2.

0 SUBSECTORAL ASSESSMENT

2.1 Watershed

2.1.1 Introduction

The report covers the assessment of the current state of watersheds and watershed management
in the Philippines along with the current policies and programs related to watershed management. The
detailed and accurate illustration of the procedures adopted for this task is shown in Figure 2.3.

ENVIRONMENT

A Technologies, Livelihood & Property Rights,

P Practices Training/IEC Inst’l Arrangements
Support Services
P S
R
O
C
P I
R E
I
CAPABLE PRIVATE N
A
DENR/ OGAs SECTOR
T C
E
E
P
O LGUs LOCAL
L COMMUNITIES
I R
C &
I
E D
S Sustainable Vegetation,
Soil, Water,
Other Resources

Figure 2.3. Elements of sustainable watershed resources management (Cruz, 2002).

The figure shows that the sustainability of watershed resources and, hence also the flow of goods
and services from the watershed, is directly determined by the capability of various actors and players in
watershed management. When the major actors and players (local communities, LGUs, DENR, others) in
watershed management are fully capable and properly motivated to perform their roles, the watershed
resources are going to be sustainable. Mechanisms that will equip and motivate the actors and players such
as IEC, training, equitable and just property rights system, institutional arrangement, viable livelihood
systems and sound technologies and practices should be in place. For all these to happen, appropriate
policies and well developed science must be there as pillars upon which the enabling mechanisms and the
various actors and players can rest in stability under varying environmental conditions. The following
elements are therefore essential for the success of watershed management in the country:

• appropriate tenurial arrangements for land and resource use and mode of governance;
• adequate access to appropriate technology and technical assistance;
• adequate training and IEC;
• appropriate mechanisms for equitable sharing of costs and benefits;
• adequate opportunities and support systems for sustainable livelihood enterprises;
• appropriate policies; and
• growing science allied to watershed management

13
[Link] Current State of Watershed Management
[Link].1 The Philippine Watersheds
It is estimated that at least 70% of the total land area of the Philippines belong to watersheds of
varying sizes (Table 2.4). Watersheds with area of at least 100,000 ha referred to as river basins comprise
more than 10 M ha of the watershed areas. This includes areas inside and outside watersheds that are
proclaimed as watershed reserves. Proclaimed watershed reserves refer to those watersheds that were
specifically designated for various purposes such as domestic water supply, irrigation, hydroelectric power
generation and multiple uses (Table 2.5). Watersheds are valuable not only because of its water resources
but also because of forests and other natural resources found therein. Management of watersheds is hence
critical in promoting the sustainability of all the natural resources in the watersheds.

[Link].2 Watershed Degradation

Many of our watersheds today are invariably degraded characterized by degraded forests, soil erosion,
erratic streamflow, declining groundwater resource, loss of biodiversity, microclimate deterioration, and
declining land productivity. Forest degradation is mainly due to the removal of natural vegetation from large
area of land by converting forest into agricultural land, road construction and urban development. It also
includes the reduction in the vegetation stock due to timber poaching, fuelwood gathering, and collection of
rattan and other non-timber products. Forest degradation leads to loss of wildlife habitats, microclimate
changes, and loss of production potential from a range of wood and non-wood renewable resources, and
potentially to erosion and loss of nutrients. Latest estimates show that no more than 20% of the total area of
the country is covered with forests. Almost 10 M ha of the country’s forest were lost between 1935 and
1988 at a rate of more than 150,000 ha annually. This drastically dropped to about 100,000? ha per year
from 1989 to 1996. Regionally, only Regions 2 and 4 have more than 30% of forest cover remaining. On
the watershed level, the forest cover varies from almost none to more than 50% depending on major factors
like population, remaining natural forest resource base, availability of sufficient non-forest based alternative
livelihoods and presence of accountable managers.

Soil erosion is considered as one of the worst problems of most watersheds in the country, with
estimates of between 74 and 81 million tons of soil being lost annually, and between 63% and 77% of the
country’s total land area affected. There are reports that 13 of the country’s 73 provinces have over half of
their land area affected by moderate to severe erosion. Sedimentation has reduced the storage capacity of
the country’s major reservoirs affecting water supplies for domestic, industrial, irrigation and power-
generation purposes. Between 1973 and 1998, an estimated 20-30% reduction in area irrigated during the
dry season by a number of irrigation systems (DENR 1999).

Table 2.4. River basins of the Philippines (NWRC, 1979).

Drainage Area (km2) Number of River Basins
40 – 100
51
101 – 200 117
201 – 500 151
501 – 1,000 59
1,001 – 2,000 26
2,001 – 5,000 8
5,001 – 1,0000 4
10,000 – 25,000 3
TOTAL 419

14
 Table 2.5. Proclaimed and priority watersheds in the Philippines.
Proclaimed Priority %
Forestland Forests Watersheds Watersheds
Region Forest
(ha) (ha)
no. ha no. ha Cover

CAR 1,479,269 6 113,009 12 1,573,700

1 473,097 396,400 10 6,167 8 797,812
2 1,717,793 1,501,443 5 119,261 16 1,637,887 33
3 771,174 194,500 8 221,385 10 3,004,161 11
NCR 15,368 3 63,600
4 2,519,550 970,583 35 107,400 11 542,040 38
5 541,189 41,800 11 37,725 14 192,402 2
6 613,529 57,000 9 131,777 11 994,684 3
7 535,919 19,000 7 104,381 13 520,628 1
8 1,119,454 275,800 9 30,599 6 114,382 13
9 837,454 163,606 4 11,456 10 73,970
10 746,193 793,039 4 114,970 11 693,522
11 1,634,235 704,790 6 111,337 21 1,760,445
12 890,446 273,756 2 169,272 3 184,074
13 1,342,250 7 38,241 5 278,087
ARMM 618,002 2 182,354 19
Philippines 14,375,653 5,391,717 125 1,499,334 154 12,431,394 18

Contrastingly, while many watersheds continue to deteriorate, the population that relies on the
goods and services they provide steadily grows creating more pressure for the already overburdened
natural resources in the watersheds. Watersheds continue to be the sole sources of water for domestic,
agriculture, industrial and commercial uses in the country. The finite area of the watersheds however sets
the limit to its capacity to meet the growing needs for water of an ever growing population. Around 975 MCM
of water are estimated to be available daily to meet the demands from various sectors. It is shown that some
areas are bound to experience water scarcity if the present pattern and rate of consumption do not change
and that no increase in the present supply of available water takes place. According to projections, there
will be more regions in the country that will experience water supply deficit by 2020. To guarantee the
sustainability and availability of water, the mode of watershed management must improve focusing on
strategies that will protect and or enhance the sustained ability of the watersheds to capture and store more
rainwater and promote more conservation effective use of water resources.

[Link] Causes of Watershed Degradation

Watershed degradation in the Philippines is attributed to a wide range of physical and socio-
economic factors that are often complex and to substantive degree localized in nature. These factors are
described below.

Natural Predisposing Factors

Monsoonal climate pattern that accounts for more than 60% of the total rainfall falling in the country and
associated with high intensity rain events
Extreme climate events such as the periodic El Niño and La Niña
Frequent floods due to
Rugged terrain coupled with geological instability associated with seismic and volcanic activity make
the upper portion of many watersheds highly vulnerable
Soils which are strongly acidic, with low natural fertility, strong leaching associated with high rainfall and
rapid decomposition of organic matter

15
Direct Causes of Watershed Degradation

The direct causes of watershed degradation in the Philippines can be summed up as the absence
of adequately skilled and properly motivated actors in watershed management that manifests in various
ways as described below.

Erosive agricultural practices

These include absence or poor maintenance of erosion control measures in upland farms,
improper crop rotations, shortening of the fallow period in kaingin cultivation, insufficient or excessive
use of fertilizers, and overuse of irrigation water.

Inappropriate forestry practices

These forest management practices such as the use of destructive technologies for harvesting
timber and non-timber products, badly constructed logging roads, and inappropriate plantation
establishment (e.g., removal of ground cover by burning/clean weeding, planting in lines up and down
the slope). The replacement of a mixed natural forest with plantations of a very limited range of exotic
species is also considered as a common practice that is inappropriately applied in many watersheds.

Overgrazing

Overgrazing, excessive livestock population and burning of pasture lands lead to soil compaction
and/or a decrease of plant cover, both of which may, in turn give rise to soil erosion and reduced
infiltration of rainwater.

Poor water resource management

Over extraction of water (for irrigation, urban and industrial use) from rivers and other surface water
sources has led to reduced downstream availability of water. Inefficient irrigation practices, wasteful
urban/industrial water use and leakages from water delivery systems contribute to water shortage
problems, as does over-pumping of the aquifers. In lower watershed areas, the intensive use of tube
wells has led to abstraction of water in excess of natural recharge by rainfall and river seepage and a
progressive lowering of the water table (DENR 1999). In coastal areas, over-extraction of groundwater
has resulted in salt water intrusion into the freshwater aquifer (a growing problem in parts of Cebu).

Unregulated land conversion

Uncontrolled land development in many watersheds contribute to watershed degradation

particularly deforestation. Mass conversion of agricultural lands to commercial, industrial, residential,
and recreational (golf courses) purposes usually force affected families to seek lands which are easy to
access such as the marginal upland areas. Hence, unregulated urban and industrial expansion within
lowland agricultural areas is also contributory to watershed degradation elsewhere.

Industrial activities

Include all human activities of a bio-industrial nature: timber processing, factory farming (e.g.,
large-scale commercial poultry and piggery farms), power generation, mining, infrastructure and
urbanization, waste handling, etc. It is most often linked to pollution of different kinds (either point
source or non-point). In addition to possible chemical and organic pollutants, uncontrolled rainwater
run-off from mine spoil heaps, unconsolidated roadside cuttings and embankments, urban and
industrial sites can be the source of significant quantities of downstream sediment (DENR 1999).

16
Indirect Causes of Watershed Degradation

Indirect causes of watershed degradation are the underlying reasons why inappropriate types of
land-use and management are practiced and usually relate to the socio-economic circumstances of the
land-users and/or the social, cultural, economic and policy environment in which they operate. The
following are of particular significance in the Philippines:

Population growth

The growth of population in the uplands as well as inward migration from the lowlands brings
excessive pressure on watersheds. The problem is particularly serious where the population is growing
rapidly while the natural resource base continues to shrink due to over utilization.

Poverty and absence of viable livelihoods

Poverty is the underlying cause of much watershed degradation in the Philippines. The upland and
mountain areas of the country are generally the poorest and least developed. The on-site users of
watershed resources are predominantly rural. In the absence of viable alternative livelihood activities,
most of these users have no recourse but to depend on small-scale farming and/or forestry-based
activities for their livelihood.

Lack of markets and other livelihood support systems

Geographic isolation and the lack of a well-developed market infrastructure in most upland areas
mean that the agriculture and forestry activities of upland communities have remained predominantly at
subsistence levels. The opportunities for increasing cash income are largely restricted to a small
number of commodities that keep well, have high value or are easily transported. Lack of good roads
and markets limits the scope for promoting the growing of perennial tree crops, as an alternative to
annual food crops on steep slopes, if the produce is perishable and bulky.

Land tenure

Sub-optimal use and management of watershed resources can largely be explained by the tenure
regime under which the resource users operate. The more insecure the user feels with regard to
his/her long term rights to use a particular resource, the more he is inclined to exploit the resource to
the maximum over the short term.

Aggravating these problems are policies with inconsistent provisions on land classification,
allocation and use. In particular, the provisions of PD 705, Mining Act of 1997, IPRA and NIPAS Law
on jurisdiction and uses of watershed areas clash with one another leading to confusion in strategies
and programs being undertaken. The multiplicity of land tenure instruments being issued such as
IFMA, SIFMA, CCFS, CSC, CBFMA, CADT, CALT and CLOA under RA 7881 and 7950 also add to the
confusion of land-use within many watersheds.

