Community-Based Forest Management at 10: A Multi-Stakeholder Forum

Community-Based
Forest
Management at 10
A multi-stakeholder forum
Proceedings
Published in the Philippines in 2008 by the International Institute of Rural
Reconstruction and International Development Research Centre.
ISBN 1-930261-19-5
This publication has no copyright and IIRR encourages the use, translation,
adaptation and copying of materials. Acknowledgements and citation will however
be highly appreciated.
Correct citation: IIRR, IDRC. 2008. Community-Based Forest Management at 10. A

Multi-stakeholder Forum. Proceedings
For further information, please contact:
International Development Research Centre

PO Box 8500
Ottawa, ON K1G 3H9
Canada
info@idrc.ca
www.idrc.ca
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction

Y.C. James Yen Center
Silang, Cavite 4118
Philippines
information@iirr.org
www.iirr.org
Cover photo:
Taken during the “fishbowl debate”, CBFM stakeholders are seated in the inner circle,
the “fishbowl”, debating on contentious issues on CBFM. Those in the outer circle could
participate in the debate whenever seats in the inner circle are vacated. The fishbowl
methodology provides stakeholders, including villagers, the opportunity to dialogue on
equal footing on the barriers to CBFM, which was a major objective of the Forum.
Back photo:
The CBFM vision developed by the CBFM stakeholders during the Forum.
Contents
Preface iv
Acknowledgement v
Main acronyms used vi
Introduction 1
The CBFM forum
Objectives of the forum
Forum process
I. Diagnosis 7
PO preparations
Other stakeholder preparation
II. Sharing and analysis of experiences 11
Overview of CBFM
Introduction to the themes
Presentation of case stories
Summary and SWOT analysis
III. Refle ction and dialogue
Reflection 45
Fishbowl debate
Results of the debate
IV. Action planning 55
Summary 59
Annexes
Annex 1: Presentation
• CBFM: Policy Changes and Development 61
Domingo Bacalla, DENR FMB
Annex 2: Case Stories
Tenure and resource use
• Dreaming of a Full Moon in CBFM 75
Loreto G. Indus and Venancio Cueno, CBFM Coop
• A CBFM without RUP: The Case of 84
RINFAPADECO
Generosa J. Juino and Andres Marquez, RINFAPADECO
• Resource Use Permit: Lifeblood of Community- 89
Based Forest Management
Oscar R. Oñate, QUISAVIZCA
• Shall We Join the CBFM Program? 92
Fernando Laurel and Cesar Alarde, CSC Holders
• Realities of Community-Based Forest Management 96
Tenure Assessment in Quirino Province
Priscila C.Dolom, UPLB FDC and Buenaventura L.
Dolom, EcoGov
• Conflict over Land Tenure: Community-Based 104
Forest Management Agreement Versus Certificate of
Ancestral Domain Title
Hideki Miyakawa, JICA
Livelihood and enterprise

• CBFM: Social Program or Milking Cow? 111
Rosalio G. Fernando, Jr. and Herminigildo Nanca,
SAROMCO
• The Role of Homo Sapiens in the Forests 118
Pastor Delbert Rice, Kalahan Educational Foundation,
Inc.
• Community Livelihood Assistance Special Program: 123
Some Insights and Lessons
Ana Rose DF. Opeña, FMB, DENR
• Conserve Community Forests, Improve Livelihoods 131
Benedicto Q. Sanchez, BIND
Conservation and protection

• CBFM in Maasin Watershed Reservation: 137
For KAPAWA or for Iloilo Residents?
Rubenie Castillanes and Pablo Mijares, KAPAWA
• Muddy CBFM 144
NASAJMPA
• Field Experiences, Issues and Lessons from 150
Enterprise-Based Biodiversity Conservation
Susan Naval and Martin Talento, Enterprise Works
Worldwide
Institutional linkages and partnerships

• Community-Based Forest Management Through 155
Effective Linkaging and Partnership: The Story of
the Kinagunan Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc.
Leticia Hernandez, KMPCI
• Stakeholders’ Complementation and Collaboration: 159
Essential Elements of Sustainability in Philippine
Forest Governance
Gwendolyn Bambalan, FMB, DENR
• LGU Involvement on Devolved and Other Forest 165
Management Functions: The Maasim Experience
Hon. Aniceto Lopez, Jr. and Rolando Tuballes, LGU
Maasin
• Co-Management of Philippine Forestlands: Viewing 172
Forest Governance from the Ground
Nena Espiritu and Ma. Cynthia S. Casin, UPLB CFNR
• Creating Partnership between LGUs and CBFM 180
People’s Organizations: The Next Step in Sustainable
Forest Management
Mark Anthony Ramirez, EcoGov and Eduardo Paras,
LUPA-IERMC
Institutional strengthening for PO self-governance

• National CBFM PO Federation of the Philippines: 187
Issues and Challenges Toward Self-Governance
Josefina Campo, National CBFM PO Federation
• Indigenous Peoples in Community-Based Forest 190
Management Program: Social Safeguards Issues
Dr. Ruben Z. Martinez, OTRADEV
• Sustaining the Gains of CBFM and Moving Towards 198
PO Self-Governance: The Quirino Experience
Gordon Bernard R. Ignacio, GTZ and Sharon Marie S.
Paet, Community Forestry Foundation of Quirino, Inc.
Annex 3: SWOT analysis 205
Annex 4: Action plan 211
Annex 5: Forum schedule 215
Annex 6: Participants’ directory 217
Preface
A
All the participants in this forum know that Community-Based Forest
Management (CBFM) in the Philippines faces great challenges and
opportunities. And that this forum presents many of that.
The International Institute of Rural Reconstruction’s attempt to initiate a

multi-stakeholder review of CBFM ten years after its implementation is
commendable. It is timely as the lessons and recommendations generated
from the forum will provide guidance to the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) as we are already gearing up to update our
National CBFM Strategic Plan.
The “Ten-Year Multi-Stakeholder Review of CBFM: A Forum for Reflection

and Dialogue” provides a venue for the different stakeholders to share their
experiences, discuss together the issues and formulate solutions. More than
providing very wide perspectives on CBFM, the forum’s multi-stakeholder and
participatory processes also offer an alternative and appropriate ways of
discussing issues and formulating recommendations. And not so long ago,
IIRR conducted a similar workshop in 2002, “Linking People to Policy,” where
different stakeholders took a critical look at community forestry in the
Philippines, outputs of which were incorporated in the revised CBFM
guidelines in 2004. I attended both workshops myself, and the experience
and learning from them are interesting and useful.
This book contains an excellent presentation of the process of the forum,

documentation of wide experiences of key stakeholders, and discussion of
significant outputs from the forum. Of special note are the peoples
organization that authored and presented the stories themselves, bringing in
faces to various field realities. As their views may at times be different with
ours and others’, the multiple perspective approach of the forum nonetheless
provides a learning environment to broaden participants’ perspectives and
enrich alternatives toward advancement of CBFM in the Philippines.
Over the years, IIRR and the DENR, through the CBFM Division of the Forest
Management Bureau (FMB), have engaged in many activities together. IIRR
has brought in fresh perspectives and methodologies in participatory and
multi-stakeholder processes, which even the DENR staff and other stakeholders
have been learning from. This book provides you some of that.
From our end, we are committed to pursue the participation and engagement
with different stakeholders, with CBFM as the national strategy to sustain our
country’s forests. As this book conveys, this is the best way, if not the only way,
for CBFM to move to greater heights.
I hope the forum process and content described in this book are as interesting
and useful to the readers as the forum was to me.
Domingo T. Bacalla
Chief, CBFM
FMB-DENR
Acknowledgement
T
This documentation of the forum proceedings is a result of the coming together
of ideas of different CBFM stakeholders.
Foremost, the forum and this publication would not have been possible without
the support of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) to the
Community Forestry Interlocking Project (CFIP) of the Regional Center for
Asia of the International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (RCA-IIRR). IDRC’s
generous funding support enabled the CFIP team to introduce and influence
innovations in forest policy platforms and processes in the country.
The multi-stakeholder and participatory process design of the forum was a

product of the collaboration with the College of Forestry and Natural Resources
of the University of the Philippines Los Baños and LTS International, particularly
Dr. John Pulhin and Peter O’Hara who also co-facilitated the forum with us.
We are very thankful to Mr. Domingo Bacalla and the CBFM staff of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources for providing guidance
during the forum conceptualization. Our warm thanks as well to the PO
Federation and their members; the DENR field offices; our NGO partners
and our co-researchers in Quezon – the Atimonan local government unit
(LGU), DENR provincial office, the Kapit Bisig Farmers’ Association, Inc.
(KBFAI) and the Certificate of Stewardship Contract (CSC) holders in
Atimonan. All of them have provided inputs in the forum design as well as
assistance during field research and the forum itself.
Our special thanks to the participants – the representatives of the POs, LGUs,
donor agencies, academic and research institutions, private and business
groups, and the DENR and other national government agencies – who willingly
shared their stories and ideas, with remarkably unfailing energies throughout
the three-day activity.
Finally, we would also like to recognize the forest communities who chose to
make their voices heard and provided inspiration to innovate on policy
processes and make them truly participatory and appropriate for them. Together
with other participants, their representatives willingly and boldly exchanged
views, with the aim of exploring practical ideas and solutions to improve and
advance CBFM in the country.
Although the forum is over and the proceedings published, the work to move
CBFM forward continues. This book poses experience-based challenges to
all stakeholders. It urges everyone to learn from the rich CBFM experiences,
continuously work to overcome the barriers and conscientiously act on the
recommendations presented.
We would be grateful to those who would chance upon this book and, in one
way or another, be inspired to contribute to our quest: to advance community
forestry and institutionalize democratized forestry policy-making in the
Philippines and beyond.
The Community Forestry Interlocking Project Team

RCA-IIRR
Main Acronyms Used
ADB Asian Development Bank

AWP Annual Work Plan
CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim
CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
CALC Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim
CALT Certificate of Ancestral Land Title
CBFM Community-Based Forest Management
CBFMA Community-Based Forest Management Agreement
CCFS Certificate of Community Forest Stewardship
CCRP Community Contract Reforestation Program
CDMP Comprehensive Development and Management Plan
CENRO City Environment and Natural Resources Office
CFP Community Forestry Project
CO community organizing
CRMF Community Resource Management Framework
CS Certificate of Stewardship
CSC Certificate of Stewardship Contract
DA Department of Agriculture
DAO DENR Administrative Order
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
ECC Environmental Compliance Certificate
FAR Family Approach to Reforestation
FLMA Forest Land Management Agreement
FLUP Forest Land Use Plan
FOM Forest Occupancy Management
FSP Forestry Sector Project
FWP Five-Year Work Plan
IP Indigenous People
IPRA Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
ISFP Integrated Social Forestry Program
JMC Joint Memorandum Circular
LGU Local Government Unit
MENRC Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Council
MENRO Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MPDO Municipal Planning and Development Office
MPFD Master Plan for Forestry Development
NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
NGO Non-Government Organization
NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product
PENRO Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office
PNP Philippine National Police
PO People’s Organization
RED Regional Executive Director of DENR
RUMA Resource Utilization Management Agreement
RUP Resource Use Permit
SEC Securities and Exchange Commission
TLA Timber License Agreement
WPP Wood Processing Permit
Introduction
C
Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) was declared in the Philippines
in 1995 as “the national strategy to achieve sustainable forestry and social justice.”
Ten years since its implementation, stakeholders saw that it was time to take stock
of lessons learned before the country starts the next decade of CBFM
implementation. A multi-stakeholder review of CBFM was thus organized.
The CBFM forum

The forum, dubbed as “Ten-year
multi-stakeholder review of CBFM: A
forum for reflection and dialogue”,
was held on April 20-22, 2006 at the
International Institute of Rural
Reconstruction (IIRR) in Silang,
Cavite. It provided an opportunity for
CBFM stakeholders to share and
analyze their experiences, reflect and
dialogue on issues, and develop vision
and action plans together.
The methodology of the forum was designed to provide an opportunity for all
major stakeholders to represent themselves and articulate their diverse experiences
and views.
The 50 participants came from non-governmental organizations or NGOs (which

had 9 representatives), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) and other national government agencies (8), people’s organizations or
POs including a group of Certificate of Stewardship Contract holders (19), donor
organizations (6), the academe/research (4), private sector (2), and local
government units or LGUs (2).
The forum was made possible through the IIRR’s Community Forestry Interlocking
Project (CFIP) supported by the International Development Research Centre
(IDRC), Canada. IIRR organized the forum in partnership with the College of
Forestry and Natural Resources (CFNR) of the University of the Philippines in
Los Baños (UPLB).
This publication details the preparations for the forum, all the outputs – an
excellent and comprehensive analysis of different aspects of CFBM from the
perspectives of key stakeholders – and, most importantly, its multi-stakeholder,
participatory process.
Objectives of the forum
The forum was a venue for multiple stakeholders to share, reflect and
dialogue on equal footing about the lessons they learned from a decade of
CBFM implementation and formulate vision and action plans together.
Its results, both in terms of process and content, will then provide the
basis for revising the National CBFM Strategic Plan.
Its specific objectives were:
1. To enable the voiceless rural people to have a representation at the

national level with the aim of making forest policies, programs and
initiatives more appropriate for them and enable the advancement of
community forestry;
2. To provide a platform for meaningful negotiations for representatives
from all the key stakeholders in community forestry in the Philippines;
3. To provide an example of a mechanism to inspire the democratization
of forest policy-making processes in the Philippines; and
4. To generate lessons to enhance CBFM implementation as a national
strategy for achieving sustainable forestry and social justice.
Forum process
The forum analyzed the different aspects of CBFM in the Philippines
from various stakeholder perspectives. Its multi-stakeholder participatory
process was an adaptation of the “Linking People to Policy” (refer to
IIRR, 2005. Linking People to Policy: From Participation to Deliberation
in the Context of Philippine Community Forestry. International Institute
of Rural Reconstruction, Philippines. 154 pp) workshop conducted by
IIRR in 2002. The workshop gave all stakeholders equal opportunity to
be heard and help formulate recommendations to improve community
forestry in the Philippines.
Inspiration for the ‘Linking People to Policy’ came from discussions with
community members in the Philippines on the barriers to community
forestry. For them, the key barriers to community forestry were found in
centrally formulated policy which they had little or no opportunity to
influence, and were not found in or near the communities. The causes
and symptoms of problems regarding community forestry were not in
the same place, and those two places –communities and policy making
processes – were not linked, hence the ‘linking people to policy’ idea.
As with the Linking to People to Policy, the forum was specifically designed
to make policy platforms accessible and appropriate for the POs, and to
engage multiple stakeholders to dialogue on issues on community forestry
in equal footing. In fact, throughout the forum, participatory methods
and tools were employed and Filipino as the medium of communication
was used.
2 Community-Based Forest Management at 10.

A Multi-stakeholder Forum. Proceedings
The forum had four major process components: diagnosis, sharing and
analysis of experiences, reflection and dialogue and action planning,
which were founded on basic tenets of action research. This framework
(Figure 1), found to be effective during the Linking People to Policy
workshop, was introduced to the participants who readily agreed to use
it.
IV. Action planning
II. Sharing and

analysis of
experiences
I. Diagnosis
III. Reflection and

dialogue
Figure 1. The framework of the forum.
This process was the result of a series of consultations with the participants
and other key stakeholders during the preparatory stage of the forum.
Each step of the process was carefully reviewed, especially by the POs to
make it appropriate to them, to suit the multi-
stakeholder and participatory nature of the
forum.
Following the same framework, the reader will

journey through the four major process
components as they read this book.
I. Diagnosis
I. Diagnosis
As a preparatory stage to the forum, the

diagnosis component allowed individual
participants to review, analyze and document
their experiences following a format that
includes CBFM experiences/activities, issues
and concerns, and program/policy
implications/recommendations. Aside from
PO members preparing their
written documentation, participants prepared resource and social map which will
a short presentation for sharing during the be used for their presentation to
forum. the forum.
Introduction 3
The IIRR research team facilitated the POs in documenting their
experiences and developing their short presentation for the forum with
the use of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools. The team also
conducted workshops to prepare them for their participation in the other
process components of the forum.
II. Sharing and analysis of

experiences
II. Sharing and
At the forum, participants were provided analysis of
with an overview of CBFM and introduced experiences
to the themes: tenure and resource use,
enterprise and livelihood, conservation
and protection, institutional linkages and
partnerships, and institutional
strengthening for PO self-governance.
Presentations were divided by themes and
held simultaneously.
The participants chose which thematic

presentation-workshop group they
wished to join but it was ensured that all A PO leader shares his organization’s
stakeholders were represented in each CBFM experiences, using a resource and
group. social map.
On the first round, there were two simultaneous case presentations, one
on tenure and resource use and the other on livelihood and enterprises.
On the second round, three groups conducted simultaneous presentations,

each focusing on one of the remaining three themes. Questions, oral or
written, were allowed after each presentation.
While taking into account the individual participant’s experiences, each

group provided an assessment of CBFM, focusing on the theme assigned
to them and using the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats) analysis. The results were presented during the plenary session.
The purpose of the Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats (SWOT)

analysis is to provide analysis of projects, policy or governance. In this
forum, the SWOT was used for summarizing the participants’ presentations
and for providing assessment of CBFM by theme by the working group.
The S and W refer to the past and the O and T refer to the future.
The title, “SWOT,” was clearly written on the wall. There were four pre-
prepared columns with symbols + under SO and under WT and also an
arrow pointing backwards over the SW and an arrow pointing forward
over the OT translated in Filipino to avoid confusion. Participants were
given cards and markers (see Annex 3). The number of cards each
participant can place in each column were restricted to 2 or 3 per column.
Only one idea per card was to be written as cards were to be grouped
later. Participants then wrote key strengths first then key weaknesses. They

were asked to help group the cards and summarize. Next, participants
wrote down future opportunities and future threats on separate cards.
They again grouped and summarized the cards and a volunteer presented
the results during the plenary.
This process component provided equal chance for individual participants

to share their own experiences and perspectives and for the group to
collectively analyze each theme.
III. Reflection and dialogue
From the sharing of experiences

and assessment of the themes, each
stakeholder group – PO and CSC
holders, DENR and other national
government agencies, LGU, NGO,
research and academe, and donor
– formulated a statement about the
core problems of CBFM. Each
group assigned a presenter of the
statement who woudl also justify it
during the dialogue. The fishbowl The “Fishbowl” Debate.
methodology was adopted to ensure
that all could take part and no one
would dominate the dialogue
process.
The fishbowl methodology required

participants to sit in a large circle
facing each other. At the center of III. Reflection and
the circle – the “fish bowl” – were dialogue
five chairs arranged into a smaller
circle. One of the chairs at the
center was reserved for the person
tasked to explain or justify the
position statement and the rest were
for respondents.
Before the debate started, the

participants agreed on the
maximum time that a person was
allowed to speak. Strict time
management provided a
Debate statements and under each are the three
continuous shuffling of speakers envelopes used for voting: agree, neutral, disagree.
and gave everyone opportunity to
present, justify and argue their
points.
The position statement was posted on a board while being discussed by

the proponent and justified before the circle of stakeholders. At the end
of the explanation, anyone from the large circle can respond and sit on a
Introduction 5
vacant chair in the inner circle and state his/her views on the statements.
Once finished, the respondent moved to the outside circle to give room
for others to take part in the debate. The justifier remained in the center
throughout the debate and replied to comments and reactions.
After the debate, participants voted on each of the statement posted. Below
each statement are three envelopes marked, “Agree,” “Neutral” and
“Disagree.” The participants, who were each given a piece of paper (which
was color-coded, i.e. NGOs were given pink slips, LGU representatives
green ones, and so on) then voted by placing their paper on the envelop
that signifies their position on the issue. The results of the debate were
shown to all the participants for their reference in developing action
plans.
This method enables all stakeholders to reflect and dialogue on contentious

issues, and guides them in formulating recommendations in improving
CBFM implementation.
IV. Action Planning
From the SWOT analyses and debate

IV. Action
results, the participants identified six
planning
major areas upon which to base the action
plans. They first revisited the metacards
on the SWOT analysis board and
regrouped them based on similarity of
ideas and concerns. The output were then
compared with the debate results. The
major areas identified for action were
policy formulation, devolution, tenure and
resource use, institutional strengthening,
dialogue for collaboration, and research
and development.
The participants were then divided into

seven small multi-stakeholder working
groups. Six were tasked to develop action
plans to address a CBFM area of concern, Adrawing
multi-stakeholder workshop group
the CBFM vision.
while the seventh group formulated a
vision for CBFM for the next decade. The
participants were allowed to choose their workshop group but asked to
ensure multi-stakeholder representation in each group.
The action plans and visions developed by each group were presented
and discussed in the plenary and agreed upon by the participants.

I. Diagnosis
I
In preparation for the Forum, IIRR posted advertisements
and sent invitations to CBFM stakeholders throughout the
country. Stakeholders were asked to express their interest in
attending the forum by submitting a documentation of their
CBFM experiences. The forum team composed of IIRR and
UPLB-CFNR reviewed the submitted papers and based on content, stakeholder
mix and geographical representation, selected papers for presentation to the forum.
To ensure PO participation, the team, assisted by the DENR, research organizations,

NGOs and other stakeholders, identified and selected PO representatives to the
forum. Criteria for selection included policy context, biophysical conditions of the
area, geographical spread, social and cultural characteristics, and willingness to tell
their stories.
PO preparations
The IIRR research team conducted
participatory research with six selected POs
from all over the country implementing
CBFM to facilitate the analysis and
documentation of their experiences and
perspectives. These POs provided a
community “voice” to the forum.
Participatory research. For a period of one

year, the IIRR research team through the
use of PRA tools. Among the PRA tools were:
timeline to discuss the history of their
involvement with CBFM; resources and
social map to demonstrate geographic
distribution of resources and community
members and the associate opportunities and
problems; Venn diagram to analyze
stakeholder relationships; benefit ranking to
determine the amount of benefits that accrue
to those involved in CBFM; role play to show PO showing the state of forest in the CBFM
area through a role play (below) and analyzing
the different situations in CBFM; and stakeholders’ benefits through benefit ranking
problem tree and solution tree to identify analysis.
problems and solutions. The PRA tools

ensured that the diverse views of the PO members were heard and understood
despite literacy and language limitations, and ensured their full ownership over the
contents.
The POs designed a story outline to guide them in documenting their experiences
and views. Documented stories written in the local language were reproduced and
distributed to all members for their review and comments. Story-reading workshops
were also held to allow the illiterate and older community members to
comment or add to the story. Revisions on the contents were incorporated
according to community agreements during PO meetings.
Upon PO members’ approval of the documented story, they selected two

representatives to the forum. The selection process was based on their
awareness and critical insights on CBFM and the courage to speak the truth
as many of the issues raised were contentious and controversial. The two
representatives had to rehearse their presentation so that members could
give advice on its structure and focus, and share tips on communication
and presentation skills to better articulate ideas contained in the story.
PO workshop. Prior to the CBFM forum, PO

representatives attended a workshop held at IIRR
to familiarize them with the workshop process
and methods, and assist them in the use of their
presentation materials, which included, among
others, hand-drawn maps, tables listed on Manila
papers and drawings and pictures which they
painstakingly made.
The IIRR team encouraged the community

representatives to improve their presentation PO representatives revising
materials based on the editorial guide and the their presentation of history of
CBFM implementation through
time allowed for presentation. To make the a timeline using photos.
presentation simpler and easier to understand,
they used the PRA tools they were most familiar
with.
As it would be the first time for many of

the PO representatives to participate in
a national multi-stakeholder forum, a
simulation exercise was conducted to
familiarize them with the process. In this
exercise, POs presented their stories with
IIRR staff assuming the roles of the
different stakeholders and practiced with
them the “fishbowl” debate method.
An informal sharing of CBFM experiences
and views among PO representatives.
The rehearsals and informal discussions
with fellow PO representatives helped
the presenters to improve their presentation and to be bold in discussing
controversial issues because their experiences and issues were often similar.
The PO representatives were also given the chance to revise the design and
process of the forum. They required that during the presentations, no
questions be allowed so that presentations can go on uninterrupted. Those
from Visayas and an indigenous community member from Mindanao
requested to speak in their native tongue.

Other stakeholder preparations
Responding to advertisements, invitations
and word of mouth about the CBFM
forum, many stakeholders submitted
written documentation of their
experiences and perspectives based on the
editorial guideline provided. The DENR,
various NGOs, LGUs, research
organizations, donors, and even POs
submitted documentation of their Preparing the presentation materials for the
experiences. forum.
A panel composed of IIRR and UPLB CFNR representatives reviewed the

stories submitted. Based on the themes (to be discussed in the next chapter),
the panel selected papers that could provide wider experiences and critical
insights. Those selected were invited as case presenters and were asked to
develop a brief presentation for the forum.
Diagnosis 9
II. Sharing and Analysis of Experiences
T
The forum opened with the overview and updates on CBFM
(see Annex 1). Then the five thematic areas for discussion were
presented. Afterward, the participants broke into workshops
groups where the presenters for each of the five themes shared
their experiences and perspective (see Annex 2). Toward the
end, they assessed the topic assigned to them using SWOT
analysis (See Annex 3).
Overview of CBFM
Mr. Domingo Bacalla, DENR
The development of CBFM in the Philippines signaled the shift from highly
regulatory to a more participative, holistic and developmental policy on forest
management. One of its accomplishments was the participation of the local
government units (LGUs) as key players in its implementation. Through the

years, CBFM implementation has had both positive and negative implications
which serve as basis for recommendations for enhanced implementation.
In 1995, CBFM was adopted as a national strategy

to ensure the sustainable development of the
country’s forest resources. It recognized and
legitimized the rights of the communities to the
forestlands. The CBFM strategy was also adopted
in protected areas.
National CBFM Chief Domingo

CBFM has resulted in some successes, increasing
Bacalla provides update on productivity and rehabilitating degraded forestlands
CBFM. in Community-Based Forest Management
Agreement (CBFMA) areas. However, it fell short
in other areas, especially in enhancing incomes of program beneficiaries due to
the government’s “stop-and-go” policy on harvesting timber resources. POs were
adversely affected, dampening their enthusiasm in investing in forest development
activities.
CBFM’s implementation as a strategy has been largely affected by government

inability and inadequacy in providing the needed support systems. Likewise,
stakeholders have not given their full support, technically or financially. There is
clearly a need to define a policy that would ensure the involvement of these
institutions in forest management.
Introduction to the themes
Prof. Juan Pulhin, UPLB CFNR
The five forum themes were

identified based on immediate
and major issues confronting
CBFM. These issues were
reflected in previous studies
conducted by NGOs, DENR and
Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), as well as
based on IIRR field experiences
and studies.
The multi-stakeholder participants during plenary
A reflective synthesis of CBFM session.
based on the said themes was
provided. Some questions were raised under each theme which served as
inputs in dialogues among different stakeholders and paved the way toward
crafting a common vision and action for a revitalized CBFM
implementation strategy.
The forum themes were the following:
1. Tenure and resource use. The issuance of various tenure instruments like
Certificate of Stewardship Contract (CSC), CBFMA and Certificate of
Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) has provided closure to the open access
nature of forest lands and has strengthened government control by
devolving the responsibilities of forest development and protection. No
corresponding resource use rights, however, were granted. While forest
land tenure is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition for sustainable
forest management. It can be an instrument of control in which only the
responsibilities are devolved but the corresponding user rights are withheld.
Furthermore, unstable tenure and resource use policy caused by frequent
cancellation of CBFMA has adverse socio-economic and environmental
impacts. Key points for dialogue include institutionalization of a more
stable policy, democratization of the policy-making process and
simplification of the procedures and requirements on resource use.
2. Livelihood and enterprise. The opportunities to harvest timber provide

much needed income to finance a variety of livelihood activities. However,
sustainable livelihood and enterprises remain one of CBFM’s challenges.
According to studies, some of them were even ill-conceived. Some were
better conceived but lacking in the necessary support system, poor in financial
management (including lack of transparency of POs) and often
unsustainable. One of the key challenges in this aspect is the promotion of
sustainable livelihood and enterprises. It also includes availability of
technologies that best suit varying conditions of CBFM areas and tapping
the expertise and resources of other sectors outside DENR.

3. Conservation and protection. Forest cover was maintained or extended in
some sites and environmental quality was improved. However, plantation
and soil and water conservation in some sites were usually deficient. Forest
protection continues in most CBFM sites hoping communities can benefit
from forest utilization but is limited due to lack of funds. Key issues include
balancing conservation/protection and development objectives and packages
of material and non-material incentives that can be accessed by the local
communities.
4. Institutional linkages and partnerships. Appropriate mechanisms for

community-private sector partnership in promoting investments in CBFM
areas were still lacking. In addition, progressive policies for soliciting the
participation of LGUs, NGOs, and other sectors were not fully implemented
on the ground. DENR’s mandate was too narrow and its resources and
structure too limited to achieve all of CBFM’s objectives. There is also a
widespread view that CBFM is a DENR “project.” Thus, a sense of ownership
of CBFM is yet to be achieved, being a national strategy. Key issues to be
addressed are the institutional constraints of DENR, response and ownership
of DENR, LGUs and other institutions, support of the private sector, and
capitalization on lessons learned from recent models of co-management and
related initiatives.
5. Institutional strengthening for PO self-governance. Previous development efforts

have tended to create external dependency. POs also lack an organized and
appropriate support system. There is a need for POs to police their own
ranks to improve overall credibility and generate wider support. Moreover,
the relatively low membership of POs raises equity concerns in relation to
the whole community. Key issues to be addressed include the type of
organized support and how it will be provided so as not to perpetuate
dependency; indicators of self-governance; and maintenance of the POs’
critical partnership with the DENR.
Presentation of case stories

There were 22 presenters: six in the tenure and resource use group, five
under livelihood and enterprise, three under conservation and protection,
five under institutional linkages and partnership, and three under
institutional strengthening for self-governance.
To show which stakeholder group is

presenting, a representation of each
group is used (Figure 2). The same
artworks are used in the Annex 2: Case
Stories. (These icons were adopted
from the “Linking People to Policy”
publication of IIRR in 2005, which was
the inspiration of this forum.)
Presentation of CBFM experiences by
PO representative.
Sharing and Analysis of Experiences 13

DENR and other national
goverment agencies
People’s Organizations Non-government

(including Certificate of organizations (NGOs)
Stewardship Contract holders)
Donors Local Government

Units (LGU)
Research/Academe
Figure 2. Representation of stakeholder groups.

Theme 1: Tenure and resource use
Geographical location of study sites/authors
Realities of Community-Based Forest

Management (CBFM) Tenure
Assessment in Quirino Province
Priscila Dolom, UPLB FDC and
CAGAYAN Buenaventura Dolom, EcoGov
Resource Use Permit:
Lifeblood of Community-
Based Forest Management
Oscar Oñate, QUIRINO
QUISAVIZCA
PAMPANGA
A CBFM without RUP: The case of
Conflict Over Land Tenure: RINPAFADECO
Community-Based Forest Generosa J. Juino and Andy Marquez,
Management Agreement QUEZON
RINPAFADECO- Gen. Nakar
(CBFMA) versus Certificate
of Ancestral Domain Title
(CADT)
Shall We Join the
CBFM Program?
Fernando Laurel and
Cesar Atarde
Dreaming of a Full Moon in

CBFM
Loreto G. Indus and Venancio
Cueno, CBFM Coop ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

Stakeholder Presentation CBFM experiences
1. Dreaming of a Full ! A community composed of IPs and

Moon in CBFM/ Loreto migrants
Indus & Venancio ! Butin and Upper Cuyan farmers associations
Cueno, CBFM Coop received CBFMA in 1998; another group from
Cuyan applied for CBFMA in 1999
! In 2001, these 3 groups formed into a
federation, the CBFM Coop. It hastened the
processing of documents & reduced the
costs (but still costly & complex in general)
! Biggest benefit is the security of land
tenure.
2. A CBFM without ! RINPAFADECO was formed in 1996, with 37

Resource Use Permit: regular cooperative members from 7 towns
The Case of ! CBFM has a total of 202 enlisted members
RINFAPADECO ! Monitors CBFM site periodically, engages in
public awareness activities
3. Resource Use ! RUP of CARAMPCO (member of

Permit: Lifeblood of QUISAVIZCA, Cagayan) was issued in 2000
Community-Based ! Activities: planted 20,000 gmelina &
Forest Management/ mahogany seedlings; conducted protection
Mr. Oscar R. Onate, activities
QUISAVIZCA
4. Shall We Join the ! CSC holders in Atimonan, Quezon

CBFM Program?/ ! Under ISFP, government promised that land
Fernando Laurel & can be tilled for free for 25 and renewable
Cesar Alarde, CSC for another 25 years but holders were
Holders made to pay taxes
! CSC holders were also affected by armed
conflict, long distance from farm to home,
issue of stewardship succession
! There was no other support from the DENR
(training, seedlings, etc.)
! CSCs will expire in 2009
! They were just introduced to CBFM
program in 2006

Issues & concerns Recommendations
! With the suspension of RUP & its eventual ! Lift the log ban
cancellation, ! Promote small-scale mining (as
- spent large amount of money in processing alternative source of livelihood)
documents ! Cancel IFMA and large-scale
- spent the loan and could not pay it back mining
! Resumed harvesting in 2002 but suspended ! Ensure local DENR flexibility
again in 2004 because of the typhoon in Luzon ! Introduce CADT
- suspension came when a big number of trees
were already harvested (now left rotting)
- still have debts
- difficulty seeking financial support
! Some have gone back to kaingin to survive
! There were also the threats of IFMA (illegal
encroachment/landgrabbing, harassment) and
large-scale mining (took over some areas w/in
CBFMA)
! Not deputized to arrest illegal loggers ! DENR should fulfill their

! Until now, have not yet benefited from CBFM responsibilities in deputizing and
! Resource use permit (RUP) has not been issued providing alternative sources of
despite readiness to implement CBFM program. income
! Problems in enforcement of policies ! Give the right to benefit from
! Corrupt DENR officials protecting forestlands
! Ineffectiveness of total logging ban ! Approve RUP
! CARAMPCO’s RUP expired in 2001, about the ! Everybody must do one’s part to
same time their annual work plan was approved achieve the objectives
allowing cut of 1,650 cubic meters of timber and ! Failure of DENR field officers for
245 linear meters of rattan poles (not disposed performing their responsibilities
because of the suspension order) should be met with sanctions
! Development activities stopped
! Some members have become inactive
! Biggest block in joining CBFM program is lack of ! CBFM should provide pre-patent
resources land rights & not just stewardship
! There were rigorous preparations and (to ward off cancellations)
requirements ! Allow harvesting of timber
! Doubts: why undergo the difficult process when ! Organization can come up with
they already have the CSC? There was policies that will ensure rights and
uncertainty because of DENR’s issuance of protection of the environment
suspensions/cancellations of CBFMAs; Will there - Consultation with the POs as
really be support (judging from previous stewards
experiences)? - policy trial with DENR and LGUs
! Hopes: increase income, improve communities in implementing a project
and rehabilitate and protect the forest specifically suited to needs,
! Expectations: assistance of DENR & LGUs, other situation and capacities
agencies’ financial and training assistance - to avoid confusion in CBFM
roles & responsibilities, PO to
engage directly with LGUs and
LGUs to engage with the DENR
! CBFM as well as utilization rights
should be established as a law so
that no DENR secretary can easily
suspend rights and cancel
CBFMAs.

4. Realities of ! Assessment of tenure holders in Quirino

Community-Based province
Forest Management
(CBFM) Tenure
Assessment in Quirino
Province/Priscila Dolom,
UPLB FDC and
Buenaventura Dolom,
EcoGov
5. Conflict over Land ! Field investigation/evaluation of DENR-

Tenure: Community- JICA projects
Based Forest
Management Agreement
versus Certificate of
Ancestral Domain Title/

The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) shared the results of
the field investigation and evaluation of its projects across the country while
the Forestry Development Center (FDC) and Philippine Environmental
Governance Project (EcoGov) provided an assessment of tenure holders
in Quirino province. FDC and EcoGov reiterated CBFM’s role in providing
land tenure security. Through this, POs have the incentive to effectively
manage allocated forestlands, but they also need investments to start up
CBFM activities, according to JICA. Validating FDC and EcoGov’s findings,
the CBFM Coop in Zamboanga del Norte said one of the biggest benefits
they have received from CBFM was the security of tenure over the lands
they historically and traditionally owned. This was also the motivation of
the CSC holders in Atimonan, Quezon in joining the CBFM program.
They hoped that it would enable them to continue to have legal access
over their lands because their CSCs will expire in 2009.
Accompanying the awarding of tenure is the right to use the resources

within CBFM areas by applying for a resource use permit (RUP) which is

! There were several requirements needed to ! Ensure a stable policy environment

secure permits (deregulate harvesting of planted
! Frequent suspension of harvesting rights trees to eliminate unnecessary
- cut the PO’s source of income transaction costs and attract
- buried them more deeply into debt because investments, regulate natural forests
of costs incurred during the preparation for subsistence production and
stage community use)
! CBFM areas were poorly managed ! Provide adequate technical
- inadequate technical assistance given to assistance
POs (financial and management aspects) ! Form multi-sectoral bodies
- insufficient institutional support mechanisms
as well as multi-sectoral linkages
! Total logging ban ! On logging ban

- at the time of suspension, only limited - logging ban for natural forests is
volume of timber stock was allowed to be appropriate
transported - logging ban for plantations should
- also, several harvested logs have been left be considered
idle and have decayed ! On land tenure
- spent money and time preparing - find out the most appropriate way
documents to secure permit but was to satisfy requirements of both
affected by RUP cancellation (PO in Leyte) CBFMA and CADT
! Conflict over land tenure - CBFMA vs CADT - DENR should provide technical
- CBFMA was issued in one of the DENR-JICA advice and financial support to
model sites indigenous POs w/ CADTs
- cannot initiate project activities because of - Strengthen collaboration between
incomplete MOA (NCIP is planning to DENR and NCIP to provide joint
expand the CADC areas which will cover support to IPs with CADTs (joint
portion of said CBFM area then to be technical working group already
converted into CADT) established in Region 3)
- conflict between CBFMA and CADT
considered the lifeblood of CBFM, according to QUISAVIZA. For Real

Infanta Nakar Polilio Aqua-Fori Agricultural Development Multi-Purpose
Cooperative (RINPAFADECO), the utilization of forest resources is linked
to the community’s survival and environmental sustainability.
Policies on tenure and resource use were viewed as major strengths of

CBFM. FDC and Ecogov, however, raised the point that because there was
a gap between policy and practice, CBFM’s major strength has become its
major weakness. CBFM provided security of access to forestlands to local
communities, helping them uplift their socio-economic conditions through
sustainable resource use. In practice, however, the cancellation of
Community-Based Forest Management Agreements (CBFMAs) and RUPs
has caused adverse socio-economic and environmental impacts. For
example, tenure holders in Quirino, Cagayan, Biliran, Leyte and
Zamboanga del Norte revealed that frequent suspension of harvesting
rights cut their sources of income and buried them more deeply into debt
because of costs incurred during the early stages of CBFM.

The group of CSC holders in Atimonan, Quezon, on the other hand, has
expressed doubts in joining the CBFM program because of the nationwide
cancellation of CBFMAs and frequent suspension of cutting permits.
Meanwhile, the field evaluation of

one of JICA’s projects in Pampanga
revealed the conflict between
CBFMA and Certificate of Ancestral
Domain Title (CADT). This was
because the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is
planning to expand the Certificate
of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC)
areas, which overlap with a portion
of the CBFMA area, and to Aanalysis PO leader discusses the result of SWOT
during plenary session.
eventually convert them into CADT.
The conflict lies with the different
forms of land tenure or titles issued on the same lands. There is no problem
with CBFMA and CADC because both can cover the same area. However,
there is at present no clear policy defining the relationship between CBFMA
and CADT. The DENR and NCIP are still in the process of finalizing a
joint administrative order which would harmonize all ancestral domain-
related policies, and in turn, address existing issues.
Despite being considered a major weakness because of its instability, CBFM

still has windows of opportunities. When cancellation and suspension
orders are lifted, many other resources other than timber can be utilized
in CBFM areas.
All the stakeholders foresee that existing collaboration among stakeholders,

devolution efforts and funding support will help make tenure and resource
use policies more favorable. For example, collaboration between DENR
and NCIP could help harmonize conflicts between CADT and CBMFA
and provide joint support to IPs.
All stakeholders identified the unstable policy environment as a hindrance

to the success of CBFM, especially to forest resource sustainability. Due to
RUP suspension, tenure holders resorted to kaingin and illegal logging
activities. FDC and EcoGov said these activities will continue unless tenure
holders become involved in multi-sectoral policy consultations and receive
technical assistance on resource and livelihood activities.

Theme 2: Livelihood and enterprise
NUEVA VIZCAYA
The Role of Homo Sapiens in the
Forests
Pastor Delbert Rice, Kalahan
Educational Foundation, Inc.
QUEZON
Community Livelihood
Assistance Program (CLASP):
Some Insights and Lessons
Ana Rose Opeña,
FMB DENR
Conserve community
forests,
improve livelihoods
Benedicto Q.
Sanches, BIND
NEGROS
COMPOSTELA VALLEY
CBFM: A Social Program for Us

or a Milking Cow?
Rosalio G. Fernando, Jr. and
Herminigildo Namea
SAROMCO

1. CBFM: Social ! SAROMCO was formed in 1989 (Nabunturan,

Program or A Compostela Valley belonging to Region XI,
Milking Cow/ one of two regions unaffected by the logging
Rosalio G. Fernando ban)
Jr. and Herminigildo ! It participated in Community Contract
Nanca, SAROMCO Reforestation Program (CCRP) and Forest
Land Management Agreement (FLMA) and
eventually converted to CBFMA in 2001
2. The Role of Homo ! Ikalahan tribe one of several Cordillera tribes

Sapiens in the of Northern Luzon
Forests/Pastor ! Kalahan reserve was established in 1974
Delbert Rice, ! CADC was signed in 1998 while Ancestral
Kalahan Educational Domain Community-Based Management
Foundation, Inc. Agreement was in 1999
! Kalahan Educational Foundation established to
take control of ancestral domains·
! Established Kalahan Food Processing Center,
Kalahan Academy and Shalom Bible College
! Niches
- wild fruits; orchids; mushrooms; lumber; wild
meat; ecological jewelry; organic vegetable
production; swidden farming
3. Community ! The Community Livelihood Assistance

Livelihood Program (CLASP) launched 11 pilot livelihood
Assistance projects in 2002, additional 102 projects in
Program: Some 2003-04. Only 104 projects received funds as
Insights and of 2005
Lessons/ Ana Rose ! Support extended:
DF. Opeña, DENR - ENR-related livelihood projects
- Information and technical assistance
- Support services
- Research

! Delays in the review and approval of WPP ! People-friendly policy, particularly

and AWP (have to hire private forester who efficient processing of documents and
charges high professional fee to accomplish speedy approval
requirements) ! Eliminate corruption
! Bribery as a standard practice for securing - check within the ranks of DENR and
timber utilization and transport permits provide dedicated staff
(DENR) and passing checkpoints (PNP) - establish stable direct market link
! Lack of funds resorting to middlemen - simplify requirements
offering high interest rates and manipulating · financial support and market links
prize of products - aside from loans/grants from different
! Competition organizations, low interest loans from
the government are available
- direct export market
- federate at the municipal and provincial
levels to attain standard wood products
prices and arrest illegal sawmill
operators and loggers
! technical support
- training on other possible profitable
wood venture
- DENR’s assistance in preparation and
processing of documents and release of
permits
! Ways and means of obtaining livelihood ! Forest dwellers need to have control of
while encouraging the forests perform other their resources, including land, forest and
functions (protecting the forests) water
! Creative minds are needed to try to
identify various flora and fauna which
could become sustainable resources
! Individuals within the communities need
to develop the necessary skills to match
the identified niches
! Enterprise development skills and capacities ! Comprehensive community-based

- organizations do not have the capacity to enterprise development program
manage livelihood thus provision of seed ! review CBFM implementation: framework
capital was not sufficient should consider community-driven and
- DENR field office is ill equipped to provide forest/ENR-based enterprise development
capacity building supported by appropriate land tenure and
! Release of cash allocation agroforestry development
- There was delayed release or insufficient ! project logical framework for M&E
cash allocation due to progress billing and ! baseline information to determine
voluminous document requirements economic and social benefits and
! Change of sites and PO beneficiaries documentation/dissemination of
- Short deadline for call for proposals. POs experiences
did not accept the project as a result ! curriculum for POs
- Some funds even reverted back due to ! training R&D (market, etc,)
project cancellation ! Technical assistance
! Insufficient market outlet/buyers for CLASP ! Partnerships/participation of stakeholders
products ! Develop financial management system to
- attributed to lack of pre-market studies facilitate timely release of funds and
and low support for native Phil. Products collecting repayment of seed funds
! Natural interferences

4. Conserve ! CBFM was granted to PO, BSMKSM

community (Negros-based), in 1996
Forests, Improve ! Assisted by LGUs, NGOs (BIND) & its
Livelihoods/ partners thru food security & microcredit
Benedicto Q. programs, foreign donors thru NTFP,
Sanchez, BIND community-based enterprises
! Project began in 2002
! Activities: study tours; training;
community mapping & rattan inventory;
DENR inventory & ECC requirements;
harvest and processing

DENR shared insights and lessons on the Community Livelihood Assistance
Program (CLASP), which has launched several livelihood projects and
extended support services around the country. The San Roque Multi-
Purpose Cooperative (SAROMCO) presented its experiences in timber
processing ventures while Broad Initiatives for Negros Development (BIND)
shared the Bagong Silang-Marcelo Katilingban sang Sustenidong
Mangunguma’s (BSMKSM’s) utilization of non-timber forest products
(NTFPs) as an alternative to timber. They presented the difficulties they
encountered and gave recommendations on how to address them. On the
other hand, Kalahan Educational Foundation’s presentation focused on
opportunities with forest products or “niches” as sources of livelihood.
The presentations identified several strengths in starting or sustaining

livelihood. CBFM policies, especially those pertaining to resource use
guidelines, like timber utilization, provide a conducive environment for
livelihood.
Meanwhile, the POs reported relying heavily on the support they receive
from various organizations. DENR’s CLASP provided support on
environment and natural resources-related (ENR-related) livelihood
projects, information and technical assistance, support services and
research. SAROMCO’s participation in the CBFM program paved the way
for grants, loans and services. Government agencies such as the
Department of Agriculture provide livelihood projects such as animal
husbandry and agroforestry. BIND said BSMKSM was also able to conduct
activities like study tours, training, community mapping and rattan
inventory, and harvest and processing through support from LGUs, NGOs
and foreign donors.
Hand in hand with support services is the collaboration with various

organizations. DENR said successful projects demonstrate the active
involvement of partner institutions. BIND affirmed this and said the PO

! The Mayor confiscated rattan poles because ! Support to natural resource

her office was bypassed and denied receiving managers
necessary documents. The barangay captain ! Simplified resource assessments
also made confiscation ! Alternative to timber utilization and
! Local knowledge on identifying non-timber agriculture
resources and its potential use was not being ! Multi-stakeholder synergies requiring
passed on to the next generation because of mobilization of women
entry of urban-biased market
! Stringent monitoring requirements
! Conflict between forest conservation and
agriculture expansion
! Weak transaction with DENR; opposition of
LGU
performed well within the broad-based multi-stakeholder cooperation. It

also emphasized the importance of mobilizing women in multi-stakeholder
synergies.
Other strengths were the availability of natural resources, the many

potential livelihood activities for the communities, and the individuals
that can start businesses in the community.
However, there were also weaknesses. According to DENR, some

organizations do not have the capacity to manage group-based livelihood
undertakings. Aside from lack of capacity, some communities also have
low level of self-governance and poor choice of livelihood proposals. These
were clearly a departure from their earlier pronouncements heralding
the POs’ strengths.
For the POs, weaknesses were attributed

to a lot of factors. SAROMCO for
instance lacked funds and resorted to
borrowing from loan sharks and
manipulating prices of products. POs
also have difficulty fulfilling various
requirements. SAROMCO had to hire a
private forester who charged an
exorbitant professional fee, and in lieu
NGO representative presents the
of following requirements, it bribed the results of SWOT analysis.
DENR and PNP officials in order to
secure timber utilization and transport
permits and get through police checkpoints without hassle. On the other
hand, BIND said BSMKSM had difficulty with the stringent monitoring
requirements of DENR.
The DENR admitted that it was ill equipped to provide project

management capacity- building. It also attributed POs’ lack of funds to
delayed release of funding, insufficient cash allocation and the voluminous

documentary requirements for fund releases. All of these impaired project
implementation.
Market linkages were also weak and there was a mismatch between PO
products and market preferences. DENR said insufficient market outlet/
buyers for CLASP products can be attributed to the lack of pre-market
studies and low local support for native Philippine products. There is also
no comprehensive or integrated enterprise development program for
non-timber products. BIND said that while local members have knowledge
of potential medicinal, crafts, food, aesthetic and other commercial uses
of non-timber resources, this was affected by the entry of urban-biased
market.
Another weakness was the lack of collaboration with various agencies. In

terms of policy, there was loose implementation of regulations. It can be
observed that some strengths and weaknesses were in the same areas. For
instance, there was presence (strengths) or lack (weaknesses) in terms of
support from, and collaboration with, different agencies. Policy can be
viewed as a strength if it lives up to its mandate of providing a favorable
environment for livelihood. But with changing policies, livelihood is
threatened.
Despite these weaknesses, vast opportunities remain. All the stakeholders

identified grants as major catalysts for starting enterprises and livelihood.
Grants, POs said, included incentives, livelihood, technology, education
and knowledge. CBFM areas can be a production base for the development
of raw materials and resources. The market should also be harnessed as in
the case of natural or organic products.
Additionally, there were perceived threats on

livelihood implementation. As mentioned
earlier, changing CBFM policies, notably the
suspension or cancellation of RUPs, continue
to be a threat as these affect the sustainability
of livelihood projects. Apart from this, there
were also threats from competition, and big
business and government development
Former DENR Secretary Victor
aggression and exploitation. Calamities were Ramos shares his perspectives on
also forces to reckon with. CBFM livelihood and enterprise.

