherlands. My research is about the establishment of a heritage maintenance fund that would help the farmers in the conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces. Please add your email address at the margin of the questionnaire if you are interested in knowing the outcome of this study. I sincerely thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, Eulalie Dulnuan

104

Respondent Number ___________

General Information 1. Gender 2. Age 3. Nationality 4. Occupation

: : : :

______ Male ______ Female _______________ _______________ _______________

Conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces The Ifugao Rice Terraces are said to be endangered. Some areas are damaged, neglected and abandoned. Reasons for these include erosion, lack of irrigation, and the high cost of repairing the stone walls. Farmers are thus finding it difficult to maintain the rice terraces. Based on your observations, please rate how you agree (or disagree) with the following statements (encircle the number of your choice): Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree disagree agree 1.The rice terraces are endangered 1 2 3 4 5 2.There is a need for conservation of the rice terraces 3.Ifugao farmers need help to restore rice terraces 4. Planting alternative crops on the terraces will not destroy its beauty

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Unimportant

Neutral

Important

Very important

Please rate the importance of the following: Very Unimportant

5.Restoration of the damaged portions of the terraces

1

2

3

4

5

6.Increasing income thru improved farming practices

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

7.Increasing income thru tourism

)

105

The conservation of the rice terraces is not an easy task. It requires a lot of support from all sectors. 8. As a tourist, would you be willing to pay a fee to help in the conservation efforts? ___ Yes ___ No. 9. If no, why? _________________________________________________________________ 10. If yes, how much are you willing to pay? ___ P 50 ___ P 75 ___ P100 ___Others P____ 11. The Ifugao Rice Terraces are located in 5 Heritage Sites/municipalities (Kiangan, Banaue, Mayoyao, Hungduan and Asipulo) and each site has various attractions (terraces, waterfalls, villages, activities). How do you recommend should fees be charged ____ per site (municipality) ____ per attraction ____ one fee for the entire province 12. How should the fee be collected? ___Per day ___Per visit (irrespective of the number of days of the visit) 13. Should the fee be _____ Compulsory/ required? _____ Voluntary? 14. How (or to whom) do you prefer the fee to be paid? To the tour operator (include in the tour fee price) To any service provider i.e hotel, restaurant, guide To a designated collector Other ways

______________ ______________ ______________ ______________

15. What do you recommend for tourists to do (to help in the conservation efforts)? ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________

16. Any other comments or suggestions? ____________________________________________

106

Annex 2

Interview Guide for farmers:

General Data Date of interview Name of interviewer Place of interview Personal Data Name Age Place Occupation Additional jobs General farming data: How many rice terraces do you have? Are any of these terraces uncultivated? Why? Degradation Do you experience degradation of the rice terraces? Have you experienced landslides? Is irrigation sufficient? When is shortage experienced, if any? How is this resolved? What are the reasons for degradation? Tourism Do you receive any income from tourism? Do you have tourism-related tasks/jobs? Conservation Should the terraces be conserved? How should the terraces be conserved? Who should conserve the terraces? Why? Who should be involved in the conservation? Heritage fee Should tourists pay a fee to visit the terraces? How much should the fee be? Who should collect the fee? How should the collection be spent? Who should decide? If you could access the funds, what would you do with the money? How much would you get?

107

Annex 3

List of Interviewees

Provincial level: Marietta Hangdaan, Provincial Tourism Officer Nora Luglug, Head of the Ifugao Rice Terraces and Cultural Heritage Office Staff, Provincial Planning and Development Office Municipal level: Staff, Banaue Treasurer’s Office Staff, Tourism Information Center, Banaue, Ifugao Annie Dumangeng,Tourism Designate, Kiangan Municipal Government Jeff Dimog, Kiangan Municipal Planning and Development Office Albert Indunan, Mayor, Kiangan, Ifugao Patrick Puguon, Vice Mayor, Kiangan, Ifugao Barangay officials: Eddie Balog, Barangay Captain, Nagacadan, Kiangan, Ifugao Telo, Councilman, Nagacadan, Kiangan, Ifugao Ramon Tayaban, Head of Bayninan Farmers’ Association Lorna Felipe, Secretary, Bayninan Farmers’ Association NGO/Private Sector Nilo Manangan, Administrative Head, Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement Jed Angway, former president of the Sagada Environmental Guides’ Association Vicky Bahatan, Owner, Greenvalley Restaurant Juan Dait, Jr., Former head of Ifugao Terraces Commission Focus Group Discussion participants (held on December 31, 2006): Lorna Felipe Catalina Ananayo Samuel Hagada Angeline Bulahao Robert Bulahao Maxima Ananayo Emilia Ananayo Alice Natama Gemma Tayaban Stella Binwag Gabina Tuguinay Emelda Domin-ong Annex 4:

The Ifugao Rice Terraces Problem Tree

108

ECOLOGICAL INSTABILITY

HERITAGE SITES IN DANGER LIST

THREATENED FOOD DIVERSITY & SECURITY

DETERIORATION OF RICE TERRACES

LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY

REDUCED FARM LABOR FORCE

UNREGULATED HUNTING

DESTRUCTION OF WATERSHED

INDISCRIMINATE USE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY & INTRODUCTION OF NEW SPECIES

INCREASING OUT-MIGRATION OF FARM LABOR FORCE

EROSION & SILTATION

LOSS OF INTEREST

LAND USE CONVERSION/ABANDONMENT

EROSION OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE & VALUES

UNPROTECTED OWNERSHIP & RIGHTS

BIO-PIRACY

LIMITED INCOME FROM RICE FARMING

WEAK INDIGENIZATION OF UNIVERSAL EDUCATION SYSTEM

HIGH COST OF REHABILITATION/ MAINTENANCE OF DAMAGED RICE TERRACES

LIMITED ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

LIMITED EXPANSION AREAS

DAMAGED RICE TERRACES

POOR WATER MANAGEMENT

EARTHWORM INFESTATION

MONOCROPPING

NATURAL CALAMITY POOR ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES

COMMERCIALIZATION

ONE TO TWO CROPPINGS A YEAR LOW ECONOMIC RETURNS

NO REGULATIONS

INSUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLY LOW PEOPLE'S AWARENESS ON THE VALUE OF BIODIVERSITY

PEST & DISEASES

LABOR INTENSIVE FARMING SYSTEMS

DRYING UP OF WATER SOURCES DISTURBED ECOSYSTEM

MANUAL LABOR-BASED FARMING TECHNOLOGY

UNSYNCHRONIZED CROPPING CALENDAR

LONG SEASON RICE VARIETY

INDISCRIMINATE USE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY & INTRODUCTION OF NEW SPECIES

ROUGH TERRAIN/ GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITATION/ CONDITION

SEEPAGE ALONG IRRIGATION CANALS

DESTRUCTION OF WATER SHED

WEAK IMPLEMENTATION

DESTRUCTION OF SOIL CONDITION DUE TO EARTHWORM & OTHER SOIL DWELLING ORGANISMS/ANIMALS

ILLEGAL LOGGING

NATURAL PHENOMENON

INAPPROPRIATE APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY

EXCESSIVE CUTTING OF TREES FOR HOUSEHOLD USE

UNREGULATED "KAINGIN" AGRICULTURE (SLASH & BURN SYSTEM)

POOR QUALITY OF PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED

UNCERTAINTY OF OWNERSHIP

Annex 4:

POOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

UNREGULATED LAND USE & PHYSICAL PLANNING

UNIMPROVED IRRIGATION FACILITIES

WEAK SUPPORT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IPRA

The Ifugao Rice Terraces Problem Tree

SHIFT IN VALUES & PRIORITIES

(Source: Ifugao Rice Terraces Master Plan -2003-2012) LOW ECONOMIC RETURNS FROM THE TERRACES

INFLUENCE OF MODERNIZATION & BELIEFS

POOR ACCESS TO SOCIAL SERVICES

INADEQUATE SUPPORT SERVICES

PRESSURE FROM INCREASING POPULATION

COLONIAL MENTALITY

INCREASING WANTS & NEEDS

GLOBALIZATION

WEAK POLITICAL WILL / FAST TURNOVER OF LEADERSHIP

NATURAL &MANMADE HAZARDS

WEAK OR ABSENCE OF REGULATORY SYSTEMS

109