Misconceptions and inadequate knowledge about watershed management

It has long been thought that watershed management is only about water and that it is but a special
use in forestry. The poor appreciation of the true concepts and principles underlying watershed
management by the various watershed actors and players led to the evolution of policies and
institutions that are insufficiently supportive of, if not completely opposed to the achievement of
watershed management objectives. A number of provisions in PD 705, LOIs 845, 917 and 1002, PD
1515, EOs 223 and 224 of 1987, unduly confined watershed management to the protection and
conservation of water resources precluding the management of many watersheds for their multiple
uses.

17
Inappropriate conservation technologies

Many current conservation recommendations (e.g., SALT, terracing, reforestation) have high initial
investment costs when compared to current land-uses and the incremental development costs are
beyond what most rural households can absorb. Technology development will need to consider the
integration of the traditional technologies into the development of new but more effective ones to
increase acceptability and adoptability to the end users.

Lack of access to capital resources

Watershed users fail to adopt conservation effective technologies because they are costly and it is
the difficult to access financial and technical resources. Financing institutions are usually unwilling to
open windows for lending money to the poor who do not have the ability to put up guarantees of their
ability to pay like the watershed upland users.

Absence of mechanisms to facilitate coordination of mandates of various agencies

Organizational problems related to the integrated management of watersheds stem from the
restricted and often conflicting mandates of the different development agencies operating in upland
areas. In particular, there is often a conflict of interests and legal responsibility over land-use within
watershed areas between DENR, DA, DAR and the LGUs. The delineation and coordination of
jurisdiction and scope of responsibilities among the various agencies as provided for in various
legislations such as PDs 705, 1159, EOs 192, 223 and 224 of 1987, 258 of 1995, RAs 4850 amended
by PD 813, RA 8371, LOIs 845 and 1002, and the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973, are not clear.

Absence of appropriate scheme for valuation and pricing of watershed resources

The absence of valuation and pricing scheme for the natural resources of a watershed contributes
to the inefficiency in its use. Under valuation and under pricing of watershed resources failed to
promote the resource conservation or encourage improved natural forest management.

Inadequate land use and management plans

Management of many watersheds in the country is saddled by the absence of good land use and
management plans. Those with plans are mostly not better off than those without as plans, for land use
and management plans are usually weakened by the lack of scheme with which integration and
coordination with other relevant plans such as plans of a larger watershed where it belongs, or of LGUs
that it encompass or of other adjacent watersheds or of the national government. Problems in proper
plan integration is compounded by the lack of a comprehensive national land use policy.

Absence of institutional mechanisms to encourage active, collective and sustained participation of

stakeholders in watershed management

The task of translating participatory approach into workable strategy on the ground acceptable to
the large group of stakeholders that are involved still remains as the primary [Link] in this
task is common and has led to the failure of many management efforts. Despite the large community of
watershed stakeholders, the task of recruiting support for the protection and conservation of watershed
resources has been very difficult.

Inconsistent statutory and policy framework

The legal and policy environment in which watershed management takes place is characterized by
overlapping and often conflicting policies on utilization and protection of watershed areas. Whereas,

18
 there exist a range of legislative instruments for watershed management and forest protection, they
have been used inconsistently and rarely with any real effect.

There are also policies which become inconsistent with the shifts in philosophy and management
strategies. The remarkably slow process of instituting policy changes especially those that passed
through legislation makes it so tedious to revise policies in order to make them consistent with the shift
to new management strategies and philosophies. This is illustrated by the case of adopting CBFM as a
strategy for managing certain portions of proclaimed watershed reserves and how its implementation is
slowed down by the restriction to exploitation of any form as provided for in PD 705.

[Link] Current Initiatives Addressing Watershed Degradation

[Link].1 Policy

Several policies that directly address many of the causes of watershed degradation were passed since
1990. Some of the more significant policies are described below.

NIPAS Law sets the framework for the protection of critical watersheds that are determined as areas
essential for the conservation of biodiversity.

IPRA Law emphasizes on the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples to have jurisdiction over
the management of the watershed resources within their ancestral domain. This law provides the
security of tenure as well as the incentive for the indigenous peoples to invest in the long term
protection and development of the watershed resources.

AFMA provides the framework for the integrated management and development of the lowland and the
upland portion of a watershed through the creation of the Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries
Development Zones (SAFDZ). The limited scope of the SAFDZ that usually does not include the whole
watershed leaves room for integration to include the whole watershed. Enhancing the participatory
process in the delineation and management of the SAFDZ remain a challenge to the success of
SAFDZ.

LGC though not intended directly for watershed management purposes, provides the scope for the
active frontline participation of the LGUs in watershed management particularly in relation to the
devolved functions of the line agencies. The LGC gives power to the LGUs as comprehensive
managers of all the natural resources found within its jurisdiction. However, the added responsibility
poses the challenge of mobilizing additional financial, technical and human resources to the LGUs.
There is also the challenge of maintaining a harmonious working relationship with the line agencies
where its devolved functions originated to gain access to the pools of expertise they don’t have.

EO 263 enshrined the community based forest management as the national strategy for the
management and development of forest resources in the country. This order gives primacy to CBFM
over other strategies as the management strategy for forests. It provides the legal basis for the
participation of the local communities therefore in the management of watersheds. The major stumbling
block however, is the restriction in proclaimed watersheds for any user to engage in any exploitative
activities that is inconsistent with the intention of the CBFM to provide opportunities for sustainable
livelihood to the local communities.

DAO 98-42 allows for the harvesting of government plantations in production zones of protection areas.
This is expected to encourage the concerned beneficiaries to take part in the protection of the
watersheds.

DAO 99-01 mandates the DENR field offices to use the watershed and ecosystem framework in the
management of forests in the country. The use of the watershed as the unit for forest planning and
management will facilitate the integration of the forestry sector development with the other sectors

19
 particularly agriculture, the LGUs and the local communities. It should also provide the opportunities for
operationalizing multiple use management and therefore optimize the use of watershed resources for
the benefits of the greatest number of stakeholders for the longest time possible. Lack of adequate
database and skilled technical personnel continue to slow down the implementation of this order.

Joint DENR-DILG MC 98-01 provides the legal basis for the co-management of certain watershed
areas between the DENR and LGUs. This circular allows the DENR to let certain LGUs to administer
and manage watersheds or portions thereof. The DENR provides the technical assistance to the LGUs
who remain accountable to the DENR in complying with the legal standards.

Joint DENR-DILG MC 2003-01 reiterates and strengthens the provisions of the Joint DENR-DILG MC
98-01. As co-managers, the DENR and the LGUs will be jointly responsible for the identification and
establishment of communal forests, community watersheds and reforestation areas among others. The
DENR can devolve forest lands to the LGUs based on approved forest land use plans (FLUP) that were
developed through transparent, accountable and participatory process.

[Link].2 Institutional

Multistakeholder watershed management councils had been formed in several watersheds such as the
Laguna Lake Basin Authority, Iloilo Watershed Management Council and the Bukidnon Watershed
Management Council. From the limited experiences we have so far, it is evident that more can be
accomplished when the different agencies representing various sectors and the civil society come
together and work toward the common goal of promoting the sustainability of watershed resources.

Farmer-led initiative in watershed management is illustrated by the Land Care Association in Claveria,
Bukidnon. It is a model of how community based peoples’ organizations can be effective in the
dissemination of good soil and water conservation technologies in particular and in participatory
watershed development in general.

Education and training on agroforestry and soil and water conservation are available in several
institutions such as the University of the Philippines at Los Baños, Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Center,
and in a number of Centers for People Empowerment in the Uplands. While the academe continues to
make their formal and non-formal training curricula relevant to meeting the expertise needed in
managing watersheds in the country, several NGOs are becoming more active in the area of providing
education and training to local communities and other players in watershed management.

GIS/MIS development is an ongoing concern of several agencies and institutions after having been
neglected for so many years. There is such an infectious enthusiasm on information systems that
almost every government agency and units within each agency are committing to the development of
GIS/MIS to beef up their respective capability to plan for and implement the best action plan attainable.
However, it is needful of an integrative and coordinative direction so that the different initiatives can be
unified to produce one integrated GIS/MIS in the most efficient manner.

Research and development through the WMIC-WRDP an integrated research and development project
was launched in 2002 in response to the need of generating empirical information base that can be
used for improving the management of Kaliwa Watershed in particular and enhancing the management
of other watersheds in general. Prior to this project, the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry,
Environment, Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) in collaboration with University of
Georgia and Texas A &M embarked on an integrated watershed research and development project in
Claveria and Lantapan, Bukidnon. Several other related research and development projects were also
initiated during the 1990’s and are documented by Cruz et al. (2001). The immediate challenge is how
to sustain the initial gains of the various research projects in Kaliwa Watershed, in Bukidnon and
elsewhere. Ultimately, there is a need to maintain a network of experimental watersheds across the
country for the purpose of generating on a sustained basis.

20
[Link].3 Technology

Technology development and demonstration on soil and water conservation are continuing concern of
several CPEUs and of the Institute of Agroforestry in UP Los Baños. There is a need to enhance the
development of technologies that capitalizes on traditional knowledge and practices to increase
acceptability and adoptability of new technologies. As far as possible technology development and
demonstration need to be integrated with the network of experimental watersheds.

Biodiversity conservation technology especially for production forests are currently being tested in one
of the remaining TLA concession areas. Reduced impact logging and improved land use planning
procedures are some of the measures that are being pilot tested.

Watershed resource valuation and pricing schemes are continuously being studied and developed in
several watersheds by several institutions. The major challenge to the implementation of valuation and
pricing scheme for watershed resources that capture more effectively the full cost of making the
resources available to the users is how to make the scheme acceptable to policy makers and users at
large who firmly believe that most watershed resources like water are free goods.

Guidelines for watershed management planning exist and will need to be disseminated widely in order
to be useful. Once the MPFD is revised, these planning guidelines will need to be reviewed and
integrated with other materials to provide a more updated, comprehensive and straightforward
references for watershed planning and implementation at various levels.

2.1.2 The Watershed Management Component of 1990 MPFD

[Link] Major Issues in Watershed Management Addressed

The major issues that were supposed to be addressed by the watershed management component
of the MPFD are as follows:

• Land use conflicts in many watershed areas

• Absence of secure land tenure
• The need to rationalize the rehabilitation of vast denuded watershed areas
• The need to broaden the base of watershed management actors and players
• The need to protect the upland portion of the watershed from occupation of migrants from the
lowlands
• The need to improve the scheme of devolving administration and management of watersheds or
portions of watersheds to other government agencies

[Link] Goals and Objectives

The goal is to have environmentally sound and sustainable land use for both tangible and
intangible benefits. The objectives include:

• Isolation of the effects of poor land use

• Elimination of environmentally destructive land use practices
• Enhanced productivity of upland watershed resources
• Improved security of the forest reserves

21
[Link] Strategies

Soil erosion control and stabilization measures are the strategies identified to isolate the effects of
poor land use. The strategy to eliminate destructive land use practices include:

• Strengthening and enforcement of existing regulations

• Resettlement of upland occupants
• Improved incentive system
• Improved monitoring of land use and encroachment

For enhancing the productivity of watershed resources, the following strategies were proposed:

• Prioritizing the areas that require immediate rehabilitation and special management attention for
the conservation of soil and water and other key resources
• Improved planning

The strategy for improving the security of the watershed forest reserves involves the expansion of the
base of watershed beneficiaries from the local up to the national level as a way of mobilizing people who are
strongly motivated to invest in the protection of the watershed resources.

[Link] Programs and Targets

The watershed components of the MPFD are classified into either primary or supportive
development component. The primary development components contribute directly to the attainment of the
objectives while the supportive development components are directed to the development of the human and
institutional capability to implement the planned projects.

The primary development components are as follows:

• Watershed management
• Assisted natural regeneration
• Range management
• Soil conservation in forestry operations

Among the supportive development components are as follows:

• Policy strengthening
• Institutional and manpower development
• Interagency cooperation
• Research support component

2.1.3 Assessment of the Responsiveness of the MPFD to the Current Conditions

The watershed component of the MPFD contains several strategies and programs which are useful
in watershed management. The effectiveness of the MPFD is however weakened by the inadequate
integration of the key principles in watershed management in the primary and support programs identified in
the master plan. This is aggravated by the absence of legal basis for the implementation of the MPFD that
prevented the all out transformation of the MPFD programs into doable actions on the field level.