Theme 3: Conservation and protection
Field Experiences, Issues

and Lessons from
Enterprise-Based Muddy CBFM
Biodiversity NASAJMPA
Conservation
Susan Naval and Martin
Talento
Enterprise Works
Worldwide, Inc. ILOILO
PALAWAN
LEYTE
CBFM in Maasin Watershed

Reservation:
Rubenie Castillanes and
Pablo Mijares, KAPAWA

Theme 3: Conservation and protection
1. CBFM in Maasin ! CBFMA area in Maasin occupies 50% of

Watershed entire watershed area
Reservation: For ! Through the FSP, an organization called
KAPAWA or for Iloilo KAPAWA was formed and implemented
Residents /Rubenie comprehensive site development of the
Castillanes and Pablo watershed
Mijares, KAPAWA ! Because of the project, more than half of
denuded area was rehabilitated (surpassed
FSP target)
! Awarded CBFM in 2002
! Savings from JBIC used as start-up capital
! Implemented livelihood projects such as
production of bamboo, rattan and honey,
livestock raising and trading
2. Muddy CBFM/ ! Before CBFM, participated in the FAR

NASAJMPA program in 1988.
! In 1999, CBFM program was introduced;
formed an organization called NASAJMPA
(Naungan San Juan Mangrove Planters
Association). Tasks include patrolling and
maintaining the mangrove area
! Led to a network of projects funded by
foreign agencies
! CBFM provided income, increased knowledge
and allowed management
! CBFM gave awareness on the importance of
protecting mangroves
3. Field Experiences, ! Enterprise Works Worldwide in partnership

Issues and Lessons with CBFM federations in Region 2 and
from Enterprise- Palawan is implementing an 8-yr CBFM
Based Biodiversity project under USAID’s Global Conservation
Conservation/Susan Program
Naval and Martin ! Activities
Talento, Enterprise - CBFM federation building
Works Worldwide - Baseline assessment
- Formation of multi-sectoral task forces
- Continuous capacity building
- Biological monitoring survey (BMS)
- Introduction of resource management
technologies
- Issuance of individual property rights (IPR)

! Competing interests (KAPAWA who depend on ! Benefit from water use (share
watershed resources for livelihood vs from the income of MIWD to
government that ensures water supply for the sustain rehabihitation and
province) protection efforts and
! Eviction and displacement; implementation of undertake livelihood projects
CBFM program (CBFM gives responsibility for ! Alternative livelihood
rehabilitation/protection but prohibits utilization; ! Development of NTFP
land conversion) technology and market
! Confusion between CBFM and watershed policies ! Policy and program
! Lack of livelihood option (led to farming and implementation (information
resource extraction, could have opted to leave if dissemination by DENR, LGU
there is a viable option) and NGOs; consultation
! Decreasing market price and demand process; harmonization of
policies and programs)
! Stop eviction and displacement
of communities
! Problems with protection activities: violators are

also from the communities, making it more ! Encourage other residents to
difficult to apprehend them; fear for own security join, follow up inactive
because not deputized by DENR; no one has members, meet regularly &
been penalized yet, bribery within DENR; burden prepare action plan
on protecting mangroves rests solely on them ! Before doing these, should
! To date, DENR does not allow cutting/pruning have in-depth knowledge on
! Other members stopped cooperating because of CBFM
the failure of the mud crab project ! Should be a joint responsibility
! Lack of knowledge and understanding on CBFM of NASAJMPA & DENR (including
which prevented participation on a more regular sharing of info, proper
sustained level consultation, proper
compensation, recognize right
to make a living & deputization)
! Overlapping claims and tenure instruments in

some CBFM areas(without clear boundaries, ! Settle boundary conflicts at the
communities are reluctant to enforce violations, ground level
encouraging more encroachment) ! Require valuation of forestlands
! Unproductive and degraded sites are burden to prior to the awarding of CBFMA
peoples’ organization ! Recognize rights to land claims
! Inconsistent interpretation and implementation ! Explore other potential forest
of CBFM policies (discourages CBFM communities resources for enterprise
from embarking on long-term sustainable ! Prioritize provision of livelihood
enterprises) ! Orient all DENR offices on
! Numerous and complicated CBFM program policies/laws and regulations
requirements (delays, bribery, illegal activities) ! Simplify/streamline CBFM
! Lack of financial transparency policies and requirements
! Dole-out mentality ! Continue PO capacity building
! Strengthen linkages among
multi-stakeholders
! Implementation and constant
monitoring
! Additional incentives

All the presentations pointed to
funding as a major strength in carrying
out conservation and protection
activities. For instance, Naungan-San
Juan Mangrove Planters Association’s
(NASAJMPA) involvement with CBFM
led to a network of projects funded by
various local and international groups.
It provided income and helped
increase knowledge and management Sharing of CBFM experiences from the
research organization’s perspective.
of resources and their protection.
KAPAWA’s savings from previous
projects as well as financial support from the provincial government were
used to finance watershed protection activities.
Enterprise Works Worldwide, aside from providing funding, works closely

with communities to help develop and implement conservation and resource
management plans. There is also close coordination and complementation
of activities with the government, NGOs and other funding agencies. Some
of its approaches to conservation and protection are baseline assessment,
biological monitoring survey, and introduction of resource management
technologies such as agroforestry techniques, soil and water conservation
measures and nursery development practices.
However, according to Enterprise Works Worldwide, funding has also

developed a dole-out mentality among CBFM project beneficiaries.
Reforestation activities, for example, have been reinterpreted as cash-
for-work projects. Thus, without remuneration, some were not willing to
participate. Funding has become a disadvantage in this regard.
Another weakness is the effect of tenurial

policy conflicts on conservation and
protection efforts. Enterprise Works
Worldwide reported that there were
overlapping claims and tenure
instruments in some CBFM areas.
Without clear boundaries recognized by
DENR officials, communities are
reluctant to guard the areas. Lax
Participants writing on metacards the
results of SWOT analysis. enforcement encourages more
encroachment thereby defeating
protection efforts.
NASAJMPA also encountered problems with protection activities. It was

discovered that violators were also from the participating community
members, making it more difficult for the group to apprehend them. To

date, no one has been penalized yet due to
bribery within the DENR. Because the PO was
not deputized by the DENR, there were fears
for its own security. It appeared that the burden
of protecting mangroves rested solely on them.
The opportunity primarily identified for

conservation and protection efforts was financial
support by government and NGOs. Other kinds
of support were deputization and livelihood
from the government, while NGOs can assist in Participants reviewing the results
of SWOT anlaysis.
the areas of training, advocacy and technology.
There are a host of other threats, such as the government’s road and
mining projects; activities such as illegal logging and illegal construction of
fishponds or fish pens; insurgency; and natural calamities. Indeed, threats
may emanate from a multitude of factors, often beyond the communities’
control.

Theme 4: Institutional linkages and partnerships
Stakeholders’ Complementation
and Collaboration: Essential
Elements of Sustainability in
Philippine Forest Governance
Gwendolyn Bambalan,
FMB DENR
QUIRINO Community-Based Forest

Management (CBFM) Through
Effective Linkaging and Partnership:
The Success Story of Kinagunan
Co-Management of Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc.
Philippine Forestlands: QUEZON Leticia Hernandez, KMPCI
Viewing Forest Governance
from the Ground LAGUNA
Nena Espiritu and Ma.
Cynthia S. Casin
UPLB FDC
LGU Involvement on Devolved

and Other Forest Management
Functions: the Maasim
Creating Partnership between Experience
LGUs and CBFM People’s Hon. Aniceto Lopez, Jr and
Organizations: The Next Step in Rolando Tuballes, LGU Maasin
Sustainable Forest Management
Mark Anthony Ramirez, EcoGov
and Eduardo Paras, Saranggani
CBFM PO Federation
SARANGANI

1. Community Based ! CBFMA was awarded to KMPCI in 2000

Forest Management ! KMPCI functioned in collaboration with
through Effective other orgs
Linkaging and ! Assistance of Bondoc Development
Partnership: The Program (BDP) in utilizing CBFM areas for
Success Story of agribusiness
Kinagunan Multi- - technical assistance
Purpose Cooperative, - info dissemination
Inc./Leticia - before end of BDP support, they were
Hernandez, KMPCI awarded 100 hectares for magrove
reforestation with financial aid from DENR
and Mirant Power Plant Phils.
2. Stakeholders’ ! Don Mariano Perez Multi-Purpose

Complementation and Cooperative is member of QSEED, a
Collaboration: provincial federation of 39 CBFM-POs
Essential Elements of ! Partnership with DENR (PENRO and
Sustainability in CENRO), CFP in Quirino Foundation, Inc,
Philippine Forest LGU and NGOs
Governance/ ! Upland farming is main source of living
Gwendolyn (involving kaingin); also raise livestock and
Bambalan, FMB DENR poultry
! During implementation of the RP-German
Quirino Community Forestry Project, they
were engaged in nursery development,
reforestation activities and other
infrastructural projects
! However, timber poaching has been going
on
3. LGU Involvement ! LUPA-IERMC received CBFMA in 1999

on Devolved and ! Tenure assessment was conducted by
other Forest Maasim province in partnership with EcoGov
Management in 2005
Functions: The ! DENR and EcoGov conducted training,
Maasim experience/ seminars and workshops
Hon. Aniceto Lopez, ! Municipality gave technical assistance,
Jr. and Rolando particularly preparation of CRMF and FWP
Tuballes, LGU Maasim ! Allocation of livelihood assistance, distribution
of an initial 2,000 seedlings of fruit trees,
road rehabilitation and maintenance, social
and health services, advocacy on forest
protection and conservation, monitoring and
evaluation activities through the MENRO
4. Co-management of ! Gave the role of LGUs in natural resources

Philippine management
Forestlands: Viewing ! Reviewed different co-management
Forest Governance schemes and analyze Philippine forestlands
from the Ground/
Nena O. Espiritu and
Ma. Cynthia S. Casin,
UPLB FDC

! The cancellation of CBFMA in 2006 decreased coop ! Appeal DENR for the continuation
membership because it cannot longer provide of CBFM program
livelihood ! Support of concerned offices and
institutions in mangrove
reforestation project since the
Carbon Sink Initiative of Mirant
will end in 2007
! Strengthen organization by
helping in livelihood projects and
link with suitable market outlets
! There was a wide consensus among different ! Presence of a convenor to

stakeholders of CBFM as a relevant program objectively lead and facilitate
because it addresses both forest protection & ! Conduct dialogues and
development concerns consultation process
! However, PO organizational development and ! Massive information, education
capability-building programs were inadequately and extension campaign
provided after the completion of the project ! Logistical support, clear
! There was unclear delineation of authority, roles, and understanding of roles and
functions of those involved responsibilities and steadfast
! Disinterest of other collaborators would have commitment
stemmed from the unclear mechanism on project ! Good personal relations and
turnover political willingness
! There were unclear arrangements regarding ! DENR to initiate drafting of
sanctions and penalties for non-compliance amendments to RA 7160,
! There were inadequate resources to implement the particularly mandatory creation of
assigned responsibilities (provision of cross-sectoral ENROs
services, monitoring, training and capability
programs)
! Only 16% is covered with residual forests, the rest

are cultivated areas. Residual forest is facing threat
due to rampant illegal cutting and conversions
! Majority of Maasim’s population or 51.8% live in
forestlands who belong to the poorest sector
! Lack of basic services and livelihood opportunities
compel them to rely on timber poaching, slash-and-
burn cultivation and other illegal forms
! The CBFM-PO has no economic activity since the RUP
suspension in 2004; there were lapses in
management
! PO lacks capability, knowledge and resources to
conduct direct forest protection work
! Policy gaps in the Local Government Code that ! Harmonize laws on devolution
weakens enforcement with IRR
- responsibilities were devolved to the LGUs but were ! Build the capability of LGUs in
not matched by devolution of resources management of natural resources
- LGU’s participation in the issuance of tenure instruments ! Build the capability of POs to
and permits is confined only to giving comments become new resource managers
- there were problems in resolving conflicts in the tenurial (DENR to provide social
instruments preparation)
! PO/community lacks knowledge about the CBFM program
because of insufficient IEC by the DENR
- prefer to be under the ISF because of CBFM’s many
requirements
- there were unspecified mechanisms for accessing
technical, financial and other forms of assistance from the
DENR and other government agencies
- decision making relies with the DENR

5. Creating ! CBFM PO Federation was formed in 1997

Partnership between composed of 7 POs and expanded to 12
the LGUs and the in 1998
CBFM POs: The Next ! There were 21,347 hectares under
Step in Sustainable CBFMA, 11,000 hectares of which is
Forest Management/ located in Kiamba where the remaining
Mark Anthony forest cover of the province is located
Ramirez, EcoGov ! EcoGov2 assists the LGUs
and Eduardo B. - technical assistance in preparing and
Paras, Sarangani implementing Forest Land Use Plans
CBFM PO Federation (FLUPs) in Maitum and Maasim
- provincial LGU allocated an annual
subsidy with counterpart from POs
(organizational strengthening, nursery
establishment, agroforestry,
reforestation and livelihood)

Partnership was indeed the common major strength cited in all the
presentations. The partnerships were usually of the PO or the community,
the LGU, DENR, NGOs and foreign donor agencies. The nature of
partnership was also varied. These were in the forms of funding, technical
assistance, community organizing, linkages to local and foreign investors,
social and health services and advocacy on forest protection and conservation.
Moreover, the major facilitating factor for such partnership was the
implementation of devolution in some areas. For instance, in Sarangani,
the provincial government provided the link between the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded Philippine
Environmental Governance2 (EcoGov 2) project and the CBFM PO
Federation. Aside from the Federation, it also gave assistance to the PO
Lumasal and Pananag Integrated Ecological Resources Multi-Purpose
Cooperative (LUPA-IERMC). In Diffun, Quirino, a provincial federation
of POs, the Quirino Sustainable Movement for Environment and
Economic Development (QSEED), was formed and provided assistance
by the different levels of LGU and DENR and several NGOs.
Devolution was also the reason why the different co-management schemes
in various parts of the country became an effective strategy in managing
forest and natural resources, according to a review by UPLB FDC. The
key factors leading to successful co-management are the result of the
interaction of the three major stakeholders – the community, LGU and
DENR.
The lack of capabilities plagued each stakeholder. This was severely tested

! POs have geared their operation towards ! Promote full participation of LGUs and
timber utilization CBFM POs in the formulation of
! With RUP cancellation, they were left with no policies affecting them (clear sharing
alternatives of responsibilities)
! Only a few have alternative sources of
income. However, they do not have the
linkages and skills to promote investments in
the area
! Without income, some have not repaid their
loans; they cannot rehabilitate and protect the
forests (they cannot be blamed because they
also have families to feed)
! The fishing industry has also felt the brunt:
have to buy wood to make bancas or from
illegal sources
when RUPs were cancelled. POs such as in Sarangani and Padre Burgos,
Quezon were left with no alternative livelihood as they lacked capability,
resources and linkages to start a new one or promote investments in the
area.
The DENR’s resources and

structure were just too limited to
achieve all of the CBFM
objectives. In the CBFM project
in Diffun, Quirino, provision of
resources was inadequate, as well
as PO organizational
development and capability-
building programs. There were
also unclear mechanisms related
to project turnover (the
IIRR explaining the mechanics of SWOT
delineation of authority, roles, analysis.
and functions of those involved,
and sanctions and penalties for non-compliance) which led to disinterest
on the part of other collaborators.
A review by the UPLB FDC also pointed out DENR’s unclear mechanisms
for accessing technical, financial and other forms of assistance. For instance,
DENR’s insufficient information, education and communication (IEC)
resulted in the lack of information on the part of POs about the CBFM
program.
Even as the success of devolution was recognized earlier, there were still
problems with it. UPLB FDC found out that responsibilities, particularly
on forest protection, were devolved to the LGUs but without the

corresponding resources needed. LGUs also have limited authority in terms
of issuance of tenure instruments and permits. Decision-making mainly
rests with the DENR.
Conversely, some of the strengths and weaknesses identified earlier were

also considered by participants as opportunities. These were collaboration,
full devolution and access to funds. Collaboration was synonymous with
institutional linkages and partnerships so there was no question that it
was important. With devolution, participants had both positive and
negative experiences to share. Nevertheless, they still hoped that
devolution will more closely link organizations toward a common goal.
On the lack of access to funds, participants acknowledged that it is a

perennial issue that they have to deal with more actively and creatively.
On the other hand, the threats were the inconsistent policies and absence
of law on CBFM; political exploitation and corruption; and the presence
of unfriendly forces that hinder the success of the CBFM. These were
large issues that have impact on the community, thus, they have to be
more aware of these issues and connect them to their everyday lives.

Theme 5: Institutional strengthening for PO self
governance
Sustaining the Gains of CBFM and

Moving Towards PO Self-
Governance: The Quirino
QUIRINO Experience
Gordon Bernard R. Ignacio, GTZ
and Sharon Marie S. Pael,
Community Forestry Foundation of
Quirino, Inc.
Indigenous Peoples in
Community-Based Forest
Management Program: Social
Safeguards Issues
Dr. Ruben Martinez
OTRADEV
MINDORO
National CBFM PO Federation

of the Philippines: Issues and
Challenges Towards Self-
Governance
Josefina Campo
National CBFM PO Federation
DAVAO

Theme 5: Institutional strengthening for PO self governance
1. National CBFM PO ! National CBFM PO Federation of the

Federation of the Philippines was organized in 1998
Philippines: Issues and ! It is the umbrella organization of all CBFM
Challenges Toward POs nationwide, the largest organized group
Self Governance/ representing 20 million residents in
Josefina Campo, forestlands
National CBFM PO ! Major accomplishments
Federation - advocacy and collaboration support in
CBFM policy (LGU support, membership in
local councils and involvement in
development of policies and guidelines)
- CBFM implementation (forest protection,
livelihood, partnerships and capability
building)
- CBFM monitoring and evaluation
- Unified stand regarding the recent
cancellation of 852 CBFMAs in 8 regions
2. Indigenous Peoples ! Impact of CBFM among IP communities.

in Community-Based
Forest Management
Program: Social
Safeguards Issues/ Dr.
Ruben Martinez,
OTRADEV Foundation,
Inc.
3. Sustaining the Gains ! Phil-German Community Forestry Project-

of CBFM and Moving Quirino (CFPQ) as lead implementer of CBFM:
Towards PO Self facilitated planning, mobilizing local resources,
Governance: The implementing, monitoring and evalution;
Quirino Experience/ institutional strengthening of partner orgs
Gordon Bernard R. ! Concurrent to CBFM, a sister project (Debt-
Ignacio & Sharon for-Nature Swap Initiative project also
Marie S. Paet implemented the CBFM strategy
! Many projects showed that there is life after
foreign assistance has ceased
! LGUs showed political will- from passing
resolutions for the cancellation of existing TLAs,
adoption of CBFM as core strategy for NRM and
creation of a foundation

! Unstable DENR policies particularly on resource ! Strengthen partnership with the

utilization LGUs and private sector
! Recent cancellation of 852 CBFMAs in 8 regions ! Continuous organizational
without due process strengthening
! Minimal technical support extended by DENR ! Make a party list representation for
due to its limited resources and capacity upland farmers
! Lack of organized support for the POs
! Need for an updated database on PO members
at the federation levels
! Need for continuous capacity building for the
POs
! Other internal and external implementation
problems experienced by the CBFM POs
! Lack of cultural sensitivity in CBFM may have ! Need to harmonize CBFM with IPRA
contributed to social safeguards issues: ! Environment and social assessment
- no data available at DENR on the number of needs to incorporate social
IP holders of CBFM safeguards
- the Indigenous Communities Assistance ! Disaggregation by sector, specifically
Desk, created to process the CADC, lacks by ethnolinguistic group
staff and funds
- introduced fast-growing forest species,
edging our indigenous forest species
- introduced a new organizational pattern,
supplanting the traditional social organization
and further fragmenting the community
- policies’ competing/conflicting goals and
priorities (CBFM, IPRA, Mining Act, NIPAS)

The Phil-German Community
Forestry Project-Quirino is a
success story on how the LGU of
Quirino became self-sufficient
even after foreign funding had
ceased. On the other hand, the
National CBFM PO Federation of
the Philippines, the umbrella
organization of CBFM POs, has
shown that its large
The national CBFM PO federation president
organizational membership base explaining the organizational structure and the
was capable of developing more issues it faces.
impact in CBFM implementation
throughout the country.
The strengths as exemplified by these two case studies lie in organized and
institutionalized PO and collaboration with other organizations. One of the
Quirino project’s components dealt with institutional strengthening through
PO capability building, training and resource mobilization and access. The
main partners, the LGU and DENR field offices, were also given assistance.
Its accomplishments helped foster relations with Germany and served as
the model for a similar project being implemented in Leyte. During the
2004 Forestry Forum in Geneva, the Quirino experience was recognized as
a best practice in CBFM implementation.
In the PO Federation’s case, its very presence ensured that the rights of
POs are represented and defended. One of its major accomplishments is
the consolidated stand against the cancellation of 852 CBFMAs in eight
regions. It was also involved in collaboration at the LGU levels in terms of
membership in local councils, partnerships for forest rehabilitation and for
development of CBFM policies and guidelines.
In spite of these accomplishments, there were challenges for the Federation.

The POs lacked organized support. The DENR in particular extended
minimal technical support due to its limited resources, thus, contributing
to the crisis faced by POs. POs also experienced other internal and external
implementation problems.
On the other hand, OTRADEV identified some of the hindrances of the

CBFM program in promoting self governance. In particular, its study among
indigenous peoples’ (IP) communities in many parts of the country showed
the lack of cultural sensitivity towards IPs as reflected in government policies
as well as in DENR and donor engagement with the communities.
For instance, a new organizational pattern supplanted the traditional social

organization and further fragmented the community. There is also no data

available at the DENR on the number of IP holders of CBFMA. For the
group, the IPs are clearly invisible in CBFM program. It wonders then
how the IPs can strengthen their organization when they are being
excluded from policies.
The opportunities identified under this

theme were varied. These were self-
sufficiency, donor support, livelihood,
advocacy and networking and party list
representation. By engaging in livelihood
and other means, POs can sustain
themselves even after donor support has
stopped. On the other hand, the very idea
of joining the party list race stemmed not Raising some clarificatory questions on
only from the exclusion being experienced the presentation from a donor agency
by IPs but also of the communities representative.
espousing CBFM as a whole. The party-
list system is seen as a viable route to having a voice in policy and decision-
making processes.
However, stakeholders should also be wary of threats that challenge the

opportunities mentioned. These threats are: changing CBFM policies;
absence of support from the government; POs’ lack of autonomy and
transparency; and conflicts among stakeholder POs and barangays and
municipal LGUs.

III. Reflection and Dialogue
F
From thematic sharing of experiences to their summary and
analysis through SWOT, the participants prepared to debate
on the major CBFM issues. Each stakeholder group
formulated position statements on core barriers to CBFM.
There were eight position statements: two each from the
DENR and POs and one each from the NGOs, research/
academe, LGUs and donor/private sector groups.
‘Fishbowl’ d ebate
The debate generated e xcellent
exchanges of ideas on the issues that
hinder advancement of CBFM.
Generally, the participants agreed on
many of the statements presented,
except for DENR’s statement
regarding poor collaboration among
stakeholders and LGUs’ statement on
the CBFM’s full devolution to them.
Disparities in the number of votes in

relation to the total number of
participants were attributed to the
absence of some participants during
the casting of votes.
Casting of votes (below) after the fisbowl debate

(above).
Results of the debate
People’s Organizations
Statement: The DENR does not give the community

the right to fully utilize and benefit from the resources
within the CBFM area.
Justification: Since its birth in 1995, CBFM has been

affected by diverse leadership styles of successive
administrations in the DENR. The frequent cancellation
and suspension of RUPs over the course of ten years
only showed that DENR does not fully allow communities
to benefit from natural resources even if they are
entitled to utilize it as CBFM agreement holders.
Agree Disagree Neutral
! " #
PO 21 0 0
DENR 0 3 1
LGU 3 0 0
NGO 5 2 3
Donor 1 0 3
Research 2 0 0
Private 1 0 0
A bigger number of participants agreed with the above PO statement.

They argued that POs were not able to fully benefit due to the cancellation
and suspension of RUPs. They explained that DENR itself has many
problems, including lack of credibility, corruption and insufficient funds.
The DENR, supported by a couple of NGOs, disagreed with the statement.

The agency said it is only doing its job of ensuring smooth implementation
of CBFM. POs were given the rights to utilize natural resources but they
were not able to fully make use of these rights. The DENR said that even
POs admitted they lack organizational skills. As a result, there were
violations of agreements in the RUP. It also said that no PO has made
progress as all have posted negative financial statements.
The DENR also defended the institution itself saying not all of its staff are
involved in anomalies. It encouraged the POs to report them so that the
agency could take the necessary actions. There are staff members who are
committed to help in the CBFM program, it said.
POs rebutted that they are not as weak as claimed by the DENR. They had
completed requirements and received CBFMA. What remains is for POs
to reap the benefits but before that could happen, the CBFMA was
cancelled.
Statement: There is slow CBFM progress despite

its ten-year implementation.
Justification: POs have limited knowledge

regarding CBFM. There is a need for the lead
agencies to support the POs so the latter could
strengthen their organizations. Aside from that,
the POs were deeply affected by RUP suspension
and cancellation. Before RUPs were awarded,
they spent money and time for its preparation.
Development activities were not pursued
because of the suspensions. Thus, there was
little progress with CBFM.

! " #
PO 18 0 0
DENR 5 0 0
LGU 3 1 0
NGO 9 0 2
Donor 2 0 2
Research 2 0 0
Private 1 0 0
The voting results showed general agreement except for a very few NGOs
and donors that voted neutral. Several reasons were given for the slow
CBFM implementation. As stated in the justification, there was lack of
support from lead agencies such as DENR and LGUs. RUP cancellations
and suspensions also affected the implementation.
In addition, illegal logging and illegal fishpond operations proliferate.

The personnel assigned by POs have not been deputized by DENR and
have no authority to arrest violators. Thus, CBFM areas are easily subjected
to encroachment. These personnel also face the risk of backlash from the
illegal operators, which undermines their safety. And as a result of the
illegal logging operations, the POs have to compete with the lower market
price of illegally cut lumber.
DENR
Statement: There is poor collaboration

among stakeholders.
Justification: Stakeholders lack avenues

and funds to undertake collaboration
activities. They also have varying
interpretations of guidelines, policies, rules
and regulations. For instance, they have a
misconception or misunderstanding of the
definition of CBFM that it only pertains to
logging. There is also misunderstanding on
who owns or who have stakes in CBFM.
Monitoring and evaluation is perceived as
solely DENR’s responsibility when in fact POs
also signed the agreement that it is a joint undertaking. If there
were problems with CBFM program, DENR is more often the party
who is blamed. If only there is understanding, collaboration and
support then there would be no problems with CBFM.
Reflection and Dialogue 47

! " #
PO 6 11 2
DENR 4 0 0
LGU 1 2 0
NGO 10 1 0
Donor 5 0 0
Research 1 0 1
Private 1 0 0
Poor collaboration occurs at many levels. POs and NGOs actively and
regularly consult with DENR in the process of fulfilling their requirements.
But even before the RUPs were suspended, they were already experiencing
difficulties in dealing with DENR. They were referred from one agency to
another. One PO said that perhaps DENR is waiting for bribes. Regarding
the RUP suspension, the POs and NGOs were not consulted on the change
of policy. POs and NGOs already exerted much effort and shelled out money
but it turned out they would not be able to pursue their activities.
In terms of the sharing of responsibilities, both DENR and POs were

signatories to the agreement. When the program is assessed, only the
DENR makes an evaluation of the POs and the DENR is not evaluated.
The DENR has responsibilities in the agreement that also need to be
evaluated.
Another way of looking at the problem on collaboration is the absence of

incentives to engage in this undertaking. CBFM federations and other
organizations do not have the motivation of participating because they
cannot see its benefits. It would be better to clarify what the expected
incentives are and how they will be given.
For DENR and some groups, all stakeholders and not only DENR should
be held accountable. As a group, it was admitted that the real essence of
collaboration has not yet been achieved. It was further stressed that in a
partnership, all participants should be equal. Not all were doing their part,
resulting in poor collaboration.

Statement: There is limited participation of
various stakeholders in policy formulation.
Justification: The DENR has avenues for

formulating policies and guidelines. In DENR,
there is a policy review committee. Several
consultations are conducted before a DENR
Administrative Order (DAO) is drafted.
Admittedly, the consultations are limited in
scope because stakeholders like POs, NGOs
and the private sector are sometimes not
represented. The result is that the policies
drafted are neither responsive nor consistent
to the needs of the communities and other
stakeholders. Another observation is that advocacy, or the push
for CBFM concerns and interests, is weak because of limited
resources. This was clearly manifested by the non-passage of the
Sustainable Forest Management Act. Moreover, there is a problem
with the feedback mechanism in policy-making. Once the DAO is
implemented, communities are not informed regarding its implications
or effects on CBFM implementation.

! " #
PO 13 0 3
DENR 3 0 0
LGU 2 1 0
NGO 5 0 2
Donor 3 0 1
Research 1 0 1
Private 1 0 0
DENR’s second statement was accepted by most participants. There was

only one disagreement coming from the LGU and a few neutral votes. One
of DENR’s basic functions is to facilitate consultation. It admitted that this
cannot be done regularly due to limited funds. The DENR said that if the
POs shoulder the expenses, then it would be willing to organize consultations.
On the other hand, one group said that if DENR would cite the lack of budget
as the reason for limited participation this would become an eternal problem.
There should be mechanisms to encourage the participation of various sectors
and stakeholders in policy formulation.
To the claim of a group that DENR only formulates policy when there is
already a problem, the DENR said it is not always reactive. With the help of
EcoGOv, the Forest Management Bureau (FMB) is formulating the Omnibus
Forestry Guidelines in which all the related policies will be consolidated.
Those that are not attuned to the times will no longer be implemented. The
DENR also contributed to the participation of POs in the formulation of

policy. The National Federation of POs confirmed that the DENR assisted
in the formulation of their five-year plans through regional and national
consultative meetings.
The POs requested that before the government issues executive orders
(EOs), they should first be consulted. Based on experience, the EOs issued
were not compatible with actual practice, resulting in complaints from POs.
Along with other groups, POs also have to find means to be included in
policy formulation. Meanwhile, the DENR usually hires consultants to draft
policies. Policies are also sometimes influenced by donors. The DENR in
addition also has to choose which NGO will be the representative in policy
formulation. All these factors affect how policy is shaped and which interests
it serves.
LGU
Statement: CBFM implementation has

not been fully devolved to the LGUs
despite its inclusion in Section 17 of
Republic Act 7160 (Local Government
Code).
Justification: LGUs are not signatories

to CBFMA. When an assessment or
evaluation is being conducted, LGUs are
not consulted. Even if they want to
participate, they have no mandate. Only
the DENR is involved in decision-making,
for instance, in the transportation of
forest products. In other words, there is
no check and balance. DENR is blamed when something goes wrong
but LGUs cannot do anything about it because they are excluded.
There is also a perception that problems arise because LGUs have
little knowledge about CBFMA. Indeed, many officials have no
knowledge about it but there are still some who give support. It is
the LGUs that finance small programs on CBFM because DENR does
not give that kind of support. It is agreed that CBFM should be
devolved to the LGUs but before it can be done, all these problems
should be solved first.
! " #
PO 3 6 9
DENR 0 0 4
LGU 3 0 0
NGO 3 3 4
Donor 0 2 2
Research 1 0 1
Private 0 0 1

During the debate, participants were divided over the issue but in the
casting of votes, majority were undecided as reflected by the high number
of neutral votes. There was confusion because the debate veered away
from the statement presented. The participants were set to debate whether
CBFM implementation was fully devolved or not to the LGUs. Instead, it
became a presentation of proof if LGUs indeed had participated to a
certain degree in devolution and therefore were held accountable for its
implementation.
Most of the arguments delved on the LGUs’ function as signatory and

endorser of the CBFMAs. Therefore, it cannot be denied that they also
have a role in CBFM. The downside is that most LGUs lack knowledge on
CBFM. Nevertheless, some support the implementation in one way or
another.
Towards the end of the debate, the discussion shifted to whether participants
agreed or disagreed with devolution. Some agreed with full devolution
because the experiences of LGUs, such as those in Nueva Vizcaya and
Sarangani, showed they are capable of managing CBFM. Moreover,
devolution is in the law so it should be implemented. However, LGUs
should make sure that not only the program and personnel are devolved
but also the accompanying financial support. Meanwhile, some LGUs
had allocated funds for this endeavor without waiting for DENR’s support.
On the other hand, some disagreed with devolution, arguing that it should
be selective and optional. Their major argument was that the situation is
different in every province especially with regards to the level of support
that CBFM receives. Moreover, local officials are elected every three years.
They have different interests and priorities. It will then depend on the elected
official if s/he will give support.
NGO
Statement: There is a need to form a
concrete policy or law that should will
ensure the adoption of CBFM.
Justification: The primary concern of

CBFM is a stable policy environment to
ensure that it measures up as a national
strategy on sustainable forest
management. CBFM should not only be
community-based but also be community-
driven. The current policy still has
shortcomings that need to be addressed
and conflicts with other policies that need
to be harmonized. Participation of all stakeholders should be
strengthened, especially the communities. NGOs have varying
capacities to support the needs of POs. It is also possibly not
clear with other NGOs if they are making a significant impact
with POs. These issues can be addressed if there is a stable
policy environment

! " #
PO 13 3 4
DENR 10 1 3
LGU 4 0 2
NGO 2 0 0
Donor 1 0 0
Research 1 0 1
Private 0 1 0
Majority of the participants agreed with the NGO statement. Current

forest policies are only based on executive orders (EOs) and presidential
decrees (PDs). What is needed is to have a law that will give more teeth to
CBFM implementation. CBFM is a long-term investment. If policies are
always changing, there will be no benefits to be derived from CBFM.
In pushing for the proposed law, it should be remembered that CBFM

must be community-driven. The community can do the necessary planning
to make it sustainable. A community-driven program will be much more
sustainable than a DENR-driven program. Multiple stakeholders should
be involved in drafting such a law.
Stakeholders should also know how the legislative process works. Since the
late 1980s, certain groups have been proposing the Sustainable Forest
Management Act but it was very difficult to lobby in the Congress. They had
already conducted several consultations among stakeholders and lobbied
with government officials but the proposal has not progressed up to now.
Thus, there is a need for a stronger advocacy in this regard.
It is also very important to look at the larger policy environment as it can

affect forest policies. For instance, with the proposal to change the
Constitution, there is a possibility that foreigners may soon be allowed to
own land. This can affect policies particularly on tenure and resource use.
The Research group, on the other hand, disagreed that there is a need for
new policy. Its studies showed that most of the policies overlap and contradict
each other. The policies on forest and natural resources utilization should
just be simplified and harmonized and there is no need for new ones. The
group said the problem lies more in their implementation. The NGO group
responded that the policies referred to were only forest policies. It repeated
that the larger policy environment should be considered.
Another group said that CBFM is not even the only answer to sustainable
forest management. There are still many flaws in CBFM that need to be
addressed and further reviewed. Even without CBFM, the goal of forest
protection can be attained in many other ways.

Research/Academe
Statement: There is lack of regular dialogue

between and among stakeholders.
Justification: It can be stated that all the

problems mentioned during the forum were
mainly due to lack of regular dialogue between
and among stakeholders. There were dialogues
conducted in the past but these were
intermittent and only a few were involved.
Communication is also lacking among and
within the agencies. There were diverse views
and interpretation would have been welcomed but were
unfortunately not articulated. Dialogue is important if we all want
collective action. There are so many experiences that need to be
shared, good or bad. It should not end with talking because it
needs to be documented and transformed in popular forms for
everyone to consume. There should also be time for reflection. In
a dialogue, knowledge is exchanged and therefore becomes a
venue for empowerment.

! " #
PO 20 1 0
DENR 6 0 0
LGU 3 0 0
NGO 10 0 0
Donor 4 0 0
Research 2 0 0
Private 1 0 0
During the casting of votes, all but one PO disagreed with the statement.
DAO 96-29 mandates the creation of a national steering committee to handle
dialogues. It can also be conducted at the regional and provincial levels.
The DENR secretary is automatically the committee chair so it depends on
him/her to steer its course. There were meetings convened by the committee
in the past. It can be recalled that before DAO 96-29 was approved, two
meetings were held regarding the administrative order.
Some participants said they were grateful to the IIRR for organizing the
CBFM forum. They hoped that their concerns will reach the
administration. Other organizations were also thanked for their efforts.
Another possible venue for dialogue is the party list group in view of the
coming elections. This is to ensure that CBFM POs and their families will
be represented in Congress, regular dialogue and other activities
conducted, and needed funds are accessed. Indeed, there are many
alternative venues that can be explored.

Donor/Private Sector
Statement: There is lack of consultation with

CBFM stakeholders and lack of field validation in
policy formulation.
Justification: There were four points raised.

First, there have been successive memoranda
imposing suspensions/cancellations only to be
lifted after. This has happened several times,
leaving the communities confused. Second,
there is lack of certainty whether CBFMA really
needs to be cancelled. Cancellation should be
made on a case-to-case basis. A CBFM area with good performance
should not be cancelled. Third, the bottom-up approach is neglected
or forgotten. The grassroots are stripped of their rights to have a
voice. They are deeply affected by the changes in policy. Fourth,
interviews with POs and DENR staff showed that DENR was also
confused with the policy circus. As a result, it cannot adequately
explain at the ground level why the policy keeps changing. Again,
the POs were the most affected.

! " #
PO 17 2 0
DENR 0 3 2
LGU 2 1 0
NGO 10 0 2
Donor 4 0 2
Research 2 0 0
Private 1 0 0
Majority agreed with the donor statement. Referring to DAO 96-29,

changes in the CBFM implementing guidelines should be consulted with
the POs first. It includes issuance of suspension orders. In that same DAO,
the changes in the terms and conditions should also be subjected to
consultation.
Still regarding the suspension/cancellation policy, the NGO group pointed

out that it was carried out by the national government. It did not consider
the fact that natural conditions are not the same for all areas. It highlighted
the lack of consultation regarding the experiences and conditions at the
ground level. Therefore, such policy cannot be imposed in all areas.

IV. Action Planning
B
By clustering together similar ideas that came out from
SWOT analysis and revisiting the debate results, participants
identified six major areas for improvement. These were
tenure and resource use, policy formulation, devolution,
institutional strengthening, research and development, and
dialogue for collaboration (see Annex 4 for actual results).
The participants also drew up and agreed on a CBFM vision.
Action plans
On tenure and resource use
The idea of CBFM boils down to tenure and resource use. Every community
should have a secure tenurial instrument. The POs, DENR, LGUs, NGOs and
other stakeholders must engage in dialogues to develop agreements for the
community’s control over resources. Every CBFMA holder should also have secured
a resource utilization permit (RUP) or resource utilization management agreement
(RUMA). But RUMA is not yet a part of the DENR policy. It should be an
agreement, not a permit, so that neither the DENR nor the POs can cancel it
without consultation. Whether RUP or RUMA, it should be based on the forest
management plan. However, the preparation of such plan sometimes requires
more expertise than what is currently at hand. More stakeholders should,
therefore, be involved in the preparation.
On p olicy formulation
policy
The goal of policy formulation is to put

together a stable policy developed
through the active participation of
different stakeholders specially POs.
The participants proposed that a study
of current policies be conducted,
identifying how they have been
implemented and their impact. It would
be helpful to refer to the numerous
researches and consultations already
conducted. Suggested policy revisions Former DENR Secretary Elisea Gozun, with Victor
Ramos, also a former DENR secretary, on her left,
should be presented during a recommending the mandatory representation of
nationwide consultation and dialogue POs in national and local CBFM committees or
working groups.
before submission to DENR. Finally,
policy implementation monitoring
schemes should be developed to determine its application, relevance and outcome.
The agencies in charge are research/academe, NGOs, POs, LGUs and private
organizations.
On devolution
Various studies have already been conducted on the issue of devolution.

The participants believe the recommendations from these studies should
be adapted and gaps in RA 7160 (Local Government Code) and DAO 92-
30 (Guidance for the Transfer and Implementation of DENR Functions
Devolved to LGUs) identified. In line with this, they proposed to identify
the requirements for devolution at different levels (DENR, LGU, PO), in
terms of capacity, functions, structure, policy instrument, budget and
exclusions. After the analysis, recommendations will be formulated on
how to operationalize devolution. This should be presented for discussion
with the DENR, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG),
the Leagues of Cities and Municipalities, House of Representatives and
POs. The above tasks should be done by independent groups like the
NGOs.
On institutional strengthening
There are three objectives proposed for institutional strengthening: (1)

strengthen the PO Federation; (2) revive the steering committee; and, (3)
work for the formation of a party-list group.
In the first objective, the Federation primarily needs to secure legal

personality by registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), a task assigned to the Federation’s president, secretary and treasurer.
The next step is to convene a national meeting of the 14 regional
federations for planning, followed by provincial level summits to develop
proposals and develop the PO database.
To revive the steering committee, the National Federation should draft a

resolution to request such revival by the DENR. On the possibility of
forming a CBFM party list group, a study should be conducted by
concerned research/academic institutions.
On research and development
The general objective of research and development is to deepen the

understanding of CBFM stakeholders about CBFM programs, policies
and strategies.
There are four objectives identified. The first is to improve information

sharing for effective stakeholder collaboration which can be achieved in
three ways. First, make an inventory of existing CBFM-related information
networks. Second, establish a CBFM information network for POs to allow
wider access to information. Third, put together a database of CBFM
experts, including indigenous and local knowledge.
The second objective is to develop community-driven, sustainable

environmental natural resource (ENR)-based enterprises through the

following: documentation and dissemination of model experiences of
ENR-related enterprises for replication in CBFM areas; development of
agroforestry models; and inventory of all researches on non-timber forest
products (NTFP).
The third objective is to improve stakeholders’ collaboration and links to

policy formulation, implementation and advocacy. This can be done by:
documenting how conflicts on resource utilization are managed (which
becomes a basis for advocacy); documenting LGU-managed CBFM best
practices (which can serve as basis for total devolution); conducting actual
investigations on CBFM areas by DENR; and improving the monitoring
and evaluation (M&E) system.
The fourth objective is to strengthen collaborative research through

development of on-farm action research and strengthening the
complementation capacities of stakeholders.
On dialogue for collaboration
Dialogues for collaboration among stakeholders were also proposed. To

facilitate these, there is a need to create a venue where stakeholders can
conduct these dialogues and eventually institutionalize the mechanisms to
sustain collaboration. A possible venue for collaboration is the steering
committee. Aside from reviving this body, it was proposed that a “parallel”
alternative national “multi-sectoral steering committee” be created, as well
as the organization of various fora using the bottom-up strategy. In these
committees, the POs must be represented.
CBFM vision
Finally, to round up the forum, a
vision for CBFM in the future was
presented by a multi-stakeholder
group. It emphasized both the need
for user rights and responsibilities
in CBFM and the need to
institutionalize genuine multi-
stakeholder processes for CBFM
policy review and development.
The PO from Quezon province

made the presentation on behalf of A visual representation of the CBFM vision as
the group. Through CBFM, the formulated and approved by the stakeholders.
different stakeholders envision
sustainable forest and natural resources. The management of forest
resources is governed by the different stakeholders who dialogue on equal
footing and collaborate towards the attainment of a common goal.
IV. Action Planning 57

Summary
T
The forum successfully provided key stakeholders a platform for meaningful
sharing, reflection and dialogue on CBFM. Through an action-reflection
framework, CBFM stakeholders reviewed and analyzed their experiences toward
formulating action plans. The forum enabled the voiceless local communities to
have a voice in policy review at the national level. Similar to its predecessor, the
“Linking People to Policy” workshop, this forum provided an example of a
democratized policy-making process.
Left: The two former DENR secretaries and CBFM chief drawing their CBFM visions.
Right: A PO representative presenting the collective CBFM vision of all the
stakeholders.
An assessment of the ten-year CBFM implementation based on the five major

themes showed that CBFM as a policy provides an impetus for sustainable
management of forest resources. Community-based organizations were formed
and awarded with tenurial instruments with accompanying utilization rights over
forestlands. In some CBFM communities, livelihood projects were introduced
especially those with linkage and partnership with other stakeholders. CBFM has
also contributed to forest rehabilitation, conservation and protection.
However, due to centralized policy-making that resulted in arbitrary cancellation of

CBFMAs and suspension of RUPs, CBFM objectives were not fully realized.
Communities were affected in many ways: their security of tenure was threatened,
they were robbed of livelihood, they were unable to continue conservation and
protection activities, and their capacities were not further developed. There were
also problems like insufficient collaboration and dialogue among stakeholders
especially with LGUs, and lack of funding and other forms of support. For the next
ten years of CBFM, these are the major areas that need to be addressed.
Participants emphasized the need for security of tenure and resource use, a stable
policy developed with stakeholders, further study of the mechanics and
implementation of devolution, strengthening of PO federations and organizations
and multi-stakeholder committees, research and development activities to deepen
understanding of CBFM, and venues for sustained regular dialogues.
In the next ten years, participants envisioned the different stakeholders
holding dialogues on equal footing toward the attainment of sustainable forests
and natural resources.
The results and recommendations from this forum will serve as a major
reference for the formulation of the second-decade national CBFM strategic
plan, the process for the development of which will be guided by the action-
reflection framework and multi-stakeholder participatory design that this
book presents.
Annex 1: Presentation
Community-Based Forest Management:

Policy Changes and Development
by Domingo T. Bacalla
Domingo T. Bacalla is the chief of the Community-Based Forest Management Division of the Forest
Management Bureau-Department of Environment and Natural Resources (FMB-DENR).
A
A decade ago, Community–Based Forest Management (CBFM) was adopted as
the national strategy to achieve sustainable forestry and social justice in the country.
The strategy unified the efforts of all previous programs and projects in working
with local communities living within and adjacent to forestlands. The CBFM strategy
aims to improve the socio-economic conditions of communities through the
promotion of social justice, equitable access and sustainable development of
forestlands and resources that involves protection, rehabilitation, development
and sustainable resource utilization activities.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is mandated

by law to work with Other Government Agencies (OGAs), Local Government
Units (LGUs), Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), and stakeholders to
facilitate the implementation of the strategy. As a policy, qualified and organized
local communities are provided long-term tenurial agreements to manage and
utilize forest resources.
In 2004, the CBFM strategy was further strengthened through the promulgation
of Executive Order (EO) 318. It declared community-based conservation and
development as among the guiding principles to promote sustainable forest
management. It reiterated CBFM as the primary strategy in all forest conservation
and development projects in the country. In the same year, DENR issued revised
rules and regulations to streamline and simplify the processes and procedures on
CBFM.
This paper will provide a brief historical background on policy changes and
development in the implementation of CBFM in the country. It will also present
some conflicting operational guidelines, their implications and some
recommendations at the policy level to enhance CBFM implementation.
Pioneering programs on people-oriented forestry

The government through the DENR slowly shifted away from its highly regulatory
function to a more participative, holistic and developmental approach to forest
management. Starting in the 1970s, the government had enacted laws and
formulated subsequent policies engendering partnership and collaboration with
local communities and other stakeholders in the management, development,
conservation and protection of forestlands and the resources. These programs
had initially achieved some milestones in reforestation and addressing forest
occupancy. However, these limited the participation of local communities by
offering incomes for reforestation activities and temporary land tenure security.
Table 1. Summary of Information on the Pioneering Programs
Forest Occupancy Family Communal Tree

Management Approach to Farm
1971 Reforestation 1979
1974
Area Covered Actually occupied & Open and Open and

cultivated areas cultivated areas cultivated areas
Target Actual forest Forest Occupants Forest occupants

Participants occupants and people living and local
cultivating areas near forest lands communities
within forest lands adjacent to forest
lands including
LGUs, cooperatives
and civic
organizations
Objectives Reforestation Reforestation Reforestation

Forest Protection Employment Employment
Employment Additional Additional Income
Additional Income Income
Land Tenure 2-year renewable 3 year One-year provisional

FOM Permit Reforestation Communal Tree
Contract Farm Certificate
25-year renewable
CTF Certificate
Benefits Derived Short-term tenure Technical Long-term tenure

Technical assistance Technical
assistance Training Payment assistance
Training for contractual Training
Marketing and services Marketing & CO
community Agricrops accrue services
organizing services to participants Forest & agricrops
Forest & agricrops accrue to
accrue to participants
participants
Consolidation of the pioneering people-oriented

forestry programs
On July 28, 1982, the Integrated Social Forestry (ISF) program was
launched under Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 1260. The ISF program
consolidated Forest Occupancy Management (FOM),
Communal Tree Farm (CTF) and Family Approach to Reforestation (FAR)

to promote a more holistic approach in the development of open and
occupied areas within forestlands.
The implementation of the ISF Program strengthened the involvement

of local people in forest management. This program recognized forest
communities, including indigenous people, as partners of the government
in the development of open and denuded forestlands, while at the same
time undertaking activities aimed at improving their socio-economic
condition.