The focus of MPFD on the conservation of soil and water underscores its bias on the use of the
watershed for supplying water for various uses. Such bias does not only bring about serious inefficiency in
the use of watershed resources but also undermines the sustainability of water the very resource it seeks to

22
protect, by failing to protect other watershed resources like vegetation which are essential element in
maintaining the stability of hydrologic processes.

The MPFD touches on the important roles that DPWH plays in soil and water conservation in
watersheds. It also provides for the secure tenure for upland farmers in an effort to motivate them to adopt
soil and water conservation technologies. It misses however to consider the vital need to engage the various
watershed stakeholders aside from DPWH and the upland farmers in the whole range of key activities in
watershed management. Specifically, the MPFD lacks adequate treatment on how it intends to instill among
the stakeholders a lasting sense of belongingness in the community of actors and players who are mutually
bound by common aspirations to realize the sustainability of watershed resources for the common good.
Most importantly, the MPFD lacks articulation of the need for a mechanism by which the stakeholders will be
encouraged to actively take part in watershed management.

23
2.2 Natural Forest Assessment

2.2.1 Introduction

The end of the previous millennium saw a number of significant efforts and attempts at rationalizing
forest management and utilization in the country coupled with strong moves towards the conservation and
even preservation of the remaining old growth forests in the Philippines. For instance, the DENR issued a
number of regulations designed to enhance forest protection. In 1995, multi-sectoral forest protection
committees were institutionalized in the DENR system by virtue of DAO 95-17 which was later amended by
DAO 96-39. This move was further strengthened with the implementation of the Forest Protection
Information System.

This period also saw the rise of quite a number of local government units, non-government
organizations and other cause oriented individuals who became vigilant over the destruction of forest
resources. Among the prominent programs initiated other than DENRs are as follows: a ) Bantay Gubat of
the City Government of Puerto Princesa, b) Kilusang Sagip Kalikasan (KSK) by the provincial government
of Palawan, and, c). Bantay Bukid Brigade in Mt. Kanlaon, among others. With these efforts,
administrative conflicts and problems exist on the coordination between and among them. For instance,
there is no standard norm/protocol for making apprehensions of forest violators and the confiscation of
illegally extracted forest resources as practiced by the different organizations and/or the various forest
protection programs. While the DENR is represented in most of these programs, there is a felt need for it to
take a more active leadership in such endeavors particularly in making its presence felt in the field.

2.2.2 Natural forest status

[Link] The Dipterocarp Forests

At the beginning of the Master Plan, the country’s dipterocarp forests occupy an area of about 4.4
million hectares based on the consolidated RP-German and SPOT area statistics which were used by the
MPFD. Of this total, 984,000 has were said to be virgin forests while the remaining 3.4 million hectares
were residual in nature. Of this total, about 0.40 million ha are in national parks and other reserves which
place the total of about 3.0 million hectares in production forests (MPFD, 1990). In 1997, the total area
occupied by the dipterocarp forests was in the order of 3.5 million hectares of which 804,900 hectares are
old growth and the remaining areas considered as residual forests (2.73 million hectares). Region 2 has the
largest old growth (368,900 hectares) and residual dipterocarp forests (626,843 hectares) in the country.
Among the issues

In the decade of implementation of the Master Plan, timber license agreements still remain to be
the major instrument issued for the utilization of the dipterocarp forests of the land. In 1990, about 307,000
hectares of the virgin forests then were subject to TLAs while for the residual forests, it was estimated to be
1.18 million has. There were about 75 TLA holders responsible for such forest lands. In 1996, there were
only 31 TLAs awarded covering 1.3 million hectares. Most of these TLAs were in Region 13 with a total
forest area of 659,760 hectares.

The management of the country’s dipterocarp forests continue to face challenges with the MPFD.
One of these is the eventual phase out of the remaining TLAs as mandated by the 1987 constitution to be
replaced by Timber Production Sharing Agreements (TPSAs) and small-scale utilization of forest resources.
In 2002, there were only 7 or 8 TLAs remaining. As early as 1989, the DENR has started canceling TLAs
who were found to be violating provisions of their agreements or whose performances were said to be
wanting. The last of the TLAs will expire in 2011.

The silvicultural system for the Philippine dipterocarps underwent a number of innovations, all
designed to increase the efficiency of logging operations and provide adequate protection to the forest
resources. A number of policy issuances to this effect were made by the DENR to wit:

24
 • Shift in logging from the old growth forests to the second growth forests (DAO 91-24)
• Annual Allowable Cut determination in the second growth forests (DAO 92-02)
• Ban on the use of high lead yarding systems in the dipterocarp forests (DAO 92-03)
• Annual allowable cut computation and the marking goal determination in the second growth
dipterocarp forests (DAO 92-12)
• Regulations governing the establishment of buffer zones within forest lands (DAO-92-13)
• Conduct and submission of aerial photography by holders of TLA and the different programs and
projects of DENR (DAO 92-17)
• Conduct of residual forest inventory in areas logged by active TLA holders within their operable
second growth forests (DAO 93-28)
• Revised regulations governing the establishment and management of IFPs and management of
residual natural forests for production purposes (DAO 93-60)
• Amending DAO 93-60 (DAO 93-68)
• Revised guidelines governing the issuance of certificate of origin of logs, timber, lumber and non-
timber forest products (DAO 94-07)
• Guidelines governing the cutting, gathering and disposition of edible fruit-bearing trees (DAO 94-
18)
• Revised general guidelines in the implementation of the sub-classification of forest lands and other
alienable lands of the public domain (DAO 95-15)
• Adoption of the Log Control Monitoring System (DAO 96-04)
• Validity period of approved Integrated Annual Operations Plan (DAO 96-39)
• Conduct of TSI in residual forest areas covered by Community Forests Stewardship Agreements,
Community Forest Lease Agreements, and Community Forest Management Agreements (MC 90-
07)
• Prescribed DENR log marking procedures (MC 90-13)
• Clarifying the guidelines on TSI activities in dipterocarp forests (MC 90-16)
• Identification and demarcation of dipterocarp old growth forests (MC 91-14)
• Guidelines in the monitoring and evaluation of reforestation areas, enrichment planting and TSI by
TLA holders (MC 92-01 and 02)
• Guidelines on the conduct and submission of aerial photography by holders of TLAs (MC 92-07)
• Submission of a medium term forest management plan for block I of the operable second growth
forest and deferment of timber inventory in areas under blocks II and VI (MC 92-09)
• Prescribing guidelines in the verification of overlaps between the boundaries of forest lands and
A&D lands (MC 92-14)
• Guidelines for the prosecution of illegal logging and related cases (MC 94-01)
• Implementing guidelines for the conversion of TLAs to IFMAs (DMC 94-21)
• Prescribed the no hauling of logs from virgin forests effective January 1, 1992 (MO 91-09)
• Prescribing guidelines for the re-evaluation of the result of the inventory and analysis of the timber
resource data obtained within the second growth forest (block 1) of existing TLAs (MO 92-05)
• Adoption of revised procedures on the issuance of the Certificate of Origin forms (M 94-01)
• Creation and constitution of the National Federation of Multisectoral Forest Protection Committee
(MO 95-04)
• Guidelines on the implementation of the Log Control and Monitoring System (MO 96-05)
• Guidelines on the protection and management of expired, cancelled and expiring TLAs (MO 97-05)

[Link] The Mangrove Forests

Estimate of total mangrove forests in the Philippines in 1988 stood at 139,725 hectares. Some ten
years later (1997) this area was reduced to 112,400 hectares, down by 27,325 hectares (Table 2.7). In the
latest estimate provided by the DENR, Region 09 which include ARMM has the largest block of mangrove
forest (49,500 hectares), followed by Region 4 with 27,600 hectares. Regions 1 and 3 have the smallest
mangrove forests at 100 hectares each.

25
 Table 2.7. Mangrove areas of the Philippines in 1988 and 1997.

REGION 1988 1997

Area (ha) % Area (ha) %
1 200 0.1 100 0.08
2 3,400 2.4 3,700 3.29
3 500 0.4 100 0.08
4 51,000 36.5 27,600 24.50
5 9,900 7.1 500 0.44
6 2,825 2.0 2,500 2.22
7 9,650 6.9 2,100 1.87
8 24,850 17.8 500 0.44
9 19,300 13.8 49,500 44.03
10 8,600 6.2 19,900 17.70
11 7,100 5.1 5,700 5.07
12 2,400 1.7 200 0.17
TOTAL 139,725 100.0 112,400 100.00

In 1992, Republic Act No. 7586 was passed by Congress of the Philippines which mandated the
establishment and management of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS). This
promulgation provided teeth to the strategy of preserving the remaining mangrove forests in the country as
embodied in the Master Plan of 1990. Consequently, a number of high biodiversity mangrove forests in the
country were to become part of the protected areas system in the country as part of protected
landscapes/seascapes,, wildlife sanctuary, nature reserves, etc.

The enactment of RA No. 7586 also gave way to a number of Presidential Proclamations declaring
certain parts of the Philippine archipelago as marine protected areas. For instance, there was Proclamation
No. 431 dated 31 July 1994 which declared the coastal area and islands within Pujada Bay in the
Municipality of Mati, Davao Oriental as a protected landscape/seascape. The destruction of the coastal and
the marine ecosystems including the mangroves, seagrass, and coral reefs or the conduct of activities that
could destroy or disturb those ecosystems and the resources in them were prohibited. Another was
Proclamation No. 447, series of 1994 designating Palaui Island and surrounding islets and marine waters in
the Municipality of Sta. Ana, Cagayan as a marine protected area. The same prohibitions as contained in
Proclamation No, 431 applies in this area. Very recently, there were Presidential Proclamation No. 271 (23
April 2000) for the Great and Little Sta. Cruz Islands Protected Landscape and Seascape in Zamboanga
City; Presidential Proclamation No. 272 (23 April 2000) declaring the Chico Mangrove Wilderness in
Cawayan, Masbate as the Chico Island Wildlife Sanctuary; the Agoo-Damortis Protected Landscape and
Seascape by virtue of Presidential Proclamation No. 277 (23 April 2000); Murcielagos Island as a Protected
Landscape and Seascape with Presidential Proclamation No. 281 (23 April 2000); and the Albuquerque-
Loay-Loboc mangrove swamp into a Protected Landscape and Seascape. On May 31, 2000, several days
after the issuance of the above proclamations, there were Presidential Proclamations No. 316, 317 and 319
establishing Mabini Protected Landscape and Seascape, the Naro Island Wildlife Sanctuary, and the
Bongsalay Natural Park respectively.

The start of the 1990s saw the issuance of new regulations defining access, limitations and
conservation of mangrove forests in the country. DAO No. 15, Series of 1990 banned the cutting or use of
mangrove resources in any form in the remaining mangrove forests that are not covered by existing
Fishpond Lease Agreements (FLAs) and areas outside plantations. It also disallowed the granting and/or
renewal of mangrove timber license and/or permit of any kind that authorizes the cutting including the
debarking of the trees within the mangrove forests for commercial purposes in areas outside FLAs and
mangrove plantations. Furthermore, this AO also banned the conversion of thickly vegetated mangrove
areas into fishponds.

26
 Plantation development, however, is encouraged in denuded or sparsely vegetated mangrove
forests and A & D lands through an approved permit. The same order gives privilege to plantation
developers to cut/harvest the planted trees within their jurisdiction, whether such is intended either for
personal or commercial purposes as an incentive. DENR Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1990
prescribed guidelines in the cutting of mangrove trees within approved FLA areas. With an approved permit
issued by the DENR, trees to be cut are turned over to the DENR for disposition through public bidding. No
cutting however is allowed if the area has 10% or more mangrove canopy cover and/or is capable of natural
regeneration. FLA holder is also required to plant an area with mangrove species equivalent to the
aggregate size where mangroves were clearcut in the FLA area.