The program provided tenurial security to organized members of local
communities through the issuance of a renewable 25–year Certificate of
Community Forest Stewardship (CCFS) and individual participants with
a Certificate of Stewardship (CS), also with tenure of 25 years.
Adoption of CBFM: A primary strategy towards

s ustainable forest management
The enactment of EO 263 in 1995 provided the concrete basis in adopting
CBFM as the strategy towards sustainable forest management in the
country. EO 263 also provided local forest communities access to forest
resources and actively participate and share with the DENR the
responsibility of performing its mandate. Together with the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and the National Integrate Protected Areas
System (NIPAS) Act, the issuance of EO 318 also helped in the promotion
of equitable access to forest resources and helped in attaining one of the
objectives of DENR that is to promote equitable access to natural resources
by the different sectors of the population. The passage of the Local
Government Code in 1991 has complemented the promotion of social
equity in the area of forestry when the DENR devolved some of its forest
management functions to the LGUs (de Rueda, 2006).
Table 2. People-Oriented Forestry Projects Consolidated Under

CBFM
Projects Number of Sites Area Covered (ha)
Environment & 28 24,552

Natural Resource –
Sectoral
Adjustment Loan
Certificate of 78 1,124,740
Ancestral Domain
CFLMP 224 344,673
Community Forestry 205 575,569
Project
Low Income Upland 7 46,642
Community Project
Coastal Environment 61 16,217
Program
ISF program (include 4,226 786,038
CCFS, CPEU and
ISF projects
devolved to LGUs)
Total 4,803 2,918,431
Presentation 63
Status of CBFM implementation
CBFM covers all areas classified as forestlands, including the allowable
zones within the protected areas. In the strategic action plan for CBFM,
the DENR has set a target of 9m hectares of forestlands to be managed
following the CBFM strategy. As of December 2005, 5,503 projects were
already established. These cover an aggregate area of 5.97m ha involving
690,691 households. Of these areas, 1,781 sites with a total area of 1.62
million hectares were allocated to organized communities through the
issuance of long-term Community-Based Forest Management Agreements
(CBFMAs). The rest of the project sites are covered by land tenure
instruments under the various people-oriented forestry projects that the
government has implemented in the past.
Streamlining and simplification of CBFM

procedures and pprocesses
rocesses
In 10 years of CBFM implementation, various policies, rules and
regulations supporting its implementation were formulated. Forestry rules
and regulations that were already obsolete and no longer responsive to
the present situation and needs of the local communities were revised
accordingly.
As a result of various consultations with the POs and other stakeholders

groups and several assessment workshops, DENR issued revised rules and
regulations on the implementation of CBFM strategy in 2004 under DENR
Administrative Order (DAO) No. 29 dated August 24, 2005.The revised
Administrative Order streamlined and simplified the processes and
procedures in the implementation of CBFM.
Policies emphasizing agroforestry development

Since the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 705 or the Forestry
Reform Code of the Philippines, agroforestry is recognized as a land
development scheme for occupied and cultivated areas in forestlands.
Several laws, rules and policies have also provided for the adoption of
agroforestry as one of the strategies in upland development, most
especially in areas occupied or tended by upland dwellers/communities.
The CBFM promotes agroforestry as the primary livelihood and as an
effective tool to facilitate development of these open and cultivated areas.
In November 2005, DENR issued DAO 2005-25 that provided the
guidelines for the adoption of the upland agroforestry program.
Policy issues, conflicts and implications

In the past decade, a number of CBFM policies and operational guidelines
have been formulated and issued by DENR. However, many of these
policies and regulations are conflicting and most of the time cause

confusion among CBFM implementers and participants. Some of them
even impede the implementation of project activities. As a result,
implementation of various activities especially at the project level is
affected.
The field review conducted by DENR, through the Japan International

Cooperation Agency (JICA)-assisted Project for the Enhancement of
CBFM, in 47 projects in the country confirmed that the numerous policies
and guidelines on CBFM are difficult for the various stakeholders to fully
understand. Many of the POs also raised the concern that while the law
declared CBFM as a national strategy to promote sustainable forest
management, the government’s frequent change of rules and guidelines
was not creating a stable environment to work within (Miyakawa et al,
2005).
Utilization of forest resources in CBFM Areas

The utilization or harvesting of timber and non-timber forest resources
inside CBFM areas starts with the formulation of the Community-Resource
Management Framework (CRMF) and the work plan. Prior to the
adoption of DAO 2004-29, POs are required to undertake the tedious
requirements and processes for them to be issued an Environmental
Clearance Certificate (ECC). They also have to prepare their work plans
and have these affirmed by DENR every year. The provisions of DAO
2004-29 require the POs to follow all prescribed rules, regulations and
guidelines for harvesting timber resources particularly the issuance of
cutting permits and transport certificates.
Establishment of the CBFM special account

Pursuant to EO 263, and under article VII, Section 2 of DAO 96-29, the
DENR is mandated to establish the CBFM Special Account to support the
implementation of CBFM, including the provision of financial support
and other incentives to deserving POs and other organized groups
implementing the strategy. It further requires the DENR to source local
and international grants and donations for the establishment of the special
account. However, under the State Auditing Code (PD 1445) and the
General Appropriations Act (GAA), the earmarking of funds for specific
objectives is prohibited. It is also required that all revenues collected by
the government shall be deposited with the National Treasury which shall
accrue to the General Fund.
Harvesting of planted mangrove species in CBFM

areas
In 1998, DENR issued Administrative Order No. 98-10 allowing the cutting
of planted mangrove species in CBFM areas. However, the same Order
cannot be implemented in the field as Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7161
prohibits even the cutting of planted mangrove species. This creates a
Presentation 65
disincentive for CBFM Agreement holders to plant mangrove species
because they will not be able to generate income from the endeavor.
Likewise, prospective partners are discouraged from developing their
mangrove areas into plantation because they cannot foresee any economic
return from their efforts.
Suspension on the processing and issuance of new

CBFM aagreements
greements
It is a basic policy of the government to protect and advance the right of
local communities including indigenous peoples to a secured environment.
Likewise, there is an existing recognition of the value of partnership
development and collaboration in nation building and the role of local
communities in sustainable forest management.
The issuance of a directive suspending the processing and issuance of new

CBFM Agreements on August 12, 2005 is inconsistent with the provisions
of those policies. It has adversely affected the enthusiasm of prospective
partners in forest management and frustrated the POs with pending
applications for CBFMA. The directive has likewise generated varied
reactions from (POs, LGUs, NGOs and other sectors). It may even cause
the withdrawal of support for CBFM projects by funding institutions.
Worse, it will place open access areas at greater risk to in-migration, shifting
cultivation and illegal cutting/harvesting of forest resources.
Cancellation of CBFM agreements

On December 28, 2004, DENR issued a memorandum instructing all of
its field offices to conduct a thorough evaluation of the performance of all
holders of tenurial instruments issued in forestlands including CBFM
Agreements, vis-à-vis the conditions of the respective instruments. The
result of the nationwide evaluation of CBFMA revealed that a total of 233
CBFMA holders are unsatisfactorily performing their roles and obligations
in CBFM areas.
On January 5, 2006, another directive to the different regional offices of

DENR was issued affecting 848 CBFMAs. The unilateral cancellation
rendered by the DENR created an adverse reaction from the POs and
other stakeholders. It was an unfair move of the DENR to good performing
CBFM participants. As it is, the cancellation of CBFMAs has affected the
implementation of project activities.
On March 13, 2006, the new DENR Secretary clarified the cancellation
order and directed all Regional Executive Directors to institute a number
of measures. The directive was a remedial measure to overcome the negative
impact caused by the cancellation orders and to gain public support in
the implementation of the CBFM. An ad hoc committee was also created
to handle concerns related to the appeals forwarded by POs with cancelled
CBFMAs.

Suspending the harvesting of timber resources
The goal to derive benefits from timber resources had been adversely
affected by the issuance of a number of instructions pertaining to the
harvesting, transport and processing of timber and non-timber forest
products. These instructions came in the wake of natural calamities that
affected several provinces, and the problems of timber poaching and illegal
logging.
For example, on December 1, 2005, DENR issued a memorandum

prohibiting the processing and issuance of Resource Utilization Permits
for the harvest and utilization of timber products in CBFM areas. This
was followed by the issuance of DENR Memorandum dated December 8,
2005 canceling all logging permits in the provinces of Aurora and Quezon
and suspending all logging permits in other provinces of the country.
The prohibition on timber harvesting includes both natural forests and
plantation species.
Right now, harvesting and utilization of timber resources are limited to

only two regions in the country. It has restricted all other members of
local communities outside these regions from accessing timber resources.
Conclusions
The issuance of a number of policies and operational guidelines that guide
the implementation of CBFM has resulted in some successes in increasing
productivity and rehabilitating degraded forestlands inside CBFMA areas.
However, the CBFM may not achieve much, especially in enhancing
incomes of program beneficiaries, due to the issuance of a “stop-go” policy
on the harvesting of timber resources which include species that have been
planted in CBFM areas. POs that are compliant with existing rules and
regulations have been adversely affected by those policies hindering their
enthusiasm to invest in forest development activities.
The smooth implementation of CBFM as a strategy has been largely affected

by the inability and inadequacy of the government to provide the needed
support systems. Likewise, stakeholders have not given their full support,
either technical or financial, due to several reasons such as the inadequacy
of their capacities, the lack of mechanism and motivation to participate in
CBFM, undefined roles and responsibilities of prospective partners and
the absence of an information-generation mechanism constraining the
flow of information to the other stakeholders and thus, limiting the other
stakeholders from participating in forest governance affairs (Bambalan,
2005).
Apparently, there is a need to have a clear policy that would ensure the
involvement of these institutions in forest management. The roles and
responsibilities of each sector or agency must be made clear to avoid conflict
and overlapping of activities. DENR alone cannot implement CBFM and
subsequently achieve its objectives without creating greater partnership
Presentation 67
with local communities and more productive collaboration with various
stakeholders (de Rueda, 2006).
References
Aquino, R., R. del Castillo and E. V. Payuan. 1987. Mounting a National
Social Forestry Program: Lessons Learned from the Philippine
Experience. Environment and Policy Institute, East West Center,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Arroyo- Macapagal, G. 2004. Executive Order No. 318 – Promoting

Sustainable Forest Management in the Philippines.
Bacalla, D. T. 2006. “Promoting Equity: A Challenge in the Implementation

of Community-Based Forest Management Strategy in the Philippines.”
In S. Mahanty, J. Fox, M. Nurse, P. Stephen and L. McLees (eds.)
Hanging in the Balance: Equity in Community-Based Natural Resource
Management in Asia. East West Center and RECOFTC, Bangkok,
Thailand: 162 – 181.
Bacalla, D. T. 1993. “Policy Changes and Upland Management in the

Philippines.” In K. Warner and H. Wood (eds.) Policy and Legislation in
Community Forestry. Report No. 11. RECOFTC, Bangkok, Thailand:
69-80.
Bambalan, G. C. 2005. Elements of Sustainability in Philippine Forest

Governance: An Analysis of the Community-Based Forest Management and
Integrated Forest Management Programs in Isabela, Quirino, Aurora, and
Negros Oriental. A Doctoral Dissertation, National College of Public
Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines,
Diliman, Quezon City.
De Rueda, R. A. 2006.Re-inventing the Forestry Agencies of the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources: Philippines. Paper presented during
the Asia – Pacific Forestry Commission Expert Consultation on Re-
Inventing Forestry Agencies on 28 February – 01 March 2006. Manila,
Philippines.
DENR. 1996. Upland Development Program: A Decade and a Half.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Diliman, Quezon
City. 101p.
DENR, UNDP, FAO. 2003. Revised Master Plan for Forestry Development:
Sustainable Forest Management, Poverty Alleviation, and Food Security
in Upland Communities in the Philippines. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Diliman, Quezon City.
DENR. 2004. Department Administrative Order No.2004 – 29. Revised

Rules and Regulations for the Implementation of Executive Order
263, Otherwise Known as the Community – Based Forest Management
Strategy.

DENR 2005. Department Administrative Order No. 2005-25. Rules and
Regulations in the Implementation of the Upland Agroforestry
Program.
DENR, USAID, Development Alternatives Inc., Global Vision Inc. 1998.

A Compilation of Policies on Community-Based Forest Management.
Community-Based Forest Management Office, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Manila. 142p.
DENR, USAID, EcoGov Project. 2003. Primer on DENR-DILG-LGU

Partnership in Forest Management. The Philippine Environmental
Governance Program, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Manila. 38p.
FMB - Community-Based Forest Management Division.2004. Community-

Based Forest Management Policies and Guidelines: A Compilation of
CBFM Policies and other Related Guidelines. Diliman, Quezon City. 830p.
FMB. 1991.1991 Philippine Forestry Statistics. Department of

Environment and Natural Resources – Forest Management Bureau,
Diliman, Quezon City. 206p.
IIRR, DENR, Ford Foundation. 1992. Agroforestry Technology

Information Kit. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Diliman, Quezon City.
IIRR, LGSP, SANREM CRSP/Southeast Asia. 2001. Enhancing Participation

in Local Governance: Experiences from the Philippines. International
Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Philippines – Canada Local
Government Support Program and SANREM CRSP/Southeast
Asia.197p.
Miclat, S., R. Soriaga, and P. Walpole. 2004. Community Forest

Management Trends in Southeast Asia: Communities and Watershed
Governance- Visayas, Philippines. Asia Forest Network, Bohol, Philippines.
Miyakawa, H. et al. (2005). For the Better Future of CBFM: A Field Review
of 47 CBFM Sites. DENR, Quezon City, Philippines.
Pulhin, J., M. C. Amaro, Jr. and D. T. Bacalla. 2005. Community-Based

Forest Management in the Philippines: A Country Status Report.
Presented during the Community Forestry Forum organized by
RECOFTC on 24-26 August 2005, Bangkok, Thailand.
Presentation 69
Annex 1. Summary of Policies and Operational Guidelines Related to CBFM
Year Policy Executive Brief Description

Order No.
1995 263 Adopting CBFM as the National Strategy to Ensure

Sustainable Development of Forestlands and resources
1996 DAO No. 96-29 Rules and Regulations for the Implementation of EO
263, otherwise known as the CBFMS
DENR –
Memorandum
1997 Circular No. 97 Implementing Guidelines in the conduct of
- 01 Community-Organizing (CO) Under the Forestry Sector
Project
DENR MC 97 – 12 Guidelines for the Formulation of Community Resource
Management Framework and Annual Work Plan for
Community-Based Forest Management Areas
Republic Act No. An act to Recognize, Protect and Promote the Rights
8371 of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous
Peoples, Creating A National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples, Establishing Implementing
Mechanisms, Appropriating Funds Therefore, and for
Other Purposes
1998 DENR MC 98-08 Guidelines on Contracting Inside Community-Based

Forest Management (CBFM) Areas
DENR MC 98-09 Additional Guidelines on the Issuance of Interim
Resource Use Permit or IRUP
DENR MO 98 - Stopping the Processing and Issuance of CADCs and
15 CALCs
DENR –DILG Manual of Procedures on Devolved and other Forest
JMC 98-01 Management Functions
Amending Sections 3,6,7 and 10 of DAO No.41, Series
DAO 98-09 of 1991, Governing the Deputation of Environment
and Natural Resources Officers
Guidelines on the Establishment and Management of
DAO 98 -10 Community – Based Forest Management (CBFM)
DAO 98 – 41 Projects within Mangrove Areas
DAO 98 – 42 CBFM Projects Within Watershed Reservation
Production Sharing Agreement with People’s
DAO 98 – 44 Organizations in the Harvest of Forest Plantations
Owned by the Government Inside CBFM Areas
DAO 98 - 45 the CBFM Special Account
Guidelines Governing the Issuance and Transfer of
Certificate of Stewardship (CS) Within CBFM Areas
1999 Revised Guidelines in the Implementation of the

DAO 99 - 35 Resource Use Permit in CBFMP
2000 Guidelines Regulating the Harvesting and Utilization of

DAO 2000 – 29 Forest Products Within CBFM Areas
Amending Certain Provisions of DAO 96-29 and
DAO 2000 - 44 Providing Specific Guidelines for the
2002 Establishment and Management of Community –

DAO 2002 – 02 Based Projects Within Protected Areas
2003 Strengthening and Institutionalizing the DENR – DILG

DENR – DILG – LGU Partnership on Devolved and other Forest
JMC 2003 - 01 Management Functions

Year Policy Executive Brief Description
Order No.
2004 Executive Order Promoting Sustainable Forest Management in the

No. 318 Philippines
DAO 2004 – 29 Revised Rules and Regulations for the Implementation
of EO No. 263
DAO 2004 – 32 Guidelines for the Establishment and Management of
CBP in Protected Areas
Clarifies the process for communities in protected
areas who want to avail of tenure provided by the
CBFM Program
2005 DAO 2005 - 25 Guidelines in the implementation of Upland

Agroforestry Program
Annex 2. Key Changes on the Revised CBFM Guidelines
Topic/Section DAO 1996-29 DAO 2004 – 29

(CBFM guidelines) (Revised CBFM Guidelines)
Issuance of LGU endorsement: the Validation of the CBFM participants

CBFM Agreement application shall be by a multi-sectoral group (DENR,
supported by concerned LGU, NGOs, OGAs and other sectors
Barangay & Municipal concerned) at the local level shall be
Legislative Councils created for the purpose of validating
CBFM participants
The DENR-DILG-LGU Working Group

shall seek LGU comments. If the LGU
fails to act within 15 days, it shall be
presumed that the LGU endorses the
CBFMA application
CBFMA Within 15 days upon CENRO shall review all CBFMA

processing and receipt of the application, applications within 10 days,
awarding the CENRO shall check the including the map delineation and
required supporting papers, shall approve applications covering
prepare the corresponding 500 ha & below
map of the area and shall
approve applications PENRO shall review all the CBFMA
covering 500 ha & below applications endorsed by CENRO
within 5 working days and shall
PENRO – covering up to approve applications covering more
5,000 haRED – more than than 500 to 5,000 ha
5,000 to 15,000 ha
RED – 5 days – more than 5,000 to
Undersecretary for Field 20,000 ha
Operations – more than
15,000 to 30,000 ha Office of the Secretary – 10 days
– more than 20,000 ha
Secretary – more than
30,000 ha
Presentation 71
Community While the CBFMA CRMF shall be prepared by the PO

Resource application is being within 30 days after the approval of
Management processed, the PO CBFMA with assistance of CENRO
Framework formulates the CRMF with and concerned LGUs
(CRMF)- The the help of CENRO, LGU and
CRMF is a other assisting Ratified CRMF shall be jointly
strategic plan of organizations; the CENRO endorsed by PO and CENRO
the community affirms the CRMF concerned together with the minutes
on how to of the consultation (ratification) to
manage and the PENRO for affirmation;
benefit from the considered affirmed if the PENRO
forest resources fails to act within 15 days unless PO
on a sustainable is notified in writing of any
basis. It deficiency
describes the
community’s Affirmed CRMF shall serve as the
long-term vision, Initial Environmental Examination
aspirations, (IEE) for CBFM and shall be made as
commitments basis for the issuance of
and strategies Environmental Compliance Certificate
for the (ECC)
protection,
rehabilitation,
development and
utilization of
forest resources.
Work Plan Annual Work Plan 5 – year Work Plan

(AWP) – indicates the - shall contain the baseline
specific targets for the year information, detailed strategies,
for utilization, resource activities and targets for 5 years
development and on protection, rehabilitation
protection, organizational development and resource
strengthening and utilization, organizational
enterprise development strengthening, financing,
marketing and enterprise
- The PO prepares the AWP development
with the help of CENRO, - endorsed by PO for affirmation by
LGU and other assisting the CENRO; deemed approved if
organizations. If the PO the CENRO fails to act & notify the
plans to use some forest PO in writing of its affirmation
resources, Resource within 15 days upon receipt of
Utilization Plan (RUP) plan
should be prepared
Requirements for - affirmed CRMF - Affirmed CRMF which is also serve

the Utilization of - affirmed AWP- ECC as the IEE and made as basis for
Forest Resources - RUP the issuance of ECC
in the CBFM - 5 – Year Work Plan
areas - permit to cut/harvest; Annual
Allowable Cut

Support The CENRO and LGU shall Multi-sectoral Monitoring and

Structures and monitor the implementation Evaluation: a participatory mode of
Mechanism of AWP/RUP by the PO; monitoring and evaluation through
Forest Protection Monitoring results are to be composite team (RENRO, PENRO,
and conservation shared with the PO so that CENRO, LGU, AOs/OGAs and other
Nullification and the PO can use these concerned sectors) shall be
Cancellation of lessons in improving the conducted annually
CBFMA next AWP
Process Documentation of the POs
ecological, economic, social and
organizational activities
Forest Protection Reactivate the CBFM Steering

and conservation Committee: enhance interagency
support, participation
Qualified PO members are deputized

as Environment and Natural
Resources Officers by the DENR
Nullification and The grounds for CBFMA nullification:

Cancellation of
CBFMA The agreement was executed
through fraudulent means; serious
and/or continued violations of
applicable forestry laws, rules and
regulations; failure of the CBFMA
holder to comply with the terms and
conditions of the agreement after
three written notices by the DENR;
failure of a third party/subcontractor
to comply with the terms and
conditions set forth in the CBFMA
Presentation 73
Annex 2: Case stories
Tenure and Resource Use
Dreaming of a Full Moon in CBFM

by Loreto G. Indus and Venancio Cueno
Loreto G. Indus is president of the Butin Subanen Association, Inc. and Venancio Cueno
is chairperson of the Cuyan-Butin Farmers’ Multipurpose Cooperative (CBFM Coop),
which is based in Baliguihan, Zamboanga del Norte.
Introduction
The story of our forest and our community composed of Subanen and
migrants can be compared to the phases of the moon. The Subanen have
high regard for nature and its elements like the moon, which is very
important in Subanen life and culture. Their elders interpret the appearance
of the moon as a manifestation of the natural forces that govern lives and
the environment in which we live.
For the Subanen, the moon has five distinct phases. The first is called gletaw
or the floating moon, which is just a slender line of light but already clear in
a dark sky. Though it symbolizes hope, the floating moon is also associated
with instability and unpredictability. Thus important and long-term activities
are seldom conducted during this period. The second phase, which is already
in the second week of the moon’s appearance, is gektu bata gulan or the
young moon. Because the moon is becoming bigger and brighter, it deters
occurrence of pests and infestation. Thus, it is during this stage that
important activities like planting and other farm activities commence.
Kendawan or the full moon is the best time to perform any activity such as
marriage and building a house because it symbolizes fullness and prosperity.
Shortly after the full moon, the moon journeys through the nga nilem or the
dark times. At this stage, the Subanen refrain from doing important activities
aside from daily household and light farm work. From this period towards
gektu gulang gulan or the state of the old moon, very limited activities are
performed because this is associated with the fading of the light. The last of
the five stages of the moon is the gepuus, the time when the moon has a very
thin silver lining and is almost unnoticeable in the sky, until it completely
disappears in the dark sky, nga gilem. There is almost no important activity
at this stage because it is believed that all labor associated with darkness is
futile.
Our CBFM project
Our CBFM project is situated in Zamboanga Peninsula in Mindanao. It
consists of about 2,302 hectares and straddles two villages belonging to
two different municipalities. A portion of the CBFM area is covered by
barangay Pisawak in Siocon municipality while the rest belongs to San
Miguel of Baliguihan municipality, both in the province of Zamboanga
del Norte. It is located in the middle of the largest forest block between
Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga Sibugay.
The current CBFM area was once our hunting ground for game such as
deer, wild pigs, wild chickens, monitor lizards and different species of birds.
We also gathered food from different fruit-bearing plants in this forest. The
entry of logging concessionaires disrupted our traditional ways of managing
and utilizing the forestland and its resources. Fortunately, the CBFM
project has helped us regain the benefits we had been enjoying from the
forest.
Our community
Our CBFM community is composed of both Subanen and migrants. The
migrants have come to the area in search of lands to till while the others
were brought in by the logging concessions as workers. They earn a living
by cultivating lands, engaging in mining and harvesting forest products.
At present, the migrant groups are settled in the southern part while the
Subanen are located in the northern part of our CBFM area.
Subanen are indigenous peoples known to be the original occupants of

Mindanao. They derived their name from the indigenous word “suba” which
means to go up the mountain or people of the mountain. Their origins are
the rich valleys of the municipalities of Salug and Sindangan in Zamboanga
del Norte. Due to food and territorial conflicts with the Maranao (another
indigenous group), their ancestors were driven away to other places in the
Zamboanga peninsula.
The Subanen subsist through swidden cultivation, which is considered by

the government to be more destructive than logging and mining. They still
practice traditional farming like planting staple crops such as rice, corn and
sweet potatoes while some practice agro-forestry systems of planting fruit
trees and timber. A few are engaged in small-scale mining. They still hunt
game to supplement their food, although the catch these days is rare. They
gather non-timber forest products such as rattan which women use in
making baskets and handicrafts for household use or to be sold for additional
income. Their dependence on the forests has taught them to be good
stewards because this is their only means of survival.
The Subanen’s management of the forest is rooted in their beliefs in natural

processes and spiritual manifestations. For example, forestland utilization
and other activities like farming are based on the phases of the moon
which assure effective regeneration process that keeps the forest resources

intact and abundant. This practice, however, was interrupted by the entry
of large-scale logging by wealthy business owners and government officials.
Moonless night : Timber License Agreement and

IFMA
In the 1960s, a logging company came to our area armed with a Timber
License Agreement (TLA) awarded by the government. Only known to us
as WATTS, this logging company was renamed Zambo Wood in 1979. The
TLA gave the company authority over our forestland and right to harvest
its timber. The company established logging roads that cut through our
forest making it accessible to their trucks but not to us. We could not build
houses near our farms because the company would not allow us. During
the times that we had to go to our forest to gather food, the company guards
would fire guns to scare us. Defenseless as we were, we had to run for our
lives.
Along the logging roads were checkpoints where armed men would strip
us naked to check for our bolos (machete) and seedlings especially of fruit
trees. They confiscated every fruit seed that they could find in our bags so
that we could not plant them in our land. Even the husk of the coconuts
would have to be removed to ensure that we would not grow it. Nobody,
even the government, provided help to address these indignities committed
against us.
When the logging company was being phased out in the 1980s, we were
hopeful that we could now reclaim our lands and lives. Migrants and
Subanens alike started to settle in the logged-over areas and to establish
farms. However, company guards would still patrol the area and threaten
and harass us when we were caught planting. To conceal our activities, we
would farm away from the road and not burn any vegetation.
The logging concession reaped immense profit, but destroyed our forest
lands. With the decline of our forest, the Subanen culture was also degraded.
When the logging concessions ended, the West Zamboanga Peninsula

Subanen Association Inc. (WEZPESAI), a non-government organization,
introduced a cattle ranch project in our area to help us improve our lives.
The project cleared and fenced about 6,000 hectares of logged-over areas
and second-growth forest. However, the promised cattle did not come and
the felled trees were just left to rot.
It was not clear what prevented the implementation of the project. It may
be because of territorial conflicts with a holder of Integrated Forest
Management Agreement (IFMA) who already got a permit over the area
intended for the cattle ranch. The IFMA started its operations in the area
in the 90s, harvesting our naturally-growing timber, including some
century-old trees and premium species of almaciga, on which there was a
Case Stories: Tenure and Resource Use 77

ban from harvesting. We estimate that in a month, the concession had
shipped a minimum of 30,000 pieces of timber from 16,000 hectares of
forestland.
Again, we were not consulted by the government in its decision to grant

IFMA over our land. Similar to the TLA, this IFMA completely restricted
access to the lands which the Subanen traditionally owned and which the
migrants historically cultivated.
Gletaw: Community-Based Forest Management

After the cessation of logging in 1992, a chance to gain legal access to our
forestlands came with the introduction of the Integrated Social Forestry
Program (ISFP). ISFP provided some light for hope, a light similar to the
first appearance of the moon, gletaw.
Under the ISFP, we were encouraged to individually plant trees and crops
to rehabilitate logged-over areas. We were also issued a Certificate of
Stewardship contract (CSC), a tenurial instrument granted by the
government that recognizes our right to utilize a piece of land for 25 years
but with the responsibility to reforest 20 per cent of the awarded area.
In 1997, DENR urged us to join the CBFM program. Hence a survey of

sitios Butin and Upper Cuyan was conducted. The villagers of sitios Butin
and Cuyan formed their own organizations, and registered them with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the names Butin Subanen
Association and Upper Cuyan Tribal Farmers Association, respectively. These
organizations received their CBFM Agreements (CBFMA) in 1998. In 1999,
another group of Cuyan CSC holders were organized into the Cuyan
United Farmers Association and applied for CBFMA.
The new program presented to us seemed very promising. According to

the DENR, CBFM was the best program that the government could offer
us. We thought that this would be able to meet our expectations which were
not met by the ISFP. It provided us a clearer way to development, thus, we
likened this period to a gektu bata nulan. And so as gektu bata nulan reaches
kendawan, we can also see CBFM program at its full success.
Our drive to realize the goals of CBFM program made us more determined
to go through the difficulties of implementing it. After learning about the
complexities and high cost of preparing and seeking approval for our
documents, in 2001 we decided to form a federation joining the three
different organizations into one federated cooperative called Cuyan-Butin
Farmers’ Multi-Purpose Cooperative or CBFM Coop. This hastened the
processing of necessary documents and reduced the costs, and instead of
preparing three separate documents for each of the CBFMs, we only had to
prepare one for the three organizations. Still, it was a costly and complex
process.

After the documents were submitted and permits were issued, we started
to reap the benefits of the CBFM program. Our moon started to reach
kendawan or become full. One of the biggest benefits we received from the
project is the security of tenure over the lands we historically and
traditionally owned. It gave us some rights and authority to benefit from
our land.
Kendawan: Reaping the benefits

Our CBFM project has kept most of our natural growing trees intact and
increased our awareness of the benefits of protecting them. At present,
about 150 hectares of forest are allotted for protection. Thus resource
extraction and kaingin (slash and burn farming) are strictly prohibited.
Through the project, we also received some training which improved our
capability to understand and manage our forest. We have established
nurseries which now have 6,000 mahogany, 2,000 rubber and other species
of tree seedlings. Around 50,000 seedlings of falcata and a few thousand
mahogany and rubber trees were already transplanted in the production
areas.
It is also through these programs that the local government units (LGUs)
noticed us and led them to provide us with infrastructure such as our tribal
hall and school building. Our potable water supply has also improved
through them. They also assisted us in establishing nurseries and in repairing
our farm-to-market road.
The CBFM program has improved our sense of community. The series of
meetings and training activities strengthened our unity and improved
collaboration among migrants and Subanen CBFM cooperative members.
We have also gained income from harvesting planted trees such as falcata,
mahogany and gmelina but this was cut short as our Resource Use Permit
(RUP) was suspended a few years after it was issued to us.
The suspension of our RUP and its eventual cancellation can be likened to
nga gilen when after gaining benefits, our hope was slowly taken away
with the cessation of our harvesting operations. The suspension was
eventually lifted in two regions in Mindanao but the suspension order
excluded our area. For us, it became a very dark period, with everything
including our hopes for a better future was taken away from us. CBFM
has lit us with hope but has now left us in darkness.
Nga Nilem: RUP suspension

It was in September 2001 when we were first awarded the right to utilize
timber resources with the approval of our RUP. The community engaged
in cutting planted trees to generate income for the cooperative and the

community members. However, in October 2001, even before we could
gain profit from the felled tress, our RUP was suspended. This posed a
major drawback to the cooperative because we had already spent large
amounts of money in processing documents and acquiring permits which
the DENR had now arbitrarily cancelled. In addition, we had already
spent the money we loaned which we were now unable to pay back.
According to the DENR, we violated some implementing rules of the

CBFM program and were now required to apply for new RUP. Upon
submission of RUP application, we engaged in many dialogues and appeals,
including the presentation of our issues in a national CBFM consultation
to hasten the release of the RUP. Again, this was a very costly process. This
made us more indebted to investors and middle agencies.
In May 2002, the DENR heeded our appeal as a result of our unrelenting
efforts. Timber utilization resumed that year. However, in December 2004,
due to a storm that caused a terrible landslide in Luzon, the national
government through the DENR stopped all logging activities and suspended
all RUPs issued to CBFMA holders across the country. The suspension
came when we had already harvested a big number of trees. These trees
were left rotting in our lands. We had been trying so hard to regain our
right to utilize our resources because we still had debts to pay, expecting
the payments to come from the proceeds of our timber utilization. Because
of the cancellation of our RUP and our indebtedness, no financier would
trust us anymore. We have also lost the possibility of acquiring future financial
support in any ventures that the cooperative will undertake.
The suspension of the RUP has developed many ill effects. First, it is an
indication of the failure of the CBFM program as a whole. Its entire objective
was no longer achievable due to the inability of the program to address
poverty in the uplands. It could not uplift the life of the community without
providing opportunity to earn from legal wood utilization. During the times
when we depended on farming and when we were still allowed to cut trees,
we could provide meals for our families thrice a day. But today, after the
suspension, we could only afford to have one meal a day.
To survive, some of us have gone back to practicing kaingin. A few months

ago, two CBFM cooperative members were apprehended and sent to jail
by the DENR for violating forest management laws. It is a question to us
why these farmers were jailed despite being the rightful owners of the
land. Besides, these farmers would not resort to kaingin had they been
allowed to continue to earn a living from legal harvesting of wood, or had
they been allowed to keep their source of livelihood.
We feel that there has been a clear injustice. Those who destroy the forest
like our neighboring IFMA is not reprimanded by the DENR but those
who till a denuded land in order to survive are easily put to jail. Does this
IFMA holder have strong influence within the DENR?

The suspension of the RUP curtailed the community’s opportunity to be
given the same rights enjoyed by the big companies that now benefit
from the forestlands and its resources. The log ban did not actually stop
the cutting of trees. Instead, it created more forest destruction because
some community members who had lost hope of gaining income from
the trees they planted chose to cut and burn all the trees and replant it
with crops that will quickly generate income. Moreover, illegal logging
activities increased. Community members, who think that they will never
be able to get the approval of the DENR to legally utilize tree plantations,
are now doing it illegally for their survival.
It is very disheartening to see our felled trees left rotting which could
have been turned into cash to buy food and feed our families. Amidst
these wasted felled trees, burnt plantations and illegal logging, we just
cannot understand the rationale of the suspension of logging.
Why is it so easy for the government to cancel the right of a poor community
to use their forest resources and prioritize instead wealthy companies which
are also human rights violators, environment destroyers and illegal loggers?
Gektu gulan gulan: IFMA’s continuing threat

To further aggravate our impoverished situation, the IFMA holder is illegally
encroaching on our CBFM area. Although our area is also known as a
“hotspot” due to the threat of armed groups like the Abu Sayyaf and the
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), we view the IFMA owners as a
greater threat. The IFMA owners have employed armed units to scare or
kill us all. In fact, we already have had many sad experiences with this
company.
The owners of IFMA have been threatening and terrorizing us by forcibly

grabbing our land. To date, they have successfully seized at least 30 hectares
from various CSC holders for the expansion of their IFMA. The local
government unit and our organization are helpless and cannot stop their
oppressive acts because they are so powerful. They have the gold, guns,
goons and lawyers and they even have the DENR to back them up.
In the past, the DENR conducted boundary surveys to resolve the issue of
encroachment of IFMA holders into the CBFM area. Because of this, IFMA
holders withdrew from the contested area. After a month, however, they
burned our crops and farmhouses because they are interested in the mineral
deposits in some parts of our lands.
The landgrabbing attempts of IFMA holders have pressured some

community members to abandon the CBFM area. When that happens, the
whole CBFM area will be taken over by IFMA unless the DENR and the
LGU act on it. They might be forced to take some unlawful action including
joining or forming yet another rebel group.

Gepuus: Threat from large-scale mining
Commercial mining in the area started in the 1980s. It used to be a small-
scale gold mining enterprise among Subanen and migrant residents who
used to work in the logging company. Gold was first discovered in the mid-
1980s in a site adjacent to our CBFM project. After some time, the miners
started expanding and explored around Mt. Canatuan, the traditional
burial ground of the Subanen. In 1989, as mining activities intensified,
Toronto Ventures, Inc. (TVI) took control over the area, including some
areas within the CBFM. We fear TVI because it is a very powerful company
and it is as threatening as IFMA. They have their own company guards,
money, lawyers and influence in government.
TVI and IFMA are extending their control over some areas where there
is potential for mining, creating serious threats on us, especially among
the Subanen. They have degraded Subanen culture and violated their
rights as indigenous people. TVI has bulldozed their ancestral forestlands
and destroyed the sacred mountain of Canatuan.
Recommendations
In our few years of implementing CBFM, we can say that it is a promising
program for it has initiated changes in the approaches to forest management.
With our involvement, and with the DENR and LGU as our partners, its
goals are achievable. But this is possible only if our partners will work
painstakingly toward that goal. We hope that the government, through the
DENR and the LGU, will be on our side in our fight for a real community-
managed forest. Thus, the government has to serve the interests of 800
CBFM families who are the rightful owners of the forest over the few
commercial miners and IFMA holders.
Lift the log ban. If the log ban was intended for resource conservation, it
did not live up to what it was intended for. The log ban pushed the owners
to burn their plantations and re-plant them with vegetable crops.
Furthermore, illegal logging increased because some residents would cut
trees illegally in order to survive. It is very sad that we had to spend for
the costly processing of documents and permits which the government
can arbitrarily cancel. We were not even compensated for the damages
and inconveniences it created. The government has to allow us to continue
utilizing our forest; otherwise they must compensate us for our lost
investments.
Promote small-scale mining. As an alternative source of livelihood, we would

like to recommend a small-scale mining project in our CBFM area even
though we still have fears that this would also be grabbed by huge mining
companies like TVI. But with substantial financial capital and a binding
agreement among the DENR, LGU and our federation, TVI or other
interested groups cannot easily lay claim to the area.

Cancel IFMA and large-scale mining. The oppression we are experiencing
with IFMA and large-scale mining still exists today. Their presence is still
a threat to our security and our livelihood and management of forestland.
Their destructive commercial activities have even crossed the CBFM
boundary. More than anything else, they have committed an injustice to
us. The DENR should mediate between us to discuss and settle all the
issues. Better yet, their permits should be cancelled outright if the
government is determined to protect our forest resources and improve
the lives of poor communities.
Ensure local DENR flexibility. Most of our community members think that
the DENR favors IFMA more than CBFM because we see more rules in
favor of IFMA. Nevertheless, we also have good experiences with the DENR
since it has assisted us and tried to be flexible with some rules to turn the
complicated CBFM into a simpler and less costly procedure.
Introduce CADT . Subanen were satisfied with the current tenurial

instrument until they heard of the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
(CADT) awarded to a nearby indigenous group. The continuing threat of
IFMA and large-scale mining could only be countered by a more permanent
tenure like CADT. We hope that the government including local and
national agencies could assist us in our application for CADT.

A CBFM without Resource Use Permit:
The Case of RINPAFADECO of General Nakar, Quezon
by Generosa J. Juino and Andres Marquez
Generosa Juino and Andres Marquez are members of the Real, Infanta, Nakar, Polilio Aqua-Fori Agricultural
Development and Multi-Purpose Cooperative (RINPAFADECO) based in General Nakar, Quezon.
Introduction
We used to belong to an organization that strongly espouses meaningful
changes in the economic, political and social situations in our society.
Knowing that we are responsible for the changes that we wish to make
eventually became the impetus for the formation of Real-Infanta-Nakar-
Polilio-Aqua-Fori Agricultural Development Multi-Purpose Cooperative
(RINPAFADECO). RINPAFADECO was formed in 1996 as a cooperative to
help raise environmental awareness as well as provide income and participate
in the development of our community.
Our cooperative initiated the establishment of a model multi-crop nursery

where knowledge in plant propagation is shared among members and where
seedlings are primarily sold to members at a fair price. These projects started
even before we adopted the Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM)
program in 1998.
Sometime that year, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(DENR) invited us to join the CBFM program. We did not hesitate to join
and soon we found ourselves preparing the documents needed to make us
part of the program.
Our 500-hectare CBFMA area is located in Barangay Canaway, General

Nakar, Quezon. For commercial timber companies, the area may be too
small, but for us this is just enough to develop the area and process our
own products.
RINPAFADECO used to have 37 regular cooperative members from seven

towns. But with our involvement in the CBFM program, membership has
grown to 202. Majority are families living near the CBFM site.
What CBFM means to us

For us, the CBFM program brings us closer to our belief that trees are
sources of life. Without trees, life will stop because clean and fresh air will
no longer be available. It forms part of our survival and environmental
sustainability. The program is a very important link to this belief. Hence, it
is important to protect trees and its surrounding community to be able to
provide us with a source of living and ensure the survival of our children
and our children’s children.

Protecting the CBFM area is our responsibility. We have no formal security
measures or paid security personnel to ensure the area’s protection. All we
have are fellow members close to the area who conduct regular monitoring.
We also engage in public awareness activities like posting signs within the
site as well as nearby villages. We engage in continuous discussion among
fellow residents on the principles of forest protection. We also issue regular
statements reminding people that they will be arrested if they violate forest
regulations and rules. This is despite the fact that we are not authorized to
perform arresting activities even if we attended the two-week training on
deputization conducted by the DENR. Arresting timber poachers is difficult
because we have no official document to show our authority.
We acknowledge that the only way the forest will continue to provide a
source of livelihood for us is to manage it in a sustainable manner. Our high
regard for the sustainable use and management of our forests is reflected in
our resource utilization plan. We never give in despite our economic
difficulties and big lure of bribes by big capitalists and politicians in exchange
for their access to our CBFM area. An example of this was the offer made by
the staff of one of the capitalists here in Infanta to provide us with machinery
for forest product gathering if we allow cutting trees within our CBFM
area. Another one was the offer made by the DENR to enter into a contract
with a local furniture maker in exchange for our permission to cut trees.
Seven years have already passed since we became a partner organization of

this program but until now, we have not yet benefited from it. It seems that
the hard work, time and money that we spent in preparing the requirements
were not enough to realize the goals of the program. It also seems that our
sincerity to protect the area despite our economic hardship is not enough
to convince government to entrust stewardship of resources to us. We have
demonstrated enough proof to show that we are capable of sustainably
managing the forest. We do not understand why until now our resource
use permit (RUP) has not been issued.
Our RUP
We have already prepared three resource utilization plans since we became
part of the program. The plan is a requirement for securing the
environmental compliance certificate (ECC) and for allowing us to use the
resources through the RUP that the DENR will issue. But so far, all we have
obtained was the affirmation of our plan by the DENR at the provincial
level until the DENR secretary cancelled RUPs all over the country in 2004.
We do not understand the rationale behind the suspension just on the basis
of some groups in Mindanao who subverted the essence of the CBFM
program by cutting trees using heavy machineries. Why were we affected
with something that we were not party to?
We have spent much effort in the preparation of our plan not only because
it will be the basis for the approval of our RUP but also it mirrors our
understanding of our resources and how these will be managed. It contains

the location of the trees and indicates where we can only cut, which trees
to cut, and the responsibilities entailed during and after cutting. For us, it
is not wrong to cut trees for as long as the tree is matured and ready for
cutting.
We also have already laid out our plans on how to utilize sustainably the
resources and how to involve as much people as possible for them to benefit
from CBFM. In fact, we have received monetary support from local
government units (LGUs) and our Congress representative because they
believe in our forest management project. The money was used to put up a
woodshop for woodcraft and furniture production and purchase equipment
such as band saw, table planer, circular saw, electric drill, wood trimmer,
and router machine. We also have reached an agreement with the Forest
Products Research Institute (FPRDI) who will put up a kiln drying facility
and train us on various wood processing and treatment. Partnerships for
market access and training have been arranged with a wood furniture and
novelty products maker and exporter from Pakil, Laguna. All these have
been rendered useless with the suspension of RUP.
At present, there is a two-month lifting on the suspension of RUPs to utilize

trees damaged by the flashfloods in November 2004. It temporarily helped
the people earn a living from charcoal making and furniture production.
But for us, this arrangement is only for a short term. RINPAFADECO has
no capital for charcoal making and transport and the two-month period
is too short to enter into woodcrafts making. Therefore, it is mainly those
who have the capital who will benefit from this.
In effect, this is actually a no-win situation for us. If we apply for RUP to use
drift logs, the DENR might say that we do not need another RUP to use
our forest because we can access outside the CBFM area anyway. But if we
do not, we will probably die first before the RUP for our CBFM area is
granted.
In our opinion, even if there is RUP suspension, utilization of forest products

in the forms of charcoal, woodcrafts, furniture and lumber remains
unabated. In reality, those who never participate in the protection program
benefit the most from forest resources. We have actually never benefited
from it. Still, we are hoping that one day our RUP will be approved.
The illegal that is legal that is illegal

The landslide and flash flood in November 2004 that resulted in the loss of
many lives and destruction of millions of properties is the product of harmful
human activities. Although scientists say that the main culprit was the
tremendous volume of water that flowed for four consecutive days, we also
believe that if our lands were covered with thick forests and if tributaries
remained deep and not clogged, the destruction could have been minimized.
Dense trees could have slowed down the impact of water flowing down
from the mountains.

Until now we still feel like survivors and we are constantly reminded by
the backlash of the environment. Often we find ourselves frustrated by
the indiscriminate use of our resources. We start to think about the policies
of the DENR and the way these are enforced. Is the problem the policies
or the enforcement of such?
We identify our community with the sectors of society that are directly
dependent on forest products. It becomes complicated when people begin
to participate in activities that concern only the current use of resources
without thinking about the future. This becomes even more complicated
when capitalists extract for greater profits at the expense of the environment.
Like the Dumagats (indigenous people living adjacent to the CBFM area),
we also depend on forest products for subsistence. We depend on traditional
activities such as charcoal making and rattan gathering as sources of living.
These activities are not harmful to the environment. However, small-scale
activities like charcoal making can have a negative effect on the environment
if trees are cut prematurely for this purpose. Large-scale logging is far more
harmful. If trees are cut without considering its location (watershed,
riverbanks) its maturity (allowed diameter and age), and provision of
replanting program, then disaster will undoubtedly follow.
There are many facets of logging and, whether it is legal or selective logging,
it could still have negative effects on the environment if not monitored.
This is when something legal becomes illegal. An example of this is the
logging concession awarded by the DENR to a lawyer from Manila. He
conducts his activities beyond the confines of his concession, cutting trees
outside his designated area so that he maintains the density of trees in his
concession and therefore shows that it still is capable for another round of
operation. Aside from cutting trees outside his area, he also buys trees from
small-scale loggers or forces them to sell their logs to him. Apparently, the
lawyer can afford to continue with his operation because maybe he has
connections or he has the money to bribe the trail of checkpoints.
The other face of illegal logging ranges from small-scale or so-called “carabao”
to large-scale logging which is equipped with heavy machinery. Small loggers
usually do not have the means to go through the red tape when applying
for permit nor could they afford the high cost of application permit. Both
owners of small- and large-scale operations pay grease money to corrupt
DENR employees and military in order to continue with their elaborate
operation. At this point, what is illegal becomes legal.
We find it funny sometimes when the government appears proud of its

policy on total log ban. For us, this is just posturing, an appearance to show
that they are concerned with the environment.
The impact of the November 2004 flashflood was minimal in our CBFM
area compared to areas without stewardship programs. This is because
people in those areas were more liberal in gathering forest products since
no one is monitoring their activities. In the CBFM area, we adhere to
selective logging or cutting of matured trees Logging should only be

performed in areas that are allowed by the government. The forest should
remain protected so that our children and their children will continue to
benefit from it. We are afraid of illegal logging because if it continues, the
time will come that perhaps the only thing we can show our children is a
picture of the trees. We have not benefited from our CBFM area but at
the moment we are assured that by protecting it, the future generation
will experience resting under the shade of trees. But we do not know
until when could we safeguard the CBFM area.
Conclusion and recommendations

Inside the CBFM program, there is protection against destructive logging
operations. CBFM is undoubtedly important because it teaches us to take
care of our resources and to manage it in a sustainable manner. In our
opinion, CBFM has the potential to address socio-economic progress. Hence,
we are faithful to our resource use plans because it assures us that even if we
harvest the trees that are ready for cutting, it will not have negative effects
on the environment.
But it will only become possible if the government remains true to its
pronouncements. What is the meaning of our participation if we are only
treated as community-based security personnel? There is no holistic forest
management there but only forest protection. If the government means
business, then they should fulfill their responsibilities by deputizing and
providing us with alternative sources of income by giving us the right to
utilize the forestlands we are protecting. We want our RUP released because
we are ready to implement the CBFM program. We have funds, equipment,
and networks but not RUP.
In the end, the CBFM program will be meaningful to us if the government

grants us our right to manage our resources and if we benefit from our
efforts in protecting the CBFM site. At the same time, the program will
help in the protection of our environment and will prevent us from going
to the mountains and take the struggle into our own hands.