These facilities which allow the harvesting and cutting of mangrove trees however, were nullified
with the enactment by Congress of Republic Act No. 7161 which has as one of its significant provisions the
banning of the cutting of all mangrove species. As the RA did not explicitly exempted planted mangroves
from the ban, even the plantings covered in DAO No. 15 cannot be harvested. RA 7161, unless amended
by Congress, is construed as a disincentive policy which may discourage coastal communities from
engaging in worthy mangrove plantation development ventures.

Further efforts were also exerted towards rationalizing the development and utilization of mangrove
forest resources in the country. DAO No. 2000-57 prescribed guidelines governing the implementation of
mangrove subprojects under the Forestry Sector Project. A significant provision is the banning of the
cutting of mangrove trees within the subproject and adjacent mangrove sites. The AO, however, allowed
the gathering and/or harvesting of non-timber mangrove products on a sustainable basis with duly approved
Resource Utilization Permit (RUP)

Among the issues on mangroves identified are as follows:

• Continued degradation and further threats of destruction

Despite the significant strides made in the protection of the remaining mangrove forests of the
country, there still exist a number of problems that pose serious threat to the integrity of such
forests. For instance, the boundary delineation of mangrove protection forests is found to be still
wanting in most areas in the country. Forest protection measures, and the formulation and
implementation of comprehensive plans for the management of the same cannot be initiated
unless there is a definite boundary that is marked on the ground for these mangrove forests.

The continuing degradation of the mangrove forests in the country can also be attributed to the
insufficient or complete lack of awareness on the importance of marine, coastal and mangrove
ecosystems on the side of the public, most importantly, in the communities within or in the
immediate periphery of mangrove forests in the country. In some areas, such an awareness may
have been created already and is in fact observed to be increasing. But such areas are more of
exceptions rather than the rule at the moment. A more vigorous IEC is therefore wanting.

• Overlapping functions and conflicting policies and legislation of different government agencies and
LGUs

This is an issue that may have some bearing on the preceding one discussed. The problem
maybe more pronounced between the DENR and local government units. The latter oftentimes
allow more opening up of mangrove forests for development initiatives and other projects that will
generate income for them. On the other hand, the former is expected to be more circumspect in
allowing the conversion of mangrove forests into some other uses. For instance, since the recent
implementation of the nautical highway system in the country by the government, the DENR has
received applications and/or requests for permits to cut mangrove forests in order to expand port
facilities in a number of locations in the Philippines.

27
 • Appropriateness of the existing CBFM Agreement for mangrove forests

The CBFMA is a generic agreement that has been applied across the country in all forest
types. It is, however, first implemented in the uplands. The premises with which the instrument
has been developed, and the underlying principles assumed in the operationalization of the
Agreement as largely based on conditions in the upland regions of the country. Mangrove forests
do have characteristics that are unique or otherwise different from those conditions observed in the
uplands. The Community Based Resource Management Agreement for Protected Areas in
mangrove forests has been patterned after the generic CBFMA. Thus, such instrument may have
failed to recognize the unique conditions that are found in the mangroves which also defines the
distinct relationship or interactions between families/communities and the forest/forest resources.

• Absence of policy to address existence of fully developed and productive illegal fishponds in
mangrove timber lands and protected areas

In Region 7, there has been reports of fully developed and productive large fishpond areas
converted from mangrove forests without permits or any form of authorization from the DENR.
Apparently these fishponds have been in operation for quite sometime already and the DENR nor
the LGU units concerned have not taken any move to demolish such or even issue orders for these
establishments to cease from operating. It was also made evident during the consultation done in
Cebu that the regional DENR units are in a quandary as to what to do in such cases as there are
no firm policies in place to address such.

• Institutional constraints in the management and conservation of mangrove forests

Local government units entrusted with the management and conservation of certain mangrove
and estuarine ecosystems in the country often have inadequate technical personnel to effectively
and efficiently carry out the technical rigors of the job. This situation oftentimes results to the
haphazard implementation of interventions which are usually stop gap measures only and are not
meant to insure the long term sustainable management of the forests. There is clearly a need to
beef up the manpower complement of the LGUs tasked with the management of mangrove forests
or the need to provide training for such personnel.

It is also the perception that institutional collaboration in mangrove and coastal resources
management is rather weak in the country. This problem is also aggravated by the differences in
management priorities of agencies, organizations and LGUs with regards to the mangrove forests
that fall under their jurisdiction. This concern provides evidence to the perception of relative
unawareness of the 1990 MPFD or the utter disregard of the same in implementing development
and/or conservation initiatives in the mangrove forests. The MPFD is supposed to provide
direction to such endeavor. This means that the prioritization of activities should have been guided
by the provisions of the MPFD.

[Link] Pine forests

In 1981, total pine forest coverage was estimated at 246,593 hectares. Of this area, some
243,616 hectares or 98.8% were found in public forest lands while the remaining area (2,977 hectares or
1.2%) were in A & D lands. The Master Plan also cited 1987 figures as 238,800 hectares total divided into
129,600 hectares of closed stands and 109,200 hectares of open forest. During the same year, about 2,100
hectares of the open pine forest were found in certified A & D lands. In 1997, the area covered by the pine
forests was down to 227,900 hectares. Of these, 123,900 were close canopy forests while the remaining
104,000 were open canopy forests (Table 2.8). In a span of 16 years, pine forests were reduced by 18,693
hectares.

28
 Table 2.8. Pine forests of the Philippines in 1981 and 1997.

Region/Forest 1981 1997

Closed Open Total Closed Open Total
Region 1* 129,203 101,231 230,434 90,300 84,700 175,000
Region 2 3,886 9,806 13,692 33,200 18,100 51,300
Region 3 686 882 1,568 400 500 900
Region 4 - 899 899 - 700 700
TOTAL 133,775 112,818 246,593 123,900 104,000 227,900
*Includes CAR

DAO No. 18, Series of 1995 sets the guidelines for the formulation of policies for the sustainable
development and management of the pine forest areas and the conservation of biodiversity. The AO
seeked to operationalize the pertinent provisions on the management of the pine forests as embodied in the
MPFD and as emphasized in the Regional Forestry Master Plans of CAR, Regions 1 and 2. The same also
established guidelines for the conduct of research within the pine forests of the country. The guidelines
allow for timber extraction within the research areas located in the residual pine forests but emphasized hat
such should be done appropriately following the prescriptions of the seed tree method.

Among the issues identified for pine forests are as follows:

• Forest Fires

Forest fire remains to be one of the destructive forces that constrain the natural regeneration
and normal growth of the pine trees in the Cordilleras. This problem is even aggravated by the
abnormally long dry spells that have seemingly been occurring frequently due to the El Niño
Southern Oscillation phenomenon. Scientific studies have established the prolific nature of
reproduction of Benguet pine and the excellent germination of seeds in natural stands. However,
such successful natural regeneration of Benguet pine is often thwarted by frequent fires. There is
clearly a felt need for a vigorous program on forest fire control and management in the Benguet
pine forests in the Cordilleras.

Fire is also a potent silvicultural tool in the form of prescribed burning, particularly during site
preparation activities in artificial pine regeneration undertakings. This approach however creates a
lot of smoke which contravenes the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the utility of prescribed
burning in the area is highly limited or curtailed totally.

• Pine forest utilization

The promulgation which bans the cutting of timber trees on areas higher than 1000 meters asl
and on areas with more than 75% slope had serious ramifications in the Benguet pine production
forests in the region. Other than heavily curtailing the economic utilization of the species, this
policy initially hampered the conduct of studies that aimed to refine or improve the silvicultural
system for the Benguet pine forests of the country. However, with the issuance of DAO 18, Series
of 1995, reproduction cuttings were allowed if done within the purview of a research undertaking.

This cutting restriction also put a stop to the utilization of certain species which are part of the
culture and tradition among the people in the Cordilleras. In the hinterlands in the Cordilleras, the
people has by nature been using certain species in a regulated manner for domestic purposes
only. Such utilization is by no means destructive. The ban on cutting has seriously curtailed such
utilization practices which are very much part of the Cordilleran culture.

29
 The same policy that banned the harvesting and/or cutting of timber also seriously impaired
the provisions of DAO 09, Series of 1995 that regulates forest tree seed production, collection and
disposition. This AO mandated the establishment and operation of Seed Production Areas all over
the country to become sources of seeds for the various reforestation programs of the government.
One critical component of the Seed Production Areas is the conduct of roguing operations to
remove phenotypically inferior trees from the candidate site. In the Cordilleras, this operation is
deemed not tenable because of the existing ban. Potential Seed Production Areas in the region
are thus left to become, at best, seed sources where collection of seeds can be done from the elite
trees within the area.

The establishment of the Seed Production Areas, however, can be viewed as a development
undertaking as such requires rigorous observation of scientific methods in the selection of mother
trees and the conduct of operations leading to the production of superior seeds for artificial forest
regeneration purposes. It may thus be possible to look at SPA establishment as a research
activity. If this is so, roguing operations maybe allowed as provided for in DAO 18, Series of 1995.

• Silvipastoral practices in the pine forests

In certain areas in the Cordilleras, silvipastoral systems are practiced. Cattles are allowed to
freely graze under existing stands of Benguet pine. The virtues of such production systems have
fairly been established over the years. Nonetheless, what is observed to be destructive in the
system is the burning of the grasses to stimulate excellent grass regeneration which is actually a
common practice in the area. Those who do this practice do not adhere to the tenets of prescribed
or controlled burning. What results oftentimes is that the fire gets out of control and a raging forest
fire ensues.

• Ancestral Domains

The enactment of Republic Act No. 8371 known as the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA
Law) created profound implications on the development and management of pine and mossy
forests in the country. Ancestral domain was aptly defined and their coverage enunciated in the
law. The law provides bias towards the legitimate claims of the indigenous peoples (IPs) and their
rightful claims to their ancestral domains. The law contains certain provisions that define the extent
of development and utilization of natural resources within the ancestral domains. For instance, it
states that the IPs shall have priority rights and not necessarily exclusive rights, in the harvesting,
extraction, development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domains.
Tenurial instruments made possible under the IPRA Law include the Certificate of Ancestral
Domain Title (CADT), or the Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT).

The same law created also the National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). To
date, conflicts between the DENR and the NCIP over jurisdiction and responsibilities have been
noted on several occasions already. Noted also were conflicts and tensions between and among
holders of land tenure and holders of natural resource utilization permits or agreements. The
sustainable development and management of the country’s pine forests are arguably threatened by
these conflicts of interests and jurisdictions.

• Lack of concern on the genetic resources of pines

As a species that is native to the Philippines, Benguet pine invariably possesses a broad
range of genetic variability represented by different provenances of the species. At the moment,
there are no firm efforts aimed at preserving such genetic diversity. The continuous utilization of
Benguet pine trees even with the ban in force invariably means that we are losing valuable
germplasm of the species. The genetic resource conservation area established for mangroves in
Pagbilao, Quezon can very well be replicated for the Benguet pine species.