Resource Use Permit:
Lifeblood of Community-Based Forest Management
by Oscar R. Oñate
Oscar R. Oñate is vice president of the National CBFM PO Federation and president of Region II CBFM PO
Federation – QUISAVIZCA Confederation of Forest Protectors and Developers, Inc. based in Casambalangan,
Sta. Ana, Cagayan.
Introduction
Executive Order Number 263 issued on July 19, 1995 declared
Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) as the national strategy
to ensure the sustainable development of the nation’s forestland. This
executive order states that utilization of forest resources by the people’s
organizations (PO) will result in efficient and sustainable management of
the forestlands.
One PO that benefited from this policy is the Quirino, Isabela, Nueva
Vizcaya, Cagayan (QUISAVIZCA). It is a federation of all CBFMA holders
in Region 2 duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on September 17, 1999. One member is Casambalangan Rapuli Multi-
Purpose Cooperative (CARAMPCO).
RUP: lifeblood of the CBFM stakeholders

The resource use permit (RUP) is a very important component in the
success of CBFM. The utilization of forest resources by a local community
can only be made possible with the issuance of a RUP which gives legal
access to the forest resources found within their CBFM area. It is a very
crucial element for CBFM to function and to attain its desired objectives;
it is the lifeblood of CBFM projects.
In 2001, there were 10 POs in the province of Cagayan that were granted
RUPs. The RUP of CARAMPCO was issued on December 13, 2000 covering
a volume of 178,000 linear meters of rattan poles. Through its RUP,
CARAMPCO was able to conduct a series of development activities. It was
able to plant more or less 20,000 gmelina and mahogany seedlings, and
10,000 rattan seedlings. At the same time, it was also able to conduct
protection activities around their CBFM area.
Haltering growth through faulty prescriptions

The RUP of CARAMPCO expired in August 2001. However, another
annual work plan (AWP) was approved in August 2001, giving
CARAMPCO an allowable cut of 1,650 cubic meters of timber and 245
linear meters of rattan poles. Unfortunately, the approved allowable cut

was not disposed of because of the suspension order issued by the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resource Office (PENRO) of Cagayan.
On September 17, 2001, PENRO Cagayan issued a moratorium order

directing all the Community Environment and Natural Resource Offices
(CENRO) in the province to stop the processing and issuance of RUP to
CBFM Agreement (CBFMA) holders. The reason behind the suspension
was due to a reported violation of the terms and conditions.
To challenge the order, members of QUISAVIZCA presented a position

paper on September 19, 2001 questioning the authority of PENRO
Cagayan to issue such. Though it is not explicitly cited in DENR
Administrative Order (DAO) 96-29 which agency has the power to issue
and suspend RUPs, it is assumed that the CENRO has the proper authority
to issue suspensions since it is the office which issues RUPs and monitors
the CBFMAs.
In response to the position paper submitted by the members of

QUISAVIZCA, PENRO Cagayan issued another memorandum dated
September 27 addressed to the regional executive director of the DENR
upholding his prior stand that he has the authority to issue the moratorium
order. The PO in turn responded by requesting the Forestry Management
Bureau (FMB) director to resolve the issue.
PENRO Cagayan’s latest memorandum stated that one of the reasons

behind the issuance of the moratorium order is to give the CENRO of
Aparri ample time to assess the performance of the PO’s developmental
activities. Moreover, the PENRO claimed that CENRO is authorized to
issue immediate suspension of RUP without due process because of the
violation on the terms and conditions of the RUP.
To settle the seemingly never-ending clash between the two parties, a

dialogue was conducted at the DENR regional office on February 8, 2002.
It was attended by the representatives of the PO as well as key officials
from DENR headed by the FMB assistant director. The meeting finally
settled the problem and the decision was favorable to the POs. The
memorandum report of CBFM Division Chief states, “The meeting of the
DENR group reached then conclusion, among others, that PENRO of
Cagayan shall proceed with the processing and issuance of RUP.” This was
a clear victory for the POs.
The ailment behind the cure

The problem could have been avoided if provisions in the DAO are clearly
defined and stated. It is not clear in the DAO who has the authority to
issue suspensions. Secondly, the PENRO stated that the suspension could
be issued even without due process because of the violation. Clearly the
PENRO circumvented the law because the DAO distinctly stipulates that
any CBFMA holder found to have committed violations is given six (6)
months to correct and rectify its mistake.

Moreover, another reason cited for the suspension is to give ample time
for the CENRO to assess the performance of the PO’s developmental
activities. This statement strongly contradicts the CENRO’s responsibility
under DAO 2000-29 which mandates close monitoring and supervision
of the PO’s activities mentioned in their AWP/RUP. It can be concluded
then that the CENRO fell short of its duty because it could have provided
an updated assessment of the CBFM areas.
In addition, the PO discovered that the DENR has been lax in

implementing some of the DAO provisions. One, the affirmation of the
annual work plan should only be deliberated by the CENRO and through
a panel composed of different DENR levels. This delays the affirmation
of work plans. Two, most of the RUPs have no financial statements and
the DENR has not strictly enforced compliance.
Due to the expiration of its RUP and the suspension order, CARAMPCO
was unable to continue with its development activities. Some members of
the organization have become inactive while some have tepid participation.
Many of the members who relied on the CBFM for income have turned to
“five-six” lenders (loan sharks) for their daily needs.
Prescription – all must do their part

RUP is a very important ingredient of CBFMA. This is recognized in
DAO 26-29 section 1 which states that ‘The CBFM aims to promote the socio-
economic upliftment of forest communities and at the same time, achieve sustainable
development/management of forest resources. It recognizes that responsible and
efficient resource utilization by organized and empowered local communities based
on sound ecological and economic principles can result in sustainable management
of forest lands and resources. This recognition is manifested in the granting of
resource-use rights to people’s organizations under the CBFM program, otherwise
known as Resource Use Permit (RUP).’
The RUP gives the POs legal access to the forest resources found within
their CBFM area. They are given a chance to conduct different
development activities for their community members.
RUP is the lifeblood of CBFM projects. Taking away the RUP with no
justifiable cause would be very detrimental to the whole idea of CBFM.
CBFM is a national strategy; it is for the development of everyone. It is
not designed for the POs or for the DENR alone. Everyone must do their
part to be able to achieve its objectives. Failure of DENR field officers to
strictly and honestly fulfill their responsibilities should be meted necessary
sanctions. Unmerited decisions should be remedied at once to control the
larger damage they may cause.

Shall We Join th
thee CBFM Program?
by Fernando Laurel and Cesar Alarde
Fernando Laurel is president of the Farmers’ Association of Malinao Ilaya (FARAMI) and Atimonan
Livestock Association (ATLA). Cesar Alarde is the barangay captain of Ilaya, Atimonan, Quezon. Both
represent a group of Certificate of Stewardship Contract (CSC) holders.
Prelude
The resources of the forest are shared by the residents of Barangays Villa
Ilaya, Caridad Ilaya, Caridad Ibaba, Rizal, Malinao, Sta. Catalina and the
town proper of Atimonan. Because it was rich with diverse life forms, we
are not only dependent on farming for our subsistence but from wild life
and from the network of rivers that runs through it. This was our life then
until armed conflict between the government and the New People’s Army
(NPA) intensified in the early 70s which forced us to relocate in the various
low-lying communities of Atimonan.
The farm lots that we and our ancestors have cultivated for many years
are now under the government program called Integrated Social Forestry
Program (ISFP). This program gave us the right to cultivate what we used
to cultivate and what we believe already belong to us. Our right to this
land was translated into a piece of paper known as Certificate of
Stewardship Contract (CSC).
At present, we are scattered in the different barangays of Atimonan. It

seems that the only thing we have in common is that we are all CSC holders.
Our levels of understanding of the content and implementation of our
CSCs are definitely vary.
The Certificate of Stewardship Contract (CSC)

In 1983, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
conducted a survey of our forest. The department also explained that we
can till the land for free for a period of 25 years. The municipal
government of Atimonan then asked us to file and declare the sizes of our
holdings. This is contradictory from what some of us heard that under the
ISFP, we do not pay taxes for the land that we will cultivate for 25 years;
we pay only for the farm produce.
In 1987, although armed conflict in the mountains of Atimonan somewhat

ceased, not everyone returned to farm or to live there. This was because
of the presence of “lost commands” also known here as the “Dose Pares”.
These were former members of the NPA, the armed wing of the Communist
Party of the Philippines (CPP). Because of great fear of the lost commands,
we were unable to farm and manage our CSCs.

Eventually, peace and order were restored. Others returned to farm and
live near or within the area of activity while others opted not to return.
Instead, they have to commute from their current homes to their farms.
But this proved disadvantageous because of the long distance. Some
abandoned their sites and are now faced with two different situations.
Some entered into an arrangement with other farmers to till their land.
The rest were troubled by the illegal entry of migrants who steal crops
from the farm knowing that the owners do not come as often as they
would like.
While some of us have already entered into various arrangements, others

are faced with the family issue of succession. Family members have difficulty
deciding who will succeed the stewardship now that the holder in the family
is dead. More often than not, this particular issue creates a rift among siblings
or in-laws. Apparently, the lack of understanding and clear guidelines on
this issue hinder the affected parties from improving their stewardship.
Furthermore, some of us do not know how to read or understand English.

In our opinion, the contract should have been translated into Filipino. We
think that the DENR should have done this at the start of the program and
spent time explaining its content to us.
Back then, we visited the DENR office to ask for assistance but were referred
to the local government unit, only to be referred back to the DENR. The
experience was rather frustrating, which left us to think that this sharing of
responsibilities among government offices was convenient only to them.
We feel that the DENR does not fulfill its obligations to us. The contract
states that they were supposed to give us training, seedlings and other forms
of support to enable us to improve our socio-economic situation. But apart
from the awarding of CSC, no other form of support was extended to us.
The absence of security

As CSC holders, we know that we are entitled to till the land assigned to us
for 25 years. We also know that we can renew the contract for another 25
years if improvements were made on our sites. The condition is favorable to
us because we are not paying anything for the land while we continue to
benefit from it.
For many years, some of us have been reluctant to cultivate the land
awarded to us for fear that the government or influential families will take it
back. We are afraid that our lack of knowledge about the laws on property
ownership might become an opportunity for other people to grab our land.
We want an assurance that the land will remain with us even beyond 25
years.

Motivations and hesitations on CBFM program
This year, the DENR went to our communities to explain CBFM
(Community-Based Forest Management) program. We learned that like
in the previous program, we will be entitled to 25-year stewardship, which
is renewable for another 25 years if improvements were made on the
land. It appears like this is just the same program under new a name.
Nevertheless, we felt encouraged to join the CBFM program because
certain issues we have mentioned in relation to the CSCs are expected to
be addressed, especially the possible renewal of our CSCs which will expire
in 2009.
However, the CBFM program requires the formation of an organization

and preparation of several documents before awarding CBFM agreements.
This would entail financial costs and time on our part. At the moment,
the biggest stumbling block is the lack of resources.
There are many requirements for joining CBFM program but the terms
of tenure is the same. This made us reconsider our decision to join the
program. If the only major benefit we will get from the CBFM is the CSC,
why should we undergo a difficult process to obtain a benefit we already
have? Will it be worth our effort and investments when it is the DENR’s
prerogative to pull us out of the program? This is what has been happening
with the suspension of CBFMA issuances last year and the cancellation of
CBFMAs this year.
After much discernment, we realized that there could be hope under the
CBFM program. It will help us increase our income, improve our
communities and rehabilitate and protect our forests, as these are its
objectives. This would be made possible with the assistance of then DENR
and local government units (LGUs) whose roles have been spelled out in
the guidelines. In addition, we also can tap other agencies to provide
financial and training assistance to us. We are, however, cynical about the
performance and commitment of the DENR and LGUs because they have
already failed us under the ISFP.
At the back of our minds though, we cannot help but ask, if the CBFM is
said to be the last strategy of the government to protect our forest, will
there really be support? How is CBFM program going to be different
from the ISFP as far as providing assistance is concerned?

More than 20 years have passed since the DENR awarded the CSCs to us.
But since the CSCs’ issuance, the government has not provided any
assistance, not even time to explain to us the contents of the CSC. There
has hardly been any monitoring conducted by the DENR to see how we are
managing. As far as we can remember, the only intervention that came was
the initial explanation on the program before our enrolment.

We also recognize our shortcomings but more than anything else, we feel
that like some of the CSCs that have been abandoned, we too have been
abandoned.
We are hopeful that through the CBFM program we will be able to improve
our economic condition, save our forests, and develop partnership with
the DENR and LGUs which the ISFP failed to do. We recommend the
following which we feel are necessary for us and our CBFM program to
succeed in the future:
1. The CBFM program should provide pre-patent land rights and not
just stewardship. Under the current policy, the government has the
prerogative to cancel the program or any form of stewardship. There is
no guarantee that the land under one’s stewardship is for life.
2. The prospects of increasing our income are bleak until we are allowed to
harvest timber from our land. We do not have financial resources to defray
the cost of starting and sustaining a livelihood project for the community
unless the government supports us. Besides the CBFM program will not
work if utilization of timber is restricted.
3. DENR should come up with policies that will ensure protection of the
environment as well as our rights. We also expect that there will be
consultations with us as stewards because we form the other half of the
parties that will protect the environment. We recommend a policy trial where
we, the DENR and the LGUs are signatories in implementing a project
specifically suited to our needs, situation and capacities. To avoid confusions
in CBFM roles and responsibilities, we want to engage directly with the
LGUs, and the LGUS should engage directly with the DENR.
4. CBFM as well as utilization rights should now be established as a law so

that no DENR secretary can arbitrarily suspend rights and cancel CBFMAs.

Realities of Communiy-Based Forest Management
Tenure Assessment in Quirino Province
by Priscila C. Dolom and Buenaventura L. Dolom
Priscila C. Dolom is university researcher II at the Forestry Development Center (FDC), University of the
Philippines, Los Banos, Laguna. Buenaventura L. Dolom is the forests and forestlands management specialist of
the Philippine EcoGov Project in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya.
Introduction
In July 1995, the Philippine government issued Executive Order No. 263,
adopting community-based forest management (CBFM) as the national
strategy to ensure the sustainable development of the country’s forestland
resources. This policy was in response to the continuing destruction of forest
resources which was estimated at 100,000 hectares annually. It was also in
recognition of the indispensable role of local communities in forest
protection, rehabilitation, development and conservation.
The EO’s implementing rules and regulations (IRR), contained in DENR

Administrative Order (DAO) No. 96-29 and DAO No. 2004-29, guide field
implementers to the CBFM strategy. Under these regulations, all forest lands
are subjected to prior vested rights.
The nationwide implementation of CBFM is one of the strategies intended

to facilitate on-site management in open-access forestlands, guaranteeing
the long-term sustainability of our forest resources. After more than a decade
of program implementation, it is but timely to examine whether CBFM has
achieved its purpose. This paper will attempt to examine the conceptual
framework of CBFM, to analyze on-site management in CBFM areas and to
discuss ways to bridge the gap between program framework and
implementation.
The CBFM conceptual framework

The conceptual framework of CBFM is embodied in the IRR. CBFM
operates under the principles of social equity, sustainability and community
participation in forest management and biodiversity conservation. The basic
concept is that sustainable management of forest lands can be achieved
through responsible resource utilization by organized and empowered local
communities, commonly referred to as people’s organizations (POs). “People
first and sustainable forestry will follow,” appropriately captures the concept
of CBFM.
CBFM program implementation follows four stages: the preparatory stage,

PO formation and diagnostic stage, planning stage and implementation
stage. These four stages must be the guiding forces to enhance the

capabilities of people’s organizations and to empower them in planning
and implementing sustainable forest management activities.
The preparatory stage has three major objectives, namely: 1) to inform

and educate DENR officials, local government units (LGUs) and the general
public about CBFM program; 2) to establish institutional linkages between
the DENR and the LGU; and 3) to identify and delineate CBFM areas. At
this stage, CBFM areas are identified and collaborative mechanisms among
support institutions are established.
The PO formation and diagnostic stage have the following aims: 1) to

encourage participation of local communities in CBFM program; 2) to start
community organization building or strengthening; and 3) to define existing
conditions relevant for planning. Most crucial at this stage is the provision
of land tenure security through a land tenure instrument, the CBFM
Agreement (CBFMA), to qualified participants of the program.
The planning stage aims to assist the POs in preparing their community
resources management framework (CRMF) and their 5- year work plans.
The CRMF is the PO’s strategic plan for sustainable management of forest
resources. It describes the community’s visions and strategies for the
protection, rehabilitation, development and utilization of forest resources.
The last stage, which is the implementation stage, hopes to achieve the
following: 1) to enhance organizational and institutional capacities that will
make resource use and development sustainable; 2) to ensure the economic
viability of resource management activities; 3) to ensure the flow and
equitable distribution of benefits to PO members and to the larger
community; and 4) to ensure the PO’s build-up of capital for forest
management and community development projects.
Assessment of on-site CBFM in Quirino province

The basic question is whether CBFM areas are being managed effectively by
POs. The results of the tenure assessment in Quirino, as facilitated by the
Philippine Environmental Governance (EcoGov) Program, provide some
insights into the status of on-site management in CBFM sites. The EcoGov
program identified during a multi-sectoral consultation 12 criteria that
should be met for effective on-site management of tenured areas. These
include the following: 1) existence of a management plan; 2) regular budget
allocation; 3) recognition of individual property rights (IPR); 4) functional
organization; 5) forest protection and enforcement; 6) compliance to policies;
7) linkages with external institutions; 8) presence of conflict resolution
mechanisms; 9) provision of non-forest based livelihood to members; 10)
existence of formal monitoring and evaluation system; 11) forest
rehabilitation and development; and 12) participation of women in forest
management.

As presented in Table 1, the number of POs attaining preferred levels in
all criteria does not even reach half, except for one, compliance to policies
(53%). Their dismal performance is mainly in organizational-related areas
such as budget (6%), functional organization (6%) and monitoring and
evaluation (M & E) system (4%). Without sufficient regular budget, the POs
will not be able to implement forest protection activities and provide for the
maintenance and operating expenses of the organization. This situation
will render the POs non-functional which will inevitably lead to ineffective
management of CBFM sites.
Table 1. Results of PO performance rating
No. of POs per level of No. of POs

Criteria
rating (%) attaining
preferred levels
1 2 3 4 (%)
Management plan 55 29 10 6 16
Budget 53 41 6 0 6
IPR 31 41 22 6 28
Functional organization 31 51 12 6 6
Protection and enforcement 23 53 20 4 24

Compliance to policies 8 39 53 0 53
Monitoring and Evaluation 41 45 10 4 4
(M and E) system
Livelihood 61 6 33 0 33
Conflict resolution 31 41 10 18 18
Linkages 24 47 29 0 29
Forest rehabilitation and 29 53 16 2 18

development
Participation of women 14 55 20 10 30
Source: Tenure assessment report, EcoGov 2, Northern Luzon, October, 2005
A significant percentage (24%) has regular year-round forest protection

activities. In the past, CBFM POs accumulated forest protection funds from
forest harvesting operations but due to the cancellation of harvesting rights
under existing policies, their forest protection activities were subsequently
affected. The cancellation of harvesting rights in CBFM areas also affected
the provision of alternative livelihood to PO members. Thus, only 33% of
the POs have small-scale, non-forest based livelihood support to their
members. In terms of forest rehabilitation, while only 18% of the POs have
significant areas of production forestlands developed, a large percentage
of the POs (53%) have small-scale development of open production lands
by individual claimants and members.

The problem of not having a regular budget was exacerbated by the
frequent suspension/cancellation of timber harvesting rights, including
planted trees in CBFM sites. This policy not only cut the income for the
PO’s operations but it also buried the POs more deeply in debt because of
the preparatory costs incurred in forest inventory, surveying, securing
permits and related costs which were no longer recovered due to the
sudden suspension/cancellation. Thus, while in the past the POs were
able to set aside portions of their income from timber harvesting to be
used in forest protection, rehabilitation, and livelihood, most of them could
no longer undertake these activities due to lack of funds.
The results of the assessment are quite disturbing. The basic concept behind
CBFM is that by providing land tenure security through the CBFMA, POs
will be motivated to sustainably manage allocated forestlands. Unfortunately,
CBFM sites are poorly managed. Conversely, the CBFMA failed to provide
enough incentives. A wide gap exists between the concept of CBFM as
provided in existing policies and its practice in the field.
How then do we close the gap? In searching for solutions, we have to examine
current realities of local communities for whom the management of
forestlands have been entrusted by the government under the CBFM. The
government has to recognize the following:
a. Local communities are already utilizing forest resources. They cannot

be ignored in forest management because whether we like it or not,
their daily decisions affect our forests. Unless the government provides
the resources necessary to strictly enforce forestry laws, there is no
option but to involve them in forest management and provide the
policy environment that will motivate them to sustainably manage
forestlands;
b. Local communities have very limited management capabilities and
resources. From the very start, they have no financial resources and
have limited technical and management skills. The only resource that
they have is labor;
c. Some communities have existing practices and institutional
arrangements, which can be enhanced to promote sustainable
management of forest resources; and
d. There are many stakeholders of forestlands who can provide support
services to POs.
Recommendations
Based on the results of the tenure assessment in selected CBFM areas in
Quirino Province, the following are hereby recommended:
1. Ensure a stable policy environment that guarantees sufficient incentives

to gain benefits from sustainable forest management.
The CBFM strategy is based on incentive system and not on strict

enforcement. The strategy, through the CBFM agreement as the land

tenure instrument, is supposed to guarantee a bundle of rights to the
tenure holders so that they will be encouraged to effectively manage the
allocated forestlands. However, the assessment seems to indicate that
existing policies do not provide such guarantees under the CBFMA. POs
frequently complain about suspension of harvesting rights even for
planted trees and several requirements needed to secure cutting and
transport permits for forest products. This situation creates disincentives
for local communities to protect forest resources since they are not assured
of the benefits from forest protection activities. This also creates an
environment conducive to corruption as expressed by POs in various fora.
To implement the CBFMA, it is necessary to stabilize the policy environment

in CBFM through legislation that highlights the following:
a. Deregulation of the harvesting of planted trees. Tree plantation

development requires investments. As such, investors should be given
the right to recover and benefit from their investments. Deregulation
will eliminate unnecessary transaction costs and attract investors in
tree plantation, including local community members, since they can
freely harvest and sell their products like agricultural crops.
b. Regulate harvesting of wood and non-wood forest products in
designated production forests geared for personal and community
requirements, and build-up capital for non forest–based alternative
livelihood, forest protection and organizational strengthening. Forest
products harvesting in natural forests should be linked to the
subsistence system of communities and to specific community projects
or activities, and not as direct commercial source of income for
individual members of POs.
c. Immediate/automatic deputation of PO officers upon issuance of the
CBFMA and submission of the list of officers.
d. Amendment of some provisions of the CBFM IRR, particularly on
the standard CBFM agreement. Other templates of CBFMA must be
provided to reflect diverse situations requiring different management
systems based on the community’s use of the forests.
The focus on timber harvesting is very evident in CBFM areas. If one

examines the CRMF and the five-year work plans of POs, timber/forest
products harvesting/utilization is much emphasized. However, in many
areas, people do realize the importance of forests in terms of providing a
continuous supply of water for domestic use and for irrigation purposes.
Yet this is rarely reflected in the CRMFs much less in the work plans.
Aside from forest utilization, forest protection, rehabilitation and

development are also given focus in the CRMF/five-year work plan. The
community and individual needs and interests are relegated to the sideline.
Thus the plan reflects more of the perspective of the DENR than those of
the local community. Community participation in plan implementation
becomes difficult without external funding. It might result in over-
dependence on donor assistance. In turn, dependence does not encourage
POs to examine their own organization and to look at innovative sources of
funds (such as membership dues, volunteer labor for forest protection,

collaborative activities with the barangay council and the municipal LGU,
etc.) to implement their plans.
The emphasis on tenure issuance also adds to the confusion on

understanding the purpose behind CBFM. As practiced in the field, PO
formation is generally oriented towards being able to secure CBFMA. This
is misleading. Community organizing must go beyond tenure issuance.
2. Provide adequate technical assistance to POs
Because of their inherent management and financial limitations, POs will

require more technical assistance from support institutions like the DENR,
local government units and the NGOs to be able to effectively manage CBFM
areas. Apart from the technical assistance, support institutions should have
the right perspective and capabilities. The assessment points to the fact that
field implementers have not gone out of the traditional fields of forestry:
regulation, reforestation, utilization and conservation. If CBFM is to succeed
in placing effective on-site management by communities, the right
institutional support must be afforded to organized local communities.
From the very start, it is necessary that the DENR field personnel and LGUs
undergo reorientation on the CBFM concept, principles, objectives and
processes.
3. Form multi-sectoral bodies such as Municipal Environment and Natural

Resources Council (MENRC), Multisectoral Forest Protection Committee
(MFPC), CBFM Council or similar bodies as formal venue for collaboration
and support to POs.
Due to the varied assistance needed by POs, stakeholders establish and

strengthen formal venues for collaboration among national agencies, civil
society organizations, LGUs, academic institutions and other relevant
institutions. CBFM councils and similar bodies appropriate in the locality
may be organized. For POs to significantly participate in these bodies/
organizations, the POs will require further strengthening and capability
building.
The role of LGUs should also be expanded by entrusting to them more

forest management functions such as the processing of permits and
monitoring the performance of tenure holders.
Summary
CBFM has been adopted by the Philippine government as the national
strategy to promote sustainable forest management. The basic concept
behind CBFM is that sustainable forest management will be achieved through
responsible resource utilization by organized and empowered local
communities or people’s organizations. Ultimately, by providing land tenure
security through the CBFM agreement, POs will have the incentive to
effectively manage allocated forestlands.

An assessment of tenure holders in Quirino province, however, indicates
that CBFM areas are poorly managed. The CBFM agreement does not
provide adequate guarantee that the POs will enjoy the incentives provided
in the CBFMA since CBFM-related policies keep on changing and often
restrict the bundle of rights provided in the land tenure instrument. This
has created disincentives to local communities, resulting in ineffective
management of CBFM sites. Aggravating the situation is the inadequate
technical assistance given to POs, who from the very start have limited
financial and management capabilities. Institutional support mechanisms
as well as formal venues for multi-sectoral linkages and collaboration are
also insufficient.
To close the gap between CBFM concept and practice, it is necessary to

address the said issues and concerns. The following measures are therefore
proposed:
a. Stabilize the policy environment in CBFM through legislation,

highlighting key provisions that deregulate harvesting of planted tree
species and allow regulated harvesting of forest products in designated
production areas for subsistence consumption and community use,
and build up capital for forest protection, non-forest-based alternative
livelihood and organizational strengthening;
b. Provide adequate technical assistance to POs in planning and key field
implementation activities and intensify re-orientation of DENR, LGUs
and NGOs on the right perspective for community-based forest
management; and
c. Facilitate formation of multi-sectoral bodies as the formal venues for
institutional collaboration and partnerships so that adequate support
services can be provided to local communities.
References
Castillo, G. B., & Guiang, E. S. (2006). Analysis of the agregated results of
forestlands tenure assessment in 33 local government units assisted by
the Philippine environmental governance project. Draft Report.
Philippine Environmental Governance Project 2. Forest and
Forestlands Management /Sector. 31p.
DENR Administrative Order No. 96-29. Rules and regulations for the
implementation of Executive Order 263, otherwise known as the
Community-Based Forest Management strategy. DENR. Quezon City,
Philippines.
DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-29. Revised rules and regulations

for the implementation of Executive Order 263, otherwise known as
the Community-Based Forest Management strategy. DENR. Quezon
City, Philippines.

Dolom, P. C. (2002). Identification and assessment of criteria and indicators
of sustainability for community-based forest management project in
Ilagan, Isabela. PhD Dissertation, U.P. Los Banos, College, Laguna.
EcoGov 2, Northern Luzon FFM Team. (2005). Tenure allocation holder

assessment report, Quirino Province. 13p.
Executive Order No. 263. July 1995. Adopting community-based forest

management as the national strategy to ensure the sustainable
development of the country’s forest land resources and providing
mechanisms for its implementation. Malacañang, Office of the President.
Manila, Philippines.
Guiang, E. S. (2002). Resource use rights and other challenges to

susstainability in Philippine community-based forest management. A
paper presented during the IASCP Conference in June 17-21, 2002.
VIBANARA. 2005. The Truth about timber harvesting in community-based

forest management (CBFM). Linking People to Policy. IIRR-IDRC-
CRDI. 16-20p.

Conflict over Land Tenure: Community-Based
Forest Management Agreement Versus
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
by Hideki Miyakawa
Hideki Miyakawa has been working for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Japan
International Cooperation Agency (DENR-JICA) Technical Cooperation Enhancement of CBFM Program as
JICA chief advisor and policy expert since June 2004.
Introduction
From our two years of experience, we at the DENR-JICA Project for the
Enhancement of CBFM Program identified two important policy issues
seriously affecting the program; (1) the total logging ban, and (2) the
conflict over land tenure between Community-Based Forest Management
Agreement (CBFMA) and Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT).
The current logging ban prevents people’s organizations (POs) from

realizing economic investment return. We recommend that harvesting of
plantations should be allowed provided, that replacement follows within
a certain period of time.
On the other hand, the conflict over land tenure - CBFMA versus CADT
- is an emerging concern between the DENR and National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). It would severely affect CBFM projects
being implemented within the ancestral domain of indigenous peoples.
These areas should be respected as their ancestral domain and, at the
same time, regarded as essential sources of water and habitats of precious
wildlife. We have to seek the most appropriate way to satisfy both tenure
requirements.
Two issues
1. The total logging ban
The current logging ban was implemented in the wake of three consecutive
typhoons which hit Central Luzon in November 2004. They caused large-
scale flooding which claimed 488 lives. Such flooding was attributed to
over logging and illegal logging,
In the memoranda issued by the DENR Secretary dated December 8 and

14, 2004, logging permits and transportation of logs from Quezon and
Aurora Provinces were cancelled. The ban covered both natural forests
and tree plantations on both public and private lands. In other provinces,
the suspension covered both natural forests and plantations growing on
public lands as well as natural forests on private lands. The suspension

was intended to stay in effect until the completion of comprehensive review
of relevant policies. In another memorandum dated March 7, 2005,
suspension was lifted in both Regions 11 and 13 due to the strong clamor
of various stakeholders in the area.
Economic impact of total logging ban on CBFM-POs
This swift and unforeseen logging suspension order inflicted serious

economic damage to many POs as shown in the following examples:
a. Based on the evaluation conducted by DENR in early 2005, 16 POs in

6 regions were affected by the suspension on log transportation. These
affected POs requested clearance to transport and dispose of their
existing timber stock harvested before the issuance of the first two
memoranda. The total volume of said timber stock amounted to 12,490
cubic meters. According to the second memorandum, the movement
of logs harvested before December 8, 2005 shall be allowed only after
proper inventory and upon clearance by the DENR Secretary. Out of
the 12,490 cubic meters, only 206 cubic meters requested by one PO
was granted the clearance to transport.
b. Our field reviews identified several POs affected by the suspension on

log transportation. A certain PO in Biliran Province had gmelina
(Gmelina arborea) and acacia (Acacia mangium) plantations established
15 years ago through funds from the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
They obtained the resource use permit (RUP) from DENR in
September 2003. The PO then concluded the selling contract with a
buyer in June 2004. Out of 6,500 cubic meters, the total harvestable
volume approved by the RUP, the PO harvested 739 cubic meters of
logs in July 2004. The PO scheduled delivery to the buyer in October
2004 but this was cancelled due to the buyer’s lack of documents. The
PO requested the Regional Office for reconsideration of the
suspension. The DENR Secretary granted the request in his
memorandum dated September 21, 2005. However, out of the 739
cubic meters, only about 33 cubic meters of logs was transported on
February 2, 2006. Unfortunately, the batch of the harvested logs had
already been reduced by nearly half due to decay and other reasons.
c. Another group of POs was affected by the logging suspension. A PO

in Leyte Province had earmarked furniture-making for the timber to
be harvested from the 90 hectares of gmelina plantation in their CBFM
site. The plantation was established 15 years ago through reforestation
contracts funded by the ADB. To purchase the necessary machines
for furniture making, they obtained a loan of P300,000 with a 3%
annual interest rate from an international donor. Moreover, they were
given training in furniture-making by a certain NGO in preparation
for the said venture.
Before the logging suspension order, this PO had completed resource

inventory and prepared the necessary documents for its RUP application
with support from CENRO. It spent P170,000 from its own funds for the

costs of the 30-day inventory and document preparation. It also acquired
an environment compliance certificate (ECC) issued on December 4, 2004
by the DENR’s Region VIII division. However, the furniture-making project
was not realized due to the sudden suspension order.
The said PO is one of the six with pending RUP applications at the time
of the imposition of the logging ban. These POs requested an exemption
from the regional office of the DENR. The said office then endorsed their
request to the central office. The Secretary ordered the regional executive
director to assess and validate their requests for exemption. The latter
recommended two POs, including said PO, for exemption. However, the
recommendation has not been implemented until now.
Basic policy on RUP in CBFM areas. Basically, POs have the rights to
harvest and market forest products in their CBFM areas in order to provide
livelihood opportunities and generate start-up resources for CBFM
activities. This is provided for under DENR Administrative Order (DAO)
No. 96-29 in which the POs are required to submit an RUP to the DENR.
The RUP serves as the permit to utilize the resources found within the
CBFMA areas.
However, DAO 96-29 does not specify the type of forest— natural forest or
plantation—in the RUP. The predecessor of DAO 96-29, DAO 99-35,
contained an amended Section 10, Article III and confined the permit to
plantations only. This is consistent with the Secretary’s memoranda dated
March 7 and August 29, 2003 which confined the issuance of RUPs only for
plantations and non-timber forest products. For natural forests in CBFM
areas, all the existing RUPs were cancelled and no new RUP was issued. It
should be noted that harvesting trees from natural forests was prohibited
even before the current logging ban.
2. The conflict over land tenure - CBFMA versus CADT
Our DENR-JICA project selected Barangay Sapang Bato in Angeles City,

Pampanga as one of the model sites. The PO in the area is composed of 220
members of the Aeta tribe. A CBFMA was issued in 1998 and around 2,000
hectares of plantation and agroforestry were covered through the Forestry
Sector Project (1998 – 2003) funded by the Japan Bank of International
Cooperation (JBIC).
However, we could not initiate project activities in the model site due to the
arguments against the memorandum of agreement entered into by the
DENR, Clark Development Corporation (CDC) and National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). NCIP Region 3 had raised a question about
the future of land tenure on the said CBFMA area. This was in connection
with their plan to expand the adjacent Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim
(CADC) area to twice as large as the current size, which will cover a portion
of the said CBFMA area. Finally, all the areas were to be converted into
CADT.

CADC is a certificate issued by the DENR to an indigenous community
declaring and recognizing their claims over their ancestral domains as
identified and delineated under DAO 93-02. On the other hand, CADT is
a title issued by the government following the recommendation from
NCIP to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples over their ancestral
domains in accordance with Republic Act 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. In view of the issuance of said act, the processing
and issuance of CADC s were stopped under DENR Memorandum Order
98-15.
The conflict lies in the different forms of land tenure or titles issued on the
same lands. There is no problem with CBFMA and CADC because both can
exist on the same lands as expressed by DAO 96-29. A new CBFMA can be
issued within an existing CADC area upon the request of CADC holders.
This type of CBFMA is named CADC-CBFMA, although instances of these
are quite rare.
However, it is a different question whether CBFMA is compatible with CADT.

Compared with CBFMA and CADC which are issued by DENR, CADT is
issued by the government as recommended by NCIP. CADT areas are
classified as alienable and disposable lands, or private lands. Furthermore,
NCIP adopted a new policy that CADT will replace the existing CADC.
According to the NCIP Order of 2003, new CADTs can be issued but not
CADCs and all existing CADCs are to be converted into CADT.
In Sapang Bato model site, three out of four sitios comprising the PO have
formulated resolutions stating their willingness to join the CBFMA project.
However, the said PO seems to have a strong intention to convert into CADT.
At present, there is no clear policy defining the relationship between CBFMA
and CADT. The DENR and NCIP are still in the process of finalizing a joint
administrative order which aims to harmonize all ancestral domain-related
policies and in turn, address existing issues. The proposed project in Sapang
Bato is awaiting approval in Malacañang due to incomplete documents.
To solve the problems, the DENR’s Region 3 office and the regional NCIP
set up a joint technical working group. The group met once for discussion.
Recommendations
1. Total logging ban
a. A logging ban for natural forests is appropriate.
Natural forests should be conserved because they function as important

watersheds, precious habitats for wildlife, and venues for biodiversity
conservation. For this reason, timber harvesting for production
purposes should never be allowed. A logging ban for natural forests
in CBFM was already enforced by the DENR in 2003. The imposition
of the logging ban in this category could be applied to the POs with
traditional sustainable forest management systems such as Muyong,
Saguday and Ikalahan.

b. A logging ban for plantations should be reconsidered.
Forest plantations are different from natural forests in terms of their

ecosystem and forest management system. Natural forests consist
of indigenous and slow-growing tree species which are grown
through natural regeneration mechanisms with minimum labor and
financial inputs. On the other hand, plantations consist of exotic
and fast growing tree species with certain amounts of labor and
financial inputs for planting and maintenance.
Consequently,
a. Plantations are more easily replaced with new trees after harvesting
than natural forests.
b. Healthy and productive plantations should be maintained through
replacement of generations after selective cutting or clear cutting.
c. Plantations in CBFM areas are established and maintained by CBFM-
POs’ own labor and funds.
d. The main purpose of plantation establishment is to profit financially
from the future harvesting of planted trees. Environmental protection
is not a priority except for few cases highlighting environmental
protection.
Based on these considerations, harvesting of plantations should be allowed,

provided the replacement of new plantations follows within a certain period
of years. In other countries, a logging ban is also implemented but with
certain considerations. For instance, a report by the Food and Agriculture
Office (FAO) in 2001 shows that logging bans in five countries- China,
Thailand, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and New Zealand- are restricted to merely
natural forests on public lands. There is no reported case of logging ban
targeting plantations among these countries.
2. Conflict over land tenure – CBFMA versus CADT
CADC and Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) areas cover 2.5
million hectares and these may increase if all land claims of indigenous
peoples, which are estimated at 6 million hectares, are recognized as ancestral
domains in the future. These areas are often situated in and around
important watersheds in the uplands. The areas should be respected as
their ancestral domains and, at the same time, regarded as essential sources
of water and important habitats of wildlife. Watershed management and
wildlife conservation are the DENR’s responsibility.
DAO 96-29 allows the issuance of CBFMA within ancestral domains with
CADC, where indigenous POs enjoy their rights as well as the government’s
support. However, there are no government orders addressing issues
between CBFMA and CADT.
CADT areas are classified not as public but private lands. However, they
constitute essential parts of forests as watersheds and homes to wildlife. We
have to find the most appropriate way to satisfy both requirements of CADC
and CADT.

The Joint DENR-NCIP Memorandum Circular 2003-01 refers to
harmonization of the IPRA and environment and natural resources (ENR)
laws and policies. It is an urgent task to strengthen collaboration between
the DENR and NCIP and to establish a mechanism to provide joint support
to the indigenous cultural communities with CADT. DENR and NCIP
established joint technical working groups at regional and provincial levels.
The newly-established group in Region 3 is the best example of partnership
through which we can develop policies and strategies, enabling the DENR
to provide appropriate support to indigenous POs in their CADT areas.
Conclusion
For sustainable forest and land resource management in CBFMA areas, we
have to strike a balance between conservation and utilization. POs need
investments to start activities. Their resolve to conserve natural forests and
establish plantations will be strengthened if they are allowed to harvest timber
from their plantations. On the other hand, if chances are slim for POs to
gain economic return from their plantations, they will lose their drive to
sustain the projects. From the forest ecosystem and forest management point
of view, plantations should be replaced with the next generation of trees
after certain years of rotation. Harvesting of plantations should be allowed
provided the new trees are planted within a certain period of years.
Forest resources within CADT areas are indigenous peoples’ property. At

the same time, extensive CADT areas contain important watersheds and
wildlife habitats. DENR can support indigenous peoples in achieving effective
forest management based on many years of experience and accumulation
of technology and know-how. It is essential for DENR to strengthen
collaboration with NCIP in providing effective support to the indigenous
peoples’ communities and contributing to sustainable forest management
in the Philippines.
References
DENR. (2003). Community-based forest management, policies and guidelines - A
compilation of CBFM policies and other related guidelines.
DENR. (2003). 2003 Philippine forestry statistics.
DENR-JICA project for E-CBFM program project home page. Retrieved 2005-
2006, from http://ecbfm.denr.gov.ph/
DENR-JICA Project for E-CBFM Program. (2004-2006). Treebu- Project

News Letters, No.1 -No5.
DENR-JICA Project for E-CBFM Program. (2005). For the better future of
CBFMP - A field review on 47 CBFM sites.
FAO. (2001). ASIA-PACIFIC forestry commission – Forest out of bounds: Impact

and effectiveness of logging ban in natural forests in Asia – Pacific.

Livelihood and Enterprise
CBFM: Social Program or Milking Cow?

by Rosalio Fernando, Jr. and Herminigildo Nanca
Rosalio Fernando, Jr. is the chairperson while Herminigildo Nanca is the audit and inventory committee
head of the San Roque Multi-Purpose Cooperative (SAROMCO) in Nabunturan, Compostela Valley.
Introduction
Our 670-hectare project area under the Community-Based Forest
Management (CBFM) program covers the portions of San Roque, San
Isidro, Linda and Bayabas villages in the municipality of Nabunturan,
Compostela Valley province. We belong to Region 11, one of the two
regions where commercial logging is allowed.
The members of the CBFM project are of mixed ethnicity composed of

Antiquenios, Cebuanos and Misamisnon, and other migrants who are
former workers of a logging company that operated in the area from
1950s to 1980s. Most of us depend on farming, mainly corn and coconut,
as a source of income. Agroforest crops are also grown in our farms to
augment income. The long experience we have with logging companies
and our exposure to timber business left a significant number of
community members engaged in timber extraction and processing
activities.
Our organization, the San Roque Multi-Purpose Cooperative

(SAROMCO), was formed in 1989 and now has 26 active members. The
organization started with 22 members who participated in the 50-hectare
Community Contract Reforestation Program (CCRP) of the government
which aimed to rehabilitate the logged over and denuded upland areas.
The program provided us with P12,650 per hectare which we used to
purchase seedlings and other materials and to pay for the labor for tree
plantation establishment. Three years after, the government awarded us
a Forest Land Management Agreement (FLMA) which was eventually
converted to Community-Based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA)
in 2001.
Our experience with the logging operation

Before the entry of large-scale-commercial logging, Nabunturan was
covered with thick primary forest with few patches of swidden cultivation.
Dipterocarp trees of large diameter abounded in the area. Springs and
rivers in the area had clear and clean waters and wildlife diversity was
high. The indigenous peoples and migrants subsisted on swidden
cultivation and diverse wildlife hunting in the forest.
In 1957, a logging company that gained entry into our area through the
Timber License Agreement (TLA) started harvesting our trees and
established a network of logging roads through the forests. In the cutting
area, the company left many rejected felled trees and damaged standing
trees due to harvesting and hauling activities.
The logging company replanted the logged-over area with fast-growing

exotic species like gmelina, mahogany, falcata, and mangium. But these
would not measure up to the vast timberland they cleared. Nevertheless,
this was already considered a consolation to us and the environment.
We do not deny that we benefited from the logging operation. In fact,

the company had employed many of the villagers. However, ours were
just a tiny portion of the huge amount the logging company earned at
the expense of the environment on which we largely depended on for
our daily subsistence.
Community forestry projects

Our engagement with community forestry started in 1989 through the
CCRP. The CCRP intended to rehabilitate our denuded lands, a
responsibility that was neglected by the logging company who benefited
tremendously from the natural growing trees. We were provided with
financial assistance to carry out the planting of trees but we got
information that the amount intended for the project was higher than
what we received.
We heard from Bombo Radyo (a local radio station) that the amount was
supposedly P53,000 per hectare, while a local newspaper placed it at
P20,000 per hectare. The amount we received, however, was only P12,650
per hectare which we used to purchase expensive seedlings from DENR
personnel and their cohorts, who benefited largely from the CCRP.
Years after we established our plantations, a contract was entered into by

the DENR and Southeastern Mindanao Development Corporation
(SMDC) to help us form an organization and train us in the management
of our established plantations. The amount of the contract was P148,950
which went entirely to SMDC. After the organizing and capability building
activities of SMDC, we were awarded with FLMA.
In 1997, the DENR urged us to convert our FLMA into CBFMA. This
program, the DENR said, was “the last card of the DENR for sustainable
forest management involving local communities.” Meetings and
consultations made us believe that the CBFM would meet our aspirations.
Although the CBFMA has not been awarded yet, we requested the DENR
to assist us in the formulation of Community Resource Management
Framework (CRMF). Our desire to utilize the matured trees in the
plantation pushed us to find means that would hasten the processes of
securing necessary permits for the utilization of our plantation. As advised

by the DENR, we hired a private forester to prepare our CRMF and Annual
Work Plan (AWP). But because of the high professional fee of the forester,
we did not have enough cash to bribe the DENR to speed up the approval
of our documents which is common practice. Thus, there were delays in
the approval and release of the documents we submitted.
After a long wait, our FLMA was finally converted into CBFMA in 2001.
The approval of our CBFMA heightened collective action in the
community. Voluntary labor was provided during inventory of matured
and harvestable gmelina trees in our reforestation area. We also established
firebreaks and conducted under brushing in our plantation to make it
less susceptible to forest fires. To construct our office, we contributed three
gmelina trees from each of our lots. We borrowed P16,000 from the
Nabunturan Integrated Cooperative (NICO) to buy construction
materials. This loan, however, remains unpaid and has become a big
problem to us because it now amounts to more than P31,000.
In 2002, we negotiated with a furniture and box maker from Davao City
for a timber processing venture. This owner put up a bandsaw in our
sawmill site and spent for the processing of documents needed for its
operations. The cooperative in return would sell him a total volume of
1,500 cubic meters processed timber which until now we have not satisfied
because of low quality of harvest and limited financial capital. It was also
agreed that the bandsaw would be turned over to us as our sole property
if we have completed the volume specified.
Having reached an agreement with the business owner, we were aware

that we would again encounter problems in preparing documents and
securing approval for the Wood Processing Permit (WPP) from government
agencies, especially the DENR. Also, even though our CRMF was already
affirmed by the DENR, our AWP had not been approved yet by the local
DENR. We, nevertheless, started our sawmill operations as advised by the
local DENR office. The wood we processed came from private tree farms
as we could not harvest trees from our CBFM plantations because of the
delay in the approval of our AWP. Our operation, however, was cut short
because our business partner failed to financially sustain the operations.
We decided to enter into business with another businessman whom the

DENR introduced to us. This businessman provided financial support
and put up another bandsaw that he pulled out from another cooperative
in the neighboring village. With our new business partner, we resumed
operations while waiting for the approval of our AWP and WPP by the
DENR.
In May 2004, our long-awaited AWP that was supposed to take effect
from 2003 to 2004 was approved. We started cutting and processing
gmelina trees from our CBFM plantation. However, we were not able to
transport them as planned due to the lack of equipment and funds. Thus,
we only generated a limited income.
Case Stories: Livelihood and enterprise 113

In September 2004, SAROMCO obtained its WPP. The permit allowed us
to process 1,500 boardfeet daily. So as not to put a heavy strain on our
plantation, we made an arrangement with another CBFMA holder and
other private tree plantation owners to supply us with timber.
The WPP that was normally given to wealthy businessmen provided

SAROMCO better business opportunities. Our limited financial capital,
however, still limits the profitability of our wood business. Our cooperative
alone could not afford the costs of setting up and operating a bandsaw.
The need to improve our income from harvesting trees has forced us to
do business with middle persons despite the lopsided profit arrangement.
Benefits and impact of the CBFM program

We benefited from the CBFM program in many ways. Our CBFMA gave
us, to a certain extent, security tenure. Still, the full authority in
determining its terms remains with the DENR.
Another valuable aspect of the program is timber utilization. We benefited

from the employment and income it provided us. The cooperative also
earned from timber utilization and processing.
As mentioned, other grants, loans and services were also made available
to us through the CBFM program. Government agencies such as the
Department of Agriculture provided livelihood projects such as animal
husbandry and agroforestry, helping to generate income and answer the
daily needs of our families.
Our forests have also been managed sustainably through controlled

harvesting and selective logging. The program encouraged us to monitor
and apprehend illegal logging activities in our area. The increased
awareness of the importance of protecting the flora and fauna in our
forestlands through the CBFM program resulted in resource conservation.
Some difficulties
Since the beginning of all these social forestry programs, we were already
hopeful because of the many promises given to us by the DENR. We were
told to plant trees as these would be our source of gold for the future
where we could gain huge profit from and would make us very wealthy.
Yet through the years and with different people-oriented forestry
programs, we have remained poor. Since we have started cutting our trees
commercially, we have not profited much from this business. When our
wood products are sold, there is almost nothing left for us.
With all the difficulties we encountered in getting our papers and permits
approved and released and the minimal profit we gained from the
utilization of our plantation, we feel that we are just channels of wood
from the forest down to the market, with benefits mainly accruing to the
middle persons, big business owners and the DENR. With the current set

up, we feel that the CBFM program is not at all for us but mainly a milking
cow for the government and middle persons.
Delays
The assistance from the DENR and other government and private
organizations helped us lessen the load and complexities in preparing
our documents. However, the problem of delays in the review and approval
of papers such as WPP and AWP by the DENR was discouraging. For
example, if not for the persistence of the SAROMCO President to see the
DENR Secretary herself in her office in Manila, our WPP would not be
approved. These delays harmed our timber operations because we were
not able to implement our plan. Thus we gained less income.
Corruption
Another problem we experienced is the never-ending briberies, which

they call SOPs (standard operating procedures). Almost all the projects
and fund assistance that came to our community underwent these SOPs
that left the organization with limited financial resources to carry out the
activities.
Securing timber utilization and transport permits requires us to offer

bribes to different people in the government. These bribes are not only
for illegally harvested timber but for legal ones as well. Most of these go
to DENR and Philippine National Police (PNP) who handle the
checkpoints where our timber products have to pass through. They must
have been used to getting bribes from previous and current logging
companies who could undoubtedly afford to bribe them because of the
big investment capacity and the huge income they derive from the abundant
high value timber they harvest from the natural forest. SAROMCO has a
small business relying on our own plantations, why should we be treated
the same? Our cooperative lacks funds and even seeks financial assistance
from other organizations in order to survive. Bribes are extra expenses
which hurt our business very badly. Sometimes we are tempted to think
that it is wiser and cheaper to operate illegally because we do not have to
spend for acquiring legal documents but only for the bribes.
Lack of funds and marketing problems
The lack of substantial capital to run the whole business of timber processing
prompted us a number of times to avail for loans from the middle persons.
These middle persons lend us money with high interest rates and leave us
with no option but to sell our products at a price they dictate. We also
could not increase the price of our wood products and our sawmilling fee
as there are other legal wood dealers and illegal bandsaw operators around
us.