30
2.2.3 1990 MPFD Provisions

[Link] Dipterocarp Forests

Under 1990 MPFD the goal is to bring, in a practical and feasible manner, the dipterocarp forest
toward a condition of sustainable yield with accompanying environmental stability for the benefit of a greater
proportion of the population, in ways that are economically beneficial, environmentally sound, and politically,
socially, and culturally acceptable. Among the specific objectives are as follows:

• Set aside a permanent forest estate

• Ensure the long term security of the forest estate
• Enhance forest productivity
• Improve regional, provincial, and local economic stability, and increase social equity and
employment
• Enhance and maintain environmental stability
• Conserve biodiversity
• Protect and develop cultural communities

Among the strategies identified are as follows:

• Establishing a permanent forest estate

• Forest protection
• Enhancing forest productivity
• Improving regional, provincial, and local economic stability and increasing social equity and
employment

[Link] Mangrove Forests

The main goal is for the mangrove resources of the country are developed and managed on
sustainable basis for economic and environmental benefits of the people, Among the specific objectives are
as follows:

• Preservation of the remaining mangrove forests, bringing them under effective management and
enhancing their biological productivity
• Preservation of parts of the remaining mangrove areas for protection of the diversity of plant and
animal life within the mangrove ecosystem
• Expansion of the mangrove forest area through reforestation and plantation development
• Effecting equitable access to mangrove areas on multiple-use – multiple user basis
• Provision of adequate supply of mangrove products and services to various end-users while at the
same time conserving and expanding the resources
• Promotion of economic development in areas around mangrove resources, especially in ways that
enhance mangrove protection and management
• Strengthening of institutional arrangements for ensuring sustained management of mangrove
resources

Among the proposed strategies are as follows:

• Protection and management of remaining mangroves

• Expansion of the mangrove resources
• Equitable access to mangrove resources

31
 • Promotion of additional/alternative sources of livelihood for mangrove users
• Institutionalization of mangrove resources development

[Link] Pine and Mossy Forests

The main goal is to bring the pine forests under sustainable management and development for the
economic and environmental benefits of the people. Among the specific objectives are as follows:

• Preservation and conservation of the pine forests in the Cordilleras and the remaining Mindoro pine
forests in Zambales and Occidental Mindoro
• Placing under sustainable management the remaining natural pine forests and to develop
additional areas
• Effecting equitable access to the pine forest resources, especially to the communities within the
pine forest areas
• Provision of adequate supply of goods and services from the pine forests to various end-users
while at the same time conserving the resources
• Promotion of economic development in the pine forest areas
• Strengthening institutional arrangements for ensuring sustained management of pine forests

Among the strategies for pine forests are as follows:

• Preservation and conservation of pine forests

• Sustainable management of production forest and development of additional pine forests
• Equitable access to the management and use of pine forest resources
• Promotion of economic development in the rural communities
• Institutionalization of pine forest development

2.2.4 Assessment Of Performance/Effectiveness of the MPFD (1990-2002)

The prevailing sentiment indicates that the MPFD for the last ten years have failed in its
implementation. However, its not that the various strategies called for in the attainment of the goals and
objectives of the Master Plan have not been implemented. The past ten years saw policy issuances by the
DENR and the conduct of certain development and conservation initiatives which are clearly parallel with the
provisions of the Master Plan. These moves were made with little conscious awareness or none at all of the
Master Plan and its various stipulations. To put it in another way, there was no systematic and directed
implementation of the provisions of the Master Plan in the national office and the regional units of the
DENR. The implementation of the Master Plan leaves much to be desired yet during the initial ten years.

There were significant efforts made in the past but it is difficult to surmise whether such were made
with the purpose of attaining the goals and objectives set forth in the Master Plan. The Master Plan was
made to establish and chart the direction with which development initiatives in the forestry sector will have to
undertake in the future. It was able to paint a scenario of the future of forestry in the Philippines and the dire
consequences that would result unless the stipulations raised by it are nurtured and implemented.

[Link] The MPFD and the Dipterocarp Forests

Events during the past ten years saw the government responding to the call for a more sustainable
management of the Philippine forests in the coming years. To ensure the long term security of the
dipterocarp forests in the country and to enhance its productivity, efforts were initiated to improve the
implementation of the Philippine Selective Logging System and enhance the productivity and integrity of the
dipterocarp production forests in the country. The conduct of TSI was enforced in residual forests covered
by Community Forest Lease Agreements, Community Forest Stewardship Agreements, and Community
Forest Management Agreements as far back as 1990. Log marking procedures were defined and
prescribed. The shift in logging operations from old growth to secondary forests was enforced, a move

32
specifically designed to guarantee the integrity of the remaining old growth dipterocarp forests in the
Philippines. Improvements were made in the computation of the marking goal and the annual allowable cut.
Operational efficiency was the subject of several DENR promulgations and issuances which include the
conduct of aerial photography by holders of TLAs, clarification of the validity period of the Integrated Annual
Operations Plan and others as cited earlier in this report. The implementation of the Log Control Monitoring
System which is now being perfected in the CARAGA region was definitely a move towards further
protecting the forests and rationalizing the regulation of cutting and the movement of timber products from
the cutting area to the sawmills or intended market of the logs. Efforts towards intensified and highly
participatory forest programs have been discussed earlier in this report.

The past ten years also gave indications of the increasing emphasis on the practice of sustainable
forest management system. A ban on harvesting has been made on areas higher than 1000 meters and in
areas with slope of more than 50%. The NIPAS Act did that and also formed the basis for the designation of
such areas in more than 1000 m and with more than 50% slope as protected areas.

Forest inventory continues to be a vital component of the Integrated Annual Operations Plan of
TLAs. The high lead yarding system was discouraged in favor of methods which tend to cause less damage
to the soil and the natural regenerations. The experience in SUDECOR opened a new approach to
harvesting residual forests where the forest inventory prior to the cutting operations can incorporate
concerns on biodiversity. The approach makes possible the generation of baseline information on the
status of biodiversity in the area. Obviously, logging impacts on biodiversity can be assessed too.

The RP-German National Forest Inventory Project done in 1984 to 1988 provide the basis for the
Master Plan. Currently, the ongoing Forest Resource Assessment Project will seek to provide the statistics
which will serve as the backbone of a more detailed forest management planning for the different forest
management units of the country. The move to transform the sampling plots into long term ecological
research/monitoring plots augurs well for the sustainable management of the forest resources of the
Philippines.

There is also now the Sustainable Forest Management Bill still awaiting passage in the Congress
of the Philippines. The Bill seeks to provide clear direction to the management of our forests. The Bill has
gone through so many congresses already and numerous deliberations on the floor.

On the dark side however, is the dismal failure in the setting aside of permanent natural forest
estate which is one of the most significant strategy spelled out in the Master Plan. The DENR provided
some funds which started the delineation of the boundary and its demarcation through monumenting of the
Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve. It was indeed a pioneering effort but was not sustained because of lack of
funds. The boundary was delineated but only a portion of the boundary was monumented.

Researches on the silviculture and management of the dipterocarp forests in the Philippines for the
past ten years have not achieved much in terms of providing for the sustainable management of the same.
A number of researches have been undertaken to solve the problem of propagule supply for the artificial
regeneration of the dipterocarps. These researches focused on the macropropagation aspects to which
certain species have favorably responded to rooting with the use of appropriate rooting hormones, rooting
media and rooting environment particularly relative humidity, air temperature and moisture content of the
medium. No research activities were done on natural silvicultural systems for the dipterocarps.

[Link] The MPFD and the Mangrove Forests

There were also significant strides made in the mangrove forest sector that have relevance to the
Master Plan. Foremost was the expansion of the Community Based Forest Management Program to
include the mangrove forests of the country in its coverage. This has been identified in the Master Plan as a
viable means of establishing effective mangrove resource management in the country.

33
 The Coastal Environment Program (CEP) of the DENR was established in April 1993 with the
primary task of coordinating all programs, projects and activities pertinent to the management of coastal
ecosystems in the country. The program is to be run by the Coastal Environment Program Coordinating
Office (CEPCO). Five components comprise the program which include the following: (a) coastal habitats
and biodiversity; (b) endangered species; (c) coastal industries and pollution; (d) resources inventory and
assessment activities, and (e) research and special projects. The CEPCO is the forerunner of the present
Coastal Marine Management Office of the DENR which has been described earlier in this report.

The establishment of mangrove permanent forest estates took the form of protected seascapes
and mangrove wilderness areas which were created by virtue of Presidential Proclamations. Some of these
have been mentioned earlier. The proclamations specifically contained the coordinates that define the
boundaries of the said protected areas. However, the establishment of monuments to define the boundaries
on the ground remain to be undertaken.

Mangrove reforestation projects were established in CBMFM areas and in a few reforestation
projects by the DENR. To date there are no extensive plantations of Nipa whose establishment was
identified as one of the key strategy of the development of mangrove forest resources in the country. There
were also a few micro- and cottage-type industries established together with the CBMFM projects in various
locations in the country.

[Link] The MPFD and the Pine Forests

As mentioned earlier in this report, DAO N0. 18, Series of 1995 was promulgated expressedly to
carry out the provisions of the Master Plan for pine forest development in the country. A Regional Master
Plan for Forestry Development was also formulated taking of from the MPFD.

Community based pine forest management also became a distinct component of CBFM in the
Philippines.

The ERDS-CAR also carried out researches vigorously. The research community at CAR
lamented the provision of the NIPAS Act that banned the harvesting of trees in areas higher than 1000
meters. Accordingly, this provision effectively halted all researches dealing with regeneration of Benguet
pine forests. The continuous assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the Seed Tree Method of
reproducing Benguet pine was put to a compromise because of this prohibition. There were a number of
researches that seeked to find cost effective methods of revegetating and/or rehabilitating mine tailings
pond as well as those ravaged by the open pit mining. Studies related to biodiversity in the pine forest and
mossy forest ecosystems were also carried out.

34
2.3 Plantation Assessment

2.3.1 Introduction

Tree plantations may reduce the problem of deforestation. In addition, tree plantation restore
degraded land, fight climate change, improve local livelihoods, return good profits, create employment and
bolster national economies (ITTO, 2001). According to FAO data, there are more than 180 million hectares
of tree plantations globally and about 4.5 million hectares of plantations are being established each year. In
the Philippines, about 540,000 hectares of forest plantation were established from Industrial Forest
Management Agreement/Industrial Tree Plantation Lease Agreement (FMB-DENR, 2000). Whether or not
these plantations are in good shape, it remains to be seen. However, many are called “paper” plantations
not because that is their eventual end-use but because it’s the only place they exist; in the field they have
died of (a combination of) drought, sabotage, pest attacked, fire or some other form of neglect (ITTO,
2001).
The FMB believes that 12 million hectares or about 40 percent of total land area should be ideally
being forest cover. If the existing 5.4 million hectares is subtracted from those 12 million hectares, some
6.6 million hectares still need to be reforested/planted. Of these 6.6 million hectares to be reforested/
planted, the National Forestation Program (NFP) has targeted 1.4 million hectares by the end of the year
2000. Of the national target, 700,000 hectares are to be industrial tree plantations, of which 490,000
hectares (70 percent) are targeted for development by the private sector; 350,000 hectares by timber
licensees (TLA) through IFMA and 140,000 hectares by ITP/IFMA and tree farm lessees.

2.3.2 Evolution and Brief History of Reforestation in the Philippines

Reforestation is the bringing in of crop cover, usually arborescent plants, in once vegetation-rich
but now vegetation –bereft lands, include ecological reforestation and economic reforestation or their
combination. Reforestation also includes new planting, assisted natural regeneration and enrichment
planting. Reforestation in the Philippines started in 1910 with the opening of the Forest School at Los
Banos, Laguna. Through Act No. 2649 in 1916, the first reforestation project was opened outside Laguna,
in friar lands located in Talisay-Minglanilla in Cebu with a modest P10, 000 was released. Later, other
reforestation projects were opened (e.g. Caniaw, Nasiping, Paraiso, etc.) To ensure a permanent source of
fund for reforestation, the new Republic government in 1944, through RA 115, imposed a reforestation fee
of 50 centavos and 40 centavos on every cubic meter cut in the public forest on the 1st and 2nd group and
3rd and 4th group of species, respectively. In 1960, the Reforestation Administration was created under RA
No. 2706. It attained an average rate of 10,000 hectares planted annually and even reached 35,400
hectares in 1963. Reforestation projects increased in number from 57 in 1960 to 91 in 1972 with a total of
182,000 hectares planted. In 1972, the Reforestation Administration was integrated with the Bureau of
Forestry, Parks and Wildlife Office and Southern Cebu Reforestation Project under PD No. 1 and LOI No. 3
into Bureau of Forest Development (BFD).

From 1966 onward reforestation became a joint undertaking by the government through its regular
and foreign assisted funding; the industrial tree plantation (later the IFMA), tree farm and agro-forestry
schemes and the upland people through socially-oriented programs in which reforestation is a component
such as the Integrate Social Forestry (ISF), the Community Forest Stewardship Management Agreement
(CFSMA), and the Community Forest Management Agreement (CFMA). Project under PD No. 1 and Letter
of Instructions No. 3 into Bureau of Forest Development

As of 1987, there were 135 regular reforestation projects under the jurisdiction of the then Bureau
of Forest Development (BFD) throughout the Philippines with an aggregate area of about 1,055,000
hectares. Of these, about 263,000 hectares were already planted as of March 1986 (BFD, 1989).

35
 The Program for Forest Ecosystem Management (PROFEM) that was launched in 1976 required
the private sector including timber licensees, industrial tree farm leases, tree farmers, and the citizenry to
actively participate in past reforestation programs. The efforts of both government and private sector
according to records increased reforestation areas to about 560,000 hectares. However, these areas were
not monitored and evaluated, hence, detailed important information about these plantations are not known
or recorded particularly on species composition, ages, growth and volume?

Also, past reforestation programs before 1960 and from 1960 to 987 were beset by a number of
problems such as low plantation accomplishment, low survival rate, acute lack of funds for administrative,
technical and infrastructure support and unclear direction. Furthermore, many reforestation projects have
been damaged due to forest fires, pest and diseases and other factors.

The main objective of past reforestation programs/activities before 1987 was

unclear and focused only on watershed rehabilitation and protection. Areas reforested were both for
protection and production purposes. There was no distinction between protection and production forest.
By and large, past reforestation efforts before 1990 were considered a “total failure”.

2.3.3 Assessment Performance of Reforestation

Alcala (1997) in his paper presented during the International Conference on Reforestation with
Philippine Species for Biodiversity Protection and Economic Progress reported in chronological order the
performance of the government in reforestation from 1930’s to 1997, as follows:

Way back in the 1930’s, about 545,000 hectares of critical forestlands as needing immediate
reforestation. However, of the modest accomplishments of 28,000 hectares about 85% (23,800) were
destroyed during the war.

In the 1940’s there were about 5 million hectares of open, denuded, brushland and grasslands; 2
million hectares apportioned for reforestation and 2 million hectares for agriculture and pasture. It was
computed that at the rate of 50,000 hectares a year, we may be able to reforest 2 million hectares in 40
years (then by 1980). Acknowledging the importance of reforestation, RA No. 115 was legislated as early
as 1947 in order to have permanent source of fund for reforestation. Furthermore, in 1960 under RA 2760
a permanent agency in Reforestation Administration under the DENR to give direction to pursuance of
vigorous reforestation.

An average of 10,000 hectares a year reforestation accomplishment by the Reforestation

Administration was far from the target of 50,000 hectares a year. However, during its short life ending in
1972, accordingly the agency was able to reforest a total area of about 182,000 hectares (for 12 years).

From 1972 – 1986 (Martial Law Regime of Pres. F. E. Marcos), accordingly, the government has
reforested a “better-than-before” rate at 27,000 hectares per year by the government and 24,000 hectares
per year of reforestation by the non-government or private sector primarily the TLA-holders.

Arithmetically, by the end of 1985, the total area reforested should have been 780,000 hectares.

For the first three years (1986-1988), the Aquino Administration, the annual reforestation rate by
the government was 28,000 and for the next three years (1989-1991), because of the ADB and OECF
Japan loans, the annual rate increased to 105,000 hectares while the private sector achieved a yearly rate
of 28,000 hectares.

Thereafter, up to 1995, the first three years of the Ramos government, annual reforestation rate by
the government diminished to 17,500 hectares because of the exhaustion of the foreign funds, while the
private sectors at 26,000 hectares.

36
 Again, arithmetically it can be noted that by the end of 1995, about 1.5 million hectares were
reforested, exclusive of the plantings done by the communities.

According to the MPFD (1990), up to 1987, the reforestation accomplishment totalled 847,000
hectares (587,000 hectares by the government and 260,000 hectares by the private sector). Indeed if we
added the reforestation achieved in a short period of 8 years after 1987, which was close at 710,000
hectares to all the previous years of reforestation efforts, the same figures of about 1.5 million hectares of
lands reforested would be achieved.

The area reforested by the government and private sector is presented in Table 1.2. Little
wonder then that reforestation/tree planting is proving to be a popular pastime. If one looks closely the
2001 Statistics of the DENR/FMB about 1.5 million hectares have been established during the last 60 years.
Whether these plantations are still there and in good shape or not remains to be proven. Many of these
plantations are not in good shape. Some of these plantations are called “paper” plantations not because
that is their eventual end-use but because it’s the only place they exist; in the field they have died of (a
combination of) drought, sabotage, pest attacked, five or some other form of neglect.

2.3.4 Relevant Laws, Rules and Regulations

• Presidential Decree (PD) 705 dated May 19, 1975, (Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, as
amended by PD 1159).
Provision of PD 705, as amended by PD 1159 defines the basic policy of Government on the
establishment, development, and maintenance of forest tree plantations. Guidelines governing the
establishment and development of industrial tree plantation (ITP), tree farms, and agroforestry
farms are provided in order to attain this purpose. In this context, ITP is defined “as any forestland
extensively planted to tree crops primarily to supply raw material requirements of existing or
proposed wood processing plants and related industries”. Tree farms, “refers to any small tract of
land purposely planted to tree crops”, while agroforestry is defined “as the sustainable
management of land which increases overall production, combines agricultural crops and forest
trees and /or animals simultaneously or sequentially, and applies management practices which are
compatible with the cultural patterns of the local population”.
Section 33 of PD 705 defines lands to be reforested. The areas shall be reforested and
covered with suitable and sufficient trees as follows:
o Bare or grass-covered tracts of forestlands;
o Brushlands or tract of forestland generally covered with brush which need development;
o Open tracts of forestlands interspersed with patches of forest;
o Denuded or inadequately-timbered areas proclaimed by the President as forest reserves and
reservations as critical watersheds, national parks, game refuge, bird sanctuaries, national
shrine, national historic sites;
o Inadequately stocked forestlands within forest concessions;
o Portions of areas covered by pasture leases or permits needing immediate reforestation; and
o Riverbanks, easements, road right-of-ways, deltas, swamps, former riverbeds and beaches.

• Executive Order No. 725 dated September 9, 1981.

Executive Order No. 725 was promulgated to facilitate the establishment of ITP to facilitate the
country’s reforestation efforts and promote ecological balance and adequate wood supply for the
needs of the country. Section 10 of this EO provides that ITP Lease Agreement shall be for a
period of 25 years renewable for another 25 years provided the lessee has complied with the terms
and conditions of the lease agreements and with other existing laws, rules and regulations. The
revised regulations and guidelines governing the establishment and development of ITP based PD
705, as amended by PD 1559 and Executive Order No. 725 are provided under DENR
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989. In addition, the revised regulations and guidelines on

37
 ITP provides for: a) statement on areas not available for ITP, b) maximum area that may be
granted for ITP; c) disposition of available area; d) application requirements and qualification of
applicants; e) government incentives; and e) general provisions for monitoring and control including
provisions for the cancellation of the lease.
• Administrative Issuance’s
o DENR A O 60, Series of 1993 – Revised Regulations and Guidelines Governing IFP and
Management of Residual Natural Forests for Production Purposes.
o DENR A O 97-04 dated March 04, 1997. Rules and Regulations governing IFMA.
To ensure adequate supply of timber and other forest products at the same time encourage
private sector participation, the government designed the industrial/corporate scheme of forest
plantation development as provided under DAO No. 60, Series of 1993 and DAO 97-04, Series of
1997.
Industrial Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) is an agreement entered into by the DENR
and a qualified applicant which grants sole and exclusive privilege to the qualified applicant to
develop a specific forestland into a forest tree plantation, harvest and utilize the planted tree crops
pursuant to existing laws, rules and regulations. The agreement lasts for 25 years renewable for
another 25 years. The IFMA covers a minimum area of 500 hectares and the maximum area is
40,000 hectares.
Socialized Industrial Forest Management Program (SIFMA) is another type of agreement
entered into by the DENR and a qualified applicant the right to develop and manage a small tract of
forest land and utilize the forest products plated therein. Primarily, IFMA is issued to have more
equitable access to forest resources to small landowners and to generate additional sources of
income and livelihood and help poverty alleviation in the uplands.
Under DAO No. 16 Series of 1992, the Private Forest Development Agreement can be issued
by the DENR to a private landowner or his duly authorized representative for the establishment of
tree plantation within his private property. The PFDA has duration of 25 years renewable for
another 25 years.
o DENR Administrative Order No. 96-29 (Community-Based Forest Management Program)
• The Community-Based Forest Management Program (CBFMP) integrates all people-oriented
forestry programs of the government including the Integrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP),
Upland Development Project (UDP), Low-Income Upland Communities Project (LIUCP), Regional
Resources Management Project (RRMP), Integrated Rainforest Management Project (IRFP),
Forestry Sector Project (FSP), Coastal Environment Program (CEP), and the Recognition of
Ancestral Domain/Claims.
• Plantation Development vis a vis Other Laws
Among the issues identified by Duenas, 2000 vis a via IPRA are as follows:
o Implementation of certain provisions in RA 8371, that has something to do with the
management of natural resources and ancestral domains/lands. The constraint affecting this
issue is the existence of a case filed at the Supreme Court of the Philippines for the
contentious provisions of RA 8371 that has something to do with the management, ownership
and utilization of natural resources and ancestral lands/domains which is still pending.
o Contracting a reforestation project by a non-IP into their ancestral domain areas. This
constraint is caused either the insincerity or non-adherence in the implementation of set
guidelines on reforestation and permits issuances for rattan.
o Non-recognition of DENR officials, particularly the PENRO’s and CENRO’s on the ancestral
domains/lands of IPs. The constraint identified is the non-enforcement of measures for
violations of local personnel.

38
 o Issuance of rattan permit by non-IP in CADC awarded areas. The constraint identified is the
absence of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between National Commission on
Indigenous People (NCIP) and DENR to define roles and responsibilities in the implementation
of pertinent provisions of RA 8371 relating to ancestral domains/lands and natural resources;
o Absence of formal areas of cooperation or partnership between DENR-NCIP as regards to the
management of ancestral domains/lands and natural resources, transfer of technology and
other related programs/projects for IPs that has to do with research, education, facilities,
training and extension programs. The constraint identified is the absence of a
mechanism/facility to institutionalize the participation of IPs in the barangay development
affairs specifically for forest resources and related activities;
o Weak coordination between the LGU with its IP constituents particularly in the management
and regulation of forest resources and extension work. The constraint identified is the weak or
absence of a regular monitoring by DENR for PENRO/CENRO/Forester’s activities in IP areas.
On the other hand, GAYO (2000), also identified several barriers to investments in tree
farming, e.g. land tenure (unclear rules on public lands, uncertainty under CARP for private and
commercial lands); problem on financing (lack of long-term financing; lack of bank’s appreciation of
the tree farming industry; transport/logistics (high informal taxes, too many checkpoints and “cash
points”; poor infrastructure; high shipping cost); poor production particularly dissemination of
technologies and inadequate technical and managerial skills; and others such as law and order
situation in some areas (particularly in Mindanao); limited research, development and extension
services

2.3.5 Accomplishments vs. Targets

Accordingly, the MPFD is an ambitious, gigantic Plan to solve the totality of the problems of the
forestry sector in 25 years. Lacking in prioritization, it has many programs invariably uninterconnected,
which makes it very difficult to make an honest and factual assessment (Bernas. 2000).
Assessments on accomplishment under Forest Plantation Development cannot be done properly
because Forest Plantations and Tree Farms (FPTF) are integrated with other major sub-sector programs.
FPTF is one of the five- (5) component programs under Forest Management and Products Development
Programs (FMPDP). Also, it was noted that most the People Oriented Forestry Programs (POFP) has
included other program components such as plantation development, watershed management and
biodiversity conservation.
Plantation forests include all those plantations developed for economic (production) and ecological
(protection) purposes. Reforestation and plantation areas according to the MPFD are taken here to mean
the same thing. The areas identified as “plantation areas”, therefore include those areas reforested by the
government (DENR & OGA) including regular reforestation and special projects and non-government sector
(i.e. timber licensees, IFMA, SIFMA, CBFMA, TFLA, PLA, ITPLA, and TF). Tree farms (TF) are those
developed by small landholder in private lands.
Plantation development implemented by the government through foreign-funded or assisted
projects is included along with other activities. As such it is very difficult to segregate/classify the funds
utilized solely for plantation development. By comparing the MPFD physical targets for forest plantations
and tree farms from 1991 to 2000 from the plantations developed by various sub-sectors (e.g. FLMA
(contract reforestation), IFP/TLA/TPSA, CBFM and Agroforestry/Tree Farm, it appears that the
accomplishments are less than 50% (0.4 million hectares against the target 1.3 million hectares). This
confirms also the result reported by Tesoro (2000) and Quintana (2000). The plantation development
implemented by the government was funded by ADB, which provided a loan of US$ 25 million.
The MPFD also envisioned that the private sector would be developing from 1991 to 2015 over 500
thousand hectares of tree plantation or about 20,000 hectares yearly that will be the future source of its raw
materials. However, records showed that there was no significant industrial tree plantation development
during the present Administration.