Recommendations
The devastating result of logging operations by the large companies is

visibly clear for us and for everyone who comes to our place. With the
introduction of social forestry projects, we were left with degraded
resources to rehabilitate, manage and protect.
Today, we are presented with CBFM that seems to be favoring us, the low-
income and long-deprived community. However, in this program are
complex application procedures and processes that no community without
financial and technical expertise could prepare and afford. This makes us
vulnerable to manipulation by DENR and middle persons who earn sure
and fixed income through different schemes, tactics and bribes.
In the beginning, all members were so interested and actively participated

in all project activities. In fact, strong cooperation from our members was
our major strength. But due to the different setbacks we have experienced,
especially delays and corruption in the processing of documents and
approval of permits, this strength started to wane, and may cause our
cooperative to fall apart. Thus, the following recommendations:
People-friendly policy
The government speaks of so many community-oriented forestry projects

but in reality, these are not community-friendly. The CBFM program has
a complex implementation procedure that requires large financial capital
and technical expertise that we do not have. Forest management programs
such as this would only benefit businessmen and technical experts. Our
community does not have enough funds to pay for all the paper
requirements, including bribes, of the CBFM program.
Efficient processing of documents and speedy approval is vital in the

implementation of plans and programs. How could we expect fast
compliance to the requirements from a less knowledgeable community
when in fact, review and approval of our permits would take years for the
DENR who are said to be experts?
We, CBFMA holders, should be treated like the vegetable growers who
deliver their produce to the market easily and without hassle. We should
not be burdened with the complicated processing of papers.
Eliminate corruption
We do not know how to end these various age-old schemes of corruption

but there are few suggestions that might help minimize its occurrence.
First is to provide the community with all necessary permits that will ensure
authentic authority over the resources used. Second is to have a check
within the ranks of DENR personnel and to provide us with dedicated

staff that will not require us bribes to approve our papers. Third is to
establish stable direct market link that will lessen our exposure to
corruption in transporting our products. Fourth, make the requirements
simple so that we do not have to hire services of technical experts to
prepare the documents for us and bribe DENR and PNP to approve and
honor our permits.
Financial support and market links
When we were about to start processing timber, the members voluntarily

contributed money as our financial capital. Because we are poor, we could
not fully finance our planned business, thus leaving us susceptible to
manipulation by middle persons and financiers who could offer assistance
but earn bigger profit than us. The loans and grants provided by different
organizations have helped but these were not enough to run our business
profitably. We need constant assistance from the government in seeking
low interest loans to improve our financial capital. This will help us earn
more and discard high interest loans and eliminate loan providers who
are also middle persons dictating the price of our products.
With substantial capital to sustain this business, more options will be

available to us in determining our market and price of our products.
Moreover, better and long-term market linkages with our cooperative
such as direct export market will help ensure our way to a profitable
business. Currently, our processed wood products are bought in a very
low price thus very low income for our workers and plantation owners.
We also think that CBFMA holders should be federated into an active

organization at the municipal and provincial levels. It would help facilitate
the attainment of a standard price of wood products and arrest illegal
sawmill operators and loggers.
Technical support
We know that the skills we have gained should be continuously improved.

Training activities on other possible profitable wood ventures would help
diversify our products and increase our income.
The DENR should assist us in the preparation of documents and in

processing them for the quick approval of documents and release of
permits. They should not send us to a private forester who charges us with
high professional fees.

The Role of Homo Sapiens in the Forests
by Pastor Delbert Rice
Pastor Delbert Rice is the research director of Kalahan Educational Foundation, Inc. based in Nueva
Vizcaya.
Before discussing the role of Homo sapiens in the forests, let me make a
few brief comments concerning population. The Philippines contains
approximately 30 million hectares of land. That figure is fixed. There will
be no significant increase in land area and there may even be a decrease.
More than a fourth of the land area should be kept functioning for
watersheds and carbon sequestration in order to keep the rest of the
ecological systems functioning. Much of the limited land area, however, is
already covered by concrete basketball courts, highways and buildings
which prevent percolation and the growth of plants. Such infrastructures
are likely to increase in the future.
The Philippines now has a population of more than 80 million people. It

is likely to reach 120 million people by the year 2015. Where are they
going to live and where will they obtain their sources of livelihood?
In the past, the government has often worked on the principle that
watersheds must be “off limits” to people. Watersheds, they say, must be
sanctuaries for wildlife where effective percolation can take place and
carbon can be sequestered. Those are the policies but they are not the
facts. People are already living in the forests and many of them were
already there before the government existed. Even if we ignore the legal
issue of who has prior rights to the forests, the mere mathematics of the
population situation prompts every thinking person to see that the
population is too great to allow a policy of exclusion.
Wild deer, birds, pigs and other fauna can live in the watershed without
damaging it. Are they more intelligent than people? Why cannot Homo
sapiens do the same? Human beings are supposed to be able to THINK.
Can they not think of ways to occupy the forests while actually improving
their ability to perform their other functions? Can they not do so without
damage to the forest, the same forest upon which they depend for a living?
Legal and intelligent means must be provided for Homo sapiens to use
their ability to think. The forests must be allowed to provide livelihood
for some of the people while still sequestering carbon, recharging the
aquifers and performing the multitude of other functions assigned to them
by the Creator.
This is the challenge which the residents of the Kalahan Reserve have
consciously confronted for over three decades. Having protected the

watersheds, they must now find ways and means of obtaining a good
livelihood for the human population while encouraging the forests to
perform their other functions.
Control and protection of resources

Before anyone willingly becomes
involved in protecting a forest, it is The Ikalahan tribe is one of several Cordillera
Tribes of Northern Luzon. Sometimes called the
necessary to settle the tenure issue.
Kalanguya, they live in the upper forested portions
For the Ikalahan, this was of the mountains. Their tribal name explicitly
accomplished through Memorandum identifies them as “natives of the forest.”
of Agreement No. 1 which established
The total Ikalahan population is approximately
the Kalahan Reserve in 1974. It 60,000. The 2,500 who reside west of Santa Fe,
continues through the Ancestral Nueva Viscaya negotiated an agreement with the
Domain Community-Based Philippine Government in 1974 on the
Management Agreement No. 1 establishment of the Kalahan Reserve. The reserve
has an area of 14,730 hectares.
signed in 1999, and through the
Certificate of Ancestral Domain The elevation within the Reserve extends from 600
Claim (CADC) signed in 1998. meters to 1717 meters above sea level. The lands
are steep, averaging about 45 degrees slope. The
rainfall rate is high, usually above 3,000 mm per
Having gotten control of the year, most of it falling between June and November
resources, the Ikalahan people although there are really no “dry” months.
worked for several years to
implement effective means of The people were originally animists with a
protective and respectful attitude toward the
protecting those resources. This took forests, an attitude which the Christian
some experimentation and a bit of missionaries were careful not to disturb. Most of
creativity but everyone agreed that it the people are now members of the Kalahan Parish
which considers all people to be stewards of God’s
was an important prerequisite to the
Creation.
development of sources of livelihood.
In the beginning, the people had a vague vision of their goal and hardly
an inkling of how to get there. Now, after more than three decades of
struggle, they affirmed the process by simply stating that Homo sapiens
must do what all other species do: find one’s own sustainable niche in
some part of the ecosystem without trying to dominate the entire system.
Simply stated, the people look for resources in the forests which they can
utilize benignly and sustainably to make a living while encouraging the
forest to continue to perform its other functions. It is a basic principle of
ecological balance and biodiversity that Homo sapiens should not limit
themselves to a single niche. Different individuals should endeavor to
utilize different niches in order to ensure the proper balance among them
all.
Wild fruit
For more than 10 years, the Ikalahan have been harvesting wild fruits
from the forests and processing them into jams, jellies and marmalades
for the metropolitan markets. The Philippine market is big enough to
consume all of their production capacity so there is no real need for them

to export to other countries. Some of the fruits which they use, such as
guavas and santol, are quite well known to the customers. Others, such as
dagwey and dikay, are completely new and it is necessary for them to
educate the customers before they can sell a significant amount. They
have found this to be more difficult than they expected. Their products
are sold under the “Mountain Fresh” brand in some of the supermarkets
in the Metro Manila area.
In some cases, they were forced to plant

additional trees or vines because the supply
The Kalahan Educational Foundation of wild fruit was limited. The farmers can
It was necessary for the Ikalahan to have
obtain a significant income from the sale of
a legal personality in order to get legal these fruits to the Kalahan Food Processing
control of their ancestral domain. They Center so there is little or no motivation
did this by registering the Kalahan for them to destroy any wild plants to replace
Educational Foundation (KEF) with the
Securities and Exchange Commission them with some kind of field crop.
(SEC) of the Philippine Government.
Through it, they have gotten control of a Just to be sure that their utilization of the
large section of their ancestral lands, resource was benign and sustainable, the
established the Kalahan Food Processing
Center, the Kalahan Academy (a High Kalahan staff actually computed how many
School), the Shalom Bible College and tons of each fruit was being produced within
several other programs for community the forests each year and compared that
welfare.
estimate with the amount of fruit which the
It is managed by a Board of Trustees Food Processing Center purchased. It was
composed of 15 tribal leaders chosen by discovered that they were using only about
themselves and employed about 40 10% of the normal production of each wild
persons, all of them tribal people, as
teachers, processors, foresters, etc.
fruit per year. It seems fair to ask the
hornbills, doves and other wildlife to allow
the Ikalahan to use 10 to 15% of their food
supply in exchange for the protection which
the Ikalahan are providing for them.
Orchids
The forests in the Kalahan Reserve have more than 250 species of wild
orchids. In the past, some of the people gathered these wild orchids and
sold them to outside buyers. This, of course, could not be maintained for
long because the supply would soon be exhausted. Orchids in the wild do
not multiply rapidly.
By using the forests as a gene bank, the Ikalahan decided to concentrate

on a few orchid plants to serve as mother plants, propagate them and sell
their offspring to local farmers to be raised in “backyard forests.” We
have a few very rare species. We are working hard to develop the proper
techniques for their propagation because they are likely to provide the
best source of income. The only factor favorable for growing is the climate.

Mushrooms
Several of the more valuable types of mushrooms demand a cool, moist

climate. Our forests provide that for us. At least one of those species,
shiitaki, commands a very high price but also prefers a substrate of either
oak or alder wood. The production of oak is very slow compared with
alder which is growing much faster than it can be used.
Lumber
Much emphasis is being placed on non-timber forest products but it is not

wise to merely let mature trees die and rot in the forest. A rotting tree
produces carbon dioxide the same as a smoke-belching car and adds to
the atmospheric problem. The best means of accomplishing good carbon
sequestration is to expedite the growth rate of the wood in the forest and
then utilize it in permanent forms such as furniture.
The Ikalahan recognized that logging is not a sustainable method of

extracting wood from the forest so they developed the Forest Improvement
Technology (FIT), which is a systematized method of culling the forest to
expedite growth. As the forests continue to develop, the Ikalahan can
obtain a significant income from the forests with the use of the FIT.
Wild meat
The Ikalahan are not yet harvesting wild meat but it is an interesting
possibility. Meat from wild deer and wild pig could definitely command a
very high price in the five star hotels of the various metropolitan areas in
the Philippines. It would not be difficult to allow such wild animals to
multiply in the forests and encourage buyers to such a specialty market. It
is being done in other places and could also be done in the Kalahan
Reserve.
Ecological jewelry
The Ikalahan are currently working on the technologies needed to

electroplate leaves and other natural products with gold or silver in order
to make jewelry. This could be done together with polishing of some of
the more attractive stones found in the river beds. They do not yet feel
capable of designing finished products but there are jewelry designers
and manufacturers in Metro Manila who could be potential markets. This
process is currently being done near Boston and could easily be done in
the Philippines. A serious problem, however, is that the chemicals needed
for the electroplating process are very toxic and if not properly disposed,
could create a serious problem.
Organic vegetable production
Limited lands within the Kalahan Reserve are being used to produce
organic vegetables. It will be much easier to do within the Reserve than in
any other place in the Philippines because no chemical fertilizers or poisons

are being released into the area. The population of natural predators is
adequate to keep any potential pests under control. There is still a need,
however, to improve the marketing system.
Swidden farming
It is not necessary to eliminate swidden farming from the list of forest

niches but people must ensure that it is sustainable. Such crops as ginger,
sweet potatoes, beans and taro can be produced in this way.
Value added to the niches
The unique contribution of Homo sapiens should be the processing of

the raw materials found within the forest ecosystem into salable or usable
products. The Ikalahan, therefore, do not want to sell guavas; they sell
jams and jellies. They do not want to sell lumber; they want to sell tables
and chairs or other finished products.
Every community has children. These children grow up and many of them
pursue college education and develop advanced skills. If the communities
would sell their raw materials to the city, the educated youth would be
enticed to follow the raw materials to the city in order to find a job. It
would be much better for the community to develop means of processing
its raw materials into finished products. The engineers, chemists,
accountants and entrepreneurs could then come home to manage such
businesses and provide educated leadership for the future of the
community.
The most valuable resource of any community is its children.
Conclusion
There is no limit to the kind and number of niches which can be developed.
The limiting factor is within the human species. Such a program requires
several things, however.
First, the forest dwellers need to have control of their resources, including
land, forest and water. Every niche requires that the forest dwellers invest
time and energy over a long period of time. Without tenure no intelligent
person will make such an investment.
Second, creative minds are needed to try to identify various flora and/or
fauna which could become sustainable resources. The Philippines is rich
in NGOs which have creative minds. Once encouraged, the local
communities usually become creative also.
Third, individuals within the communities need to develop the necessary

skills to match the identified niches. This should be the easiest problem to
solve.
Now that we have studied it, let’s do it!

Community Livelihood Assistance Special
Program: Some Insights and Lessons
by Ana Rose DF. Opeña
Ana Rose DF. Opeña is the officer-in-charge of the Networks Development Section and head
of the CLASP Management Unit, Community-Based Forest Management Division, Forest
Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
One of the thrusts and priorities of the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources (DENR) is poverty reduction through wealth creation
and improved productivity, equitable access to resources and sustainable
utilization. Wealth creation and improved productivity can be achieved
through the provision of livelihood and employment to upland dwellers,
indigenous peoples (IPs), small-scale miners and fisherfolk as well as
improvement in environmental quality to preserve the health of the
population. DENR initiatives on livelihood development were undertaken
through some of its programs and projects funded by external sources.
These past initiatives had positive results. However, these initiatives stress
the need for a more comprehensive livelihood/enterprise development
program.
Building on good results of past initiatives and attempting to fill the gaps,
the Community Livelihood Assistance Special Program (CLASP) was
conceived in 2001 and formally launched 11 pilot livelihood projects in
February 2002. CLASP is also a response of the DENR to President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo’s call for poverty reduction and wealth creation in the
country. It also supports the President’s call in 2004 for the creation of 10
million jobs, support of entrepreneurs and development of two million
hectares of agroforestry lands into agribusiness or forest-based livelihood/
enterprises.
CLASP aimed to help alleviate poverty and improved the quality of living
of natural resource-dependent communities throughout the Philippines
by infusing appropriate and environmentally sound technologies,
providing information, and other resources that will lead to sustainable
economic, social, and ecological benefits for these communities. It also
envisions the development of self-reliant, sustainable and empowered
communities through the adoption of environmentally-sound technologies
that will lead to reduction of poverty and creation of wealth.
DENR Special Order No. 2001-660 dated Nov. 5, 2001 created the
committees and teams for the development and implementation of the
DENR-CLASP, serving as an information exchange and coordinating
center for facilitating access to available technologies, technical assistance
and funding from DENR, its local and foreign partners, private
companies, and other organizations. The National Steering Committee
(NSC) oversees the development and implementation of CLASP and

coordinates the periodic assessment of the overall plan of the program.
The Technical Committee provides technical assistance to NSC; identifies/
packages viable livelihood projects; and advises on technology application,
monitoring and evaluation. Likewise, Regional/Provincial Livelihood
Assistance Teams provide assistance to project cooperators on selection of
sites, technologies, preparation of livelihood plans, and monitoring and
evaluation of the progress of project implementation. CLASP focuses on:
! Identification, innovation, introduction and development of

environment and natural resources (ENR)-related livelihood/wealth-
creating projects that can be adopted by upland, coastal, urban,
and other communities;
! Provision of information and technical assistance to aid selection of
appropriate technology, preparation of a business plan, sourcing
of funds to start the implementation of livelihood projects or expand
existing ones that have the potential for sustainability and commercial
viability;
! Provision of support services such as skills training for project
beneficiaries and cooperators, establishment of demonstration/model
sites, research and development of new or innovative technologies
for application in livelihood projects, documentation and
dissemination of success stories, market assistance, and networking/
linkaging; and
! Conduct of policies, programs, systems, and necessary research that
aim to improve the sustainability of the ENR livelihood projects.
Based on the experiences and lessons learned by the Committees and

Teams from the pilot testing, DENR Memorandum Circular No. 2002-19
was formulated and approved on December 12, 2002. This provided an
orderly and clear procedure in the selection, appraisal and approval of
project proposals under CLASP, and established appropriate procedures
and methodologies in the monitoring and evaluation of the physical and
financial aspects of the livelihood projects. An additional 102 livelihood
project proposals were approved — 45 in 2003 and 57 in 2004. However,
only 104 projects out of the 113 approved project proposals received
funding up to 2005.
In 2004, the Technical Committee saw the need for an evaluation of the
CLASP to determine the extent of accomplishment in terms of the program
objectives. A CLASP assessment framework, tools and guidelines were
formulated and developed to evaluate the achievement and status of
CLASP-supported projects. The DENR Livelihood Project Assessment
Toolkit used five assessment criteria, namely: relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency, sustainability and impacts. This Toolkit was used in a nationwide
assessment involving 23 projects to draw conclusions at the program level.
The 23 projects represented the following categories: 1) agroforestry with
livestock; 2) agroforestry with fruit trees; 3) agroforestry with non-timber
forest product (NTFP) plantation; 4) agroforestry with NTFP utilization
and processing; and 5) aquasilviculture.

Lessons learned in CLASP projects
1. Volunteerism - Cooperation among the member PO beneficiaries,
particularly the willingness to e xert effort without immediate
compensation, plays a major role in project implementation i.e. for CLASP
the labor component is the PO counterpart.
2. Strong Leadership - The leadership has a major role in the success of the
project. The integrity of PO leaders gains the trust, respect and cooperation
of the members.
3. Existing PO Capability - The capability of the PO in a certain project is

very important. Knowledge in fund management and project management
is an advantage since this can be applied and adopted to facilitate project
implementation.
4. Transparency - The role of PO members should be acknowledged, their

view recognized and suggestions considered.
5. Networking/Linkaging - Projects that showed impressive results in terms

of economic objectives invariably demonstrated the active involvement of
partner institutions such as the local government unit, product
development specialist and others. For example, the CLASP linked with
the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) for the product
development of Labtang project in Suyo, Ilocos Sur.
6. Identified Market - Available market must be established to assure the

success of the project. There were some CLASP projects whose products
were just placed in storage due to non-availability of market or very little
market interest which resulted in damaged products.
7. Support from DENR - Support from DENR must be available to assist

the POs’ needs for technical assistance and advice. The DENR must also
regularly monitor and evaluate the project to act immediately on the
different problems and issues encountered.
8. Fund Releases - The allocated funds should be sufficient and must be

released in a timely manner. The late release of funds hinders the
implementation of project activities.
9. High Level of Environmental Awareness of PO - The level of environmental

awareness of the PO is crucial in meeting the objectives. The PO must
consider a project that will further boost their forest conservation initiatives.
Indeed, they should be interested in expanding and even influencing
neighboring barangays to implement similar projects.
10. Increase the information, education and communication (IEC) Effort - The
IEC effort for the products of the projects must be increased to promote
the market.

11. Clear Benefit-Sharing Scheme - The benefit-sharing scheme should be
clarified and agreed upon within the entire membership of the
organization. The concerned staff from the Regional Office should convene
the members of the organization to discuss, clarify, and agree on a common
scheme which at the end should be established with the passing of a PO
resolution. This is very important, considering that the members of the
organization have different views on how the expected income from the
project will be distributed among them which could potentially affect the
sustainability of the project.
12. Participation of Community/PO members in the initial stage of project

conceptualization such as in the identification of projects/beneficiaries/
location and preparation of the project proposal ensures the success of
the project.
Major issues and concerns

Comprehensive enterprise development program/framework for natural
resources products and services
Based on general observations, the interventions provided by the CLASP

program need to be continued. This entails making changes in program
implementation by clarifying the program’s objectives and its intended
outputs.
One option to sustain the program’s gains is for DENR to formulate a

program-level logframe and for the project owner/community to develop
a project-level logframe. The logframe clarifies the objectives of the
intervention and determines who its intended beneficiaries are. Likewise,
it contains indicators for each objective which will facilitate future
assessment activities that would determine the extent of project success.
Enterpise development skills and capacities
Many of the assessed projects, as it turned out, were not supported by

strong organizations with the inherent capacity to manage a group-based
livelihood undertaking. Thus, mere provision of livelihood seed capital
was not sufficient.
Building the capability to manage livelihood projects was required as a

continuing support which the DENR field office was ill-prepared to provide.
It is wrong to assume that a registered organization is operating according
to functional organizational systems as described in their constitution and
by-laws. This is one of the priority aspects that must be immediately
ascertained before considering a particular organization as a potential
proponent.

Release of cash allocation
The delayed release of funding or insufficient cash allocation has been

the common major concern affecting the implementation of CLASP
projects or even the activities of the different CLASP management units.
Likewise, the progress billing and voluminous document requirements of
releasing funds have been causing delays in the implementation of various
project-related activities.
The issue raised is the absence of sufficient funds to sustain the monthly
monitoring of CLASP. There is a need to provide mechanisms to monitor
funds until the POs are fully capable of ensuring the successful
implementation of CLASP projects.
Change of sites and PO beneficiaries
The 30-day deadline for the submission of livelihood project proposals

has proven insufficient for field CLASP or CBFM personnel to consult
prospective beneficiaries or cooperators before the preparation and
submission of project proposals. As a result, some of the approved project
proposals were rejected by the concerned POs for implementation. The
field office staff normally have to look for the host of an approved livelihood
project, prepare and submit justifications for change of sites and POs,
secure a documentation of waiver and the acceptance of PO concerned.
These have caused delays in the preparation and processing of documents
required for release of funds, leading to delays in CLASP project
implementation. Some of the funds were even reverted back resulting in
the non-implementation/cancellation of some projects.
Insufficient market outlets/buyers for CLASP products
Since most of the CLASP projects being given assistance are start-up
livelihood projects and are usually in the nascent stage, the most common
problem is insufficient market outlets or buyers. This can also be attributed
to the lack of pre-market studies and the nationwide problem of low
opportunity/support for native Philippine products. Some of the projects
with this problem are those whose products are derived from sambong,
lagundi and other medicinal plants, organic fertilizer and other composting
products, labtang/bamboo/rattan/hinggiw/romblon handicrafts making,
and essential oils production.
The CLASP Technical Committee has assisted in its own way by coordinating
with other agencies like Department of Science and Technology (DOST),
Department of Health (DOH), Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA) and Department of Trade and Industry
(DTI). It also promoted CLASP products from different regions through
participation in various exhibits like the annual SMED Week Celebration
every month of July where some possible contacts for market outlets were
established.

Natural interferences
Since the CLASP projects are mostly environment/natural resource-based,

natural occurrences and calamities affect project activities and the overall
success of the projects. A long, dry season or strong typhoons typically
caused the destruction or disruption of CLASP projects/activities relying
on farming as a source of raw materials. The leakage of toxic chemicals
from adjacent bodies of water caused high mortality to mudcrabs, lobsters,
grouper and other seafood production projects. Some human-caused
destruction due to stray animals and theft of harvestable products was
also observed.
Recommendations
1. Develop a comprehensive community-based enterprise development
program for environment and natural resources.
2. Develop a program and project logical framework to set up indicators

for measuring impacts and attainment of objectives.
3. Formulate DENR livelihood/enterprise development framework/

guidelines that can regain the glory of net exporters of forest/ENR-based
enterprise products (lumber, panel products, poles and piles, pulp and
papers, wood fuels, handicrafts, ecotourism) through agroforestry
development models/prototypes with a mix of timber and non-timber
forest products capable of providing immediate, short-term to long-term
income to CBFM-POs (subsistence to commercial enterprise/agroforestry
development career path).
4. Review the CBFM Implementation Framework to consider a community

organizing driven, forest/ENR-based enterprise development focused on
and supported by appropriate land tenure and agroforestry development
for the production of raw materials in sustaining the enterprise.
5. Establish baseline information to determine the economic and social

benefits derived from the livelihood/enterprise activity.
6. Develop a community or forest/ENR- based enterprise development

curriculum for program managers and project implementers, including
POs.
7. Provide continuous skills training, research and development,

monitoring and evaluation and technical assistance to enable project
beneficiaries to improve their products.
8. Develop dynamic and resilient POs as enterprise managers.
! Conduct training on enterprise development especially in the

bookkeeping and accounting aspect of financial management.

! Conduct value formation training and IEC among PO members in
ensuring the production of quality/standardized raw materials and
products.
! Facilitate PO leadership development and membership continuity
and expansion of the whole community.
! PO must be supported and made capable of conducting financial
analysis in determining the feasibility of a project; as well as
conducting research, networking and marketing in their area.
9. Ensure that the necessary “musts” are present before implementing a

livelihood project – financial management system, documentation of
meetings, market study, clear cost-benefit sharing and rollover scheme.
10. Establish a process of formalizing market commitments (e.g. signing

of a market contract with prospective buyers) especially in projects with
long gestation periods.
11. Re-assess motives and methods for providing livelihood projects to

POs – compliance, providing seed money, intention of expanding the
project.
12. Develop strategies to ensure that funds are allocated to worthwhile

projects focusing on the needs of the beneficiaries, appropriateness/
suitability/feasibility of the livelihood activity to the conditions in the area
and the project’s direct link or complement to tree production and
biophysical/biodiversity development.
13. Determine a product champion at the appropriate level: regional/

provincial/municipal or community that can serve as convergence of all
enterprise development efforts of different stakeholders in a given
geographic location.
14. Develop partnerships between the POs, DENR, LGUs and other
resource institutions in providing additional resources to support the
project
15. Provide technical assistance in the preparation of proposals to assure

that certain enabling conditions are present to ensure project
sustainability and success.
16. Clarify the role of CLASP in the CBFM program and the extent of
involvement among the different stakeholders (PO, LGU and other
institutions).
17. Ensure participation of all stakeholders especially the PO in all project

activities from conceptualization, planning, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation (M & E), etc.

18. Develop a mechanism to continuously gain lessons from the CLASP
projects in refining technologies developed through the research and
development (R & D) efforts of DENR. Documentation and dissemination
of experiences is crucial to expanding the project to other areas. This can
be part of the R & D aspect of the program, and the research findings can
be incorporated into future policy recommendations.
19. The selection of sites should take into consideration areas where there
are enabling factors that would ensure a high probability of success (These
enabling factors include the availability of resources in the area, the
presence of an organized group of people with established organizational
and financial management systems, and high level of support from the
LGU).
20. Review and improve the current progress billing system of

downloading CLASP funds to DENR regional offices. Develop a financial
management system to facilitate the timely release of funds directly to the
PO beneficiaries. Develop a system for collecting repayment of seed funds
by the project beneficiaries for reinvestment to other POs.
21. Work for the revision of present accounting rules and regulations to
allow budget release before the start of the activities or livelihood projects
of the POs.
Conclusion
Currently, CLASP projects are beset with problems such as the limited
number of direct beneficiaries, leader-oriented approach, and “unilateral”
decision-making. On the other hand, the program envisions targeting all
community members as beneficiaries, ensuring transparency in project
operations, transformational leadership, consensual decision-making, and
application of good business practices.
Taking these into consideration, the DENR must continue providing

assistance in order for the program to achieve its main objectives. There is
a need to sustain livelihood interventions by coming up with
comprehensive programs and ensuring their continuity. The relevant
insights gained from assessments should be used in improving livelihood
assistance and also incorporated into policy recommendations.
While setbacks have been experienced in providing the interventions

and desired results have not been reached, there is still hope as DENR-
CLASP still moves towards its end goal of improving the socio-economic
status of beneficiaries.
We may never have CLASP again. Still, there are lessons to learn, lessons
that are worth sharing, lessons that must be incorporated into policies
and operating systems and must be institutionalized in the DENR system.

Conserve Community Forests, Improve
Livelihoods
by Benedicto Q. Sanchez
Benedicto Q. Sánchez is the program coordinator of Broad Initiatives for Negros Development (BIND).
How can a holder of the Community-Based Forest Management Agreement

(CBFMA) conserve its community forests, especially its timber biomass,
and comply with government regulations while enhancing and sustaining
the livelihood of its members?
The experience of Bagong Silang-Marcelo Katilingban sang Sustenidong

Mangunguma (BSMKSM) from 2002-2005 indicates that despite huge
challenges, this can be done.
BSMKSM forged in 1996 a CBFMA 1 with the DENR and was duly
supported by their respective barangay and municipal councils. CBFMA
areas cover a total land area of 1,000 hectares and encompass two
barangays, Bagong Silang and Marcelo, each under two different
municipalities.
Assisted by various NGOs and organized by the Broad Initiatives for Negros
Development (BIND), BSMKSM was able to comply with DENR
requirements in granting the CBFMA.
BIND supported BSMKSM through its food security and microcredit

programs. Its strategic partner, the Swiss HEKS and Foundation for a
Sustainable Society Inc. (FSSI), provided the funds to continue and expand
BIND’s programs.
It also worked hard to enlist foreign-funding donors for its community-

based forest management program. In 2002, the Netherlands Committee-
IUCN approved the project, “Community Property Rights And Forest
Conservation Through NTFP Development.” The project generated non-
timber forest product (NTFP)-based, community-based enterprises as an
alternative livelihood resource to timber utilization while contributing to
resource regeneration within the CBFMA.
Community-based enterprises
To jumpstart the community enterprises, BIND organized a study tour of
NTFP processing, production and marketing in barangays Bagacay and
Mahilum in coordination with the Calatrava local government and
municipal planning and development council.
1
There are 25 CBFMAs in Negros Occidental.

Other study tours included an exposure to three pandan and buri weavers
in Bolinao, Pangasinan in March 2004. It was followed up by the training
in buri and pandan weaving in Barangay Marcelo with 27 participants,
and on wild honey harvesting in Palawan.
BIND facilitated a two-day training on pandan drying and bleaching, and

other grasses for bag-making. An expert from the Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI) Western Visayas Region conducted the training. The
eight women weaver-trainees came from BIND-assisted communities of
Barangays. Marcelo, Bagong Silang and the upland community of
Tabidiao, Bago City.
Other training sessions include standardization training of processed fruits

such as wild guava and strawberry, pineapple, wild berries sarali and
rootcrops, soft broom and ballpoint pens, trinkets, bracelets from bagakay
(Schizostachyum lim) making, and herbal teas processing and packaging.
To improve phytosanitary conditions in the workplace, BIND oriented

food processors in Bagong Silang and Marcelo on the Organic Certification
Center of the Philippines standards.
Their products were sold under fair trade conditions linked to the urban
green market of Bacolod and Metro Manila. Bacolod’s Negros
Greenshoppe buys the NTFPs which passed ecological and artistic quality
standards. BIND’s Manila-based partner, the NTFP-TF helps with its
marketing in Metro Manila and abroad.
Market analysis and development

The project began in 2002 as a result of BIND’s participatory rural
assessment among male and female, old and young resource users. Using
the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) market analysis and
development framework,2 the informants selected, identified and ranked
non-timber forest resource species. The process identified four key
resources for utilization and inventory.
Out of the four, BSMKSM scrapped wild orchids since they cannot
compete with domesticated counterparts in the local market. On the other
hand, domesticated bamboos can substitute for their wild cousins for making
bamboocraft. DENR bans the harvest of giant ferns, a pioneering species
for forest ecological succession. The only option left was a group of rattan
species, which has to be inventoried prior to utilization.
The first step in this project was to define in a community map the rattan
harvest areas followed with a ground survey using Global Positioning
2
Lecup, Isabelle and Nicholson Ken, Isabelle, Community Based tree and forest
product enterprises Market Analysis & Development: Users’ Guide to the Field Manual.
FAO, RECOFTC

System (GPS) to retrace boundary monuments. Afterwards, an NTFP
inventory which was finally restricted to rattan. International and national
experts helped with the participatory inventory designs.
Through their guidance, community users identified the resource species

to be included in the inventory, the information to be recorded about the
abundance, population structure and total available yield of the resource
species, crafting the sampling design, organizing the inventory teams,
supplies and equipment and on-the-job training. The inventory output
came up with a stand-stock-table which served as the DENR’s basis for
determining BSMKSM’s annual allowable cut.
Yet, since rattan utilization falls under the category of a major NTF
resource, the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) Region 6
asserted that BSMKSM should first get an Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC) under the rules of the Initial Environmental Examination
for Community-Based Forest Resources Utilization (CBFRU) of the
Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System (PEISS) before
utilization.
None of the previous project-sponsored consultation workshops and

technical working group raised concerns on impact assessments. The
project was wrapping up its remaining activities, however, when the EMB
pressed its concerns.3
BSMKSM fulfilled the DENR inventory and ECC requirements. After

more than a year of delay, BSMKSM in the presence of DENR and BIND
began harvesting 87 poles of rattan on September 20 and 21, 2005 and
started processing them into finished products like baskets and trays, to
be exhibited at Gateway Cubao in November and, in partnership with
the NTFP-Task Force, for possible export to Europe in 2006.
However, the mayor of Salvador Benedicto town ordered the products

confiscated. The mayor was among the main persons accused of
involvement in illegal logging in Negros Occidental.
Bypassing the Mayor’s office during the harvests was the official reason
for the confiscation. Besides, the office denied that it received the necessary
documents which the DENR Region 6 sent. Under instruction from the
town hall, BSMKSM member and Bagong Silang barangay leader
confiscated the rattan poles. It was a surprise move since he attended the
meeting and took part in the harvest plan discussions.
3
A check with other DENR regional EMBs showed that only its Region 6 counterpart
made this requirement. But the experience revealed a basic flaw: DENR field offices
have no common understanding of national policies.

Lessons learned
Natural resource managers
As the project proved, a whole range of non-timber forest resources exist

which can be utilized and value added to the raw materials to enhance
local incomes while conserving the main forest biomass, the trees.
The participatory rural appraisal showed that some of the local members
can identify these non-timber resources and their potential medicinal,
crafts, food, aesthetic and other commercial uses.
Yet this local knowledge are not being passed on to the next generation
as the urban-biased market make inroads into the hinterlands. Medicinal
plants, for example, are being neglected in favor of mainstream
pharmaceutical drugs.
Simplified resource assessments
There is a demand for formal monitoring process to guide the allocation

and management of their shrinking biological resources, “seeking ways
to accommodate the needs of traditional forest users” while “maintaining
the integrity of the ecosystems that the protected areas were created to
safeguard.”4 This can be done by community members if the monitoring
process uses qualitative methods that are not too demanding of their time
and money, and that are based primarily on local knowledge.
Comprehensive forest management plans like the Community Resource

Management Framework (CRMF) are anchored on such quantitative, very
expensive scientific activities. With BSMKSM’s inventory at 5% sampling
intensity (SI) of 240 hectares cost approximately P160,000, and additional
costs for the inventory team members, mostly from the community, for
around 200 person days. If 1,000 hectares were to be sampled (at 5% SI),
this could cost, at the same rate per hectare, P670,000, amounting to 830
person days.
These stringent requirements provide a negative incentive for CBFMA

holders to implement these requirements at all. Subsistence communities
cannot afford to spend for any of these activities, much less understand
the process.
If anything, this results in the rattan users in the province feeling that
their only feasible option is to forego any of these requirements and to
blindly harvest the resource.
4
Peters, Charles: A Primer on Ecological Sustainability, Biodiversity Support Program,
1994, Corporate Press Inc., Landover. p. ix

Economic development
The Asian Development Bank (ADB)-assisted projects which DENR

conceptualized in the 1990s focused on forest rehabilitation, using their
activities as part of employment regeneration.
ADB later on critiqued this practice:
The basic model of community-based forest management in the

Philippines involves setting up agreements with communities for the
reforestation, protection, and sustainable use of specific parts of
forestland. The main problem with this is that, while environmental
protection may be gained from increasing the amount of forest cover,
environmental degradation may be occurring because the revenue
generation from community forests, given the types of species that
are grown, is insufficient to provide a sufficient revenue source to the
communities. The result is that other economic activities must be found, which
often involves the cultivation of annual food crops at a subsistence level. One
of the consequences in uplands is that much of the agriculture being
practiced on sloping land is environmentally inappropriate, resulting
in substantial amounts of soil loss and declining watershed integrity.
An environmentally appropriate alternative that would promote rural
poverty reduction and improve the economic and export performance
of the agriculture sector would be to transform upland residents from
cultivators of food for subsistence use to producers of higher value
products. This would require careful land suitability classification to
ensure that selected land use (including Sloping Agricultural Land
Technologies) best matches soils, slopes, and water availability.5 (Underscoring
supplied)
But even ADB missed out on economic options besides that of practicing
agriculture of higher value products. With the intrusion of cash economy
in the hinterlands, forest clearings become a highly marketable resource.
There will always be source of tension and conflict between the need for
forestland conservation and the pressures for agricultural expansion.
While not negating the role of sustainable agriculture in the uplands, an

alternative to forest timber utilization and agriculture is needed. This is
why the focus of BIND’s programs has been primarily on NTFP promotion.
Multi-stakeholder synergies
BSMKSM performed well within the web of a broad-based multi-

stakeholder cooperation. Key to this is a stable NGO acting as a bridge
among various government agencies and civil society institutions. It is at
its weakest when the transaction is only between the DENR and the PO
or when one of the stakeholders like the local government unit opposes
the program.
5
ADB, Country Environmental Analysis of the Republic of the Philippines, September
2004. p. 6

The project galvanized urban-based agencies like the DENR, Philippine
Army, the Department of Justice (DOJ), academe, the Catholic Church
and international institutions like NC-IUCN, HEKS and FAO to protect
and rehabilitate the province’s last few remaining forests during celebration
of the International Year of the Mountains. The collaboration boosted
DENR’s political will to sue local politicians for illegal logging.
Multi-stakeholder synergies required a conscious effort to mobilize women

in various activities like reforestation and assisted natural regeneration,
as well as community-based NTFP enterprises. Often, value-adding
enterprises require the dexterity of women to process the raw materials
into finished products. The participation of the DTI also meant skills
transfer to the NTFP producers and processors.

Conservation and Protection
CBFM in Maasin Watershed Reservation:

by Rubenie Castillanes and Pablo Mijares
Rubenie Castillanes is president and Pablo Mijares is auditor of the Katilingban

sang Pumuloyo nga naga-Atipan sa Watershed-Maasin (KAPAWA) in Maasin, Iloilo.
Introduction
Our Community-Based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA) area is
located in the municipality of Maasin, 34 kilometers northwest of Iloilo
City. It lies in the headwaters of Tigum and Inaman rivers which are the
major river systems within the Maasin Watershed covering 6,739 hectares.
CBFMA has a total land coverage of 3,416 hectares, occupying half of the
entire watershed area.
The Maasin watershed reservation forms part of the central Panay mountain
range. For years, it has been the source of irrigation for rice fields in the
lowlands and the primary source of potable water for Iloilo City and four
adjacent towns. It is one of the oldest reservations in the country. Since its
proclamation in 1923, the whole watershed has undergone different policy
pronouncements until the most recent Community Based Forest
Management (CBFM) program.
Our area is one of the biodiversity hotspots in the world. It contains a diversity
of flora and fauna, some of which are already endangered such as hornbills,
the spotted deer, warty pigs, cloud rats, and the Raflesia, the world’s largest
flower. There are 69 species of trees and 64 species of non-timber plants
that can be found in the old-growth and secondary forests. In addition, we
have planted 20 species of trees in plantations and 16 species in tree farms.
Faunal diversity includes 18 kinds of mammals, 55 birds, 65 insects and 23
fishes, mollusks and other aquatic animals.
The CBFMA area has large potential for ecotourism development, especially
because it is just 34 kilometers from the new Iloilo international airport. Its
natural aesthetic value will not fail to lure tourists, particularly its wildlife,
rare plants, old growth forest, waterfalls, caves, lakes, white water rapids,
and peculiar rock formation along rivers.
The watershed community
The CBFM program implementers are composed of all 16 villages that
are part of the Maaasin Watershed reservation. Of the 16, eight either
surround or are located within the CBFM boundary. These 8 villages include
three from the Municipality of Maasin, one from the Municipality of
Janiuay, and four from the Municipality of Alimodian, with a total
population of 7,553 from 1,266 households. A total of 155 households
still reside within the CBFM area while the rest depend in varying degrees
on the resources found within it.
Our community subsists on farming rice, corn, peanuts, root crops and
other vegetables. We also plant and harvest bamboo, coffee, coconut, banana,
and variety of fruits. The villages located on the lower elevation of the
watershed mostly depend on livestock raising such as carabao, cattle, goats
and hogs and production of bamboo products such as sawali (house walling
material), amakan (rice drying mats) and bakag (mesh container). Those
residing near the headwaters have lower cash income but are more food
secure because they grow rice, root crops and vegetables, hunt wildlife and
catch fish from the lakes and rivers.
Proclamation of the Maasin watershed reservation

In 1923, during the American colonization, Governor General Leonard
Wood declared the whole Maasin Watershed as a reservation area, effectively
displacing its inhabitants and prohibiting entry. The government
compensated inhabitants affected by the proclamation but those who did
not receive any form of support refused to leave the area.
Despite the prohibition, people would occasionally enter into the area to
extract resources such as trees and wild animals for household consumption.
But others chose to reside within its thick forests, for lack of alternative
livelihood sources.
In 1928, the watershed boundary was completely fenced to further protect

the watershed from resource extraction and habitation. Also in the same
year, a water impounding dam was constructed. These improvements
indicated that the government was serious in its efforts to protect the area
and to ensure water supply.
During the Second World War, the provincial government transferred to

the watershed area. It also became the refuge of the guerilla fighters and
people from lowlands. After the war, most of the evacuees went back to their
homes but many opted to stay behind. Since then, the area as been subjected
to massive open cultivation.
Water scarcity in Iloilo and birth of CBFM

The problem of watershed degradation became apparent when rivers became
silted during the rainy season and creeks dried up during summer. In fact,

it was predicted that by year 2000, Iloilo would have a serious water scarcity
problem. Alarmed by this disturbing news, the government and civil society
staged campaigns to save the critical Maasin Watershed. Schools, military,
media, national and local government and donor agencies all responded to
the call of reforesting the degraded watershed.
Reforestation efforts, however, were unsuccessful because planted seedlings

were poorly maintained and local community participation from the
beginning was lacking. The lack of livelihood led us to uproot the growing
seedlings and to plow the field so we can once again farm in our lands.
In 1997, a community-based watershed rehabilitation effort called Forestry

Sector Project (FSP) was introduced by the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) with support from Japan Bank for
International Cooperation (JBIC). Through the FSP, the communities
surrounding and living within the watersheds formed an organization called
Katilingban sang Pumuloyo nga naga-Atipan sa Watershed-Maasin
(KAPAWA) and implemented the comprehensive site development of the
watershed. Because of our active involvement in the project, it was only
then that more than half of the denuded portion of watershed was
rehabilitated. In fact, we have surpassed the FSP target area for reforestation.
We were even awarded by the government as one of the 10 outstanding
Peoples’ Organizations (POs) that had successfully implemented FSP. Having
proven our worth as stewards of the watershed, in December 2002, DENR
entrusted us with the management and protection of the rehabilitated
portion of the watershed through the CBFM program.
CBFM activities
All the savings that we had from the financial support of JBIC were used as
our start-up capital for implementing the CBFM program. After securing
the necessary documents such as Community Resource Management
Framework (CRMF) and Annual Work Plan (AWP), we implemented
several livelihood projects in the villages such as production of bamboo,
rattan and honey, and livestock raising. We set up a KAPAWA store where
these small village organizations could sell their products. KAPAWA also
marketed their products to shops and traders in the city. However, because
our market is not stable, income from these livelihood projects had been
very low. Our meager profits were not enough to sustain our activities to
protect the CBFM area from destruction which is a major and costly task.
To protect the area, we implemented several activities such as information

campaigns. These included putting up billboards, conducting village
education seminars and inviting Iloilo residents for a walk (Baklay Bukid) in
our area to promote its protection and conservation. Our youth (Young
Advocates for Nature) also staged cultural shows in every village. We also
sent a number of our members to other community-based projects for some
exposure trips (Lakbay Aral) to learn new technologies and strategies that
we could adopt. We delegated five of our members as our patrol guards
Case Stories: Conservation and Protection 139

(KAPAWA Green Brigade) who were compensated on daily basis. All these
activities to protect the watershed were financed through the funds we
saved from the JBIC project, the minimal income we gained from our
small business and from the financial support of our provincial
government.
However, while all these activities were going on, we were constantly urged
to resettle outside of the watershed area. These were manifested by the
municipal ordinances and DENR policies restricting land cultivation,
hunting of wild animals, tree harvesting, animal grazing, and pesticide use,
which all aimed at pushing us out of the watershed area.
Issues and concerns

Competing interests. There is a conflict of interest between us who depend
on watershed resources for livelihood and the provincial government
which favors Iloilo inhabitants who derive their source of water from the
same watershed. It is important for the government to ensure the
continuous supply of water in Iloilo but it must also consider our livelihood.
Unless we are offered a decent way of life outside of the watershed, we
will continue cultivating land and extracting resources. Our impoverished
condition, and the government’s slow delivery of basic services are enough
reasons for the government to recognize our needs and enable us to benefit
from the watershed we have been protecting. We feel that our interests
must be served over others because we have been dependent on the
watershed and have been rehabilitating and managing it for a long time.
History would show that evicting us out of the watershed without proper
resettlement and alternative livelihood would only cause more destruction
to the watershed. We have been performing watershed rehabilitation
and protection because we all wanted to ensure continuous water supply.
Eviction and displacement. Since the proclamation of the area as a

watershed reserve, the government has consistently asked and sometimes
forced us to vacate our lands and resettle outside the reservation. At one
point, armed men used force and harassed us. All these had a negative
impact and only led to the further depletion of the resources.
At present, another means of displacing us from our lands is through the

implementation of CBFM, a program we thought would be in our favor.
The CBFM program provides us the responsibility to rehabilitate the
reserve and protect the remaining resources and yet prohibits us from
utilizing those trees that we planted. Worse, by converting our farms into
tree plantations, our lands may permanently be designated as protected
areas, leaving us with no lands to till.
This program, with all its sweet promises on paper, is no different from
the previous efforts to evict people from the reserve. In subtle and
persuasive means, we have been asked to resettle outside the watershed
reservation. Eviction may become more strictly enforced after

rehabilitating and protecting it for 25 years, which is our contract under
the CBFM agreement.
Confusion between CBFM and watershed policies. Among the promises

of the CBFM program is to allow local communities to occupy and utilize
the forest resources awarded them. We thought that CBFM policy would
supercede the early regulations in the watershed which disallow occupancy
of people in the watershed, land cultivation and resource extraction. These
contradicting policies put us in constant confusion.
We have significant responsibility in the protection and rehabilitation of

the watershed reserve but we do not have the right to use most of the
resources, nor have control over management of the area under our
stewardship.
CBFM program is good but its promise of transforming the community

into managers of the area did not happen. Who then are the managers
that the program refers to? Is it us, the local community? Or the
government and the people of Iloilo who all want us out of the reservation?
Absence of benefit from water production. According to the government

and the Metro Iloilo Watershed District (MIWD) in charge of managing
water distribution and fee collection, the income from the utilization of
water resource will go back to the improvement and protection of the
watershed. Until now, we have not yet benefited from it. On the other
hand, the local government units (LGUs) get their share from the profit
MIWD obtains. The financial assistance given to them is directed towards
finding means to displace us from the watershed instead of helping us
improve our lives and providing livelihood.
Lack of livelihood options. The lack of income-generating opportunities

to support our families led us to farming in the watershed and extracting
its resources. Our children would most likely inherit this destitute condition
because we could not send them to school. We could have opted to leave
had there been a viable option outside the reservation.
With the prohibition of livelihood activities in the watershed, how are we

expected to survive? How could we possibly carry on with our rehabilitation
and protection tasks? If we were not allowed to cut the trees we planted,
what are our benefits from planting trees and protecting the watershed?
Why were other CBFMA holders allowed to earn a living by cultivating
the land and extracting its resources especially those trees that they planted
in the area awarded to them?
Decreasing market demand and price. Since we are not allowed to utilize
trees or timber resources, the limited resources available from the watershed
such as bamboo, agroforestry products and other non-timber forest plants
are the only means for our survival. However, the demand for these
products is decreasing and even their prices are plummeting especially
during rainy season, which leaves us with little or no income at all.

Recommendations
Benefit from water use. Through a signed agreement, we recommend that a
certain portion from the income of MIWD be allocated directly to KAPAWA
to sustain the rehabilitation and protection of the reserve and to compensate
the people who were relocated in the name of preserving the watershed.
These funds would greatly help us undertake livelihood projects so that
dependency on watershed resources is reduced.
Alternative livelihood. Because we have been barred from cultivating the

land, alternative forms of livelihood have to be available. Otherwise, we are
open to improving our farming practices to make it more sustainable.
Agroforestry and hole digging instead of ploughing are farming practices
that we could engage in that are not destructive to the watershed. These
practices could help both resource preservation and poverty alleviation.
Development of Non-Timber Forest Product (NTFP) technology and market.

Continuous research on NTFP development, especially of bamboo and
rattan, as well as market linkage is necessary to improve our products and
gain better bargaining capacity. We also need to generate more information
on other trees or plants that can be planted in the watershed area which
can be harvested as livelihood source. The government, through its different
agencies, could collaborate in conducting research and training us to diversify
products, enhance product quality, expand market, and enhance our
entrepreneurial skills.
Policy and program implementation. The efforts of DENR, other LGUs and
NGOs in the dissemination of information about the program are highly
appreciated. However, it is also important that the program explains all the
good and bad effects which the community could expect from the program.
The objectives of the program should be clear from the start and there
should be no deviation during the implementation. The program should
live up to its promise of transforming the community into forest managers.
We recommend that all policies implemented in our area should go through

a process of consultation and adaptation so that it responds to the local
realities and aspirations of the community. National policies and programs
should be explained to the people. There should be an effort to harmonize
all policies and programs and make sure one does not contradict the other.
Stop eviction and displacement in the name of CBFM. Our former provincial
governor once said, “Let people co-exist with trees.” We want to live in
harmony with the environment that supports our very existence. Thus
we recognize the need to improve our skills and knowledge to better
perform our duty as stewards of the watershed. We still need continuous
technical and financial support to achieve the goals of the program and
improve our lives without destroying the watershed and depriving Iloilo
of water.

The common goal for all of us dependent on the watershed for various
reasons is to protect it so as to ensure the sufficient and sustainable supply
of water. We can help achieve this goal as we have proven for almost a decade
now while living in or around the watershed. We want to become the worthy
managers of the watershed and not be regarded as its destroyers. We do not
want the CBFM program to mean to us as the “Community Being Forcibly
Misplaced.”

Muddy CBFM
by NASAJMPA
The Naungan San Juan Mangrove Planters Association (NASAJMPA)

Ormoc, Leyte was formed in 1999 through the CBFM program.
Introduction
In the early 1970s, our mangrove areas were open to various forms of
utilization. There was no Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) representative monitoring the areas, hence mangroves were
harvested both for commercial and domestic uses. But sometime in 1976,
we noticed that the mangroves were beginning to be depleted. A few
years after that, our catch started to diminish and the fish became smaller
in size.
Years passed and we continued to harvest from the diminishing resources.

The situation worsened because of the pollutants coming from the processing
plants of the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) and Hilongos Sugar
Mill Corporation (HISUMCO). These chemicals overflowed from their tanks
during heavy rains and made their way through the river system and
eventually to the sea, which led to fish kill. We filed a petition before the
DENR to investigate and mitigate the situation. For sometime we did not
experience a similar occurrence. However, there were still cases where
pollutants from these companies ended up in the sea.
We depend on the resources of the sea, but not everyone understands the
responsibilities entailed to continue enjoying these bounties. We also
participated in the cutting of mangroves to meet our basic needs. In 1988,
DENR introduced a program called Family Approach to Reforestation (FAR).
It conducted an orientation that explained the need and importance of
saving the mangrove areas from complete destruction by planting
mangroves. This gave us a deeper understanding and connection to the
resource that provides our livelihood. We realized that it is not sustainable
to gather marine life and at the same time cut the mangroves that protect
these life forms. Our perspectives changed and we started to practicing
responsible resource use.
Soon after that, 13 families from barangays Naungan and San Juan formed
the first group to carry out the program. A consultation was held to
determine the number of hectares each family could afford to reforest. Then
we were provided with seedlings which we promised to plant in our
respective areas of coverage that ranged between three and five hectares as
stipulated in our contract with the DENR. We were paid P6,000 per hectare
that came in several tranches.

For two years, DENR monitored our activities. In 1992, they declared
that the mangroves that we planted were in good condition and we
accomplished the tasks stipulated in the contract. Later the area was turned
over to DENR and the second batch, composed of 11 families was formed.
Sometime in 1999, we were again approached by the DENR to be a partner

under the Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) program.
Twenty four of us from the two batches of families that helped implement
FAR formed an organization called NASAJMPA (Naungan San Juan
Mangrove Planters Association). Later on, the DENR offered us a contract
that involves patrolling and maintaining the mangrove areas. We expected
this as our first project under CBFM. However, the contract was only
offered to our president and we were not even informed nor consulted
about it. We filed a complaint against the DENR and asked what happened
and why should only one person benefit from this project. Why did the
half-million budget for patrolling and maintaining the mangrove areas
disappear and where did it go? In a meeting a month later, DENR
apologized and explained that they made an error in the contract. Until
now however, we could not help but ask how they could commit an error
that involved a big amount of money. Or this is another case of corruption?
The following year, we elected our new set of officers, registered our
organization at the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE),
produced our annual work plan, and received the Community Based Forest
Management Agreement (CBFMA) signed between the official
representatives of the DENR and our organization.
In 2002, we had our first project with the California Energy (CalEnergy),
which involved a training on tangal (a species of mangrove) plantation
establishment. We were provided money for our transportation and food
during the training and the actual planting covering 5 hectares that lasted
five months. Unfortunately, the project did not succeed because the plants
failed to take root. As a result, only a handful of what we planted survived.
We thought that maybe the specie of tangal was not compatible with the
environment. The same year, we received support from the US Peace Corps
through the assistance of the Department of Agriculture (DA) for our mud
crab production. At this point, membership of NASAJMPA increased from
24 to 35 families.
In 2003, we entered into a contract with the city government to reforest 10

hectares of mangrove areas. The following year, we reforested a five-hectare
mangrove area which the Saint Peter’s College (SPC) commissioned us to
do. We were paid for both projects.
It is unfortunate that our organization has weakened and membership has

decreased because of failed expectations in the mud crab project. However,
NASAJMPA is still standing and expecting that the reforestation project
with DENR covering 70 hectares will push through. Meanwhile, our
ecotourism project which seeks to declare a portion of the CBFMA area as
a bird sanctuary is already on its second review by the city government
and we are pinning our hopes on this too.

Responsibility without rights
We know fully well how valuable mangroves are to our lives. It serves as
breeding and nursery grounds to the many species of fish and crustaceans
as well as a buffer against big waves. Thus, with our thriving mangroves, we
feel safe from flood and we relish our source of food. We are proud of our
accomplishments because as anyone can see, the almost depleted mangrove
areas more than 30 years ago are now covered with tall and thick mangroves.
In fact, birds, some migratory, have already started to inhabit the area. Thus,
there has been a proposal to proclaim the area as a bird sanctuary.
Under the CBFM agreement, we know that it is part of our responsibility to

protect the mangroves and report illegal activities. However, it is not an
easy job. Sometimes, the violators are also from our own communities,
making it more difficult to apprehend them. There have been times when
we fear for our safety because we are not deputized by the DENR to perform
such duties although the CBFM agreement states that people can be
deputized to apprehend violators.
Most of the cases we filed involved illegal cutting of trees and clearing of
mangroves for fishpond expansion within the CBFM areas. Although we
feel that we helped enforce the law, we do not think that we have completely
implemented it because nothing substantial has resulted from it. An example
of this was the case NASAJMPA filed against a businessman and his two
workers. The businessman ordered his workers to cut trees near the river. A
NASAJMPA member witnessed the cutting of big trees and immediately
reported this to the DENR. The DENR confiscated the pile of wood and
filed a complaint against the three. The fiscal summoned us and the accused.
One of the workers asked for forgiveness and was forgiven while the other
managed to run away. Meanwhile, the case against the businessman was
dropped due to insufficient evidence or lack of eyewitness testimony.
Protecting the mangroves becomes complicated when the person involved

is a government employee. This happened to us when we learned that a
forester of the DENR whose responsibility was to inspect fishponds was bribed
by fishpond owners for P1,500 in exchange for a license to operate called
Special Land Use Permit (SLUP). A complaint was filed against him but the
DENR just reassigned him in another area without filing an administrative
case.
At the end of the day, we cannot help but ask why the burden of protecting
the mangroves seemed to have landed squarely on our shoulders. Why are
we the only ones monitoring it, and in exchange for what? Does the DENR
have the responsibility to monitor it, too? Or are they content with just
gathering our reports?
Sometimes we think that it is actually a lot easier to illegally cut trees. We

help protect the environment but in the end, those who steal from it are the
only ones benefiting from it. If it is our responsibility to protect it, we
think that we deserve to benefit from it. We requested the DENR to allow

us to prune under their supervision. They in fact gave us a seminar on
pruning and promised that we can prune matured, big trees. But two
resolutions have already been passed and until now we still have not
benefited from it. How come DENR is silent about it now? We had no
idea before about pruning; it was DENR that introduced the idea to us.
We are aware that we benefited from the CBFM program because we

gained something from participating in reforestation projects. But is
paying us for a particular task the essence of CBFM program? If we cannot
prune, how will CBFM program provide us with livelihood?
We do not want to cut the trees that we planted but we hope that the
government will acknowledge the efforts that we render and provide us
with the right to prune following their regulations. We see the need to
perform monitoring functions and we remain faithful to our obligation as
can be seen by the number of cases we have already reported to the DENR.
But at the moment, it is not possible without government assistance because
we are responsible, too, for feeding our families.
Mud crabs
When the DA facilitated our linkage with the US Peace Corps, we were
given the opportunity to discuss among ourselves which among the possible
alternative forms of livelihood was best for us. This led to the mud crab
production project and eventually to the increase in membership.
We were given a three-day seminar on growing, raising, and feeding crabs.

Apart from this, we had an on-the-job training with the staff of Peace Corps
for more than a month on the actual setting up of the 0.25-hectare mud
crab facility.
Each of us took turns in monitoring our project. On the third month, we

were satisfied with the results because we could see the crabs growing and
multiplying. We expected to harvest a ton of mud crabs after six months
based on the feasibility study that the DA and Peace Corps helped us prepare.
Almost everyone could already envision the motor boat, kitchen appliance,
or house repair that we aspired to acquire or do when the mud crab project
took off.
On the fourth month however, we noticed that some of the crabs were not
as abundant as before, and in fact, some were already dead. We soon realized
that the male crabs managed to get to the other side through the holes in
the net that resulted in the killing of crabs, mostly of the female population,
then eventually of the males too. The premature harvesting gave us 45
kilos of crabs which we sold to a fellow member. Until now however, our
fellow member has not paid NASAJMPA yet.
The failed project and hopes made us realize that we did not perform our
monitoring assignments faithfully and did not respond to the tasks called
for when we were roving the site alternately. Had we looked closely and

mended the holes in the net, we could have prevented the demise of our
business, saved the money that the Peace Corps provided, saved the efforts
that we invested, saved the dreams that we pinned on the project, and most
importantly, saved the organization from waning.
Two years have already passed since the project ended but other members
have lost interest in joining NASAJMPA. Despite what happened to us, we
still value the importance of having an alternative livelihood that will support
us in the conduct of our CBFM project activities especially because it is
time-consuming and risky. In addition, we think that there should be a
memorandum of agreement, whether it is a loan or grant, between us and
the funding agency to help us become more responsible and accountable
for our own actions. In the end, the CBFM program gave us an
opportunity to manage our own livelihood project and we hope that the
valuable lessons will help us become better managers of our resources as
well as future alternative livelihood projects.
NASAJMPA and CBFM

Our CBFM project has a total area of 112 hectares, which lies along the
shores of Ormoc Bay and stretches in the communities of Naungan and
San Juan. This was the reason why the DENR helped us form an
organization, which led to a network of projects as they linked us with
other groups. It provided us income, helped increase our knowledge on
the resource and its protection, and allowed us to experience managing
it. We performed the tasks and delivered the expected outputs. But
looking back, we think that our level of participation was that of a paid
staff on contractual basis. And in the process, we failed to look into the
internal needs of our organization.
The CBFM program has become a source of frustration and confusion to

other members and also to the other barangays that were not part of it
especially after they learned about the income we generate from
reforestation and the former mud crab project. They asked why their
communities were not part of the CBFM project considering that their
areas are adjacent to the CBFM project site. Meanwhile, other members
stopped cooperating because of what happened with the mud crab project.
On the other hand, we could not convince them to join again as well as
invite new members because of our lack of knowledge and understanding
on the CBFM program. It has in a way prevented us from participating
on a more sustained level and in reaching out to others. There is also
information gap like the changes in the CBFM policy guidelines that
should have been relayed to us. Incidentally we only learned about this
from the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR).
We are smaller now in number and so far, we have not yet increased our
ranks. We also acknowledge the mistakes that we committed in the course
of implementing some of the projects. But we will still do our work to
protect the mangroves like what we were doing with FAR before.

Meanwhile, we know that in order to strengthen NASAJMPA, we need to
encourage other residents to join, follow-up on inactive members, meet
regularly, and prepare our action plan. But we know that before we could
even start on this, we should have in-depth knowledge of the CBFM
program in its entirety to begin with.
What we hope for

Since we reforested our mangroves, shells, imbaos and other seawater
resources became abundant. From then on, we realized how important it is
to continue protecting mangroves because in return, such effort would lead
to increased income. This will also assure our children and their children of
a better environment and will help prevent another Ormoc tragedy from
happening again. (In November 1991, Ormoc experienced a flash flood
and landslide which led to hundreds of deaths. Logging was identified as
the main cause of the tragedy.)
We became aware of these issues through the CBFM program. In the last
five years that we have participated in various protection and rehabilitation
activities, we realized that the essence of the CBFM program is to enable
us to manage and utilize our resources sustainably because we are the
ones that directly relate to it.
We believe that protecting the mangroves is a joint responsibility of

NASAJMPA and the DENR. In carrying out our responsibilities, we are
aware that we are also helping the DENR perform some of their functions
and responsibilities. Along these lines, we think that the DENR should fulfill
the other end of the agreement, too. These include regular sharing of
information, proper compensation for the tasks they devolved to us and
deputization so that we can perform our patrolling duties without fear that
it will backfire on us. In the future, we hope that the DENR will guide us
toward organizational strengthening and provide time for regular sharing
of information. Most importantly, the DENR should also recognize the efforts
that we provide and the risks involved in performing our responsibilities.
In this respect, they should grant us the right to make a living from the
mangroves that we protect. This includes allowing us to prune which we
believe we deserve.
In the end, if we want the CBFM program to become more meaningful,

the realities surrounding our lives should be taken into consideration as
well. This is not difficult to do if there will be consultation and coordination
every step of the way. It will also entail providing us with proper
information and guidance to effectively and comprehensively manage
our resources not just for our own benefit but for future generations too.

Field Experiences, Issues and Lessons
from Enterprise-Based Biodiversity Conservation
by Susan Naval and Martin Talento
Susan Naval is country director and Martin Talento is forester and resources
management officer of Enteprise Works Worldwide (Phils.), Inc. (EWW/P).
Introduction
The Philippines is a hotspot or priority region for biodiversity conservation.
Its highly endemic flora and fauna is due in part to its bio-geographical
isolation and fragmentation into 7,100 islands. Sadly, in the past 50 years,
two-thirds of the forests have been cleared (Myers 1988, Myers 1990,
Mittermeier et al 1998). Some of the most intact remaining forest ecosystems
are in Palawan and the Sierra Madre biodiversity corridor that runs through
Cagayan, Isabela, Quirino and Nueva Vizcaya. In these sites, forests under
community control are significant. For example, of the combined 2,137,151
hectares of biodiversity-rich forestland found in the Sierra Madre and
875,000 hectares in Palawan, 354,985 hectares or 12% are under CBFM
management. This compares with two percent of the protected areas. In
addition, the CBFM sites are often adjacent to government forests, acting
as a buffer or first warning for illegal forest activities on government lands.
EnterpriseWorks Worldwide (Phils.), Inc. (EWW/P), in partnership with
Provincial CBFM PO Federations in Region 2 and Palawan, is implementing
an eight-year capacity-building program for Community-Based Forest
Management (CBFM) Project under the USAID’s Global Conservation
Program (GCP).
EWW/P and the Federation partners are working directly with communities
in Regions 2 and Region 4 (Palawan only) to develop and implement
conservation and resource management plans under the CBFM program
of Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The overall
goal is to manage 300,000 hectares already under the program by year eight
and build a sustainable mechanism within the Federations for providing
the twin services of conservation and sustainable economic activities. Effective
management includes meeting all CBFM requirements as well as additional
criteria.
Objectives of the program

! Improve the Region 2 and Palawan Federation’s abilities to provide
sustainable services for their members in forest resource-use planning
and management through improved coordination with government,
NGOs and private industry;
! Transfer resource management tools and strategies to Federations,
developed under proven conservation programs, for articulating

and integrating threat-abatement strategies into resource
management and economic development activities;
! Develop the Federation’s capacity to administer biological
monitoring and compliance with forestry regulations; and,
! Conduct monitoring, adaptive management and learning in
community resource management activities.
Program strategies
EWW/P integrates the CBFM communities and local government by
fostering ownership of the project. There is also close coordination and
complementary activities with the government, NGOs and other funding
agencies. Employing the participatory approach EWW/P uses the technology
of participation (TOP) to identify problems and solutions, including on-
the-ground training on technology adoption and tools.
The following are some of EWW/P’s specific approaches to improve CBFM

management and, in turn, achieve sustainable forest resource management
and local livelihoods of communities:
CBFM federation building in the provinces of Cagayan, Isabela, Nueva

Vizcaya, Quirino and Palawan and one regional confederation for Region 2
serves as the voice or “lobbyist” for the CBFM holders. This gives the CBFM
holders better opportunity to forward their issues to decision-makers so
that it can be addressed.
Baseline assessment was conducted in the first and second year of the project.
It determines the strategies to be implemented, specifically the training needs
and issues arising from the CBFM program. Ninety percent of the CBFM
groups completed their baseline assessments. The results were shared with
government agencies, local government units, POs and other non-
government organizations (NGOs).
Formation of and close coordination with multi-sectoral task forces for a more
coordinated approach to CBFM management and threats-abatement
activities. It also ensures sustainable resource management after EWW/P
exits from the project.
Continuous capacity-building of federations to enhance their capabilities in

providing support services in forest resource use planning and management
to their affiliates to ensure sustainability after the project’s completion. Also
provided are training on leadership skills development; organizational,
resource and financial management; assistance in administering biological
monitoring tools; and, compliance with forestry regulations.
Threats tool and biological monitoring survey (BMS) methods to CBFM POs
and Stakeholders are incorporated in the short- and long-term CBFM
planning and on-ground activities. Community mapping, fire prevention
and control, transect walk method and threats assessment activities are
being undertaken with CBFM groups and other partners. A BMS manual

had been prepared and currently being used by POs and other
stakeholders. The information derived from regular monitoring is used
to come up with major decisions and priority actions that would help
improve their forest protection strategies.
Introduction of resource management technologies such as agroforestry

techniques (e.g., mixed cropping, crop rotation, etc.), soil and water
conservation measures (e.g., hedgerows, contour farming etc.) and nursery
development practices as economic opportunities for increased income, land
productivity and biodiversity to reduce communities’ dependence on critical
natural resources and to protect the existing ecosystems.
Issuance of Individual Property Rights (IPR). The IPR is an agreement

between an individual and a CBFM holder in which the latter grants the
privilege to till the land and to benefit from their produce consistent with
the CBFM agreement. Like the devolution of the program to communities,
the CBFM holder has entrusted the development, management and
protection of available portions of the forestlands to individuals through a
memorandum of agreement.
Issues and lessons learned during implementation

Overall, good governance in the implementation of CBFM among the various
stakeholders is a critical factor for the success of biodiversity conservation,
appropriate resource management and forest-based enterprises.
Introduction of sustainable resource-based enterprises needs seed capital.
The following are specific lessons learned that directly or indirectly affect
sustainable forest resource management. Note that some of these were
gathered from EWW/P’s Enterprise Development Support Services (EDSS)
project that is relevant to the current project:
Overlapping claims and tenure instruments in some CBFM areas. Boundary

conflicts and individual claims often lead to the slow implementation of
project activities and development of the site. CBFM groups claimed that
maps were prepared prior to the awarding of their agreements. However,
no ground markers had been set which led to boundary disputes, especially
those near the alienable and disposable (A&D) lands. Without clear
boundaries recognized by DENR officials, communities are reluctant to
enforce violations. Lax enforcement encourages more encroachment.
In Allacapan, Cagayan, a parcel of alienable and disposable land was included

in the CBFM agreement. This conflict between the owners and the CBFM
holder caused delay in the implementation of reforestation and agroforestry
activities. A reforestation activity by the CBFM holder showed that the target
area was outside that of the CBFMA.
Unproductive and degraded sites are burden to POs. Some areas awarded
to POs were degraded and unproductive sites. These areas were very
difficult to manage and develop compared to brush and forest because
high costs of reforestation and rehabilitation.

In Barangay Balete in Nueva Vizcaya, the entire CBFM area is covered
with grassland. Problems of unproductive soil and grassfires were just some
of the difficulties the PO was facing in rehabilitation of their site.
Inconsistent interpretation and implementation of CBFM policies. Constant

changes in CBFM policies dilute the communities’ accomplishments as it
discourages them from embarking on long-term sustainable enterprises. In
addition, there have been occasions where interpretations of policies vary
among government field CBFM implementers or there is misunderstanding
of implementation guidelines. This results to overdue approval of
requirements for CBFM work plans or resource use. Timely approval of
requirements is crucial especially if the enterprise relies on seasonal harvest
or planting.
Numerous and complicated CBFM requirements. It has either led to delays

or provided a climate for bribery of DENR field officers to facilitate faster
approval of documents. In certain cases, CBFM communities resort to illegal
activities in order to meet their economic needs. The numerous and
complicated requirements are causes of confusion and difficulty for even
the best performing CBFM groups.
Lack of financial transparency within the POs causes distrust between the
members and PO management. Most POs lack basic check-and-balance
systems. This provides leeway for some officers to spend the organization’s
financial resources as they please without proper accounting. Even if
anomalies are committed and are known to some members, complaints
against the guilty member are seldom filed, especially when one is a friend
or relative. This leads to disappointment with CBFM when weak PO officers
are further exploited by corrupt officials. Corrupt CBFM officers and officials
should be punished and not the entire CBFM group.
Dole-out mentality. Previous donor and government agency efforts to

accelerate the implementation of CBFM have developed a dole-out mentality
among CBFM project beneficiaries. Reforestation activities, for example,
have been reinterpreted as cash-for-work projects. Thus, without
remuneration, some CBFM members are not willing to participate.
Presence of dedicated staff providing technical assistance to CBFM

communities. There is no doubt that dedicated technical staff is a big factor
in successfully implementing biodiversity conservation and resource
management activities among CBFM groups.
Information dissemination. Regular coordination and monitoring of CBFM

activities enable CBFM implementers to address immediate issues and
concerns of the CBFM communities. This is also a means by which to educate
the members of changes in policies or marketing information that would
affect the decision of the CBFM producers or processors.
The use of media coverage. Through various forms of mass media,

problems especially graft and corruption as experienced in the field, will
be brought to the attention of decision- makers.

Recommendations
In view of the issues and lessons learned, the following were recommended:
• Settle boundary conflicts at the ground level and clarify boundaries

and enforcement procedures on encroachment.
• Require valuation of forestlands prior to the awarding of the CBFM
agreement.
• Recognize rights to land claims through provision of incentives in
developing denuded forestlands and biological threats, and
enhancing local participation (e.g. IPR).
• Explore other potential forest resources for enterprise such as water
and fruits aside from timber and NTFPs.
• CBFM holders should be provided with livelihood to lessen
dependency on the remaining natural resources within the CBFM
area.
• Treat CBFM groups as partners in promoting conservation and forest
development rather than contractors. They should be provided with
long-term security to invest in forest development.
• Orient all DENR-PENRO-CENRO level offices on policies/laws and
regulations to have a common understanding and interpretation.
• Simplify/streamline CBFM policies and requirements for PO’s
compliance.
• Continue capacity-building of POs on organizational, financial and
technical skills.
• Strengthen linkages among multi-stakeholders for more integrated
approach to biodiversity conservation and threats abatement.
• Strict implementation of all existing rules and regulation as well as
constant monitoring of all CBFM holders.
• Provide additional incentives to individuals who are directly
implementing the CBFM program to ensure that the program’s goals
and objectives are properly carried out.
Boundary conflicts, unproductive sites, delays in processing and rigorous

paperwork requirements, conflicting policies, inadequate capacity of the
government agencies coupled with insufficient management capability of
the people’s organizations (POs) to implement CBFM are just some of the
factors that lead to the poor implementation of the program. Addressing
these problems and issues is a long-term process requiring innovative
approaches as it becomes even more complex over the years.

Institutional Linkages and Partnership
Partnershipss
Community-Based Forest Management

Through Effective Linkaging and Partnership:
The Story of the Kinagunan Multi-Purpose
Cooperative, Inc.
by Leticia Hernandez
Leticia Hernandez is president of Kinauganan Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (KMPCI) based in

Kinagunan Ibaba, Padre Burgos, Quezon.
Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) program has had its share

of disappointments and frustrations. But amid controversies, there are
many stories worth sharing and emulating.
KMPCI and CBFM

The Kinauganan Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (KMPCI) received its
CBFM Agreement (CBFMA) on May 25, 2000. The CBFMA area covers a
mangrove forest in Barangay Kinagunan Ibaba, Padre Burgos. The
organization protected, conserved and enriched the area. This became
possible because its members were united in the mission to bridge people
and the government in implementing community-managed sustainable
rural development in the countryside.
Currently with a membership of 100, the KMPCI is working with other

organizations such as the Barangay Council, D’ Amity Club, Tanglaw ng
Dagat, the youth organization 4H-Club, the women farmers-led Rural
Improvement Club (RIC), Kinagunan Elementary School, and Parents-
Teachers Community Association (PTCA). Thus, the whole community is
sharing the same vision and responsibility.
However, it was a long journey before the program was awarded to us.
In 1990, I attended an institutional seminar conducted by the Department

of Trade and Industry (DTI) about the conservation of coastal areas along
Tayabas Bay. The seminar, participated in by representatives from coastal
towns, aimed to formulate a coastal resource management (CRM) plan.
Five years later, the CRM was changed into the Fisheries Sector Program
(FSP) with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of the Department
of Agriculture (DA-BFAR) at the helm. It was through the FSP that the
cooperative found out about the mangrove reforestation project.
The KMPCI’s CBFM project started with the help of the people and with
the Bondoc Development Program (BDP). In 1991, BDP provided multi-
aspect support for utilizing the CBFMA areas in the Bondoc Peninsula
including Padre Burgos. It gave technical assistance as well as implemented
education and awareness-raising programs in coordination with the
different government agencies especially the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR).
Fortunately, before the BDP support ended, the KMPCI was awarded a
100-hectare mangrove reforestation contract. The organization planted 15
hectares from their own funds and an additional 18 hectares with financial
aid from DENR and Mirant Power Plant Philippines.
Support from different institutions

The whole community became aware of the importance of mangroves and
was mobilized to participate in the project. Various forms of support poured
for the project. These were:
! The BDP before the end of its term made almost all of its accredited
people’s organizations (POs) part of its local study mission.
! KMPCI became the recipient of the Carbon Sink Initiative Project of

Mirant Philippines. Mirant, with the DENR and local government
bodies, embarked on the largest mangrove reforestation project in
the country with Padre Burgos as one of the implementors. It also
gave a patrol boat for maintenance and monitoring of the project and
provided fish traps for livelihood.
! President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo released a P60,000 grant for a

potable water supply program with her “Proyektong Patubig ni
Pangulong Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (water project of President
Arroyo).” Part of the program is the provision of 200 seedlings of
assorted fruit trees.
! The Office of the Provincial Agriculturist established oyster project

since oyster production is the main income-generating activity in
Padre Burgos.
! DA-BFAR gave fish pens through Ugnayan, a BFAR-accredited NGO.

The barangay council on the other hand allocated a certain portion
of their budget for coast watch.
! DA-BFAR is regularly monitoring the project and providing technical

assistance through training of Bantay Dagat and technological
assistance to farmers interested in orchard farming. It also donated
fruit tree seedlings with foliar fertilizer and vegetable seeds.
! The Philippine Agriculture and Resources Research Foundation, Inc.

(PARRFI) donated 23 issues of the publication, “Philippine
Recommends.”

! The military unit assigned in the area, the Task Force Barracuda,
conducts patrolling and tree planting operations.
! Other agencies like DTI, Department of Science and Technology

(DOST), and Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) assist in the
formulation of plans and prepare the necessary documents to be
submitted to different agencies and institutions.
! The local school through its PTCA conducts regular tree-planting

activities.
! The Department of Education, especially its elementary schools,

regularly participates in tree-planting program.
The program became a showcase of a successful PO initiative. Many

government agencies, the academe and private groups have visited the
program site.
Making things happen

The wave of support and assistance did not magically appear. It required
a lot of hard work and patience, especially with the many stakeholders
involved in the program. Assistance was given to the KMPCI as a result of
continuous networking. The members themselves went out of their way to
inquire from different agencies about which programs and projects fit the
thrusts of KMPCI.
Government programs need POs. The problem is that the POs sometimes
lack initiative. If we want to make things happen, do not just wait. Let us do
something.
Upcoming projects
KMPCI is planning to embark on livelihood projects such as fish processing,
virgin coconut oil production, raffia (buri fiber) extraction and weaving,
organic fertilizer production, coconut fiber extraction and utilization, and
meat processing. In particular, projects utilizing coconuts are encouraged
since the area of Padre Burgos is characterized by vast coconut plantations.
Coconut fibers will be also used to protect newly-planted mangrove trees.
Aside from that, construction of the access road to the project site is also a
priority. A mini-library will also be established.
CBFMA cancellation
On January 5, 2006, a memo was issued canceling the CBFMA effective
February 14, 2006. The reason given was the alleged low performance of
the cooperative.
Case Stories: Institutional Linkages and Partnerships 157

The cancellation affected the cooperative. From more than 50 active
members, only 25 were left because they no longer have access to livelihood.
The low performance stated in the letter was quite unfair. We admit we
were not involved with the project all the time because we also have other
duties and responsibilities. We have to eat, send our children to school and
earn for our family’s day-to-day living.
Because we do not want to neglect the environment, we continue planting

mangrove trees while engaging in income-generating activities. However,
our income is still not enough so we have to constantly search for other
means. Consequently we have less time for planting.
Recommendations
In this regard, we are appealing now to the DENR for the continuation of
our CBFMA and to all concerned offices and institutions to support us in
our mangrove reforestation project since the Mirant project will end in
2007.
We are also appealing for help in implementing livelihood projects and

linking with suitable market outlets. Aside from that, we also recommend
that POs be educated in livelihood and enterprise building because every
time we establish one, it fails because of the lack of necessary expertise.
Our hope lies in the effective linkages and partnership with other
stakeholders. We have invested so much time and money — not to mention
the hardship — in this project. We hope that other institutions will do the
same. Let us all help and work as one to make these things happen.

Stakeholders’ Complementation and
Collaboration: Essential Elements of
Sustainability in Philippine Forest Governance
by Gwendolyn Bambalan
Gwendolyn Bambalan is officer-in-charge of the Finance and Administrative Division,

Forest Management Bureau (FMB), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Introduction
The study attempts to identify the elements of sustainability in forest
governance programs through an examination of the Community-Based
Forest Management (CBFM) project in Diffun, Quirino. It is contained in
Chapter V of a dissertation conducted in 2004 and submitted to the National
College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG), University of
the Philippines. The dissertation posits that sustainable forest governance
has three elements which are directly linked, interrelated, and affect one
another: 1) policies related to forest governance; 2) stakeholders’
complementation and collaboration; and 3) strategies and mechanisms for
implementation. The paper, however, will only discuss the second element,
complementation and collaboration of stakeholders.
The project site

The CBFM project is located in the far-flung barangay of Don Mariano
Perez, Diffun, Quirino. The size of the area varies, according to different
sources. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
estimates the area to be about 3,100 hectares; the RP-German Quirino
Community Forestry Project (CFP) has a larger estimate of 3,500 ha; and
the Municipal Land Use Plan indicates a smaller area of 2,450 hectares.
In 1992, the Integrated Rainforest Management (IRM) program was

implemented in the barangay. The entire barangay was covered by the
project. The project has implemented an integrated approach in rainforest
management involving natural forest management, sustainable agriculture,
alternative livelihood, and community organizing. It likewise initiated the
formation of the Don Mariano Perez Multi-Purpose Cooperative (DMP-MPC)
and its registration with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA).
The DMP-MPC was awarded with a Community Forest Management
Agreement and this was converted in 1995 to Community-Based Forest
Management Agreement (CBFMA). These tenure agreements have
provided the people’s organization the authority and responsibility to
manage and protect the forestland.
Upland farming is the main source of living in the area. Farmers employ
the kaingin farming method which involves the burning of trees to clear

the forest where they plant crops such as citrus, ginger, and banana. They
also raise livestock and poultry to increase their incomes. During the
implementation of the CFP, some farmers were employed in nursery
development, reforestation activities and other infrastructure projects. The
abundance of water has stimulated a number of residents to engage in upland
rice farming. However, timber poaching, despite being prohibited, has been
going on in the site.
The major stakeholders of DMP-CBFM

In its implementation, the CBFM program has relied on partnership,
participation, and complementation from various forest stakeholders to
ensure sustainability. The key players in the implementation include the
DENR as represented by the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Office (PENRO) and Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO), Community Forestry Project in Quirino Foundation Inc.
(CFPQI), the municipal government of Diffun, barangay Don Mariano Perez
(DMP), DMP-MPC, and non-government organizations (NGOs) working
in the province.
The PENRO and CENRO are both located in Diffun, Quirino. The PENRO
coordinates the different activities of the two CENROs in the province,
Nagtipunan and Diffun. As a coordinating office, it established a CBFM
unit that oversees the implementation of the CBFM project in the province.
The province has placed prime importance on the protection and
management of the forest because 65 per cent of its land area is within
forestland. Despite the magnitude and expanse of responsibilities of the
office, it was only headed by an officer-in-charge because of the continuous
reshuffling and turnover of key officials at the DENR.
The LGUs involved in the implementation of CBFM include the provincial

government of Quirino, particularly the PENRO, the municipal government
of Diffun, and barangay Don Mariano Perez.
In 2003, the memorandum of agreement (MOA) signed by the DENR, the

LGU, and NGOs gave birth to the CFPQI Foundation. The foundation
assumed the responsibility and authority in the management of all the assets
and resources of the RP-German CFPQ project. These included an office
building, training center, GIS equipment, vehicles, and other office
equipment.
A number of NGOs work in Quirino that provide financial and technical

assistance for the implementation of CBFM. These include, among others,
the Palatian Economic Development Association Inc. (PEDAI), Enterprise
Worldwide Works Inc., Development Alternative Inc. (DAI), and
Conservation International (CI). Except for PEDAI, these NGOs sit as
members of the Collaborators’ Management Team. The extent of support
of these organizations, however, is defined largely by the scope of work
and availability of funds that are usually extended by foreign institutions.

The implementation of DMP CBFM is directly under the management of
DMP Multi-Purpose Cooperative. The cooperative is a duly-registered
organization with the Bureau of Rural Workers of the Department of
Labor and Employment (BWP-DOLE) in 1994. The approved constitution
and by-laws defined the mode of operation of the cooperative. The different
activities of the organization are spelled out in the Community Resource
Management Framework (CRMF) and the annual work plan (AWP) which
is affirmed by the DENR and endorsed by the LGUs.
The cooperative is a member of the Quirino Sustainable Movement for

Environment and Economic Development (QSEED), a provincial federation
of POs. The federation was registered at the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in April 2003. It is composed of 39 POs all awarded with
CBFMAs. The federation is a non-stock and non-profit, non-government
organization whose primary concern is for the betterment of the social and
economic situation of the CBFM participants.
The German government through Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische

Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) has been supporting the implementation of the
ISF program in Quirino since 1988. The financial assistance extended to
the establishment of the Integrated Rainforest Management program, and
eventually to the implementation of the RP-German CFPQ project, which
has generated additional funding support from Kreditanstalt fur
Wiederaubau (KFW).
Findings of the study

The study found that in Quirino, there are two strands of thought pervasive
among forest communities, LGUs, and NGOs on the forest: the forest as a
life support system which enables forest communities living therein to subsist;
and as an economic resource that provides raw materials particularly timber
which could be utilized in generating funds that would support the
development activities of POs. These differing world views on the forest
have largely affected complementation and collaboration among the different
stakeholders.
The view, however, of the forest as a life support system predominates among
the forest stakeholders because it is an essential component of the economic
livelihood and subsistence of upland farmers. The kaingin (slash-and-burn)
farms or “uma” are located in the heart of the forest and are the only means
to sustain a living. Majority of the stakeholders interviewed, however, argued
timber harvesting is not necessarily environmentally destructive provided
the cooperative which directly manages its implementation would strictly
employ selective logging methods, enforce forest protection measures, adopt
silvicultural technologies, and undertake reforestation activities. The
problem exists when DENR fails to strictly implement these in the timber
harvesting operations that consequently triggers misunderstanding among
LGUs, DENR and the cooperative.

The stakes in the forest by the different stakeholders largely shape the
views and conception on the management of resources. Rice farmers who
depend primarily on the continuous supply of water from rivers and creeks
disagree with timber harvesting. Forest decimation would eventually dry
up the creeks and springs which provide water for agriculture. On the
other hand, cooperative officers, timber poachers, and former logging
workers assert that timber harvesting provides significant contributions
to the improvement of the social and economic conditions of the
community.
There is wide consensus among its different stakeholders that CBFM is a

relevant program because it addresses both forest protection and
development concerns. Community-based logging, however, necessitates the
enhancement of the capabilities of PO not only to enable them to effectively
manage the enterprise but also to discern and understand the dynamics
and politics involved in logging operations. Unfortunately, however,
organizational development and PO capability-building programs were
inadequately provided after the completion of the RP-German project.
On the collaboration and complementation of stakeholders, this has been

largely affected by the presence of functional structures in the various
agencies and organizations that support CBFM activities. The support
extended by the different organizations, however, has been largely activity-
based and has been defined by their respective organizational priorities and
logistics.
The Inter-Institutional Management Team (IIMT) organized during the

RP-German CFPQ project jumpstarted the collaborative management
approach in the implementation of the CBFM projects in Quirino. Forming
a network of organizations necessitates clear delineation of the authority,
roles, and functions of those involved. However, the ambiguous line of
command between the area coordinator of the foundation and the CBFM
coordinator monitoring the Project Management Office (PMO) resulted in
confusion as to who has the immediate control and supervision of the
performance of the PMO in the project. The PMO is a member of the area
management team headed by the area coordinator of the foundation. As a
DENR employee, however, the PMO is directly accountable to the CBFM
coordinator. Because the PMO receives his salary from DENR, he abides by
the instructions of the office, which oftentimes are not necessarily DMP-
CBFM-related.
The implementation of the RP-German project contributed largely to the

regularity of meetings among the various agencies involved in the
collaboration. The collaborators meet every month to discuss issues and
concerns affecting CBFM. The disinterest of the other collaborators to
participate in meetings and other activities after the project term would
have stemmed from the unclear mechanism on project turnover.
A collaborative approach likewise requires the need to define the

corresponding sanctions and penalties for non-compliance. This will ensure
accountability and responsibility of parties involved. Despite the non-

involvement of most of the collaborators, the LGU, foundation or DENR
could not compel compliance because of unclear arrangements among the
parties involved, particularly as regarding sanctions and penalties for non-
compliance.
The study also found that all the collaborating agencies have inadequate
resources to implement the assigned responsibilities indicated in the MOA.
The foundation, which is still in its infancy, is facing financial difficulties
that constrain the provision of cross-sectoral services to CBFM. The CBFM
unit could barely monitor project activities because of inadequate logistics.
In addition, most of the personnel assigned to the unit needed to undergo
training and capability enhancement programs but could not participate
because of limited resources.
In the midst of financial difficulties faced by the program, a collaborative

approach to project management is a viable alternative strategy to sustain
the implementation of activities. As exemplified during the implementation
of the RP-German CFPQ, the sharing of resources, authority, and
accountability is not only economical on the part of the project but also
fosters ownership and responsibility in project management.
Recommendations
As illustrated in the case study, a collaborative mode of forest governance is

not only economical but also promotes shared responsibility, thus ensuring
a higher degree of success in project implementation. The arrangement,
however, requires the presence of a convenor or initiator to objectively lead
and facilitate the stakeholders. There is also a need for a venue or forum
where the different stakeholders could regularly interact and bring out their
concerns on forest governance. Through these forums, the stakeholders
could likewise share views and opinions and generate understanding on
the program that would hopefully yield consensus in defining the approach
to forest governance.
To generate collaborative arrangements in forest governance may require

addressing the individual concerns and interests of the different stakeholders.
This implies the need to conduct dialogues and consultation processes in
clarifying issues and concerns that would hopefully lead to consensus in
forest governance.
To foster common understanding also necessitates having the DENR, LGU,

and NGOs embark on a massive information, education, and extension
campaign among forest communities. The provision of correct perspectives
on program management would clarify the existing positions of the different
stakeholders and hopefully generate common understanding of the forest.
The existence of functional organizations is necessary to ensure continuity
because these are warm bodies that implement project activities. Their
existence, however, is not adequate to sustain project implementation.

Logistical support, clear understanding of roles and responsibilities, and
steadfast commitment to support CBFM are among the other essential
requirements. Personal relations among existing members likewise affect
the degree of collaboration and support extended to CBFM.
DENR, therefore, has to initiate the drafting of amendments to RA 7160

for consideration of Congress, particularly the mandatory creation of
Environment and Natural Resource Offices (ENROs) in LGUs where major
portion of the area is located on forestlands and where wood products are
among the leading industries in the said localities. The ENRO would serve
as the focal unit or office of the LGU in forest governance and other
environment-related activities.
A MOA on collaboration is a crucial ingredient as this provides the legal

mandate to propel a collaborative approach in project management. This
likewise defines the roles and responsibilities and commitments of the
different organizations. The sustainability as well as the functionality of the
collaborative approach, however, is influenced by the informal relationship
that exists between and among the collaborators, commonality of concerns
and priorities, logistics and resources availability, and the unwavering
commitment of the respective collaborators in CBFM. The Quirino CBFM
experience therefore suggests that to ensure sustainability of collaboration
efforts might necessitate not only a MOA on collaboration but also the
establishment of good personal relations between and among the
stakeholders and the political willingness of the collaborators to support
forest governance.
A collaborative management approach in project management is not only

economical but also fosters ownership and responsibilities among the
collaborating organizations in the project. The participation of the LGU in
project implementation influences the interest and motivation to assume
project management after project duration. Collaboration of forest
stakeholders, while necessary, is not essential to ensure sustainability.
Supportive strategies and mechanisms have to be instituted and parallel
programs such as population education have to be implemented.

LGU Involvement on Devolved and Other Forest
Management Functions: The Maasim Experience
by Aniceto Lopez, Jr. and Rolando Tuballes
Hon. Aniceto Lopez, Jr. is the mayor of Maasim town in Sarangani Province and Rolando Tuballes
is the officer of Maasim’s Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office (MENRO).
Background
Maasim is a third-class municipality along the western coast of Sarangani
Province with a total population of 45,100 and an Internal Revenue
Allotment (IRA) of P 47 million. Only 45 minutes away from General Santos
City, it has a total territorial land area of 51,107 hectares.
Like other municipalities in Sarangani, Maasim is inhabited by a

conglomeration of ethnic groups, most of them migrants from the Visayas.
Cebuanos comprise the majority followed by the Boholanos and Ilonggos.
Other ethnic groups residing in Maasim are the Muslims and Indigenous
Peoples (IPs), notably the B’laans and T’bolis.
Maasim’s economy is largely dependent on its agricultural lands and marine

resources. Aside from fishing and farming, which are the primary forms of
livelihood, boatmaking, livestock raising and limestone quarrying constitute
alternative sources of income. The average per capita income in Maasim
ranges between P1,500 and P3,000 per month.
State of forests and forestlands

The continuous degradation of the municipality’s forests and forestlands
has been posing serious threats on the municipality’s socio-economic and
environmental conditions. A decline in the productivity of Maasim’s marine
and terrestrial resource bases has been noted. Destructive threats in the
area include the following: illegal cutting of trees, forestland conversion,
widespread practice of slash-and-burn farming, conflicting land claims and
absence of effective on-site management of tenured forests and forestalnds.
Recognizing these issues, the Local Government Unit (LGU), the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and other
local stakeholders have agreed on one common goal: to improve the
protection and management of Maasim’s forests and forestlands (see Table
1).

Table 1. Recommendations on Major Issues, Problems and Threats; Maasim Municipality,
2004
No. Issues, Problems and Threats Recommended Actions
1. Denudation of Forestlands
" Aggravated by the widespread " Rehabilitate denuded areas in

practice of slash-and-burn farming forestland.
and charcoal making within the " Create the Bantay Gubat Task Force.
forestland " Enact ordinance prohibiting slash-and-
" Conversion of approximately 62 burn farming and adapting sustainable
percent of all forestlands to farming systems.
grasslands due to destructive " Regulate charcoal making within the
farming practices forestlands.
" Lowered incomes of upland farmers " Conduct and intensify information
" Caused flashfloods campaigns on forest protection and
conservation.
" Provide more alternative livelihood
opportunities.
2. Illegal Cutting of Natural Grown Trees
" Rampant poaching of timber and " Organize communities to protect the
forest products in the remaining forest from the illegal cutting of trees
residual forests generally covered and the harvesting of forest products.
Community-Based Forest " Strengthen information drive against
Management Agreement (CBFMA) of illegal cutting.
Lumasal and Pananag Integrated " Enact ordinance on the enforcement of
Ecological Resources Multi-Purpose forest laws consistent with the
Cooperative (LUPA-IERMPC) guidelines of PD 705 (Revised Forestry
Code) and the Chainsaw Act.
" The erosion-prone soil, high " Strengthen law enforcement capacity
elevation and steep slopes of most
areas where cutting is rampant, of Municipal Environment and Natural
despite their being within the Resources Council (MENRC) against
protection zone. the illegal cutting of trees.
" Deputation and mobilization of Bantay
Gubat under Municipal Environment
and Natural Resources Office (MENRO).
" Strengthen CBFM people’s
organization’s (PO) forest protection
capability.
" Strengthen control of CBFMA holder
over the area to stop/minimize this
illegal activity
3. Forestland Conversion/Kaingin
Per ground validation, almost all areas " Enact ordinance that will regulate or
with rolling to relatively rolling terrain prohibit slash-and-burn/kaingin in
inside the residual forest are forestlands.
converted to kaingin farms with " Introduce 40/60 planting scheme
openings ranging from 2 to 5 hectares (40% tree crops, 60% cash crops) and
per claimant a farming system promoting soil/water
conservation.
Same as in the case of illegal cutting: " Deputize and mobilize Bantay Gubat
no intervention is being undertaken to " Provide alternative livelihoods for
control or minimize this threat upland communities, particularly forest
occupants.
" Intensify the Information,
Education and Communication
(IEC) campaign against forestland
conversion.

No. Issues, Problems, Threats Recommended Actions
4. Weak Management of Tenured/ Allocated Forests and Forestlands
" Absence of management plans in " Assist tenure holders in building their
most of the allocated areas capabilities to manage allocated areas.
" Non-implementation of Community " Mobilize MENRC to assess and evaluate
Resource Management Framewrok tenure holders regarding the policies
(CRMF) of LUPA-CBFMA and guidelines of tenurial instruments
" Weak management of LUPA-CBFMA and issue recommendations to improve
" Failure in the issuance and renewal their performance.
of tenurial instruments, especially " Have MENRC organize a technical
PLAs/FLGMAs, to properly address committee to assist tenure holders in
communal/individual property rights the preparation of management plans,
monitor and evaluate their
performance based on the
management plans and recommend to
DENR for cancellation if found guilty of
any violations.
" Have the LGU and DENR in
collaboration with MENRC monitor the
enforcement of forestry laws, rules,
and regulations by the tenure holders.
5. Conflicting Land Claims
" Land claim conflicts inside the " Have LGU, DENR, NCIP in collaboration
forestlands of Maasim involving CSC with MENRC evaluate, assess and
holders, individual families, IPs and facilitate the resolution of conflicts to
quarry operators improve the protection and
management of forestlands.
" Create a Conflict Resolution and
Adjudication Committee through
MENRC and establish guidelines and
prepare action plans to resolve the
conflicts.
" Have the LGU, DENR and NCIP
through MENRC ensure that the
individual property rights of claimants
are addressed in the renewal and
issuance of tenurial instruments.
" Have the LGU through MENRC initiate
sectoral dialogues and consultative
meetings with the contesting parties
to find a win-win or extra judicial
solution and facilitate the delineation
of contested areas.
Source: Outputs during community consultations, Stakeholders’ Analysis and

Consensus Building Workshops, Municipality of Maasim, 2004.