39
2.3.6 Program Impacts
From 1991-2000, the program was able to manage about 5.5 million hectares benefiting about
355,000 families. In addition, the management of about 5.5 million hectares of forestlands by families and
communities saves the government in forest protection costing about P127 million annually. One important
influence of Community-Based Forest Management program is the development of Alienable and
Disposable (A & D) lands into forest plantations and tree farms.
2.3.7 Issues, Problems and Constraints
Several relevant issues, problems and constraints (crosscutting policy and legislation), including
technical and information/research and development were identified confronting and affecting the successful
and efficient implementation of forest plantation development in the country. These issues/problems were
initially identified during the initial workshop in October 2002 and meetings with concerned officials of the
DENR, forest industry and stakeholders concerning the implementation of the MPFD. There’s a general
consensus that there is lack of interest by the private sector/other stakeholders to participate in plantation
development mainly on the following concern/problems:
• Not enough provisions for economic incentives particularly on the security of land tenure and
exemption from forest charges; and some obstacles particularly on accessing forestlands (because
of high application fees, cost of surveys and mapping, and cost of protection against encroachers)
in plantation development.
• Some technical problems identified include the following:
o Poor species selection procedure e.g. disregards for wood quality/end use and little attention
to species site compatibility. Also, there is overemphasis on exotic species.
o Absence of a scientific yet practical and systematic national Site Classification Scheme.
o Poor nursery management practices
o Lack of integrated approach to deal with forest plantation pests and diseases (it should start in
the early stage of plantation design).
o Poor plantation development practices (from site preparation to pre-harvesting) and neglect of
basic silviculture practices.
• Over-enthusiasm on high technology e.g. biotechnology; tissue culture, clonal forestry yet the basic
program on forest tree improvement (production of improved/quality seeds and source of selected
clones for mass propagation) has been neglected.
• Research and development in nursery and plantation development are still fragmented and not
prioritize.
• Lack of inventory of existing forest plantation and reliable growth data.
• Difficulties in harvesting and transporting plantation products;
o Forest products cannot be harvested without prior forest inventory. The present requirement
of the DENR requires a 100 percent inventory of the area prior to issuance of permit to harvest
the trees.
o Harvested logs cannot be sold without Certificate of Origin (COO) from the DENR.
o Intervention of the local government units in imposition of taxation, documentation of
forest products.
• On wood processing, the present policy of the government makes it very difficult to buy and install
processing mills. Installed mills are hard to operate owing to restrictions on sourcing raw materials
and transport of processed lumber products

40
• Similar problems are encountered in marketing of forest plantation products. The government has
no guidelines for prices and grading rules of “chain sawn lumber” or regular sawn lumber to
compete with international markets. Additional problems include:
o Lack of database on production technology and market price,
o Lack of market linkages for some timber and forest products, unfavorable mode of payment,
o Price manipulation by middlemen,
o Poor conditions of “farm to market” roads,
o No market outlets for some plantation species,
o Unstable market, policy and raw material price.

• There are several institutional obstacles that were identified affecting forest plantation
development. Some institutional concerns are presented as follows:
o There is need for a common definition of some forestry terms, e.g. forests, forest
plantation/tree plantation, watershed, reforestation/forestation, protection forests, and
production forests.
o Conflict and overlap of jurisdiction on forestland use; whether or not to exclude/include the
second growth forests as protection forests and refine process of prioritizing site to be
declared as priority conservation areas.
• Weak enforcement of forestry laws in the field.
• Absence of an institution that will oversee the effective implementation of forest plantation
development and continue the implementation of forest tree improvement program in the country.
• Forest plantation development not properly funded or funds appropriated for the purpose are not
properly used. For private plantations, very expensive capitalization.
• Lack of financial support from private and government financial institutions.

41
2.4 Protected Area System

2.4.1 Introduction

A complex of mix ecosystems and habitat types characterizes the Philippine landscape. Many of
the islands are believed to have a very high degree of plant and animal endemism. Philippines is one of the
most important countries in the world for conserving diversity of life on earth. It is one of the 17 mega
diversity countries with more than 52,170 described species, of which half are found no where else in the
world. However, less than 6% of the country’s original forest cover remains, while 418 species are listed in
the 2000 IUCN red list of threatened species, making Philippines to the top of the 25 global bio-diversity
(and coral reef) hotspots (Manila Bulletin, Sept.13,2002 p 9).

The most important policy instituted on IPAS and biodiversity conservation is RA 7586 (NIPAS Act
of 1992) and its implementing rules and regulations, DAO 25 of 1992. This Act establishes a comprehensive
system of integrated protected areas within the classification of national parks.

As of 2001, the DENR had recognized 244 protected areas under NIPAS (Including 137 key
conservation sites), with a total area of about 3.2 million ha. Most remaining virgin forests have been given
protected status, but many of these areas are in critical condition and remain threatened due to inadequate
protection resulting from lack of funds and lack of political will.

The PAs, at the moment are the responsibility of DENR’s regional offices. The Protected Areas and
Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) provides staff support to the field offices.

Any sort of utilization activity is prohibited in parks and reserves, but most if not all these areas are
in a sad state of degradation owing primarily to illegal cutting and kaingin making. This has been the result
of inadequate physical protection of the areas. There are local communities and indigenous people living in
and around protected areas. There is need to enhance and strengthen the PA system. Work in this regard
are being undertaken by four foreign-assisted projects, which together cover 18 PAs having a total area of
1,308,766 ha.

Details/scope of activities and period covered in respect of the foreign-assisted projects and the
quality of work undertaken need to be verified to get a clear indication of accomplishments. In the mean
while, Conservation International, the Washington-based International NGO, along with relevant agencies in
Philippines has come out, in September 2002, with a new set of Philippines Biodiversity Conservation
Priorities(CI, 2002).
There are several legal instruments relating to PAs and wildlife management: (i) Wildlife Local
Transport Permit, (ii) Wildlife Collectors Permit, (iii) Wildlife Farm Permit, (iv) CITES/ Non-CITES
export/import/re-export permits, (v) Scientific Researches, and (vi) Certificate of Wildlife Registration. There
are many rules and procedures under each of these main instruments. Non-compliance, however, is a
serious issue. Not much has been done to address the people-PA conflicts; it is necessary to involve local
communities in PA management, as is done in some countries.

2.4.2 Issues
Among the issues identified under the protected area subsector are as follows:
• Inadequate skills and knowledge, i.e. species identification and inventory
• Lack of ground demarcation of forest lands, e.g., production areas, protection areas, restoration
areas
• Lack of protection of residual forest which biodiversity rich areas

42
 • NIPAS Act and IPRA Inconsistencies
• Biological pollution
• Need for habitat rehabilitation
• Extinction of species and genetic resources
• Severe disturbance in ecological and evolutionary process
• Erosion of Indigenous Knowledge
• Management constraints
• Local Interest, rights concerns
• Development Potential
• Access and Benefit sharing from FBD
• Management of biodiversity zones/areas outside PAs
2.5 Grazing and Pasture Land Management
2.5.1. Introduction

Grazing and pastureland management (or range management) is one of the 4 components under
the “Soil conservation and Watershed Management Program” of the Master Plan for Forestry Development
(MPFD 1990). As per PD 705, grazing lands refer to “that portion of the public domain which has been set
aside, in view of the suitability of its topography and vegetation, for raising livestock”. Legally, these areas
are under the administration, management and disposition by the Forest Management Bureau, although the
authority is now decentralized to the DENR regional offices. The terms grazing land, pastureland and
rangeland are synonymous and used interchangeably in the literature. For this report, grazing land will be
the term to be used.

Grazing lands are commonly located within classified public forest zones which evolved from the
gradual depletion of previous climax forest vegetation due to destructive logging, kaingin and other land use
conversion activities. In the Philippines, grazing lands are dominated by different grass communities such as
cogon (Imperata cylindrica), bagokbok or samsamon (Themeda triandra), Misamis grass (Capillepedium
parviflorum), amorseco (Chrysopogon aciculatus) and talahib (Saccharum spontaneum) depending on site
quality or degree of site degradation and grazing management history (Aguilar 1995). More than 50% of
grasslands are severely eroded, consequently degrading the soil to become acidic, shallow, and deficient in
N, P and other nutrients (Concepcion and Samar 1995). As a result, the carrying capacity of the native
grasslands is considered very low at 0.5 animal unit (au) per hectare. The introduction of high yielding
grasses and nutritious legumes is believed capable of increasing the carrying capacity to 3 au/ha (Castillo
1991; PCARRD 1993, 2001).

The statistics on area covered by grasslands in the Philippines vary. The DENR estimated
grassland cover at 1.5 M ha (Malvas 1995), DA at 6.5 M ha (Concepcion and Samar 1995), and PCARRD
with 5.1 M ha estimate (PCARRD 1982). The variation maybe attributed to differences in their basis of
estimation. It is likely that DENR’s estimate is based on public lands which it has jurisdiction, while DA and
PCARRD included both public and A&D lands.

Since the enactment of the 1939 Pasture Land Act, vast tracts of grazing lands were awarded by
the government to private ranchers for livestock production (mainly cattle) through pasture lease agreement
(now called forest land grazing management agreement or FLGMA) or pasture permit. The total number and
area of lease agreements and permits have steadily declined through the years due to abandonment,
cancellation and/or non-renewal of the leased areas (Table 2.8). The latest data (2001) shows that there
were only 407 leases/permits covering 119,000 ha, down from 1,077 leases/permits covering 414,000 ha in
1990 (Forestry Statistics 2001). This is equivalent to an average “rate of loss” of about 61 leases/permits per
year or about 26,800 ha/year during this 10-year period.

The decreasing trend in the number and area covered by FLGMA and pasture permit result to
decreasing contribution of these cattle ranches to total cattle population and beef production in the country.
As shown in Table 2.9, cattle ranches contained about 210,000 heads of cattle in 1997 (or 9% of total cattle

43
population), decreasing to about 178,000 heads in 2002 which is 7% of total cattle population (Bureau of
Agricultural Statistics or BAS 2002). Conversely, the main bulk of cattle population are raised in the
backyards, contributing about 91% and 93% of total in 1997 and 2002, respectively.

Filipinos are not really beef-eaters if compared to such countries like Argentina and Australia. The
Philippines’ per capita beef consumption is only 2.6 kg/year (BAS 2002). At this rate, it is estimated that
ranches contributed about 8.19 million kg of beef in 2002 satisfying the beef requirement of 3.2 million
Filipinos (about 4% of total Filipino population). At P100/kg, the 8.19 million kg of beef translates to about
P819 million annual contribution to the economy which is still substantial.

Table 2.8. Number and area of forest land grazing management agreement (FLGMA) and permit, CY 1990-
2001.(Source: Forestry Statistics 2001)
Year Lease Permit Total
Number Area (ha) Number Area (ha) Number Area (ha)
1990 1,014 405,000 63 9,000 1,077 414,000
1991 941 360,000 12 2,000 953 362,000
1992 956 365,000 6 0 962 365,000
1993 880 325,000 3 0 883 325,000
1994 769 278,000 23 4,000 792 282,000
1995 714 252,000 8 5,000 722 257,000
1996 678 222,000 21 5,000 699 227,000
1997 569 179,000 19 8,000 588 187,000
1998 492 151,000 49 19,000 541 170,000
1999 462 145,000 34 8,000 496 153,000
2000 419 122,000 0 0 419 122,000
2001 407 119,000 0 0 407 119,000

Table 2.9. Cattle population in the Philippines, CY 1997-2002.