Forest Land Use Plan
It is in this context that a Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP) has been prepared
as required by the Joint Memorandum Circular 2003-01 for further
devolution of additional functions and responsibilities to LGUs, or co-
management agreements for the protection and management of forests and
forestlands. It is guided by the vision of making Maasim “a municipality of
rehabilitated forests and productive forestlands” by 2014.
During the FLUP process, it was found out that majority of its population
or 51.80% of the estimated 45,120 live in the 46,617- hectare forestland.
These are the Muslims and non-Muslim upland occupants who depend on
the forests and forestlands for their existence. They belong to the poorest
sector of the municipality with an income level ranging from P1,000 – 3,000
per month per household. Lack of basic services and livelihood opportunities
compel them to rely on forest resources for survival. To earn a living, they
have to resort to timber poaching, slash-and-burn cultivation and other
forms of illegal utilization of forest products.
Land classification
Of the 51,107 hectares that comprise the total land area of Maasim, only 9%
or 4,490 hectares constitute alienable and disposable (A&D) lands. Ninety-
one percent or 46,617 hectares are classified as forestlands which have 23,370
inhabitants relying mostly on forest-based activities for their survival.
Only 7,462 hectares or 16 percent is covered with residual forests. The rest
are cultivated areas planted to cash crops and perennials, (i.e., coconut,
banana, corn, coffee and abaca). Large portions of the forestlands are now
dominated by grasslands, which cover 62 percent or 28,776 hectares. These
areas have been reduced to marginal “shifting cultivation” croplands due to
traditional slash-and-burn farming practices among IPs and migrant forest
occupants.
A two-point period (1987 vs. 2004) comparing forest cover revealed that
2,530 hectares were lost at the rate of 158 hectares per year from 1987 to
2004. The natural forest with a close canopy cover of 7,088 hectares in 1987
was reduced to only 4,558 hectares in 2004. This destruction of forests in
Maasim is being accelerated by indiscriminate charcoal making within the
forestlands and by forest fires during summer.
The remaining residual forest is currently facing serious threats of forest

destruction due to rampant illegal cutting and forestland conversions.
Testimonies of forest occupants in the area revealed the estimated volume
of illegally cut lumber and flitches shipped out from the area with an average
21,000 board feet per week.
Communities and stakeholders with territorial claims over some portions

of the area prohibit cutters from launching massive cutting operations in

the area. Note, however, that cutting may be allowed depending on the
agreements between the claimants and the cutters.
CBFM in Maasim
The Lumasal and Pananag Integrated Ecological Resources Multi-Purpose
Cooperative (LUPA-IERMPC) is a peoples’ organization (PO) recognized
by the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) on August 6, 1993 bearing
a CDA registration number RN 2668 RXI, in Davao City.
On December 28, 1999, the DENR issued the tenurial instrument, CBFMA
#64-001 covering a total land area of 5,100 hectares parcel of land (See
Table 2).
Table 2. Forest cover/land use of CBFMA area, 2004
Forest Cover/Land Use Area (ha.) Barangay Covered
Residual Forest 2,795 Lumatil, Nomoh, Amsipit

Plantation/Reforested area 0 Amsipit
Agroforestry 115 None
Agricrops/Perennial 477 Nomoh, Kablacan, Amsipit
Cultivated areas/kaingin 385 None
Mangrove area 0 None
Total Forest Cover 3,772
TOTAL FORESTLAND 46,617
Source: Overlay of vegetative map, tenure, watershed and settlement map,

2004 MFLUP-TWG ground validation using GPS.
Devolution
The municipality recognizes that under Executive Order No. 192 of 1987,
the DENR is the primary government agency responsible for the sustainable
development and management of the country’s environment and natural
resources. However, the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act
(RA) 7160) states that the LGU shall share with the national government
particularly the DENR, the responsibility in the sustainable management
and development of the environment and natural resources within one’s
territorial jurisdiction.
DAO No. 92-30 supplemented by DAO No.98-01 sets the guidelines for the
devolution of DENR functions to the local government units. Twelve (12)
long years since the implementation of RA 7160 in 1992, DENR has failed
to enhance the capacities of the LGUs in the various aspects of forest
management. The LGU was unaware of these issuances. All those years,
LGU-Maasim has no intervention in the management of its environment
and natural resources specifically in the CBFM areas.

Until the coming of the Philippine Environmental Governance Project
(EcoGov) in the middle of 2004, the LGU and DENR have shared the
duties, functions and responsibilities as defined in the Memorandum of
Agreement for the implementation of the FLUP.
Tenure assessment
To jumpstart the implementation of FLUP and other devolved functions,
Maasim in partnership with EcoGov conducted a tenure assessment in all
CBFM areas last June 2005.
Results revealed that the PO which manages the 5,100 hectares of forestland
has no economic activity after the DENR suspension of the RUP sometime
in January 2004. PO officers admitted that there were lapses in the
management of the organization.
LGU intervention
The CBFM-PO requires support to strengthen its organization particularly
in running the business enterprises of the community. It has to learn and
apply simple bookkeeping and financial management to improve its
operations. The PO does not receive support in the enforcement of its
property rights and lacks paralegal training on forestry laws, rules and
regulations. Because of these inadequacies, the PO cannot fully perform
the functions, roles and responsibilities stipulated in the CBFM Agreement
(CBFMA). It remains helpless in its drive to put an end to the perennial
timber-poaching activities in its area of responsibility. The PO lacks the
capability, knowledge and resources to conduct direct forest protection work
for the remaining residual forests which roughly measure 2,795 hectares.
In order to strengthen the PO, LGU-Maasim has initiated capability-building

activities under its FLUP.
Several members withdrew their support and interest to the organization

because they no longer trust the leadership of the cooperative. This is also
true not only with the cooperative but with the DENR as well.
A series of training, seminars and workshops were conducted and funded

by the LGU in coordination with the DENR and EcoGov in order to equip
the PO with skills in managing their organization. These were the following:
1. Membership Re-education Seminar on Cooperatives which highlights

the concepts and principles of cooperatives as well as the duties and
responsibilities of the officers and members.
2. Review of policies regarding the CBFM which highlights the terms
and condition stipulated in the CBFM agreements.
3. Seminar on Basic Parliamentary Procedure for the conduct of orderly
meetings

The municipality has also extended technical assistance to the PO which
includes financial management and records keeping, linkaging with donor
agencies, and investments generation.
At present, the LGU is assisting the LUPA-IERMC in the preparation,

processing and legitimization of their Community Resource Management
Framework (CRMF) and Five-Year Work Plan. From encoding the plan to
providing funds, the LGU has been very supportive of this initiative.
Included in the plan is the amount of financial assistance requested by the
PO for a five-year period.
Finally, in its annual investment plan for 2006, the LGU has allocated
P100,000 worth of livelihood assistance for the consumer store of the
cooperative, and P18,000 augmentation fund for the honorarium and
planting materials under its agro-forestry project. An initial of 2,000 seedlings
of fruit trees will also be distributed to the PO this year to develop the
forestland in their area.
Moreover, road rehabilitation and maintenance, social and health services,

advocacy on forest protection and conservation, monitoring and evaluation
activities were among the activities prioritized by the LGU through the
Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office (MENRO).
Impacts
When LGU-Maasim started claiming its right in managing its natural
resources, the PO especially its disgruntled members were now extending
their full support to the ideals of the organization. They are now willing to
cooperate as long as the LGU will intervene, monitor and evaluate every
project and activity implemented by the cooperative. There are members of
the cooperative who are now paying their fees for membership and capital
build-up and other monetary contributions. Their trust and confidence
have now gradually grown with the renewed leadership of the organization.
Illegal cutting has momentarily stopped and individual property right is
being properly addressed.
The governance of the PO can now be regarded as transparent and

participatory. The Board of Directors is now conducting regular meetings
and deciding on matters affecting the day-to-day transactions of the PO
with the assistance of the LGU.

Co-Management of Philippine Forestlands:
Viewing Forest Governance from the Ground
by Nena Espiritu and Ma. Cynthia Casin
Nena Espiritu is an assistant professor while Ma. Cynthia Casin is the university extension
specialist of the Forestry Development Center (FDC), College of Forestry and Natural Resources (CFNR),
University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB).
Introduction
Co-management is defined as the sharing of responsibilities and benefits
between the government and individuals or collective users for the
management, exploitation and conservation of natural resources. It is an
alternative approach to forest governance. This resulted mainly from the
limited success and sometimes failure of the centralized approach which
contributed to the continuing deterioration of the environment.
Co-management of natural resources is anchored on the Local Government

Code of 1991 also known as Republic Act 7160. The Code emphasizes the
role of the local government units (LGUs) in natural resources management,
stating that the local government shares with the national government
the responsibility in the management and maintenance of ecological
balance within their territorial jurisdiction. The Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has crafted several policy
issuances to strengthen the collaboration and partnership with LGUs.
Other legislations like the National Integrated Protected Areas System
(NIPAS) of 1991 and the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997
have further recognized the role of upland farmers, fisher folk and
indigenous peoples in sustainable management of their natural resources.
After more than a decade of government efforts towards decentralization

and devolution, different organizations and agencies have tried and
implemented various forms or schemes of co-management. However, these
test cases need to be studied further in order to understand the factors
leading to successful co-management arrangements and to find ways of
strengthening existing policies and guidelines governing them.
This paper is part of the 2004 study, “Review and Analysis of Co-Management
Schemes in the Philippine Forestlands,” funded by the EcoGovernance
Program-United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
The study documented, reviewed and analyzed different co-management
schemes existing in the Philippine forestlands. The objectives of this paper
were to present the different stakeholders; to evaluate the nature and extent
of co-management practices; to identify and document the factors affecting
successes and failures of each co-management scheme; and to provide
recommendations for addressing policy- and field-level implementation
gaps.

Nature and extent of co-management by different
stakeholders
The different stakeholders are composed of people’s organizations (POs),
non-government organizations (NGOs), local government units (LGUs), the
DENR and other government agencies (GAs). The mechanisms of entering
into co-management arrangements varied greatly depending on the type
of resource, the conditions and needs of particular sites, and the mode of
interventions as dictated by the funding or grant-giving agency.
Shown in Table 1 is the summary of the implementation approaches and

types of tenure of various CBFM-type approaches in the uplands and near-
coastal areas. The implementing scheme varied with the type of program
and with the mechanisms of partnership agreement. Intervention activities
took various forms like infrastructure support, comprehensive site
development through loan support, volunteer labor in exchange for free
seedlings or funds generated from resources coming from the area,
community-organizing by the NGO or DENR, and technical support
services.
A case analysis of the co-management scheme practiced in managing the

watershed resources in Nueva Viscaya was conducted. It showed that the
co-management agreement between the various stakeholders spelled out
the rights and obligations of each party as specified in the Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) and guidelines.
The role of the DENR, which is the primary government agency responsible
for the conservation, management, protection and proper use of the
environment and natural resources, is mainly facilitative and coordinative.
This includes providing technical assistance to the provincial LGUs,
conducting periodic monitoring and assessment, and providing services
and resources in implementing the projects.
The main responsibility of the LGU is to lead, direct and coordinate the
planning, implement and monitor the work plans, allocate human and
financial resources, pass necessary ordinances, rules and regulations in
support of the project, and facilitate capability-building and empowerment
activities of peoples’ organizations.
The people’s organizations/communities, on the other hand, implement

the programs and their activities. They are responsible for maintaining,
protecting and managing the plantations and farms. They also harvest the
produce from the trees they have planted.

Table 1. Summary of the implementation approaches and types of tenure of
various CBFM-type approaches in the uplands and coastal areas.
Program/ Implementing Scheme Tenure

Project
Environmental Watershed management planning Certificate of Stewardship

Sectoral with heavy infrastructure Contract (CSC)
Adjustment Loan support, Community Organizing
(ENR-SECAL) by the DENR staff
Forestry Sector Loan support for comprehensive Community Forest

Project/ Overseas site development, CO by contract Management Agreement
Economic with the NGO (CFMA)
Cooperation Fund
(FSP/OECF)
Coastal Site development through Mangrove Stewardship

Environment volunteer labor, seedlings provided Agreement (MSA)
Program (CEP) by program
Natural Resource Site development funds generated Community-based Forest

Management from resources coming from the Management Agreement
Program (NRMP) CBFM area, CO by the DENR staff (CBFMA), CSC inside
and assisting professionals CBFM area, Certificate of
Ancestral Domain Claims
(CADC)
Low Income Upland Heavy emphasis on infrastructure Community Forest

Communities development in cooperation with Stewardship Agreement
Project (LIUCP) the LGUs (CFSA) converted to
CADC, CSC
Community Loan support for comprehensive Community Forest

Forestry Program site development, CO by contract Management Agreement
(CFP) with NGO (CFMA)
Integrated Social Mostly through individual families, CSC

Forestry (ISF) technical support services
provided, CO by the DENR
Ancestral Domain Site development generated from CADC, Certificate of

Management resources coming from the CBFM Ancestral Land Claims
Program area, CO by the DENR staff (CALC)
Source: Acosta, R.T. 2001. The role of upland communities in Watershed

Management. General Technical Report Series No. 9. Forestry Development
Center, CFNR, UPLB, College, Laguna
Issues and concerns arising from co-management

The legal framework for the local-level management of forest and natural
resources is the 1991 Local Government Code. It laid down the foundation
for decentralization and devolution thereby simplifying the lines of authority
over the management of resources. In line with this, the DENR passed several
policy issuances governing co-management. These are Department
Administrative Order (DAO) No. 92-30 entitled “Guidelines for the Transfer
and Implementation of DENR Functions Devolved to the LGUs”; the DENR-
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Joint Memorandum

Circular (JMC) No.98-01 entitled “Manual Of Procedures For DENR-
DILG-LGU Partnership On Devolved And Other Forest Management
Functions”; and the more recent JMC No. 2003-01 entitled “Strengthening
And Institutionalizing The DENR-DILG-LGU Partnership On Devolved
And Other Forest Management Functions.”
The LGUs are bound by the Local Government Code of 1991 in the
performance of their roles and responsibilities relating to devolved forest
management functions. Although the Code embodies a comprehensive legal
framework for managing forest and natural resources at the local level,
specific policies are needed to be suited to a specific area and type of resource.
Policy gap in the Code that affects enforcement

Section 1 of JMC No. 98-01 reiterates the general policies on devolution
contained in the Code. It clearly states that the DENR remains as the
primary government agency responsible for the conservation,
management, protection, proper use and sustainable development of the
country’s environment and natural resources. This section also states that
the LGUs share with the DENR the responsibility in the sustainable
management and development of the forest resources within their
territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the implementation of devolved
functions as provided by the Code is subject to the department’s
supervision, control and review.
It negates or limits the powers of the LGUs to exercise their functions. The
same point has been raised by other studies which claim that the
responsibilities devolved to the local governments are not matched by a
corresponding devolution of resources. Essentially, this means that the DENR
devolved to LGU only field personnel, few assets and meager resources.
The issues and concerns arising from co-management at the level of the
major partners involved may be summarized as follows:
The DENR. Section 9 of the Joint DENR-DILG MC No. 2003-01 enjoins

the LGUs to provide funds to make devolution, partnership and co-
management effective. This provision states that the DENR shall provide the
necessary technical support to capacitate the LGUs in handling forest management
responsibilities. The LGUs are enjoined to provide the necessary funds to make the
devolution, partnership and co-management work. Other sharing arrangements of
resources shall be worked out among DENR, DILG and LGUs, and guidelines for
such arrangements shall be provided for in the National Strategic Partnership Plan.
Because of the ambiguity of this provision, funds for this activity are very
limited or not available at present. Many technical training activities
aimed at capability-building of the LGUs are constrained by lack of funds.
The LGU. Section 7 of the Joint DENR-DILG MC No. 2003-01 reiterates

the participation of the LGU in the issuance of tenure instruments and
permits under Sec. 9.3 of JMC 98-01. This provision emphasizes the
participation of the LGU in the issuance of tenure instruments and permits.

This section states that it is mandatory for pertinent DENR offices to submit to
the LGU for comments any application for tenurial instruments including resource
extraction permits before the said instruments or permits are issued. In cases where
the forest area covers two or more cities/municipalities, then the comments of all city/
municipal LGUs including the provincial LGU must be requested. In cases where
the forestland area covers two or more provinces, the comments of all city/municipal
LGUs and the provincial LGUs which cover the area must be requested.
However, the LGU sees it most proper that it has the sole authority to issue
the RUPs and that it should not be confined only to giving comments.
The PO/Community. The POs/communities feel that they still lack

knowledge about the CBFM program because of insufficient information,
education and communication (IEC) campaign of the DENR. Furthermore,
they still prefer to be under the old Integrated Social Forestry (ISF) program
which has less stringent requirements than the CBFM program. In spite of
the co-management arrangement, the people feel that decision-making
mainly remains with the DENR.
Strengths and weaknesses of the co-management

schemes in Nueva Vizcaya
The co-management scheme practiced in Nueva Viscaya is still in its pilot
stage. Nevertheless, it has shown significant progress in rehabilitating
denuded forestlands, managing existing forests and undertaking extensive
reforestation in production and protection forests. On the other hand,
questions still arise on the sustainability of this scheme.
The perceived strengths of co-management in Nueva Viscaya are identified

as follows: (1) formulation of guidelines and strategies to implement co-
management policies in the field. These policies are translated into MOAs
and guidelines with specific and well-defined functions and obligations, roles
and responsibilities of each partner composed of the DENR, LGU and POs;
(2) recognition of existing community-management arrangements and
providing the appropriate policy support to institutionalize them. Tenurial
arrangements existing in the area have been converted into agreements
such as Tree Farm Land Management Agreement, Agro-Forestry Land
Management Agreement and CBFMAs, each one being covered by a MOA;
(3) provision of rights and incentives. The participants in the different co-
management schemes are given the right to harvest the products from trees
they have planted in exchange for their guarding, protecting and
managing their area. They are therefore afforded with livelihood
opportunities through these programs. The agreements are long-term,
covering 25 years, and are renewable for another 25 years. The participants
have the right to transfer their claims to the next of kin or to interested
members of the community; and, (4) technically trained and capable staff
of the Environment and Natural Resources Office (ENRO). The ENRO,
tasked to oversee the co-management activities, consists of technically
trained personnel devolved from the DENR to the provincial government.

The perceived weaknesses may be summarized as follows: (1) unspecified
mechanisms for accessing technical, financial and other forms of assistance
from the DENR and other government agencies; (2) problems in resolving
boundary conflicts in the tenurial instruments; and, (3) insufficient IEC
campaign to enhance the awareness of stakeholders on the merits of co-
management and the CBFM program.
Factors contributing to success or failure of co-management

In this case study, co-management arrangements have proven to be an
effective strategy in managing forest and natural resources which used to
be centrally managed by the government. The key factors leading to
successful co-management are the result of the interaction of the three major
stakeholders, namely, the community, the LGU and the DENR. However,
we need to probe for the workable combinations in specific regions or
communities.
At the community level, the following are the contributing factors to success
or failure: (1) awareness of the communities on the benefits and incentives
they can derive from the project; (2) involvement in the planning of activities
to build confidence and create ownership of the work and outputs; (3)
integration of the livelihood component as part of the project to sustain
people’s participation; (4) social preparation to precede technical
intervention; and (5) commitment and positive perception of the project.
The factors to success or failure at the LGU level are the following: (1)
allocation of human resources and local funds to the project; (2) enactment
of local policies and ordinances to support the project; (3) strong and
committed leadership; (4) a strong ENRO as a regular division of the LGU
with staffing support and annual budget allocation; and (5) recognition
by the LGUs that the benefits are measurable and far outweigh the costs.
At the DENR level, the important contributing factors to success or failure

as derived from the study are: (1) dedication of the DENR personnel
bolstered by recognition and reward for exemplary performance of duties;
(2) review and updating of policy issuances to harmonize existing laws with
long-term needs of the people and the environment; (3) raising and
allocation of funds for the project; (4) updating and retooling of field
personnel on the new policies and implementation guidelines to be
effective partners; and (5) conversion of the DENR from a regulatory
agency to a people-friendly, development-oriented organization.

In view of the findings of the study, the following were drawn:
1. Harmonization of laws on devolution with rules and procedures

governing devolved functions. The implementation of devolved
functions as provided by the 1991 Local Government Code is subject

to the DENR’s supervision, control and review. This is tantamount
to limiting the powers of the LGUs to exercise devolved functions.
2. Build the capability of LGUs to deal with management of the natural

resources within their territorial jurisdiction. Although there are
success stories about the ability of the LGUs to manage devolved
forest management functions, many LGUs have limited capabilities
due to very low budget appropriations for staff development.
3. Build the capability of the POs to become new resource managers.

They need to become aware of the benefits and incentives due them
from the program, and likewise, they must assume their full duties
and responsibilities and realize their full accountability. The DENR
therefore should help provide the necessary social preparation to
develop truly capable POs.
References
Acosta, R.T. (2001). The role of upland communities in watershed
management. In Enhancing and Sustaining Stakeholders’ Participation
in Watershed Management, General Technical Report Series No. 9,
Forestry Development Center, UP Los Baños College of Forestry and
Natural Resources, College, Laguna, Philippines.
Agbayani, R. Q. (2002). Role of LGUs in watershed management: The Nueva

Vizcaya experiment. Paper presented to the 6th Multi-Sectoral Forum on
Watershed Management, in Banaue, Ifugao, 14-15 November, 2002.
Catacutan, D. C. & Duque, C. E. (2001). Local natural resources management:

sustaining factors and policy imperatives. A synthesis report of country-wide
case studies of eleven practicing LGUs in local Natural Resources
Management. Paper presented at the First Policy Forum on Natural
Resources Management, Valencia City, Bukidnon, 8-9 November 2001.
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. Southeast Asia
Regional Research Programme.
Hanna, S. and Munasinghe, M. (1995). Property rights and the environment:

Social and ecological issues. Washigton D.C., Beijer International Institute
of Ecological Economics and the World Bank.
Lina, J. D. (2001). Role of local government units in watershed management. In

Enhancing and Sustaining Stakeholders’ Participation in Watershed
Management, General technical Report Series No. 9, Forestry
Development Center, UP Los Baños College of Forestry and Natural
Resources, College, Laguna, Philippines.
Malayang, B. S. III. (1999). Environmental co-management in the Philippines:

A policy challenge from the perspective of political ecology. In Co-Managing
the Environment. The Natural Resources of the Sierra Madre Mountain

Range (E.C. Bernardo and D. J. Snelder, eds.). Proceedings of the
International Work Conference organized by CVPED and Plan
International, in Cabagan, Isabela, Philippines, September 21-24,
1998.
Sajise, P. E., Fellizar F. P., & Saguiguit G. C. (1999). The road to community-
based resource management in the Phillipines: Entries, bends, tolls and dead-
ends. In Co-Managing the Environment. The Natural Resources of the
Sierra Madre Mountain Range (E.C. Bernardo and D. J. Snelder, eds.).
Proceedings of the International Work Conference organized by CVPED
and Plan International, in Cabagan, Isabela, Philippines, September
21-24, 1998.

Creating Partnership between LGUs
and CBFM People’s Organizations:
The Next Step in Sustainable Forest
Management
by Mark Anthony M. Ramirez and Eduardo B. Paras
Mark Anthony M. Ramirez works for EcoGov as Forests and Forestlands Management (FFM) Assisting
Professional assigned in Sarangani Province. Eduardo B. Paras is chairperson of the Lumasal
and Panang Integrated Ecological Resources Multi-Purpose Cooperative (LUPA-IERMC).
Rationale
Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) as a national strategy for
sustainable forest management reflects the State’s incapacity to adequately
protect our natural resources in the past decades.
Struggling to find ways on how to combat environmental degradation, the

government found itself partnering with upland communities – the same
people they branded as “squatters” during the 1970s. Over 20 million
inhabitants in the uplands are considered the “poorest of the poor” of our
society.
CBFM then hopes to address the twin goals of poverty alleviation and forest
conservation. Communities formed into people’s organizations (POs) have
been given the right to utilize forest resources such as timber and other
non-timber forest products (NTFPs) as a source of their livelihood with the
corresponding responsibility of rehabilitating and protecting the remaining
forest in their areas for 25 years.
Given the limited financial capital to perform these functions, the concept
of “borrowing from nature for nature” became the readily-accepted solution.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issues
resource use permit (RUP) which grants the POs the right to harvest natural
grown and planted trees within the allowable limit. The proceeds from the
community’s logging activities will then fund production and protection
activities and generate livelihood opportunities for its members.
While the RUP scheme worked for POs who have the skills to effectively
run a timber enterprise, it was allegedly used by some POs to cut trees
wantonly outside their approved areas of operation. These incidences
caused a series of national RUP suspensions ordered by three successive
DENR secretaries that hampered the activities of those POs dutifully
undertaking their tasks.
These POs argue that the government should only penalize erring
organizations and exclude the performing ones. As a result of the on-

and-off suspensions, demoralization among the ranks of CBFM POs
became prevalent, to the extent of CBFM being declared a failure and
threatening the sustainability of forest protection efforts.
In yet another blow, the DENR secretary cancelled 233 Community-Based

Forest Management Agreements (CBFMAs) across the country in December
2005, citing the failure of these holders to uphold their responsibilities.
Another wave of cancellations followed in January 2006 in Regions 1, 4 to 9
and CARAGA. The decision was made without consulting the concerned
sector.
In the wake of these events, this paper attempts to answer the following
questions: (a) Are we going back to the old system where the government
dictates what is best for our forest and forest communities? (b) What future
awaits the CBFM POs? (c) What other arrangements can be utilized to replace
the flawed system of governance at the national level? Using the experience
of the CBFM PO Federation in Sarangani, we will provide insights on how
they deal with the problems hounding the CBFM sector. We hope that this
paper could initiate discussions about the new model of people oriented-
forestry in the Philippines.
Sarangani
Sarangani is the southernmost province in mainland Mindanao. It is cut

in half by General Santos City, giving its two sections a “hammock-like”
shape surrounded by mountains and the Sarangani Bay. It has seven
municipalities (Alabel, Malapatan, Glan, Malungon, Maasim, Kiamba and
Maitum) with a total of 140 barangays.
The province has a total land area of 395,754 hectares, 66 percent of which
is classified as forestland. There are 43,969 hectares of old-growth forest
containing a variety of flora and fauna, including the famous tarsier.
Dense forest cover can be found at the western side touching South Cotabato.
The widest cover is in the municipality of Kiamba which has 87 percent
forest cover. In contrast, Alabel is noted for having enormously denuded
forestland with only 32.49 sq. km. of remaining forest cover. The forest is
critical to its thriving fishing industry in providing protection against erosion
and siltation.
Sarangani has culturally diverse groups consisting of the B’laan, T’boli,

Tagakaolo, Kalagan, Manobo, Ubo, and Muslim tribes and Christian
settlers. Given its large forestland area, majority of the population are in
the uplands, dependent on forest resources for their daily needs. To ensure
that different socio-economic interests are met and to manage these areas,
the government has awarded portions of its forestland to IPs and POs.

The Sarangani CBFM PO Federation
Almost all CBFM POs in the province were organized as part of government
reforestation or people-oriented forestry projects. They were recipients
of grants and contracts from donor agencies including the Asian
Development Bank (ADB), Philippine Australian Cooperation Assistance
Program (PACAP), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and
United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Composed initially of five POs in Maasim, Kiamba and Maitum, the

Federation was formed in 1997 to generate environmental interest,
promote forest protection and implement forestry programs in the
province. The Federation, however, has yet to register in any accreditation
agency due to financial constraints. Even without the necessary resources
to support its activities, it meets quarterly to discuss problems and concerns
and to look for possible projects. The expenses are usually shouldered by
its leaders which they consider a necessary sacrifice for the interest of their
members.
When the Natural Resources Management Program (NRMP) visited some

of these POs, it encouraged the Federation to expand its membership and
include the remaining seven in Malapatan, Glan, Malungon and Alabel.
This materialized in 1998 increasing the membership to 12 POs. POs have
a direct bearing on the future of forest resources in the province, and vice
versa, in resolving poverty in the uplands.
Although majority of the tenured areas in the province are now under the
Certificate of Ancestral Domains Claims (CADCs) covering 81,000 hectares,
a significant portion is still under the CBFMAs comprising around 21,347
hectares. In Kiamba alone where the remaining forest cover of Sarangani
is located, there are more than 11,000 hectares of forestland that are
being managed by three POs (see Table 1). This situation only shows that,
the activities of the POs have a direct bearing on the future of forest
resources in the province and in resolving poverty in the uplands.
The Federation has faced similar problems encountered by other POs in

the country, from lack of financial capital and livelihood source to
suspensions and cancellations of RUPs. These problems are interrelated
and could be traced back to their Community Resource Management
Framework (CRMF).

Table 1. Basic Information on the members of the Sarangani CBFM PO
Federation.
Name Of CBFM-PO CBFMA Date Covered Total Location/

No. Issued Area Member- Venue
(ha) ship
Maitum
Zion Farmers Multi- 64-002 December 6,613.37 250 Barangay

Purpose Cooperative 1999 Zion,
(ZIFAMULCO) Maitum
Zion Integrated Marginal 64-004 July 31, 607 120 Barangay

Land Development 2000 Zion,
Association (ZIMLAD) Maitum
Pinolians Integrated 64-006 Febuary 19, 1,925 98 Barangay

Multi-Purpose 2001 Pinol,
Cooperative (PIMPC) Maitum
Maasim
Lumasal-Pananag 64-001 December 5,100 479 Barangay

Integrated Eco. 1999 Lumasal,
Resources Multi-purpose Maasim
Coop. (LUPA-IER MPC)
Kiamba
Kapanal T’boli Multi- 64-003 January 5,374.70 71 Barangay

Purpose Cooperative 2000 Gasi,
(KTMPC) Kiamba
T’boli Community Falel 64-005 August 1, 5,750 192 Barangay

Association, Inc. 2000 Tamadang,
(TCFCAI) CBFMA on Kiamba
Communal Tree Planters 64-007 November 115 130 Barangay

Multi-Purpose 12, 2003 Badtasan,
Cooperative (CTPMPC) Kiamba
Alabel
Alabel Agri-Development 645-05 November 51 62 Barangay

Multi-Purpose 11, 2003 Paraiso,
Cooperative Alabel
(ALADEMCO)
Glan
Dataldap-Miasong Multi- 64-503 March 20, 294.32 20 Barangay

Purpose Cooperative 2000 Dataldap,
(DMMPC) Glan
Rio del Pilar Farmers * December 529.25 86 Barangay

Multi-purpose 1999 Rio Del
Cooperative (RDPFMPC) Pilar, Glan
Malungon
Kibala Farmers 64-501 Sept 10, 435.95 60 Barangay

Cooperative (KFC) 1999 Kibala,
Malungon,
B’laan Farmers 64-502 Jan. 18, 294 69 Barangay

Cooperative(BFC) 1999 Blaan
Malungon,
* CBFMA has yet to be issued to the PO

Issues and concerns
Based on their CRMFs, the POs have geared their operation toward timber
utilization while a few have planned to look for alternative sources of
income. Those who opted for the latter, however, lacked the necessary
linkages and skills to promote investments in their areas (i.e., ecotourism,
agroforestry, high value crops). This is the reason why they were left with
no alternative after the cancellation of their RUPs.
Without the much-needed income, the POs could not adequately address
their forest rehabilitation and protection responsibilities. Some POs have
not even repaid their loans for road rehabilitation until now. Bantay-Gubat
could not be obliged to patrol the CBFM area without the monetary
incentive. The POs cannot be blamed because their members also have
families to feed. Hence, the forest and the people depending on it suffered.
The fishing industry has also suffered from the RUP cancellation. Half of
the population of Sarangani relies on this industry for survival. Fisher folk
need wood to construct their boats. Buying wood outside the province only
increases their spending. Thus, some of them are compelled to get their
wood from illegal sources just to continue their livelihood activity. This
reflects the real situation on the ground and this, we believe, has not been
considered in decision making at the national level.
Source of hope
In the middle of 2005, the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID)-funded Philippine Environmental Governance 2
(EcoGov2) Project was invited by the Provincial Government of Sarangani
to assist the province in strengthening the capacities of Local Government
Units (LGUs) in environmental planning and implementation to improve
the local governance of forest and forestlands, coastal resources, solid and
water waste.
The province took its cue from the provisions of the 1991 Local
Government Code which stated that certain environmental functions are
devolved to the LGUs including the management of communal watersheds
and the enforcement of forest laws. This was supported by succeeding
policy issuances such as the Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG)-DENR Joint Memorandum Circular 1998-01 and 2003-01 that
establish and strengthen the LGU and DENR partnership in forest
management. In addition, Executive Order 318 provides for the
preparation of Forest Land Use Plans (FLUPs) in each municipality which
will serve as the road map in forestland management and allocation.
In its initial stage, the collaboration called for technical assistance in preparing
and implementing the FLUPs of the seven municipalities covered by the
province. To date, the municipalities of Maitum and Maasim have
legitimized their individual FLUPs and are now implementing its provisions
while the remaining municipalities are in the preparation stage. A

Provincial Technical Working Group chaired by the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Officer (PENRO) under the LGU
was created to provide technical assistance and monitor the FLUP and
CBFM activities in the municipalities.
Part of the implementation of the FLUPs is to strengthen the management

capability of tenure holders like the CBFM PO Federation. A series of
workshops, training and seminars were held to achieve this purpose. As a
result, 70 percent of the total membership of the POs became active again
according to the Federation president. They saw this as an opportunity to
get in shape and continue their functions as forest managers.
Realizing that the activities of the POs cannot be implemented without a

budget, the provincial LGU, along with its counterparts from the
municipalities and their respective POs, has allocated an annual subsidy to
the Federation. For 2006, the province provided the Federation with
PhP445,000 funding for organizational strengthening, nursery
establishment, agroforestry, reforestation and livelihood generation. Maasim
has pledged PhP445,000 for Lumasal-Pananag Integrated Ecological
Resources Multi-Purpose Cooperative (LUPA-IERMC) while other
municipalities have committed PhP100,000 sourced from the provincial
and municipal Annual Investment Plans.
The province has likewise promoted the CBFM sites for agroforestry
investments linking the POs to local and foreign investors. During the
Investment Forum organized by the province in November 2005, these
sites were highlighted as main areas for growth and development. An
investment agreement is also being readied in case there are successful
negotiations in the near future. To be signed by the PO, the investor and
the provincial or municipal LGU with the DENR as witnesses, the
agreement aims to provide safeguards to each party, listing their roles
and responsibilities regarding the production and marketing of products.
This way the LGUs and the POs have shared responsibilities.
Next step
Let us now answer the questions we posed at the start of the paper. Are we
going back to the old system where the government dictates what is best for
our forest and forest communities? From what is happening at the national
policy level, it seems that the answer is yes. With strong resistance coming
from the PO sector and other groups believing in the principles of
transparency, accountability and participation, however, the government
should think twice about its policy direction. People-oriented forestry
programs have survived since the late 1970s in the midst of pressures from
oscillating government policies. What we need to achieve is to promote
the full participation of LGUs and POs in the formulation of policies
affecting them. Decisions should not be unilateral but be made with clear
feedback mechanism on the ground.

What future awaits the POs? If we approach this question at the national
level, the answer is again bleak given the existing policy direction. But if
we approach this at the local level, with the clear sharing of responsibilities
between the LGUs and the POs, the answer is promising. The Sarangani
experience has shown that this could be done. The LGUs can provide the
missing link in the CBFM process: local financial and technical support
with clear accountability and responsibility. However, how to involve the
LGUs in forest management is another matter. The initiative should come
from them and not from anybody else telling them what to do.
What other arrangements can replace the flawed system of governance at

the national level? The Local Governance Model has been in place since the
passage of the 1991 Local Government Code. The only thing needed is for
the LGUs to internalize their role in forest management, including their
responsibility to their constituents like the POs in terms of policy and
decision-making functions, budget and personnel.
It is too early to tell whether this model will work but at least initial steps
have been taken and there are indications that the results are promising.
And this is the next step.

Institutional Strengthening
for PO Self Governance
National CBFM PO Federation of the Philippines:

Issues and Challenges Towards Self-Governance
by Josefina Campo
Josefina Campo is the president of the National CBFM PO Federation of the Philippines.
The National Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) People’s

Organization (PO) Federation of the Philippines is considered as the largest
organized group in the country, representing the interests of more than
20 million residents in forestlands. Although the organization was only
officially registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
in March 2004, the national federation was formed in July 1998, serving
as the umbrella of all CBFM POs and local federations. It is composed of
14 regional federations, 71 provincial federations and 1,691 POs.
The federation envisions itself as a self-reliant unifying entity among CBFM

federations in the Philippines that shall preserve spiritual and cultural
heritage, and promote and undertake the protection, development,
conservation, and sustainable management of the country’s environment
and natural resources. To attain this vision, the federation continues to
strengthen itself and unify POs towards sustainable advancement of the
natural resources and to help fulfill the needs of the local federations and
POs.
The following are the federation’s objectives:
1. To assist members and affiliates to become ecologically accountable,

economically viable, politically strong and socially responsive;
2. To catalyze/inspire CBFM federation participation in local
governance in collaboration with other groups, agencies and
stakeholders;
3. To represent CBFM POs by bringing forth concerns from the PO
level to the appropriate agencies and taking the lead in finding
resolutions for each; and
4. To synergize activities of each federation for a more integrated and
effective implementation of environmental programs and endeavors
nationwide.
Major accomplishments
After eight long years of service, the federation has gone through a lot of
difficulties and accomplishments. Hailed as the largest organized group in
the country, it was a challenge to the officers and members to fulfill our
mission and vision. The federation steadfastly managed to achieve major
accomplishments, most significant of which are gaining support from the
local government units (LGUs), recognition and membership in local
councils, and involvement in the development of CBFM policies and
guidelines. It was also able to update data on the status of the PO members
in some sites, which was made possible through monitoring and evaluation
support by several NGOs.
Though marginalized for quite sometime, we have proven our strength

when we consolidated the position of CBFM POs in the country and came
up with a unified stand regarding the recent cancellation without due
process of 852 Community-Based Forest Manamgement Agreements
(CBFMAs) in eight regions. Our position statement helped convinced the
DENR Secretary to rescind the cancellation order.
These major accomplishments were made through the support of the active
members of the federation, NGOs, DENR and other institutions that
helped us promote and put into operation our mission and plans. However,
along with these accomplishments, the federation also had to confront
several challenges.
Major issues and challenges

Unstable DENR policies became a challenge and a drawback for the
federation. Most of the time, it slows down the implementation of the
federation’s projects. A good example is the suspension of issuance of
resource utilization permits, which severely affected livelihood of small
farmers. Another example is the cancellation without due process of 852
CBFMAs in eight regions.
There is also a need for continuous capacity-building for POs, which may
sometimes seem impossible because of the limited resources and technical
support extended by the DENR. We cannot blame the DENR because
they also lack resources and capacity, which contributed to the problems
faced by the POs.
Problems related to lack of trust, commitment and communication among

the members likewise surfaced. One reason is the lack of organized support
for the members. Having a large number of members can also sometimes
be a disadvantage. In addition, updating the database on PO members at
the federation level is hard to accomplish.
On the administrative side, the federation is linked to the government

and it has been a major challenge to achieve self-governance.

Recommendations
The DENR should create simplified and stable CBFM policies that will
allow POs to benefit from their responsible management of forest
resources. It should also institutionalize an organized support system from
the DENR field offices, LGUs, government agencies, NGOs, academe,
and the private sector for the POs. This would not only ensure
organizational sustainability but will also open income-generation
opportunities.
On the other hand, the federation should strengthen partnerships with

the LGUs and private sector to promote investment and economic
development in CBFMA areas. It also has to empower its members by
educating them on the policies and their rights as a stakeholder. Moreover,
the federation should actively participate and sustain organizational
strengthening through training and capacity-building, creation of
independent database on all CBFM sites nationwide, aggressive resource
generation, and forging unity among members, including “cleansing”
within our own ranks.
And finally, we should form a party list representation in Congress so that

CBFM communities will be able to participate and hasten the deliberation
of federation’s concerns on policy issues. This is one way of pushing for
more stable CBFM policies.
Case Stories: Institutional Strengthening for PO Self Governance 189

Indigenous Peoples in Community-Based Forest
Management Program:
Social Safeguards Issues
by Dr. Ruben Z. Martinez
Dr. Ruben Z. Martinez is a member of the OTRADEV Foundation, Inc., an association of development
workers providing technical and management support to indigenous peoples’ organizations in Mindoro.
The examination of the adverse social and cultural impacts of Community-

Based Forest Management (CBFM) Program amongst indigenous people
(IP) communities is the main concern of this paper. The full range of
impacts as a result of the introduction of new property relations, social
and organizational patterns and technologies have not been fully assessed.
This may have been a result of the lack of understanding on the importance
of incorporating cultural sensitivity in the design and implementation of
community-based forestry management program. The paper, therefore,
analyses how the lack of cultural sensitivity of CBFM may have contributed
to social safeguards issues such as cultural displacement and
marginalization, loss of indigenous knowledge and practice, and distortion
of traditional organization and life ways that led into the disintegration
of the traditional social safety nets. CBFM may have also unwittingly
reinforced the existing majority-minority dichotomy.
This paper uses social safeguard as an analytical concept that examines

the impact of development initiatives and how people of different ethnicity
or cultural groups may or may not benefit equally from such development
initiatives1 This is in contrast to that of the substantive and procedural
safeguard requirements of the World Bank (WB) and Asian Development
Bank (ADB) as part of the Bank’s internal policies and operating
procedures.
The issue of ancestral domain, which has been exhaustively documented
and analyzed, is indeed important. Analysis of the indigenous peoples
who have chosen to participate in the CBFM program and are holders of
the CBFM Agreement also deserve careful consideration. The insights
from such analysis will hopefully enhance the cultural sensitivity of CBFM
program which is now being emulated in other countries.
Indigenous peoples in community forestry

Prior to the implementation of the government’s community-oriented
forestry programs, indigenous peoples have been managing and utilizing
forest resources. Even the intensive agriculturists such as the Ifugao and
1
Social Safeguard as an analytical construct may also be used in examining the
cultural impact of cross-cutting/multi-component approach such as population-health
and environment program (see also Martinez, 2006)

other indigenous peoples’ groups in Cordillera value the importance of
the forest to their ecosystem. The Ayta of Zambales, Mangyans of Mindoro,
and other forest dwellers have, at some point of their cultural history,
subsisted through hunting and gathering, and as a result have accumulated
encyclopaedic knowledge of forest flora and fauna. This intimate
relationship with the forest still persists, as most of the indigenous peoples
occasionally engage in hunting and gathering to supplement the swidden
agriculture crops. These swidden agriculturists also consider the forest as
an important component of their agricultural system as reflected in their
indigenous knowledge and belief system.
However, the colonization and modernization process led to the creation

of the majority-minority dichotomy, with the indigenous peoples as ethnic
minority. They often do not have adequate access to information, political
and economic resources and therefore marginalized and impoverished.
Their lack of education has greatly disadvantaged them and as a result
was unable to benefit from the development process in the same manner
as the majority groups.
Part of this institutional bias is the imposition of the ‘regalian’ doctrine

which displaced wholesale the indigenous peoples from their ancestral
land. Missionaries and development institutions have imposed values and
beliefs that eroded their traditional culture, thereby contributing to the
disintegration of the indigenous social organization and cultural fabric.
Moreover, because their communal social organization, religion, health
belief, language, and material culture are very much different from the
modernized mainstream society, their culture is often denigrated as archaic
and obsolete.
Indigenous peoples assimilated into the mainstream society have

increasingly acquired access to education, economic and political resources.
However, some such as the Ayta and Mangyan, whose access to economic
and political resources have been limited, relied on outside assistance to
protect what remains of their ancestral land. The community- oriented
forestry program, therefore, provided them the tenurial instrument to
prevent further encroachment. Some of the pioneer indigenous peoples’
groups who have availed of this option include the Pundasyon Hanunoo
Mangyan and the Ikalahan Foundation.
However, there are no data available at the CBFM Office of the Forest
Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) on the number of indigenous peoples or indigenous peoples’
groups that are holders of CBFM agreement. Just by looking at the names
of the 4,881 peoples’ organizations2 one can surmise that a number of
2
Tolentino (2003), Program Director of the National Forestation Development
Office (NFDO) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
reports that there are about 4,881 community-oriented forestry projects being
implemented. This project, which includes the earlier tenurial instruments
issued in the past 30 years covers an area of about 5.9 million hectares.
3
Part of the confusion may be traced to the ambiguity of defining an indigenous
person (see Martinez Cobo, 1986)

them are indigenous peoples’ organizations. Some of the groups include
terms such as tribal or the name of their ethnolinguistic groups such as
Mangyan, Mandaya or T’boli. However, in some of the peoples’
organizations, the indigenous peoples and upland migrants are part of
the community organization, making it difficult to detect whether the
people’s organization truly belongs to indigenous peoples’ groups or not.
The absence of disaggregated data about indigenous peoples3 in CBFM
program is in itself an indicator of the lack of cultural sensitivity. This also
indicates the lack of prioritization of indigenous peoples in the DENR
policy direction, even as DENR continues to maintain its Indigenous
Communities Assistance Desk to assist them. The Indigenous Communities
Assistance Desk was created to process the Certificate of Ancestral Domain
Claim (CADC). The office was severely understaffed and underfunded
and as a result, its activities were focused mostly on CADC-related activities.
The concerns of indigenous peoples in CBFM program that are outside
of the CADC areas remain unattended.
Resource conflict among stakeholders
CBFM program provided the venue by which conflict amongst the

contending stakeholders can be resolved. Through the CBFM agreement
and the Community Resource Management Framework (CRMF), the
needs of each stakeholder are identified and addressed. However, some of
the stakeholders may have more access to economic and political resources.
As a result, some of the stakeholders may have more influence, thus, the
conflict in the watershed remains unresolved and needs to be managed
(Chiong-Javier, 1999). There are no definitive studies on the impact of
CBFM on upland migrants’ encroachment on forestlands claimed by the
indigenous peoples. Accounts of some of the indigenous peoples’ leaders
in Mindanao suggest that CBFM has provided upland migrants with a
tenurial instrument which they used to encroach on territories that were
claimed by the indigenous peoples. Upland migrants from Mindoro,
Palawan and Mindanao, thinking that the forest area is an open access
public domain land, have settled in secondary forest areas. These secondary
forest areas, according to indigenous peoples are mostly areas lying fallow
or are traditional hunting grounds. In some of these areas, timber or
mining concessions have paved the way for the upland migrants, creating
the network of logging and mining roads, which enabled them to have
easy access to the logged over areas or secondary forest areas.
The experience of Tampakan, South Cotabato also illustrates the role of

CBFM in the resource conflict situation among the B’laan, indigenous
communities of South Cotabato. Through the assistance of Western Mining
Corporation, the indigenous communities of Tampakan were awarded a
certificate of ancestral domain. As a result of the internal dispute among
4
According to the leaders, the timber was salvage from fallen logs and dead
trees. Inspection of the timber show otherwise and that not all came from fallen
logs or dead trees.

some of the leaders, one group decided to apply and was granted a CBFM
agreement (Martinez, 2003c). The leaders claimed that they do not have
the capacity, financial and human resources, to prepare the ancestral
domain management plan. The lack of support from the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is also one reason why they
decided to apply for a CBFM agreement. Through the CBFM Agreement,
they were able to secure a Resource Utilization Permit (RUP) and were
able to cut timber4 which they sold to the market. However, the shipment
of the cut lumber was stopped because they were not able to secure a
transport permit. This experience confirms the policy and operational
gaps in government policies, which include the non-implementation of
the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) and the lack of clear guidelines
within the CBFM policy on how to handle situation that involved
indigenous peoples.
Respect for indigenous culture and tradition

CBFM Program draws from the sustainable development discourse that
recognizes the importance of bio-cultural diversity and community
participation. However, the development approach used does not
distinguish the upland migrants from the indigenous peoples communities.
It is against this background that Chiong-Javier (1999) may have identified
the need for updating our current knowledge and understanding of the
socio-psychological and cultural changes underwent by indigenous peoples
who are residing in the upland watershed areas, most of which are also
beneficiaries of the CBFM program.
DENR’s lack of cultural sensitivity may be illustrated by the incident in

one community meeting in Balambang, Alfonso Lista (formerly Potia).
During the meeting, a National Forestation Development Office (NFDO)
Division Chief informed the participants that they should be thankful to
the government for awarding them the CBFMA and that they should also
be thankful that were not evicted from the forest lands where they are
considered as squatters.5 Similarly, in Mindoro and in other parts of the
Philippines, I have also witnessed other incidents of the lack of cultural
sensitivity among some of the staff of DENR both at the central office and
the field offices (Regional, Provincial, and Community Office) and among
some of the staff of assisting organizations.6 This attitude of mainstream
cultural reinforces the majority-minority dichotomy and contributes to
the marginalization of indigenous culture. This lack of cultural sensitivity
5
The author was part of the National Forest Development Office (NFDO)
Evaluation team, which undertook the evaluation of the Upper Magat Watershed
Subproject Area of the JBIC-funded Forestry Project II. The meeting with the
community was part of the evaluation process. I was thankful that the
statement by the NFDO staff did not offend the community. They may have
ignored the statement in deference to our status as persons of authority and as
guests of the community.
6
Assisting organizations are local NGOs contracted by DENR to provide technical
assistance to CBFMA holders in developing and implementing the Community Resource
Management Plan.

may have been a result of the lack of understanding of the issues of ancestral
domain or the complexity of the indigenous culture.
As a result of this lack of cultural sensitivity and the absence of systematic

assessment of indigenous cultural practice, CBFM program in most cases
have introduced fast-growing forest species, edging out the indigenous
forest species. The impact of the introduction of new species to the
ecosystem has not been fully established or how it affected existing flora
and fauna which are the sources of herbal medicine, rattan and materials
for their handicraft, and the performance of rituals. These existing flora
and fauna are therefore important to the indigenous communities for
their cultural, livelihood, health, and nutritional needs. The CBFM
program also introduced a new organizational pattern, supplanting the
traditional social organization. This organizational pattern has caused
further fragmentation of the communities, as seen in the Tampakan
experience.
Mixed-up policy environment

CBFM Program is an important component of the forest’s sustainable
development policy. It also recognises the important contribution of
indigenous peoples to sustainable development. It nevertheless has its
pitfalls and shortcomings, when viewed together with other policies such
as Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, Mining Act, and Protected Areas, with
competing if not conflicting goals and priorities. The recent cancellation
of CBFM agreement and the suspension of resource utilization permits
may be viewed as a symptom of this mixed-up policy environment. Likewise,
the design and implementation of some of the projects funded through
the multilateral and bilateral funding institutions reflect this situation.
Funding institutions such as Ford Foundation, United States Agency for

International Development (USAID), WB and ADB have exerted
significant influence in pushing for the adoption of the CBFM as a
development strategy for forestry development (Pulhin, 2002). Some of
the most significant influences include the 15-year Ford Foundation-funded
Upland Development Program that has significantly contributed to the
refinement of earlier policy that evolved to the present CBFM program.
The USAID- funded Natural Resources Management Program was
instrumental in synthesizing Executive Order No. 263 and generating its
widespread acceptance, as well as implementing the rules and regulations
adopted under CBFM as the national strategy for sustainable development
of the country’s forest resources.
7
This includes the Malang-og Participatory Upland Development Project in
Mansalay, Oriental Mindoro. It is in this pilot area where the add-on clause
disclaimer on ancestral land domain claim on the Certificate of Stewardship
Contract was first used. The writer was the process documentor of the project
from 1984-86.

World Bank and Asian Development Bank-funded forestry projects also
contributed significantly to the development of policies that provide
upland communities with land tenure security, access to forest resources,
and the participation of civil society in forest management. However,
even as the pilot projects7 have incorporated IP concerns, implementation
of the scaled-up program has conveniently ignored indigenous peoples’
issues. This has become even more apparent as IPRA passed on the
responsibility of addressing indigenous peoples’ issues to NCIP.
There is, nevertheless, a need to harmonize the CBFM policy with that of
the Indigenous Peoples policy. In October 2003, NCIP and DENR issued
a joint memorandum circular for the harmonization of the implementation
of the IPRA and the environment and natural resources laws and policies.
The memorandum circular aims to clarify the jurisdiction, authority and

responsibility of the NCIP and DENR in the management, protection,
utilization, and rehabilitation of the environment and natural resources
within the ancestral domains, to strengthen all ongoing policy
harmonization efforts of DENR and NCIP, and to recognize and support
to related initiatives of Local Government Units, peoples’ organizations,
and civil society support groups. This memorandum may not cover
indigenous peoples in CBFM areas. Hopefully, the safeguard issues
identified in this paper will be considered as both agencies begin to plan
and develop activities for the harmonization.
Concluding remarks
The social and cultural impacts of CBFM program on indigenous
communities deserve careful scrutiny. The need to understand how the
introduction of new property relations, social and organizational patterns
and technologies affect indigenous knowledge, traditional social
organization and life ways of indigenous communities is as important as
doing economic or ecological analysis of reforestation or forest
management. The environment and social assessment needs to
incorporate social safeguard as a generic analytical construct to understand
how people of different ethnicities or cultural groups may or may not
benefit differently from such development initiatives. Social safeguard
assessment should also pay attention to possible displacement of one group
or inequitable sharing of benefits from the project, or a situation where
one group disproportionately bears the environmental or social cost of
the project.
It is also important to assess and measure the impact of the policies on the
stakeholders, which are often classified by economic sector. This
desegregation by sectors is also important. However, development planners
should also desegregate stakeholders by ethnolinguistic groups. This is to
ensure that vulnerable groups such as the indigenous cultural communities
are better served and that their specific cultural requirements are also
met. The lack of information about indigenous peoples in CBFM areas is
not an isolated phenomenon. Statistics offices have routinely ignored

indigenous peoples in the generation of statistics. As a result, the indigenous
peoples’ population have remained invisible. Results of consultations and
accounts of NGOs show high incidence of poverty among indigenous
people communities, especially among groups that lack access to political
resources, such as the Ayta and Iraya Mangyan. These groups lack the
necessary social, economic and political capital to avail of programs such
as the CBFM.
References
Cobo, J. M. (1986). Who are the indigenous peoples? A working Definition.
Retrieved from www. Iwgia.org/sw310.asp.
Chiong-Javier, M.. (1999). Ownership and Property Rights Issues in

Watershed Resource Management. Journal of Philippine Development,
No. 47, Volume XXVI, No. 1 (1st Semester).
Martinez, R. Z.. (2006). PHE and indigenous peoples: Social safeguard issues.
Paper presented at the 2nd National Conference on Population Health
and Environment. Waterfront, Cebu. March 15-17, 2006.
Martinez, R. Z. (2005). Social safeguard policies: Crises of displacement and

marginalization. Paper presented in UGAT Annual Conference.
University of the Philippines Visayas (Miag-ao). October 20-21 2005.
Martinez, R. Z. (2004a). Iraya’s Mehura: Challenges in Defining and Codifying

their Ancestral Domain – Case Study from the Philippines. Paper presented
at the Regional Workshop on Indigenous Peoples and Communal
Land Management, Asian Development Bank, Manila.
Martinez, R. Z. (2004b). Harnessing Culture in Population, Health and

Environment Initiatives. Paper presented in 1st National Conference
on Population Health and Environment. Meralco Management
Leadership Development Center, Antipolo.
Martinez, R. Z. (2003a). Revitalizing indigenous language: The case of Iraya of

Mindoro, Philippines. Paper presented at the International Conference
on Language Development and Revitalization in Ethnic Minority
Communities. UNESCO Bangkok, SIL International and Mahidol
University. Bangkok, Thailand.
Martinez, R. Z. (2003b). Iraya youth of Mindoro: Towards an intergenerational

sensitized ethnography. Paper presented at the 5th National Social Science
Congress, Philippines Social Science Center: Quezon City, May 15-17
2003.
Martinez, R. Z. (2003c). Corporate social and environmental responsibility

(CSER) in mining sector: Case sudy of Tampakan, South Cotabato, Philippines.
Social Development Research Center – De La Salle University.

Pulhin, J. M. (2002). Trends in forest policy of the Philippines policy. Trend
Report, 29-41.
Tolentino, D. Jr. (2003). Report of the regional field workshop on community

forest management support project for Southeast Asia, Asia Forest Network,
Cao Bang, Vietnam.

Sustaining the Gains of CBFM and Moving Towards PO
Self-Governance:
The Quirino Experience
by Gordon Bernard R. Ignacio and Sharon Marie S. Paet
Forester Gordon Bernard R. Ignacio has for the past two years served as program adviser
for the CBFM Component of the GTZ-assisted Environment and Rural Development Program.
Sharon Marie S. Paet is the executive director of the Community Forestry Foundation of Quirino, Inc.
For the past 18 years, the German government through the German
Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) has been supporting people-
oriented forestry programs of the Philippine government. From 1988
to 1991, the Philippine-German Dipterocarp Forest Management Project
(DFMP) implemented its Social Forestry Component in Asaclat,
Nagtipunan, one of the upland barangays of Quirino province.
In 1989, the reorganized Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (DENR) launched the Community Forestry Program (CFP). The
CFP signaled a radical shift in policy because for the first time, communities
could manage and utilize the natural forest, unlike before wherein they
were confined to open or denuded areas. In the same year, then President
Corazon C. Aquino had a state visit in Germany whereby she requested
the German government to assist the newly-launched community forestry
program. The request was favorably considered and a technical assistance
team was dispatched to the Philippines in 1990.
From 1992 to 1994, the Philippine-German Integrated Rainforest

Management Project (IRMP) was implemented. From one upland
barangay, it was expanded to five, which were the sites identified in the
feasibility study. The IRMP focused on the organizing and strengthening
of communities for the eventual issuance of a communal tenurial
instrument – the Community Forestry Management Agreement. The
project implemented an integrated approach and was intended to prepare
the respective communities to implement investment measures. It was
during the IRMP phase that the project proposal prepared in 1991 was
finally approved.
Thus was born the Philippine-German Community Forestry Project–

Quirino (CFPQ). The CFPQ had an original duration from July 1994 to
December 2001. From just two project partners (GTZ and DENR) in the
previous phase, the CFPQ now had four, with the addition of the Provincial
Government of Quirino (PGQ) becoming a full partner, and the German
Bank for Reconstruction (KfW). From a purely technical assistance
project, financial assistance was added for investment in agriculture and
forest development, infrastructure and land use planning. By 2000, the
project area expanded to 10 sites, including a micro-watershed covering
by five barangays.

The CFPQ’s objective was to bring about, through community participation
and self-help, a sustainable management of the natural resources – the
forest in particular – within the project areas. The project, as its main
strategy, facilitated rural people’s organizations in planning, mobilizing
local resources and implementing, monitoring and evaluating the
community-initiated natural resource management programs. The project
focused on community forestry as the core component with additional
support measures, namely, land-use planning, rural finance, sustainable
upland agriculture and community-implemented/ income-oriented
infrastructure. Additionally, and equally important, was the CFPQ-
supported institutional strengthening of partner organizations (LGU,
the provincial- and community-level DENR, non-government
organizations (NGOs), financial institutions, etc.) in order to prepare
these organizations in sustaining the project efforts in the area and replicate
them in other areas.
Recognizing the experiences and lessons learned by the CFPQ as a

frontline field implementer of the CBFM program, the joint GTZ-KfW
Project Progress Review proposed a two-year final extension phase
(January 2002–December 2003) of the technical cooperation to consolidate
the project approach in order to promote its sustainability not only in
Quirino province but in other areas.
Concurrent to this, from January 1998 to March 2003, a sister project-

the Debt-for-Nature Swap Initiative Project (DFNSIP)- was also
implemented in Quirino province. It also employed the CBFM strategy.
DFNSIP was a result of an agreement signed by the Philippines and
Germany on the consolidation and reconsolidation of the former’s external
debt. The agreement involved the cancellation of DM12,775,004.82 in
debt after the Philippines disbursed 30 per cent of this amount for an
environmental project. DFNSIP performed a pilot function, as it was the
first German debt-for-nature swap project in the forestry sector to be
implemented with local funds and resources. The effects of DfNS were
two-fold: the Philippines preserved its biodiversity and profited from the
overall economic advantages of reduced debt repayments. As a result of
the successful implementation of DFNSIP in Quirino province, the Federal
Republic of Germany cancelled a total of P371.91m in Philippine debt.
Quirino province, through CFPQ and DFNSIP, has therefore been at the
forefront of CBFM, field-testing models and strategies aimed at further
streamlining the steps and making the procedures more “community-
friendly.”
Aside from participating in other programs, Quirino province was given

the challenging task of implementing these two pioneering projects. The
province had successfully completed the task and continued to sustain
CBFM initiatives through the Foundation it established and the growing
role the PO Federation is playing.
But the road to success was not easy; it was fraught with stumbling blocks.
On hindsight, it was more like a rollercoaster ride characterized by uphill

battles and small victories afterwards. The experience of Quirino provides
valuable lessons and we want to highlight and share two insights.
The first deals with the way the project (CFPQ) was conceptualized and
designed.
There was a clear project concept and guiding principles. The principles
included: poverty orientation; gender sensitivity; participatory approach;
self-help focus; and process orientation. Following the principle of the
German Technical Cooperation, the project placed emphasis on initiating
the process of sustainable resource management rather than on achieving
planned targets. The project believed that when the process has been
institutionalized at the community level, the management of natural
resources becomes more effective and sustainable.
The project strategies based on the principles mentioned were jointly

discussed, elaborated and agreed upon. These were:
! Decision-making by the people’s organization;

! Internal community-level resource mobilization;
! People’s organization as the implementor of project measures;
! Integrated approach; and
! Combination of technical cooperation (GTZ) and financial
cooperation (KfW).
It was mentioned earlier that one of the project components dealt with
institutional strengthening. Efforts were directed at enhancing the
capacities of POs in planning (participatory land use planning and annual
work planning), resource mobilization and access (preparation of
resolutions, policies and project proposals), implementation (various
technical training activities), and monitoring and evaluation (formulation
of simple checklists and elaboration of criteria and indicators). In order
to provide the necessary assistance and ensure sustainability, the main
partners (LGU and field-level DENR) were also supported in terms of
basic planning tools, equipment and requisite training. The emphasis on
training was more on enhancing their facilitation and linkaging skills,
monitoring and technical back-stopping.
In CFPQ’s final consolidation phase (January 2002-December 2003), it

made a conscious effort to “increase its visibility” after years of quietly
field-testing CBFM strategies and policies.
A National Forum on Lessons Learned was conducted in February 2002

where three case studies were presented. The first study, “Sentinels of the
Forests,” depicted the challenges the communities faced in managing their
natural resources and how the people’s lives changed as a result of this.
The second study, “The Forest Grows Again,” showed the experiences and
innovations of CFPQ, the difficulties they went through (from forest
protection issues to shifting CBFM policies) and the challenges they
overcame. Lastly, “Good Governance, Lasting Forests” highlighted how
Quirino has emerged as a national role model for local government’s role

in CBFM. It also emphasized how traditional concern for the environment
can be built into the local government structure by virtue of the Local
Government Code.
During the consolidation phase, the project emphasized capacity

development in which priorities focused on the structures, mechanisms,
and roles and responsibilities necessary to sustain CBFM collaborative
planning and management. The consultative process for capacity
development led to two significant conclusions. First, there is a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to support further development and
validation of multi-sectoral collaborative planning and management for
CBFM implementation. Second, there is a commitment to establish a
Foundation to provide cross-cutting services for CBFM implementation.
The MOA aims:
! To follow through on the collaborative approach for CBFM as

implemented in conjunction with the CFPQ and DFNSIP, which in
2003 covered 28% of the total area and 57% of the natural forest
area of Quirino province;
! To purposely support facilitating collaborative and multi-sectoral
CBFM planning and management at local, regional and national
levels;
! To further validate the CBFM strategy so that the DENR confirms
and executes policy for more effective and efficient implementation
of CBFM programs; and
! To ensure that essential responsibilities, institutional collaborative
mechanisms, and budget allocations will be mainstreamed
continuously by the organizations of the respective parties to the
MOA.
The MOA was entered into by and between the following parties: Quirino
province; Forest Management Bureau (FMB)-DENR; Foreign-Assisted
Special Programs Office and Field Operations Office, in behalf of DENR
Region II and filed offices; municipal local government units, in particular
the municipalities of Aglipay, Cabarroguis, Diffun, Maddela, Nagtipunan
and Saguday; Quirino Sustainable Movement for Environment and
Economic Development (Q-SEED); the PO Federation of CBFM
Agreement (CBFMA) Holders in the province; National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP); Conservation International (CI); Enterprise
Works Worldwide (EWW); and the Philippine Environmental Governance
Project (EcoGov).
The emphasis on the creation of the Community Forestry Foundation of

Quirino, Inc. is especially significant primarily because there is a need for
crosscutting services especially related to geographic information system
(GIS), capacity development for collaborative planning and management,
CBFM training and clonal services. The Foundation has the responsibilities
to not only provide support services, but also to monitor and evaluate the
process for collaborative planning and management. Secondly, the
Foundation’s responsibility for validation will help develop mechanisms

for implementation in Quirino and for replication by DENR in the region
and other regions in the country.
The push towards integrated or collaborative CBFM management in

Quirino opened up opportunities and created new needs particularly on
how to address the scarcity of resources and promoted synergy. It can be
noted that very often, the collaborative and joint action initiatives originate
from conflicts over resources.
CFFQI is currently implementing a Project with the European Union-

United Nations Development Programme (EU-UNDP) Small Grants
Programme for Operations to Promote Tropical Forestry-Southeast Asia
Pacific in the amount of P2.7m. The project, “Enhancing Food Security
Through Proper Care and Maintenance of Agro-Forestry and Forest-based
Food Yield in Tucod,” is a two-year project in partnership with the peoples’
organizations of Tucod, Cabarroguis, Quirino.
CFFQI is also currently working in partnership with the Earths Rights

Peoples Rights (ERPR) for a possible joint project entitled “Achieving
Forest Governance in Selected Ethnographic Sites in the Philippines” in
which Bugkalots (one of two indigenous peoples of Quirino) will benefit.
CFFQI is also working closely with the Protected Area Management Board
in sourcing funds for the operations in the province in partnership with
CARE Philippines.
The Foundation also assisted the PO Federation, the QSEED, in the

preparation of a project proposal for a small grant with GEF-UNDP
entitled “Quirino Community-Based Forest Management and
Development of Bio-diversity” which was recently approved for
implementation. CFFQI is also assisting individual POs in the preparation
of project proposals for submission to donor agencies.
The Q-SEED is the PO Federation of CBFMA holders in the province and

was created under the auspices of the former project CFPQ. From its
humble beginnings with only 15 POs, the membership has increased to
42 POs and two Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADC) holders.
It now holds the chair of the Regional PO Federation and by virtue of
this, is automatically a representative to the National PO Federation.
Therefore, the voice of the POs in Quirino can be heard up to the highest
levels.
QSEED has indeed come a long way. Just recently, the GEF-UNDP
approved QSEED’s proposal entitled “Quirino Community-Based Forest
Management and Development of Bio-diversity” amounting to P3.1m
which will be implemented for two years (2006-2007). It was also granted
P910,355.00 by Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) Eco-Gov’s Phase 1
for a project called: “Strengthening PO Capacities” in 2004 to assist the
PO Federation members in training and planning.

QSEED entered into a MOA with DENR and Quedan Rural Credit and
Guarantee Corporation (QUEDANCOR) for micro-lending equivalent to
PhP5,000,000 that benefited upland farmers who are members of the PO
Federation. It is worth noting that this was the first time QUEDANCOR
provided loans where the collateral is the PO’s commitment to protect and
manage their forest resources.
QSEED is a regular member of the Quirino Protected Landscape Protected

Area Management Bureau (PAMB), the Region 2 PO Federation, and the
National PO Federation. The Federation is also collaborating with LGUs,
DENR, CFFQI, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), EcoGov
and other NGOs in the province in the preparation of the Forest Land Use
Plans (FLUPs) of the 5 municipalities.
The Quirino experience clearly shows that there is life for POs even after
foreign assistance has ceased. Fortunately, the municipal and especially the
provincial LGU showed political will - from passing resolutions for the
cancellation of existing timber license agreements, the adoption of CBFM as
their core strategy for natural resource management, and the creation of a
foundation. They have taken a big step forward and exercised their mandate
described in the Local Government Code. They have proven their worth to
be a strong partner of the government in the sustainable management of the
natural resources in that part of the country.
Projects are catalysts of change. They provide mechanisms and opportunities

not readily available in the regular structure of government. CFPQ and
DFNSIP changed the landscape of Quirino province. What was accomplished
in Quirino helped foster the good relations between our country and Germany.
The GTZ is currently supporting CBFM in Leyte Island through the
Environment and Rural Development Program. The lessons of Quirino are
now being applied there as well.
The Philippines Environment Monitor 2004 prepared under the auspices of

the World Bank cited the notable achievements of the CFPQ and mentioned
the fact that in the 2004 Forestry Forum in Geneva, the experience of CFPQ
was recognized and featured as a best practice in CBFM implementation.
For the next decade of crafting CBFM Strategic Plan, may the framers find
inspiration in the Quirino experience.

Annex 3: SWOT Analysis
Tenure & Resource Use

Looking Back Looking Forward
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

(+) (-) (+) (-)
Policies · Unstable policies · Lifting of RUP · Unstable policy

· Policies (PO, (PO, NGO, DENR, suspension order environment (PO,
NGO, DENR) LGU) (PO) NGO, LGU)
· Deputization (PO) · CBFM holders lack
teeth to ensure forest
protection (NGO)
Devolution Piecemeal devolution
(LGU)
Institutional
strengthening
· Organized and · Lack of financial · Other resources · Peace and order
empowered POs support (PO, NGO) aside from wood situation (PO)
(PO, NGO, DENR, · PO’s inadequate (PO, NGO, DENR) · Bribery (PO)
LGU) knowledge and · Ecotourism · Slash-and-burn
· Technical support management potentials of farming and illegal
(NGO) (NGO) CBFM (NGO) logging activities (PO)
· Volunteerism · Resource use is · Devolution · No consultation
(PO, NGO) not given attention (DENR, LGU) (NGO)
in cross-cutting · Funding (LGU) · Lack of support
issues like (NGO)
increasing · Conspiracy between
population (NGO) DENR and capitalist
· Weak information (NGO)
dissemination · Idea of stewardship
(DENR) may lead to over-
· CBFM equated exploitation of
with logging resources (DENR)
(DENR) · Increased population
· Change of CBFM or migration (DENR)
personnel from
DENR (LGU)
Research and
development
· Traditional forest Indigenous
management knowledge system
system (NGO) (DENR)
Collaboration
· Cooperation of · Collaboration with
different different agencies
agencies (DENR) (PO, NGO, DENR)
Note: source of information in parenthesis

Livelihood and Enterprise

(+) (-) (+) (-)
Policies · Changing policy of

- CBFM (PO, CBFM (PO)
NGO, DENR)
- Presence of
policy
guidelines for
livelihood
(Private)
Institutional
strengthening
· PO · Lack of technical support (PO, NGO, · Incentives (PO) · Competition over
- Organized PO DENR) · Livelihood (PO) resources and
(PO, NGO) · Lack of knowledge and skills (PO, · Technology (PO) market (PO, Private)
- PO’s NGO, DENR, Private) · Education and · Big business and
capabilities · Lack of funds (PO) knowledge (PO) government
(PO) and · No unity among members (NGO) · Grants/support ( development
willingness to · Loose implementation of PO, NGO, DENR, aggression (e.g.
learn (Private) regulations (NGO) Private, commercialization
· Support · Weak market linkages (DENR, Research/ and exploitation)
- Support of Private) Academe) (PO, DENR,
government · Poor infrastructure facilities (DENR) · Market Research/Academe)
agencies (PO) · Low bankability of CBFM (DENR) opportunities for · Corrupt PO officers
- Available natural/organic and DENR officials
funding (NGO, products (NGO) (NGO)
DENR) and non-timber · POs are not capable
· Available forest products of collective
natural (DENR) undertaking (DENR)
resources · Raw materials or
(DENR) resources for
· Many potential development
livelihood (DENR)
opportunities · CBFM area as
(research/ production base
academe) (Private)
· Individuals
that can start
business in the
community
(DENR)
Research and · No comprehensive/integrated

development enterprise development program
for timber and non-timber products
(DENR)
· No evaluation conducted (DENR)
· No gender study on forest-based
livelihood and enterprise (Research/
Academe)
Collaboration
· Lack of collaboration and
participation of various agencies
(PO, NGO)

Protection and Conservation

(+) (-) (+) (-)
Policy formulation/
tenure & resource
use
· CBFM and · Policies like · Local DENR officials
related policies water rights were ignorant of
can address (NGO) policies (NGO)
environmental · Conflict of policies
issues (PO and (e.g. protected
NGO) areas vs CBFM)
(NGO)
Institutional
strengthening
· Role of POs in · DENR has no · Huge resources · Government
protecting budget (PO, NGO, (PO) - Road and mining
CBFM areas DENR) · DENR-LGU-PO projects (PO)
(POs, NGOs and · POs lack support (DENR) - Prioritizes politicians
DENR) knowledge and · Government instead of
· Taking very political will (PO) support communities (PO)
good care of the · DENR’s poor - Deputization of - Required paperwork
forest (DENR) monitoring and PO forest guards (PO)
evaluation system (PO) · Illegal activities
and poor law - Funds/incentives (e.g. construction of
enforcement for conservation fishpond/pen,
strategies (DENR) (PO, DENR) logging) (PO)
· DENR does not - Livelihood (PO,
help POs from DENR)
outside · NGO support
interventions - Financial,
(PO) training,
advocacy,
technology (PO)
- Presence of
NGOs like
Tanggol
Kalikasan
(DENR) agencies
(PO, NGO,
DENR)
Dialogue for · Lack of

collaboration coordination (PO,
NGO, DENR)
SWOT Analysis 207

Institutional Linkages and Partnerships

(+) (-) (+) (-)
Policies
· Presence of · Unstable DENR · Full · Changing policies
policies (NGO, policies (LGU, implementation (NGO, LGU,
DENR, LGU, Research) of Joint Research)
Research, Memorandum · Absence of law on
Donor) Circular 2003-01 CBFM (DENR)
(LGU)
Institutional
strengthening
· Support from · Lack of · Funds (NGO, · Political exploitation
various agencies information and Research) and control (PO)
(PO, NGO, education · Government · Corruption (PO)
DENR, Donor) campaigns (PO, resource · Short-term
· PO unity and NGO, DENR, LGU) management leadership at the
resourcefulness · Lack of technical (LGU) local government
(PO) knowledge · Privatization level (DENR)
· Fund (DENR) (Research) (LGU) · Presence of
· Weak extension “unfriendly” forces
services (Donor) who do not like
· Non-performance CBFM to succeed
of roles and (Donor)
responsibilities
(Donor)
· Different visions
(DENR)
· Existence of ‘fly-
by-night’ NGOs
(LGU)
Collaboration · Lack of · Collaboration

coordination (PO, (PO, DENR,
NGO, DENR, Donor)
Donor)
· Lack of
consultation and
feedback (PO,
DENR)
Devolution Full devolution Devolution of forest

(DENR, LGU) management might
result in further
marginalization of POs
(DENR)

Institutional Strengthening for PO Self Governance

(+) (-) (+) (-)
Policies · Changing CBFM

· CBFM policy (PO,
- CBFM’s large Research)
membership &
increasing
strength in
spite of
continuously
changing
policies
- Direction
towards
natural
resources
management
Institutional
strengthening
· PO · Lack of funds (PO, NGO, Research, · Advocacy and · Absence of support
- Organized and Donor/Private) networking (PO, from government
institutionalized · Lack of knowledge (PO, NGO, LGU, NGO, Research) (Research)
PO (PO, NGO, Research) · Self sufficiency · Competition
Research) · Lack of support from different (PO) between PO and
- PO good sectors (NGO, Research) · Livelihood (PO) barangay in CBFM
experiences · Raw community organizing (Donor/ · Donor support implementation
(LGU) Private) (Donor/Private) (LGU)
- Presence of PO · Limited/weak capacity of POs for · Dedicated · POs’ negative
Federation to institutional development and leaders (PO) perception towards
represent or management (database · Pro-active call LGUs (LGU)
defend the management, advocacy, for change (PO) · PO
rights of POs documentation) (NGO, PO) · Increased - Lack of trust to
(Research, · Lack of PO acceptance from the application of co- leader (PO)
Donors/ community (PO) management in - Lack of autonomy
Private) natural ((PO)
- Presence of resources(NGO) - Lack of transparency
dedicated and · Party list (Research)
committed representation
leaders (Research,
Donor/Private)
Collaboration
· Collaboration · Partners
with NGOs, - Unclear role of partner
government organizations (Donors/Private)
agencies, LGU - Lack of DENR/LGU representation in
and donors fora (LGU)
(e.g. funds, - Absence of cultural sensitivity of
technical other partners (e.g. Donors) (NGO)
support)
(NGO)
SWOT Analysis 209

Annex 4: Action Plan
Objectives Activities Persons/Organizations
in Charge
On Tenure and Resource Use
To secure tenurial Dialogue among PO, DENR City Environment and Natural
instrument in every and LGU Resources Office (CENRO-
community Project Management Officer)
LGU (LGU-Municipal
To make CBFM goal Environment and Natural
oriented (not process Resources Officer)
oriented) PO-Board of Directors/
Planning Team
To secure resource use Formulation of Community PO, DENR, LGU, Multi-Sectoral

plan (RUP)/resource Resource Management Representatives/
utilization management Framework (CRMF) Environmental Management
agreement (RUMA) Bureau
On Policy Formulation
To stabilize policy Study the current policy then Research institutions, non-
developed through active submit results to the DENR government organization
participation of different (NGO), PO, LGU, Private
stakeholders Conduct nationwide dialogue
and consultation
Implement the revised policy
Develop policy
implementation monitoring
schemes
On Devolution
To study the devolution of Gather and analyze data on Independent group, e.g.
Community-Based Forest devolution International Institute of Rural
Management (CBFM) to - Review of literature Reconstruction (IIRR),
local government units - Identify requirements for Forestry Development Center
(LGUs) devolution at different (FDC), Foundation for
levels Philippine Environment
- Provide and discuss (FPE)
recommendations with
Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR),
Department of Interior and
Local Government (DILG),
Leagues of Cities and
Municipalities, House of
Representatives
On Institutional Strengthening
To strengthen People’s Secure all Securities and People’s Organizations’

Organizations (PO) Exchange Commission (SEC) (POs) president, secretary
Federation requirements and treasurer
Conduct National Federation National Federation Officers

meeting and planning and 14 Regional Federations
Objectives Activities Persons/Organizations
in Charge
On Institutional Strengthening
Develop proposals Technical working group

(TWG)
Conduct provincial level 71 provincial federations

Summit
Develop PO database
Conduct inventory of existing

CBFM-related information
network
To revive the Steering Formulate resolution to National Federation

Committee request the revival of the
committee
Work for formal recognition

of PO by the DENR as an
official member of the CBFM
Steering Committee
To form CBFM Party List Study the possibility of Research institutions

forming a Party-list group
On Research and Development
To improve information Conduct inventory of existing DENR-JICA (JAPAN

sharing for effective CBFM-related information International Cooperation
stakeholder collaboration network Agency)
Establish CBFM information Already available (CBFM

network website and newsletter;
DENR-JICA CBFM
enhancement project)
Develop database on CBFM Management Information

(indigenous and local System (MIS) unit of
knowledge included) concerned institution
To develop a community- Document and disseminate University of the

driven, sustainable ENR- model experiences of Philippines Los Baños
based enterprise Environment and Natural (UPLB) - College of
Resources (ENR)-related Forestry and Natural
enterprises for replication in Resources (CFNR), Forestry
CBFM areas Development Center (FDC)
Develop agroforestry models POs and NGOs

conducting information
Conduct inventory of all management
researches on non-timber
forest products (NTFPs)

Objectives Activities Persons/Organizations in
Charge
To improve stakeholders’ Document conflicts on

collaboration and link to resource utilization as a
policy formulation, basis for advocacy
implementation and
advocacy Document LGU-managed
CBFM best practices as
basis for total devolution
DENR to conduct actual

investigations on CBFM
areas
Improve monitoring and

evaluation (M&E) system
To strengthen Develop on-farm action

collaborative research research
Strengthen the Research institutions,

complementation capacities NGO, PO, LGU, Private
of stakeholders
On Dialogue for Collaboration
To provide venue for Agree on the creation and Participants

strong collaboration at institutionalization
different levels mechanisms for
collaboration
Revive the CBFM Steering Representatives from

Committee different stakeholders
- Create an alternative
national “multi-sectoral
steering committee” as a
parallel activity in the
revival of the committee
Organize various platforms

for using the bottom-up
strategy
Action Plans 213

Annex 5: Forum Schedule
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
Introduction to the forum CONTINUE SHARING AND ANALYSIS OF ACTION PLANNING

EXPERIENCES Introduction to the
Exercise – vision of good Separate into 3 thematic groups exercise
CBFM
Conservation Institutional Institutional Reflection on outputs
Overview on CBFM and linkages and strengthening to date and sorting
protection partnerships for PO self- them
Register for themes presentations presentations governance
presentations Group work to
negotiate Action Plans
Open forum Open forum Open forum and CBFM vision
after each after each after each
presentation presentation presentation
SWOT SWOT SWOT

analysis analysis analysis
SHARING AND ANALYSIS Come together to share Come together to

OF EXPERIENCES share
Introduction to the themes - REFLECTION AND DIALOGUE
separate into 2 thematic Next steps
groups Introduction to the exercise
WRAP UP
Group work in separate stakeholder groups
Tenure and Livelihood - identification of key problems with CBFM Revisit objectives and
resource use and workshop process.
presentations enterprises “Fish-bowl” debate exercise – provide space
presentations to discuss different opinions from different Assessing change-
stakeholders. visioning exercise.
Open forum Open forum
after each after each Evaluation
presentation presentation
SWOT SWOT
analysis analysis
Come together to share

Annex 6: Participants’ Directory
People’s Organizations and CSC holders
Leticia A. Hernandez Rubenie C. Castellanes

President, KMPCI President, Katilingban
President, KASAMA LQI sang Pumuluyo nga
President, Quelacabar CBFM naga-Atipan sa
Federation Watershed Maasin
BOT Member, CBFM Federation (KAPAWA-Maasin)
Kinagunan Ibaba, Padre Burgos Brgy. Umingan,
Quezon Alimodian
! (0921) 270-4824 Iloilo City
! (0920) 474-0548
Florentino P. Mabras, Sr. (0919) 248-8621
Secretary General, National
CBFM PO Federation Airon C. Matuguina
P7, Poblacion, Prosperidad Secretary, Naungan San Juan
Agusan Del Sur Mangrove Planters Association
! 241-3204 (NASAJMPA)
! (0919) 4546397 Brgy. San Juan, Ormoc City
" oftdi_caraga@yahoo.com Leyte
! (0918) 346-4271
Josefina E. Campo
President, National CBFM PO Nelly P. Alzula
Federation of the Philippines Vice President, Kapit Bisig Farmers’
Napnapan, Pantukan Association, Inc. (KBFAI)
Compostela Valley Province Km. 157 Q.M. Purok 6-B, Sta.
! (0915) 968-6902 Catalina, Atimonan, Quezon
! (0926) 551-3456
Rolando M. Garote (0926) 742-7629
Vice President, CBFM PO
Federation Visayas Region Lorete G. Indus
President, Pagnas Farmers’ President, Butin Subanen Association Inc.
Association Inc. Sitio Butin, Linay, Baliguian
Sta. Cruz, San Francisco Zamboanga del Norte
Southern Leyte
! (0920) 277-3900 Venancio C. Cueno
Chairman, Cuyan-Butin Farmers’
Oscar R. Oñate Multipurpose Cooperative (CBFM
Vice President, National CBFM Coop)
PO Federation Sitio Butin, San Miguel
President, Region 2 CBFM PO Baliguian Municipality
Federation – Quisavizca Zamboanga Del Norte
107 Casambalang, Sta. Ana, ! (062) 985-1859
Cagayan ! (0921) 536-4988
! (0917) 614-9689
Rosalio G. Fernando, Jr. Andres A. Marques
Chairman, San Roque Member, Real, Infanta, Nakar,
Multipurpose Cooperative Polillo Aqua-Fori Agricultural
(SAROMCO) Multipurpose Development
Brgy. San Roque, Nabunturan Cooperative (RINPAFADECO)
Compostela Valley Province 23 Brgy. Pilaway,
! (0928) 336-0681 Infanta, Quezon
Hermenegildo J. Nanca Fernando D. Laurel

Chairman, Audit and Inventory President, Farmers Association of
Committee Malinao Ilaya (FARAMI) and
San Roque Multipurpose Atimonan Livestock Association
Cooperative (SAROMCO) (ATLA)
P-15, Nabunturan CSS Holder
Compostela Valley Province Brgy. Malinao Ilaya
! (0916) 753-6819 Atimonan, Quezon
! (0916) 837-3266
Victoriana A. Entero
President, Naungan San Juan Cesar A. Alarde
Mangrove Planters Association Brgy. Captain, Villa Ilaya
(NSJMPA) Atimonan, Quezon
Brgy. Naungan, Ormoc City ! (0927) 518-4604
Leyte
! (053) 255-4463 Pastor Delbert Rice
Director of Research, Kalahan
Pablo C. Mejares Educational Foundation, Inc. (KEF)
Auditor, Katilingban sang Imugan, Santa Fe, Nueva Vizcaya
Pumuluyo nga naga-Atipan sa ! (02) 372-1146
Watershed Maasin (KAPAWA- " kalahan@nsclub.net
Maasin)
Brgy. Daja, Maasin
Iloilo City
! (0926) 251-8901
Generosa J. Junio
Member, Real, Infanta, Nakar,
Polillo Aqua-Fori Agricultural
Multipurpose Development
Cooperative (RINPAFADECO)
Brgy. Amoling, General Nakar
Quezon
! (0921) 451-7638

DENR and other national government agencies
Domingo T. Bacalla Vic O. Ramos

Chief, CBFM Division Former DENR Secretary
Forest Management Bureau " vramos_ph@yahoo.com
DENR
Visayas Avenue, Diliman Elisea G. Gozun
Quezon City 1100 Former DENR Secretary
! (02) 927-7278; 927-7278; " bggozun@hotmail.com
926-8065
" dtbacalla2003@yahoo.com Renato de Rueda
fmb_cbfm@edsamail.com.ph Former DENR Undersecretary
Consultant on Environment and
Moonyeen S. Manrique Forestry Orient Integrated
Project Development Officer Development Consultancy, Inc.
DENR – FASPO 1225 F.B. Cabahug Street Guizo
Visayas Avenue, Diliman Mandaue City 6014
Quezon City 1100 Cebu
! (02) 928-0028; 928-0028 ! (032) 345-0672 / 346-2103
" moonmanrique@yahoo.com " renederueda@yahoo.com
Ana Rose D. Opeña Airene Gozar-Tumimbang

OIC, Networks Development Sr. Watershed Management
Section and CLASP Management Specialist, Watershed Management
Unit Head Department
CBFMD, FMB, DENR National Power Corporation
Visayas Avenue, Diliman Quezon Ave. cor. BIR Road
Quezon City 1100 Diliman, Quezon City
! (02) 929-1853 ! (02) 925-4375
(02) 927-7278 " aireen_gt@yahoo.com
" anaroseopena@yahoo.com agtumimbang@napocor.gov
anarose.opena@gmail.com
Gwendolyn C. Bambalan
OIC, Administrative Division
Forest Management Bureau
DENR
Visayas Avenue, Diliman
Quezon City 1100
! (02) 926-6526
(02) 926-6526
" mutya2k5@yahoo.com
Participants’ Directory 219

Local Governance Units (LGUs)
Francisco T. Tolentino Rolando D. Tuballes

ENR Officer Municipal ENR Officer (MENRO)
La Torre South LGU – Maasim
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya Maasim, Sarangani Province
! (078) 805-3587 Mindanao
! (0918) 515-1050 ! (0919) 379-8419
" menro_maasim@yahoo.com
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)
Reynante V. Ramilo Benedicto Q. Sánchez

Field Coordinator, Philippine Program Coordinator, Broad
Federation for Environmental Initiatives for Negros Development
Concern (PFEC) (BIND)
157-B 20th Ave., San Roque Dr 1 Adela Arcade,
Murphy, Quezon City Don Vicente Bldg.
! (02) 437-2088 Locsin St., Bacolod City 6100
" pfec@philonline.com Negros Occidental
r_ramilo@hotmail.com ! (034) 432-1510; 433-8315
" bindbcd@globelines.com.ph
Susan Naval bqsanc@gmail.com
Country Director, Enterprise Works
Worldwide-Philippines (EWW) Maria Generosa T. Mislang
II-B Sampaguita St. San Gabriel Managing Director, Tanggol
Village Kalikasan
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan Rm M01 CRM III Bldg.
! (078) 844-5107 106 Kamias Road, Quezon City
" slnaval@yahoo.com ! (02) 434-9141 / 925-5611 to 12
(02) 434-9141
Martin A. Talento " genee1631@yahoo.com
Forester and Resources
Management Officer Ibarra A. Malonzo
Enterprise Works Worldwide- President, Kasanyangan-Mindanao
Philippines (EWW) Foundation Inc. (KFI)
11-B Sampaguita St., San Gabriel 4th Floor VH Building, Veterans
Village Ave. 7000 Zamboanga City
Tuguegarao, Cagayan 3500 ! (062) 993-0480 / 993-0481
! (078) 844-5107
(078) 844-5100
" ewwr2@yahoo.com

Ruben Z. Martinez Sharon Marie S. Paet
Consultant, OTRADEV Foundation Executive Director, Community
Inc. and Forestry Foundation of Quirino
Office of the Presidential Adviser on Inc.
Food Security Cabarroguiz, Quirino
Phildhrra Partnership Center ! (0921) 420-9974
Loyola Heights, Quezon City " smp_cffqi@yahoo.com
" rzmartinez@yahoo.com
Deborah G. Sabarra
Program Manager, Initiatives for
Dialogue and Empowerment
through Alternative Legal Services
(IDEALS, Inc.)
75-B K-9 St., East Kamias, Quezon
City / 149 Margarita St., Barangay 4
Nasugbu Batangas
! (043) 931-3970
! (0920) 945-9870
" ideals05@yahoo.com
debs1220@yahoo.com
Private Sector
Maila R. Vasquez Rosalinda C. Tomas

Forestry and Environment Freelance Development Consultant
Coordinator IDEALS for EJP Apt. B2, GMA
Philippine Wood Producers Compound (back of DHL)
Association (PWPA) ! (082) 305-2628
3/F LTA Building, Rm. 305 ! (0927)579-2569
118 Perea St., Legaspi Village " rctomas@yahoo.com
Makati City
! (02) 817-6751 / 817-6884 /
817-6885 / 812-1760
! (0917) 627-7063
" mailav@netscape.net
philforest@greendot.com.ph
ida_pwpa@yahoo.com

Research/Academe
Daylinda Banzon-Cabanilla Nena O. Espiritu

Associate Professor, Department of Asst. Professor, Forestry
Social Forestry and Forest Development Center
Governance College of Forestry and
College of Forestry and Natural Natural Resources
Resources UP Los Baños
UP Los Baños College, Laguna
College, Laguna 4031 ! (049) 536-2341 / 536-3097
! (049) 536-3493 " noespiritu@yahoo.com
(049) 536-3206
" dbecabanilla@yahoo.com Elsa P. Santos
Assistant Professor, Department of
Priscila C. Dolom Social Forestry and Forest
University Researcher II, Forestry Governance
Development Center College of College of Forestry and Natural
Forestry and Natural Resources Resources
UP Los Baños UP Los Baños
College, Laguna 4031 11355 Dao Road, Forestry
! (049) 536-2341 / 3097 UPLB, College, Laguna 4031
(049) 536-2341 / 3206 ! (049) 536-1589
" predolom@yahoo.com (049) 536-3206
bldolom@yahoo.com " egpsantos@yahoo.com
Donors/International Assisted Funding Organizations
Ernesto S. Guiang Mark Anthony M. Ramirez

Chief of Party, Philippine Assisting Professional, Philippine
Environmental Governance (Eco- Ecogovernance Project 2
Gov) 2F RLII Bldg., Santiago Boulevard
Project Phase 2, Development cor. J.P. Laurel Street, Dadiangas
Alternatives, Inc. East
Unit 2401 Prestige Tower 9500 General Santos City
F. Ortigas Jr. Road (formerly ! (083) 552-3332 /301-7482
Emerald Avenue) (083) 301-7482
Ortigas Center, Pasig City (0927) 436-1669
! (02) 636-3189, 634-0260, " Mark_Ramirez@dai.com
635-6260, 635-0747; mark@lycos.com
637-8779 for_mark13@yahoo.com
" Ernie_Guiang@dai.com

Oliver Agoncillo Liezel B. Grefalda
National Resource Policy Advisory Technical Assistant, DENR-JICA e-
USAID/Philippines CBFM Project
8/F PNB Financial Center 3rd Floor FMB Annex Bldg.
Pres. Macapagal Ave., 1308 Pasay DENR Compound, Visayas Ave.
City Quezon City
! (02) 552 9828; ! (02) 455-5799
$ (02) 552 9997 (02) 455-5799
" oagoncillo@usaid.gov " liezl_04bg@yahoo.com
Hideki Miyakawa Gordon Bernard R. Ignacio

JICA Chief Advisor, DENR-JICA e- CBFM Adviser, German Agency for
CBFM Project/Policy Component Technical Cooperation (GTZ)
3rd Floor FMB Annex Bldg. c/o ENRO Program
DENR Compound, Visayas Avenue, NEDA Region 8
Diliman, Quezon City Philippines Palo, Leyte
! (02) 455-5799 ! (053) 323-8624
! (0919) 872-6562 (053) 323-8623
" Miyakawahi@aol.com " gbrignacio@yahoo.com

CBFM Forum Team
Scott Killough Ma. Corazon J. Tan
Director Development Communication
Regional Center for Asia Specialist
International Institute of Rural International Institute of Rural
Reconstruction (IIRR) Reconstruction (IIRR)
Y. C. James Yen Center Y. C. James Yen Center
Silang, Cavite 4118 Silang, Cavite 4118
! (046) 414-2417 / (02) 886-4385 ! (046) 414-2417 / (02) 886-4385
" Scott.Killough@iirr.org " Marion.Tan@iirr.org
% www.iirr.org
Lilibeth T. Sulit - Villela
Peter O’Hara Publications Associate
LTS International International Institute of Rural
Pentlands Science Park Reconstruction (IIRR)
Bush Loan, Near Edinburgh, Y. C. James Yen Center
EH26 0PH, Scotland Silang, Cavite 4118
! 44-0-131-440-5504 ! (046) 414-2417 / (02) 886-
" Peter-Ohara@ltsi.co.uk 4385
% www.tsi.co.uk " Lilibeth.Sulit@iirr.org
John B. Pulhin Annie Gasic-Secretario

Associate Professor Administrative Assistant
Department of Social Forestry and International Institute of Rural
Forest Governance (DSFFG) Reconstruction (IIRR)
College of Forestry and Natural Y. C. James Yen Center
Resources (CNFR) Silang, Cavite 4118
UP Los Baños (UPLB), College, ! (046) 414-2417 / (02) 886-
Laguna 4385
! (049) 536-3493 " Annie.Gasic@iirr.org
$ (049) 5365314
" jpulhin@yahoo.com Hanna Leen P. Lapuz
Research Assistant
Reymondo A. Caraan DSFFG – CFNR, UPLB
Manager College, Los Baños, Laguna
Community Forestry Interlocking ! (049) 536-3493
Project $ (049) 536-5314
International Institute of Rural " hllapuz@yahoo.com
Reconstruction (IIRR)
Y. C. James Yen Center Toni Rose Espiritu
Silang, Cavite 4118 On-the-job trainee
! (046) 414-2417 / (02) 886-4385 University of the Philippines
" Reymond.Caraan@iirr.org Los Baños
" tr15_bluepillow@yahoo.com
Amando Yambao
Field Facilitator Karen Custodio
IIRR On-the-job trainee
Y. C. James Yen Center University of the Philippines
Silang, Cavite 4118 Los Baños
" shiekbrye@yahoo.com

Publication Team
Editor Cover design and layout
Rowena Paraan Lilibeth T. Sulit - Villela, IIRR

Secretary General
National Union of Journalists of the Field research team
Philippines
105 – A Scout Castro Reymondo A. Caraan, IIRR
Barangay Sacred Heart, Quezon City,
! +63 2 682 8876 Ma. Cecilia Valmores
+63 929 377 2787 Macajalar, Camaman-an,
" rcparaan@gmail.com Cagayan de Oro City
" cesv02@yahoo.com
Editorial team
Gaudelia Castillo
Ma. Adelam Montejo #44 Lt. J. Francisco St.,
1253 San Andres, Malate, Manila Krus na Ligas, Diliman,
" madel_montejo@yahoo.com Quezon City
" gaudeliac@yahoo.com
Reymondo A. Caraan, IIRR
Amando Yambao, IIRR
Ma. Corazon J. Tan, IIRR
Adelina Piso
Researchers-Writers Field Facilitator
Reymondo A. Caraan, IIRR Reconstruction (IIRR)
Ma. Adelma Montejo Peter O’Hara

Community Foresty Specialist
Magnolia Rosimo International Institute of Rural
Field Facilitator Reconstruction (IIRR)
Reconstruction (IIRR) Administrative and logistic
Y. C. James Yen Center
Silang, Cavite 4118 Annie Gasic – Secretario, IIRR
! (046) 414-2417 / (02) 886-4385
" Maggie.Rosimo@iirr.org
Toni Rose Espiritu, UPLB
Karen Custodio, UPLB
Dylan de Mesa
Department of Humanities
College of Arts and Sciences
University of the Philippines,
Los Baños, Laguna
" dylandemesa@yahoo.com

Community-Based Forest Management at 10: A Multi-Stakeholder Forum

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community-Based Forest Management at 10: A Multi-Stakeholder Forum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community-Based

Correct citation: IIRR, IDRC. 2008. Community-Based Forest Management at 10. A

For further information, please contact:

International Development Research Centre

International Institute of Rural Reconstruction

Livelihood and enterprise

Conservation and protection

Institutional linkages and partnerships

Institutional strengthening for PO self-governance

The International Institute of Rural Reconstruction’s attempt to initiate a

The “Ten-Year Multi-Stakeholder Review of CBFM: A Forum for Reflection

This book contains an excellent presentation of the process of the forum,

The multi-stakeholder and participatory process design of the forum was a

The Community Forestry Interlocking Project Team

ADB Asian Development Bank

The CBFM forum

The 50 participants came from non-governmental organizations or NGOs (which

Its specific objectives were:

1. To enable the voiceless rural people to have a representation at the

2 Community-Based Forest Management at 10.

IV. Action planning

II. Sharing and

III. Reflection and

Figure 1. The framework of the forum.

Following the same framework, the reader will

As a preparatory stage to the forum, the

II. Sharing and analysis of

The participants chose which thematic

On the second round, three groups conducted simultaneous presentations,

While taking into account the individual participant’s experiences, each

The purpose of the Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats (SWOT)

4 Community-Based Forest Management at 10.

This process component provided equal chance for individual participants

III. Reflection and dialogue

From the sharing of experiences

The fishbowl methodology required

Before the debate started, the

The position statement was posted on a board while being discussed by

This method enables all stakeholders to reflect and dialogue on contentious

IV. Action Planning

From the SWOT analyses and debate

The participants were then divided into

6 Community-Based Forest Management at 10.

To ensure PO participation, the team, assisted by the DENR, research organizations,

Participatory research. For a period of one

problems and solutions. The PRA tools

Upon PO members’ approval of the documented story, they selected two

PO workshop. Prior to the CBFM forum, PO

The IIRR team encouraged the community

As it would be the first time for many of

8 Community-Based Forest Management at 10.

A panel composed of IIRR and UPLB CFNR representatives reviewed the

government units (LGUs) as key players in its implementation. Through the

In 1995, CBFM was adopted as a national strategy

National CBFM Chief Domingo

CBFM’s implementation as a strategy has been largely affected by government

The five forum themes were

The forum themes were the following:

2. Livelihood and enterprise. The opportunities to harvest timber provide

12 Community-Based Forest Management at 10.

4. Institutional linkages and partnerships. Appropriate mechanisms for

5. Institutional strengthening for PO self-governance. Previous development efforts

Presentation of case stories