Year Commercial Backyard Total

(Ranches)
1997 209,857 2,056,427 2,266,284
1998 208,953 2,168,149 2,377,102
1999 197,224 2,228,705 2,425,929
2000 193,799 2,285,054 2,478,853
2001 188,230 2,307,371 2,495,601
2002 178,016 2,369,065 2,547,081

(Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics 2002)

The beautiful landscape and the presence of various microhabitat patches within the rangelands make
these areas ideal sites for outdoor recreation and habitats for distinct flora and fauna.

As one of the components of several watersheds, the grazing lands’ ecological and hydrologic
importance to downstream ecosystems is enormous. If not properly managed, they can contribute a lot of
soil erosion and surface run-off. For instance, it was estimated that overgrazed and regularly burned
grassland contributes about 440 t/ha/yr of soil erosion as compared to only 10 t/ha/yr in undisturbed
grassland. In fact, natural range grazing was estimated to be no longer profitable beyond 18% slopes if the
rangeland is regularly burned and overgrazed due to the estimated increasing cost of erosion (both on-site
and off-site) (MPFD 1990).

In spite of the tremendous economic and environmental importance of rangelands, there has been
no significant study or policy change regarding their true resource value so that fair assessment for charging
user’s fee can be made. In fact, the annual user’s fee was pegged at P1.00 or lower per hectare since the

44
1939 Pasture Land Act. It was only recently when findings of an ERDB study on pricing of grassland
resources resulted to formulation of a policy to increase the user’s fee or economic rent (Francisco et al
2000).

2.5.2 Goal and Objectives of the 1990 MPFD for the Grazing Land Management Component

Unlike in the other program components, the MPFD did not specifically state its goal, objectives
and strategies and the issues and concerns it wants to address for this sub-sector. Nevertheless, it briefly
mentioned the problem of low productivity of rangelands (i.e. cattle densities not exceeding 0.3 to 0.5 au/ha)
due to overgrazing and regular burning and the concomitant considerable soil erosion and site degradation.
Obviously, the master plan’s intent is to put this sub-sector back to productive condition through proper
management such as improved forage production and cut-and-carry feeding system to increase carrying
capacity and to avoid or minimize overgrazing and regular burning practices.

2.5.3 Policies and Physical Accomplishments Vis-a-Vis MPFD Targets

[Link] Policies Related to Grazing Land Administration and Management

There are eight major policies related to grazing land administration and management (Table 2.10).
The 1939 Pasture Land Act was followed by the issuance of MAO No. 50 Series 1982 after a lull of more
than 4 decades. The latest major policy issuance was in 1999 when DAO 99-36, as amended by DAO 2000-
23, was issued, incorporating the controversial provision that substantially increased the user’s fee as
recommended based on an ERDB research findings mentioned earlier. Currently, a proposed DAO (DAO
2003) regarding the revised rules and regulations governing the administration, management, development
and disposition of forestlands used for grazing purposes is under review by the DENR. This draft DAO
actually tries to harmonize the sentiments of ranchers who are opposing the new user’s fee being imposed
with the scientific findings and the recent policy pronouncement by President Arroyo in Masbate.

Table 2.10. Chronological listing of major policies related to the administration and management of
grazing lands.
Name of Policy Year Issued
1. Commonwealth Act No. 452 (Pasture Land Act). 1939

2. MAO No. 50 Series 1982 (Regulations governing the administration, 1982

management and disposition of grazing lands, communal grazing
lands and forest lands for grazing purposes).

3. BFD Circular No. 12 Series 1983 (Revised guidelines in the 1983

processing of grazing lease/permit application).

4. BFD Memo. Circular No.5 Series 1995 (Amending BFD Circular No. 1995
12 Series 1983).

5. DAO No. 95-13 (Amending Section 16 of MAO No. 50 Series 1982). 1995

6. DAO No. 99-36 (Revised rules and regulations governing the 1999
administration, management and disposition of forest lands used for
grazing purposes).

7. DAO No. 2000-23 (Amending certain sections of DAO No. 99-36). 2000

8. Proposed DAO (Revised rules and regulations governing the 2003

administration, management, development and disposition of forest
lands used for grazing purposes).

45
The following summarizes the major provisions of these 8 major policies:

1) Grazing land area to be leased or given permit = 50 – 20,000 ha per applicant.

2) Tenure = 25 years, renewable for another 25 years.

3) Application fee = P1.00/ha (1983) to P10.00/ha (1999).

4) Grazing land capability survey to determine suitability and availability of grazing land being applied
for:
a) Nine criteria to be used in the assessment (biophysical and socio-economic factors).
b) Assessment (including perimeter survey and mapping) to be done by Land Capability
Survey Team to be created by the DENR regional offices.
c) Assessment/survey fee = P2.50/ha (1983) to P300.00/ha (1999).

5) Preparation of 25-year Forest Land Grazing Management Plan and 5-year

Operations Plan.

6) Area for forage improvement -- Each lessee is required to establish forage improvement in at least
10% of the total leased area.

7) Rental fee/user’s fee:

a) P1.00/ha (1939-1998).
b) DAO 99-36:
o 5-year transition period, i.e. Y1 = P200/ha; Y2 = P275/ha; Y3 = P350/ha; Y4 =
P425/ha; Y5 = P500/ha.
o Starting Y6, user’s fee to be computed using economic rent formula.
o 80% user’s fee reduction incentive.
c) Proposed DAO – imposes P40/ha user’s fee (to comply with President Arroyo’s
pronouncement) but it has provision stating that DENR reserves the right to set/revise
the user’s fee or government share based on economic rent formula.

8) Annual Grazing Report --- required to be submitted by the lessees to DENR.

9) Performance evaluation of leaseholder’s compliance of the management plan – to be conducted by

DENR every year during the first three years and every two years thereafter.

10) Grounds for cancellation of lease agreement:

a) Violation of any of the provisions of the agreement;
b) Non-compliance to the approved management and operations plans;
c) Failure to submit the mandatory annual grazing report; and
d) Failure to pay the user’s fee.

Analysis of these policies indicate two things:

There are enough provisions to enhance or safeguard sustainable grazing land management such
as: a) conduct of land capability assessment to ascertain suitability and availability of the area being
applied for grazing purposes; b) preparation and implementation of management and operations plans;
c) issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) as condition precedent to the approval
of the management and operations plans; and d) regular monitoring and evaluation of lessee’s
performance through the annual grazing reports and the conduct of annual/bi-annual performance
evaluation.

Realization of the above safeguards depends on the capability of the lessee to implement
such provisions or requirements and the capability of DENR to provide technical assistance to lessees

46
 from planning to implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the formulated management and
operations plans.

[Link] Physical Accomplishments of Grazing Land Management Component vis-à-vis MPFD

Targets

The MPFD projected a gradual decrease in area of grasslands that will be left for livestock
production due to land use change – i.e. from 1.5 M ha in 1990 and 0.9 M ha in 2000 to 0.7 M ha in 2015.
Based on this scenario, the MPFD envisaged that increasing areas of grazing lands have to be managed
productively, perhaps to reverse the trend (Table 2.11). However, it appears now that this increasing
physical target cannot be met in the coming years if the decreasing trend in the number and area of leased
areas continues. In fact, by year 2005, it is projected that there will only be about 165 lessees left to manage
an estimated 48,000 ha remaining grazing lands. This is 2.4 times lesser than the 115,000 ha targeted by
MPFD for that particular year. And if the current rate of decrease still proceeds, there will be no more
lessees to speak of by year 2010.

Table 2.11. Area of grazing lands targeted by MPFD for productive management versus the actual and
projected number and area under FLGMA management.

Year MPFD Targets Actual & Projected Areas Under

(ha) FLGMA
Number Area (ha)
1990 0 1,077 414,000
1995 15,000 722 257,000
2000 65,000 419 122,000
2001 75,000 407 119,000
2004 105,000 225* 65,700**
2005 115,000 165* 48,000**
2010 165,000 0* 0**
2015 215,000 - -

In general, forage improvement was not undertaken or fully complied with by the FLGMA holders in
spite the fact that it is their obligation under DAO 99-36 to establish forage improvement in at least 10%
of their total leased area. In fact, the 482.65 ha total area with forage improvement as reported by 126
lessees (Table 2.12) means that on the average, each lessee established only 3.83 ha of his/her total
leased area. If the average area per lessee is 292 ha (based on the 119,000 ha covered by 407 lessees
it implies that only 1.3% of the total leased area per lessee was with forage improvement established.

Table 2.12. Total hectarage of FLGMA lease areas with forage improvements. (Source: Annual
Grazing Reports Submitted to FMB – 2002)

Region No. of Forage

Lessees Improvement (ha)
CAR 27 22.54
1 6 1.91
2 42 111.00
3 6 7.50
4 13 84.00
5 11 66.50
10 11 162.50
12 10 26.70
Total 126 482.65

47
 The main reason provided by ranchers for not being able to fully implement the required forage
improvement in their lease areas is due to the absence of sources of seeds or germplasm of forage crops.
The forage seed production areas established by DENR in 7 different project sites are accordingly no longer
operating since 1997 due to lack of funds. This is exacerbated by the lack of formal trainings of DENR range
management officers in the field on range management. They do not have enough technical capability to
provide the necessary assistance to lessees such as improved forage production technologies, herd
management and the like.

2.5.4 Issues and Concerns on Grazing Land Management

Numerous issues and concerns were raised by Austria (1993) in his pioneering policy research
(MS thesis) on the administration of public rangelands in the Philippines which are still valid today. Several
issues were also presented during the series of National Grassland Congress of the Philippines (e.g. Florido
et al 1998; Moog and Castillo 1995; Montemayor 1999). This consolidation of issues and concerns
(including the recommendations presented in section 6) have been reiterated and validated during the
interview of key informants from DENR and a leaseholder and during the regional consultation seminar-
workshop held in Baguio City.

• Institutional and Technical Issues and Concerns

o Low priority concern on rangeland management as compared to the traditional forest land
uses like timber production, CBFM, etc. The DENR’s present organizational structure does
not include range improvement as one of its functions.
o Lack of DENR manpower (both in number and capabilities) and funds to provide necessary
technical assistance to lessees and to regularly perform its regulatory and monitoring
functions.
o Lack of coordination between or among DENR, DA and ranchers.
o Lack of technical and material assistance for range improvement (e.g. sources of
seeds/planting materials for forage improvement).
o Lack of good breeder base population. The high yielding cattle breeds used to upgrade native
strains are usually imported.

• Policy Issues and Concerns

o No policy change regarding user’s fee since 1939 until only recently when appropriate pricing
of grassland resources was recommended resulting to non-intensive and inefficient
operations.
o Implementation of DAO 99-36 (as amended by DAO 200-23) is being opposed by many
ranchers and lease applicants because of perceived very high rates imposed for several fees
(application fee, user’s fee, site assessment fee, etc.) and too many requirements.
o No land use policy allocating certain grassland and other potential areas as permanent grazing
lands.

• Biophysical/Social/Financial Issues and Concerns

o Biophysical constraints in grazing lands:

- Marginal soil (acidic, low N and P)
- Weed infestation especially by Chromolaena odorata and Lantana camara.
- Low herbage yield of native pastures (can hardly support 0.5 au/ha)
- Long dry season/El Niño phenomenon (cause seasonal shortage of forage)
o Social and financial constraints:
- Squatting, rebel problem, ancestral land claim, cattle rustling, incendiarism, vandalism,
and illegal cutting of trees/charcoal making.
- Unfavorable peace and order condition is accordingly the main reason why grazing
leaseholders are forced to abandon their ranches.

48
- High cost/lack of high quality cattle breeders.
- High cost of fencing materials, feed supplements and other ranch structures required
(high initial investment cost required).

49